Quote from: dlapine on 05/08/2014 03:52 pm 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: clongton on 05/09/2014 04:13 pmDomestic 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.
That's what I'm talking about!!!!!!! An F-1B powered Atlas enables a LOT of things
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.
Quote from: clongton on 05/09/2014 06:34 pmThat's what I'm talking about!!!!!!! An F-1B powered Atlas enables a LOT of thingsAnyone run the numbers on this? It would definitely require a tank stretch, but how much....
Not really, it could be based on Dynetics single stick design...
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.
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: 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.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: 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.
Quote from: deltaV on 05/09/2014 02:48 amA recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: 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.