Quote from: Prober on 03/22/2014 12:41 pmOr maybe manufacture both the RD-180 and AJ-1E6. This way we are not locked into one engine.Wouldn’t it make more sense to just start making the AJ-1E6 ASAP... Manufacturing both domestically seems needlessly expensive.
Or maybe manufacture both the RD-180 and AJ-1E6. This way we are not locked into one engine.
The truth of Government programs - Why have one when you can have two at twice the price?
Quote from: rusty on 03/23/2014 06:59 amThe truth of Government programs - Why have one when you can have two at twice the price?Another uninformed characterization.
Jim, that's just a movie quote. From Contact.
May be because Navy actually has different requirements to USAF? For some strange reason, Marines appear to agree with Navy on carrier based airplanes, rather than navalize an USAF one. Look at the problems with the F-35 exactly for having "one" model. I believe they share less than 35% of parts. And you can't blame anybody for requirement and cost bloat exactly for having multiple customers.And in this case, any solution would mean some sort of adaptation. O/F is different, AJ-26 requires subcooled O2, ECU and TVC are different, etc. But the truly important issue, is that those LV are commercial, and are not even all the available ones in their class. It's a decision among companies to take where Government only can say if they agree or not based on being the main (but not only) customer,
Quote from: pippin on 03/23/2014 11:53 amJim, that's just a movie quote. From Contact.Then you should have included that after the quote to begin with.
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013QuoteВ качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»; http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
As the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 03/25/2014 10:56 pmQuote from: pippin on 03/23/2014 11:53 amJim, that's just a movie quote. From Contact.Then you should have included that after the quote to begin with.
http://spacenews.com/orbital-sciences-orders-rd-181-engines-for-antares-rocket/So, now Antares is going to be powered by RD181.What is Orbital doing with the 20 engines on contract and the other 20 engines option...
Quote from: Razvan on 12/17/2014 02:09 pmhttp://spacenews.com/orbital-sciences-orders-rd-181-engines-for-antares-rocket/So, now Antares is going to be powered by RD181.What is Orbital doing with the 20 engines on contract and the other 20 engines option...If Orbital could ever develop a reasonable upper stage for Antares, then with RD-181, this could be a great GEO comsat launcher.......
If Orbital could ever develop a reasonable upper stage for Antares, then with RD-181, this could be a great GEO comsat launcher.......
I'm still flabbergasted by the economics of this engine deal. If they get 20 engines for close to $1 billion, that is close to $50 million per engine. Close to $100 million for each Antares. And that is for the first stage engines only - does not include 1st stage tank, 2nd stage, or avionics.How do they expect to make money off this?