Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/20/2017 10:30 pmI'm sure AJR will welcome them with open arms. Highly unlikely though, isn't?Yup. Hence I qualified it with the word 'remote', as unlikely but not zero.QuoteThe amount of money spent on something has no relationship to how long it should survive in the marketplace. And if the marketplace does move to reusable launchers, then engines that enable that are what AJR should really be focused on if they want to stay in the rocket supplier business.Never actually said there is a relationship between the money spent on a system and its marketplace viability. However, AR-1 already is a reusable engine and the government have effectively paid for it. Since engines like this can take up to 7 years to develop at a cost of hundreds of millions, a new entrant to the RLV market could choose to avoid those costs by purchasing something commercial and off the shelf at its marginal cost instead of reinventing the wheel. They could then focus their limited resources on all other parts of the RLV and field it sooner than would be otherwise possible. Another company attempting to compete with Blue Origin and SpaceX in the RLV market could make themselves more competitive by exactly the money and time they did not spend on something!. I've no idea how likely this scenario is with the AR-1 in particular, but it's perfectly plausible.
I'm sure AJR will welcome them with open arms. Highly unlikely though, isn't?
The amount of money spent on something has no relationship to how long it should survive in the marketplace. And if the marketplace does move to reusable launchers, then engines that enable that are what AJR should really be focused on if they want to stay in the rocket supplier business.
However, AR-1 already is a reusable engine
and the government have effectively paid for it.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 05:44 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 10/20/2017 05:32 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/20/2017 01:06 pmOne word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.It's not very likely but it might not survive either. Delta IV is already being discontinued and ULA could pick BE-3 for ACES. The remaining user is SLS which could also get cancelled.Underestimates the fundamental effectiveness of the RL10.It may fly in other ways for many decades. BTW Centaur advantages as well like this.It might or it might not. But costs matter, now more than ever. It is only recently that the industry has broken out of the "isp at any cost" mentality - we even have GTO missions done with RP-1 stages (gasp!). Two new launch vehicles are being developed with MethaLox upper stages. None of them will have engines that match the isp of RL-10, but they could still kill it off.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 10/20/2017 05:32 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/20/2017 01:06 pmOne word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.It's not very likely but it might not survive either. Delta IV is already being discontinued and ULA could pick BE-3 for ACES. The remaining user is SLS which could also get cancelled.Underestimates the fundamental effectiveness of the RL10.It may fly in other ways for many decades. BTW Centaur advantages as well like this.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/20/2017 01:06 pmOne word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.It's not very likely but it might not survive either. Delta IV is already being discontinued and ULA could pick BE-3 for ACES. The remaining user is SLS which could also get cancelled.
One word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.
AJR have been working on reducing RL10 build cost by redesign it to enable use of modern manufacturing technology.
I think it is still ULA preferred engine but having BE3U as option helps keep AJR on their toes.
Its in AJR best interest to bring price down so ULA can stay competitive. Less ULA flys the less engines they buy.
If ULA would choose BE-4 over AR-1, then why would anyone else choose AR-1 over BE-4? Especially for an RLV, where methane has advantages over RP-1.
However, AR-1 already is a reusable engine and the government have effectively paid for it.
How is it already reusable? It's early in development, and re-usability has not been something that AJR has promoted as a part of AR-1 - unless I missed it.
A rocket engine is only reusable if you can reuse it. That means it has to be recovered as part of a 1st stage, or by recovering the engine from the 1st stage before it lands in the water (ala Vulcan mid-air engine recovery). And that capability is not necessarily the responsibility of the engine, but of the rocket manufacturer.
Anyone being serious about getting into the launch business is going to survey the competition and see that the two to beat both make their own engines and rockets. So buying an engine that is not built to be used for a reusable rocket is not likely to be popular.
...Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/21/2017 06:30 am...QuoteAnyone being serious about getting into the launch business is going to survey the competition and see that the two to beat both make their own engines and rockets. So buying an engine that is not built to be used for a reusable rocket is not likely to be popular. It's not self-evident that the level of vertical integration Blue Origin and SpaceX is the only valid strategy to compete with them. The majority of the industry doesn't do so. For relative latecomers to the RLV market or companies with fewer resources, buying an engine from an external supplier could be a perfectly valid strategy to lower development costs and expedite entry to the market.
...QuoteAnyone being serious about getting into the launch business is going to survey the competition and see that the two to beat both make their own engines and rockets. So buying an engine that is not built to be used for a reusable rocket is not likely to be popular. It's not self-evident that the level of vertical integration Blue Origin and SpaceX is the only valid strategy to compete with them. The majority of the industry doesn't do so. For relative latecomers to the RLV market or companies with fewer resources, buying an engine from an external supplier could be a perfectly valid strategy to lower development costs and expedite entry to the market.
Quote from: butters on 10/21/2017 12:46 amIf ULA would choose BE-4 over AR-1, then why would anyone else choose AR-1 over BE-4? Especially for an RLV, where methane has advantages over RP-1.I was suggesting another company other than ULA decides to create a new RLV and needs an engine.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/21/2017 06:30 amA rocket engine is only reusable if you can reuse it. That means it has to be recovered as part of a 1st stage, or by recovering the engine from the 1st stage before it lands in the water (ala Vulcan mid-air engine recovery). And that capability is not necessarily the responsibility of the engine, but of the rocket manufacturer. A third party buying AR1s would be responsbile for developing the recovery method. I'm not sure what the point of contention with that is? For example, Boeing is buying derived RS-25 engines for the reusable DARPA XS1 Spaceplane instead of going through the expensive and lengthy process of creating an entirely new engine. DC-X used existing engines too.
For example, Boeing is buying derived RS-25 engines for the reusable DARPA XS1 Spaceplane instead of going through the expensive and lengthy process of creating an entirely new engine.
DC-X used existing engines too.
It's not self-evident that the level of vertical integration Blue Origin and SpaceX is the only valid strategy to compete with them.
The majority of the industry doesn't do so.
For relative latecomers to the RLV market or companies with fewer resources, buying an engine from an external supplier could be a perfectly valid strategy to lower development costs and expedite entry to the market.
The hypothetical company could be Aerojet itself. At one point they tried to gain production rights to the Atlas-V using AR-1. Alternatively, another company might choose an aerojet engine to avoid enriching domestic competitors and to avoid any possible sanctions on a foreign engine. The startups that are opting to develop their own engines with the exception of Blue Origin and SpaceX are developing relatively small simple engines for small ELVs because engines in the AR-1 class are beyond their resources and capabilities. The scenario I am describing would involve a new entrant making a rather large RLV to directly compete with Falcon Heavy or New Glenn.Out of interest, have Aerojet actually published what the throttle range of AR-1 is?
Out of interest, have Aerojet actually published what the throttle range of AR-1 is?
Quote from: Darkseraph on 10/21/2017 03:33 pmOut of interest, have Aerojet actually published what the throttle range of AR-1 is?No, but1) it's very unlikely to use pintle injector, as only SpaceX and TRW have experience in pintle injectors, an AJR has lots of experience and heritage of other type injectors, and deep throttling was not a goal for AR-1. Deep throttling is much easier with pintle injector based engines.2) It's nominial thrust is so high, that insanely deep throttling would be needed to get the TWR down enough.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 10/21/2017 12:20 amHowever, AR-1 already is a reusable engine and the government have effectively paid for it.A rocket engine is only reusable if you can reuse it. That means it has to be recovered as part of a 1st stage, or by recovering the engine from the 1st stage before it lands in the water (ala Vulcan mid-air engine recovery). And that capability is not necessarily the responsibility of the engine, but of the rocket manufacturer.Anyone being serious about getting into the launch business is going to survey the competition and see that the two to beat both make their own engines and rockets. So buying an engine that is not built to be used for a reusable rocket is not likely to be popular.Maybe there is a government program that could use the AR-1, but it would be hard to see a scenario where a commercial rocket manufacturer would want to use the AR-1.
The hypothetical company could be Aerojet itself. At one point they tried to gain production rights to the Atlas-V using AR-1. Alternatively, another company might choose an aerojet engine to avoid enriching domestic competitors and to avoid any possible sanctions on a foreign engine. [...]
AFAIK BE-4 has a large throttle range. Is it known to be using pintle injectors?
Quote from: Darkseraph on 10/21/2017 03:33 pmOut of interest, have Aerojet actually published what the throttle range of AR-1 is?No, but1) it's very unlikely to use pintle injector, as only SpaceX and TRW have experience in pintle injectors, an AJR has lots of experience and heritage of other type injectors, and deep throttling was not a goal for AR-1. Deep throttling is much easier with pintle injector based engines.
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/21/2017 12:50 amHow is it already reusable? It's early in development, and re-usability has not been something that AJR has promoted as a part of AR-1 - unless I missed it.AR-1 is a candidate for SMART reuse on Vulcan.