Military Review

The world has a second private space carrier

10
Last Sunday, April 21, the new American launch vehicle Antares made its first launch from the MARS space center in Virginia. The cosmodrome, located on the island of Wallops, is designed to launch small missiles. The launch of the rocket was originally scheduled for Friday, but 2 was postponed several times, although it went quite smoothly. After 18 minutes after the launch of the rocket, a mass-dimensional mock-up of the Signus container truck was delivered to a near-earth orbit. Thus, in the market of space cargo delivery, the American competition returned to NASA has finally appeared for a long time.


The Antares rocket is intended for commercial shipments of cargo to the ISS. The rocket was designed by American experts, but its Russian engines, the development of more Soviet scientists. Antares is the first private single-use launch vehicle capable of launching cargo up to 5,5 tons to near-earth orbit. During the Sunday test launch, the rocket successfully launched a mass simulator into orbit, which will be replaced in the future by a cargo module that will be docked ISS.

The rocket consists of 2-x steps. The first of them is equipped with 2 Russian oxygen-kerosene engine NK-33. History These engines began over 40 years ago and originates from the Soviet lunar program. For the implementation of this project, light but reliable engines were developed in the USSR that would be able to lift the extra heavy H-1 rocket into space, which was designed to deliver Soviet astronauts to the moon. As a result, a unique engine was developed under the direction of the brilliant Soviet designer Nikolai Kuznetsov, but the H-1 rocket project was closed, and for other missiles of that period, the NK-33 engines were too powerful, eventually dozens of finished engines went to the warehouse instead of the Moon.
The world has a second private space carrier
Start rocket "Antares"

At the same time, the characteristics of the engine NK-33 were so good that they could not be surpassed until now. According to Alexander Ivano, Head of the Department of Rocket Engines of OAO Kuznetsov, NK-33 is a very economical engine of a closed circuit. At the same time, Soviet engineers from Samara managed to give it another very good feature - it is very light. Currently, NK-33 is the easiest engine in its class with 150-200 tons. It is very profitable for creators of rockets to use these engines, since they give an increase in the payload being put into space. At the same time, the engine still corresponds to the current level of development of space technology in terms of efficiency.

The second stage of the Antares launch vehicle is already of purely American origin - it is manufactured by ATK based on Castor solid-fuel engines, which are a modification of military missiles of the MX (Peacekeeper) project. The assembly of missiles and control of the entire system is carried out by Orbital Sciences, which also works to build the Singus cargo ship. The total height of the new rocket reaches 40 meters, and the weight of the Antares at the start almost falls short of 300 tons.

The developed cargo ship “Signus” consists of a control module and an airtight container for cargo, the ship is equipped with solar panels. The device got its name in honor of the constellation Cygnus and differs from its direct competitor - the Dragon transport worker - in that it cannot return cargoes from the ISS to Earth. In this regard, its design is much simpler, the “Signus” is a disposable device that will deliver goods at one end, as Russian, Japanese and European transport workers are doing today.
Cargo ship "Signus"

The space cargo ship Signus is planned to be produced in two versions - extended and normal. At the same time in both it will be less than the already created Dragon truck. The Dragon cargo ship allows delivering to the international space station up to 3 tons of cargo in an airtight container and still the same amount in an unsealed one, while the weight of the entire Signus cargo will not exceed 2 tons (in an expanded version of 2,7 tons). At the same time, a cargo ship developed by Orbital Sciences has twice the large hermetic volume, which gives the device some even a specific advantage.

In the first flight of the rocket, the “Signus” role was played by an aluminum model weighing tons in 3,8, which was equipped with numerous sensors and instruments that collect information about flight parameters, including 12 digital thermometers, 22 accelerometers and 2 microphones. The model, which does not have its own solar panels and engines, was launched into orbit with an apogee of 303 km. and perigee 250 km., inclination 51,6 degrees.

Together with the model, the rocket launched the CubeSat standard satellite 4 into orbit. 3 of them were created at NASA and were named "Alexander", "Bell" and "Graham" - in honor of the inventor of the phone Alexander Graham Bell. On these satellites, the role of the onboard computer is played by smartphones running Android OS. The fourth satellite - Dove 1 - was developed by Cosmogia, it will be engaged in shooting the earth's surface.

Back in 2008, Orbital Sciences, as well as SpaceX, received contracts from NASA for delivering cargo to the ISS, with Orbital Sciences having 8 flights. Its competitor, SpaceX, 1 in March, 2013, launched the 2-th scheduled cargo flight to the ISS. If everything goes according to the plans of Orbital Sciences, then the next Antares will be sent into orbit as early as June-July 2013. In the next flight, he will take with him no longer the mock-up, but the cargo ship itself. According to the manufacturer’s company, the cargo, the mass and composition of which are not yet known, is already loaded into the cargo ship “Signus” and is ready for flight.

After performing the 2 test launch of the Antares launch vehicle, it will have to perform another 8 “official” flights to the ISS with a payload on board. The launches are planned to be carried out approximately 2 once a year, therefore, apparently, they will last until 2017-2018's. On the other hand, nothing can prevent NASA from extending this contract if the space delivery service is deemed successful.

In any case, a number of experts believe that Orbital Sciences was a bit late with the launch of the Antares rocket. Its competitor, SpaceX, began launching the Dragon cargo ship almost a year earlier and has already managed to make a successful 2 flight to the international space station. In addition, SpaceX is working on the creation of a module for manned flights. At the same time, Orbital Sciences is not particularly worried about the success of a competitor. Previously, NASA representatives have repeatedly stated that they do not like the monopoly in the space industry, so they are willing to purposefully support competition among companies focused on the production of space technology. In this regard, the Orbital Sciences project has hope for a happy future.

Information sources:
-http: //www.lenta.ru/articles/2013/04/22/antares
-http: //rus.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Pervij-polet-raketi-Antaresa
-http: //ria.ru/science/20130422/933817526.html
Author:
10 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sirocco
    Sirocco April 24 2013 09: 28
    +3
    It's too early to rejoice. Respect and recognition must be earned. Although all unsuccessful launches of "Zenith" can be explained by the fact that these accidents were created deliberately, in order to push Spysex and Antares into the market. Now the picture is clear, this is why design engineers from the Yuzhnoye on-board equipment visit the United States.
    1. mga04
      mga04 April 24 2013 11: 48
      +4
      Engineers and designers of Yuzhnoye Design Bureau and Yuzhmash (plus Khartron, Kievpribor and several other enterprises) built the first stage of Antares. They also ensured the launch in their area of ​​responsibility. That is why they visit the USA. The Soviet (not Russian) NK-33 engines are certainly gorgeous, only they still need to be attached to something. And it is not necessary to blurt out the tongue about sabotage.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 24 2013 17: 00
        +1
        Quote: mga04
        But to blurt out a tongue about sabotage is not a lot of mind.

        Do not put a shadow on the fence, and do not mislead people, dear, I wrote about the accident at the beginning of 2000. What I'm sure, and I know from the words of the people involved in that launch. In consequence of which I conclude that the accident in February this year has the same roots. hi
        1. mga04
          mga04 April 24 2013 17: 26
          +1
          "And it is not necessary to blurt out the tongue about sabotage".
          This was more relevant to the comments below.
          In order to discredit the carrier of one accident is not enough, a series is needed. Because accidents were in the history of absolutely all carriers with a long history of launches, and the size of insurance premiums for payload insurance eloquently confirms the risks.
          Remember how many unsuccessful launches of Russian carriers were in recent years (thank God they were all unmanned) and there was also enough information from "involved" and "knowledgeable" people about possible sabotage. There are conclusions of the commissions of inquiry - let's rely on them. And rumors don't get to the point.
  2. Canep
    Canep April 24 2013 09: 29
    +2
    Time does not stand still 50 years ago, space flight was considered a feat, now it is a business, although not as profitable as oil production. I hope we will soon have private space cabs.
    1. mga04
      mga04 April 24 2013 21: 47
      +2
      One large Kiev businessman once said: "As long as there is at least a hundred square meters of no-man's land near Kiev, I don't want to hear about any high technologies." And in Russia, besides the land, there is also oil and gas. So, in the near future there will be no private space carriers, either you or us. The same "MAKS", which was recalled in the news on this site, could fly ten years ago, and for this, at that time, it was necessary to invest less than a billion dollars. Compare this amount with the income of the same Abramovich. But they prefer to spend some for Chelsea, some for Shakhtar.
  3. Ghenxnumx
    Ghenxnumx April 24 2013 09: 44
    0
    Quote: Sirocco
    It's too early to rejoice. Respect and recognition must be earned. Although all unsuccessful launches of "Zenith" can be explained by the fact that these accidents were created deliberately, in order to push Spysex and Antares into the market.

    Well, the blood of crooks and robbers makes itself felt.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 11: 26
      0
      Only these crooks are in KB South.
      1. Ghenxnumx
        Ghenxnumx April 24 2013 16: 15
        +4
        Quote: Sirocco
        Only these crooks are in KB South.

        But I’m only talking about the crooks from the Mustache, which, having stolen even Soviet achievements, give them away for their achievements - and here:
        Quote: Sirocco
        Respect and recognition must be earned
        and not steal
        I completely agree with you hi
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco April 24 2013 16: 32
          +2
          Sorry, Genadiy hi
  4. Wolland
    Wolland April 24 2013 10: 02
    +1
    In the USSR, there would be sabotage, "unscrew the bolt." Now we have few such people ...
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 11: 31
      0
      Quote: Wolland
      In the USSR, there would be sabotage, "unscrew the bolt."

      In the USSR, while working at one of the rocket factories, while listening to the rocket at the stand, they found a numbered screwdriver belonging to el. to locksmith Pupkin, they secretly returned this instrument to him, as a result of this there was no more devoted comrade. laughing If this fact were carried out according to the documents, there would be a debriefing, deprivation of all bonuses, and other bending procedures, for this locksmith, master, and the beginning. workshop.
  5. pensioner
    pensioner April 24 2013 10: 35
    +3
    And ours from the Forbes list will invest little in this topic, of course. In general, well done, the capitalists are looking forward. Private cosmonautics has a future. It would be better to tidy up in orbit, and then after 20 years the need for carriers will generally disappear due to the complete contamination of the orbital space.
  6. ed65b
    ed65b April 24 2013 12: 07
    +3
    I did not see anything new and breakthrough, everything is old as dinosaur eggs. Sites with the same technical staff are grinding NASA’s budget. Type of competition. It is with us, launching each type of missile divided by offices, calling them differently, and here is also competition and private business.
    1. postman
      postman April 24 2013 13: 03
      +2
      Quote: ed65b
      I didn’t see anything new and breakthrough

      You do not understand the most important thing: PRIVATE COMPANY carries out the withdrawal of spacecraft into space.
      Private company (!). Starts with profitability occur
      http://www.orbital.com/About/
      http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/cargo/orbitalsciences-index.html

      Orbital Sciences (ORB) 17.30 0,65 (3,90%) up
      The space monopoly (which NASA has cared for 60 years) is over.
      Further: private traders, competition, will be like a car.

      but it was:
      The "unlucky" Taurus XL rocket sank the second NASA satellite/19:48_____04.03.2011

      And "what's new" (in technical terms) is PN at LEO and SSO
      (compared)
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko April 24 2013 16: 09
        0
        Quote: Postman
        You didn’t understand the most important thing: A PRIVATE COMPANY carries out the launch of PN into space. A private company (!). Starts with profitability occur

        And now do you think Unions, Protons, etc. fly at a loss?
        And about watch companies: These are the pants you wear your watch.
        And space, this is not for you Sentinel Security Structures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        1. postman
          postman April 24 2013 17: 53
          -1
          Quote: Papakiko
          And now do you think Unions, Protons, etc. fly at a loss?

          You do not write nonsense. I SPEAK ABOUT PRIVATE.
          IF YOU TAKE A CALCULATOR IN HANDS, climb on GOSKOMSTAT of the USSR, add up how much was spent on the Unions, protons, etc., 9 where to add up and so clearly hungry riots in Chelyabinsk) and ...
          And how much they GOT for commercial launches. DEFINITELY AT LOSS! and will be for a long time.
          Note Unions and others like them are not private pH.
          Quote: Papakiko
          And about watch companies: These are the pants you wear your watch.

          Once again you removed your pants and plunged into a puddle.
          a) And here are my underpants?
          b) Orbital Sciences was founded in 1982 David Thompson, Bruce Ferguson and Scott Webster(private individuals)
          Stages of the path: http://www.orbital.com/About/Milestones/
          Annual: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Orbital_Sciences_(ORB)/Data/Income_Statement
          Quote: Papakiko
          And space, this is not for you Sentinel Security Structures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          Are you stupid in life? What about the forest? And what about the seas / okeyans?
          Bekyashev K.A. . International Public Law.- M., 640c, 2003
          paragraph 5, there is more)
          Vereshchetin BC Legal problems of manned space flight. M., 1986.
          International Law Course. Branches of international law. T. 5. M., 1992.
          International space law. M., 1985.
          New in space law (on the way to international private space law). M., 1990.
          Dictionary of International Space Law. M., 1992.

          ??
          Blurt out to blurt out! By this principle?
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko April 24 2013 21: 13
            0
            Quote: Postman
            Blurt out to blurt out! By this principle?

            This is not the first time that Hamlo has met, so I am not surprised.
            Keep your "childish nonsense" to yourself and do not spill out into the world around you, passing off as the ultimate truth. hi
            1. postman
              postman April 25 2013 01: 21
              0
              Quote: Papakiko

              This is not the first time that Hamlo has met, so I am not surprised.
              I'm glad that you are so self-critical (Saw a log in your eye) -Read more (if you can) ITS KOMENTS
              Quote: Papakiko
              Keep your childish nonsense to yourself

              "Children's" nonsense is already well over 40.
              Does uvus look like a complex? (Still peeing at night in bed?)
              And as I understand it, you don’t have your (private) underpants? all for temporary use from someone you take? NOT HYGIENIC.
              Quote: Papakiko
              posing as the ultimate truth.

              ... Your comments are generally the top of cretinism.
              My question is: have you ever done anything more worthwhile in life?
  7. Forest
    Forest April 24 2013 13: 03
    +4
    "The history of these engines began more than 40 years ago" - this is the very "difficult" Soviet past about which Mendel complains.
  8. shinobi
    shinobi April 24 2013 14: 59
    +2
    But to me alone it seems that this device is very reminiscent of our ballistic rocket? "Satan" according to NATO classification.
  9. atalef
    atalef April 24 2013 18: 34
    -1
    Americans are absolutely right. They closed it (having developed all the possibilities of modernizing the Shuttles), threw the transfer of goods to private owners. Inhabited flights to Russia. Now NASA has its hands untied and there is no kettlebell in the face of transporters, shuttles, etc. Now all the forces are devoted to the development of a new generation of carriers, engines. satellites. flight to Mars and the inhabited station on the moon.
    I am sure 3-4 years will not pass and the result will plunge everyone into shock.
    1. postman
      postman April 24 2013 18: 47
      +1
      Quote: atalef
      Americans are absolutely right. They closed it (having developed all the possibilities of modernizing the Shuttles), threw the transfer of goods to private owners

      No, it’s a little bit wrong: the discussion about the admission of private traders into space lasts 60-70 years.
      AND MANY in NASA and the Presidential Administration were against it (I can send both documentary and fiction).
      A fracture has occurred. Private companies are exploring space.
      Competition and capital are the engine of progress (war is not beora)
      I suppose so: capital will overtake the state in the end (as serious capital comes)
      Quote: atalef
      Now NASA has its hands untied and there is no kettlebell in the face of transporters, shuttles, etc.

      They did not have a kettlebell. the weight was budget + NO CARRIER (the Shuttle story)
      First: In February 2001, after the approval of the budget of the Russian Federation, Yu. Koptev announced that only 1.4 billion rubles had been allocated for space, which is approximately 50 million $. If you need to spend on the construction of the ISS at $ 830 million per year, where is the money from ?!

      Second: on December 15, 2000, at a meeting of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on ratification of the agreement on the construction of the ISS, Y. Koptev said that the cost of the ISS project is $ 100 billion Russia, investing only $ 6.7 billion, receives 33% of the resource. .

      Third: Where does the figure of $ 100 billion come from? Back in 1995, the US Congress approved the ISS project (then the ISS Alpha) with the allocation of $ 13.1 billion for the construction of the station, up to approximately $ 2.1 billion per year, counting on 7 years. ESA $ 1.98 billion, Canada and Japan even less. In total, foreign countries account for approximately $ 16 billion.

      Fourth: US builds 8 of 16 station modulesordering GKNPC them. Khrunicheva, the bulk of the design of most modules at $ 200 million apiece. Of course, not all of their modules are built in Russia, but for simplicity, multiplying by 8 we get $ 1,6 billion. In addition, as far as I know, $ 200 million per module includes the cost of putting it into orbit (approximately $ 80 million each) and, even if it is not, even $ 80 million more for each module. Total US costs for the bulk of the construction of $ 2,24 billion. Probably, the remaining 10.86 billion $ will go to additional equipment, scientific equipment, flight design tests, maintenance during the construction process, etc. Sounds like the truth, but then what is $ 100 billion?
  10. uzer 13
    uzer 13 April 24 2013 18: 59
    -1
    If African ogres did not help build communism at one time, then they themselves could have visited both the Moon and Mars. Where now to take money for the development of such technologies? Now everything belongs to a small handful of oligarchs, and all the money earned by Russian workers is in the banks of foreign states (more precisely, in the banks of our enemies)
  11. zevaka84
    zevaka84 April 25 2013 00: 12
    0
    Good engines!
  12. ed65b
    ed65b April 25 2013 08: 33
    +1
    Let's break up Roscosmos, we will leave the office and the enterprises will transfer all types of missiles to private owners, rename them, repaint them in a different color, acquire a balalaika, Volga-don, etc. we get the "Private Space Launch" stuff.
    We show profitability. What's new????? Russian engines of the 20th century. There is nothing new. Its second step is probably also those years. Screaming that the whole era of state monopoly on space has ended ahead of the era of prosperity of private traders is complete nonsense. Monumental research and the enormous costs of both physical and material means for space exploration, is fully possible only with the participation of the state. no private owner will take out. A couple of accidents and kirdyk to all offices.