Quote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Anyone want to take a shot at the performance of Vinci and RL-10 NGLs? Oh and if someone would like to try their hand at a Rutherford Version, I'm certainly curious.
My bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".
A Rutherford or electric pump engine wouldn't scale to RL10 class engine. An engine developer on a podcast I listened to said 5klbs is about it.
Quote from: Chasm on 12/14/2017 07:04 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Mine btw. too. I think talking publicly about Vinci is first and foremost a strong message to ARJ that the rejection of BE-3U did not make RL10 the inevitable choice. Certainly not at any cost.I'm not so sure. Remember, Orbital ATK is the company flying the least-American orbital rocket currently flying from U.S. soil, with a Ukrainian built first stage powered by Russian engines, boosting a largely Italian-built payload. Vinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: woods170 on 12/14/2017 10:02 amMy bet is on OATK down-selecting to RL10. It fits "build American, fly American".Mine btw. too. I think talking publicly about Vinci is first and foremost a strong message to ARJ that the rejection of BE-3U did not make RL10 the inevitable choice. Certainly not at any cost.
Anyone know if Broadsword was ever seriously considered for NGL?
Quote from: woods170 on 12/15/2017 06:49 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:34 amVinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.On that last phrase I can assure you: it won't.That is: not until they bring down the parts number significantly and streamline production. Remember, the basic design of Vinci is almost 20 years old, before the time of "econonomic viability" and "additive manufacturing". Plus it is being constructed in Europe where production of aerospace products is almost as expensive as it is in the USA due to the relatively large number of sub-contractors involved.Vinci is a youngster compared to RL10. RL10 first flew in 1961 and was firing on test stands a year or two earlier, when Eisenhower was U.S. President!
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:34 amVinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.On that last phrase I can assure you: it won't.That is: not until they bring down the parts number significantly and streamline production. Remember, the basic design of Vinci is almost 20 years old, before the time of "econonomic viability" and "additive manufacturing". Plus it is being constructed in Europe where production of aerospace products is almost as expensive as it is in the USA due to the relatively large number of sub-contractors involved.
Vinci is, or will be, more efficient than RL10. For all we know it might also cost less.
You may be right about the cost comparison, but Aerojet Rocketdyne costs have skyrocketed in recent years, so I'll withhold judgement. It will be an interesting decision.
It's not the number of years per se, but the engineering & manufacturing generation it was created in.For instance products created before high volume 3D printing became practical for rocket engine parts may not be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the cost and time savings that 3D printing can provide. Which would put the Vinci engine in the same situation as the RL-10.
The economic challenge is one of our main concerns today. The Vinci engine is purpose-designed to cost requirements. That is why we chose an "Expander" cycle. This technology sidesteps specific gas generators, as opposed to our other engines. We have also packed many technological breakthroughs into this engine, including powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, to optimize operating cost-efficiency even further.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/15/2017 08:07 pmIt's not the number of years per se, but the engineering & manufacturing generation it was created in.For instance products created before high volume 3D printing became practical for rocket engine parts may not be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the cost and time savings that 3D printing can provide. Which would put the Vinci engine in the same situation as the RL-10.Vinci manufacturing processes aren't that old:Arianegroup:QuoteThe economic challenge is one of our main concerns today. The Vinci engine is purpose-designed to cost requirements. That is why we chose an "Expander" cycle. This technology sidesteps specific gas generators, as opposed to our other engines. We have also packed many technological breakthroughs into this engine, including powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, to optimize operating cost-efficiency even further.https://www.safran-group.com/media/20131120_vinci-one-engine-two-ariane-launchers
Signed Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with @AF_SMC enables certification of NGL to carry National Security Space missions bit.ly/2lU1pcw
Maybe I'm going crazy, but this upper stage is sounding more and more like the 4 meter DCSS. Surely there's some obvious difference I'm just blanking on.And for fun either way, how well would the Delta upper stage work on top of NGL?