Quote from: newpylong on 06/13/2014 08:03 pmIf this comes to fruition, and SLS sticks around, might be a good replacement for when the RS25D's run out even though they would need to switch fuels... I would think using an existing engine vs developing an expendable RS-25 might make up for the switch. This would not work, for a number of reasons. SLS is designed around a high-ISP sustainer core that burns nearly all the way to orbit, like STS. A core of that size filled with RP/LOX would weigh massively more than a core filled with LH2/LOX, so an entirely new stage would need to be designed. Five segment booster would not match well, if at all, with an RP core. The upper stage would need to do more delta-v work, which would require it to be heavier, which would require J-2X rather than RL10. And so on. On an HLLV, high thrust RP would serve best on a Saturn V type serial stager (which isn't happening) or on boosters for an LH2 core (which also apparently is not going to happen). Otherwise, this is an engine that might serve Atlas 5 and/or Antares. - Ed Kyle
If this comes to fruition, and SLS sticks around, might be a good replacement for when the RS25D's run out even though they would need to switch fuels... I would think using an existing engine vs developing an expendable RS-25 might make up for the switch.
Factor in a new booster engine for SLS that makes 2 new engines. Then add in an RD-180 replacement if Aero Rocketdyne gets the contract. That would make 3 new engine designs or redesigns.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 06/17/2014 03:51 pmHmmm...QuoteGenCorp’s New-Rocket Plan Raises Questionshttp://aviationweek.com/space/opinion-gencorp-s-new-rocket-plan-raises-questionsRelated?For those of us not keeping notes, GenCorp currently owns Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.This was about Aerojet-Rocketdyne's AR-1 proposal, which was in the news a couple weeks ago. Clearly this company will be proposing something for Atlas 5 - something that it has been working on for awhile now.Northrop Grumman is another name mentioned as a potential bidder. And why not United Technologies, which still owns its share of RD-AMROSS/RD-180? SpaceX maybe, but it has its own conflict of interest and is just getting started in staged combustion R&D. Can non-U.S. companies be ruled out? - Ed Kyle
Hmmm...QuoteGenCorp’s New-Rocket Plan Raises Questionshttp://aviationweek.com/space/opinion-gencorp-s-new-rocket-plan-raises-questionsRelated?For those of us not keeping notes, GenCorp currently owns Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.
GenCorp’s New-Rocket Plan Raises Questions
... one of Seymour’s executives thought I was criticizing SpaceX when I called the Merlin “the world’s best-built V-2 engine,” but I wasn’t. The KISS principle (“keep it simple, stupid”) is most applicable to space launch.
If big U.S. government money is going to be spent on space launch, and if SpaceX can provide an “assured access” backup, why not spend it on reusability—the only strategy that promises dramatically lower costs. The X-33 did not fail, and the shuttle did not miss its economic goals by a parsec or two, because reusability is a bad idea: Lousy requirements did it for them both. A modern, intelligently sized two-stage reusable system is like G.K. Chesterton’s view of Christianity: It “has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” It’s time to change that.
I predict that a long, disingenuous RD-180 program that indirectly costs government a fraction of a billion dollars and slips long term might be unwise, with the unstated "failover" back to Russian sourcing as an option through RD AMROSS. As we'd pay for AR/other to "relearn" kerolox, much like paying MSFC to "relearn" LV construction like starting with Ares IX.A bridge too far?Is there a better alternative here?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/18/2014 06:12 pmI predict that a long, disingenuous RD-180 program that indirectly costs government a fraction of a billion dollars and slips long term might be unwise, with the unstated "failover" back to Russian sourcing as an option through RD AMROSS. As we'd pay for AR/other to "relearn" kerolox, much like paying MSFC to "relearn" LV construction like starting with Ares IX.A bridge too far?Is there a better alternative here?You are forgetting that Aerojet Rocketdyne is Aerojet AND Rocketdyne (and Pratt & Whitney rocket engines).
Rocketdyne delivered its last RS-27A several years ago, but Aerojet has been wrestling daily with NK-33 to AJ-26 conversion and testing for a few years now. I don't think that you burn and blow up these rocket engines (both have now happened at Stennis) without learning something.
In addition, both companies were (and Aerojet Rocketdyne still is) involved in the USAF Hydrocarbon Boost R&D effort, which includes building and testing technology demonstrator staged combustion elements at Edwards. http://www.rocket.com/hydrocarbon-boost-hcb
Nor is there is a guarantee that Aerojet Rocketdyne would win an RD-180 replacement competition. There are other companies in the U.S., including SpaceX, who can develop turbomachinery, etc..
Given the political threats and the now-obvious end of the Post-Cold-War honeymoon, I suspect that Russia is now very much dead to the Pentagon as a long-term engine source. And, let's face it, there were voices inside Russia that weren't happy with RD-180 boosting U.S. defense satellites. Replacing RD-180 eliminates the type of uncertainty that the Pentagon won't allow long-term.
…snip...Given the political threats and the now-obvious end of the Post-Cold-War honeymoon, I suspect that Russia is now very much dead to the Pentagon as a long-term engine source. And, let's face it, there were voices inside Russia that weren't happy with RD-180 boosting U.S. defense satellites. Replacing RD-180 eliminates the type of uncertainty that the Pentagon won't allow long-term. - Ed Kyle
This whole situation was due to the rose colored glasses of a few.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/20/2014 12:07 amThis whole situation was due to the rose colored glasses of a few.Not even. It's called risk management. Stockpile engines over here, with a supply long enough to get a domestic one developed. The same amount of money would be spent on development then or now. Keeping them built in Russia minimized cost and kept Russian aerospace workers occupied launching stuff for us rather than the Iranians or NorKs.
But nobody did that. Risk management this is not... it's whistling past the graveyard.
What are the 15 or so on US soil?
Quote from: AncientU on 06/20/2014 03:11 pmBut nobody did that. Risk management this is not... it's whistling past the graveyard.What are the 15 or so on US soil?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/20/2014 12:07 amThis whole situation was due to the rose colored glasses of a few.Not even. It's called risk management.
Stockpile engines over here, with a supply long enough to get a domestic one developed. The same amount of money would be spent on development then or now.
Keeping them built in Russia minimized cost ...
... kept Russian aerospace workers occupied launching stuff for us rather than the Iranians or NorKs.
The House passed the FY2015 defense appropriations bill today (June 20) with the $220 million added to begin building a replacement for Russia's RD-180 rocket engines intact. Also today, the Obama Administration imposed sanctions against seven Ukrainians and, along with Europe, is readying other sanctions aimed at specific Russian economic sectors including defense.
From Marcia Smith;(I like the way Martia explains space policy).House Approves RD-180 Replacement Appropriation As U.S. Readies More Russia SanctionsQuote from: SpacepolicyonlineThe House passed the FY2015 defense appropriations bill today (June 20) with the $220 million added to begin building a replacement for Russia's RD-180 rocket engines intact. Also today, the Obama Administration imposed sanctions against seven Ukrainians and, along with Europe, is readying other sanctions aimed at specific Russian economic sectors including defense.
June 20, 2014The Honorable Frank KendallUnder Secretary of DefenseAcquisition, Technology, and Logistics3010 Defense PentagonWashington, DC 20301-3010 Dear Under Secretary Kendall:I write to you in furtherance of my continuing oversight interest in the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program and concern about that program’s reliance on Russian sources of supply for the RD-180 engine and to follow-up on the June 10, 2014, letter I received from Secretary of the Air Force James on that issue. Today, I inquire about the circumstances under which the Air Force has acquired, and may continue to acquire, the RD-180. Also, given the possibility that the Air Force is paying for these engines at highly inflated prices, I am inquiring whether the actual costs associated with their manufacture, which may be baked into those prices, are fair and reasonable—despite that the Air Force is buying them on a firm fixed-price basis.I am, in particular, interested in learning more about a company called RD Amross, the company from which United Launch Alliance (ULA) actually buys the RD-180 for use in EELV missions. It appears that RD Amross is a joint venture between P&W Power Generation Inc. and International Space Engines, Inc., a Delaware-registered subsidiary of the engine’s Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash.Very little information is publically available on the actual costs to build the Russian RD-180 engine compared to what ULA pays for them. But, I am aware of claims that the engines have been sold by NPO Energomash to RD Amross at a much lower price than RD Amross charges ULA for them.Such information is particularly troubling given that, by reputation and recent examination by, among others, the World Bank and the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Russian procurement process is rife with inefficiency and corruption that benefits insiders while boosting retail prices.Given the foregoing and the opacity of costs associated with the procurement of the RD-180, it is important for the Air Force to establish affirmatively the fairness and reasonableness of how much it (and therefore the U.S. taxpayer) is paying for the RD-180—despite the fact that it procures the RD-180 under a firm fixed-price contract line item. As you know, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed, as part of the Fiscal Year 15 National Defense Authorization Act, measures that would (1) prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into a new contract or renewing a current contract for space launch supplies, including rocket engines, if they would be provided by Russian suppliers, and (2) provide $100 million in funding transfer authority for the development of a domestically produced rocket for the EELV program. However, Congress ultimately needs to know more about circumstances under which the Air Force has acquired, and may continue to acquire, the RD-180 to make related policy decisions on a fully informed basis.In order to address this important issue, please provide responses to the following questions:1. Please explain in detail how the RD-180 is procured in support of the EELV program—with references to NPO Energomash and RD Amross as relevant.2. Please describe to the best of your knowledge the business organizational structure of RD Amross, including identifying all nominal and beneficial owners of that company, as well as the owners (nominal and beneficial) of International Space Engines, Inc.3. Given that RD Amross does not directly produce the RD-180 engines ultimately used by ULA, what do you understand RD Amross’s business purpose to be and what value, if any, does it provide in connection with the manufacture of the RD-180?4. Please explain the extent to which the Air Force, i.e., the U.S. taxpayer, pays for any service or product supplied by RD Amross—independent of NPO Energomash—in connection with the Air Force’s purchase of rocket cores, which includes the RD-180, from ULA?5. For how much does NPO Energomash sell the RD-180 to RD Amross? For how much does RD Amross subsequently sell the RD-180 to ULA? For how much does ULA sell the RD-180 to the Air Force?6. On information and belief, ULA—and ultimately the Air Force—buys the RD-180 for a price that is significantly more than how much NPO Energomash sells that same engine to RD Amross, resulting in the U.S. taxpayer essentially giving a Russian company a profit by perhaps more than 200 percent. Is this allegation accurate? Please explain your answer and, if the claim I cite is accurate, tell me if this is (a) a reasonable rate of return and (b) in line with what may be payable under applicable DOD procurement rules and regulations for procurement contracts of this type.7. Of the cost that ULA pays RD Amross for the RD-180, how much is paid to P&W Power Generation Inc. and NPO Energomash’s subsidiary International Space Engines Inc. in their capacities as co-owners of RD Amross? In other words, for whom do the profits (the difference between RD Amross’ costs and its sales price to ULA) accrue—P&W Power Generation Inc., International Space Engines, Inc., or others?8. On June 16, 2014, ULA announced its interest in producing a domestically-produced version the RD-180 or an entirely new launch system. According to its press release, ULA signed contracts with multiple domestic companies to “conduct technical feasibility analysis, develop high fidelity [sic] plans, identify schedule, cost and technical risks, as well as cost estimates to meet aggressive recurring cost targets” for the next generation first stage rocket replacement to support a first launch by 2019. What identified, approved and validated operational requirements, if any, support the development of an entirely new engine for the EELV program?9. RD Amross CEO Bill Parsons stated in a November 18, 2013, interview with Space News that a domestically-produced RD-180 “would definitely increase the price significantly”. What is the Department of Defense’s current preliminary estimate of how much it would cost to develop a domestically-produced RD-180 and, separately, an entirely new engine for the EELV program? Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact Jack Thorlin, Counsel to the Minority, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at (202) 224-2224.Sincerely,John McCainRanking Minority MemberPermanent Subcommittee on Investigations
For an SLS booster, the Merlin 1D will win on cost, and it is shared with an existing, low cost rocket. For an EELV engine, the AR-1 will have to fly enough times to prove its reliability. The Atlas V will have to be redesigned, and flown a number of times to prove the reliability of the redesigned Atlas. The Delta IV is proven, why bother with a new and untested rocket?I would like to see America figure out how to develop a hydrocarbon (not methane), staged combustion engine. I don't think such an engine would be useful now, but the knowledge gained might be useful in the future.