Orbital Pushes ‘Cheap’ Taurus Rocket

Orbital Pushes ‘Cheap’ Taurus Rocket

The iconic Space Shuttle has two launches left. The Delta II, workhorse for many of NASA’s scientific missions and for medium-sized Pentagon and intel payloads, also faces retirement in fall next year.  Once the shuttle and Delta II are retired the United States will face the prospect of a serious decline in its ability to build, launch and maintain liquid propelled rockets.

Into that breach Orbital Sciences hopes to step with its Taurus II rocket, a medium payload system for NASA, the intelligence community and the Pentagon to use. Orbital hired the former leader of the Air Force’s Delta 2 program, Mark Pieczynski, where he oversaw the launch of military spacecraft for the military and the intelligence community. Orbital clearly hopes he can work some magic to win a large proportion of the 50 medium class payload launches scheduled for the next decade. “We have been in discussion with SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center),” he said, as well as with the intelligence community.

NASA has already signed up use to use the Taurus 2 to supply the International Space Station, using the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.


Congress is watching all this closely and is worried about the decline in America’s ability to build and maintain liquid propulsion systems. In the Senate’s report for the 2011 defense authorization bill, there is language directing the Secretary of Defense to work with the head of NASA “to review and develop a plan to sustain the liquid rocket propulsion system industrial base. The review would include actions necessary to support current systems and sustain intellectual and engineering capacity to support next-generation systems and engines.” It’s due by June 1 next year.

The committee says it “is concerned that launch costs across the board are increasing as the need for new systems has decreased. It is essential that the U.S. maintain a domestic launch capability that can meet the mission assurance requirements of the Federal Government.”

Currently, most DoD launches are handled by the EELV program, not known for its low costs or lack of cost growth over the last five years. EELV launches cost around $250 million a pop. Orbital’s Pieczynski estimates his company can provide Taurus 2 launches for “quite a bit south of $100 million a launch.” He would not get more specific. There are around three DoD launches for payloads of 10,000 pounds to 12,000 pounds each year, Pieczynski said.

The EELV program uses Delta IV and Atlas V rockets developed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Like the Taurus 2 will, the Atlas 5 relies on a Russian rocket engine as its primary propulsion system. the Atlas 5 uses the RD-180; Taurus II will use the NK-33 engine, which Aerojet has modified and is now known as the AJ-26 engine.
For those who may worry about U.S. dependence on Russian-built rockets, Orbital’s man says there are 36 engines already in America, with another three dozen in Russia. “Once the supply gets down to a certain level,” he says American companies have the right to co-produce the engine here.

In addition to using a lower cost rocket, Orbital also believes its Wallop Island launch site in Virginia offers greater flexibility because there is no competition with other launches, and it can both loft payloads to the space station, as well as into orbits that appeal to the intelligence community and to the weather satellite community. “You can reach a lot more locations from Wallop than you can from the Cape,” Pieczynski told me.

Join the Conversation

Charles, Orbital is using the Taurus II rocket for the NASA launches.…not the Taurus. The Taurus is a solid fuel rocket for small payloads, while the Taurus II is a significantly larger liquid fuel rocket for medium payloads like those for NASA.

They should have a memorial to the end of the space race — the Russians won.

A few points from a Space Shuttle/Station guy: we probably have three Shuttle flights left, of course one is still waiting for final approval. After that we will retire the Shuttle. Sigh.
It is Wallops with an S — not Wallop.
The Taurus is based on the MX Peacekeeper missile and I think some have decommissioned first stages from the missiles. Most satellite operators want a “soft ride” to orbit and solid fuel rockets are notorious for the shaking they give the payload. The Shuttle just shakes your teeth loose.
I did not know that the Delta was being retired!! I know they have one scheduled next October…
There would be very few payloads that might launch from Wallops that would be of interest to the DoD (and partners). DoD launches go to low orbits from the West Coast or go to geosynchronous/high orbits from Cape Canaveral. Those Cape launches are way too big for a Taurus.
So from Wallops — they must launch to Space Station. And they are only going to launch logistics flights.
Did Pieczynski really say you can reach more locations from Wallops??? It is more efficient to go to higher inclinations from there, but you can reach more orbits from the Cape since the overflight problem is not so restrictive.

The big question is why are we retiring anything alt al if they are usefull. Say the russian AK-47 it’s been built in 1947 and they have not been retired up to now.

Oblat still thinks the Japanese might win World War 2! They are just pretending to be defeated.

Roland — do you drive a Model T? You retire things when they have been replaced by something better. The venerable AK has been replaced, the Russians don’t make them any more. There are just lots of left overs everywhere. And the article had several errors so we should NOT worry that the Delta (which has been around for a long time, it started as the Thor/Able) is going away.

Maybe they should ask the so called secret projects about anti-gravity rather than old WW2 technology?

Chemical propelled rockets are unsafe and outdated, mankind needs more elegant and safer spacecrafts for exploring the outer space. http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​9​S​c​A​H​X​N​_​kAY

The Taurus is a commercial rocket. It is the Minotaur program that uses Minuteman and Peacekeeper booster stacks.

Having just looked at the Orbital Sciences site… The Taurus 2 indeed has a liquid first stage — but a solid fuel second stage. That being said — the second stage would still produce considerable vibration. Orbital has under development a liquid fuel second stage but all of that has yet to be demonstrated.

Taurus II is a completely new, liquid-fueled launch vehicle. The only similarity is the the payload capacity which may be the reason for the name.

The original Taurus was not based on the MX Peacekeepers. You’re thinking of Orbital’s Minotaur family of launch vehicles. Taurus I is really the Pegasus launch vehicle minus the wing mounted on top of a relatively large solid stage (Castor 120 I think). Nearly all of Orbital’s rockets are derived one way or another from Pegasus. They have done a great job leveraging that heritage.

You are correct about the very rough ride that solid motors give, but there are ways to soften it for payloads and avionics. Still, the design of Ares I was pretty much doomed from the get go as anyone who worked for Orbital’s Launch Systems could have told them. Mike Griffin may even have known this, but decided to push ahead with it anyway just to get the 5-segment motor for Ares V. The Ares I seems most likely to have been intended as a sop to keep ATK going until Ares V.

Loosing liquid rocket production base? SpaceX has a 2 liquid vehicles using variants of a common engine, is developing a very modern upper stage engine, and has plans for further engines and vehicles over the next decade+. ULA has 2 liquid EELVs, both with steady work and growth options going forward, and is developing a common liquid upper stage. Taurus using a liquid first stage. Whatever form the NASA Heavy Lifter takes, liquid propulsion and likely a new or evolved large liquid engine will be core features. Not to mention what Blue Origin, Masten, Armadillo, and the like are doing on a non-launch vehicle scale.

Congress is worried about their districts, that programs ending and new players mean jobs moving. But as a whole, the liquid rocket industrial base isn’t doing half bad.

So Congress is worried about our decling industrial base? Well DO something about it, don’t sit there and whine while you defund it. Damn, people.

We have a bunch of excess MMIII missiles available. Why not use them?

Sferrin,

Congress and the Federal Government didn’t build the industrial base we’re losing, private enterprise and folks with last names like Boeing, Lockeed, Grumman, Martin, Hughes built it.

Why let a bunch of government amateurs try to rebuild an industrial base when we still have a large
reservoir of entrepreneurs available?

Well I just think the future is here already. Can’t wait til we start publicising that.

The US must participate in space or lose it.

True, and Klashnikoff stole it from the Germans.….he was a tank driver so it is likely he came across a German Mp-44 and stashed it somewhere in the tank’s innards and when the tank was shipped back to Mother Russia after the war,…he copied it… with a couple of variations… Hitler didn’t like rifles so the designers cristened it the MP –44 and sneaked it under Hitler’s radar as a “Machine Pistol ” so he would sign off on the funding..

It doesn’t really matter whose sticker is on the side when it’s a government-requested government-funded government-specced contract. It’s not like Convair built all those Atlases in the hopes that there’d one day be a buyer for ICBMs!

I say weaponize the Taurus II for the conventional prompt global strike mission, only you need a solid stage I to be able to launch quickly.

Retired MMII motors are being used currently as much as they can for many space and target purposes. Once they get down in count, the MMIII will be looked to. Takes time to do so. As for PK motors, they are in used now for space launches, e.g. HTV in April and SBSS soon enough.

One thing you all may not be aware of is the first stage motors are still START accountable. It is the first stage the scares people the most since it can take you the farthest. You can’t just pull the motors from the silo, storage them, retrofit them, and then use them blindly. You have to go through a long process to get them to the pad for use. Once the solid of booster of the T2 gets into flight after ignition, the rough ride mellows out quite a bit due to less atmospheric concerns. Your Qmax will be passed in the first stage.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement