Author Topic: Funding for a domestic liquid engine in the National Defense authorization bill  (Read 207342 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Keep in mind that SpaceX did not request the injunction.

As Jim would say: unsubstantiated.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
They didn't ask for an injunction and it is plainly incorrect to suggest that they did.

How would you know?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Sorry 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.

Just so we are clear on this subject sans spin...

1) SpaceX did bring before the court and the judge the Russian engine and why it was a problem.

2) SpaceX asked the judge for Injunctive Relief see (b)(c)(d)  "a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, and sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction."

The Judge saw the quickest way to grant the "Injunctive Relief" with banning the RD-180

   
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 03:12 am by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
SpaceX asked for injunctive relief against the unlawful contract between the USAF and ULA.

As one of the points against the contract they brought up the sanctions.  After the initial review the Judge determined that there is a potential violation of the sanctions and asked for opinions from other Departments of the US Government. She then issued a temporary injunction against that possible illegal act.

She has yet to issue any rulings on the actual contract and the temporary injunction has no immediate effect on that contract as such you really can't count it as relief for the complaint.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
They didn't ask for an injunction and it is plainly incorrect to suggest that they did.

How would you know?

It's mentionned in a Florida Day article that the judge asked for the injunction herself.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2014/05/01/federal-court-temporarily-blocks-purchase-of-russian-rocket-engines/8583211/

Quote
"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."
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 12:22 pm by yg1968 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
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.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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.

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=33327.0

If 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. In the same thread above, discussion of RD-180 for SLS advanced boosters shifts to a domestically produced version at this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33327.msg1191561#msg1191561
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 08:03 pm by TomH »

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

On the lawsuit thread in the SpaceX section, user cuddihy claims that the rights stayed with P&W:

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.

It's a different question whether P&W retains any engineers who are capable of doing much with the prints after selling their rocket division, and further discussion on that thread hasn't reached any definitive conclusion.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
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.

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=33327.0

If 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.

A domestic RD-180 does not cut costs: It would require modern production techniques and a design for reuse to be competitive, which basically means its a new engine and the heritage does not apply.  It would be best just to pay for the R&D program and examine long term costs/needs, otherwise it seems highly unlikely Atlas or Delta are cost competitive (400M vs 100M, with the latter working on reuse) now or in the future.   

BTW:  NASA has no need for a HLV/SLS, nor a LV greater than about 20mT with a propellant depot (Two lunar sorties per year is 240mT divided by 10 is a 24 mT LV, for example, with the goal of a reusable transfer stage).  Since >70% of the mass is propellant for NASA missions, this is a great way to take risk with a reusable LV: cheap propellant. 

Even if the goal is to not sole source DOD missions (2 or more LVs),  the next step is to cut the costs of Atlas and Delta and SLS, by a significant reduction in engine count:  too many product lines (RS-27A, GEMs, AJ10s,  RD180s, RS-25s, RS-68s, 5-Seg, Composite 5-Seg, F1s, ...).   

So you are on the right track of consolidating SLS/Altas/Delta engines and hence provide $$ for payloads/missions, but as you point out, not with the F-1, and avoid > 50mT LVs.

Note that the size of the new liquid engine was not specified, nor the number of engines per core as discussed by john smith 19 below, only "F1 Derived" and "20+ to 150mT" configurations.   Given that NASA does not require a HLV, its seems obvious that the smaller variants would be more cost effective as flight rate is a key factor, with the goal of reuse.  Per the wiki page, the brain storming Merlin 2  was shelved for a methane based Raptor about half its thrust.

I'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:(

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
ULA was funded to provide redundancy with Atlas and Delta. Maybe the time has come to use Plan B, i.e. the Delta. We paid all that money just for contingencies like this. If we still need redundancy, we have the Falcon. Personally I think ULA would be significantly more efficient if they downselected to one launch vehicle. Although Atlas has some cost advantages the RS-68 is actually a pretty capable engine, the Delta processing flow is efficient, and adding crossfeed and a few small SRBs to the D-IVH could bump its payload capacity up considerably above the current 25MT to LEO if needed. ULA might even, if pressed, activate Cx-37B for a lot less than $1 billion. Reusability would be problematic with the large LH2 tank and rather high staging, but it's not impossible.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2014 02:08 am by vulture4 »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
BTW:  NASA has no need for a HLV/SLS, nor a LV greater than about 20mT with a propellant depot...

They obviously are building the rocket. Your opinion of whether they need SLS is not germane to a discussion re. the selection of engine.

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.

Think about all the things you said about even a domestic RD-180 being a 'new engine'. If its F-1 derived and anything other than F-1B it's going to be far far more of a new engine than any RD-180 that follows the original design.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2014 02:08 am by TomH »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
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.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2014 02:14 am by vulture4 »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
The big issue is that if they don't go with an RD-180 variant then they will have to requalify both the rocket and the engine, instead of just the engine.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
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.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Again it makes no sense to fund a new large RP-1 engine without also putting some funding into the Raptor.

That is a good point, and the established corporations might want to give that some thought. They believed they had the government convinced that reusability was just future fantasy. Now that we are seeing that is not the case, if these companies want to compete and survive, they may want to consider methane in their future as well. When you start thinking of reusing a hydrocarbon engine many times over and over with quick turnaround and low maintenance, RP-1's coking issue becomes problematic and CH4 starts looking attractive, especially if the government might be putting research funds into it and their skin in the game is lower. You have to adapt to survive. Sears dominated retail when postal catalogs and railroad opened an opportunity for them. They became set in their ways and didn't want to change. If they had had the vision, they could have used what they already had and seized the emerging online market. But alas, a young entrepreneur is the one who saw the future. Old rocketry needs to react to Elon the way Samsung reacted every time Steve Jobs walked onto the stage with a new product. Methane may well be the future of hydrocarbon engines. And a hexagon with one center engine is ideal for 3/9 restart for boost back and 1/9 restart for soft landing.

I'm not sure if "to replace RD-180" implies limitation to RP-1 or not; though basically I see "liquid engine." I hope any funding would not be limited to a new RP-1 engine, but at the least be available for a new hydrocarbon engine, if not also H2.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2014 03:46 am by TomH »

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
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.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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.

Hmmm, RS-25D is rated for both long burns and reuse. RS-25E, as a disposable engine yet still a sustainer, would have to be qualified for a longer burn time than most first stage engines. So, as a regen. engine, would RS-68A be built to endure as long of a burn as RS-25E? If not, then would RS-25D's higher ISP and longer burn time (as a sustainer) cause it to be a significantly higher priced engine?

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
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.

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

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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.

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

While I agree, we need to remember that J-2X originated with Constellation which was implemented by the previous administration. When Constellation was cancelled, J-2X was only continued because stopping it would have cost just as much as finishing it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0