Author Topic: Dynetics partners with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne for F1 Engine  (Read 83982 times)

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
Speaking purely as someone interested in space hardware, I'd like to see ATK win. I've spent years hearing about/reading about the fabled "filament-wound SRB." I'd love to finally see them in production (and working fine, obviously).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24308
  • Liked: 2459
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Speaking purely as someone interested in space hardware, I'd like to see ATK win. I've spent years hearing about/reading about the fabled "filament-wound SRB." I'd love to finally see them in production (and working fine, obviously).

A large filament-wound SRM has already flown, see Tiatn SRMU.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
  • Liked: 158
93143:    Not quite.   With Constellation, it excluded smaller LVs.   With SLS, one has to include them if you include LEO ISS, but the fixed costs *have* to be there.  IOW, if Constellation included EELV for the crew luancher, the program would not have lifted off the ground.   The problem is that everyone is not playing fair and that the data is not being presented.

You don't seem to have understood me.  The point is, the LEO launchers have (ideally) other customers, that pay a fraction of the fixed costs.  If NASA orders more flights but other customers don't change their activities, the per-launch price will come down a bit, but NASA's share of the fixed cost will increase.

I don't expect this to produce a large change in your graph, but your original assumption is technically incorrect.

On the other hand, if NASA has to launch an SLS to ISS, it only incurs incremental cost, because NASA is already paying the full fixed costs for unrelated reasons.

Also, I don't see what Constellation has to do with any of this...  but if you insist, my understanding is that replacing Ares I with Atlas V Heavy would actually have improved things quite a bit, in terms of fixed costs, Orion capabilities, development cost and schedule...
« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 12:33 AM by 93143 »

Online Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
  • Liked: 249
  • Spokane, WA

Replace the tube wall nozzle with a channel wall.
It's a booster engine weight is not going to be as big an issue as cost.

Though once you get everything done you need done to manufacture it on modern equipment for reduced cost I'm not sure if you could still call it an F-1A.

Such an engine could be useful for Atlas phase II so see if ULA wants in on the deal.

Still it seems making the RS-84 or purchasing the rights to the TR-107 might be a better option.
They're more modern designs so less having to adapt things or resurrect old processes.

AS cool as it would be to see the F-1 come back, Iím surprised thatís what PWR is considering offering.  Iíd think their RS-84 would be a better choice, as you say.  More modern design, and a more useful size really.  I think the SLS LRB is going to be required to be about 3 Mlb.  If F-1A is 1.8-2.0  M lbs each.  One isnít enough, but two is about a million lbs thrust more than SLS is asking for.  That needs to be coupled with a booster core that canít be wider than 5.5m.  So even if your point was these are 3.6-4.0 Mlb boosters, and look at how much more lift SLS would have, you have to feed those engines.  Not sure if that would be difficult with a 5.5m diameter core constraint.

However, 3 X RS-84ís would give you right at 3 Mlbs.  They are similar, but a bit more powerful than the RD-180ís, so ULA could probably switch Atlas 5 over to one of them, or two of them for AVP2, if they even had a need to build that.   If PWR could start building RS-84ís, and share tooling/components/etc with RS-25E, RL-10, and RS-68, they might be able to drive the price of the RS-84 down to where they can replace their RD-180 business with them.
Additionally, The RS-84 would be somewhat similar in general size and weight to RS-68 and RS-25E.  So there would be just some commonality on handling of engines and components, transportation, storage, perhaps some common parts, etc.  The F-1A would be a whole category larger and heavier. 

Seems like an RS-84 would have more advantages to propose than F-1, especially if PWR could possibly build then for roughly the price of an RD-180.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 12
  • SA-506 Launch
That is the issue.   Where is the location of the ports to make it "properly design"?

Apparently on the *original* Titan III SRM designs, they had thrust termination ports on the nosecones of the SRMs, so that the Dynasoar stack could be manrated.

The original design for the Shuttle SRBs had them in the same location (nosecone/top). There was some discusson of the shuttle SRB Thrust termination concepts in a couple of interviews on the JSC Oral History server -- Ken Mattingly 22 April 2002; Robert F Thompson 3 October 2000.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24308
  • Liked: 2459
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
That is the issue.   Where is the location of the ports to make it "properly design"?

Apparently on the *original* Titan III SRM designs, they had thrust termination ports on the nosecones of the SRMs, so that the Dynasoar stack could be manrated. .

Yes, "designs" that didn't make it into production and test

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9516
  • Liked: 793
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
Annual Mars missions aren't even possible.

Sure they are. Just use a cycler.
Chuck

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 9
  • SF Bay Area

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • Liked: 232
That is the issue.   Where is the location of the ports to make it "properly design"?

Apparently on the *original* Titan III SRM designs, they had thrust termination ports on the nosecones of the SRMs, so that the Dynasoar stack could be manrated. .

Yes, "designs" that didn't make it into production and test

I thought Titan III-M's solids had thrust-termination ports too; didn't they get pretty close to flying?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • Liked: 232
<snip>

On the other hand, if NASA has to launch an SLS to ISS, it only incurs incremental cost, because NASA is already paying the full fixed costs for unrelated reasons.

<snip>

On the other hand, if SLSs are being produced at a rate of x per year for BEO exploration, then unexpectedly pulling one off the assembly line for an ISS mission banjaxes the BEO timetable by 1/x years, effectively increasing the cost of the BEO program by, likely, billions of dollars unless x is several.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 03:41 AM by Proponent »

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 9
  • SF Bay Area
Looks like a huge Delta IV Heavy...


"Artist's concept of the Space Launch System with boosters powered by F-1 engines. Credit: Dynetics Inc."

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 12
  • SA-506 Launch
My own personal opinion? It'll come down to F-1A versus ATK's advanced SRB; because let's be honest; Aerojet has never once built a complete NK-33 engine -- all they've done is refurbish old Soviet engines with modern electronics and gimbal systems and change the nameplate to read AJ-26. Now they want to build a massively upscaled version of the NK-33 called the AJ-1000? Doesn't pass my technology readiness level smell test.

F-1A restart already had detailed work done on it in the 1990s for George H.W. Bush's Space Exploration Initative (SEI) regarding a restart.

In the 1990s, Rocketdyne estimated that a F-1A Restart program would cost $315 million in FY92 dollars in non-recurring costs to restart production and re-certify the engine. Recurring costs would have been $1,080 million in FY92 dollars for 72 engines at an average cost of $15m FY92 dollars per engine, with deliveries over a five year period. Deliveries would have commenced four years after authority to proceed, with a peak delivery rate of 16 engines per year.

Link to 1994 F-1A Restart Costing

Basically, they worked out in 1994 what had to be replaced -- such as Beryllium and Cadmium alloys, which were no longer allowable under OSHA regulations along with Abestos, and stuff that just plain got obsolete, like Inconel X-750 and Hastelloy C.

The MK10A turbopump of the F-1A used TENS 50 aluminum in a number of castings. TENS 50 has beryllium at a level over 1994 OSHA standards. It would be replaced with A356 Aluminum or A357 Aluminum which uses beryllium in levels acceptable to OSHA.

This form of conversion was actually done in real life when Rocketdyne restarted Atlas and Delta engine production -- they had to convert the turbopumps/impellers/volutes from TENS 50 to A356/A357.

The abestos thermal insulation blanket used on the Apollo Era F-1s would simply be replaced with the same type of thermal blanket developed for the RS-27 engine restart.

Other changes such as producibility changes would have been implemented -- these were also done during the Atlas/Delta engine restart programs.

One such producibility enhancement would have been the LOX Dome. The original Apollo-Era design had sixty different details such as shell segments, pins, flanges, bosses, spacers, brackets, etc which all had to be individually machined and/or formed; then welded together -- all of which required a lot of joint preparation, fit up work, welding, inspection and rework as necessary.

Under the F-1A restart, the LOX Dome would have been changed to a single piece casting, eliminating all that.

Source for the above:
Advanced Transportation System Studies
Technical Area 3
Alternate Propulsion Subsystem Concepts
NAS8-39210
DCN 1-1-PP-02147
Volume I
Final Report
DR-4
Executive Summary
April 2000
Prepared for
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
The Boeing Company
Rocketdyne
6633 Canoga Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91303
« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 04:45 AM by RyanCrierie »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19702
  • Liked: 1979
  • Minnesota
I disagree, Ryan... If Aerojet is hungry, they have a chance. PWR will have lots of other engines, the RS-25E, the RL-10 (iCPS/CPS), and the J-2X... and that's just on the various versions of SLS. SpaceX was hungry (even if a little wet behind the ears), and they got COTS/CRS. Don't count Aerojet out, yet.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 04:54 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
  • Liked: 68
Don't know anyone else has confirmed this yet, but I have it from PWR that this is all about F-1A, not F-1.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Liked: 97
  • whereabouts unknown
Whether or not the Dynetics/PWR bid is being handicapped well at this time, I'm heartily encouraged to see another bidder taking a swing at the competition. When the SLS program outline was finalized my first reaction was that the deck was stacked so heavily in ATK's favor that nobody serious would even bother making an effort. 2 serious alternatives is a pretty good sign, here's hoping the competition at least goes far enough for some test firings.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 05:30 AM by Halidon »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7085
  • Liked: 6
My own personal opinion? It'll come down to F-1A versus ATK's advanced SRB; because let's be honest; Aerojet has never once built a complete NK-33 engine -- all they've done is refurbish old Soviet engines with modern electronics and gimbal systems and change the nameplate to read AJ-26. Now they want to build a massively upscaled version of the NK-33 called the AJ-1000? Doesn't pass my technology readiness level smell test.
And you assume a lot here, and conveniently forget that Aerojet has produced other engines as well.  While the AJ-26 may be its current main engine, they have produced test examples of an engine in this class before, in the 1970's in fact. Their AJ-1200 engine was proposed for the old Shuttle LRB program, back when it was to replace the Saturn IC underneath the Shuttle tank.

The statement above implies that any proposal from Aerojet hinges on the NK-33 engines, when Aerojet has produced engines for many decades, and even pre-dates PWR in this field.  The LR-87, the LR-91, the AJ-10, they are not an unknown company with a single product to their name. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
  • Liked: 32
  • Australia
From the "step forward or square one" thread

As far as I know Rocketdyne has the engines NASA wants.

Not a bad guess lol.

Those F-1A boosters do sound good.  8)

Good luck to Aerojet though, they're a worthy competitor and shouldn't be taken lightly.

So how much does SLS lift with 5xRS25E and 5.5m core boosters with pair of F1-As each?


Online hkultala

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 7
AS cool as it would be to see the F-1 come back, Iím surprised thatís what PWR is considering offering.  Iíd think their RS-84 would be a better choice, as you say.  More modern design, and a more useful size really.  I think the SLS LRB is going to be required to be about 3 Mlb.  If F-1A is 1.8-2.0  M lbs each.  One isnít enough, but two is about a million lbs thrust more than SLS is asking for.

That extra thust will only help on liftoff and early phase of the flight, gravity losses will be much smaller. Problems come if it cannot be throttled back enough.

And those 2 F-1A's weight less than 3 RS-84's would weight.

RS-84 has definite advantage in isp, but F-1A saves so much on smaller gravity losses, and also saves little on engine weights, so overall performance should be quite close.

And RS-84 being new high-tech engine means it's more expensive to manufacture? (in addition to the cost of finalizing the design)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
  • Liked: 158
On the other hand, if SLSs are being produced at a rate of x per year for BEO exploration, then unexpectedly pulling one off the assembly line for an ISS mission banjaxes the BEO timetable by 1/x years, effectively increasing the cost of the BEO program by, likely, billions of dollars unless x is several.

If SLS is supposed to function as a backup for ISS, there should be a production buffer unless the managers are complete morons.  How many ETs were left over at the end of SSP again?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • Liked: 232
If the production rate is several per year, than having an extra one lying around isn't a big deal.  If it's one every two years, it is.

Tags: