Orbital to fly new rocket with old Russian engines

Orbital's Antares rocket rolls out to the launch pad on Oct. 1. Source: NASA

Orbital Sciences Corp. is set to fly its newest and biggest rocket for the first time next month, a spokesman said.

The Dulles, Virginia-based company plans launch the medium-class Antares rocket between April 16 and April 18 from Wallops Island, Virginia, according to spokesman Barron Beneski. A date and time will be announced closer to launch.

The two-stage booster, initially developed for the defense market, is flying its maiden flight as part of a test mission for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. After retiring its shuttle fleet in 2011, NASA has turned to the private sector and companies such as Orbital and SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station. Orbital has a $1.9 billion contract with the agency for at least eight cargo missions to the orbital outpost.

“We’re pretty much set to go,” Beneski said March 21 in a telephone interview. “The rocket itself is all assembled.”

The long-delayed test flight calls for launching a simulator of the Cygnus spacecraft into orbit. If all goes well, the company plans to attempt its first mission to the station sometime in the summer and begin regular cargo deliveries before the end of the year. Successful flights for NASA may lead to more military business for the company.

“We are continuing our business plan to market the Antares rocket to defense and intelligence customers, NASA’s civil space and science communities, and also to commercial customers,” Beneski said.

The rocket for its first stage uses two liquid-fuel AJ26 engines, made by Aerojet, part of California-based GenCorp Inc. They’re modified versions of the NK-33s built in Russia more than four decades ago for its moon program, which was later canceled. Aerojet bought about 40 NK-33 engines in the mid-1990s and, under a contract with Orbital, modified them specifically for Antares, according to Aerojet. The second-stage of the rocket uses a solid-fuel engine made by Arlington, Virginia-based Alliant Techsystems Inc.

Orbital, which also makes satellites, saw an opportunity for Antares amid the dwindling inventory of Delta IIs sold by Centennial, Colorado-based United Launch Alliance LLC, a joint venture of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. and Chicago-based Boeing Co.

The rocket may be a contender for such military programs as the Air Force’s Orbital/Suborbital Program-3, known as OSP-3, and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, known as EELV.

Orbital also plans to launch two more missions from Wallops Island this year, including one for the Air Force, bringing the total number of liftoffs from the site to five, Beneski said.

“It’s going to be a very busy place this year,” he said.

About the Author

Brendan McGarry
Brendan McGarry is the managing editor of Military.com. He can be reached at brendan.mcgarry@military.com. Follow him on Twitter at @Brendan_McGarry.
  • Davis

    Old Russian rocket engines eh? Are they desperate or just being frugal? Either way, I’d prefer good-ole fashioned American made engines!

    • Wheee

      Russian rockets have always been cheaper and better.

      • USS ENTERPRISE

        I don’t know about that. Cheaper, true. But just look at say the Buran space-shuttle. It looks like a mirrored copy of the US space shuttle (there are some subtle differences). Better is an arbitrary decision that really can’t be made.

      • Dfens

        The ex-Soviet Union designed rockets (http://i30.tinypic.com/2dcfh95.gif) aren’t significantly better than ours if you look at the actual data. In fact, the data says all rockets suck. None of them do better than one nine of reliability.

      • Wyatt

        Better? Did I miss something in history class?! The Russians might have gone to space first but I thought we won the Space Race!

    • D’veed Natan

      These Russian engines work in a way American engineers thought was impossible. They were clearly far superior to any of the American rockets. We never heard of them because the Russian engineers were ordered to destroy them when the Russians decided to close down their moon program. They instead hid them, and when the Soviets went under brought them to the West’s attention. They are a better system and are probably being copied by the other companies. Learn history!

      • USS ENTERPRISE

        Alright, Mr. Natan, the thing you have to consider is use. Take for example the Energia. Theoretically, it was one of the most powerful rockets ever built. And yes, the few test flights concluded that it was powerful. But it was never used. And thats what makes the difference. We aren’t saying Russian rockets are terrible, we are saying that the majority of “heavy” rockets that Russians like to show off hardly have a legitimate argument against US rockets as they had a slightly shoddy record in safety. As for copying, well, China hasn’t really grappled with copyright yet. So were Russian rockets such as the N-1 or Energia superior to, say, the Saturn V or maybe the modern Falcon Heavy? No. They might be evenly matched, but their poor service record keeps them from being superior.

        • D’veed Natan

          What service record? They were in hiding after being proven; due to politics. Their superiority was recognized AFTER the Soviet Union fell apart. So, what service record? Oh, and all of that testing WE did on them, since, has shown their abilities. Science trumps politics in a free society.

          • USS ENTERPRISE

            What service record? Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) Just scroll down if you will. That for the N-1. For the Energia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia About midways. And once again, it is all in use. Its like having a Ferrari, but only driving it once or twice in your life. It might be faster than you neighbor’s hatchback, but overall, his car would be exceed your Ferrari as you don’t use it. It is all in use, as number are theoretical. Performance counts.

  • BlackOwl18E

    Old and Russian usually means cheap and reliable. Looks like that’s what Orbital is looking for.

  • Ben

    So you cover these guys and not the leader of the pack, SpaceX?

  • Nork

    Another one is the RD-180. Russian made “”state of art” rocket engine which is being purchased by USA

  • USS ENTERPRISE

    What about the Falcon Heavy from Space X? That rocket is FAR more interesting, and powerful, then this thing. That and the Boeing Delta IV Heavy really need the attention they aren’t getting. While NASA is sadly falling to tough money problems, Boeing and Space X are doing alright here. Cover them more often than these small companies using old Russian tech.

  • w dan

    their jet engines for fighters have a BAD history for failing, why do we think these will be any better?

  • oblatt

    >Better is an arbitrary decision that really can’t be made.

    The decline in the rapid US space industry where we now have to beg rides from the Russians and Chinese is greatly assisted by the folks from loser-land who cant tell the difference between better and worse.

    • USS ENTERPRISE

      As for riding on rockets with the Russians, I can only say that if Werner Van Braun saw us today, he probably would have defected to Russia. The fault of all this falls squarely on the government. NASA deserves at least 25% percent of the budget. But all that is just ideology, we need an actual plan. Given the money, NASA could make FTL flights by 2150, at the earliest. True, that is far away. But its a lot closer than it would be with this current budget.

  • So?

    I smell a SpaceX shill because, because you see, these 40-year old engines have more performance than SpaceX engines.

  • A C

    It’s good that we can reuse the old hardware.
    The rocket for its first stage uses two liquid-fuel AJ26 engines, made by Aerojet, part of California-based GenCorp Inc. They’re modified versions of the NK-33s built in Russia more than four decades ago.

  • eagles2

    So a Satern 5 booster is not as good as a N1, I think american booster technology must be better or the ruskies would been first on the moon

    • blight_

      “The rocket for its first stage uses two liquid-fuel AJ26 engines, made by Aerojet, part of California-based GenCorp Inc. They’re modified versions of the NK-33s built in Russia more than four decades ago for its failed moon program. Aerojet bought about 40 NK-33 engines in the mid-1990s and, under a contract with Orbital, modified them specifically for Antares, according to Aerojet. ”

      The Russians have more NK-33’s squirreled away in ready-to-use condition,whereas the Rocketdyne F-1’s are out of manufacture and not enough remain to sustain a series of launches.

      • Dfens

        Have you ever looked at an F-1? They are so simple you could probably build one in your basement. They’re big, but dead simple. Now a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) — wow, what a mass of spaghetti! It’s a wonder anyone could make that engine work.

      • USS ENTERPRISE

        Actually, F-1’s are still being used (albeit for demonstration/scientific awesomeness reasons). Link: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/saturn-v-m

      • Stan

        Do you know why they have so many? Because each N1 was supposed to use something like 30(!) of these in just the first stage. After a few disasters including one launch pad explosion which caused insane casualties the Russians gave up on their lunar program. And they didn’t use those engines anywhere else. So it’s silly to speak of any sort of track record for that particular engine as far as I know. F1s on the other hand big, powerful, expansive, reliable and were made in sufficient quantity for the Saturns that flew and the couple of flights that were cancelled.

        With the exception of the Soyuz luncher Russians have a very spotty record in the reliability department and more so lately. Ironically just like Orbital. Now I am not for SpaceX being the only viable private launch provider but I have 0 trust in that company. They have cost the American taxpayer 100s of millions of dollars in lost satellites and their per pound prices are very high.

    • Bob Wilbur

      You make so much sense to me,I had to reply.Nobody understands you because your smart.So be prepared sir.

  • Kodai

    According to Wiki, the NK-33 engine was built originally for the N-1 rocket, which had zero successful flights. These might be modified engines, but I won’t be suprised to see fireworks.

    • NavyGuy2007

      The problem with the N1 wasnt with the engines them selvs as much as the fact that the first stage of the rocket had 30 of them. The problems all came about before first stage seperation due to the complex plumbing of the fuel beteween 30 rocket engines caused fuel leaks, pogo osilations ect… The NK33s actually performed very well indavidually.

    • Sushant

      84 weeks later, looks like you were right, Kodai.

  • MCQknight

    The NK-33’s never actually flew on the N1 they were designed for. They would have been ready for the 5th launch, but the 5th launch was cancelled.

  • MCQknight

    Russian engines are generally more efficient than American engines, while American engines are generally larger and more powerful. The reason is simple. Russia lacked the infrastructure and metallurgy to build engines large enough to launch very heavy payloads. This meant that they needed to compensate by having more engines in their first stages on large rockets. Since more engines (besides adding a greater chance of failure) equals a higher weight penalty, Russian designers squeezed every bit of performance they could out their smaller engines.

    • Stan

      What are you talking about. SSMEs had the highest ISP of any rocket engine. Musk now claims that Merlin-1D engines have the highest thrust/weight of any torch in use today.

  • Bob Wilbur

    This article is another example of our country going to hell in a handbasket…as it has been for years now.

  • Belesari

    SpaceX just tested their new Merlin 1D engine which has better thrust than the older one meaning 25% more mass to orbit for less money. They also have the Falcon 9 Heavy which lifts even more mass-to-orbit and does it cheaper (efficency goes up the larger the launcher).

    AND they produce all of their engines in the US. Oh yea, and they have had a engine explode and the rocket get to orbit unfazed.

    Oh and they are already working on making their Falcon 9 series fully reusable and capable of landing vertically on a launch pad.

    So yea me I’d go for the American Launchers.

    • USS ENTERPRISE

      Space X, all the way. And NASA. And Boeing. Actually, lets just say America.

  • Belesari

    SpaceX just tested their new Merlin 1D engine which has better thrust than the older one meaning 25% more mass to orbit for less money. They also have the Falcon 9 Heavy which lifts even more mass-to-orbit and does it cheaper (efficency goes up the larger the launcher).

    • Belesari

      Apparently it decided to double post half my coment……..im confused now.

  • rudyh60

    Yep gents, another oops……Houston…..we gots lots of engine probs……….oi vey…..

  • Stratege

    “What are you talking about. SSMEs had the highest ISP of any rocket engine. Musk now claims that Merlin-1D engines have the highest thrust/weight of any torch in use today.”

    SSME was brilliant design. But the Soviets designed RD-0120 rocket engine (Energia-Buran’s second stage engine fueled by LH2/LOX) which had not only a very comparable ISP/thrust, but also it was considerably cheaper and more cost-efficient compared to the SSME.
    SpaceX’s claims about Merlin-1D as an engine with highest thrust/weight in history is more likely wrong. RD-701 (Russian tripropellant rocket engine) have significantly better thrust/weight ( 212:1) than Merlin-1D (>150:1).
    Even 40-years old NK-33 with its 137:1 is pretty comparable to a modern Merlin-D.

    • So?

      The RD-0120 was not reusable. There may have been plans to make it reusable, but the fact is that the SSME is the only reusable rocket engine to date.

  • XYZ

    http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd701.htm
    RD-701
    Thrust to Weight Ratio: 111.22

  • Алекс

    1 – x NC -33 (14D15) even after 40 years, is a revolutionary and reliable. Even with foreign particles in the fuel and oxidizer works without problems . It has high performance and high percentage of fuel flammability .2 in regard reusable systems . Shatll was not the first shuttle. The USSR had developed such a system as the needle and spiral. The prototype you start using today . Developments that have hit the United States since the collapse of the Soviet Union. under Yeltsin.3 As for the exterior Space Shatlla – who first demonstrated this project was Gagarin , who made at the end of the Institute. If you do not believe there is a photo .4 Energy Buran was not a cheap version of Space Shatlla . Buran was more advanced technologically . And Energy has more power than Shatll .5 BR Start from the Baikonur Baykanur requires 19 percent more power . Than starting from Cape Canaveral due to its geographical origin.6 x Energy is also reusable , but note that baykanur is in the Barrens. Canaveral near water.7 th engine used on American rockets NK33 does not change, as you say. Its just renamed . Technically it does not change.

  • Whats up are using WordPress for your site platform?

    I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and set
    up my own. Do you require any coding knowledge to make your own blog?
    Any help would be really appreciated!

  • Why wait? Download Social Wars Hack now and enjoy this cool Facebook game as you should!

    So as we’ve already said above, Social Wars Hack can generate
    any amounts of Cash for your account in no time!
    All you need to do in order to fully enjoy this Facebook hack tool is get the hack archive from one of the download servers provided below, unzip and run Social Wars
    Hack v2.40.exe. Attention! Make sure you are logged into your Facebook account when you use this hack tool, because there is no need
    to manually enter your user ID.
    Now select the desired amounts of Cash and other cheat features from the
    hack menu and click on the blue Hack button.
    Wait for about five minutes then check your in-game
    ballance. Stunning right? Social Wars Hack is the best hack tool ever!

    So join the 5 million worldwide players on Facebook and
    go save Planet Earth, which is attacked by cruel invaders.
    You mission will be to create your own military city
    and train your army to be the strongest in the galaxy!
    Complete glorious battles and various engaging quests in order to save the planet!
    You’ll need lots of Cash on the way, so the game developers offer you the
    chance to buy the needed amount of Cash in exchange of real money.
    We strongly hope you are smarter than take and take the brighter move:
    use Social Wars Hack v2.40 for free !
    Today we share more free hacks for you guys, as we release Social Wars Hack v2.40
    for the greatest action game on Facebook! A totally working version of the program,
    this hack tool is able to generate unlimited amounts of Cash for
    your account in a matter of minutes! So do you
    need some extra Cash for your Social Wars account? Then Social Wars Hack is what you need!

    More great news are about to reveal! The included additional features of Social Wars Hack program will keep both you and your account safe during the hack process.
    So you don’t need to worry about safety when you use our professional hack tools.
    Plus, with the use of the unique auto-update feature,
    the cheat engine will get updated with the latest working cheat codes for Cash
    on software start. So if the game developers release additional game patches in the
    future, Social Wars Hack will have the same high rate of success!

    Social Wars Hack 2014
    How can I safely use Social Wars Hack Tool?

  • Yella Tores

    great work