Author Topic: Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR-1 engine (aka AJ-1E6)  (Read 255252 times)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8749
  • Liked: 4660
  • Likes Given: 768
Here's a presentation from July 2013 showing how the dual chamber AJ1E6 would have look like on Atlas.

"Common engine solution for SLS, Atlas V, & Antares"

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140002714.pdf
Using the official AR-1 pics and comparing the NTRS pic of AJ1E6, they don't quite look the same. So that makes me wonder are these indeed the same engine as believed to be, if yes did its design get an update post merger?? or is the AR-1 design taken from the project PWR was already working on before the split and merger with AJ and has merrily been renamed.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
They need to get building that thing, pronto!! :)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195

They need to get building that thing, pronto!! :)

Oh they will, as soon as they get a juicy multi $billion contract signed.

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
Bump:

http://aviationweek.com/space/engine-makers-pushing-am-other-technologies-rd-180-replacement

Additive manufacturing reducing time and cost in prototyping, Mondaloy, titanium, copper and other materials being qualified.  Could see prototype AR-1 firing in 2.5 years.  Lots of challenges yet to be hurdled.


Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Bump:

http://aviationweek.com/space/engine-makers-pushing-am-other-technologies-rd-180-replacement

Additive manufacturing reducing time and cost in prototyping, Mondaloy, titanium, copper and other materials being qualified.  Could see prototype AR-1 firing in 2.5 years.  Lots of challenges yet to be hurdled.

excellent direction they are taking with this program and a good article ;)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1192

I believe if the AR-1 becomes the engine of choice, and a reality, it will be the end of the Atlas V (unless they continue to fly those with the RD-180).  As many have noted often, rockets (and their key components) are not legos...

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 921

I believe if the AR-1 becomes the engine of choice, and a reality, it will be the end of the Atlas V (unless they continue to fly those with the RD-180).  As many have noted often, rockets (and their key components) are not legos...
I agree that the AR-1 and derivatives would most likely be the end of the Atlas V but would it be the beginning of the Atlas VI?

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1192

I believe if the AR-1 becomes the engine of choice, and a reality, it will be the end of the Atlas V (unless they continue to fly those with the RD-180).  As many have noted often, rockets (and their key components) are not legos...
I agree that the AR-1 and derivatives would most likely be the end of the Atlas V but would it be the beginning of the Atlas VI?

I believe that is correct.  Of course, I'm not the world's best business man, nor corporate lawyer, so I can't even begin to speak to the ULA business model, and what the companies (or other fabricators) would bring to the table in terms of LV development.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
I agree that the AR-1 and derivatives would most likely be the end of the Atlas V but would it be the beginning of the Atlas VI?
A re-engined Atlas 5 would just be an Atlas with a modified model number.  It could be Atlas 6.  It could be Atlas 5b.  It might be something else, like Atlas 5000, who knows?.  The original (Thor)-Delta rocket series went through at least six different solid booster types, five main and five second stage engine types, and seven upper stage combinations, along with stretches and redesigns of all of the liquid stages, but was always called "Delta"-something.  There were Deltas with alpha letter variations followed by Deltas with three and four letter model numbers.  Atlas Centaur and Titan both had something similar.

 - Ed Kyle

« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 02:42 am by edkyle99 »

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Do we know what AR-1 even looks like, performance wise? If it hews pretty close to the NK-33 lineage as is reasonable to suspect, that probably means there's a significant loss of ISP. More thrust means the GLOW can be greater, but that would mean enlarging the first stage to hold more propellant. I don't even know where that nets out performance wise, say it's similar, that still sounds like a lot more than a drop in replacement.

This means an Atlas V v1.1, essentially.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Do we know what AR-1 even looks like, performance wise? If it hews pretty close to the NK-33 lineage as is reasonable to suspect, that probably means there's a significant loss of ISP. More thrust means the GLOW can be greater, but that would mean enlarging the first stage to hold more propellant. I don't even know where that nets out performance wise, say it's similar, that still sounds like a lot more than a drop in replacement.

This means an Atlas V v1.1, essentially.

No, I don't think anyone including AR knows what performance would look like.  I think they are confident they could get pretty similar performance levels.  If 338 Isp vac (RD-180) vs. 331 Isp vac (NK-33) is a "significant loss," then yes, I think it's a foregone conclusion there will be a few Isp difference, up or down.

I don't think it would hew too terribly close to NK-33 though--the Av Week quote is talking about using AM manufacturing and new materials like Mondalloy, along with an injector design and turbopump design during a risk reduction phase.  No doubt they are keeping the overall cycle diagram similar, but it sounds like the designs of all the pieces are very much in play.

Right now. 

But the design proposal itself is probably very much in play right now, too, depending on budgets available (for both development and production), timelines, whether the dev is funded separately or expected to be recovered through sales, etc.

I wonder if ULA would consider offering an RD-180-engined Atlas V at a cheaper price (assuming it is cheaper), and then a more expensive AR-1-engined Atlas "Z" for some government-mandated number of (government) launches.  Probably all comes down to prices, international pressures, politics, and market forces, all of which will change extensively and often between now and 2019.

Still, it sound like a fantastic opportunity if Aerojet Rocketdyne gets any contract.  There's no doubt in my mind that work done here--as long as that work reaches the test-stand hardware stage--will have a lasting impact on any future engine modifications they make, whether that be RS-25Es for SLS, or RL-10s for EELVs, RS-68s for Delta, whatever engine is used in various SLS upper stages, and potentially any liquid booster engines (maybe the AR-1 itself).  I don't know why NASA was trying to discourage the work--they should be eager and excited, as long as they could subtly make sure the budget was drawn from USAF/DOD rather than them. 
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:36 am by a_langwich »

Online J-V

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 38
Might be OT but... Would it make sense to develop not only common engines for Atlas Z and SLS LRBs, but also use the same first stage? I.E. that the first stage of Atlas Z would be the SLS LRB. Or would the requirements be so different, that it is cheaper to develop, build and operate two different desings?

Offline TrevorMonty

Might be OT but... Would it make sense to develop not only common engines for Atlas Z and SLS LRBs, but also use the same first stage? I.E. that the first stage of Atlas Z would be the SLS LRB. Or would the requirements be so different, that it is cheaper to develop, build and operate two different desings?

The LRB need to be around 3Mlb while Atlas would be 1Mlb.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Would it make sense to develop not only common engines for Atlas Z and SLS LRBs, but also use the same first stage?

Seeking commonality between two applications is always worth considering. In this case, the pair of SLS boosters need to generate between them about six times the thrust of an Atlas first stage. So they couldn't just strap two Atlas first stages onto an SLS core and have any hope of meeting the requirement.

It's fascinating to ask, though: what if they strapped six Atlas boosters around the SLS core? That concept has been previously explored under the name "AJAX." The short answer is, "That would work great!" The question, "Why wasn't that approach adopted for SLS?" would require a rather more lengthy answer.... ;)
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
A re-engined Atlas 5 would just be an Atlas with a modified model number.  It could be Atlas 6.  It could be Atlas 5b.  It might be something else, like Atlas 5000, who knows?.  The original (Thor)-Delta rocket series went through at least six different solid booster types, five main and five second stage engine types, and seven upper stage combinations, along with stretches and redesigns of all of the liquid stages, but was always called "Delta"-something.  There were Deltas with alpha letter variations followed by Deltas with three and four letter model numbers.  Atlas Centaur and Titan both had something similar.

I suspect it's a question of marketing.  After all, why is the current Atlas known as the Atlas 5 when there never was an Atlas 4?  A name like Atlas 6 would emphasize newness, whereas Atlas 5B would emphasize continuity.  Which would be more valuable?

Lately ULA's main talking point about Atlas 5 has been its proven reliabilty.  By the time a re-engined Atlas V got off the pad, though, SpaceX would likely have a long track record too, so that talking point wouldn't work anymore.  My money would therefore be on a name more like Atlas 6.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 08:25 am by Proponent »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900

I believe if the AR-1 becomes the engine of choice, and a reality, it will be the end of the Atlas V (unless they continue to fly those with the RD-180).  As many have noted often, rockets (and their key components) are not legos...
I agree that the AR-1 and derivatives would most likely be the end of the Atlas V but would it be the beginning of the Atlas VI?

Purely FWIW, my mental designation of that hypothetical model has always been 'Atlas-VA'. I could see Lockheed-Martin trying to retain as much as the previous model as possible (although probably little more than the tanks and barrel diameter would remain) just to reduce retooling costs. It would, in many ways, be the Falcon 9 v.1.1 to Atlas-V's Falcon 9 v.1.0.

I'm sure that the fiction that it was 'just a re-engined Atlas-V' would be useful in the eternal battle with SpaceX for preferential access to USG contracts too.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:46 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Do we know what AR-1 even looks like, performance wise? If it hews pretty close to the NK-33 lineage as is reasonable to suspect, that probably means there's a significant loss of ISP. More thrust means the GLOW can be greater, but that would mean enlarging the first stage to hold more propellant. I don't even know where that nets out performance wise, say it's similar, that still sounds like a lot more than a drop in replacement.

This means an Atlas V v1.1, essentially.

No, I don't think anyone including AR knows what performance would look like.  I think they are confident they could get pretty similar performance levels.  If 338 Isp vac (RD-180) vs. 331 Isp vac (NK-33) is a "significant loss," then yes, I think it's a foregone conclusion there will be a few Isp difference, up or down.


believe saw the new engine would be lighter so basically a wash in numbers.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
It's very possible that an AR-1 could have multiple internal names before a final name is selected. The design study might start with one name, then when designed and built switched to a different name, and when rolled out given a new name. They could even go the Orbital route and change the name after announcing Taurus II.

The only thing I would be willing to bet, it will most likely have Atlas somewhere in the name. That is due to the brand value of "Atlas".

Now if they really want to down select to one vehicle using all four pads, to get the max brand value they may make a titanic branding shift  and use "Delta Atlas".
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline MP99

Would it make sense to develop not only common engines for Atlas Z and SLS LRBs, but also use the same first stage?

Seeking commonality between two applications is always worth considering. In this case, the pair of SLS boosters need to generate between them about six times the thrust of an Atlas first stage. So they couldn't just strap two Atlas first stages onto an SLS core and have any hope of meeting the requirement.

It's fascinating to ask, though: what if they strapped six Atlas boosters around the SLS core? That concept has been previously explored under the name "AJAX." The short answer is, "That would work great!" The question, "Why wasn't that approach adopted for SLS?" would require a rather more lengthy answer.... ;)

ISTR that concept included a cut-down core?

It also needs six boosters to thrust into the thrust beam, which ISTR involved what was basically an exoskeleton.

Cheers, Martin

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
It's fascinating to ask, though: what if they strapped six [AR-1 engined] Atlas boosters around the SLS core? That concept has been previously explored under the name "AJAX." The short answer is, "That would work great!"

ISTR that concept included a cut-down core?

Yes I think so too. But if a "tank stretch" is considered an easy modification, how much easier must it be to do the reverse? Conceivably many of the current SLS barrel sections could be reused without modification whatsoever.

Quote
It also needs six boosters to thrust into the thrust beam, which ISTR involved what was basically an exoskeleton.

Yes, because AJAX didn't want to "mess with" STS ET production techniques, and because the mass penalty for that was not prohibitive. Another approach would modify the core to take thrust from elsewhere, which is admittedly a "total" redesign but conceivably within what the new SLS core tooling could do.

The thrust beam in the STS external tank was a marvel of cleverness. (It dealt not only with the static load challenges, but with the vibration loads coming from the huge solids as well). In the same way, Ariane uses a thrust ring at the core stage forward skirt called "JAVE".

In principle (i.e. with enough hand-waving) one can imagine a JAVE-like thrust ring integrated into the SLS core barrels just at the height where an Atlas CCB powered by an AR-1 would want to transfer the thrust, i.e. near the nose of the CCB. The SLS core barrels are now all just milled aluminium, after all! ;)
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:39 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0