Keep in mind that SpaceX did not request the injunction.
They didn't ask for an injunction and it is plainly incorrect to suggest that they did.
Quote from: Prober on 05/02/2014 11:59 pmSorry Ed, SpaceX put the "Russian Engine" before the court and asked for relief. The SpaceX injunction correct.This is tiresome. SpaceX brought up the Russian engine in their complaint as a means of questioning the block buy, since the defense appropriations rules include demonstrating that a proposed block buy is in the interests of national security. They didn't ask for an injunction and it is plainly incorrect to suggest that they did.
Sorry Ed, SpaceX put the "Russian Engine" before the court and asked for relief. The SpaceX injunction correct.
Quote from: butters on 05/03/2014 12:16 amThey didn't ask for an injunction and it is plainly incorrect to suggest that they did.How would you know?
"The court zeroed in on this and said this is something that has to be addressed, and we're going to issue this order on our own," said Listner, founder and principal of Space Law and Policy Solutions in New Hampshire. "Things should move quickly on this because this is a pretty serious issue that involves national security."
A domestic RD-180 does little to reduce costs.The current NASA plan is to develop a new RP1 engine under the Advanced Booster contracts, the "F-1" derived engine (Dynetics Family of Advanced Boosters, figures 5 and 6). Commonalty with the existing fleet is the big cost issue with SLS. With this new RP1 based lower stage engine however, different core sizes enable 20+ to 150 mT LVs simply by launching a single core, multiple cores, and a larger central core with two engines to fill the role of SLS, Atlas and Delta.This commonality plan is now clearly expressed by "the sense of Congress to the Secretary of Defense" in this bill: help fund this RP1, F1 Derived engine and transition away from Atlas and Delta by the 2020s and reduce the costs of SLS and the existing fleet.The injunction throws a monkey wrench in plan that had secured launches to 2030 without having to build the RD-180 replacement.
I'm still unclear on if [Aerojet] have the plans and rights to build domestic RD-180's...or did that remain with Pratt & Whitney? Or maybe it's still in negotiation? Not quite sure.
ULA doesn't have anything. Pratt-Whitney has the prints as part of its agreement with RP Energomash. AJR doesn't own any RD-180 stuff due to PWR exclusivity agreements that it's NK-33 agreements with Yuznoye violate, and merely serves as a passthrough for funding to Energomash via Pratt Whitney. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Quote from: muomega0 on 05/03/2014 01:15 pmA domestic RD-180 does little to reduce costs.The current NASA plan is to develop a new RP1 engine under the Advanced Booster contracts, the "F-1" derived engine (Dynetics Family of Advanced Boosters, figures 5 and 6). Commonalty with the existing fleet is the big cost issue with SLS. With this new RP1 based lower stage engine however, different core sizes enable 20+ to 150 mT LVs simply by launching a single core, multiple cores, and a larger central core with two engines to fill the role of SLS, Atlas and Delta.This commonality plan is now clearly expressed by "the sense of Congress to the Secretary of Defense" in this bill: help fund this RP1, F1 Derived engine and transition away from Atlas and Delta by the 2020s and reduce the costs of SLS and the existing fleet.The injunction throws a monkey wrench in plan that had secured launches to 2030 without having to build the RD-180 replacement.F-1B is oversized for Atlas V. SLS is the only thing F-1B ever has a chance (and a slim one at that) of ever flying on. A domestic RD-180, however, is employable on AV and on an advanced RP-1 booster for SLS. Four RD-180s are compatible with one SLS booster. This has already been discussed here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33327.0If RD-180 is produced domestically, the Russia issue goes away. SLS then has a booster engine whose design has a long proven flight history (though granted the new manufacturer's history with the exact engine is not proven). NASA then does not have to pay for R&D of a new engine. Long pauses between SLS flights would not require NASA to maintain an idle engine production line. Use of a common engine with a higher production rate should theoretically lower unit production costs.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/03/2014 10:06 pmI'd say the Falcon 9, with basically one engine design and one type of propellant, is far less complex, wouldn't you?Indeed. It also means that Spacex can better apply statistical process control methods to their mfg.Redundancy is a very useful tool if used wisely. Design diversity is also a very useful tool but I think people have mistaken "diverse" for "redundant." Both STS and the Saturn V had 5 engines firing at launch. I know which one I would prefer to have been riding.To bring it slightly closer to topic another strategy is to use one very big engine to which is the strategy of the Delta and Atlas vehicles. Unfortunately pretty much all large LOX/Kero worked ended in the US decades ago (I'd guess the engines on the Delta II 1st stage being the last indigenously mfg big engines). Hence the former Soviet Union was the only "affordable" choice for a LOX/RP1 main engine.IMHO such non decisions are not "management leadership," (factoring the non financial, "big picture" costs of using an engine from a formerly hostile nation) they are accountancy.
I'd say the Falcon 9, with basically one engine design and one type of propellant, is far less complex, wouldn't you?
BTW: NASA has no need for a HLV/SLS, nor a LV greater than about 20mT with a propellant depot...
Note that the size of the new liquid engine was not specified, nor the number of engines per core...only "F1 Derived" and "20+ to 150mT" configurations.
Again it makes no sense to fund a new large RP-1 engine without also putting some funding into the Raptor.
I'd like to see the RS-68A become a regenerative nozzle engine. Apparently, that project would cost the better part of $1 billion but would give the Delta IV (all variants) about 10% percent in performance boost. If the hydrocarbon engine issue becomes too complex and the Atlas V goes away, the Delta family still has significant variants to do many missions.
No offense, but that sounds like a terrible investment. In a sane world, AJR would rather develop RS-25E and sell it to both ULA and NASA.
And we just spent $1B on the J-2X. Sheesh!. In my limited expereince re-engineering "legacy" hardware does not usually save money. Even the RD-180 is a fairly old design. It might take no longer to start with a clean sheet, using existing ideas and experience where applicable but not existing hardware. Again it makes no sense to fund a new large RP-1 engine without also putting some funding into the Raptor.
Quote from: vulture4 on 05/04/2014 02:12 amAnd we just spent $1B on the J-2X. Sheesh!. In my limited expereince re-engineering "legacy" hardware does not usually save money. Even the RD-180 is a fairly old design. It might take no longer to start with a clean sheet, using existing ideas and experience where applicable but not existing hardware. Again it makes no sense to fund a new large RP-1 engine without also putting some funding into the Raptor.J-2X funding is somewhere between $2 and $4 billion depending on who you want to believe.Either way - the current FAR model of development; albeit engine or booster, will not work with the fiscal realities we face. Imagine if we would have spent that $2 to $4 billion on Commercial Crew and other aspects of SLS. We wouldn't be in the situation we have today.Respectfully,Andrew Gasser