Quote from: GraphGuy on 11/13/2008 08:27 pmHey 50+ billion for a loser like GM, why not $200 million for a rocket engine competition that might actually see a return on investment?Developing a 500+ ton thrust engine is expensive, would you take up the risk of spending say 500 milion $ so that you *might* win 200 million $ back?SpaceX have been musing about an engine of that class, but it's still just that - musing. If their F9 pans out and F9H doesn't find customers, I don't believe they'd be willing to spend much money on such an engine. If, however, the F9H turned out to be in demand, greatly reducing its number of engines would be a bonus.
Hey 50+ billion for a loser like GM, why not $200 million for a rocket engine competition that might actually see a return on investment?
[What] requirements would you like to see?I'd say the following, which are not as stringent as the F-1 so as to make it easier for entry level competitors:Minimum sea level thrust of 1 million lbf.
Do you think that the 10 million dollar X Prize pot paid for all of scaled composite's development?
Quote from: guru on 11/13/2008 08:01 pm[What] requirements would you like to see?I'd say the following, which are not as stringent as the F-1 so as to make it easier for entry level competitors:Minimum sea level thrust of 1 million lbf.I would start lower, at maybe 400-500 Klbs S/L thrust, which would provide an opportunity for multiple applications. One of those could boost an interesting small/medium launcher. Two makes an EELV Medium class booster. Four make a Zenit/EELV Heavy class booster that could launch cargo and/or people (it could even serves as an "Ares IB" first stage) and be used as a building block for even more powerful launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle
I would start lower, at maybe 400-500 Klbs S/L thrust, which would provide an opportunity for multiple applications. One of those could boost an interesting small/medium launcher. Two makes an EELV Medium class booster. Four make a Zenit/EELV Heavy class booster that could launch cargo and/or people (it could even serves as an "Ares IB" first stage) and be used as a building block for even more powerful launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle
If I may add into this discussion.. $500 million is peanuts compared to the cost of that engine. If they get it to work, how many other companies have an engine in this class ready to go? The contracts would pay for that no problem. And it's not like they don't want it, they just don't have the financial resources to begin a project of that magnitude. It's also one less design stumbling block for NASA or a COTS supplier to worry about. But I still think F1 development could be ressurected (from other threads).
No, they don't. The RS-27 went out of production a few years ago. The environmental license with the State of California for test firings expired in early 2007 too.BTW, the thread is OT.
If the discussion is about kerosene engines for this hypothetical 1st stage replacement, then why not throw the RS-84 into the mix for contention? I know that it's development never got beyond the paper stage but they were planning on it having 1,000,000 pds. thrust@ sea level. (according to www.astronautix.com) Stick four of those babies on the bottom of a first stage, and there ya go.
The stage would need to be (edit: more than half) the size of a shuttle ET, though, and recovering something that big wouldn't be easy.
From a PR standpoint, they don't look safe either.
As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 12/01/2008 04:48 pm As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"not proven capability
I was hoping that it would be possible for it to be about the same diameter as the upper stage, mostly for aesthetic reasons. As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"
If you want my untrained opinion, I don't think that Ares-I looks particularly safe. It is something to do with the lower stage being narrower than the upper stage.