Bubbinski - 22/4/2008 6:47 PMAfter 2 ballistic landings in a row, I'm thinking it's time this possibility gets seriously discussed. There is the upcoming shuttle retirement and gap until Orion and Ares become operational, about 2015-16 if all goes well. For several years, Soyuz would be the only currently planned crewed vehicle to visit ISS.It's April 2008 - about two years until shuttle retirement. What options are there to develop a Soyuz backup vehicle that could fly about 2011 or 2012? - Kliper? When could that be ready by if the Russians restart it?
- Dragon atop Atlas, Delta, or Falcon 9 if that flies successfully?
- ACTS/ARD/ATV? I asked about that earlier and people responded a European crewed vehicle wouldn't be ready before 2016.
- Orion command module only or stripped down SM atop Delta 4 or Atlas 5?
- Shenzhou? (I did see some links on this forum that discussed that and ruled it out - Chinese haven't done docking yet, for example. But could that change, are there circumstances that could put the Chinese in the mix?).
- Anything else? Rutan/Scaled Composites? Other "new space" companies? India? Japan?
I don't want this to turn into a "boycott/bash Soyuz" thread or anything like that. Let's just talk about a backup plan, an extra means for crew to get to ISS until Ares is ready.
hop - 22/4/2008 6:23 PMI don't think there is any plausible backup in that time frame, nor is the recent landing incident a particularly good reason to pursue one.
cb6785 - 23/4/2008 6:21 AMI guess we can rule out US alternatives, 'cause there will be no man-rated LV until Ares I (as long as NASA sticks to this plan). So there's only the choice to use Soyuz or Ariane 5... Soyuz is flying and despite the recent landing problems quite reliable, so if you would want a backup IMO the only fast and cost-efficient solution would be to push to an ATV-derrived vehicle. Yeah and that would be: experimental.
OV-106 - 23/4/2008 10:18 AMAh yes, Direct. The savior of us all. Well this thread almost made it to one full page before it got thrown into the mix again. To the direct sales team, everyone is aware of this concept for a launch vehicle it does not need to be inserted into every thread. To the best of my knowledge Direct type concept vehicle cannot provide an alternative to Soyuz because it cannot dock to the ISS.
cb6785 - 23/4/2008 9:07 AMAriane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.
marshallsplace - 23/4/2008 9:48 AMSo the only possible backup craft is the shuttle?OK for speculation sake - if soyuz was grounded 2010 and RTF 2012, would NASA find a way to keep the shuttle going?
Jim - 23/4/2008 3:25 PMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 9:07 AMAriane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.To be manrated isn't manrated
cb6785 - 23/4/2008 11:08 AMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 3:25 PMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 9:07 AMAriane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.To be manrated isn't manratedTo be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.
marshallsplace - 23/4/2008 10:48 AMSo the only possible backup craft is the shuttle?OK for speculation sake - if Soyuz was grounded 2010 and RTF 2012, would NASA find a way to keep the shuttle going?
Jim - 23/4/2008 10:42 AMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 11:08 AMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 3:25 PMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 9:07 AMAriane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.To be manrated isn't manratedTo be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.Don't play games. The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008 11:50 AMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 10:42 AMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 11:08 AMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 3:25 PMQuotecb6785 - 23/4/2008 9:07 AMAriane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.To be manrated isn't manratedTo be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.Don't play games. The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or AtlasThat is not true Jim. The EELVs ability to be manrated was clearly shown as poor in the ESAS report. Ariane is far superior on this ability. cb6785 is correct with Hermes.
Jim - 23/4/2008 4:42 PMDon't play games. The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas
Jim - 23/4/2008 11:02 AMESAS was wrong, again.
cb6785 - 23/4/2008 12:02 PMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 4:42 PMDon't play games. The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or AtlasTell that to the ESA folks who said things like: "Unmanned - but man-rated – ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) has the unique capability....." and who think about exchanging the Integrated Cargo Carrier with a manned capsule, call it CTV and launch it atop Ariane. The only thing not beeing build today is that capsule!
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008 12:33 PMQuoteJim - 23/4/2008 11:02 AMESAS was wrong, again. You cannot make these acqusations without proof. If this was real, ULA would have reacted. They did not.
Ronsmytheiii - 23/4/2008 5:35 PMThe ATV craft it self is manrated, not the booster.
Spacenick - 23/4/2008 1:06 PM1. What is all this talk about man-rating about? I'm pretty sure neither Saturn-V 2. I simply can't see the point of man-rating, the only thing one might have to do is changing the flight parameters to make the ride less rough, but that should be nothing more than a software configuration change on a modern vehicle..
Analyst - 23/4/2008 12:30 PM"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.Analyst
pm1823 - 23/4/2008 6:57 PMQuoteAnalyst - 23/4/2008 12:30 PM"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.AnalystYou talking about saving 1 Orbiter and 1 Launch Pad? Which one?
Mark Max Q - 23/4/2008 4:03 PMThey've been looking into that before the Soyuz problem. Can't say much as it's L2.
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008 2:07 PMAnd if the Space Shuttle were somehow preserved past 2010, and the shuttle ended up being the only vehicle after a Soyuz standdown, would the shuttle actually be able to be the emergency crew return vehicle for a permanent crew, staying six months on orbit? As I recall the max duration planned for shuttle flights was 28 days, and in practice shuttles have flown for up to 18 days.
Time is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.
Analyst - 23/4/2008 1:30 PM"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.Analyst
libs0n - 23/4/2008 2:23 PMI consider everything else presented, except maybe for Shenzou, to be more time consuming. I'd consider Shenzou; hell, I'd include them in ISS right now; after all, was Soyuz-Apollo such a terrible thing? What, you can buy all the stuff they make, you can take out a trillion dollar loan from them, but you can't put astronauts on their launch vehicles? That's sacred ground? I like space programs that build bridges rather than walls.
William Barton - 23/4/2008 2:58 PMI started imagining a Shenzhou "just showing up" at ISS one day. What would we do, charge them with trespassing? Then I started wondering if the ISS airlock doors can be opened from the outside, and if the docking mechanisms are automated to the point an uninvited visitor could just go ahead and dock. These seem like necessary safety features, as well as necessary (in the case of docking) if the ISS ever has to be left unmanned.
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008 7:19 PMQuoteTime is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.Is there a hard, published "drop dead" date yet? And does this apply to Direct as well?
Chris Bergin - 23/4/2008 3:11 PMQuoteBubbinski - 23/4/2008 7:19 PMQuoteTime is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.Is there a hard, published "drop dead" date yet? And does this apply to Direct as well?It was September, but the MAF guys say there's been a slight stretching of this. Still very tight.
clongton - 23/4/2008 3:09 PMWhat is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?
William Barton - 23/4/2008 3:26 PMQuoteclongton - 23/4/2008 3:09 PMWhat is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?Weren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."
1. Given the Chines Flight rate, which may indicate a production rate, I would not say they are capable of responding in the short term to this need.
3. Musk will do whatever gets him money, so if they say put Dragon on an EELV with your face paintend purpose and one eye closed, he damn well will put Dragon on top of an EELV with his face painted purpose and with one eye closed...if they give him the money.
IF Soyuz suffers a one - three year grounding, the only realistic, available, operational option is the Shuttle. If Shuttle is not available, then we are faced with abandoning the ISS. Nothing else is available.
And, Ares/Orion or Direct/Jupiter/Orion would be pushed back, perhaps lost
clongton - 23/4/2008 3:07 PM QuoteAnalyst - 23/4/2008 1:30 PM "Possible backup craft to Soyuz?" There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move. Analyst There are 6 other real possibilities: 1. Shenzhou on a Long March if the politics can be fixed (Possible but difficult at best) 2. Dragon on the F-9 if there is a massive funding infusion to COTS ( Extremely risky) 3. Dragon on an EELV (I seriously doubt Musk would do that) 4. Orion on an EELV but destroys the STS workforce and puts the moon in jeopardy. 5. Orion on a Jupiter - 18 month gap, or 9 months if Congress ups the budget a little. 6. Orion on a Jupiter - zero gap if Congress will fully fund additional Shuttle flights in addition to the current budget projections until Orion is ready (Jupiter will be flying before Orion is ready).
Analyst - 23/4/2008 1:30 PM "Possible backup craft to Soyuz?" There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move. Analyst
mike robel - 23/4/2008 4:12 PMIf Shuttle is not available, then we are faced with abandoning the ISS.
William Barton - 23/4/2008 4:50 PMIt's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times. But judging from recent news stories, what would happen if a Soyuz did enter nose first, to the point where the hatch burned through and the crew was toast? That's pretty much equivalent to Columbia, albeit less focused, because it's a production line expendable capsule. Wouldn't they at least stand down long enough to find out what failed and implement better manufacturing quality control?
William Barton - 23/4/2008 4:50 PMIt's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times.
Spacenick - 23/4/2008 7:32 PMWhat I wonder is this, if man-rating is so important, how the hell are they supposed to make Ares-I a safe vehicle within a reasonable timeframe, I mean designing something for humans doesn't make it more secure than say an Ariane. Even more so with such a design, where there is this massive solid rocket beneath the capsule which simply can not be turned off after ignition, I can not even imagine how a launch abort system is supposed to carry tha capsule off a burning solid booster.
William Barton - 23/4/2008 12:26 PMWeren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."
clongton - 23/4/2008 12:33 PM Flown unmanned this way, they could also use it in lieu of a Progress resupply mission. There's sufficient volume inside for supplies.
Not so good. The Soyuz descent module structure is pretty hefty. Without a crew, they can load maybe 500 kg of cargo. Also, Soyuz brings no prop to ISS, so Progress is a much better cargo carrier (some lessons there for SpaceX, maybe).
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008 12:10 PM One other thing I just thought of. How many systems would Soyuz and Shenzhou have in common, and would a Soyuz failure jeopardize Shenzhou flights?
You are correct, the Shenzhou descent module is real close to Soyuz in design, so the Chinese may be looking forward to some ballistic re-entries of their own.
The Russians have flown so many Soyuzes that the basic bugs have been worked out, and now what they face is what airliners have to deal with: unusual combinations of failures. One of the reasons that airliners are so expensive today is that they are designed not just to combat the obvious failure modes, but also chains of failures. Soyuz was not designed in this way, however. Neither was Shuttle for the most part.
Bubbinski - 24/4/2008 5:08 PMHas the offer been accepted, are the Russians working now to extend Soyuz to one year on orbit?
Danderman - 24/4/2008 8:22 PMQuoteclongton - 23/4/2008 12:33 PM Flown unmanned this way, they could also use it in lieu of a Progress resupply mission. There's sufficient volume inside for supplies.Not so good. The Soyuz descent module structure is pretty hefty. Without a crew, they can load maybe 500 kg of cargo. Also, Soyuz brings no prop to ISS, so Progress is a much better cargo carrier (some lessons there for SpaceX, maybe).
ronatu - 25/4/2008 2:11 PMHowever it is too risky to US do not have access to space on its own.....
Bubbinski - 25/4/2008 4:33 PMThe "gap" frustrates me and many others, it's a whole 'nother thread in itself but it kinda ties into this thread as well. Others can expound on the causes of this gap far better than I could.And if Congress, the President, and NASA got a good plan to reduce or eliminate the gap (reducing the gap by a year or two may be the best that can be hoped for, IMO - it is a late date with the shuttle retirement looming, craft take time to develop), then that would also be one answer to the question of a Soyuz backup.
psloss - 25/4/2008 11:20 PMSome plans for reducing the gap may not provide an earlier U.S.-based crew return capability (with the CEV), particularly if the gap is reduced by stretching out or extending shuttle operations.
Analyst - 26/4/2008 2:54 AMQuotepsloss - 25/4/2008 11:20 PMSome plans for reducing the gap may not provide an earlier U.S.-based crew return capability (with the CEV), particularly if the gap is reduced by stretching out or extending shuttle operations.This is something I never understood. It goes along the line: Extending Shuttle operations by one year will just delay Orion by one year, the gap stays the same.
psloss - 26/4/2008 1:10 PMRead it again -- I'm not referring to the zero-sum game.
Hotdog - 26/4/2008 1:14 PMIf NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.
Analyst - 26/4/2008 7:26 AMQuotepsloss - 26/4/2008 1:10 PMRead it again -- I'm not referring to the zero-sum game. Well, you are not, but others here did and do. You know what I mean. What is your opinion about this?Analyst
Hotdog - 26/4/2008 7:14 AMI agree with mike robel. Musk will do whatever brings him money and proves his company's technology. If the number one priority is to close the gap as quickly as possible, you need to look at what hardware is currently available or the closest to being available.The options on the capsule (crewed spacecraft) seem to be Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser and any other NewSpace developments. Of these Dragon is most likely the closest to being available.The options on the launcher are Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9 and Ares/Jupiter. Of these the Delta and Atlas are currently available and the Delta makes most sense.The Dragon launch mass seems to be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 kg. The Delta IV Medium with single RS-68 on first stage, single RL-10B-2 on second stage and no strap-on solids has a LEO payload of 8600 kg to 185 km orbit (according to astronautix). I haven't worked out what the payload to ISS would be and if it could carry the Dragon but the safety numbers for this vehicle must be pretty good with one engine on each stage.I can’t find a reference now to the length of time that Dragon can stay at the ISS but I seem to recall it was at least 6 months. That would allow it to be used in the same way as Soyuz.If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.
Jim - 26/4/2008 3:32 PMWhy should you believe Elon?
Analyst - 25/4/2008 3:29 PMQuoteJim - 26/4/2008 3:32 PMWhy should you believe Elon?He is always right, old space is always wrong, for 50 years now. He is the God of spaceflight, isn't he?Analyst
robertross - 27/4/2008 2:18 PMPersonally, I think there is no better option at the moment for the US than the shuttle. I agree with the proposed amendments before the Congress to utilize the shuttle with 2 flights per year. You have this perfectly good hardware waiting to go up, with billions spent building it; you still need ISS access (which the shuttle provides); and you need spares delivered on orbit.I hate to say it, but if congress won't provide extra funding, it will have to mean delaying getting to the moon. Honestly, what is the point of going there again except to do more science? We have an orbitting lab that can do that, and maybe a slight delay in getting to the moon may end up being for the best. We can certainly use the time to develop radiation shielding, understand long-term duration stays better, and give the un-manned lunar landers & orbiters the time to get results and for us to understand them. Otherwise, we have to do the same thing as what happened to the ISS: scale-down due to cost overruns, budget cut-backs, and technology that took longer than expected.Soyuz works, it only has a few glitches, and they will sort it out. Considering how many the shuttle has had (because it is so complex), we need to go with what works. We all know spaceflight is risky, and those astronauts know the risks, even with a craft with a perfect flight record. Unrealized hardware is just that, unrealized. When it's proven, fine, but until then let's just keep things simple and go with tried and true.
clongton - 28/4/2008 12:29 PMDoes anyone know if the US Air Force has a ‘black ops’ program for manned access to LEO?
psloss - 23/4/2008 5:03 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 23/4/2008 4:50 PMIt's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times.Not that hard...the crew transport can't get to orbit without the LV. If they have to stand down to find the LV problem, they can't launch.It's the duration of the stand-down that might be different than the shuttle. Perhaps they might find and fix the problem in the several months before the next scheduled increment launch. The historical record probably shows how long the stand-downs were or at least when the next launch occurred after the failures you mention.
William Barton - 28/4/2008 8:47 AMMy point was, with 50 years and many hundreds of launches under its belt the R-7-derived launcher family isn't going to be stood down for design flaws. If a Soyuz LV explodes on the pad or fails during ascent, and the crew gets off using the LAS (one example of each from history), the Russians have sufficient experience with the vehicle to chalk it up to manufacturing error, and simply roll out the next one.
Jim - 26/4/2008 9:32 AMQuoteHotdog - 26/4/2008 7:14 AMI agree with mike robel. Musk will do whatever brings him money and proves his company's technology. If the number one priority is to close the gap as quickly as possible, you need to look at what hardware is currently available or the closest to being available.The options on the capsule (crewed spacecraft) seem to be Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser and any other NewSpace developments. Of these Dragon is most likely the closest to being available.The options on the launcher are Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9 and Ares/Jupiter. Of these the Delta and Atlas are currently available and the Delta makes most sense.The Dragon launch mass seems to be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 kg. The Delta IV Medium with single RS-68 on first stage, single RL-10B-2 on second stage and no strap-on solids has a LEO payload of 8600 kg to 185 km orbit (according to astronautix). I haven't worked out what the payload to ISS would be and if it could carry the Dragon but the safety numbers for this vehicle must be pretty good with one engine on each stage.I can’t find a reference now to the length of time that Dragon can stay at the ISS but I seem to recall it was at least 6 months. That would allow it to be used in the same way as Soyuz.If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.Let's be realistic and stop chugging the koolade. Spacex hasn't launched one vehicle yet. Yep, we have lost two games and we should win the next one. Our little running back is coming around slowly, he should help win the next one. But just wait, we are bringing along a bigger guy, once he is ready, we should be winning. With all this, we will be in the Super Bowl this year. Would you believe these from an owner of an first year NFL expansion team?Why should you believe Elon?
William Barton - 28/4/2008 8:05 AMNo US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years.
In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time?
Jim - 28/4/2008 9:24 AM"In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time? "Rocketdyne, the RS-68"No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years"There was OSP but some administrator canceled it.But also it doesn't mean spacex is the only one that is developing a manned spacecraft. CSR hasn't be awarded
Thorny - 28/4/2008 9:27 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 8:05 AMNo US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years.Arguably, Scaled Composites did with SpaceShipOne.QuoteIn fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time? Rocketdyne (now P&W) with RS-68.
Bubbinski - 28/4/2008 11:59 AMI'm glad there's been lots of good discussion here about possible alternatives, their strengths and shortfalls. Is there a similar type of discussion going on now in the NASA leadership or in the White House or Congress? Are there any plans/discussions/ideas floating around within NASA other than the stuff about shuttle extension on L2?
Jim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?Aerojet
William Barton - 28/4/2008 12:18 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?AerojetWill they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?
Too bad X-38 never got a chance:
http://www.thetechlounge.com/files/news/images/1192162087_x38_1.jpg" />
Wasn't 2008 the year it was supposed to be at the ISS?
Jim - 28/4/2008 5:57 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:18 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?AerojetWill they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production. It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed. Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use
meiza - 28/4/2008 3:05 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 5:57 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:18 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?AerojetWill they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production. It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed. Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for useAnd this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.
Jim - 28/4/2008 8:17 PMQuotemeiza - 28/4/2008 3:05 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 5:57 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:18 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?AerojetWill they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production. It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed. Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for useAnd this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.It isn't that hard. They have all the drawings and have converted them. The materials are not exotic
meiza - 28/4/2008 3:28 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 8:17 PMQuotemeiza - 28/4/2008 3:05 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 5:57 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:18 PMQuoteJim - 28/4/2008 11:20 AMWho will be producing new NK-33 engines?AerojetWill they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production. It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed. Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for useAnd this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.It isn't that hard. They have all the drawings and have converted them. The materials are not exoticInteresting. I would have expected it to be harder. NK-33 runs oxidizer rich in the turbine, although it has lower chamber pressure than RD-180...
wannamoonbase - 28/4/2008 3:43 PMNK-33 is a Russian built engine designed in the 60's. I would be surprised, no stunned, if there was anything in the engine that America technology in the 2000's that can't easily produce. Russian design is not noted for being exotic and complicated.
William Barton - 28/4/2008 12:41 PMIt's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it
Bubbinski - 28/4/2008 3:11 PMAh, the X-38....that was a very bad move getting rid of it. I suppose it's too late to resurrect it? Some flight testing was done, design work too, right? And is the prototype still in the inventory?
hop - 28/4/2008 5:43 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:41 PMIt's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done itBig difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.
meiza - 28/4/2008 7:06 PMSure it can be done, it will just take some time and money.
Spacenick - 29/4/2008 1:00 PMI guess Shenzhou has to be excluded primarily for political reasons, the design itself probably quite flight worthy simply because it pushes no technical limits to hard and the basic idea is quite proven. One idea would be to buy some aditional Soyuz from the Russians, check them as thoroughly as possible and then keep them ready for launch on a different launcher so they can be launched in time as an unmanned life boat. Because the Soyuz design is already proven, this would mitigate many risks like a launcher stand down or political problems because the Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.
William Barton - 29/4/2008 1:42 PMQuotehop - 28/4/2008 5:43 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:41 PMIt's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done itBig difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.When was the last time Aerojet produced a new large rocket engine all by themselves? Why should I believe Aerojet and not SpaceX? SpaceX has a history of producing a new rocket engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The failure was at staging, followed by design issues in the second stage, using an engine that had never ignited in flight before. P&W produced a new engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The second stage is derived from an engine family with history reaching back to the 1960s. Aerojet? Why is there good reason to believe Aerojet knows how hard it will be?
Spacenick - 29/4/2008 1:00 PM One idea would be to buy some aditional Soyuz from the Russians, check them as thoroughly as possible and then keep them ready for launch on a different launcher so they can be launched in time as an unmanned life boat. Because the Soyuz design is already proven, this would mitigate many risks like a launcher stand down or political problems because the Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.
Spacenick - 29/4/2008 2:46 PMwhen launched unmanned that shouldn't pose to big a problem should it?
Jim - 29/4/2008 3:04 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 29/4/2008 1:42 PMQuotehop - 28/4/2008 5:43 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 28/4/2008 12:41 PMIt's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done itBig difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.When was the last time Aerojet produced a new large rocket engine all by themselves? Why should I believe Aerojet and not SpaceX? SpaceX has a history of producing a new rocket engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The failure was at staging, followed by design issues in the second stage, using an engine that had never ignited in flight before. P&W produced a new engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The second stage is derived from an engine family with history reaching back to the 1960s. Aerojet? Why is there good reason to believe Aerojet knows how hard it will be?Because Aerojet has been modifying and test firing these engines for more than 10 years
clongton - 29/4/2008 10:10 PMWhen will the Soyuz ESA pad be ready for operations?
CentEur - 30/4/2008 3:41 AMQuoteclongton - 29/4/2008 10:10 PMWhen will the Soyuz ESA pad be ready for operations?May 2009 according to February's ESA Bulletin.
Spacenick - 30/4/2008 2:47 AMCould Orion be launched on an EELV in unmanned configuartion and then serve as a life boat on ISS or are the Americans still not willing to do automatic docking?
Spacenick - 4/5/2008 5:25 PMI'd say if Orion can't dock unmanned that would be a huge reason for shame, in my opinion autonomous docking is one of the most important features of a modern post shuttle spacecraft low.