Of the three engines ULA uses, isn't the RD-180 the cheapest? A shame, the money could be better spent coming up with a higher thrust, lower cost RL-10 replacement.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 06/17/2014 01:03 amOf the three engines ULA uses, isn't the RD-180 the cheapest? A shame, the money could be better spent coming up with a higher thrust, lower cost RL-10 replacement.Now that the RD-180 supply has been called into question, ULA needs to replace it if it wants the Atlas V to remain viable. Even if (as I expect) the supply of RD-180s is not interrupted, DoD and others are going to be reluctant to buy Atlas launches in the future if it remains dependent on Russian engines.
They are working on a lower cost RL10 replacement with XCOR. http://www.xcor.com/press/2013/13-09-23_XCOR_ULA_announce_hydrogen_engine_milestone.html
...Dynetics
ULA Presser.
Replacing the RD-180 and keeping the Atlas (and Delta and SLS) without examining the Nation's Long Term Propulsion Needs almost guarantees excess US launch capacity at excess cost.
Quote from: muomega0 on 06/17/2014 12:31 pmReplacing the RD-180 and keeping the Atlas (and Delta and SLS) without examining the Nation's Long Term Propulsion Needs almost guarantees excess US launch capacity at excess cost. In this "commercial" launch environment, isn't "letting the market decide" the most efficient way to determine those propulsion needs? Once the new-engine Atlas is flying, the market will decide if it is competitive. If RS-68 and Merlin and whatever Orbital ends up using for Antares are competitive, they will survive. If not, they won't.If that purported $1 billion development effort lasts the suggested six years, that's only $167 million per year. Successful companies can spend money like that on development. ULA has likely determined that that amount is less than the cost of switching over to 100% Delta 4. - Ed Kyle
Musk says that overhead starts with how the launch vehicle is designed. The workhorse Atlas V, for example, used for everything from planetary probes to spy satellites, employs up to three kinds of rockets, each tailored to a specific phase of flight. The Russian-built RD-180 first- stage engines burn a highly refined form of kerosene called RP1. Optional solid-fuel strap-on boosters can provide additional thrust at liftoff, and a liquid hydrogen upper stage takes over in the final phase of flight. Using three kinds of rockets in the same vehicle may optimize its performance, but at a price: “To a first-order approximation, you’ve just tripled your factory costs and all your operational costs,” says Musk.
A free market does not exist with a sole source 100B HLV and leaving only 7 of 14 launches.
So the free market which owns Atlas/Delta/SLS product lines and wanted to add liquid strap ons has not recognized that the US has excess launch capacity with new vehicles under development.
GenCorp’s New-Rocket Plan Raises Questions
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.
Quote from: muomega0 on 06/17/2014 02:31 pmA free market does not exist with a sole source 100B HLV and leaving only 7 of 14 launches. Clearly SLS is another animal - a classic government-run launch vehicle program, discussion of which does not belong in this thread, but I was talking about the EELV and COTS/CRS class launchers (Atlas 5, Delta 4, Antares, and Falcon 9) that are closer to "commercial" than any other launch vehicles in the U.S. Here, for example, we see ULA making a decision to spend its own money on propulsion R&D for Atlas 5. - Ed Kyle
Can non-U.S. companies be ruled out?
Wonder how many contracts ULA signed.