ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[TrevorMonty]

Here is link to Russian article on supplying RD181 to Orbital.

http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/731768

Tried to Google for information on this engine specifications with no luck. Closes I've come is that is based on RD193 which has similar performance to RD191(2200kg) but is 300kg lighter.
2 x RD181 (2x 1900kg?)will have similar performance to RD180 (5500kg) but considerably lighter.

[GClark]

AFAICT they are using the -18x designation to indicate engines for foreign (obviously US) use and the -19x designation for engines for their own use.

Angara - RD-190/191
Soyuz 2-1V - RD-193

Atlas V - RD-180
Antares - RD-181

ISTR reading somewhere (A thread here? I can't find it - my Google-fu is weak) that Energomash was offering RD-183 for Antares.  YMMV.

[Lars-J]

According to this tweet, it looks like RD-193: https://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/527846276629811200

Brian Berger @Berger_SN
Russia’s Izvestia newspaper reports @OrbitalSciences picked Energomash’s RD-193 engine as replacement for Antares’ AJ-26.

That would make more sense. Apparently the RD-193 (a lower thrust version of the RD-191 that powers Angara?) is the closest thing to a drop-in replacement for the NK-33.

[arachnitect]

According to this tweet, it looks like RD-193: https://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/527846276629811200

Brian Berger @Berger_SN
Russia’s Izvestia newspaper reports @OrbitalSciences picked Energomash’s RD-193 engine as replacement for Antares’ AJ-26.

That would make more sense. Apparently the RD-193 (a lower thrust version of the RD-191 that powers Angara?) is the closest thing to a drop-in replacement for the NK-33.

At this point we have a media quote confirming every possible Energomash product.

[GClark]

ISTR reading somewhere (A thread here? I can't find it - my Google-fu is weak) that Energomash was offering RD-183 for Antares.

I'll correct myself.  As of Dec '12, Energomash was pushing RD-181 for Antares.

See this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29810.msg972847#msg972847

[AncientU]

Am I alone in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

[robertross]

Am I along in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

Which is why there is SpaceX, with their Merlins and Dracos 
Another way to mitigate 'risk'

[RonM]

Am I along in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

Which is why there is SpaceX, with their Merlins and Dracos 
Another way to mitigate 'risk'

Don't forget Blue Origin BE-4 and ULA.

I know that's a few years down the road, but this is the CRS2 thread.

[Jim]

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

What does NASA have to do with it?

[AncientU]

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

What does NASA have to do with it?

Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.

[Jim]

Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.

Wrong.  Just another case of unwarranted NASA bashing.  NASA doesn't and shouldn't have any engines on the shelf, just like it doesn't have jet engines on the shelf.     NASA isn't a component supplier.  This isn't an technology that needs to be developed.  It exists.  BTDT.  This is a market issue.  Its in industry's hands to take the technology to market and make a business case for the technology.  The failure is in Aerojet/Rocketdyne/P&W for not doing the work.   Spacex did it, Blue Origin is doing it. 

[TrevorMonty]

You can add ULA and XCOR partnership to list or companies doing the work.

[AncientU]

Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.

Wrong.  Just another case of unwarranted NASA bashing.  NASA doesn't and shouldn't have any engines on the shelf, just like it doesn't have jet engines on the shelf.     NASA isn't a component supplier.  This isn't an technology that needs to be developed.  It exists.  BTDT.  This is a market issue.  Its in industry's hands to take the technology to market and make a business case for the technology.  The failure is in Aerojet/Rocketdyne/P&W for not doing the work.   Spacex did it, Blue Origin is doing it.

The TR-106/7 and RS-83/4 development projects were finished and successful, and then industry dropped the ball... is that what you are saying?  (That's not how I've heard it, but I'm certainly not the spaceflight historian that you are.)  I'm not expecting NASA to supply components... finishing a development program would be nice, though.  But there's always next time -- FY2015 in fact.

[Jim]

The TR-106/7 and RS-83/4 development projects were finished and successful, and then industry dropped the ball... is that what you are saying?  (That's not how I've heard it, but I'm certainly not the spaceflight historian that you are.)  I'm not expecting NASA to supply components... finishing a development program would be nice, though.  But there's always next time -- FY2015 in fact.

NASA doesn't need to do any more development programs on engines, industry can it themselves.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Totally agree with Jim....

[AncientU]

So do I, now that he is referring to the future.

[bad_astra]

The know-how to produce RS-27a is not lost, even if the tooling had to be recreated. America can build good good kerolox engines. It's only blind greed and poor decision making that prevents it.

[Llian Rhydderch]

Am I alone in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

New rocket engines are built for customers in markets.  And the market for spaceflight has been anything but a free, open, or normal market.

Sadly, the history of the first fifty years of spaceflight has been substantially one of a monopsony (single buyer) within the polity of any particular nation state.  The commsat market and limited commercial Earth-sensing satellite markets appear to have been happy to purchase services on top of military- or government-paid and developed launch vehicles; they have contributed some demand for launch services, but little in direct influence on the sorts of launch vehicles or rocket engines developed for commercial service. This is the familiar "crowding out" effect in markets that often happens when the government gets too deeply involved in economic exchange relations.

This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications.  Even if space transport services are sold to the US government (military or civilian sides), or if limited development funding is provided for specific capabilities to be developed, these private launch vehicles have begun the process of putting into the mix a limited amount of real free market demand into the market for rocket engines.

Government-purchased CRS services have begun to benefit from these new, lower-cost launch service offerings.  But the problem that this market is not responding in a normal way was not created overnight, and it surely will not get fixed overnight.

We'll see where this goes in the future.  But the history what has been considered the "US rocket engine industry" cannot really be separated from the monopsony that was created in that industry from the start, with countries and their military arms driving all demand, initially, and most demand later on, and those government entities specifying the detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines for decades.


^{Edit:  Fixed broken link}

[Jim]

You need to do a little research on history.  Your "free market" has been in place for much longer. 

This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications. 

It changed long ago in the 90's.  Look at Atlas I/II/III.  These were "private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications"   There were 60 commercial launches compared to 20 gov't.

Anyways, Falcon 9 was designed with gov't operating specifications in mind vs " private operating specifications"

and those government entities specifying the detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines for decades.

That hasn't been done since the Titan 34D program in the late 70's.  Procurements since then have specified only performance and interface requirements and not "detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines"


The "free market" is what drove some LV developers to use Russian engines.

[Llian Rhydderch]

You need to do a little research on history.  Your "free market" has been in place for much longer. 

This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications. 

It changed long ago in the 90's.  Look at Atlas I/II/III.  These were "private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications"   There were 60 commercial launches compared to 20 gov't.

Anyways, Falcon 9 was designed with gov't operating specifications in mind vs " private operating specifications"

Hi Jim.  I thought you'd have something to say on this.   

I said "in the past decade or so" -- that could probably include the two decades you are claiming.  Although many on these forums, and most economists, would argue with your view that the military procurement cycles that led to the 90s era launch vehicles for US government use were "free market" arrangements. 

Moreover, I don't think that what exists today in the launch vehicle or rocket engine "market" is any kind of totally free market: I said it is "beginning to change, at least in the US."  In no way is the market we see now some kind of a free market dream.

The monopsonistic market created by the government in the 1950s/60s, is not something that can just be turned off on a whim.  The ridiculously high cost structure built into products provided to the space industrial complex cannot be, and will not be, quickly eliminated just because the USG says it wants some "commercial" bids. 

This is what SpaceX found to be true, and why they chose to vertically integrate so much of their manufacturing in-house.  It is further illustrated, with respect to rocket engines specifically (which was question of the post I was replying to by AncientU), with the whole government/Congressional response to the Russian RD-180 geopolitical mess last spring.  Whatever you might say, that high cost structure in the traditional industry, and the tendency of the government to come in and say "THIS is the engine we shall have!" (as illustrated by the thread linked in the previous sentence), is not going away anytime soon--although change is coming, as competition and competitive offerings drive an entrepreneurial structural shift in an otherwise moribund industry.

And all of this reality, and the economic and political history that led to it, is a part of the answer to why no commercial engines are available in the ordinary market sense to deal with the recent problems with the Russian engines.  And that is the question that AncientU had asked about potential US engines for CRS launch vehicles.