Author Topic: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-181  (Read 79036 times)

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #40 on: 11/01/2014 06:53 PM »
I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500.  I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?

The response to Orbital's RFP for future Antares propulsion supposedly had 2 Russian and 1 American responses.

The American response is believed to be a solid motor(s) solution from ATK. Possibly 3.7m composite motors.

Russian responses are likely Kuznetzov proposing new build NK-33 and something from NPO Energomash. RD-181 or RD-193 have both shown up in press stories.

Recently a rumor has surfaced that Orbital is trying to secure RD-180 via ULA/RD-AMROSS. I'm skeptical, but it does solve certain problems: RD-180 has an export license (don't know if it would cover Antares), RD-180 has flight history on an American rocket (which makes NASA happy), and with ULA transitioning Atlas to new Blue Origin engine some partners may be motivated to develop Orbital as a customer.

AJ won't have a new American-built engine ready in time. Orbital needs something in 24 months or less.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #41 on: 11/01/2014 06:58 PM »
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180?  Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #42 on: 11/01/2014 07:03 PM »
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.

No, already covered in several previous threads of speculation on a new engine for Antares.  The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else.  That means a new pad, probably not at MARS.  Not acceptable at this point in the program.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #43 on: 11/01/2014 07:14 PM »
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180?  Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?

Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #44 on: 11/01/2014 07:33 PM »

Here you go, now it makes sense.
They can even use the super enhanced cygnus on a F9 (can they?) for crs1 and do less missions (4 instead of 5) for less $ each (compared to Atlas, I don't know the price of Antares). It's not like spacex won't work with orbital.
Of course that's for the short term only.

No, that makes less sense.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 537
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #45 on: 11/01/2014 07:45 PM »
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)

In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.

I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.

What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?

NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #46 on: 11/01/2014 07:52 PM »

With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner;  ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA.  If the company wishes to add very advanced  manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.

ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0


1) No, the Ukraine does not control the IP of the RD-120K and therefore cannot partner with others.

2) And no, they can not tap into that funding unless it is for the USAF.

1) for sake of discussion let me address this.  This is something I've been saying for a long time and few are understanding it.

1) Control of the IP is an Open question as we have no access to the agreements made after the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Ownership of the RD-120 Serial production says something about ownership under international law.

Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.

==============================
2)  going by prior experience, some newspace believe it's above contracts, and some laws.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34977.0

all things being equal: what's good for one firm should be good for all. 
ATK is a defense contractor they know what to do.


 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #47 on: 11/01/2014 08:01 PM »

I guess Antares isn't really critical to national security and Russia has not interest in stopping the export of its engines so I don't see why Orbital shouldn't buy Russian.

150 family is derated 190 family.  Ones digit are variants for each application or which design improvements have been rolled in.

So if RD-151 is just a thrust-reduced RD-191 (209t to 170t) it might be too heavy...?

I'm just trying to figure out why they need to develop a new version when they have the RD-151 to sell.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 08:05 PM by Oli »

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #48 on: 11/01/2014 08:04 PM »
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180?  Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?

Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.

I learn something new every day here.

I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.

Thanks!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #49 on: 11/01/2014 08:15 PM »

Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.


This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.

US patent laws are not applicable.   
US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.
You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engine
Just because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 08:21 PM by Jim »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4144
  • California
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 2187
New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #50 on: 11/01/2014 08:27 PM »
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180?  Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?

Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.

I learn something new every day here.

I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.

Thanks!

They need to gimbal independently to provide roll control during first stage flight. I believe the thrust vectoring is down by the green actuators in this picture:
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 08:30 PM by Lars-J »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #51 on: 11/01/2014 09:08 PM »
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.

There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #52 on: 11/01/2014 09:47 PM »
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.

There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.

They don't need a tank stretch to take advantage of more thrust... they're sorely needing it already.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4387
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 323
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #53 on: 11/01/2014 10:53 PM »
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.

There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.

A single BE3 would make a good upper stage engine if they ever decided they need a high energy upper stage.

With a BE3  upper stage they probably could get away with relatively low performance engines in the first stage such as four RS-27s.
Actually the RS-27 makes more sense then the RD-120K if you're going to change the number of first stage engines.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 10:55 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #54 on: 11/01/2014 11:25 PM »

Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.


This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.

US patent laws are not applicable.   
US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.
You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engine
Just because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.

Understand your points Jim, and agree with them for the most part.  Only addressed the points listed, its for others like yourself to add the additonal information.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #55 on: 11/02/2014 03:31 AM »
Can someone list the differences between various NPO Energomash engines, especially the RD-180/181/183(?) and RD-191/193? There are so many models out there that it is easy to get confused....  :-X
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #56 on: 11/02/2014 05:44 AM »
See the top picture in this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29810.msg972847#msg972847

Pretty much lays it out from NPO EMs perspective.


Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #57 on: 11/02/2014 06:12 AM »
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?

How much would flying on Atlas cost them?  It may not make economic sense to do so.

Exactly.  Go to Atlas, and lose money each flight on the contract, all so they could avoid issues with Russian engines, which are also present on Atlas?  FF, you need to take your logic back to the garage and tinker on it a bit more.

IF they were planning to try using the RD-180 (and thus needed some negotiating power with ULA), and IF they wanted to hedge their return-to-flight bets, I could see them possibly launching one or two Cygnus on Atlas in the short term.  Or even offering the super-sized Cygnus on an Atlas if there were interest in putting the larger Cygnus in a farther orbit (L1/2 maybe?) than Antares 130 could handle.  That would be a nice business incentive for ULA to be accommodating, and it might provide a nice "assured access" second source LV for Cygnus customers, and it might open up one or two more opportunities for enhanced Cygnus customers.  (Big IF on the last one...lots of people talk, but few write checks from a bank account with that kind of money.)

But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2.  The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.

Atlas is switching to a new engine. They have enough of the existing engines on hand to continue flying for some time should a total embargo occur (which it sort of did and sort of didn't grey area now).

Second of all, CRS 2 is not a given. Also CRS is not driven by the launch vehicle it is driven by carrier component upmass. What Cygnus flies on is irrelevant.

Third of all, what would likely make the "most" technical sense, not necessarily financial, short term anyway, would be to keep the Antares vehicle and switch to a U.S engine, preferably an off the shelf concern rather than a totally new motor, there are a few things that come to mind. However, this would be more expensive than switching to another Russian motor, again in the short term, so its unlikely they do this. I personally think at this point its just plain stupid to continue relying on Russian engines, for one because of relations with Russia, and the long term outlook for said relations, and two because they are not necessarily reliable. In my opinion in any long term planning from both logistics and cost standpoint you would be better off with an in house engine.

But in all likely-hood they will switch to this other motor. And then if there is ever further sanctioning placed on Russian industry or banking concerns they will be stuck with whatever engines they happen to have on hand and thats it. Or, they will have another failure. But in any event, IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
  • Canada
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #58 on: 11/02/2014 09:48 AM »
...
IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
Problem is Orbital have no in-house LRE resources. The list of engines available even including the Russian ones are few, never mind Orbital need the new engines in 24 months or less.

There is only SpaceX & AJR left as large LRE manufactures in the US.  Maybe Blue United will be added in about 5 years.

So Orbital will play one the card from the crappy hand they got deal or folded.


Offline MP99

Re: New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-193
« Reply #59 on: 11/02/2014 05:48 PM »
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)

In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.

I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.

What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?

NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.

Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?

cheers, Martin

Tags: