http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_2AEROJET LOOKING TO RESTART PRODUCTION OF NK-33 ENGINE [...] Van Kleeck said [...]"If the test is wildly successful, it could lead to future customers and it could drive the need for production sooner,"
Merlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2009 07:47 pmMerlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded.Because there was some preliminary work done by TRW.
My main point is that Orbital probably is already looking at what they'd need to do in case the Russians don't play ball. If they aren't, then they are fools because the Russians will use that to their own advantage. Does anyone have something beyond conjecture about if Orbital is looking into their options to avoid vender-lock-in?
http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_2AEROJET LOOKING TO RESTART PRODUCTION OF NK-33 ENGINE... At this point, Van Kleeck said talks are concentrated on where the new line would be built, though she said Aerojet would prefer a U.S. production line if a sound business case can be made.....This fall, Aerojet is planning a long-duration, high-power test firing of the NK-33 in Samara, Russia. Scheduled for late September or early October, the test could raise confidence in the engine. ...
2. Do we (America), have any RP1 engines with comparable in ISP, to the NK-33?
We have pretty good hydrogen engines, which work fine even on lower stages without any SRBs.
Staged Combustion (most of the Isp difference), and Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion for rest of it.No. An RD-180US would be.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2009 07:47 pmMerlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded. How hard is it to make a new engine? I'm sure if there's a large demand for the Taurus II and they run out of engines, someone could just make a new one. Couldn't cost more than $200 million, half a billion tops. Might be a good idea to have one on the back-burner to use as a bargaining chip with the Russians.Matching NK-33 performance would be much more difficult than building Merlin. Despite being designed in the 60s, it's still a pretty hot engine.Merlin 1c:T/W 96 (according to wikipedia)ISP 275(sl) 304 (vac)NK-33:T/W 136ISP 295 (sl) 331 (vac)
Merlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded. How hard is it to make a new engine? I'm sure if there's a large demand for the Taurus II and they run out of engines, someone could just make a new one. Couldn't cost more than $200 million, half a billion tops. Might be a good idea to have one on the back-burner to use as a bargaining chip with the Russians.
Quote from: Antares on 08/31/2009 01:28 amStaged Combustion (most of the Isp difference), and Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion for rest of it.No. An RD-180US would be.This is a nit, but I was under the impression that the NK-33 ran a fuel-rich preburner.
I have read (no longer remember where) that NK-33 was designed and manufactured by jet-engine manufacturer Kuznetzov, due to a dispute between Korolev and Glushko over what the N-1 engines should be. No idea if that's true, but interesting, if so.
I can add some insight.The Stennis tests are short duration single-engine PRE-FLIGHT ACCEPTANCE TESTS for the Sacramento-stored engines. The test facility is designed for short duration tests using subcooled LOX and chilled RP.The Samara test will be a 2X duration using the Taurus II thrust profile (perhaps a few percent over) and inlet conditions, using a Samara-stored engine from the same production batch as the Sacramento engines. Quite a test!!!While the Russians will be providing the facility and the engine, and will conduct the test, their customer is Aerojet.Different tests, different purpose, different facilities.
Just verified in various AIAA papers: it's ox-rich. See Closed Cycle Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, by Kuznetsov in 1993.
Antonio, if not a secret, with whom you work in Samara? After all, Kuznetsov SNTK is almost dead...
... using a Samara-stored engine from the same production batch as the Sacramento engines ...