Talk:Antares (rocket)

How many stages izzat?

The lede says two stages. The body of the article discusses the third stage. How many stages are there? And let's get the article internally consistent. N2e (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

First Launch Date?

 Done (sdsds - talk) 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede says 3rd quarter 2011, infobox says 2nd quarter 2011. Both are wrong, it's been moved to 4th quarter 2011. Will someone more experienced please update it? Thanks

http://www.orbital.com/TaurusII/ 128.154.36.66 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As of Dec 2011, the cited date in the article is now 1Q2012. N2e (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"SpaceFlight Now" says June 2012. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Name change: Taurus II is now Antares

The company has changed the name of the rocket: On Dec. 12, 2011 Orbital Sciences renamed the launch vehicle "Antares" from the previous designation of Taurus II. This has been added to the article but ought to be documented on the Talk page to make the old discussions more clear. N2e (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Antares flight 1

"The hot-fire test will be followed about one month later by the maiden flight of the Antares rocket, which will carry a Cygnus mass simulator payload that will be heavily instrumented to gather data on the launch environment aboard Antares. In addition, four small “pico satellites” will be deployed from two dispensers that will be integrated with the mass simulator."

http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=829

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Gallery

Here is NASA's image gallery for the Antares. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of info

Page. 114/125

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/The_Annual_Compendium_of_Commercial_Space_Transporation_2012.pdf

--Craigboy (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Gross Liftoff Mass: 290,000 kg
• Vehicle Length: 40 m
• Vehicle Diameter: 3.9 m
• Mass to ISS Orbit: 5000 kg Baseline

6265 kg Enhanced

http://www.orbital.com/Antares-Cygnus/files/Pre-Launch-Guest-Briefing.pdf --Craigboy (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hot fire test scheduled for 13 February 2013 (tomorrow)

Hopefully we'll be able to get some pictures from that.--Craigboy (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the 2ndStage engine really ignite only after a long coast following MECO?

Does the Antares second-stage engine really ignite only after a long coast following mainengine cutoff (MECO) on the first stage? This Orbital-released graphic seems to indicate as much: Orbital Sciences graphic of Antares launch viewing area. If this is correct, we should find a reliable source for it and reflect the engineering and launch dynamics rationale for this rather odd design of the launch trajectory. N2e (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that this isn't really odd for any launcher involving solid stages, especially for all-solid rockets (check out Pegasus, Taurus, Scout, Vega, the Japanese Mu series etc.). Since most of these solid stages have a higher acceleration rate than most liquid rocket stages (thus shorter burn times, IIRC most finish their jobs within 2 minutes), in order to get to a circular orbit you need to let the solid stage coast to close to the apogee before starting the burn; otherwise the resulting orbit would be too high in apogee and too low in perigee. It's just that there are not a lot of two stage launchers with a liquid lower stage and a solid upper stage.

I don't think this feature is particularly notable - just one of the ways to distribute your impulse for acceleration. Maybe others have opinions, but personally I probably won't note this in the article. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is notable and worth noting (since with liquid fuel stages, eg. Falcon 9, you try to start the 2nd stage engines ASAP after MECO to reduce gravity losses). How long is the coast ? - Would be good to have an RS for the Antares timings. (Would Everyday Astronaut be accepted?) - Rod57 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of Innumeracy

One of the bad things about Wikipedia is it is often written and edited by innumerate people. Take this information:

.....with a 293.4 kilonewtons (66,000 lbf) average (395.7 kilonewtons (89,000 lbf) maximum) thrust....

Even though the metric appears in the primary position, the USC is the round number. It is very doubtful that the average and maximum values are in reality round numbers and the actual numbers were rounded for the sake of an easier number to remember.

With this in mind it is very wrong to convert to an exact metric value as was done. The degree of rounding should be identical. There is no reason the metric values can not be stated as 300 kN and 400 kN.

Makes one wonder if the 300 kN and 400 kN are not the true values and were converted to USC, rounded then back converted to an exact conversion.

Also, why is the metric unit kilonewton spelled out instead of using its correct symbol of kN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - and don't assume editors are "innumerate". In this case, the rounding (and spelling) is the result of the use of {{convert}}. Someone with more template-fu than me can tweak them to show the non-rounded numbers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know what happens when you assume? If I see evidence of innumeracy why should I think otherwise? If I change the numbers to those that are to the same degree of precision as the rounded USC, an innumerate person will change it back. Another example of innumeracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Use the precise metric numbers. And change the template to show unrounded US numbers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Orb 3 crashed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHMmMgdcOSU https://twitter.com/OrbitalSciences/status/527225682414567424 Notrium (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if "Baby you're a Firework" is currently the standard way for Wikipedia to identify that a rocket launch was not successful but I sure hope it becomes the standard. First off I think it is very descriptive of the actual result. Secondly I could not stop laughing when I read it. Well played Wikipedia editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.72.27 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is more accurate than simply "Failure" -- though the alternative does need a comma after 'Baby'. I second this motion to rectify the Outcome to "Baby, You're a Firework". Alternatively, one could say it was a blast. 99.149.174.22 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Y'all hurt my brain, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly the rocket was carrying?

What exactly were they sending in space? No such information is available, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.3.29 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That would depend on which mission you are referring to. If you are referring to the October 29, 2014 failed launch, information about the mission and its payload can be found in the article about the Cygnus CRS Orb-3 mission. Nmillerche (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

Information in the article is now confirmed incorrect.

From Article "there was significant damage to the launch pad"

From Orbital Update – October 30, 2014 Launch Site Status: "it still appears the launch site itself avoided major damage" Cvickers (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Could use table to show components of Antares 100 series

At the moment the info on 100 series is scattered up and down the long info box (rather than being in the relevant text section). The main ref [1] has a small table on p6 that explains the 3 digits of the 100 series versions, eg which CASTOR model on 2nd stage : The 120 uses CASTOR 30B, the 130 uses CASTOR 30XL. The graphs on p6 also have very good data on payloads to orbits that we could use. - Rod57 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)