Quote from: baldusi on 12/18/2014 02:59 pmIsn't Antares-130 T/W close to 1.1. Just putting a bit more thrust will help things significantly. Just increasing the thrust to weight ratio to reduce gravity losses might boost LEO payload by 100 or 150 kg, but increasing the first stage propellant load could increase LEO payload by 500 kg, or, if the extra propellant mass were divided between the two stages, perhaps 700 kg more, or between three stages (assuming a small hydrazine maneuvering third stage) up to 1,500 kg more. - Ed Kyle
Isn't Antares-130 T/W close to 1.1. Just putting a bit more thrust will help things significantly.
Quote from: Prober on 01/21/2013 12:36 pmQuote from: Salo on 01/21/2013 05:12 amThere are less then 100 engines.believe the USA received in the 20"s and Russia has in the 40's left?There's 30-ish here, some healthier than others. New production capability in Samara, and Aerojet is working on it. Based purely on personal calculation and speculation, and unendorsed in any official capacity by anyone, the RD-191 does miracles for the performance numbers on Antares. Once the current crop of engines runs out, who knows?
Quote from: Salo on 01/21/2013 05:12 amThere are less then 100 engines.believe the USA received in the 20"s and Russia has in the 40's left?
There are less then 100 engines.
Quote from: Prober on 12/18/2014 12:21 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/18/2014 04:15 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2014 08:26 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 07:19 pmA killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault. - Ed KyleThat's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.This.I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.Not really AR fault why do you think Rocketdyne was sold off? Low launch rates, and the company lives or dies by Government programs. Even the mighty SpaceX is going corporate. Read some of the employee reports if you don't wish to believe it. But the fact is SpaceX needs the government money too.I've been pushing for sometime that AR made a major mistake when they did the merger. They should have made two divisions within the company and cleaned the government stuff away from a clean "commercial" type company. The company still needs this to survive IMHO.You are misunderstanding the core problem. It has NOTHING to do with having government or commercial contracts. The core issue for AR is a fundamental unwillingness to use income (from any contract) and feed that back into internal research and development of new products. The source of that income does not matter.Now the shareholders are mostly to blame for this - but they are reaping the seeds too now - but there is a "no development without government earmark" sickness that has permeated the aerospace community for too long.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/18/2014 04:15 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2014 08:26 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 07:19 pmA killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault. - Ed KyleThat's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.This.I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.Not really AR fault why do you think Rocketdyne was sold off? Low launch rates, and the company lives or dies by Government programs. Even the mighty SpaceX is going corporate. Read some of the employee reports if you don't wish to believe it. But the fact is SpaceX needs the government money too.I've been pushing for sometime that AR made a major mistake when they did the merger. They should have made two divisions within the company and cleaned the government stuff away from a clean "commercial" type company. The company still needs this to survive IMHO.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/17/2014 08:26 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 07:19 pmA killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault. - Ed KyleThat's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.This.I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 07:19 pmA killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault. - Ed KyleThat's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.
A killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/18/2014 06:41 pmYou are misunderstanding the core problem. It has NOTHING to do with having government or commercial contracts. The core issue for AR is a fundamental unwillingness to use income (from any contract) and feed that back into internal research and development of new products. The source of that income does not matter.Now the shareholders are mostly to blame for this - but they are reaping the seeds too now - but there is a "no development without government earmark" sickness that has permeated the aerospace community for too long.Disagree with you on the "core problem" Aerojet on its own spent a ton of cash on the AJ-26, and the next model replacement. Until Orbital they got no income on that investment i.e. the low launch rate I talked about.Companies have to make money back on their investments (ROI). Remember another item, AR combined has a lot of overhead. Not sure the number of people, but they had test stands to maintain etc. Not cheap stuff at all. The company is not in the launch business, they are basically the rocket engine manufacturer for government launches.
You are misunderstanding the core problem. It has NOTHING to do with having government or commercial contracts. The core issue for AR is a fundamental unwillingness to use income (from any contract) and feed that back into internal research and development of new products. The source of that income does not matter.Now the shareholders are mostly to blame for this - but they are reaping the seeds too now - but there is a "no development without government earmark" sickness that has permeated the aerospace community for too long.
Quote from: Prober on 12/18/2014 09:28 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 12/18/2014 06:41 pmYou are misunderstanding the core problem. It has NOTHING to do with having government or commercial contracts. The core issue for AR is a fundamental unwillingness to use income (from any contract) and feed that back into internal research and development of new products. The source of that income does not matter.Now the shareholders are mostly to blame for this - but they are reaping the seeds too now - but there is a "no development without government earmark" sickness that has permeated the aerospace community for too long.Disagree with you on the "core problem" Aerojet on its own spent a ton of cash on the AJ-26, and the next model replacement. Until Orbital they got no income on that investment i.e. the low launch rate I talked about.Companies have to make money back on their investments (ROI). Remember another item, AR combined has a lot of overhead. Not sure the number of people, but they had test stands to maintain etc. Not cheap stuff at all. The company is not in the launch business, they are basically the rocket engine manufacturer for government launches.About the overhead... If two companies merge and you need to maintain the overhead. Then they are doing it wrong! (merging, that is) - You merge to REDUCE overhead. You merge to combine facilities, not maintain all of them.
Disagree with you on the "core problem" Aerojet on its own spent a ton of cash on the AJ-26, and the next model replacement. Until Orbital they got no income on that investment i.e. the low launch rate I talked about.
Quote from: Prober on 12/18/2014 09:28 pmDisagree with you on the "core problem" Aerojet on its own spent a ton of cash on the AJ-26, and the next model replacement. Until Orbital they got no income on that investment i.e. the low launch rate I talked about.Not surprisingly I disagree with you on this. Aerojet spent a few RELATIVE nickels and dimes to get an old engine flying. That was in fact much cheaper than doing an all-out new engine development.And in hindsight the nickels and dimes spent were spent in a pretty bad way too.A major lesson of the AJ-26 program is this: don't try to do rocket engines 'on the cheap' by cutting corners. Because in the end it will cost you dearly and you still don't have a good product.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/19/2014 06:33 amQuote from: Prober on 12/18/2014 09:28 pmDisagree with you on the "core problem" Aerojet on its own spent a ton of cash on the AJ-26, and the next model replacement. Until Orbital they got no income on that investment i.e. the low launch rate I talked about.Not surprisingly I disagree with you on this. Aerojet spent a few RELATIVE nickels and dimes to get an old engine flying. That was in fact much cheaper than doing an all-out new engine development.And in hindsight the nickels and dimes spent were spent in a pretty bad way too.A major lesson of the AJ-26 program is this: don't try to do rocket engines 'on the cheap' by cutting corners. Because in the end it will cost you dearly and you still don't have a good product.Can understand why you think millions of US dollars are relative nickels and dimes. You live in governmental spending, your funding values are much different. Aerojet was a non-governmental company they spent real money.
Yes, they spent real money. And had they done a proper all-out new engine development, in stead of doing AJ-26, they would have spent a helluvalot more. My 'on the cheap' comment stands.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/19/2014 03:44 pmYes, they spent real money. And had they done a proper all-out new engine development, in stead of doing AJ-26, they would have spent a helluvalot more. My 'on the cheap' comment stands.I have to agree with Prober here. I don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine. The vast majority of companies that are developing engines are developing them for rockets they are also making, or are doing it on a contract.I think there's a lot of smug attitude around here that is really unfortunate. Things have not worked out for Aerojet, but all of this "they deserve it because they were lazy and stupid" type of second-guessing after the fact is really unwarranted and off-putting to me.All of that said, the subject of Aerojet in an Antares thread is rather peripheral at this point, I don't know if there are Aerojet threads anywhere, but I would suggest that a continuing discussion of Aerojet probably belongs somewhere else. Antares is headed to a bright new future that does not include Aerojet, after all...
I have to agree with Prober here. I don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine. The vast majority of companies that are developing engines are developing them for rockets they are also making, or are doing it on a contract.I think there's a lot of smug attitude around here that is really unfortunate. Things have not worked out for Aerojet, but all of this "they deserve it because they were lazy and stupid" type of second-guessing after the fact is really unwarranted and off-putting to me.
I have to agree with Prober here. I don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine.
Quote from: abaddon on 12/19/2014 04:11 pmI have to agree with Prober here. I don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine. There is your problem. Spending a billion dollars on a new engine is typical for government-style projects.
Quote from: abaddon on 12/19/2014 04:11 pmI have to agree with Prober here. I don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine. There is your problem. Spending a billion dollars on a new engine is typical for government-style projects. Doing a new engine fully commercially does not require a billion dollars (unless you want something that is way beyond the scope of what is needed for Antares). Not having all the money in the world forces a company to do things smart and efficiently. And that is exactly what a good number of old-space, government-dependent companies such as Aerojet and Rocketdyne cannot do currently. They simply don't have the required mind-set anymore, after having been spoiled by a near-continues influx of government money for 3-plus decades.A (partial) exception is ATK. On the one hand they blow all the money (and time!) in the world on developing the SLS boosters for NASA. On the other hand they also managed to do fast development of Castor 30 AND Castor 30XL on a relative nickel-and-dime for Orbital. People may not like ATK but at least they always remembered that government-business alone is not going to keep them alive forever.
You don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine? Probably true.First, why is it a billion dollars? How much did the Merlin cost to develop? I think it was like a few hundred million.
Quote from: abaddon on 12/19/2014 04:11 pm...smug......"smug"...
...smug...
(to be fair: SpaceX engines contains all the electronics onbaord the engine, RD-180 just comes with sensors and no hw/sw).
Quote from: Lobo on 12/19/2014 05:48 pmYou don't know any engine company that spends a billion dollars without a contract for an engine? Probably true.First, why is it a billion dollars? How much did the Merlin cost to develop? I think it was like a few hundred million.You say it took SpaceX a few hundred million for a simple gas generator 690kN engine.Now make out of the 690kN e.g. 4MN (like an RD-180).Now add a highly complex und to the US currently unknown oxydizer-rich preburner process.Increase the chamber pressure from xxxx to 26MPa. And I think you end up at a billion.
Quote from: Remes on 12/19/2014 11:41 pm(to be fair: SpaceX engines contains all the electronics onbaord the engine, RD-180 just comes with sensors and no hw/sw).Quite wrong. There is an engine controller
Perhaps - But only if you make the (IMO mistaken) assumption that a new engine HAS TO equal RD-180 in every aspect.
Quote from: Jim on 12/20/2014 02:03 amQuote from: Remes on 12/19/2014 11:41 pm(to be fair: SpaceX engines contains all the electronics onbaord the engine, RD-180 just comes with sensors and no hw/sw).Quite wrong. There is an engine controllerOf course there is an engine controller. But afaik the controller on Atlas V is not developed/delivered by Energomash. So if we compare development costs, this should be taken into account.
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/20/2014 06:30 amPerhaps - But only if you make the (IMO mistaken) assumption that a new engine HAS TO equal RD-180 in every aspect.The topic of conversation, as I get it, was about why did US-companies miss to develop a competetive RD-180/nk-33 replacement for xyz $.