Author Topic: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)  (Read 12684 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6057
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 701
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #80 on: 12/09/2017 04:21 AM »
How much work will this take once it reaches orbit, to make it usable?

Less than you would think.

~Jon

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Liked: 3091
  • Likes Given: 4416
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #81 on: 12/09/2017 12:11 PM »
Does the four engine Ixion Wet Station configuration indicate that Centaur V will have four RL-10s?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3587
  • California
  • Liked: 2834
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #82 on: 12/09/2017 07:10 PM »
Does the four engine Ixion Wet Station configuration indicate that Centaur V will have four RL-10s?

Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • USA
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #83 on: 12/09/2017 11:31 PM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • California
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1879
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #84 on: 12/10/2017 02:03 AM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.
What is the expected price of the new design?  I don't doubt that they can be made cheaper than legacy versions.  But until we have some concrete data that they are actually being sold for significantly cheaper, such comparisons are inevitable.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3587
  • California
  • Liked: 2834
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #85 on: 12/11/2017 01:04 AM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.

Talk is cheap. The historical cost is *absolutely* relevant, far more so that elusive Aerojet promises of cheaper engines.

EDIT: I would be happy to have AJR prove me wrong in this case. But they have long history of chronic overcharging, so I'm skeptical until proven wrong.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 04:56 AM by Lars-J »

Tags: