DocM Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Antares 200, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 Yes, using a Ukrainian tank and Russian RD-181 engines. What could possibly go wrong? Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 I'm sure we'll find out ... after all, if you aren't blowing up rockets you aren't trying, da?? DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Think I'd be more worried about the fuel tanks than the engines, tbh. Orbital seriously can't make those themselves?! Meh. So meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) There was one report that the Antares 100 explosion was in part caused by debris in the tank being ingested by the (40 year old, improperly stored, Cold War surplus) Russian NK-33 engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Yep, I remember it well. We did a postmortem in one of my classes when the subject of reuse came up about the old F-1 engines from Apollo/Saturn. Got us sidetracked for the day but it was interesting. Silica powder to eat up moisture was left in the tank, soaked up the RP-1 then settled to the bottom, clogged up the lines then got sucked into the turbopump and poof. RUD recipe. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) And yet, during Merlin engine qualification one of the tests Tom Mueller's SpaceX engineers did was to toss stainless steel nuts into the turbopump propellant supply lines and see what happened. The Merlin kept on running. Edited October 19, 2017 by DocM Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 11, 2017 Author Share Posted November 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I saw that this morning on Twitter, and the first thing I thought was "oh holy #### the fines are gonna be REAL" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 (edited) I don't know about that.... there's a story going around that someone did not issue a NOTAM. If true, that someone has some serious splainin' to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 WHOA .... oh boy. That's gonna be someone's ###. In a sling. With duct tape. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 200.39 km (127.05 mi) Periapse .... I can't imagine how any Rocket Jock would be satisfied with that orbit .. yech. Talk about underperformance. SpaceX isn't happy until they've got that stuff at least 200 miles up. At 127 miles they're gonna be dealing with atmospheric drag still. The atmosphere doesn't just stay at such-and-such an altitude, it's subject to updrafts, density and pressure differences at that altitude. Any and all effects such as those will decay an orbital track even at 200 or higher -- less than 150 and you're playing cards with the Devil. Don't wanna linger there, ATK. No more than four orbits at that periapse, otherwise you'll be skirting that 100 mile "no go" level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 (edited) And yet they're saying that it over performed, which means that they were targeting lower exceeded their expectations and are trying to figure out what to do with the margins. That thing really needs a liquid upper stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Are they still limiting the throttle on the 181? I would have thought they would have the new tank running by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 (edited) This was an Antares 230; the original Ukranian made (KB Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash) Antares 100 series tanks but with reduced throttle RD-181 engines and an OrbitalATK Castor 30A, 30B or 30XL solid upper stage. The difference between Castor's is their burn time, 30A: 136s 30B: 127s 30XL: 156s There's an optional Star 48BV solid 3rd stage. Once they use up the warehoused Antares 100 tanks they plan to either, Builda larger tank for the Antares 300 series, allowing the RD-181's to run at full throttle. Second stage is a Castor XL. or, They kill Antares after the 100-series tanks run out and use those resources to build the OrbitalATK Next Generation Launcher, which bears a strong resemblance to the cancelled NASA Ares I and the ATK Commercial Crew entry, Liberty. 3 solids and a Blue Origin BE-3 based upper stage. Return of "The Stick" Fact sheet: https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/space-launch-vehicles/NGL/docs/NGL_Factsheet.pdf Edited November 12, 2017 by DocM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts