Author Topic: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?  (Read 110176 times)

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« on: 08/17/2013 06:36 am »
We have heard a little bit re. the test firings of the F-1 powerpack, and earlier this week Dynetics released a press report claiming "outstanding" progress on the F-1B: http://www.dynetics.com/news/347 including the fact that they are currently building propellant tanks at Marshall using friction stir welding.

Not much has been released about Aerojet's AJ-1E6 proposal (unofficially designated by some as AJ-1000). Does anyone have any information at all about the progress of this engine proposal? Obviously its heritage, which includes staged combustion, suggests a higher Isp than F-1B, though NASA could prefer the simplicity of the gas generator.

I do not know if the recent news out of ATK could portend ominously toward the destiny of their advanced solid proposal. Obviously both the casing and propellant differ, however successive de-bonding instances might raise doubts regarding systemic problems.

I also have to wonder whether Rocketdyne and Aerojet both will be allowed entries into the actual advanced booster competition now that AJ owns RD. The limited initial contracts regarding proposals were let when RD was part of PWR. I wonder whether the fact that Dynetics is the lead on the F-1B proposal will allow both to proceed in the actual competition, or whether AJ itself will decide that one engine has such an edge over the other that it decides to enter only one of them.  (Edit: F-1B is so big it likely has no other applications, while AJ-1E6 is sized such that it might actually be usable on an upgraded or Phase II EELV. With that and the higher iSP in mind, it could make sense to enter only that engine. OTOH, F-1B seems to be further along in development and perhaps less expensive and less risky to complete.)

On all these points, opinions are welcome, although facts are even better.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2014 03:26 am by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #1 on: 08/19/2013 05:28 pm »
I've heard nothing recently.  But would very much like to know too.

My -guess- is that since it's likely the AJ-1E6/AJ-1000 is a dual thrust chamber version of the AJ-500, and the AJ-500 is probably still only in development, that the AJ-1E6 is little more than a concept engine. Aerojet need to get 500klbs out of a single thrust chamber of the NK-33/AJ26 first.  I've not heard any thing recently on either of those fronts, but my guess is they are focusing mainly on making sure AJ26 gets some launches under it's belt on Antares before they do too much or talk too much about futer variants. 

They basically have a plan to increase the thrust of AJ26 from 394klbs thrust (vac) to 500klbs thrust (vac) (I'm assuming they are talking the vacuum thrust rather than the seal level thrust), and then a plan to put two thrust chambers together on a single turbopump like the RD-180.
They've probably studied the design of the NK-33 enough to know it was designed with a good margin and could handle an increase in thrust from 394k to 500k lbs with just some minor tweaking. And then two could be put together like the RD family. They feel it's within their capability to do to the basic engine.  But probably haven't done a whole lot towards that end just yet.  And there's no immediate need for it as the only LV to use the enigne has only one test flight under it's belt, and is designed to take two NK-33/AJ26's as they are. Going to two AJ-500's or one AJ-1E6 is probably an option OSC can look at for Antares, but they aren't looking to upgrade their fledgling rocket any time soon.

So, AJ-500 and AJ-1E6 are really probably just, "Yea, we can do that if there's a need...like the advanced booster competition".  But not too much more than that until there is said need for them.

That's just my wild speculation.

Offline MP99

Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #2 on: 08/19/2013 05:46 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

cheers, Martin

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #3 on: 08/19/2013 06:20 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

cheers, Martin
Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.
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 MP99

Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #4 on: 08/19/2013 06:33 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.

But, RD-180 existed when ULA signed up for it.

If AJ26-500 is an "easy" upgrade from the Orbital variant, why then bother to make such a huge upgrade to a dual-thrust-chamber config?

Cheers, Martin

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #5 on: 08/19/2013 07:09 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.

But, RD-180 existed when ULA signed up for it.

If AJ26-500 is an "easy" upgrade from the Orbital variant, why then bother to make such a huge upgrade to a dual-thrust-chamber config?

Cheers, Martin

Here's a possibility.

What will use the AJ-500 by itself?  As a stand alone engine (like the RD-191)?  Nothing that I'm aware of.

What could use two or more AJ-500's?
1) An ugraded Antares
2) An SLS Advanced liquid booster.

However, Antares would use 2 AJ-500's (one is not enough power), and one would use probably eight AJ-500's.
So is there much need for the AJ-500 by itself?  I don't know of any (although there could be and I just haven't heard about it).

But, is there a need for the AJ-1E6?
One of them on an upbraded Antares with a single gimbal, like RD-180 on Atlas.
Four of them on an SLS Advanced boosters, where they may not need to gimbal at all of attidute control is done with the RD-25's on the core.
Or four gimbals for the advanced booster if someone wanted to make a medium lift booster out of it.

Perhaps, Aerojet said, "Hey, this NK-33 has enough margin that we could up it's thrust to 500klbs pretty easily...cool!" Then shortly thereafter, "Hey, the only applications we see for a 500klb version of this is in pairs...why not simplify it by making an RD-180 like dual thrust chamber single engine out of it once we use up our existing stock of NK-33/AJ26 and start making them ourselves?  Two common thrust chambers and nozzles, and we just make a larger common turbopump (Aerojet has to make a new one anyway once their existing Russian hardware runs out). We have a 1000klb dual chamber engine that's lighter and cheaper than two separate 500klb single chamber engines."

Just a thought.  Perhaps it's wrong.  But if they didn't see a specific need for the single chamber 500klb engine, they might have thought to bypass it and go right to the dual chamber 1000klb one.

But I'm sure this is all evaluations going into whatever new production facility Aerojet will set up to make new ones when the Russian stock is out, and they are deciding if they want to make a single chamber AJ-500 or a dual chamber AJ-1000.

I don't know, but is a single larger turbopump cheaper to build that two smaller ones?  I'm guessing the cost of making a turbopump isn't much different between the two, so if you only need to make half as many, that could be a cost savings.  But that guess could be wrong.  :-)
Maybe there's just other advantages in going with the two chamber single engine rather than two separate engines.


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #6 on: 08/19/2013 10:58 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.

But, RD-180 existed when ULA signed up for it.

If AJ26-500 is an "easy" upgrade from the Orbital variant, why then bother to make such a huge upgrade to a dual-thrust-chamber config?

Cheers, Martin
Yeah, but LM asked for the RD-180, doing half an RD-170, not one forth. The advantage is one of reliability, specially on th TP side. If you look at reliability numbers the difference between a small and a big turbopump is about the same. Thus, you almost halve your tp and start up failure modes (given that TP and turbo system start up are the main failure risk). Given that two engines have (basically) no engine out, you get better reliability overall.
Also, turbo machinery likes to be big. The NK-33 thrust chamber can do 135% easily. So, it's not strange that if they intended to redo the TP they would rather only do the big one. Let's look at the potential clients:
1) The original AJ-500 project was done to compete on the Air Force RLV project. Since it's cancelled, the original client is not there.
2) Antares. Could use the dual AJ-500, but an AJ-1E6 is probably preferred.
3) Atlas V. An AJ-1E6 is the only reasonable replacement for the RD-180.
4) SLS Advanced Booster. Look at the trades NASA did on ESAS and on replacing the SSRB with new solids vs one or two RD-170 per booster. The dual RD-170 gave a far better performance, but the risk was "unacceptable". Given the weight on risk than NASA has, the difference between three 1E6 and six 500 might be the deciding factor on the risk issue of their bid.
Thus, given that as far as we know it, both are still paper rocket, I wouldn's be surprised at ll that the AJ-500 is cancelled and they only advance on the AJ-1E6.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #7 on: 08/20/2013 12:04 am »
Given the weight on risk than NASA has, the difference between three 1E6 and six 500 might be the deciding factor on the risk issue of their bid.

I thought that AJ's proposal was to use 4 AJ-1E6 on each booster, which would be more thrust than Dynetics' Pyrios with 2 x F-1B. It would take 8 of the 500s to match 4 AJ-1E6, but 7 of them would be just shy of 2 F-1Bs. How many AJ-500s could fit on a 5.5m dia. base anyway: 6, 7, 8? Seems to be stretching things.

AJ could well have plenty of time, but unless AJ is keeping their work quiet and under wraps, Dynetics surely seems to be taking a lot more initiative.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #8 on: 08/20/2013 05:18 am »
I thought that AJ's proposal was to use 4 AJ-1E6 on each booster, which would be more thrust than Dynetics' Pyrios with 2 x F-1B. It would take 8 of the 500s to match 4 AJ-1E6, but 7 of them would be just shy of 2 F-1Bs. How many AJ-500s could fit on a 5.5m dia. base anyway: 6, 7, 8? Seems to be stretching things.

I know a company which seems to have no probs launching a LV with 9 rocket engines on a 3.66 meter wide first stage. (ducks and runs)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #9 on: 08/20/2013 01:15 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.

But, RD-180 existed when ULA signed up for it.

If AJ26-500 is an "easy" upgrade from the Orbital variant, why then bother to make such a huge upgrade to a dual-thrust-chamber config?

Cheers, Martin

may not be that huge an upgrade.   Take a look see at the early Titan engine, then look a the AJ26.    You can almost see Aerojet thinking using two thrust chambers off one shaft. 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #10 on: 08/20/2013 01:18 pm »
So what would be the benefit of twin-thrust-chamber AJ-1E6 over just fitting 2x AJ26-500?

A little simpler? But at the expense of higher capacity components up-stream of thrust chambers.

T/W? But that's almost irrelevant for a booster.

Ask ULA, which are using the twin-chamber RD-180 instead of twin RD-150's or 190's.

But, RD-180 existed when ULA signed up for it.

If AJ26-500 is an "easy" upgrade from the Orbital variant, why then bother to make such a huge upgrade to a dual-thrust-chamber config?

Cheers, Martin

Also, turbo machinery likes to be big. The NK-33 thrust chamber can do 135% easily. So, it's not strange that if they intended to redo the TP they would rather only do the big one. Let's look at the potential clients:
1) The original AJ-500 project was done to compete on the Air Force RLV project. Since it's cancelled, the original client is not there.


What RLV project was this, and do you have a link to a pdf?
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #11 on: 08/20/2013 05:15 pm »

I know a company which seems to have no probs launching a LV with 9 rocket engines on a 3.66 meter wide first stage. (ducks and runs)

Irrelevant really. Merlins are small enough physically and low enough thrust to cluster like that. They would be useless on a LRB.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2013 05:15 pm by newpylong »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #12 on: 08/20/2013 05:36 pm »
What RLV project was this, and do you have a link to a pdf?
The title of the RFI was "Reusable Booster System High Thrust Main Engine".

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: AJ-1-E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #13 on: 08/20/2013 05:55 pm »

I know a company which seems to have no probs launching a LV with 9 rocket engines on a 3.66 meter wide first stage. (ducks and runs)

Irrelevant really. Merlins are small enough physically and low enough thrust to cluster like that. They would be useless on a LRB.

Who said to put Merlins on LRBs?
I said if Merlins can be clustered x9, then AJ-500s can be clustered x9 too (on a wider stage, of course).

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #14 on: 08/20/2013 06:35 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2013 06:35 pm by newpylong »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #15 on: 08/20/2013 07:11 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.

I don't see significant heat issues for regen cooled chambers and nozzles. It's not RS-68 :)

F9 is 3.66 meter diameter.
Merlin's nozzle is 1.676 m diameter.
NK-33's nozzle is 2 m diameter (1.193 times wider than Merlin).

If NK-33s are to be mounted exactly the same way as Merlins on F9 but with all dimensions scaled by 1.2, the stage needs to be about 4.4 meters in diameter for them to fit under it.

Why do you think 5.5 m stage wouldn't be enough?
« Last Edit: 08/20/2013 07:15 pm by gospacex »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #16 on: 08/20/2013 07:15 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.

F9 is 3.66 meter diameter.
Merlin's nozzle is 1.676 m diameter.
NK-33's nozzle is 2 m diameter (1.193 times wider than Merlin).

If NK-33s are to be mounted exactly the same way as Merlins on F9 but with all dimensions scaled by 1.2, the stage needs to be about 4.4 meters in diameter for them to fit under it.

Why do you think 5.5 m stage wouldn't be enough?

The Merlin nozzle diameter figure of 1.676m has to wrong. There would be no way of fitting 9 of them in a 3.66 diameter cylinder. The M1D nozzle diameter appears to be ~1.1m. (my estimate based on F9v1.1 photos)
« Last Edit: 08/20/2013 07:27 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #17 on: 08/20/2013 07:36 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.

I don't see significant heat issues for regen cooled chambers and nozzles. It's not RS-68 :)

F9 is 3.66 meter diameter.
Merlin's nozzle is 1.676 m diameter.
NK-33's nozzle is 2 m diameter (1.193 times wider than Merlin).

If NK-33s are to be mounted exactly the same way as Merlins on F9 but with all dimensions scaled by 1.2, the stage needs to be about 4.4 meters in diameter for them to fit under it.

Why do you think 5.5 m stage wouldn't be enough?

If Aerojet proposes a 5.5m wide LRB for SLS that uses four AJ-1E6's, then that's 8 nozzles in 4 pairs.  Dunno if 9 would fit, but 8 will have to fit unless Aerojet goes with only 3 engines for 6 nozzles.

But it doesn't have to necessarily fit under the core.  The 5 F-1's didn't fit under the S-1C, which is why it had the nacels over the outter four engines (not sure if nacel is the right word, maybe "shroud")
The Dynetics booster will have that too as the two F-1B's won't fit under the 5.5m core either.  They will protrude out from the core on each side.

So if Aerojet needs to put four dual chamber AJ-1E6's at the four corners of the core with each protruding out somewhat, I'm sure they can.  As long as where it protrudes doesn't interfere with the SLS core.  THe Dynetics booster engines are at 90 degrees to the core interfaces.  With four engines, you migth have to basically make two pairs of them in a similar arrangement so they don't protrude in towards the core.  Then again it might not be a problem at the four corners.  Depends on how far they might protrude.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #18 on: 08/20/2013 07:47 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.

I don't see significant heat issues for regen cooled chambers and nozzles. It's not RS-68 :)

F9 is 3.66 meter diameter.
Merlin's nozzle is 1.676 m diameter.
NK-33's nozzle is 2 m diameter (1.193 times wider than Merlin).

If NK-33s are to be mounted exactly the same way as Merlins on F9 but with all dimensions scaled by 1.2, the stage needs to be about 4.4 meters in diameter for them to fit under it.

Why do you think 5.5 m stage wouldn't be enough?

If the Merlin 1D's nozzles were 1.6 m diameter they would not come close to fitting underneath the F9 core. They are much closer to 1 m in size, about waist height on a person in pictures, and they fit under the core.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2013 07:56 pm by newpylong »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #19 on: 08/21/2013 12:51 am »
Let me remind you that two F-1B would mean about 16MN and 270s/310s or so of isp. Three AJ-1e6 would be 13.35MN but with 297s/331s. It works better at three. When NASA did a trade between 1 x F1A, 2xF1A, 1xRD-170 and 2xRD-170 boosters to replace the SSRB, the RD-170 gave something like 15% extra performance to the F-1A. So, 20% extra thrust but 10% less isp means about equal performance (or better for highly elliptic).

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #20 on: 08/21/2013 01:46 pm »
I don't think you're getting it. Just because 9 150K lb, extremely light, and very small engines can fit close together - does not mean that a similar amount of 300-500K lb thrust engines can be clustered like that. There are weight issues, heat issues, among others. 5.5 M is not enough.

I don't see significant heat issues for regen cooled chambers and nozzles. It's not RS-68 :)

F9 is 3.66 meter diameter.
Merlin's nozzle is 1.676 m diameter.
NK-33's nozzle is 2 m diameter (1.193 times wider than Merlin).

If NK-33s are to be mounted exactly the same way as Merlins on F9 but with all dimensions scaled by 1.2, the stage needs to be about 4.4 meters in diameter for them to fit under it.

Why do you think 5.5 m stage wouldn't be enough?

If Aerojet proposes a 5.5m wide LRB for SLS that uses four AJ-1E6's, then that's 8 nozzles in 4 pairs.  Dunno if 9 would fit, but 8 will have to fit unless Aerojet goes with only 3 engines for 6 nozzles.


All very exciting.....but 3.5 AJ-1E6's might turn out a better design.   With one Center Nozzle (open to design changes)
« Last Edit: 08/21/2013 04:54 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #21 on: 08/21/2013 04:01 pm »

All very exciting.....but 5 nozzles might turn out a better design.

Assuming you mean five AJ-500's, that would only be 2500klbs of thrust, a full 1000klbs less than the 5-seg booster and Dynetics booster.  There's an older spec sheet for SLS Block II with advanced liquid booster calling out three 1 Mlb " ORSC NHE"'s which I took to mean "Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion New Hydrocarbon Engines".  So not sure if less thrust than that would work.  So give AJ-500's might not be enough thrust.  Even with the greater ISP, it still has to get off the pad with the NASA required minimum T/W ratio.
That Block II also had the extra thrust of a 5th RS-25, so the booster might even need to be a little more thrust if SLS sticks with just four on the core in a Block 2B path.

But that could be outdated information too, so not for sure...

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #22 on: 08/21/2013 04:51 pm »

All very exciting.....but 5 nozzles might turn out a better design.

Assuming you mean five AJ-500's, that would only be 2500klbs of thrust, a full 1000klbs less than the 5-seg booster and Dynetics booster.  There's an older spec sheet for SLS Block II with advanced liquid booster calling out three 1 Mlb " ORSC NHE"'s which I took to mean "Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion New Hydrocarbon Engines".  So not sure if less thrust than that would work.  So give AJ-500's might not be enough thrust.  Even with the greater ISP, it still has to get off the pad with the NASA required minimum T/W ratio.
That Block II also had the extra thrust of a 5th RS-25, so the booster might even need to be a little more thrust if SLS sticks with just four on the core in a Block 2B path.

But that could be outdated information too, so not for sure...

I corrected my early post ....
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23398
  • Liked: 1887
  • Likes Given: 1070
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #23 on: 09/02/2013 07:00 pm »
« Last Edit: 09/02/2013 07:03 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #24 on: 09/02/2013 11:50 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #25 on: 09/03/2013 02:06 am »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #26 on: 09/03/2013 06:30 am »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Even with 600lbf less thrust than an F-1B LRB-powered SLS, the Isp jump is big enough the AJ-1-E6 LRBs ought to crush them in performance.  I would bet, judging from the jump in SL Isp, that the performance jump might be 10% or more over their LRB competitor, depending on how big they make the LRBs.  Alternatively they could make the LRBs shorter, but that seems like a waste.  If you're going to offer the most complicated option and most advanced engine, I think it would pay to maximize performance to give yourself more of an edge. 

Offline MP99

Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #27 on: 09/03/2013 07:12 am »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?

They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

2x "big, dumb, lower pressure" F1s vs 3x high-pressure "first time the US has done ORSC" engines. And 6x thrust chambers.

I could see NASA coming back with "yeah, but do we want to use that on a launcher with astronauts?" NASA's LOM calculations (EG see full version of the ESAS appendixes) ratchet up pretty mercilessly as you add more engines, and those engines have worse failure modes.

I wonder how 2x 1E6 would perform, just to try to keep the complexity down?

cheers, Martin

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #28 on: 09/03/2013 03:43 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?

They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

2x "big, dumb, lower pressure" F1s vs 3x high-pressure "first time the US has done ORSC" engines. And 6x thrust chambers.

I could see NASA coming back with "yeah, but do we want to use that on a launcher with astronauts?" NASA's LOM calculations (EG see full version of the ESAS appendixes) ratchet up pretty mercilessly as you add more engines, and those engines have worse failure modes.

I wonder how 2x 1E6 would perform, just to try to keep the complexity down?

cheers, Martin
I've seen those appendixes and I thought those were part of the thumbs in the scale of Griffin. If they keep applying those numbers, AJ should not even bother to present their bid. Which I find quite ridiculous since even a catastrophic TP failure (think of a Zenith-2 Tselina-2 #8 type of failure), wouldn't really be that different from other failure modes on the SLS stack. LOM and almost nil chances of LOC.
Which is funny because when you let the commercial side chose a vehicle multiple chambered high pressure cycle or huge amount of engines doesn't seem to be a problem, apparently. In fact, the only GG cycle on the US fleet is not even considered.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #29 on: 09/03/2013 04:01 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?

They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

2x "big, dumb, lower pressure" F1s vs 3x high-pressure "first time the US has done ORSC" engines. And 6x thrust chambers.

I could see NASA coming back with "yeah, but do we want to use that on a launcher with astronauts?" NASA's LOM calculations (EG see full version of the ESAS appendixes) ratchet up pretty mercilessly as you add more engines, and those engines have worse failure modes.

I wonder how 2x 1E6 would perform, just to try to keep the complexity down?

cheers, Martin
I've seen those appendixes and I thought those were part of the thumbs in the scale of Griffin. If they keep applying those numbers, AJ should not even bother to present their bid. Which I find quite ridiculous since even a catastrophic TP failure (think of a Zenith-2 Tselina-2 #8 type of failure), wouldn't really be that different from other failure modes on the SLS stack. LOM and almost nil chances of LOC.
Which is funny because when you let the commercial side chose a vehicle multiple chambered high pressure cycle or huge amount of engines doesn't seem to be a problem, apparently. In fact, the only GG cycle on the US fleet is not even considered.

Yea, I think NASA is moving away from some of the pre conceptions they had in the ESAS study.  Maybe not them all, but they killed all of the possibilities of putting astronauts on a D4H or A5H for various dubious reasons, but seem ok to be launching those same astronauts on Atlas now in either Dreamchaser or CST-100.

Number of engines I don't think really impact LOM all that much if there's no finger on the scale, especially if there's engine out capability. 
NASA seems to be making decisions with SLS that look to have an eye on economics, and not just being the most expensive and compliated hardware humanly possibly, which has been their hallmark for 50 years. 

I mean, I don't know that they want 80 little engines or anything.  BUt if the core has 4 engines, and the booster have 2 or 3 or 4 engines each, I don't think that's enough engines to cause anyone any -real- issue, unless there's a finger on the scale again.
But if that finger was already on the scale, they probably would have already found a way to eliminate LRB's from the advanced booster competition and pretty much just gift wrapped it for ATK, unless Aerojet could propose an alternative large solid booster.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #30 on: 09/03/2013 06:07 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Even with 600lbf less thrust than an F-1B LRB-powered SLS, the Isp jump is big enough the AJ-1-E6 LRBs ought to crush them in performance.  I would bet, judging from the jump in SL Isp, that the performance jump might be 10% or more over their LRB competitor, depending on how big they make the LRBs.  Alternatively they could make the LRBs shorter, but that seems like a waste.  If you're going to offer the most complicated option and most advanced engine, I think it would pay to maximize performance to give yourself more of an edge. 

Well, if it has three engines, if there -was- a stand alone LV version of it (not saying there's a financial case for that), and if the AJ-1E6 could throttle down as low as the RD-180 (down to about 30% of maximum thrust...not sure if it can, but they are of fairly similar design, so maybe they can), then although they have limited fuel because they are an SLS booster and don't need a very long burn time, they could be throttled down shortly after lift off, and continue to be throttled down during ascent as applicable (to not pull too many g's, otherwise an overpowered booster like this would accelerate like crazy when not hauling up SLS's bulk).  Which could mean those 3 AJ-1E6's could burn for quite a bit longer, and maybe get enough first stage performance to not need too big of an upper stage.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #31 on: 09/03/2013 06:13 pm »
How much will the better impulse over the steel casing 5 segs effect performance? The 5 casings are 3.6 millions lbs/thrust - more than any advanced booster proposals I have seen.


So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Even with 600lbf less thrust than an F-1B LRB-powered SLS, the Isp jump is big enough the AJ-1-E6 LRBs ought to crush them in performance.  I would bet, judging from the jump in SL Isp, that the performance jump might be 10% or more over their LRB competitor, depending on how big they make the LRBs.  Alternatively they could make the LRBs shorter, but that seems like a waste.  If you're going to offer the most complicated option and most advanced engine, I think it would pay to maximize performance to give yourself more of an edge. 

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #32 on: 09/03/2013 07:05 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Even with 600lbf less thrust than an F-1B LRB-powered SLS, the Isp jump is big enough the AJ-1-E6 LRBs ought to crush them in performance.  I would bet, judging from the jump in SL Isp, that the performance jump might be 10% or more over their LRB competitor, depending on how big they make the LRBs.  Alternatively they could make the LRBs shorter, but that seems like a waste.  If you're going to offer the most complicated option and most advanced engine, I think it would pay to maximize performance to give yourself more of an edge. 

Well, if it has three engines, if there -was- a stand alone LV version of it (not saying there's a financial case for that), and if the AJ-1E6 could throttle down as low as the RD-180 (down to about 30% of maximum thrust...not sure if it can, but they are of fairly similar design, so maybe they can), then although they have limited fuel because they are an SLS booster and don't need a very long burn time, they could be throttled down shortly after lift off, and continue to be throttled down during ascent as applicable (to not pull too many g's, otherwise an overpowered booster like this would accelerate like crazy when not hauling up SLS's bulk).  Which could mean those 3 AJ-1E6's could burn for quite a bit longer, and maybe get enough first stage performance to not need too big of an upper stage.

I don't think we need to turn the SLS boosters into yet another LV. I think it would be enough to use the same engines as 2 other existing LVs (Atlas / Antares). Why split an already small volume of launches even further ?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #33 on: 09/03/2013 07:21 pm »
How much will the better impulse over the steel casing 5 segs effect performance? The 5 casings are 3.6 millions lbs/thrust - more than any advanced booster proposals I have seen.
Thrust has very little bearing with performance. Specially when comparing solids vs liquids. First, you car about the whole stack T/W. And the compounded isp and propellant mass fraction.
But just look at the proposals and the advanced solids proposal with 3.6Mlbf and composite casing and improved formula (excellent pmf and improved isp). And yet they can't quite reach 130tonnes without a 5th RS-25. Yet, the F-1B boosters have an expected performance of 150tonnes with 4 RS-25. And my guess is that AeroJet proposal will have even better performance.
And the AJ-1E6 would solve the NK-33 stock problems and improve performance quite a bit on Antares. And could be a replacement on Atlas V if RD-180 was a problem. But considering that they've just extended the contract to 130 engines, unless the Russian bureaucrats do something really stupid, one SLS and Antares are real prospects.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #34 on: 09/03/2013 08:01 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?
They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

Even with 600lbf less thrust than an F-1B LRB-powered SLS, the Isp jump is big enough the AJ-1-E6 LRBs ought to crush them in performance.  I would bet, judging from the jump in SL Isp, that the performance jump might be 10% or more over their LRB competitor, depending on how big they make the LRBs.  Alternatively they could make the LRBs shorter, but that seems like a waste.  If you're going to offer the most complicated option and most advanced engine, I think it would pay to maximize performance to give yourself more of an edge. 

Well, if it has three engines, if there -was- a stand alone LV version of it (not saying there's a financial case for that), and if the AJ-1E6 could throttle down as low as the RD-180 (down to about 30% of maximum thrust...not sure if it can, but they are of fairly similar design, so maybe they can), then although they have limited fuel because they are an SLS booster and don't need a very long burn time, they could be throttled down shortly after lift off, and continue to be throttled down during ascent as applicable (to not pull too many g's, otherwise an overpowered booster like this would accelerate like crazy when not hauling up SLS's bulk).  Which could mean those 3 AJ-1E6's could burn for quite a bit longer, and maybe get enough first stage performance to not need too big of an upper stage.

I don't think we need to turn the SLS boosters into yet another LV. I think it would be enough to use the same engines as 2 other existing LVs (Atlas / Antares). Why split an already small volume of launches even further ?


Agreed.  Which is why I said, "not saying there's a financial case for that", and have made that point on maybe threads talking about SLS LRB's being stand alone LV's.

And as much as I'd like to see the F-1's fly (I was only a year and a half old the last time they launched, on Skylab), I could see a stronger case made for the AJ-1E6 assuming Antares was upgraded to use it rather than two AJ-26's (I'll assume that's a likely upgrade), and particularly if Atlas were to go to it at some point...although it'd either need to be very cheap, or USAF would need to "recommend" it to ULA, otherwise I don't know what incentive ULA would have to switch Atlas to it.

However, I could even see a stronger case for a hydrolox booster powered by RS-68A...hypothetically. 
If SpaceX is able to start getting a piece of the government launch pie after 2015, then they may not need to pay ULA to maintain two EELV's.  Since Delta IV is the LV which already has the 3-core heavy flying on both coasts, there's an argument that Atlas could be retired in favor of keeping Delta.  SLS using a DCSS derived DUUS could lean in that direction too. 
So, ULA standardizes on just Delta IV with a 5m DCSS, perhaps upgrade to MB-60 on it.  DUUS is DCSS derived with MB-60.  SLS LRB's use boosters powered by 4-5 RS-68A's (2.86-3.6Mlbs at sea level respectively).  Even with 5 RS-68's, that's one less nozzle than three AJ-1E6's.
They seemed to think it was a feasible option in 2001 for an STS booster upgrade, and only 5.5m wide core.  The MPS would probably have to be fatter though, but it can be because it won't need to fit through the VAB doors on the bottom.

More Delta IV launches per year, and 10 more RS-68A's flying on every SLS launch would get that engine rate up, and as I understand, RS-68A is supposed to be pretty cheap at high volumes.
And the US LV fleet is tightened up with hopefully some better economics of scale.





Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #35 on: 09/03/2013 08:38 pm »
That is what I thought. thank you,

How much will the better impulse over the steel casing 5 segs effect performance? The 5 casings are 3.6 millions lbs/thrust - more than any advanced booster proposals I have seen.
Thrust has very little bearing with performance. Specially when comparing solids vs liquids. First, you car about the whole stack T/W. And the compounded isp and propellant mass fraction.
But just look at the proposals and the advanced solids proposal with 3.6Mlbf and composite casing and improved formula (excellent pmf and improved isp). And yet they can't quite reach 130tonnes without a 5th RS-25. Yet, the F-1B boosters have an expected performance of 150tonnes with 4 RS-25. And my guess is that AeroJet proposal will have even better performance.
And the AJ-1E6 would solve the NK-33 stock problems and improve performance quite a bit on Antares. And could be a replacement on Atlas V if RD-180 was a problem. But considering that they've just extended the contract to 130 engines, unless the Russian bureaucrats do something really stupid, one SLS and Antares are real prospects.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 08:38 pm by newpylong »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #36 on: 09/03/2013 08:55 pm »
However, I could even see a stronger case for a hydrolox booster powered by RS-68A...hypothetically. 
If SpaceX is able to start getting a piece of the government launch pie after 2015, then they may not need to pay ULA to maintain two EELV's.  Since Delta IV is the LV which already has the 3-core heavy flying on both coasts, there's an argument that Atlas could be retired in favor of keeping Delta.  SLS using a DCSS derived DUUS could lean in that direction too. 
So, ULA standardizes on just Delta IV with a 5m DCSS, perhaps upgrade to MB-60 on it.  DUUS is DCSS derived with MB-60.  SLS LRB's use boosters powered by 4-5 RS-68A's (2.86-3.6Mlbs at sea level respectively).  Even with 5 RS-68's, that's one less nozzle than three AJ-1E6's.
They seemed to think it was a feasible option in 2001 for an STS booster upgrade, and only 5.5m wide core.  The MPS would probably have to be fatter though, but it can be because it won't need to fit through the VAB doors on the bottom.
More Delta IV launches per year, and 10 more RS-68A's flying on every SLS launch would get that engine rate up, and as I understand, RS-68A is supposed to be pretty cheap at high volumes.
And the US LV fleet is tightened up with hopefully some better economics of scale.
H2 is a horrendous fuel for a LEO booster. The tanks and the engines T/W is horrible. Look at the Delta IV LEO numbers. Specially the Medium. And the RS-68A is heavy even for an hydrogen engine. Plus, the ablative nozzle has very limited lifespan. But the main issue is that the boosters are volume limited. They can't be bigger than 5.5m, due to VAB size. So, you couldn't really put a booster much bigger than a Delta IV. You could put about 80% more propellant than a Delta IV core stage. And let's say that you add four engines (you can't fit more), that's 3Mlbf per booster. But you'd only have fuel for around 115s (back of the envelop calculation), that's even less than the SRB! I don't think you'd get much performance.
Now, if they had gone with an AJAX-like rocket, of course that the RS-68A boosters of the Heavy could have done wonders. With six cores I guess they'd had amazing performance. But that path was (regrettably) nor chosen.

Offline MP99

Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #37 on: 09/03/2013 09:01 pm »
So is that 3 engines per booster, and they have 1 or 2 chambers per engine?

They say 2 x 550klbf chambers per engine. That's 3.3Mlbf per booster, with at least 297s of SL isp and 331s isp. That must give some amazing numbers.

2x "big, dumb, lower pressure" F1s vs 3x high-pressure "first time the US has done ORSC" engines. And 6x thrust chambers.

I could see NASA coming back with "yeah, but do we want to use that on a launcher with astronauts?" NASA's LOM calculations (EG see full version of the ESAS appendixes) ratchet up pretty mercilessly as you add more engines, and those engines have worse failure modes.

I wonder how 2x 1E6 would perform, just to try to keep the complexity down?

cheers, Martin
I've seen those appendixes and I thought those were part of the thumbs in the scale of Griffin. If they keep applying those numbers, AJ should not even bother to present their bid. Which I find quite ridiculous since even a catastrophic TP failure (think of a Zenith-2 Tselina-2 #8 type of failure), wouldn't really be that different from other failure modes on the SLS stack. LOM and almost nil chances of LOC.
Which is funny because when you let the commercial side chose a vehicle multiple chambered high pressure cycle or huge amount of engines doesn't seem to be a problem, apparently. In fact, the only GG cycle on the US fleet is not even considered.

One thing I would say is that the calculations appeared to be consistent with the pLOM/pLOC calculations they were quoting for Shuttle.

Cheers, Martin

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #38 on: 09/03/2013 10:10 pm »
Of course they would. They were derived the same way.
Yet, by those calculations, the Shuttle should have lost crew due to catastrophic turbopump failure. Only issue with engines was actually an instrumentation failure, and the solids, supposedly the safest item, actually killed one crew. Second crew was sort of a whole system problem.
But it was true that the only LOC due to LV in the whole history of space travel were on shuttle. And the 78% of dead astronauts while on mission, non the less. Soyuz ended up being much safer. I'm not discussing that.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #39 on: 09/03/2013 10:12 pm »
H2 is a horrendous fuel for a LEO booster. The tanks and the engines T/W is horrible. Look at the Delta IV LEO numbers. Specially the Medium. And the RS-68A is heavy even for an hydrogen engine. Plus, the ablative nozzle has very limited lifespan. But the main issue is that the boosters are volume limited. They can't be bigger than 5.5m, due to VAB size. So, you couldn't really put a booster much bigger than a Delta IV. You could put about 80% more propellant than a Delta IV core stage. And let's say that you add four engines (you can't fit more), that's 3Mlbf per booster. But you'd only have fuel for around 115s (back of the envelop calculation), that's even less than the SRB! I don't think you'd get much performance.


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32705.msg1091427#msg1091427

See my post here, which references a 2001 study into LRB upgrade options for STS.  The -only- drawback they had with a five RS-68 powered LRB, which was only 5.5m wider, was the length would be taller than the ET.  But I believe the height they cite for the booster is actually less than the max booster height NASA is saying now for SLS.  So the one issue with it for STS was removed for SLS. 
However, the 5XRS-68 MPS on it flairs out form the 5.5m core.  not a problem for the STS ET because there's nothing there, but that could be an issue with the SLS MPS sitting right next to it.  However, if these are just to be booster only, and not stand alone LV's, then the engines could flair out out away from the core and not be quote centerline.  As long as the other booster was the same, it should be fine.  There may be other ways to address that too.

I think "horrible" is not a great statement for a hydrolox booster.  Delta IV does work pretty well.  The performance for the single stick Delta IV medium without SRB's to GTO is pretty close to the Atlas V-401 without SRB's, as well as Falcon 9v1.1.  All are right around 4.5mt to GTO, give or take a few hundred kg's. 
To LEO there's a little more difference, but even then note, the Delta IV medium without SRB's is about 4mt less to LEO than F9v1.1 (70% LEO capability), despite having less than 60% of the thrust at sea level. 

I wouldn't recommend building a brand new hydrolox booster engine, just there's one that already exists that -could- be fairly inexpensive if it was made in enough quanity.  And SLS will already be sharing Delta IV systems.
And NASA is already considering the engine along with the others...that's them, not me.

As far as the booster burn time, I think it would be wider, but also taller than the Delta IV core.  But the main difference is the Delta IV core feeds a single RS-68A at full throttle (on a medium) for about 250s.  Boosters only need to burn for 120-150s.  I think 150 is what Dynetics is planning on and 120 is about what the SRB burn for.  And what might be a factor is if a booster had 4 or 5 RS-68's, they'd all be full throttle at lift off, but SLS will only need that max thrust to get off the ground.  In short order, it can start to throttle down engines, and/or shut some off.  So a booster for 4-5 RS-68's doesn't need to be 4-5 times the size of the Delta IV core.  The engines don't need to be burning at full throttle the whole time.  And you get a very large ISP boost over even staged combustion hydrolox.  I think that's where the difference gets made up. 

But, I'm no expert.  Just saying NASA looked at the idea in 2001 and didn't see any issues with it, and they seem to be considering it again for SLS advanced boosters.  Although, they may only be considering it because it's a US made engine in production.
But then, that's -main- reason to consider it, I think, is it's an existing production engine, and cost shared with USAF.  Something that's not the case with F-1B or AJ-1E6.  Not because hydrolox is the best booster fuel.


Now, if they had gone with an AJAX-like rocket, of course that the RS-68A boosters of the Heavy could have done wonders. With six cores I guess they'd had amazing performance. But that path was (regrettably) nor chosen.

We are in agreement here.  :-)




Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #40 on: 09/03/2013 10:14 pm »
....the main issue is that the boosters are volume limited. They can't be bigger than 5.5m, due to VAB size. So, you couldn't really put a booster much bigger than a Delta IV. You could put about 80% more propellant than a Delta IV core stage. And let's say that you add four engines (you can't fit more), that's 3Mlbf per booster. But you'd only have fuel for around 115s (back of the envelop calculation), that's even less than the SRB!...

Lobo, I told you this same thing earlier in the thread. HydroLox boosters on this beast would simply be too big. LH2 is low density and requires so much volume that the boosters would be so big the thing could not fit through the doors. It wouldn't even come close.

Edit: I see you addressed this and posted 2 minutes before I did. I don't see all that raising the booster height and flaring out as viable design. I think they want the booster to attach to the core at the top of the booster.

BTW: the thread topic regards known progress on AJ-1E6. We are getting away from that.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 10:26 pm by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #41 on: 09/03/2013 11:33 pm »

Edit: I see you addressed this and posted 2 minutes before I did. I don't see all that raising the booster height and flaring out as viable design. I think they want the booster to attach to the core at the top of the booster.


Not saying it's the best way, just that it was feasible, unlike your post that it would be too wide. 
But remember the the booster height was an issue only in the 2001 study because this would be an STS booster replacement, and they didn't want the boosters as tall or taller than the ET.  I believe the booster height requirement for SLS Advanced boosters is actually more than these would have been.  So not an issue for SLS.
THe MPS can flair out, as the VAB doors are wide on the bottom.  That's how the STS wings got out.  Just can't be more than 5.5m higher up. 
Such a booster would just have to be designed such that the MPS and engines don't interfere with the SLS core MPS.  But that's the same for any new booster.  Dynetics gets around this by flaring out the two F-1B nozzles the other direction.  4 or 5 RS-68A nozzles might or might not be a problem to accomodate.  A Rocket scientist will have to answer that.  My guess would be that 4 RS-68's could be accomodated in by putting two pairs on each side of the core, basically where the F-1B's are on the Dynetics booster, but two RS-68's there instead of one F-1B.  Not sure if the two pairs could be moved far enough out to accomodate a 5th RS-68 right in the middle or not.  But maybe.  It'd look like the 5-engine pattern on the S-1C, but with the four outter engines squeezed together on opposite sides so they don't protrude too close to the SLS core.
Again, that's for a rocket engineer, not for me.  :-)


BTW: the thread topic regards known progress on AJ-1E6. We are getting away from that.

Good point.
Although, I think the point of the thread is the AJ-1E6 for use on the SLS boosters, which sort of by default creates discussions about the SLS booster options, in comparison and contrast.

While RS-68A's could probably be used, on a booster that would fit within the Advanced booster limitations, and it would have some potential economic advantages of cost sharing, the same might apply to the AJ-1E6, particularly if Atlas V were to consider going to it at some time (if it doesn't go away in favor of ULA supporting Delta IV only) and depending on what the future of Antares holds.  If it has limited launches for COTS only, then it probably won't have enough flight rate to cost share much with, and likely USAF contracts woudl be going over to ULA and possibly SpaceX.   Not sure if Antares would even be a player there.  So not much cost sharing with USAF unless they tell ULA they don't want them to use that Ruskie built engine any more since a fairly direct replacement is available in the market in the AJ-1E6.
But...if there could be...then I'd think AJ-1E6 could be as economical as RS-68A, and probably a better booster engine choice overall.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 11:34 pm by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #42 on: 09/03/2013 11:47 pm »
Tom,

This discussion made me think about this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32705.msg1092057#msg1092057

Aerojet now owns the rights to RD-180 don't they?
RD-180 is almost a complete overlap of AJ-1E6.  Must more so than F-1B is with AJ-1E6.

Might that see a future most for Aerojet-Rocketdyne to phase out the procurement of the Russian made RD-180 in favor of the US-built AJ-1E6?  Which would be a similar engine.
A scenario where AJ-1E6 might be used for Atlas V and Antares would then make a very strong cost sharing and standardization case for AJ-1E6 for SLS.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 11:48 pm by Lobo »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #43 on: 09/04/2013 05:07 pm »
Aerojet now owns the rights to RD-180 don't they?
Not exactly RD AMROSS has the rights. And PWC participation (49%, I believe) has yet to be transferred to AJ parent company (the Russian government has to allow it, which is part of the ongoing political issues).
So the US could do a local RD-180, but I think they would have to do it through RD AMROSS. I guess Rocketdyne (and thus AeroJet) has the rights to the technology, though.
But remember that the AJ proposal for SLS boosters is very "risky" for NASA's risk formula. And both ULA and Orbital are commercial companies. They won't buy it because it's cool, or even because it's American. They would buy it if and only if it made business sense. Thus, the true question is: Can AJ make the AJ-1E6 cheaply enough to be competitive in current (and future) market?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #44 on: 09/04/2013 05:29 pm »
Not exactly RD AMROSS has the rights. And PWC participation (49%, I believe) has yet to be transferred to AJ parent company (the Russian government has to allow it, which is part of the ongoing political issues).
So the US could do a local RD-180, but I think they would have to do it through RD AMROSS. I guess Rocketdyne (and thus AeroJet) has the rights to the technology, though.
But remember that the AJ proposal for SLS boosters is very "risky" for NASA's risk formula. And both ULA and Orbital are commercial companies. They won't buy it because it's cool, or even because it's American. They would buy it if and only if it made business sense. Thus, the true question is: Can AJ make the AJ-1E6 cheaply enough to be competitive in current (and future) market?

Yes, can they make it cheaply enough to be competative?  That is the real question.  But, could Aerojet now sort of torpedo the produrement of more RD-180's to the US, even if there wasn't a problem on the Russian side?  Although problems from the Russian government would make that easier. 
How would RD-180's get here if Aerojet decided they didn't want them here?  (assuming existing contracts were met, just that new ones wouldn't be)

Could Aerojet box out the cheaper competition and not bring any more in, so as to -create- a market for the AJ-1E6?
Or could Energomash just sign a deal with a different US company to import them into the US and make them available to ULA?  Perhaps with ULA directly?  And go around Aerojet-Rocketdyne entire?

Also, is sounds like Orbital is sueing ULA for barring them from getting the RD-180, so they used the AJ-26/NK-33 instead?

If the deal was between PWR and Energomash, how could ULA bar Orbital from getting them?  I don't really understand that relationship. 
Does Orbital still want the RD-180 now that they are using AJ-26?  I'd think if they switch engines, with would be more logical to go with another Aerojet engine rather than RD-180.

Dunno...I agree companies won't buy the AJ-1E6 just because it's cool or US made, but if it make financial sense.  However, a company like ULA which is almost completely government launches, probably will do pretty much what the government wants.  I wonder if these rumblings, even if nothing comes from them ultimately, will make a few at USAF/DoD perk up and think that maybe having one of their EELV's dependant on the Russians isn't perhaps the best idea, any more than it's the best idea to be reliant on them for human space access?
Might USAF/DoD decide they don't want to support an LV that depends on a Russian supplied engine any more?  Meaning, Atlas needs to find a domestic replacement, or Atlas goes away, and Delta is standardized for all govenrment launches ULA gets?

Also, I was not aware that NASA deemed the Aerojet boosters as "risky".  Is that just becuase they are staged combustion?  Or for some other reason?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #45 on: 09/04/2013 06:59 pm »
How would RD-180's get here if Aerojet decided they didn't want them here?  (assuming existing contracts were met, just that new ones wouldn't be)
Difficult to say, but Rocketdyne was the local partner of RD AMROSS. And the minority, at that. Their role is mostly local support. Remember that ITAR prevents a an American engineer to actually tell to a Russian engineer what went wrong. And the Russian equivalent prevents the Russian to answer how to solve it. So each interchange has to be cleared by whoever is that handles ITAR permits.

Quote
Could Aerojet box out the cheaper competition and not bring any more in, so as to -create- a market for the AJ-1E6? Or could Energomash just sign a deal with a different US company to import them into the US and make them available to ULA?  Perhaps with ULA directly?  And go around Aerojet-Rocketdyne entire?
I think that Energomash would have to honor their contracts with RD AMROSS, and then they would have to apply again for the permits to transfer the know-how etc. Sort of non viable. But AeroJet has little say, since they don't produce the engine and they lack a majority on RD AMROSS. Overall, they might try to increase their support costs part of the price, but then they'd get into a nasty monopoly issue. Trust me, they don't like to get into anti trust problems. Specially not if DoD is the angry party.

Quote
Also, is sounds like Orbital is suing ULA for barring them from getting the RD-180, so they used the AJ-26/NK-33 instead?
If the deal was between PWR and Energomash, how could ULA bar Orbital from getting them?  I don't really understand that relationship. 
Does Orbital still want the RD-180 now that they are using AJ-26?  I'd think if they switch engines, with would be more logical to go with another Aerojet engine rather than RD-180.
First, let's remember that the NK-33 stock is limited, and Orbital might have just enough to cover the CRS contract and, may be, a couple of extra launches. And also let's remember that Kutznesov has not received the funds to actually install the necessary tooling. They currently produce aircraft turbines. So the NK-33 supply is limited and extending it would cost a fortune. So AeroJet would be happy to sell Orbital more NK-33A (or however they call them), but I'm pretty sure they will ask for a BIG number. A number big enough that they can argue that it's not a "realistic choice", or that doing it is "economically" unfeasible.
Now, the interesting part is why they are suing ULA. And the reason is that they are using anti-trust law. And the one that actually holds the alleged monopoly on DoD launches is ULA. Thus, the problem is not that RD AMROSS signed an exclusivity contract, but that ULA "forced" them to sign it using its monopoly powers to keep Orbital out of said market.

Quote
...Might USAF/DoD decide they don't want to support an LV that depends on a Russian supplied engine any more?  Meaning, Atlas needs to find a domestic replacement, or Atlas goes away, and Delta is standardized for all government launches ULA gets?
Atlas V is cheaper than Delta IV, has lower lead time and (until 2015) has better flexibility for swapping payloads. But more importantly, the EELV's program has grown so expensive that I seriously doubt that anyone would want to actually put more money. I think is more of a "we'll deal with it if it happens" situation.

Quote
Also, I was not aware that NASA deemed the Aerojet boosters as "risky".  Is that just because they are staged combustion?  Or for some other reason?
Yes, look at how they calculate risk. Staged Combustion is considered the riskiest of all. And the number of engines and thrust chambers is also the biggest. It's a statistics game, really. Gas Generator catastrophic failure is not really that bad, as SPX CRS-1 shown. And as Zenit-2 Teselin-2 #8 and NSS 8 shown, Stage Combustion failure modes can be nasty. Thus, the risk penalty on SC is huge. And again, you multiply that failure probability by the number of turbopumps. And the thrust chamber failure modes by the number of thrust chambers (including start failures). When you do it that way, the AeroJet proposal will be the most risky.
Personally, I think is an exaggeration since they should only worry about LOM and LOC, and the truth is that even a TP explosion on the AJ boosters would mean the same as an early engine shutdown on the Pyros: LOM. Remember that you have to keep the boosters depleting the propellant at the same rate, else you move your CG asymmetrically and lots of nasty things happen. And SLS is assumed to be on the limit of performance, thus, even the loss of one F-1B midflight will probably mean LOM. And STS-51L shown quite clearly what a failure on a solid booster would mean (and the advanced ones would have like 50% more pressure).
Now, let's suppose that you calculate LOC. I don't think that even a catastrophic failure like NSS 8 would mean LOC in a LRB. The engines are simply too far from the capsule, and you could shut down all orderly. That's the part that I don't like of the calculation. That and the fact that in real use, the SC cause one abort to orbit, while a SSSRB caused a LOM. And there were 3 SC vs 2 x SRB per STS flight.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #46 on: 09/04/2013 10:47 pm »
Thanks for all the clarifications baldusi.

The legalize of it all is quite beyond me.  :-)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #47 on: 09/04/2013 11:14 pm »
Yes, look at how they calculate risk. Staged Combustion is considered the riskiest of all. And the number of engines and thrust chambers is also the biggest. It's a statistics game, really. Gas Generator catastrophic failure is not really that bad, as SPX CRS-1 shown. And as Zenit-2 Teselin-2 #8 and NSS 8 shown, Stage Combustion failure modes can be nasty. Thus, the risk penalty on SC is huge. And again, you multiply that failure probability by the number of turbopumps. And the thrust chamber failure modes by the number of thrust chambers (including start failures). When you do it that way, the AeroJet proposal will be the most risky.
Personally, I think is an exaggeration since they should only worry about LOM and LOC, and the truth is that even a TP explosion on the AJ boosters would mean the same as an early engine shutdown on the Pyros: LOM. Remember that you have to keep the boosters depleting the propellant at the same rate, else you move your CG asymmetrically and lots of nasty things happen. And SLS is assumed to be on the limit of performance, thus, even the loss of one F-1B midflight will probably mean LOM. And STS-51L shown quite clearly what a failure on a solid booster would mean (and the advanced ones would have like 50% more pressure).
Now, let's suppose that you calculate LOC. I don't think that even a catastrophic failure like NSS 8 would mean LOC in a LRB. The engines are simply too far from the capsule, and you could shut down all orderly. That's the part that I don't like of the calculation. That and the fact that in real use, the SC cause one abort to orbit, while a SSSRB caused a LOM. And there were 3 SC vs 2 x SRB per STS flight.

Yea, I think that's a good point there.
First, I think any LOC calculation should be better for any LRB vs. SRB because unless it's so catastrophic that it ruptures the fuel tank, as you said, it can be shut down, and the crew craft initiates a controled abort.  But even with a situation that there's a Challenger like failure in a booster, which ruptures the core or something, you have boosters that can be shut down, rather than burning SRB's that can only be blown up...possibly showering the capsule parachute with debris. 
So I would think any LRB LOC calculation should be better than any SRB LOC calculation.
(Heck, even in the huge N-1 failures, they had unmanned Soyuz capsules on them, and it's LAS system engaged properly and would have saved the crews from those explosions...at least one or two of them did.  And you don't really get more catestrophic that one of those going up!)

Now, as for LOM, like you said, an F-1B might have a better behaved failure, but with just engines, a failure to any one engine would result in a LOM if it happened too early in ascent.  If it happened closer to LRB-sep, then perhaps the opposite F-1B on the other booster could be shut down, and separation done a little later.  There might be less chance of the engine failure and causing the whole booster to blow up, and while that's good, it's still a LOM.  And that is what the LAS system is for is to abort away from any problem, up to the entire LV going boom.
The main difference would be the LV blowing it in flight, or having it do a controlled crash into the ocean after abort.

But...even that said...the RS-25's are staged combustion too.  So SLS already has four staged combustion engines that could possible fail in a less well behaved way that a GG hydrolox engine.  So that will always be an issue with SLS.  So I think it's probably a bit of a red herring. 
But...I'm not rocket scientist either.

But...do you think that "risk" will put a thumb on the scale to favor the Dynetics booster if an LRB were to beat out ATK?
The F-1B is an awesome engine.  Just seems like the AJ-1E6 might be a little more "useful" engine all around for the US rocket industry.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #48 on: 09/05/2013 02:52 pm »
I simply don't know the innards of the process. In particular, we don't know who will be at NASA nor Congress by the time comes to actually make the decision. And as far as I know, even the tender is not ready, thus, the parameters are totally unknown. I was just making a point about a potential disadvantage that I see in the AJ-1E6 project.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #49 on: 09/05/2013 03:30 pm »
I simply don't know the innards of the process. In particular, we don't know who will be at NASA nor Congress by the time comes to actually make the decision. And as far as I know, even the tender is not ready, thus, the parameters are totally unknown. I was just making a point about a potential disadvantage that I see in the AJ-1E6 project.

Understood.  Thanks for the information.  :-)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #50 on: 10/22/2013 04:16 pm »
Has Aerojet released any numbers on the AJ-500 or AJ-1E6 as to what the ISP will be?  Their sea level thrust will be about 500klbs and 1000klbs respectively, but will they have the lower ISP of the NK-33?  Or will the higher chamber pressure of pumping the thrust up to 500klbs per chamber increase the ISP closer to that of the RD-180?


Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #51 on: 10/23/2013 03:02 am »
Yea, Dynetics has released a substantial amount of information re. Pyrios and ATK re their Dark Knights. We have heard almost nothing from AJ re. AJ-1E6. We don't know anything about how they are using that risk-reduction funding. Since those are public funds, aren't regular milestone reports required? I do wish some basic specs would be released. Then Steven Pietrobon could run those calculations you asked him to with some degree of accuracy. Like you, I would really like to know how this would compare with Pyrios on 4 engine core with 4 x MB-60 DUUS.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #52 on: 10/25/2013 06:49 pm »
Yea, Dynetics has released a substantial amount of information re. Pyrios and ATK re their Dark Knights. We have heard almost nothing from AJ re. AJ-1E6. We don't know anything about how they are using that risk-reduction funding. Since those are public funds, aren't regular milestone reports required? I do wish some basic specs would be released. Then Steven Pietrobon could run those calculations you asked him to with some degree of accuracy. Like you, I would really like to know how this would compare with Pyrios on 4 engine core with 4 x MB-60 DUUS.

Yea, thrust level is all I've seen out.  I hope they will put out some more info soon so that we can more accurate info to use, rather than so many assumptions.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
There is a potential US market for this engine, or a US made RD-180 (which I think they will be able to make too now that Aerojet owns Rocketdyne.)  Especially if NASA is interested in ORSC engine for an advanced boosters for SLS.
Atlas V and Antares being the other two.  If Aerojet plays their cards right, they could perhaps come out with a similar US engine that could be swapped out for the RD-180 on Atlas V, swapped out for the two AJ26's on Antares, and power SLS's boosters perhaps giving a Block 2B SLS over 130mt lift capacity with no SLS core or upper stage modificaitons (other than booster interfaces, and ML modificaiton if the existing one can even be used).

I think the main hurdle will be giving ULA an offering that will require minimal modifications to Atlas V, as well as very similar performance, and at a price point competative with the Russians.   RD-180 may be more expensive in the future...depending on poltics...so that would help Aerojet's case for a domestics replacement. 
Maybe they'll blend the NK-33 tech they've been learning with the new RD-180 designs they now have through Rocketdyne, and incorporate them into an "AJ/NK-180" basically.  Same mounts and controls and such as RD-180, but with NK-33 based components too. 

Since USAF is ULA's main customer, and USAF might not mind a small price increase for Atlas V in a switch to a domestic engine, there could be an angle to help a switch even if Aerojet can't match the Russians pricing.  If they can get close...and it's US made...and since it's the USAF...I would think that would be attractive to them.



Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15552
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8900
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #53 on: 10/26/2013 04:28 am »
Here is my attempt at a review of the basic corporate relationships involving the various players discussed in this thread.  I've skipped some details, such as Boeing's former ownership of Rocketdyne via. its acquisition from Rockwell International.

Pratt & Whitney:  Made RL-10 and jointly owned RD-AMROSS to import RD-180 from NPO Energomash.  RD-AMROSS originally set up to import RD-180 for Lockheed Martin Atlas III, later used for Lockheed Martin (later United Launch Alliance) Atlas V.  P&W was also licensed through RD-AMROSS to produce RD-180 in U.S..  United Technologies (UTC) owned P&W and currently still retains its RD-180 rights.

Aerojet (Gencorp):  Made AJ-10 and is licensed importer of NK-33, rebranded with new controller as AJ-26.  Subsequently proposed new upgraded engines based on NK-33/AJ-26 for SLS booster.

Rocketdyne:  Original F-1, and J-2(X), SSME developer.  RS-68 is most recent development.

In 2005, UTC bought Rocketdyne to create Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.

In 2013, Gencorp bough PWR to create Aerojet Rocketdyne, a company that currently builds RS-68, that is rebuilding an existing RL-10 engine inventory into a common EELV type, and that holds the NK-33 license, which currently consists of reconfiguring a limited inventory of 40 year old Russian engines for Antares.  Its planned acquisition of the RD-180 license is currently in limbo, as I understand things.  If it gains RD-180 rights, it seems to me very likely that RD-180 will replace NK-33/AJ-26.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/26/2013 02:51 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #54 on: 10/28/2013 06:02 pm »
Here is my attempt at a review of the basic corporate relationships involving the various players discussed in this thread.  I've skipped some details, such as Boeing's former ownership of Rocketdyne via. its acquisition from Rockwell International.

Pratt & Whitney:  Made RL-10 and jointly owned RD-AMROSS to import RD-180 from NPO Energomash.  RD-AMROSS originally set up to import RD-180 for Lockheed Martin Atlas III, later used for Lockheed Martin (later United Launch Alliance) Atlas V.  P&W was also licensed through RD-AMROSS to produce RD-180 in U.S..  United Technologies (UTC) owned P&W and currently still retains its RD-180 rights.

Aerojet (Gencorp):  Made AJ-10 and is licensed importer of NK-33, rebranded with new controller as AJ-26.  Subsequently proposed new upgraded engines based on NK-33/AJ-26 for SLS booster.

Rocketdyne:  Original F-1, and J-2(X), SSME developer.  RS-68 is most recent development.

In 2005, UTC bought Rocketdyne to create Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.

In 2013, Gencorp bough PWR to create Aerojet Rocketdyne, a company that currently builds RS-68, that is rebuilding an existing RL-10 engine inventory into a common EELV type, and that holds the NK-33 license, which currently consists of reconfiguring a limited inventory of 40 year old Russian engines for Antares. 


Thanks Ed,
The big picture with all that legaleze is always a little disorientating.


Its planned acquisition of the RD-180 license is currently in limbo, as I understand things.  If it gains RD-180 rights, it seems to me very likely that RD-180 will replace NK-33/AJ-26.


So what about all of the pomp and circumstance for the AJ26/NK-33 derived AJ-500 and AJ-1E6?  Is that a backup plan in case Aerojet-Rocketdyne don't get the RD-180 liscence? 

And do you think they'd just continue to buy the Russian RD-180 and not make it themselves?  Or make a US built one since they'd have the rights to make it?  And then just call it an "AJ-1E6" or something and drop the Russian model references totally?  (Remove the Russian letters stenciled on the nozzles and replace them with a "Made in U.S.A" stencil...etc.).

On on a side note, do you know what the ancestory and heritage the NK-33 shares with the RD-180?
I sort of assumed that the RD-170/180/190 family developed for Zenit/Energia was based on the development done on the NK-15/33 under the Soviet umbrella in the 80's.  That development of the RD family didn't reinvent the wheel on kerolox ORSC, but used existing work done previously.
But perhaps that's incorrect?
I only mention that in the context as I sort of thought the NK family was the ancestor of the RD family.  And if that were the case, would an Aerojet built dual chamber ORSC kerolox engine in the 850-1000klbs thrust range at sea level basically be both a US built RD-180 -and- a modernized dual chamber version of the NK-33?

Or are they two completely unrelated engines?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #55 on: 10/28/2013 07:13 pm »
As far as I know it, they are completely unrelated. In particular, after Mishin's failure at N-1, he was replaced as head of Energyia by Glushko. Kutznesov's NK-15/33 family was an offense and was forbidden, and he directed his bureau to make a superior engine to that, thus, the RD-170 was born. Knowing how much Glushko hated the NK engines, I would be surprised that they shared any technology. May be they share some metallurgy, but I don't know the details.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #56 on: 10/28/2013 10:11 pm »
As far as I know it, they are completely unrelated. In particular, after Mishin's failure at N-1, he was replaced as head of Energyia by Glushko. Kutznesov's NK-15/33 family was an offense and was forbidden, and he directed his bureau to make a superior engine to that, thus, the RD-170 was born. Knowing how much Glushko hated the NK engines, I would be surprised that they shared any technology. May be they share some metallurgy, but I don't know the details.

Hmmm...interesting.  Seems like a waste to reinvent the wheel just based on some perceived loss of face.  But who knows with those crazy Ruskies.  heheheh

If they really are two completely unrelated engines, it does make for a quandry with Aerojet-Rocketdyne I would think.  Aerojet has invested a fair amount of money into making the NK-33 mount US controls and whatever else they've done to make the "AJ26" out of it.  Money and knowledge and experience that would sort of just be written off if they decide to just buy Russian made RD-180's.  I think they've also promoted their future NK-33 derived, US made variants as "USA Made" engines as opposed to those Russian made engines.  Perhaps that was just something flown out there before things worked out to where they could actually buy the RD-180 outright.  But it would seem to be a reversal of PR a bit.  But I suppose if the price is right, companies of flipped and reversed on things like that before.  Buying the RD-180 outright would save the development of tooling up a production line for an AJ-1E6 or a US-built RD-180.  Although I kind of like the thought of a US made engine filling this need in the US rocket industry.  But I suppose price is key.

And Orbital sounds like they want the RD-180 for Antares (they were sueing ULA for blocking RD-AMROSS's ability to sell it to Orbital...or something like that), and obviously it's already flying on Atlas.  Which then brings up the interesting situation of an Aerojet-Rocketdyne ORSC powered option for SLS.  With no AJ-1E6, that's just leave the RD-180 as the only other kerolox option vs F-1B...which would then also be an Aerojet-Rocketdyne engine. 
I suppose that gives an opportunity for an SLS booster, Antares, and ULA to all share a common engine.  Aerojet is already selling engines to Orbital, so I'd assume they'd jump at the chance to start selling them RD-180's once the NK-33 supply ran out...if there were no legal reasons they couldn't from ULA.
Which then makes an interesting cross over to Steve Pietrobon thread about SLS trajectories.  He was going to use some RD-180 data to model an AJ-1E6 powered SLS booster.  Maybe he can just now model an SLS using four RD-180's directly?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32911.msg1111260#msg1111260


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #57 on: 10/29/2013 03:59 am »
OK, in my search to find out as much information on the AJ1E6 as possible, I found these two documents:

S. Crumbly, "NASA's Space Launch System: Partnering for tomorrow," ASEE Eng. Research Council, Washington, DC, USA, Mar. 2013.
http://www.asee.org/Crumbly_ASEE_Final.pdf

S. Crumbly, "NASA's Space Launch System: Partnering for tomorrow," Space & Missile Defense Symp, Huntsville, AL, USA, Aug. 2013.
http://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Crumbly-presentation.pdf

The only figure mentioned is a thrust of 1.1Mlbf, presumably at sea level. However, I was able to extract these three nice images which are attached. I printed these out and using the 8.4074 m diameter of the core as a reference, I obtained the following measurements:

Booster Diameter: 5.1245 m
Booster Fairing Diameter: 6.5836 m
Nozzle Diameter: 1.8340 m
Engine Area Ratio: 31.04

For the boosters, I derived the following values:

Total Propellant Mass: 721,178 kg
Dry Mass less Engine Mass: 95,279 kg (using the Pyrios booster as a reference)
Oxidiser to Fuel Mixture Ratio: 2.693

Note that I've given the derived values to four or more significant figures, but in no way should you take that to mean an accuracy to that level. Accuracy is probably around ±5% and ±20% on the dry mass estimates. Now using the RD-180 as a reference, I was able to derive the following performance figures.

Sea Level Thrust: 4,893,044 N
Nozzle Efficiency: 0.893595 (derived from USAF Isp calculation program and RD-180)
Ideal Thrust Coefficient: 1.821
Chamber Pressure: 17,665,729 Pa
Vacuum Thrust: 5,428,390 N
Vacuum Isp: 3274.5 m/s
Engine Mass: 7466.7 kg

Again, accuracy is going to be ±5%. This then gave the following derived value for the booster:

Total Dry Mass: 116,679 kg

I've used these values in a simulation of SLS, but I ran out of time during the weekend to finish the results. Preliminary information indicates a payload to a 200 km circular orbit of 132.6 t using four RS-25D engines on the core and four MB-60 engines on the upper stage.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2013 04:17 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #58 on: 10/29/2013 04:14 am »
Which then makes an interesting cross over to Steve Pietrobon thread about SLS trajectories.  He was going to use some RD-180 data to model an AJ-1E6 powered SLS booster.  Maybe he can just now model an SLS using four RD-180's directly?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32911.msg1111260#msg1111260

I believe the RD-180 does not have enough thrust. It has a sea level thrust of 3827 kN, compared to 4893 kN for the AJ1E6. That's a 22% reduction. If we have 4x3827 = 15,308 kN, then that compares favourably with 3x4893 = 14,679 kN. So you would need four RD-180 engines on each booster to get the required performance.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #59 on: 10/29/2013 04:17 am »
Interesting.  Thanks Steve,

Looks like they have three AJ-1E6's where I thought they said they were going to use four of them? 

I like the LEO performance! over 130mt right there.  Although the DUUS would only have two MB-60's on it.   But then again, it's not really supposed to be optimized for LEO performance anyway, but rather BLEO.  However, I would think they could build the DUUS with capability to mount four MB-60's...just in case 130mt to LEO is ever needed (unlikely).  But obviously they are evaluating four RL-10's or two MB-60's, and they are all the same size engine.  So the capability to mount four MB-60's shouldn't be hard to have in the DUUS.  Like two RL-10's on Centaur or 2 and 4 RL-10's on ACES.
It may never fly in that config, but -could- fly if needed...type of thing...


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #60 on: 10/29/2013 04:23 am »
Which then makes an interesting cross over to Steve Pietrobon thread about SLS trajectories.  He was going to use some RD-180 data to model an AJ-1E6 powered SLS booster.  Maybe he can just now model an SLS using four RD-180's directly?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32911.msg1111260#msg1111260

I believe the RD-180 does not have enough thrust. It has a sea level thrust of 3827 kN, compared to 4893 kN for the AJ1E6. That's a 22% reduction. If we have 4x3827 = 15,308 kN, then that compares favourably with 3x4893 = 14,679 kN. So you would need four RD-180 engines on each booster to get the required performance.

I thought they were going to use four AJ-1E6's actually.  But maybe it could have enough thrust where only 3 would be needed. 
Looks like there's be enough room for four RD-180's under there though, so I don't think it'd be a problem if they went that direction.  Maybe stack them all in there inline, so they flair on two sides rather than four sides, like the F-1B nozzles on Pyrios. 
I'm figuring the performance would be pretty close to three AJ-1E6's there?  A bit heavier, but a bit more thrust.  I suppose a pretty good option, if Aerojet-Rocketdyne decided to shelve the AJ-1E6 concept and buy Russian RD-180's, depending on how the licensing thing works out.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #61 on: 10/29/2013 04:24 am »
I've only seen DUUS stages with either four RL-10 engines or four MB-60 engines, never two. I believe that's because that the maximum number of engines you can fit under a 5.5 m LOX tank. You don't want to fly with less as that's a significant payload hit.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #62 on: 10/29/2013 04:44 am »
I've only seen DUUS stages with either four RL-10 engines or four MB-60 engines, never two. I believe that's because that the maximum number of engines you can fit under a 5.5 m LOX tank. You don't want to fly with less as that's a significant payload hit.

There's a certain Boeing AIAA paper from September floating around out there...you may be aware of it? :-)

Page two in there has a chart that compares performance of the ICPS and the three DUUS engine options, to LEO, TLI, TMI, Titan, Europa, and Uranus missions.  The DUUS options are one J2X, two MB-60's, or four RL-10's.

There's even some art in there showing two MB-60 engines towards the back of the report.

:-)

I'm -guessing- the reason for four RL-10's or two MB-60 options, instead of a four MB-60 option, is that for BLEO trajectories, only around 100klbs of thrust is needed for when the DUUS will light during a BLEO ascent.  Which I think is not long before disposal orbit.  Maybe around when the S-IVB lit on a Saturn V BLEO mission? 
Otherwise they'd probably be looking at four MB-60's or one J2X options, and not the four RL-10 option as it wouldn't have enough thrust.

I do believe that four engines with nozzles the size of the RL-10C or MB-60...which are about the same size...is all you can fit under the 5.5m LOX tank on the DUUS.  You are right there.  But I'm pretty sure they are only looking at two MB-60's or four RL-10's, not four MB-60's.
unless I didn't read something correctly...

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #63 on: 10/29/2013 04:52 am »
I've only seen DUUS stages with either four RL-10 engines or four MB-60 engines, never two. I believe that's because that the maximum number of engines you can fit under a 5.5 m LOX tank. You don't want to fly with less as that's a significant payload hit.

There's a certain Boeing AIAA paper from September floating around out there...you may be aware of it? :-)

Page two in there has a chart that compares performance of the ICPS and the three DUUS engine options, to LEO, TLI, TMI, Titan, Europa, and Uranus missions.  The DUUS options are one J2X, two MB-60's, or four RL-10's.

There's even some art in there showing two MB-60 engines towards the back of the report.

Ahh, I forgot about that. I thought they were doing four MB-60 engines in that paper.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #64 on: 10/29/2013 05:46 am »
I've only seen DUUS stages with either four RL-10 engines or four MB-60 engines, never two. I believe that's because that the maximum number of engines you can fit under a 5.5 m LOX tank. You don't want to fly with less as that's a significant payload hit.

There's a certain Boeing AIAA paper from September floating around out there...you may be aware of it? :-)

Page two in there has a chart that compares performance of the ICPS and the three DUUS engine options, to LEO, TLI, TMI, Titan, Europa, and Uranus missions.  The DUUS options are one J2X, two MB-60's, or four RL-10's.

There's even some art in there showing two MB-60 engines towards the back of the report.

Ahh, I forgot about that. I thought they were doing four MB-60 engines in that paper.

Take a look at the top of the chart on the 2nd page of the paper, and the text above it.

Then take a look at page 12.  They show the two MB-60 configuration with the BA-2100 module.

They do talk more about the single J2X and four RL-10 versions in the paper overall though.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1030
  • Likes Given: 3837
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #65 on: 10/29/2013 12:01 pm »
So each AJ-1E6 engine has two nozzles (like RD-180)?

Edit: http://www.asee.org/Crumbly_ASEE_Final.pdf says it is.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2013 12:04 pm by deltaV »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #66 on: 10/29/2013 03:48 pm »
So each AJ-1E6 engine has two nozzles (like RD-180)?

Edit: http://www.asee.org/Crumbly_ASEE_Final.pdf says it is.

Yea.  As i understand, Aerojet plans (or did plan) to uprate the thrust on the NK-33/AJ26 to 500klbs.  (or 550klbs in the Crumbly report there).  Which would be the AJ-500 by itself. 
And then make a two chamber version...the AJ-1E6, like the RD-180 is a two chamber version of the RD-190.


Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #67 on: 10/29/2013 04:42 pm »
And at that just > 5m booster dia, there may not be enough area for 4 engines and 8 nozzles.

At least we now have a miniscule amount more knowledge about the engine.

Chris B., how much chance is there you can prod some sources for enough info. to do an article on this booster and engine? Beyond the tech. specs something that would also be of interest is the issue of AJ now owning Rocketdyne. Will the corporation be disallowed  to make 2 entries in a competition, or does Dynetics have a contractual right still to enter F-1B due to deals made with PWR prior to AJ's purchase of Rocketdyne? Inquiring minds want to know!  ;D ;D

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #68 on: 10/29/2013 09:14 pm »
So in general these seem to be true of the booster: Higher ISP than F-1B. Three AJ-1E6 is less thrust than two F-1B (3.3m lb. vs 3.6m lb.). That might suggest a longer burn time than four engines and at lower Gs, with greater gravity losses (but perhaps not throttle as deeply as a 4 engine variant). It might also suggest a longer burn time, lower Gs, and greater gravity losses than Pyrios, however Steven's extrapolated dia. of 5.1245m means less propellant volume than Pyrios, unless the tanks are longer, so the burn time (particularly with unknown throttling) cannot not be accurately specified.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2013 09:18 pm by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #69 on: 10/29/2013 10:41 pm »
And at that just > 5m booster dia, there may not be enough area for 4 engines and 8 nozzles.


I would think it wouldn't be too much of a problem.  Remember the differnce between the 5.49m Pyrios and the 5.12m of the Aerojet booster, is only about 14 inches. I doubt that's enough to make or break a four RD-180 configuration.  And plus the MPS can flair out like it would on Pyrios.  The two F-1B's don't fit under the 5.49m wide core at all.  I'm sure Aerojet could do something resembling two RD-170's where the two Dynetics F-1B's would be.  Except four 2-chamber engines instead of two 4-chamber engines.  And have flairs out the two sides oppose the core attachment point like the Dynetics booster does. 
They also might be able to do four in a circular pattern, depending on how much they stuck out on the core attachment side.  Some enginerds with solid works could say for sure.  :-)
But I'd feel pretty sure it could be done.


At least we now have a miniscule amount more knowledge about the engine.



Yup.  Still be very intersting to see how it all shakes out with the Aerojet aquisition of PWR.  They would be the supplier of F-1B too.  I'm sure Aerojet would supply F-1B's just fine if Dynetics wins the bid.  But...as long as NASA would equally consider ORSC and GG kerolox engines from an engineering standpoint, Seems like AJR would sort of be at a conflict of interest to offer F-1B for the best price possible to compete against their own offering.  Suddenly that F-1B might get kind of more expensive to develop, where an AJ-1E6 or four RD-180's might suddenly be pretty cheap. 

Obviously if NASA rejects ORSC on concerns of safety or reliability, then AJR would gladly develop and supply them I'm sure.  :-)
But if they accept it as equal to the GG, just be interesting to see the dynamics there between AJR having their own booster and their own engine vs. Dynetics having their own core but AJR's engine.



Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #70 on: 10/30/2013 01:09 am »

Yup.  Still be very intersting to see how it all shakes out with the Aerojet aquisition of PWR.  They would be the supplier of F-1B too.  I'm sure Aerojet would supply F-1B's just fine if Dynetics wins the bid.  But...as long as NASA would equally consider ORSC and GG kerolox engines from an engineering standpoint, Seems like AJR would sort of be at a conflict of interest to offer F-1B for the best price possible to compete against their own offering.  Suddenly that F-1B might get kind of more expensive to develop, where an AJ-1E6 or four RD-180's might suddenly be pretty cheap. 

Why would they prefer AJ-1E6 over F-1B?  Are they subcontracting the tank work on the AJ-1E6 design, and thus stand to make a little more profit as the prime?

Otherwise, they win either way, so why not work hard on both designs? 

The thing I really dislike about your logic above is that I somewhat expect the F-1B to get more expensive to develop.  After all, that's what previous studies of reviving it have all concluded.  Sure, they are changing things up and trying to save money here and there, but those rosy projections don't always pan out, or they ignore all the things that have become more expensive.  So, the thing that irks me is IF this entirely reasonable set of events happens, people will use exactly the logic you gave above as a conspiracy theory to explain why the F-1B didn't get revived.  Grr.

(For what it's worth, I expect finishing development on the AJ1E6 will be very expensive as well.)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #71 on: 10/30/2013 05:04 am »
So in general these seem to be true of the booster: Higher ISP than F-1B. Three AJ-1E6 is less thrust than two F-1B (3.3m lb. vs 3.6m lb.). That might suggest a longer burn time than four engines and at lower Gs, with greater gravity losses (but perhaps not throttle as deeply as a 4 engine variant). It might also suggest a longer burn time, lower Gs, and greater gravity losses than Pyrios, however Steven's extrapolated dia. of 5.1245m means less propellant volume than Pyrios, unless the tanks are longer, so the burn time (particularly with unknown throttling) cannot not be accurately specified.

Throttling is not required as maximum acceleration is 31.85 m/s². My simulation gives a burn time of about 130 s, 10 s more than Pyrios. Total usable propellant is less as well, 696.6 t compared to 787.3 t for Pyrios. I get a total delta-V of 9564 m/s compared to 9579 m/s with Pyrios, which is not much difference.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #72 on: 10/30/2013 03:09 pm »
So in general these seem to be true of the booster: Higher ISP than F-1B. Three AJ-1E6 is less thrust than two F-1B (3.3m lb. vs 3.6m lb.). That might suggest a longer burn time than four engines and at lower Gs, with greater gravity losses (but perhaps not throttle as deeply as a 4 engine variant). It might also suggest a longer burn time, lower Gs, and greater gravity losses than Pyrios, however Steven's extrapolated dia. of 5.1245m means less propellant volume than Pyrios, unless the tanks are longer, so the burn time (particularly with unknown throttling) cannot not be accurately specified.

Throttling is not required as maximum acceleration is 31.85 m/s². My simulation gives a burn time of about 130 s, 10 s more than Pyrios. Total usable propellant is less as well, 696.6 t compared to 787.3 t for Pyrios. I get a total delta-V of 9564 m/s compared to 9579 m/s with Pyrios, which is not much difference.

I thought Pyrios had a 150s burn time?   Basically like the S-1C.

I can't find it in the Dynetics paper, but I'm sure I read that some where.  Some sort of booster comparison chart I think.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #73 on: 10/30/2013 03:20 pm »

Yup.  Still be very intersting to see how it all shakes out with the Aerojet aquisition of PWR.  They would be the supplier of F-1B too.  I'm sure Aerojet would supply F-1B's just fine if Dynetics wins the bid.  But...as long as NASA would equally consider ORSC and GG kerolox engines from an engineering standpoint, Seems like AJR would sort of be at a conflict of interest to offer F-1B for the best price possible to compete against their own offering.  Suddenly that F-1B might get kind of more expensive to develop, where an AJ-1E6 or four RD-180's might suddenly be pretty cheap. 

Why would they prefer AJ-1E6 over F-1B?  Are they subcontracting the tank work on the AJ-1E6 design, and thus stand to make a little more profit as the prime?

Otherwise, they win either way, so why not work hard on both designs? 

The thing I really dislike about your logic above is that I somewhat expect the F-1B to get more expensive to develop.  After all, that's what previous studies of reviving it have all concluded.  Sure, they are changing things up and trying to save money here and there, but those rosy projections don't always pan out, or they ignore all the things that have become more expensive.  So, the thing that irks me is IF this entirely reasonable set of events happens, people will use exactly the logic you gave above as a conspiracy theory to explain why the F-1B didn't get revived.  Grr.

(For what it's worth, I expect finishing development on the AJ1E6 will be very expensive as well.)

I'm not saying that AJR would deny Dynetics the F-1B.  Just saying that when Dynetics originally came up with their concept, it was using a PWR F-1B, as a  competator to Aerojet's booster core and AJ-1E6.  Now that PWR is AJR, they are in a situation of competing against themselves.  And I don't know how that will shake out.  If NASA has some technical preference towards GG engines because they are more simple and reliable, and think ORSC could be a little more "risky", and NASA were to consider choosing the Dynetics booster based on that, I'm sure AJR would happily develop and supply F-1B to them.

However, if NASA would weigh GG and ORSC engines equally from technical standpoints, and it just came down to price, that's where I'm wondering if there'd be any conflict of interest.  Especially if AJR still wants to develop the AJ-1E6 (instead of just buying Russian RD-180's) for the US commercial market.  For Antares and maybe a conversion of Atlas V.  If they land the NASA booster contract over Dynetics, then effectively -NASA- will pay for the development of an AJ-1E6...or a US built RD-180...or whatever.  And they could have other customers for that engine, where there will be no other customers for an F-1B.  If they develop F-1B then they still don't have an engine for Antares or Atlas.   They'd have to pay for the developent of it on their own, or just buy the Russian made RD-180 if they can get that license to do it.

So, just saying it's possible AJR would like to supply just one new ORSC engine for mutliple customers, and landing the SLS contract would be beneficial to them to facilitate that.  Which would give them less incentive to cut Dynetics a great deal on F-1B so they can better compete with AJR's own bid.

« Last Edit: 10/30/2013 03:22 pm by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #74 on: 10/30/2013 04:17 pm »
And it may well be that most of the profit of F-1B would go to Dynetics and only a small portion to AJR if F-1B were to win, whereas if AJ-1E6 won, all profit would go to AJR. As far as AJR asking NASA which engine they prefer up front, I think that may not be legal. I am sure Dynetics had lawyers who were smart enough to include hundreds of pages of legalese (don't they always) to cover every eventuality, including the possibility of RD being sold by PW to a competitor who might put its own entry in the competition. I seriously doubt Dynetics allowed itself to be placed in a position where AJR can simply ask NASA which engine it prefers them to pursue. Big time corporate lawyers are way too smart for that.

Also Lobo, you're drifting off into all those what if tangents again. I am absolutely convinced that NASA won't even begin to consider the majority of all those things you list.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2013 07:29 pm by TomH »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #75 on: 10/30/2013 06:57 pm »
This part surprised me:
Quote
Preburners GFE from AFRL to Aerojet

What AFRL project could have a 550klbf (2.45MN) oxidizer rich RP-1/LOX preburner? Remember that a preburner has to flow the whole oxidizer mass, compared to a Gas Generator, thus the mssflow has to be huge.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #76 on: 10/31/2013 08:36 pm »
And it may well be that most of the profit of F-1B would go to Dynetics and only a small portion to AJR if F-1B were to win, whereas if AJ-1E6 won, all profit would go to AJR. As far as AJR asking NASA which engine they prefer up front, I think that may not be legal. I am sure Dynetics had lawyers who were smart enough to include hundreds of pages of legalese (don't they always) to cover every eventuality, including the possibility of RD being sold by PW to a competitor who might put its own entry in the competition. I seriously doubt Dynetics allowed itself to be placed in a position where AJR can simply ask NASA which engine it prefers them to pursue. Big time corporate lawyers are way too smart for that.


Well, that's the question.  Will there be some conflict of interests because of the buy out.  Maybe, maybe not.
And I'm not saying per say that NASA would say outright if they like one over the other.  Rather, I'd think maybe they'd do some sort of study (which could be leaked out ahead of time potentially) where they evaluate that the more simple GG F-1B has a higher reliability than the ORSC engine.  I've heard others say they are more tolerant of sucking solids into them and such things, and are a more simple design by their very nature.  If it seems that things like that might swing NASA towards F-1B, even if the costs were the same, I'm sure AJR would supply whatever NASA prefers.  If everything is equal, and there's no difference in "safety" or "reliability" considered, just cost to develop and maintain, then maybe AJR is in a situation where they could get all profit form their enigne and their boosters, vs. just some profit form their engine on Dynetics' booster.
But the devil is in the legal details.  So it could shake out a varaiety of ways.   Just saying it'll be interesting to see as it unfolds.


Also Lobo, you're drifting off into all those what if tangents again. I am absolutely convinced that NASA won't even begin to consider the majority of all those things you list.

Hmmm...what things did I list that NASA won't even begin to consider?  Price?  Reliability of GG vs. ORSC? Performance?  I would think all of those things I list would be considered in some fashion.  Just unknown how much weight they'd have overall.
If not price, performance, and reliability, what do you think they will consider instead?

« Last Edit: 10/31/2013 08:38 pm by Lobo »

Offline MP99

Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #77 on: 11/01/2013 01:17 pm »
OK, in my search to find out as much information on the AJ1E6 as possible, I found these two documents:

S. Crumbly, "NASA's Space Launch System: Partnering for tomorrow," ASEE Eng. Research Council, Washington, DC, USA, Mar. 2013.
http://www.asee.org/Crumbly_ASEE_Final.pdf

Can someone help me out with this quote from that document:-

Quote
Proposed engine configuration:
• 1.1M lbf class Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion (ORSC) engine
• Liquid Oxygen and RP-1 propellants
• Dual chamber design - Single turbopump assembly connected to 550k size preburners and main injectors/thrust chambers

Do I understand this correctly that each of the two thrust chambers will have its own pre-burners?

If so, I assume this means each would drive its own turbine, with the turbopump assembly on a single shaft with the two turbines at either end of that shaft?

cheers, Martin

Edit: and if so, I find myself wondering if 1x AJ-1-E6 really makes much less complexity than 2x AJ-26-550??
« Last Edit: 11/01/2013 01:19 pm by MP99 »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #78 on: 11/01/2013 02:26 pm »
It appears that the SLS risk reduction contract is for building a 550k sized combustion chamber and injectors, then performing a suite of tests, including combustion stability. I assume it must be easier to build two smaller combustion chambers, rather than 1 large beast.

I assume the preliminary design was mostly complete, since it was based on the AJ26 / NK-33. How long should it take to fabricate the combustion chamber and injectors ? Do you think it's at all possible that we might see some test stand pictures by the end of the year ? Of course, I realize this is much less than the entire engine, but they do have a bit of data that needs to be acquired from these tests, right ?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #79 on: 11/01/2013 04:21 pm »
First about the injectors plus thrust chamber. There are most surely based off the NK-33s. Those could be pushed to 135% standard and thus the basic design is probably good to 550klbf.
Regarding dual preburners. The RD-170/1/M family also has dual preburners feeding a single TP. A preburner is, basically, a rocket chamber that doesn't choke. It's the hottest and highest pressure place of the turbine cycle. And also has instabilities problems. Thus, even when Energomash went out to do a 740tonne-force engine, they went with dual preburner. In this case, since the preburner is a GFE from the AFSL, I guess they had previously demonstrated it for some other project, and thus is much easier to simply use some existing piece of equipment than get into such a complicated design and certification effort.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23398
  • Liked: 1887
  • Likes Given: 1070
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #80 on: 06/04/2014 11:22 pm »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler)

Quote
Aerojet Rocketdyne is targeting a cost of $20-25 million for each pair of new AR-1 engines as the company continues to lobby the government to fund an all-new, U.S.-sourced rocket propulsion system, says Scott Seymour, president and CEO of the company’s parent, GenCorp.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/aerojet-rocketdyne-targets-25-million-pair-ar-1-engines

Might be aggressive, but Aerojet has been working on the engine for a few years on the back-burner and has experience with the AJ-26, sounds like a pretty good plan.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7545
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2347
  • Likes Given: 2173
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #81 on: 06/05/2014 04:22 am »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler)

Neat! I still have a pair of AR-1's (similar to those pictured below). I would part with mine for less than $25 million! ;)

Quote
sounds like a pretty good plan.

Yes, these would be excellent engines to have available!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #82 on: 06/05/2014 04:53 am »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler)

Quote
Aerojet Rocketdyne is targeting a cost of $20-25 million for each pair of new AR-1 engines as the company continues to lobby the government to fund an all-new, U.S.-sourced rocket propulsion system, says Scott Seymour, president and CEO of the company’s parent, GenCorp.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/aerojet-rocketdyne-targets-25-million-pair-ar-1-engines

Might be aggressive, but Aerojet has been working on the engine for a few years on the back-burner and has experience with the AJ-26, sounds like a pretty good plan.

Seems more likely this is what was originally referred to as AJ-500, at 500,000 lb thrust. The AJ-1000, renamed AJ-1E6 is a 1,000,000 lb thrust engine.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #83 on: 06/05/2014 04:47 pm »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler)

Quote
Aerojet Rocketdyne is targeting a cost of $20-25 million for each pair of new AR-1 engines as the company continues to lobby the government to fund an all-new, U.S.-sourced rocket propulsion system, says Scott Seymour, president and CEO of the company’s parent, GenCorp.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/aerojet-rocketdyne-targets-25-million-pair-ar-1-engines

Might be aggressive, but Aerojet has been working on the engine for a few years on the back-burner and has experience with the AJ-26, sounds like a pretty good plan.

Seems more likely this is what was originally referred to as AJ-500, at 500,000 lb thrust. The AJ-1000, renamed AJ-1E6 is a 1,000,000 lb thrust engine.

Yea, I think the AJ-500 was to be the upgraded and US built production version of the AJ26.  The AJ-1E6 would have been two AJ-500's with a common turbo pump.  Then it sounded like they wouldn't develop the AJ-500 by itself at all, and go right to the AJ-1E6.  Now it sounds like they'll shelve the AJ-1E6 and rebadge the AJ-500 to the AR-1.  And probably design it sepcifically to mount to the Atlas 5 with minimal changes to the LV.  Antares so be easy enough to adapt to it as the AR-1 would be about the same size as the AJ26.  With more power, it'd probably need a core stretch though.

I think there's about zero chance of SpaceX using it.  seems funny they'd even mention it.  They couldn't do RTLS boosters with it, and they'd still need Merlin for the upper stage engine anyway.  And if SpaceX were to ditch RTLS booster, I think they'd switch over to a single Raptor engine, rather than buy AR-1's from AJR.
I suppose they are trying to advertise their product, so are trying to emphasize it -could- be mounted on Falcon, and see how versitile it is. 

However, overall, I was expecting something like this from AJR.  They have the NK-33 stock already.  They now have Rocketdyne, so they have their IP on RS-84.  And they'd be the ones to get the IP and license to make a US RD-180, once all the legal stuff is done with RD-AMROSS, following the selling of Rocketdyne from PW to AJ.  And I think it's a pretty cool concept, and an engine that has some potential market in Atlas and Antares, if Antares doesn't go with a solid booster.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #84 on: 06/05/2014 05:48 pm »
Now it sounds like they'll shelve the AJ-1E6 and rebadge the AJ-500 to the AR-1.  And probably design it sepcifically to mount to the Atlas 5 with minimal changes to the LV.

If Aerojet can do that fairly quickly and cheaply, I think that the DoD, ULA, SNC and Bigelow will all unite to bless them. 

Antares so be easy enough to adapt to it as the AR-1 would be about the same size as the AJ26.  With more power, it'd probably need a core stretch though.

Definitely a core stretch and, I can't help wonder, possibly the ability to launch a moderately-loaded Cygnus into LEO without the Castor-30. Maybe the ability to launch OSC's own in-house space-plane concept with the upper stage.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #85 on: 06/05/2014 07:03 pm »
For any engine source you need a sink for those engines. As big a sink as possible. Then you can insure quality, supply, and price.

The market size for LV engine consumers can be counted on one hand missing fingers.

Now, what if the two you're counting on at a minimum becomes 1. You've got a big problem, because all the costs fall on one set of shoulders. And they're always too high. When this happens, vertical  integrated businesses for LVs e.g. SpaceX thrive.

Aerojet Rocketdyne ("Rocket Dying") doesn't . They know this well. So the smartest move is to supply to ALL, have the same terms to ALL, and simply push engines to ALL who can take them. Then if the volume shifts around, the base is covered.

This is about the only way to bring the LRE market back. To a SpaceX they are effectively saying we can do it better and spread cost wider than you, and all you care about is price, performance, and reliability - we'll guarantee that and scalability/availability. Note that SpaceX isn't keeping up with production - perfect time to spring this.

The sell to ULA is you don't need the Russian's to leverage volume, it can all be US driven, and we'll guarantee that no matter what US launcher has volume at the moment, we're supplying it. The biggest advantage ULA got from RD-180 was access to a engine base they didn't have to underwrite. So AR is saying "we are your sole American LRE design/mfr bureau, don't bother with a Russian one". Smart.

Still a longshot. But its the right way to engage if you really want to compete LRE.

For Rocketdyne, the RS-68, bastard son of SSME, was the other approach. We all know how that turned out volume wise.

Nice aggressive american tone. If nothing else, it makes AR's owners/investors look good.   

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #86 on: 06/05/2014 10:21 pm »
The Atlas V's RD-180 does about 850klbf, Antares does 723klbf. And in both LV assume two nozzles, The thrust chambers tested for the SLS program were 550klbf each. Thus, the AJ-1 was a dual chamber design. It could work on both the Atlas V and the Antares. If it were reduced to 550klbf, both LV would need two engines. I believe that they'll go with dual nozzle, 1Mlbf design.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #87 on: 06/06/2014 09:28 pm »
The Atlas V's RD-180 does about 850klbf, Antares does 723klbf. And in both LV assume two nozzles, The thrust chambers tested for the SLS program were 550klbf each. Thus, the AJ-1 was a dual chamber design. It could work on both the Atlas V and the Antares. If it were reduced to 550klbf, both LV would need two engines. I believe that they'll go with dual nozzle, 1Mlbf design.

That would ave been my guess too.  Something like the AJ-1E6.  Two AJ500's (AJ26's with higher chamber pressure and thrust) with a common turbo pump.  Would work on Antares (wtih a stretch), Atlas V, and even an SLS liquid booster...although I doubt we'll ever see one of those.
But this article would seem to indicate a change back to doing two AJ500's.  Antares seems to work fine with two engines, so I don't know why Atlas wouldn't.  AJR would deisgn it specifically so the mounts and plumbing would be compatible with Atlas V so that core changes would be minimal.  I'd also assume they could be "tuned" such that the two of them together very closely replicated RD-180's fuel mix ratio and consumption rate, so that it's tailored to work optimally with the AV core. 
AS AR-1/AJ500 would essentially be an upgraded AJ26, they probably could be similarly "tuned" perform like the AJ26's.  Less than their maximum potential.  If OSC doesn't want to stretch the Antares core.  If they do, they can use the more powerful 500klbs version.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #88 on: 06/06/2014 11:59 pm »
Antares T/W is puny. They can't launch with 500klbf. If they go with single nozzle engines, both Antares and Atlas V will need two. If you look at Antares propulsion module, you'll see that they made it in a structure that behaves like a single engine. But the whole thing has a T/W of 77:1 instead of RD-180 97:1. Thus, I'd guess they'll go with two.
The real issue is integration. RD-180 was designed to spec. is not only propellant mixture, is TVC system, EMU, APU, fluids, pressurization, start up, purges, etc. RD-180 has TVC designed in the. US (by P&W?), but built in Russia by NPO Energomash. The AJ-26 has a TVC designed and built by AeroJet. Have they the same angle, do they rotate at the same point and the same plane? Are the power requirement similar? What changes would they need to the a ionics to handle?
Does the TP and engine needs purges? Do they use Nitrogen, Helium or other? How are the startup sequences, does it uses high pressure Helium to kickstart the TP, an hypergolic gas generator cartridge, GSE supplied nitrogen? Do some engine has a heat exchanger to O2 or He for pressurization? Is one TVC electromechanical and the other hydraulic? Do the APU (auxiliary power unit) leverages any pert of the engine? Etc.
Is not a simple plug and play and trying to retrofit one engine for two already designed LV is going to cost one some significant redesign, or the engine mfg might have to design to customized version. Rockets are not LEGOs.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12209
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7786
  • Likes Given: 3900
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #89 on: 06/07/2014 09:07 pm »
Lobo - tidbit from days past (you know when).
The AJ-500 and AJ-1E6 do not incorporate, but were designed to be able to accommodate, a TAN.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #90 on: 06/07/2014 09:58 pm »
The large changes required to support a new engine/engines means you will end up with a new LV. Take F9 1.0 and 1.1 differences as example. Naming it 1.1 was more a marketing ploy, 2.0 would have been a truer reflection of design changes. ( Please don't use this statement to SpaceX this thread.)

The question is how much will this new LV cost to develop? Orbital can do it for hundreds of $M as they have proven with Antares. ULA will say a new Atlas will cost billions and probably ask for government funding.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #91 on: 06/08/2014 03:37 am »
Well, a 550klbf with TAN might be enough. That would certainly change things. But I though TAN worked best with H2 engines.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12209
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7786
  • Likes Given: 3900
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #92 on: 06/08/2014 12:57 pm »
It does, by providing a huge kick when activated. But RP1 engines also benefit, just not as much, percent-wise.
It is in effect an afterburner, just like the fighter jets, which also use RP1.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline anonymous

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #93 on: 06/08/2014 09:04 pm »
The Aviation Week article refers to a target price of $25 million for a pair of engines. It doesn't sound like they're planning to boost the thrust with TAN. I would guess that the reason for a pair of them like AJ-500 for Atlas and Antares, rather than a single one like AJ-1E6, is because there will be less development work from NK-33 and therefore the engine will be ready sooner.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #94 on: 06/08/2014 10:38 pm »
Does anybody know status of AJ1e6, is it a paper rocket or have they actually built parts of it and tested them.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #95 on: 06/08/2014 11:14 pm »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler

Way to butcher corporate heritage.

Rocketdyne LR42 (AR-1) c. 1955. First flown on FJ-4F Fury on 16 July 1958.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 8464
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #96 on: 06/08/2014 11:14 pm »
As stated right above, they've demonstrated a 550klbf thrust chamber for the SLS program. And both Aerojet and Rocketdyne had demonstrated Oxidizer rich gas generators. Thus, there's little doubt that they can do it. What's really difficult, apparently, is to do high thrust preburners. The RD-170/1 actually has two. And the TR-107 was simple because it used a pintle injector in the preburner. The main injector was a more traditional coaxial.
The truth is that the driver for the AJ-1E6 was the SLS advanced booster program. I read the AW article as stating that two were going to be used (while all documentation that I've read stated three). But if we are talking about a 1.1 Mlbf engine, it wouldn't make sense for anything but SLS program.
So, it might happen, that they've decided to rename it AJ-1, exactly because it won't be a 1 Mlbf engine, but a 500 klbf. But if that happens, the SLS booster will have to use six. Or they've decided to consolidate SLS efforts on the F-1B, which doesn't makes much sense since that engine has zero synergies right now.
What is true, anyways, is that it's probably cheaper and/or faster to develop a 500 klbf engine rather than a 1 Mlbf one. And that might be the critical element to replace the RD-180.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37989
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #97 on: 06/09/2014 12:02 am »
So I think this is the AJ-1E6, now known as the AR-1 (much simpler

Way to butcher corporate heritage.

Rocketdyne LR42 (AR-1) c. 1955. First flown on FJ-4F Fury on 16 July 1958.

Not the first time nor the last.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7545
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2347
  • Likes Given: 2173
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #98 on: 06/09/2014 12:16 am »
it's probably cheaper and/or faster to develop a 500 klbf engine rather than a 1 Mlbf one. And that might be the critical element to replace the RD-180.

Agreed, and that alone is pretty compelling right now.

Another (much more "pie in the sky") reason might be that a nine engine first stage has now been adequately flight proven. A stage using a cluster of nine 500 klbf engines is something that, just possibly, an entity smaller than NASA could develop. A stage using a cluster of nine 1 Mlbf engines on the other hand would have more thrust than an S-IC....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #99 on: 06/09/2014 12:22 am »
it's probably cheaper and/or faster to develop a 500 klbf engine rather than a 1 Mlbf one. And that might be the critical element to replace the RD-180.

Agreed, and that alone is pretty compelling right now.

Another (much more "pie in the sky") reason might be that a nine engine first stage has now been adequately flight proven. A stage using a cluster of nine 500 klbf engines is something that, just possibly, an entity smaller than NASA could develop. A stage using a cluster of nine 1 Mlbf engines on the other hand would have more thrust than an S-IC....

Agreed. And, with restart ability 3/9 restart enables boost back and 1/9 restart allows landing. RTLS and reusability become real. Replace RP-1 with methane to ease coking.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #100 on: 06/10/2014 01:10 am »
Could avoid SRBs by augmenting thrust from liftoff to before maxQ, potentially drop tank(s) (or stretch), then iSP advantage possibly enhanced with higher expansion nozzle given altitude/density of augmentation cut-off.

I must be honest. All I can discern here is a series of run-on fragments, each of which has very little relation to the others. Your meaning is very unclear. There actually is no subject. You never explain how thrust could be augmented, but rather jump from phrase to phrase involving drop tanks, expansion nozzles, and so forth.  If you want to communicate anything that can be understood by others, you need to go back to the basics of writing. A complete thought is expressed in a sentence. To use a sentence you nominate a subject (bring up something to talk about), then predicate (v) the subject (tell something about it). A paragraph is used to elaborate upon one main idea. Paragraph form most typically involves the use of a topic sentence to state a main idea. Detail sentences are then used to support the main idea through examples, elaboration, extension, etc. The main idea may be restated in a concluding sentence. Please, if you want anyone to take your thoughts seriously, you must learn to state those thoughts clearly.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8804
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #101 on: 06/10/2014 01:26 am »
Could avoid SRBs by augmenting thrust from liftoff to before maxQ, potentially drop tank(s) (or stretch), then iSP advantage possibly enhanced with higher expansion nozzle given altitude/density of augmentation cut-off.

I must be honest. All I can discern here is a series of run-on fragments, each of which has very little relation to the others. Your meaning is very unclear. There actually is no subject. You never explain how thrust could be augmented, but rather jump from phrase to phrase involving drop tanks, expansion nozzles, and so forth.  If you want to communicate anything that can be understood by others, you need to go back to the basics of writing. A complete thought is expressed in a sentence. To use a sentence you nominate a subject (bring up something to talk about), then predicate (v) the subject (tell something about it). A paragraph is used to elaborate upon one main idea. Paragraph form most typically involves the use of a topic sentence to state a main idea. Detail sentences are then used to support the main idea through examples, elaboration, extension, etc. The main idea may be restated in a concluding sentence. Please, if you want anyone to take your thoughts seriously, you must learn to state those thoughts clearly.

Congratulations -- you may be the only one here that *didn't* understand that!  BTW, "welcome to NSF" ...  ;)

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1542
  • Likes Given: 2068
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #102 on: 06/10/2014 03:29 am »
No he wasn't.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1030
  • Likes Given: 3837
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #103 on: 06/11/2014 02:46 am »
Does anybody know status of AJ1e6, is it a paper rocket or have they actually built parts of it and tested them.

I believe it's just a paper rocket engine.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #104 on: 07/26/2014 06:54 am »
Here's another presentation that has some new images of the AJ1E6, including the one below showing a test setup.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140002714.pdf
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #105 on: 09/13/2014 06:23 am »
"Paper" engine transitioning to metal via additive manufacturing, qualification of Mondaloy, titanium, copper and materials:

http://aviationweek.com/space/engine-makers-pushing-am-other-technologies-rd-180-replacement

Could see first fire in 2.5 years, depending on priorities, of course.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #106 on: 09/13/2014 11:44 pm »
I like it.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #107 on: 09/14/2014 01:35 am »
Even though advanced booster competition is on hold for now, it looks like AJ decided rather than choosing between their own AJ-1E6 and Dynetics/Rocketdyne F-1B, or of offering both, it made sense to combine everyone's efforts to pursue a viable market: RD-180 replacement. Combining the efforts of all the private parties, as well as NASA and USAF makes sense. If they can come up with a good engine in such a short time, USAF would have its domestic replacement and if NASA ever decided to pursue an advanced liquid booster, there would already be an existing engine suited not just for the job, but quite possibly sized correctly for reusable boosters. A hex plus center configuration of seven 500,000 lb.  engines would be 3.5m lb. thrust per booster with a single center 0.5m lb thrust engine for landing. The question is whether this thing might be throttleable for landing. Build a fleet of four of these for SLS in one run and forget about throwing away boosters every flight.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7545
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2347
  • Likes Given: 2173
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #108 on: 09/14/2014 02:52 am »
A hex plus center configuration of seven 500,000 lb.  engines would be 3.5m lb. thrust per booster with a single center 0.5m lb thrust engine for landing.

That's a clever concept! Are you convinced the plumbing for the center engine would fit in the available space? See attached image.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #109 on: 09/14/2014 03:05 am »
A hex plus center configuration of seven 500,000 lb.  engines would be 3.5m lb. thrust per booster with a single center 0.5m lb thrust engine for landing.

That's a clever concept! Are you convinced the plumbing for the center engine would fit in the available space? See attached image.

Well, those are AJ-1E6 engines in the picture, though my guess is the AR-1 would have the same size nozzle, but we do not know. I wonder if a pentagonal outer configuration with a center sixth would work. That would present problems with unbalanced thrust for boost back, unless you boost with either all engines or just the center engine for RTLS. A hex plus #7 center allows any 3 engines in a row to offer balanced RTLS thrust. (I am beginning to wonder whether Falcons and BFRs will eventually launch mainly from Brownsville and land at KSC, avoiding boost back prop expenditure and requiring only landing prop.) Also, I believe Lobo mentioned upthread that the original AJ proposal was for 3 AJ-1E6 engines on a 5.12 m core (your attached picture). In that 5.5 m is possible through VAB doorway, the extra almost 15 inches might make a difference.

The article discusses the new metallurgy being better resistant to Oxygen corrosion. That would be good for reusability. The article uses the term hydrocarbon fuel, though the picture caption states kerosene, so I guess it's limited to RP-1 and CH4 is off the table.

Interesting that they believe that with all parties working together on this (especially in risk reduction), they can test fire the engine in 2.5 years.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2014 05:13 am by TomH »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3271
  • Likes Given: 4034
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #110 on: 09/14/2014 06:48 am »
"Paper" engine transitioning to metal via additive manufacturing, qualification of Mondaloy, titanium, copper and materials:

http://aviationweek.com/space/engine-makers-pushing-am-other-technologies-rd-180-replacement

Could see first fire in 2.5 years, depending on priorities, of course.

It's exciting and a move in the right direction, I think.  However, I'm still curious why specifically takes so long to develop rocket engines.  Seems we'd know the materials and fluids well by now, and the technologies used to build engines are know.  I know it's not as easy as just heading to the shop and doing some work on a lathe or drill press.  But 2.5 years is a really really long time with modern engineering and manufacturing capabilities.
Starship, Vulcan and Ariane 6 have all reached orbit.  New Glenn, well we are waiting!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #111 on: 09/14/2014 02:06 pm »
It's exciting and a move in the right direction, I think.  However, I'm still curious why specifically takes so long to develop rocket engines.  Seems we'd know the materials and fluids well by now, and the technologies used to build engines are know.  I know it's not as easy as just heading to the shop and doing some work on a lathe or drill press.  But 2.5 years is a really really long time with modern engineering and manufacturing capabilities.

The cynic in me suspects that it is essentially money - not money for development but extra money as sweeteners to boost profit margins (and, consequently, the value of share options) thus making it worth the executives' while.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 566
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #112 on: 09/14/2014 04:29 pm »
But 2.5 years is a really really long time with modern engineering and manufacturing capabilities.
Modern engineering has also given us a million and one ways to test things.

Offline MP99

Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #113 on: 09/14/2014 08:18 pm »
But 2.5 years is a really really long time with modern engineering and manufacturing capabilities.
Modern engineering has also given us a million and one ways to test things.

But, J-2X got into its stride on the test stand much quicker than have previous engines.

cheers, Martin

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #114 on: 09/14/2014 09:30 pm »
The AR-1 (and SpaceX's Raptor) is a first for American engine makers, an oxidizer-rich staged-combustion design that they'd all previously dismissed as impossible or at least too hard to be worth doing.  There's going to be a steep learning curve that will be mitigated by new tools and techniques we didn't have 30-40 years ago, so I think 2.5 years to first fire is a rather quick pace given what they're actually trying to design.  As pointed out, the J-2X didn't take as much effort and time as its predecessor, nor did the RS-68, because of better tools and prior experience, but oxidizer-rich is new territory.

You want faster?  Throw more money at it.  This isn't just building an engine; there's a lot of pioneering effort in developing new manufacturing tools and techniques that will have big long-term payoffs as well.  In only a few years from now, the industry will reap benefits in greatly reduced design time and costs, and we'll see current events as a watershed we've been longing for all along.

If politics do result in a cutoff of the RD-180 supply, it'll be a bit more motivation to speed things along.

What the Soviets did in the 60's with staged-combustion hypergolic engines was just amazing.  The RD-270 would have been an F-1 beater.  We're only just now catching up with mere hydrocarbon engines.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 566
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #115 on: 09/14/2014 10:22 pm »

But, J-2X got into its stride on the test stand much quicker than have previous engines.

cheers, Martin
Still about 4 years.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39442
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25544
  • Likes Given: 12223
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #116 on: 09/15/2014 03:30 am »

But, J-2X got into its stride on the test stand much quicker than have previous engines.

cheers, Martin
Still about 4 years.
...and was sold as being just a tweak on an already-heritage engine. Not a good comparison. (also, J-2x is really heavy... probably better to have J-2s's better T/W ratio than J-2x's slightly improved Isp).
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 Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39603
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33340
  • Likes Given: 9513
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #117 on: 09/15/2014 07:58 am »
... probably better to have J-2s's better T/W ratio than J-2x's slightly improved Isp).

The last time I crunched the numbers on this, the better Isp of J-2X gave better performance, despite the higher engine mass.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #118 on: 09/15/2014 05:31 pm »

But, J-2X got into its stride on the test stand much quicker than have previous engines.

cheers, Martin
Still about 4 years.
...and was sold as being just a tweak on an already-heritage engine. Not a good comparison. (also, J-2x is really heavy... probably better to have J-2s's better T/W ratio than J-2x's slightly improved Isp).

It wasn't "sold" like that - the requirements changed. The initial J-2X design was almost a mirror of the J-2 with  newer materials but otherwise minimal design changes. As the performance issues of Ares I became more apparent, it was necessary for increased upper stage performance - thus the J-2X we have now.

Looking beyond boosters. Since the AR-1 is supposed to be in the 500k thrust class, how about using them for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out? Cheaper to use this engine (if it exists) and deal with GSDO and core changes or develop new Hydrolox RS-25E?
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 05:32 pm by newpylong »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7545
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2347
  • Likes Given: 2173
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #119 on: 09/15/2014 07:04 pm »
how about using [AR-1] for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out?

How much is publicly known about what else could be manufactured using the SLS core stage tools? Could a kerosene stage of the same diameter be produced without retooling?

If (and it is still an "if") propulsive landing of boosters enables their reuse, we might see changes in the forward path of the NASA HLLV. In particular, no one seems to suggest that a stage powered by RS-25 engines could be brought back to a propulsive landing!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12209
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7786
  • Likes Given: 3900
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #120 on: 09/15/2014 07:17 pm »
how about using [AR-1] for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out?

Switching to a hydrocarbon engine would be extremely costly in both time and money as the entire launch infrastructure would have to be changed. It's not just the rocket.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #121 on: 09/15/2014 09:33 pm »
how about using [AR-1] for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out?

Switching to a hydrocarbon engine would be extremely costly in both time and money as the entire launch infrastructure would have to be changed. It's not just the rocket.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say it was just the rocket.

Dollar amounts being thrown out for new engines aren't exactly paltry either, though I would think in the long run cheaper than switching fuels. But that's why I posed the question.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #122 on: 09/16/2014 03:12 am »
how about using [AR-1] for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out?

Switching to a hydrocarbon engine would be extremely costly in both time and money as the entire launch infrastructure would have to be changed. It's not just the rocket.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say it was just the rocket.

Dollar amounts being thrown out for new engines aren't exactly paltry either, though I would think in the long run cheaper than switching fuels. But that's why I posed the question.

That would be an entirely different design on so many levels. With H2 the fuel takes up far more volume than the LOX. With RP-1, the fuel volume is much lower than that of the LOX. The ISP is higher for the H2 while the ISP density is higher for the RP-1. This would be starting from scratch in numerous ways. There would be no reason to have additional boosters. You'd go with something like a Saturn V design, using the AR-1 for initial thrust on a lower stage, then you'd need an H2 US with its ISP advantage to reach LEO. Now you need a 3rd stage for earth departure. If you want to change engines but keep the same basic design of a sustainer core to disposal orbit, it would be far more reasonable to pursue RS-68A or RS-68B. Putting AR-1 on the core is not like a new design, it is a new design in every way imaginable. Every cent spent thus far would be thrown out the window and all the time invested would be lost as well.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 03:17 am by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 Progress Known?
« Reply #123 on: 09/16/2014 04:05 pm »
"Paper" engine transitioning to metal via additive manufacturing, qualification of Mondaloy, titanium, copper and materials:

http://aviationweek.com/space/engine-makers-pushing-am-other-technologies-rd-180-replacement

Could see first fire in 2.5 years, depending on priorities, of course.

Quote
Materials engineers at AJR have developed a set of alloys they have trademarked as “Mondaloy” that combines high strength with resistance to burning, making them particularly useful in the oxygen-rich, high-pressure environments that would be found inside the AR-1 and other oxidizer-rich, staged-combustion rockets.

But I thought only the -Russians- had the metellurgy to do ORSC?  You mean we can too?
*sarcasm font*

Pretty cool.  Interesting that Dynetics and AJR, who previously would have been comptators for SLS advanced boosters, have joined forces here.  I guess the writing on the wall for the scrapping of SLS liquid advanced boosters is too hard to ignore now.   Obviously Antares would be the other beneficiary of this although I didn't see that mentioned in the article. 

I would also think (but couldn't say for sure) that if USAF invests in this engine for Atlas V, the days of Delta IV could be numbered.  Once Atlas has a US-made engine...by the same manufacturer as RS-68, with a lower price tag, then I really think USAF will look at letting ULA retire Delta IV, increasing Atlas launches and [hopefully] further reducing costs of Atlas launch servies.  (Which ULA should be happy about as SpaceX will be out there knocking on their door)  AJR will still be happy because they are just replacing one engine production line with another...so that lobby should be ok with it, unlike if Delta IV were cancelled while Atlas was still flying Russian engines. 
And as Jim has said before, if there were a new 5m upper stage for Atlas, and Atlas V-55x could match D4H in performance.  Obviously ULA has been wanting to develop that new 5m wide body centaur or ACES stage for awhile now.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #124 on: 09/16/2014 10:53 pm »
how about using [AR-1] for SLS core stage after the stockpile of RS-25s run out?

Switching to a hydrocarbon engine would be extremely costly in both time and money as the entire launch infrastructure would have to be changed. It's not just the rocket.

Now, if they would have made the SLS core hydrocarbon right from the get-go, and went with a cluster something like a TR-107 (Since AR-1 wasn't really conceived back in 2011), SLS could have gotten up over 130mt to LEO in it's first itteration.  Especially if they'd use somethink liek a vacuum air-startable version of the TR-107 for the 2nd stage, and then an RL-10 powered CPS/EDS/EUS type stage.  Then J2X could have been cancelled, and just basically the one new engine developed...which had already gone a long way into development back in the early 2000's.

It could have been a Falcon 9 on steroids.  But even in 2011 when they were trying to figure out would be, F9 had already flown wiht a 9 engine booster and 1 engine vacuum version upper stage.  The breadcrums were all there, they just needed to be picked up and followed. 


But today?  Yea, I think SLS would be cancelled before sucha massive redesign as that.


Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #126 on: 11/06/2014 04:35 pm »
If I recall properly, going far back enough in its development history, the AR-1 was originally the AJ-26-500, a reverse engineered and upgrade of the NK-33/AJ-26 used on the OSC Antares. Now, from what I've been seeing on the ORB-CRS-3 failure threads, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are serious concerns about the reliability of the NK-33 family's turbopumps with test failures in both Russia and the US and now the loss of an Antares in flight.

Will this issue impact seriously on the AR-1 program?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 04:36 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8861
  • Liked: 4802
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #127 on: 11/06/2014 04:47 pm »
If I recall properly, going far back enough in its development history, the AR-1 was originally the AJ-26-500, a reverse engineered and upgrade of the NK-33/AJ-26 used on the OSC Antares. Now, from what I've been seeing on the ORB-CRS-3 failure threads, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are serious concerns about the reliability of the NK-33 family's turbopumps with test failures in both Russia and the US and now the loss of an Antares in flight.

Will this issue impact seriously on the AR-1 program?
based on the imagery form the various related threads on NSF and that provided by AR, there is no visual evidence that the NK-33 family's unified tubopump/shaft assembly is being integrated, tested, and flown on the AR-1 (AJ-1E6), but i guess looks can be deceiving.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34944.msg1227411#msg1227411
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 04:54 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #128 on: 11/06/2014 04:54 pm »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8861
  • Liked: 4802
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #129 on: 11/06/2014 05:00 pm »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
AR's website points towards all new new generation manufacture and construction for all AR-1 configurations. The website does lack details, but I'm entirely sure that we can trust them since didn't say anything about using refurbished engines components, right? ;)

I'm sure there is some Russian design elements, but I cannot be sure as to which engine family.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 05:03 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline JWarner

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #130 on: 11/07/2014 01:23 pm »
I don't think design is the problem. It's the fact that they are physically 40+ years old and were sitting around in a warehouse for 30 years before AR bought them.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8861
  • Liked: 4802
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #131 on: 11/07/2014 01:32 pm »
I don't think design is the problem. It's the fact that they are physically 40+ years old and were sitting around in a warehouse for 30 years before AR bought them.
AR-1 is not 40 years old as none have been built yet. This is a new generation LRE with next generation design practices and new generation manufacturing technique such as its 3-D printed using CAD based software et cetera.

Offline JWarner

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #132 on: 11/07/2014 02:29 pm »
I know.

Ben was asking about design heritage and I am saying they could probably use the exact design and it would be fine if it was newly built.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 760
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #133 on: 11/07/2014 03:44 pm »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
AR's website points towards all new new generation manufacture and construction for all AR-1 configurations. The website does lack details, but I'm entirely sure that we can trust them since didn't say anything about using refurbished engines components, right? ;)

I'm sure there is some Russian design elements, but I cannot be sure as to which engine family.

Looks more like an RD series engine from what I can tell.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8861
  • Liked: 4802
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #134 on: 11/07/2014 03:59 pm »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
AR's website points towards all new new generation manufacture and construction for all AR-1 configurations. The website does lack details, but I'm entirely sure that we can trust them since didn't say anything about using refurbished engines components, right? ;)

I'm sure there is some Russian design elements, but I cannot be sure as to which engine family.

Looks more like an RD series engine from what I can tell.
It looks like a cross between an RD series and the kerolox YF series developed for CZ-5 and up.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #135 on: 11/15/2014 12:10 am »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
AR's website points towards all new new generation manufacture and construction for all AR-1 configurations. The website does lack details, but I'm entirely sure that we can trust them since didn't say anything about using refurbished engines components, right? ;)

I'm sure there is some Russian design elements, but I cannot be sure as to which engine family.

Looks more like an RD series engine from what I can tell.
Looks more like the LR-87's assembly to me.
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 TrevorMonty

Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #136 on: 11/15/2014 12:24 am »
I don't think design is the problem. It's the fact that they are physically 40+ years old and were sitting around in a warehouse for 30 years before AR bought them.
AR-1 is not 40 years old as none have been built yet. This is a new generation LRE with next generation design practices and new generation manufacturing technique such as its 3-D printed using CAD based software et cetera.
The AR1 could be a great engine and would have been a perfect RD180 replacement for AtlasV. Unfortunately for Aerojet that boat has already sailed. I suspect this engine is destined to stay a paper rocket.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2014 12:25 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 760
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #137 on: 11/15/2014 12:34 am »
Let's clarify this; I'm not asking whether NK-33 turbopumps would be flown but whether the AR-1's turbopumps would be NK-33 heritage (common design concepts and operating principles).
AR's website points towards all new new generation manufacture and construction for all AR-1 configurations. The website does lack details, but I'm entirely sure that we can trust them since didn't say anything about using refurbished engines components, right? ;)

I'm sure there is some Russian design elements, but I cannot be sure as to which engine family.

Looks more like an RD series engine from what I can tell.
Looks more like the LR-87's assembly to me.

That resemblance has been noted before and I don't disagree.

I was just looking at the AR-1 renderings alongside RD-180 and NK-33 schematics and was having a much easier time mapping bits of the AR-1 to the RD series schematic.

In other words, I don't think AR-1 has much NK heritage.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #138 on: 02/09/2015 02:07 pm »

ULA to help fund the AR-1 for a couple years.

Plus there is government's $200m funding for a domestic engine,  Aerojet may yet build this engine.

http://m.decaturdaily.com/news/ula-s-ceo-talks-challenges-engine-plant-plans-for-decatur/article_8ba49046-af4a-11e4-97ef-ff58591d43fc.html?mode=jqm

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3271
  • Likes Given: 4034
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #139 on: 02/09/2015 02:42 pm »
That resemblance has been noted before and I don't disagree.

I was just looking at the AR-1 renderings alongside RD-180 and NK-33 schematics and was having a much easier time mapping bits of the AR-1 to the RD series schematic.

In other words, I don't think AR-1 has much NK heritage.

Wait till it's fully detailed.  In any design process it's most simplistic at the start then reality and design details clutter things up.  That's why renderings are often more appealing than the real final product.
Starship, Vulcan and Ariane 6 have all reached orbit.  New Glenn, well we are waiting!

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #140 on: 02/09/2015 03:22 pm »

ULA to help fund the AR-1 for a couple years.

Plus there is government's $200m funding for a domestic engine,  Aerojet may yet build this engine.

http://m.decaturdaily.com/news/ula-s-ceo-talks-challenges-engine-plant-plans-for-decatur/article_8ba49046-af4a-11e4-97ef-ff58591d43fc.html?mode=jqm
I don't understand how AR-1 can be a "backup" for BE-4, since the two engines use completely different fuels.  ULA would have to also design a "backup" rocket - unless it intends AR-1 to be a straight up RD-180 replacement, in which case AR-1 is still not a "backup" because it would mean keeping the current Atlas 5/Delta 4 lineup.

 - Ed Kyle
Assuming the BE-4 falls through would it make sense for ULA to close down the Delta line, continue on with the Atlas V (with AR-1s) and transition to something like the Atlas Phase 2? Perhaps even drop the Delta quickly and build the Atlas Heavy as an interim until Phase 2 is brought online?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #141 on: 02/09/2015 06:57 pm »
Reading this critically there is no news as to AR-1, so these posts don't belong here.

All that is remotely "new" is that AR constitutes a theoretical alternative, which has always been true, and would be true no matter until AR would cease to exist.

This is a distraction to this thread. Leave this thread here, because "advanced boosters" are the only thing that might use such novel engines from AR. Anything that would assist ULA, however labelled, is likely to be a very different program as well.

Such might be in the form of a "spin out" or hedge fund deal, may or may not have any Russian heritage/licensing.

E.g. don't assume too much is fixed here either. Also, if SLS hits a speed bump of some kind, advanced boosters can be brought back to the table (from the dead?).

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #142 on: 02/12/2015 11:41 am »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #143 on: 02/12/2015 01:07 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Also these engine projects take years. Not even one year ago the RD-180 looked safe. It would be difficult to produce an engine which could compete with it. The RD-180's development cost were paid long ago and its production labor is cheaper. There wasn't a good reason to replace it. Blue just happened to be developing an engine with close enough to what ULA was looking for when they needed to stat looking for a replacement. However Blue was doing that for their own rocket project and no because they hoped to sell it to a third party. It just happened to work out that way.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #144 on: 02/12/2015 03:23 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Also these engine projects take years. Not even one year ago the RD-180 looked safe. It would be difficult to produce an engine which could compete with it. The RD-180's development cost were paid long ago and its production labor is cheaper. There wasn't a good reason to replace it. Blue just happened to be developing an engine with close enough to what ULA was looking for when they needed to stat looking for a replacement. However Blue was doing that for their own rocket project and no because they hoped to sell it to a third party. It just happened to work out that way.

BO started development of BE-4 in 2011 but didn't sign any agreement with ULA until 2014.  Who were they developing it for?

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #145 on: 02/12/2015 03:53 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Also these engine projects take years. Not even one year ago the RD-180 looked safe. It would be difficult to produce an engine which could compete with it. The RD-180's development cost were paid long ago and its production labor is cheaper. There wasn't a good reason to replace it. Blue just happened to be developing an engine with close enough to what ULA was looking for when they needed to stat looking for a replacement. However Blue was doing that for their own rocket project and no because they hoped to sell it to a third party. It just happened to work out that way.

BO started development of BE-4 in 2011 but didn't sign any agreement with ULA until 2014.  Who were they developing it for?
Themselves, they were/are working on a reusable launch vehicle which would use the BE-4 as the first stage propulsion. As Tory Bruno puts it though Blue is very shy so not much is known about that project.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #146 on: 02/12/2015 04:23 pm »
Themselves, they were/are working on a reusable launch vehicle which would use the BE-4 as the first stage propulsion. As Tory Bruno puts it though Blue is very shy so not much is known about that project.

Ahhh....ok.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8488
  • Likes Given: 5390
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #147 on: 02/12/2015 04:50 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Only in the world of these government contractors would that be such a consideration. In most other areas, corporations actually do have significant research and development budgets (gasp) to develop new products where there are no customers yet.

Don't act like PWR/Aerojet is in the poor house. They have had plenty of income over the years. But they won't lift a finger to actually do real development without a fat contract.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2015 05:22 pm by Lars-J »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #148 on: 02/12/2015 05:32 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Only in the world of these government contractors would that be such a consideration. In most other areas, corporation actually do have significant research and development budgets (gasp) to develop new products where there are no customers yet.

Don't act like PWR/Aerojet is in the poor house. They have had plenty of income over the years. But they won't lift a finger to actually do real development without a fat contract.
PWR/Aerojet make a product that isn't sold by itself. The money to make engines comes from the people who make the rockets who get their income by launching payloads. A new engine will never generate income unless it is paired with all the rest of the parts of a rocket. If the company doesn't make rockets then they have to work with another company who does. If there is no company out there wanting to build the rest of a rocket then making a new engine is a waste of money. The consumers of launch services have no use for just an engine by itself.

The major liquid rocket development in the US over the last decade has been by companies which are also producing the rest of the rocket. Those companies do have an end product which they can sell to the consumers of launch services. The problem is with how business is organized in this industry not that companies are not willing to build engine on spec. We aren't ragging on fairing manufacturers for not developing better fairings for the EELVs with just their own money.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: AJ-1E6 (Now AR-1) Progress Known?
« Reply #149 on: 02/12/2015 08:14 pm »
A general unwillingness on the part of both Aerojet and PWR to invest in engine development without a solid customer to foot the bill may yet cost them dearly. With Blue Origin seeming to possibly about to take away ULA's NGLV business and Delta-IV and Atlas-V going away, AJR may find themselves without any business at all in as little as a decade beyond SLS at a rate of, what, eight engines a year spread across two models?
To be fair no company has developed an engine without a rocket or customer footing the bill. SpaceX and Blue both had a rocket meant to go with their engines. A new engine is going to cost a huge amount of money to design and build. I don't think it is logical to expect Aerojet or PWR to have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an engine with only the hope that someone someday might buy it. That would be an awfully large amount of money to gamble.

Only in the world of these government contractors would that be such a consideration. In most other areas, corporations actually do have significant research and development budgets (gasp) to develop new products where there are no customers yet.

Don't act like PWR/Aerojet is in the poor house. They have had plenty of income over the years. But they won't lift a finger to actually do real development without a fat contract.

Irrelevant comparison. "These government contractors" are their only possible customers, unlike the "other areas" where possible customers are likely to be more numerous.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 464
  • Likes Given: 199

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1