Quote from: russianhalo117 on 07/10/2018 05:19 pmBUMP For RD-181:Per likely strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/RD-181 doesn't have anything to do with AR-1.
BUMP For RD-181:Per likely strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
Quote from: gongora on 07/10/2018 05:30 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 07/10/2018 05:19 pmBUMP For RD-181:Per likely strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/RD-181 doesn't have anything to do with AR-1.it might in the near future because the RD-181 ban goes into effect well before the last possible ISS CRS2 flight. AR-1 was initially marketed after the Antares launch failure and later extended to replace RD-180, which for the latter engine is a slimmer chance of happening.
If memory serves, the RD-180 ban allowed purchases for commercial and NASA launches. Does the RD-181 ban allow purchases for commercial and NASA launches as well?
The ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.
Quote from: gongora on 07/10/2018 05:41 pmThe ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.That is my understanding as well. The ban only applies to US military launches. Commercial and US civil (NASA, NOAA, etc) can still use the engines.
(e) APPLICATION. — Except as otherwise specifically provided, the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to contracts for satellite services awarded by the Secretary of Defense on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
What about Atlas V and Starliner?
Ban on US DOD missions - yes. [/b]However the effects will have ramifications to the commercial satellite industry.[/b]Commercial satellite operators that utilize a launch service with Russian Federation engines (such as as RD-180 and RD181) as defined, and/or launch services on Proton M or Soyuz after December 31, 2022 will not be able to sell their capacity to the US DOD. Many of these operators lease capacity in regions the that US DOD requires capacity (MENA and ASEAN).
Quote from: Aurora on 07/11/2018 12:51 pmBan on US DOD missions - yes. [/b]However the effects will have ramifications to the commercial satellite industry.[/b]Commercial satellite operators that utilize a launch service with Russian Federation engines (such as as RD-180 and RD181) as defined, and/or launch services on Proton M or Soyuz after December 31, 2022 will not be able to sell their capacity to the US DOD. Many of these operators lease capacity in regions the that US DOD requires capacity (MENA and ASEAN). No, there will be no ramifications at all IMO.Antares, using RD-181, has been unable to get a foothold in the commercial market for the past decade. The signs are not looking positive for the future either.Atlas V, using RD-180, will go away shortly after 2022, to be replaced by Vulcan, with an all-American engine.Proton is on the way out as well, being retired in favor of Angara.And Soyuz is not really suited to launch comsats to GTO/GEO. The largest use of Soyuz for comsat launches will end shortly after 2022 when Soyuz-from-Kourou is replaced by the upgraded versions of Vega.And no US provider in his/hers right mind would continue launching its comsats on Russian vehicles with the oncoming surge of new, cheaper, US launch vehicles (Falcon 9, FH, New Glenn, NGIS, etc.).
The only reason RD-181 was added was because NGIS planned to expand offerings for lower tier EELV thus it had to be added.
Aerojet Rocketdyne is pitching that someone could build a Delta II class rocket using a single AR-1 and single RL-10 as the upper stage. I'd assume some vernier thrusters for roll control as well.This would likely be similar or lower performance than the Cyclone-4M which itself looks like a very tough sell. If aiming for something that competes with Falcon 9 operating in RTLS mode, one would really need much cheaper propulsion if going fully expendable. That ain't RL-10 and it sure ain't AR-1.Now maybe if someone wanted to try for a fully reusable small to medium lift 2 stage rocket based on those high performance engines they could have something - but I've never seen AR pitch their motor as reusable. You would think they might try and sell reusability as an option with their engine if it were capable...