Quote from: Antares on 08/28/2013 07:45 pmSpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.They did at one time say they would be happy to sell components like Dracos to NASA.
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.
It's about money. The timing is about Syria. The Bear likes to mess with American doves.SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.Quote from: a_langwich on 08/28/2013 09:07 amThe odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.Most thought-provoking post I've read in a long time.
The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
NASA is not ULA.
Both do use the same line. In fact, Zenit changed from RD-171 to RD-171M, which applied all the improvements of the RD-180 (like new injectors and such). It's also 300kg lighter. The Sea Launch troubles might have impacted. The expected launch rate of Atlas V may also have impacted. I have read around, that Energomash had inherited the Sea Launch contract signed in Ukranian rubles, and that was the main cause of loss. If I'm not mistaken, they are getting about the same for an RD-171M to as for an RD-180.Two things happened that could have generated this problem. First, they never expected the USD to be so weak. And second, given the overall reduction from planned launch rate (both SL and AV), not only they would get worse factory utilization, but the fixed price contracts would extend further in time, where the inflation would progressively eat your margins. Imagine if Atlas had launched 10 times per year and Sea Launch another 6. Not only would have they had double factory utilization, but they would be over their 100 engine delivery and they would be selling at a renegotiated price. And they would have earned a lot more when the fixed price had a higher real value. I mean, that in the early 2000s they would be selling lots of engines that at 12M a pop would have been a great price.
Rumor has it, let's wait for facts...
ISTM AJ 1E6 is least likely to be taken forward as engine for SLS's advanced booster. But, just imagine for a moment it does win a development contract there.It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??Cheers, Martin
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
And on that score, I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years? I'm as skeptical of that as I am of SpaceX schedules. But, like SpaceX, I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Quote from: a_langwich on 08/29/2013 03:56 amIs there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?The Wikipedia article on the RD-180 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 ) shows one being fired at Marshall, so yes.
Quote from: fregate on 08/29/2013 05:02 amRumor has it, let's wait for facts...You must be new around here
Quote from: Jim on 08/28/2013 04:43 pmOne has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjectureThe points on Orbital are also nonsenseOnly the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts. I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjectureThe points on Orbital are also nonsense
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 08/28/2013 05:28 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/28/2013 04:43 pmOne has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjectureThe points on Orbital are also nonsenseOnly the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts. I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.Could be a good excuse for Aerojet to start manufacturing the AJ-26-500.Doing so would solve both OSC's and ULA problems of engine supply as two of theme would be a close replacement for a single RD-180.
Quote from: a_langwich on 08/29/2013 03:56 amIs there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw[Ducks and runs]...
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/29/2013 07:59 pmQuote from: a_langwich on 08/29/2013 03:56 amIs there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw[Ducks and runs]... An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.