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).
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.
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.
That is the issue. Where is the location of the ports to make it "properly design"?
Quote from: Jim on 04/19/2012 08:27 PMThat 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. .
Annual Mars missions aren't even possible.
Quote from: RyanCrierie on 04/20/2012 12:29 AMQuote from: Jim on 04/19/2012 08:27 PMThat 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
<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>
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.
As far as I know Rocketdyne has the engines NASA wants.
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.
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.