Author Topic: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares  (Read 91958 times)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #60 on: 12/17/2014 06:12 pm »
I'm still flabbergasted by the economics of this engine deal. If they get 20 engines for close to $1 billion, that is close to $50 million per engine. Close to $100 million for each Antares. And that is for the first stage engines only - does not include 1st stage tank, 2nd stage, or avionics.

How do they expect to make money off this?
That's the same reason I'm assuming that the 1B figure is when they include the two extra options, or for 60 engines, which would make each pair about 35M. Add a 15M for the Castor 30XL and that's 50M in propulsion. Orbital already stated that propulsion was 70% of the LV cost, so it would mean a cost of 72M or so per launch. A much more reasonable cost. Of course, still not competitive with the Falcon 9, but good enough for the CRS2 contract.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #61 on: 12/17/2014 06:18 pm »
I'm still flabbergasted by the economics of this engine deal. If they get 20 engines for close to $1 billion, that is close to $50 million per engine. Close to $100 million for each Antares. And that is for the first stage engines only - does not include 1st stage tank, 2nd stage, or avionics.

How do they expect to make money off this?
That's the same reason I'm assuming that the 1B figure is when they include the two extra options, or for 60 engines, which would make each pair about 35M. Add a 15M for the Castor 30XL and that's 50M in propulsion. Orbital already stated that propulsion was 70% of the LV cost, so it would mean a cost of 72M or so per launch. A much more reasonable cost. Of course, still not competitive with the Falcon 9, but good enough for the CRS2 contract.

http://spacenews.com/orbital-sciences-orders-rd-181-engines-for-antares-rocket/

Orbital spokesperson says that the $1B number is more or less nonsense.

Quote
“If all the options under the contract were exercised, the total value would be significantly less than $1 billion,” Beneski added in an email to SpaceNews. “I can’t be more precise than that.”

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #62 on: 12/17/2014 07:21 pm »
ULA are paying approx $20m for RD180, Aerojet quoted $20-25m for pair of AR1. I would expect a price of around $20m a pair for RD181.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #63 on: 12/17/2014 08:22 pm »
ULA are paying approx $20m for RD180, Aerojet quoted $20-25m for pair of AR1. I would expect a price of around $20m a pair for RD181.
It depends on what the words "significantly less than $1 billion" mean.  $20 million for a pair totals $600 million for 60 engines, but is 6/10ths of $1 billion "significant" or "nearly half"?  A pair of these engines could total $30 million and the total would still be "significantly less than $1 billion". 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/17/2014 08:22 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • United States
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #64 on: 12/17/2014 08:32 pm »
http://spacenews.com/orbital-sciences-orders-rd-181-engines-for-antares-rocket/

So, now Antares is going to be powered by RD181.
What is Orbital doing with the 20 engines on contract and the other 20 engines option...

They're going to exercise whatever escape clauses they have in their contract with Aerojet to minimize their losses and move on.

The real question is, what is Aerojet going to do with the engines?
That is another pertinent question...
They may have them on their dinner plate for the rest of their natural life.

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • United States
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #65 on: 12/17/2014 08:54 pm »
I'm still flabbergasted by the economics of this engine deal. If they get 20 engines for close to $1 billion, that is close to $50 million per engine. Close to $100 million for each Antares. And that is for the first stage engines only - does not include 1st stage tank, 2nd stage, or avionics.

How do they expect to make money off this?
Your presumption makes sense price-wise, but to buy 60 engines before you are sure you're going to get the contract??? Now, that Boeing is offering its CST100 and surely SpaceX is another bidder. Of the three I'd say Orbital is most likely the third one...
That's the same reason I'm assuming that the 1B figure is when they include the two extra options, or for 60 engines, which would make each pair about 35M. Add a 15M for the Castor 30XL and that's 50M in propulsion. Orbital already stated that propulsion was 70% of the LV cost, so it would mean a cost of 72M or so per launch. A much more reasonable cost. Of course, still not competitive with the Falcon 9, but good enough for the CRS2 contract.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #66 on: 12/20/2014 09:26 pm »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #67 on: 12/21/2014 06:48 pm »
When to time announcements for the benefit of investors is off topic. Many posts from those who should know better have been trimmed.

Also, the forum offers an ignore feature for those who wish to ignore certain posters...
« Last Edit: 12/21/2014 06:54 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline MP99

Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #68 on: 12/24/2014 10:38 am »
Quote from: Lar
Also, the forum offers an ignore feature for those who wish to ignore certain posters...

... which doesn't work on Tapatalk or Forum Fiend.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my GT-N5120 using Forum Fiend v1.2.14.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #69 on: 12/24/2014 06:36 pm »

If Orbital could ever develop a reasonable upper stage for Antares, then with RD-181, this could be a great GEO comsat launcher.......

I think LOX/Methane and an engine from Darma Technology or Xcor would be a good choice for a high energy upper stage.



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #70 on: 12/24/2014 08:30 pm »

I think LOX/Methane and an engine from Darma Technology or Xcor would be a good choice for a high energy upper stage.


What supports that claim?  What hardware of theirs have flight experience in upper stages?
« Last Edit: 12/24/2014 08:31 pm by Jim »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #71 on: 12/25/2014 03:03 am »
I have to ask if RD-181s are being invoked in this contract to somehow differentiate the engines from the RD-180s that some third party controls?

Otherwise, why would Orbital want untested RD-181s when the RD-180 seems to work?

« Last Edit: 12/25/2014 03:04 am by Danderman »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #72 on: 12/25/2014 04:10 am »
I have to ask if RD-181s are being invoked in this contract to somehow differentiate the engines from the RD-180s that some third party controls?

Otherwise, why would Orbital want untested RD-181s when the RD-180 seems to work?

The RD-181s are definitely different from RD-180s. Biggest difference being that each RD-181 is a single-chamber engine with smaller turbopumps (instead of dual-chamber for the RD-180). The thrust chambers for the 181 and 180 may be similar or identical, not sure. But IIRC, the RD-181 is a commercial version of Russia's RD-193 that was designed as a replacement for the NK-33 on Soyuz 2-1v rocket when they run out of their stock of NK-33s. My guess is the fact that it was designed as a replacement for the NK-33 means that some of interfaces may be designed to be compatible, which may have contributed to the choice. An RD-180 would have likely required more modifications to the Antares stage than the -181.

And as you mention, they also get the benefit of buying it without a middle-man.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #73 on: 12/25/2014 07:55 am »
I have to ask if RD-181s are being invoked in this contract to somehow differentiate the engines from the RD-180s that some third party controls?

Otherwise, why would Orbital want untested RD-181s when the RD-180 seems to work?
The RD180 was Orbitals first choice but ULA stopped them buying RD180.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #74 on: 12/26/2014 02:45 pm »
The RD180 was Orbitals first choice but ULA stopped them buying RD180.
Then Orbital sued and, after a number of months during which the case seemed to be going Orbital's way, Orbital and ULA seemed to have reached some agreement because Orbital withdrew the suit.   

RD-181 is going to essentially be a substantially throttled-back RD-191 (proven on Angara), which means that the engine likely won't be pushed toward any red line limits. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #75 on: 12/26/2014 03:47 pm »

The RD180 was Orbitals first choice but ULA stopped them buying RD180.
Then Orbital sued and, after a number of months during which the case seemed to be going Orbital's way, Orbital and ULA seemed to have reached some agreement because Orbital withdrew the suit.   

RD-181 is going to essentially be a substantially throttled-back RD-191 (proven on Angara), which means that the engine likely won't be pushed toward any red line limits. 

 - Ed Kyle
Do you know it's going to be throttle back in general or you mean before they strengthen the thrust structure.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #76 on: 12/26/2014 07:54 pm »

The RD180 was Orbitals first choice but ULA stopped them buying RD180.
Then Orbital sued and, after a number of months during which the case seemed to be going Orbital's way, Orbital and ULA seemed to have reached some agreement because Orbital withdrew the suit.   

RD-181 is going to essentially be a substantially throttled-back RD-191 (proven on Angara), which means that the engine likely won't be pushed toward any red line limits. 

 - Ed Kyle
Do you know it's going to be throttle back in general or you mean before they strengthen the thrust structure.
It is going to be throttled to match AJ26 performance for the stages already completed.  I suppose that some structural changes could allow slightly higher thrust, but there is little reason to increase the thrust to its maximum capability unless the stage is stretched and loaded with more propellant.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #77 on: 12/26/2014 08:02 pm »
It is going to be throttled to match AJ26 performance for the stages already completed.  I suppose that some structural changes could allow slightly higher thrust, but there is little reason to increase the thrust to its maximum capability unless the stage is stretched and loaded with more propellant.

 - Ed Kyle

Or to lift a heavier second stage that takes on more of the total delta-v.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6153
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3364
  • Likes Given: 1138
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #78 on: 12/26/2014 10:18 pm »
Are the fuel/oxidizer tanks on the existing stages sized correctly for the -181 fuel mixture ratio?
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: RD-180 vs RD-181 on Antares
« Reply #79 on: 12/26/2014 10:32 pm »

It is going to be throttled to match AJ26 performance for the stages already completed.  I suppose that some structural changes could allow slightly higher thrust, but there is little reason to increase the thrust to its maximum capability unless the stage is stretched and loaded with more propellant.



Are the fuel/oxidizer tanks on the existing stages sized correctly for the -181 fuel mixture ratio?

Changing the length of tanks is not that big a deal for the rocket manufacturer, but the impact on ground ops may be significant. All this means that the Antares 200 first stage may not be identical to the old version, but can't really stray too far, due to pad or transport constraints.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0