Author Topic: Funding for a domestic liquid engine in the National Defense authorization bill  (Read 207327 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
This says it all for me....

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Yes, I know that ULA buys the engine from a subcontractor, and that the congressional money wouldn't go directly to them, but sheesh, what a load of corporate welfare.
Welcome to the natural world where nothing exists in a vacuum.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the US government knew all of those scientists and technicians in Russia were going to work for whoever was willing to pay them. The government pushed Lockheed to be that employer because it didn't want China, North Korea, Libya, etc to be the employer. And now they aren't going to throw LM under the bus just because they did what they were told.

And yet historically that's exactly what the USGov has done. Think about Noriaga & the Taliban for recent examples. There are many more. LM is by no means "safe" here.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 04:15 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 04:18 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.
Over here Chuck for my "Hot Rod Atlas"... :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34267.45
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.

I concur that the expiration of the license means a different alternative should be explored.  How likely would it be that the US just "cheat" and continue producing a domestic RD-180 badged something different?
More to the point, and as indicated by clongton, a NEW Atlas would be required for the F-1B--basically another new LV.  That sounds expensive.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.

I concur that the expiration of the license means a different alternative should be explored.  How likely would it be that the US just "cheat" and continue producing a domestic RD-180 badged something different?
More to the point, and as indicated by clongton, a NEW Atlas would be required for the F-1B--basically another new LV.  That sounds expensive.
Not really, it could be based on Dynetics single stick design... ;)
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 04:40 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
That's what I'm talking about!!!!!!! :)
An F-1B powered Atlas enables a LOT of things:

Reliable DoD/NASA domestic launch
SLS LRB for the required min LEO performance as specified by Congress using existing 4xRS25E thrust structure design
Orion Crew Launch capability to LEO - bring the 1.5 Launch Architecture to fruition the way it SHOULD have been done.

Let's stop outsourcing our launch capabilities and bring our Flagship HLV back home to America.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 06:40 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.

It's be sweet...but I don't think ULA could do it.  Wouldn't a new wider core Atlas (say 5m to use Delta IV dooling) with a single F-1B on it...no longer be an Atlas?  As Jim has said several times, ULA can only operate the current Atlas V and Delta IV.  They can't develop a new LV.   I suppose the real question is, what is a "new" LV and what is just a growth of Atlas?  Would Atlas PHase 2 been a new LV or a growth of Atlas?  And thus could have been designed and built by ULA?

Anyway, I think the easier route to go than a new core with a new F-1B engine, is to modify the existing core to mount either a TR-107 or an RS-84.  Both would be similar in size and performance to RD-180, and should be able to be used on the current Atlas cores with minimal MPS or pad modificaitons.

Note:  I do like the F-1, and think an LV with a 5m kerolox core, new 5m mide body Centaur, and the new MARC-60 (MB-60) that it looks like AJR and MHI will develop for the JAXA H-X LV, would make for a very sweet workhorse LV.  Just not sure if it's the most feasibel upgrade, or even legal for ULA to do.  Jim could probably clarify that.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
The prospect of ULA developing a new kerolox booster core is unlikely. The prospect of ULA and NASA jointly developing a dual-purpose kerolox booster core driven in part by SLS requirements is inconceivable. As in: will never happen.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194

That all makes sense to me (and I agree), but neither the F-1B engine nor the Dynetics rocket currently exist.  Of course, if SLS really does happen/continue past the initial four missions, an advanced booster would be needed, but where's the money to develop the engine and the booster (now or in the future, but as we see, the future is now)?

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
That's what I'm talking about!!!!!!! :)
An F-1B powered Atlas enables a LOT of things

Anyone run the numbers on this? It would definitely require a tank stretch, but how much....

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
The prospect of ULA developing a new kerolox booster core is unlikely. The prospect of ULA and NASA jointly developing a dual-purpose kerolox booster core driven in part by SLS requirements is inconceivable. As in: will never happen.
1 - CR for rest of year; gridlock
2 - Bill requires engine access to all US companies
3-  HLV is not required   (two lunar sorties/yr = 240mT divide by 10 is a 24mT LV for a single LV!) 
4-  Atlas and Delta cannot compete at 480M/launch
Inconceivable indeed....especially if a HLV is discussed in the same context....its way too big to consider anything above 20 to 50 mT.  Atlas/Delta too expensive; yet add other product lines. ???

The writing is on the wall...NASA is getting out of the HLV product lines and the LEO flights are being turned over to "commercial" companies and these companies will support the LEO infrastructure per Bolden.

It just takes a long time to steer the Titanic to its destination...inconceivable that it does not sink on its own.

But wait for it....“"Inconceivable." You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

That's what I'm talking about!!!!!!! :)
An F-1B powered Atlas enables a LOT of things
Anyone run the numbers on this? It would definitely require a tank stretch, but how much....

But if you have a product, market it, even if its too big and too expensive!  Continue to pitch multiple, non-common hardware elements to maximize the number of production lines, the number of unique LV configurations, etc, and tell the government its "required for deep space explorin' "    Go win a few elections if you cannot compete....More than one way to skin a cat.

Notice that Economic Access to Space is never considered when the numbers are run, as recently pointed out by the GAO:  The SLS estimate is based on the funding required to develop and operate the initial 70-metric ton variant through first flight in 2017 but not the costs for its second flight in 2021.  The estimate does not include costs to incrementally design, develop, and produce future 105- and 130-metric ton SLS variants which NASA expects to use for decades

A national strategy to coordinate the next generation LVs in underway, but it appears the existing players do not want to participate, even though many of ULA engineers developed many of the concepts of ACES, propellant depots, and common hardware to develop this LEO infrastructure to enable deep space exploration, increase mass to GEO, etc and take advantage of Boeing's Amplification Factor.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Not really, it could be based on Dynetics single stick design... ;)

-IF- ULA could do it, and actually wanted to, I would think they'd use the D4 5m tooling and do it at Decatur, rather than Dynetics' 5.5m tooling.   We would have to assume in this scenario, one or both current EELV's would go away.  Atlas V becuase of it's Russian engine, and Delta 4 because they'd have a better 5m wide EELV.  Maybe retain the 5m DCSS and put that on top. 
Might be more of a "Delta 4 Phase 2" than an "Atlas 5 Phase 2". 
If they can do it, I think they'd have to call it an Atlas V or Delta IV, as that's all ULA can operate.  Probably why Atlas V PHase 2, Phase 3a and Phase 3b were called that rather than "Atlas 6" or "Atlas 7".  ULA can't operate an "Atlas 6" or a "Delta 5", but it could operate and "Atlas 5 Phase 2" or a "Delta 4 Phase 2".
 
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 09:03 pm by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
The Dynetics booster is 5.5m dia and with 2 x F-1B burn time is, I believe, 150 sec. Thrust is 3.6Mlb. for two of them. Just a single F-1B at 1.8 Mlb is almost double the thrust of a single RD-180 @ 993 Klb thrust. So when you guys are talking about this F-1B powered "Atlas", you are either talking about an LV with almost 4 times the thrust of AV (Pyrios booster) or almost 2 times the thrust. Those of you calling for a 5 m dia. built on Delta tooling, you have an immense difference in fuel density. Five meters is a lot more total energy for RP-1 than H2 at the same height. So are you advocating a shorter tank? For this 5m cylinder, are you thinking one engine or two?  I am not sure that 5m is the right dia. for this amount of thrust.

Then there is the burn time.  If you are considering the Pyrios booster, you have a short burn time and the second stage needs a substantial burn. The J-2X powered Ares I second stage matches that Pyrios first stage well, but we aren't talking Orion's mass to orbit. Would a Centaur or ACES match a Pyrios well?

I don't know. I grew up watching F-1 put us on the moon, but nostalgia is not a good basis for making decisions today. Even one F-1B seems way too powerful for this purpose, much moreso two. A single Raptor seems IMHO to be a much more forward thinking decision.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
The Dynetics booster is 5.5m dia and with 2 x F-1B burn time is, I believe, 150 sec. Thrust is 3.6Mlb. for two of them. Just a single F-1B at 1.8 Mlb is almost double the thrust of a single RD-180 @ 993 Klb thrust. So when you guys are talking about this F-1B powered "Atlas", you are either talking about an LV with almost 4 times the thrust of AV (Pyrios booster) or almost 2 times the thrust. Those of you calling for a 5 m dia. built on Delta tooling, you have an immense difference in fuel density. Five meters is a lot more total energy for RP-1 than H2 at the same height. So are you advocating a shorter tank? For this 5m cylinder, are you thinking one engine or two?  I am not sure that 5m is the right dia. for this amount of thrust.

Then there is the burn time.  If you are considering the Pyrios booster, you have a short burn time and the second stage needs a substantial burn. The J-2X powered Ares I second stage matches that Pyrios first stage well, but we aren't talking Orion's mass to orbit. Would a Centaur or ACES match a Pyrios well?

I don't know. I grew up watching F-1 put us on the moon, but nostalgia is not a good basis for making decisions today. Even one F-1B seems way too powerful for this purpose, much moreso two. A single Raptor seems IMHO to be a much more forward thinking decision.
Thinking along the lines of a single engine variant Tom...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
The Dynetics booster is 5.5m dia and with 2 x F-1B burn time is, I believe, 150 sec. Thrust is 3.6Mlb. for two of them. Just a single F-1B at 1.8 Mlb is almost double the thrust of a single RD-180 @ 993 Klb thrust. So when you guys are talking about this F-1B powered "Atlas", you are either talking about an LV with almost 4 times the thrust of AV (Pyrios booster) or almost 2 times the thrust. Those of you calling for a 5 m dia. built on Delta tooling, you have an immense difference in fuel density. Five meters is a lot more total energy for RP-1 than H2 at the same height. So are you advocating a shorter tank? For this 5m cylinder, are you thinking one engine or two?  I am not sure that 5m is the right dia. for this amount of thrust.

Then there is the burn time.  If you are considering the Pyrios booster, you have a short burn time and the second stage needs a substantial burn. The J-2X powered Ares I second stage matches that Pyrios first stage well, but we aren't talking Orion's mass to orbit. Would a Centaur or ACES match a Pyrios well?

I don't know. I grew up watching F-1 put us on the moon, but nostalgia is not a good basis for making decisions today. Even one F-1B seems way too powerful for this purpose, much moreso two. A single Raptor seems IMHO to be a much more forward thinking decision.

Tom,
I agree it'd almost certainly never happen.
However, myself I was suggesting that if such a new "A5P2" or D4P2" were ever to be built by ULA, it would in the midst of some major restructuring.  Probably because RD-180 is going away, and for some cost/political reason, F-1B is somehow more appealing than a US-made RD-180, or modification of A5 to mount TR-107 or RS-84 or AJ-1E6, and the development of those engines.  Don't know how that would ever be the case, but for a moment, say it is.
And in the midst of this major restructuring, the 3.7m Atlas core would go away.  And a new 5m kerolox core would be developed using the Delta 4 tooling.  Not that it would -use- the D4 core.  Obviously a kerolox core would be shorter at 5m, and probably need to be stronger because it's more than double the thrust of an RS-68. 
A switch in the D4 production line to a kerolox core would likely mean D4 is going away too.  But as has been mentioned by several around here, the D4 is a bit of a kludge.  Expensive and with slow pad flow.  So probably not a major problem, if ULA were to ever actually get to this major restructuring point. 

But, fun to speculate sometimes.  It'd be a pretty cool little LV.  USAF would never need a tri-core version of it, but it could be designed to use either Atlas SRB's or GEM-60's to augment it's performance if needed. 
It wouldn't have as good of performance as Atlas Phase 2 because of the lower ISP F-1B, but with a good upper stage, it should probabaly get around 25mt to LEO and maybe 12mt to GTO?, without SRB's.  More with SRB's.  I think the proposed MARC-60 engine (what the MB-60 is now being called.  Mitsubishi Aerojet Rocketdyne Collaboration 60) would be a good upper stage engine for that.  Better thrust for that size LV but still with RL-10B ISP.  Could maybe use a 5m DCSS with that MARC-60 engine, or a new 5m WBC with it.

Per this:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2rzsao7.jpg

ULA seems to think that a 5m Atlas core could use existing Atlas facilities, and just need a new MLP.  So I'd expect the same for this F-1B powered version. 

So...in my hypothetical which has almost zero chance of ever happening, that's what would happen.  This would be the only LV ULA were to operate at that point, and they'd offload all the D4 overhead. 

If there's not a US-made dupliate for Atlas V, I think the most likely scenario would be USAF/DoD would pay for ULA to upgrade D4 to be able to handle all payloads and have a faster pad flow, and ULA would just fly Delta IV.   Not for there to be an F-1B powered Atlas 5 Phase 2.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3h
Griffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.

That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.
No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3h
Griffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.

That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.
No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.

It totally depends on the relations between the two countries at that time. It is an unknown factor and that is what makes the effort at a domestic RD-180 questionable this close to the end of the licensing agreement. Had this effort been seriously considered a decade ago then it would be a non issue. We would already be flying the RD-180 v1.1 and already building our own inventory. But this close to the end of the agreement? It may or may not not be wise, given the current state of relations.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline MP99

A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3h
Griffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.

That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.


No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.

Surely, negotiate => payments.

If payments for the engines remain banned for years (highly unlikely, I hope!!), surely licence payments for domestic production would fall foul of the same prohibition?

cheers, Martin

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Russia will always be willing to sell engines, since it is quite profitable to do so. However it hurts the US balance of payments. If the Delta cannot be made cost competitive, drop it. Using LH2 for the boosters never made sense, and apparently the vehicle spends too much time on the pad. NASA should issue an SAA for prototypes of up to three engine designs in the million pound class, RP-1 or methane, from SpaceX, Pratt, Aerojet and anyone else who can compete.

Tags:
 

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