50% reduction still yields doubled engine costs on Centaur V assuming 4 engines vs. one on Classic Centaur.75% reduction yields same engine cost; 87.5% reduction yields half cost which is the goal.50% is what I'm assuming they can achieve... at best; this probably requires volume production.
...Centaur V has other cost reductions (cheaper tank manufacturing, aft-mounted avionics), even more for ACES (IVF).
The baseline that has to beaten (by reduction of 50%) is the Classic Centaur.1. 3.08m vs 5.4m2. 1 RL-10 to 3-4 RL-10s3. 20t payload vs. payload up to 30t plus dynamic loads of fairing on ascent4. Additional helium volume/tankage to pressurize 3-4x volumeSo, lots more requirements on Centaur V ... maybe 'cheaper tank manufacturing' could cut cost of Classic in half, but they're no longer building Classic. The requirements have been increased dramatically (doubled?). Are they going to get all these cost reductions from 'aft-mounted avionics'?I'm not seeing where they reduce vehicle cost by 50% as advertised.
I'm not seeing where they reduce vehicle cost by 50% as advertised.
AJR have been doing lot work to modernise RL10 and reduce its build cost. They need to past those savings onto ULA if what a decent production rate of 20-40, otherwise it is only 4 a year for SLS.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/10/2017 03:22 pmAJR have been doing lot work to modernise RL10 and reduce its build cost. They need to past those savings onto ULA if what a decent production rate of 20-40, otherwise it is only 4 a year for SLS.There is a lot ARJ could do to make it cheaper and easier to manufacture.As it is the RL-10 is pretty hard to beat as far as ISP and reliability go.I wonder what impact getting rid of the hand assembled tube wall construction for channel wall would have on it or can assembly of the old design be automated in some way?
There is a lot ARJ could do to make it cheaper and easier to manufacture.As it is the RL-10 is pretty hard to beat as far as ISP and reliability go.
I wonder what impact getting rid of the hand assembled tube wall construction for channel wall would have on it or can assembly of the old design be automated in some way?
They have successful tested fired a 3D printed version that eliminates hand assembled tube wall construction.
Some news on Centaur V, PDR complete. [via Tory on reddit]That should answer the question if the Vulcan CDR was for both or not.
Surprising news! OrbitalATK is considering the AerojetRocketdyne RL10 or ArianeGroup Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blueorigin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018. http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-ngl
Quote from: AncientU on 12/14/2017 02:24 amReposted:Quote from: Mike Jones on 12/13/2017 09:48 pmSurprising news! OrbitalATK is considering the AerojetRocketdyne RL10 or ArianeGroup Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blueorigin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018. http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-nglWonder what Orbital saw in Blue's engine that they didn't like? Does this reduce Blue's chances on Vulcan, too?Perhaps ... timing?Qualifying a US engine might be a "long pole" ... what if it's too far "downstream" for BO ... remember they only need BE-3U for a third stage vehicle. They might want others to foot the bill/take the risk, ahead of that. Unacceptable for NSS use.That also might cause ULA grief as well ... so they postpone the down-select perhaps?Vinci will/must be qualified for NSS use. RL10 already is.
Reposted:Quote from: Mike Jones on 12/13/2017 09:48 pmSurprising news! OrbitalATK is considering the AerojetRocketdyne RL10 or ArianeGroup Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blueorigin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018. http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-nglWonder what Orbital saw in Blue's engine that they didn't like? Does this reduce Blue's chances on Vulcan, too?
(It would not surprise me if Centaur 3 is used on Vulcan/Atlas for near term payloads as before. And that Centaur V will phase in with 2/4/1 engine configurations, with a "lower cost configuration" not involving an RL10 longer term - possibly a shorter variant?)
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/14/2017 07:43 pm(It would not surprise me if Centaur 3 is used on Vulcan/Atlas for near term payloads as before. And that Centaur V will phase in with 2/4/1 engine configurations, with a "lower cost configuration" not involving an RL10 longer term - possibly a shorter variant?)Tory Bruno said he expected the change to Centaur V to delay the deployment of Vulcan by a couple months. Sounds like they aren't planning to use Centaur III on it ever (which probably helps keep costs down, fewer extra components need to be kept in production). And theres been no indication of an intermediate stage between Centaur V and ACES (which is what a Centaur V with resized tanks and/or a new engine would be)
I don't see how the 5 can be cheaper than the 3. We know the majority of the Centaur cost is the RL-10, and the Centaur 5 will need 1 to 3 more RL-10s than Centaur 3. Even if RL-10 cost is halved, that would simple make the Centaur 3 that much cheaper.
They have to keep the Centaur 3 around until Atlas V is retired anyway, right?
Quote from: envy887 on 12/21/2017 12:57 pmI don't see how the 5 can be cheaper than the 3. We know the majority of the Centaur cost is the RL-10, and the Centaur 5 will need 1 to 3 more RL-10s than Centaur 3. Even if RL-10 cost is halved, that would simple make the Centaur 3 that much cheaper.Wellllll...They could double the thrust of a single RL-10 maybe. Otherwise the only way this works is that people have seriously seriously underestimated AJR's capacity to lower the RL10 price But that only works if they can actually make RL10's cheaply enough to the kind of profit AJR are used to making on RL10's at the current price. Quote from: envy887They have to keep the Centaur 3 around until Atlas V is retired anyway, right?ULA don't seem to have a problem with putting rockets in long term storage awaiting customers.I can't remember the last time Delta II launches were in anyway common, but someone wanted to use their last one and they did it.