Antares and Minotaur Rockets Military Future?

[fredinno]

Would Orbital ATK be able to get DOD launches with its Antares (200 and future 300 versions) and Minotaur Rockets? (Especially Antares, I am wondering how much its Russian Engines would affect its possible DOD usage.) On the surface, it seems very reasonable- Antares and Minotaur, along with Pegasus, could provide a launch vehicle for the payloads too small for Atlas or Falcon, like X-37B (though there is still a payload gap from 4-7 T to LEO capacity).

[Kryten]

Use of engines manufactured or designed in the Russian Federation is currently banned for national security launches, so Antares is a no-go. The Minotaur series already gets most of it's workload from the DoD; there's just not much demand in that class from them.

[fredinno]

Use of engines manufactured or designed in the Russian Federation is currently banned for national security launches, so Antares is a no-go. The Minotaur series already gets most of it's workload from the DoD; there's just not much demand in that class from them.

How about NASA and commercial launches for Antares?

- - - Updated - - -

How about NASA and commercial launches for Antares?

There are lots of planetary probes, for example, too small for EELVs.

[Nibb31]

There simply isn't much demand for these small launchers. Falcon 1 and Pegasus were retired because of the low launch rate. Vega launches only once a year. Anything less and it simply wouldn't be worth it.

[Nothalogh]

There simply isn't much demand for these small launchers. Falcon 1 and Pegasus were retired because of the low launch rate. Vega launches only once a year. Anything less and it simply wouldn't be worth it.

That's what makes China's recent solid fueled, three stage, tube launched, "emergency satellite booster" such a preposterous description.

I mean seriously, just honestly say that you're one of the big kids now with a proper ICBM

[Nibb31]

That's what makes China's recent solid fueled, three stage, tube launched, "emergency satellite booster" such a preposterous description.

I mean seriously, just honestly say that you're one of the big kids now with a proper ICBM

China has had ICBMs since the 1970s.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Nibb31

[Rune]

That's what makes China's recent solid fueled, three stage, tube launched, "emergency satellite booster" such a preposterous description.

I mean seriously, just honestly say that you're one of the big kids now with a proper ICBM

Yeah, not it's intended purpose to actually launch. It's purpose is to stay ready to launch in the event a serious war starts and the space infrastructure is shot down. Which is why all the space powers want one, but no more, of these kinds of solid ICBM-derived launcher systems. And they do have them, of course (I.E: Dnepr, Minotaur, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some).

Rune. The description is 100% accurate, BTW.

[magnemoe]

Yeah, not it's intended purpose to actually launch. It's purpose is to stay ready to launch in the event a serious war starts and the space infrastructure is shot down. Which is why all the space powers want one, but no more, of these kinds of solid ICBM-derived launcher systems. And they do have them, of course (I.E: Dnepr, Minotaur, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some).

Rune. The description is 100% accurate, BTW.

Yes, its basically an mobile ICBM who has satellite launches as an secondary objective. Changes would be different faring and probably upper stage.

They might even use some of them to launch with to test the system and train.

[Kryten]

Yes, its basically an mobile ICBM who has satellite launches as an secondary objective. Changes would be different faring and probably upper stage.

They might even use some of them to launch with to test the system and train.

It's not an ICBM, they already have a solid mobile ICBM that we know this isn't, it would be useless redundancy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Nibb31]

And rapid-turnaround orbital launches are a desirable capability. Instead of waiting for a military sat to arrive over a target area, launch a smaller disposable one. That's why DARPA is developing ALASA.

[fredinno]

There simply isn't much demand for these small launchers. Falcon 1 and Pegasus were retired because of the low launch rate. Vega launches only once a year. Anything less and it simply wouldn't be worth it.

Pegausus is still launching. There are 2 sceduled launches for the rocket. Besides, a downrated Pegasus would be great for cubesats.

Also, Orbital ATK is going to use LC-46 for Minotaur, meaning they have enough demand to bother.

[Nothalogh]

China has had ICBMs since the 1970s.

Cryo liquid fueled and surface launched, a proper solid fueled three stage booster is something they have lacked for quite some time

- - - Updated - - -

It's not an ICBM, they already have a solid mobile ICBM that we know this isn't, it would be useless redundancy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I was under the impression that that was not completely up to par with a Minuteman III, whereas this recent launch hits all the marks of a proper storable ICBM

[Kryten]

Cryo liquid fueled and surface launched, a proper solid fueled three stage booster is something they have lacked for quite some time

They're silo-based and use storable hypergolics.

[fredinno]

They're silo-based and use storable hypergolics.

Hypergol is still inferior to Solid due to it's toxicity.

LM-11 probably will also be used as a road-launched ICBM. Something that Russia also has, and the US lacks.

Ok then.

[Kryten]

Hypergol is still inferior to Solid due to it's toxicity.

There's no meaningful difference as long as it doesn't leak; and it allows for larger missiles, as you don't have to transport it fully fueled.

LM-11 probably will also be used as a road-launched ICBM. Something that Russia also has, and the US lacks.

The Chinese already have DF-31 and -41 for this role, both of which are easier to transport than something the size of LM-11 would be.

[fredinno]

There's no meaningful difference as long as it doesn't leak; and it allows for larger missiles, as you don't have to transport it fully fueled.

With that logic, the US should just have kept using evolutions of the Titan ICBM.

[Kryten]

With that logic, the US should just have kept using evolutions of the Titan ICBM.

They decided to switch to a mostly mobile force for the minuteman, cut down to a single missile design to make that cheaper, and then had the funding cut to make it mobile. The soviets kept iterating on their large liquid missiles until the developer of them ended up in an independent country, and right now they're trying to get Makayev to build a replacement, still liquid.

[fredinno]

They decided to switch to a mostly mobile force for the minuteman, cut down to a single missile design to make that cheaper, and then had the funding cut to make it mobile. The soviets kept iterating on their large liquid missiles until the developer of them ended up in an independent country, and right now they're trying to get Makayev to build a replacement, still liquid.

So? The Titan II would have still survived to become the "Peacekeeper ICBM" of the time. A Titan IIIA could have provided an even larger ICBM.

Also, China is moving away from Hypergol with the other new Long Marches, and Russia is replacing their ICBM-derived Hypergol rockets with Angara and Soyuz-2. Hypergol also was abandoned due to it being more expensive, due to environmental regulations.

[Kryten]

That's changing the subject; obviously the trade-offs are different between missiles and SLV's, particularly civilian ones.