Author Topic: Taurus II and availability of the NK33  (Read 89778 times)

Offline Po Ruskie

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #80 on: 08/22/2008 08:30 pm »
Having spent a large portion of my Aerojet career on NK-33's (before bailing out for greener pastures earlier this year), I can tell you:

It's AJ-26-62 for the Taurus II.
There's enough engines for 5+ years of T-II flights.
The engines are well preserved and in really good shape regardless of how old  they are.
SCC is not an issue (response to Antares' post)
NK-33's could be built here in the US if somebody actually had the 'nads to commit to this and would open up their checkbook.  Remember, these were built using manual machining equipment and the components were designed with that (probably drunk, unmotivated machinist comrade) in mind.  There are a *bunch* of clever things inside.  It would be fun to make all those pieces in a modern machine shop with the latest CNC equipment.
I was bummed about the Wallops decision - I wanted Vandenberg so I could see it (assuming no fog, of course).  Ah well...

Do Svedaneye!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #81 on: 08/23/2008 08:06 pm »
I suspect that we would see Taurus re-engined with Merlins before we saw US manufactured AJ-26-62 engines.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #82 on: 08/23/2008 08:11 pm »
I suspect that we would see Taurus re-engined with Merlins before we saw US manufactured AJ-26-62 engines.


No, for many reasons
1.  Spacex isn't going to help a competitor
2.  Changing engines would be more costly to OSC
3.  Changing engines is not a one for one option

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #83 on: 08/23/2008 08:50 pm »
I suspect that we would see Taurus re-engined with Merlins before we saw US manufactured AJ-26-62 engines.


No, for many reasons
1.  Spacex isn't going to help a competitor
2.  Changing engines would be more costly to OSC
3.  Changing engines is not a one for one option

1. Let's see if they still are when OSC needs new engines...
2. Depends on what Aerojet bills 'em
3. Now that one will be a bit hard, especially with the differences in ISP, but then SpaceX also has an upper stage engine to offer...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #84 on: 08/24/2008 10:30 pm »
Let me assure you that if

 1) the technical and QA characteristics and
 2) the price of the Merlin engines

are suitable for Taurus II, and

 3) SpaceX is interested in offering them to us,

we would consider it very seriously.  As of today, though, I don't know enough about that engine to even answer question 1.

Any changes from the baseline engines will require some redesign of Stage 1 and possibly re-testing or re-qualification, depending on the extent of the necessary changes.  SO we won't do it lightly, and will handicap by those costs the alternatives to U.S. production of NK33's/AJ-26's.

By the way, the Taurus II version of the AJ-26 ( the so-called "dash-62" version) is actually a simplification of the Kistler versions (the other "dashes"); the simplifications come about mainly from the shorter operational lifetime and the need for (no) restart.  Also, no high-expansion-ratio version.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2008 10:44 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Jose

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #85 on: 08/25/2008 05:03 pm »
...but then SpaceX also has an upper stage engine to offer...

Aerojet has the NK-43 to offer.  That could be a very interesting engine if the start building it domestically with thurst-augmented nozzles.


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #86 on: 08/25/2008 05:36 pm »
The Thrust-augmented Nozzle (TAN) AKA "afterburning rocket" is one of those ideas that look OK on paper, but the practical implementation negates many of its virtues; let me list just three:

1.- Who compresses the propellants that are injected in the nozzle?  The basic turbomachinery of, say, an NK-43 is sized precisely to match the basic fuel flow used by the main combustion chamber.  Not a gram per second more.  Need a second turbopump, or a new, larger turbopump... No, wait, the exit pressure requirements are different, so you're stuck with a different turbopump

2.- Anywhere after the throat, the flow is supersonic; which means that the injected propellants must be at matching speeds if you want to avoid a mixing flow mess.  Which means that a significant portion of the pressurization enthalpy is "lost" accelerating the flow.

3.- The mechanical complexity of the nozzle, therefore its mass and cost, increases significantly.  I have not done the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the added inert weight (including the extra turbomachinery) negated the Isp advantages of the scheme.

In any case, you would have to design such an engine from scratch; trying to modify an existing one is, at best, heroic.

Once more the superiority of staging becomes evident: use low expansion ratio, high chamber pressure engines for the first stage, then get rid of the whole thing and change to high expansion ratio, possibly lower chamber pressure engines for the upper stages.

Like aerospikes, TANs were a "bandaid" applied to SSTO concepts where you were not allowed to stage and got penalized by the expansion ratio dilemma.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Jose

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #87 on: 08/25/2008 06:25 pm »
Than you for your reply.  So I take it you're not a fan of aerospike engines either?  You're crushing all the dreams out of me! (Kidding.)


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #88 on: 08/25/2008 08:02 pm »
Hey, f=ma (and then you die...) ::)
« Last Edit: 08/25/2008 08:02 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #89 on: 08/26/2008 05:48 pm »
Hey, f=ma (and then you die...) ::)

I've been using f=dp/dt totally unaware of my impending doom.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #90 on: 08/26/2008 06:22 pm »
Hey, f=ma (and then you die...) ::)

I've been using f=dp/dt totally unaware of my impending doom.


God help you if you use f= mv(d/dt)

sorry, came up in class today
« Last Edit: 08/26/2008 06:23 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #91 on: 08/27/2008 03:45 pm »
The Thrust-augmented Nozzle (TAN) AKA "afterburning rocket" is one of those ideas that look OK on paper, but the practical implementation negates many of its virtues; let me list just three:

Antonio, I didn't want to threadjack this thread, but I wanted to add some comments about TAN.  So I did so over on the old TAN thread started last year when I first posted my article on the concept:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10787.msg310119#msg310119

~Jonathan Goff

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #92 on: 08/27/2008 05:00 pm »
I suspect that we would see Taurus re-engined with Merlins before we saw US manufactured AJ-26-62 engines.

This indicates a lack of the fundamental understanding of how the rocket stage and the engine are a matched pair.  What would seem like small changes in the engine operation end up having huge impacts on the stage.  Often resulting in the need to resize the tanks and pressurization system...  This in turn impacts nearly every subsystem in the rocket.  Essentially you're creating and needign to qualify a new stage.

A good example of this is the NK-33's mixture ratio 2.8:1 which is normal for Russian engines, but quite high for the US where most engines run 2.4:1.  Or another is the minimum propellant pressures that must be provided to the engine pumps, minimum NPSH or NPSP.  These are fundamental engine design characteristics, and the rocket has to make changes to accommodate the "new" engine.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #93 on: 08/27/2008 05:16 pm »
I suspect that we would see Taurus re-engined with Merlins before we saw US manufactured AJ-26-62 engines.

This indicates a lack of the fundamental understanding of how the rocket stage and the engine are a matched pair.  What would seem like small changes in the engine operation end up having huge impacts on the stage.  Often resulting in the need to resize the tanks and pressurization system...  This in turn impacts nearly every subsystem in the rocket.  Essentially you're creating and needign to qualify a new stage.

A good example of this is the NK-33's mixture ratio 2.8:1 which is normal for Russian engines, but quite high for the US where most engines run 2.4:1.  Or another is the minimum propellant pressures that must be provided to the engine pumps, minimum NPSH or NPSP.  These are fundamental engine design characteristics, and the rocket has to make changes to accommodate the "new" engine.

Which would be more expensive, changing the rocket to match the new engines, or setting up the production line for the Russian engines? Surely that would be the deciding factor?

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #94 on: 08/28/2008 12:11 am »
That's the trade...  Do a Atlas II to Atlas III like development?  Or restart production of an engine built 35 yrs ago in Russia?  There's time for Orbital to make that decision, assuming their successful in the first place.  But it will start to come to head soon after first flight.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #95 on: 08/28/2008 01:23 am »
That's the trade...  Do a Atlas II to Atlas III like development?  Or restart production of an engine built 35 yrs ago in Russia?  There's time for Orbital to make that decision, assuming their successful in the first place.  But it will start to come to head soon after first flight.
45 years ago, by then....

Offline Jose

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #96 on: 08/28/2008 03:04 am »
There's time for Orbital to make that decision, assuming their successful in the first place.  But it will start to come to head soon after first flight.

I'm figuring that that'd be a good problem to have.  Means the Taurus II was a success.


Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #97 on: 08/30/2009 07:22 pm »
http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_2

AEROJET LOOKING TO RESTART PRODUCTION OF NK-33 ENGINE

Aerojet is in talks with Russian propulsion firms to restart production of the Soviet-era NK-33 rocket engine that the Sacramento, Calif.-based propulsion company is modernizing for use on Orbital Sciences' Taurus 2 medium-lift rocket.

Aerojet's vice president of space systems, Julie Van Kleeck, said Aug. 27 that the two companies are weighing the benefits of restarting production of the 1960s engine in Russia, initiating a new line in the United States, or possibly doing both.

"We're in discussions trying to understand one another's demand and what the trigger points are and how production might be started in one place or the other," Van Kleeck told Space News. "It's a very active situation right now in terms of discussion."

Orbital Sciences is building the Taurus 2 rocket to launch an unmanned cargo tug called Cygnus that the Dulles, Va.-based company has been working on since early 2008, when it beat a dozen competitors to win a NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration contract worth $171 million. In December, Orbital won a Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract valued at $1.9 billion to deliver to the international space station a minimum of 20 metric tons of pressurized cargo spread over eight flights between 2010 and 2016. Space Exploration Technologies of Hawthorne, Calif., which has been working on a rival system with NASA's help since 2006, has a 12-flight cargo-resupply contract worth $1.6 billion.

Slated to make its launch debut in 2010 from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's eastern shore, the Taurus 2 will be powered by two modified NK-33 engines. The liquid oxygen and kerosene engines originally designed for Russia's abandoned Moon program were acquired by Aerojet in the 1990s and more recently redesignated AJ26-62 for use on Taurus 2.

Today, Aerojet has 37 NK-33 engines in the United States, and owns the rights to additional surplus inventory in Russia. Van Kleeck says at this time there are ample NK-33s in the United States and Russia to support Orbital's planned CRS contract commitment.

"From a U.S. perspective, there are enough engines for CRS to go 10 to 12 years," she said, adding that a more optimistic view of forecasted U.S. demand would call for starting a new production line within the next three to five years.

The Russians, on the other hand, are looking at more near-term scenarios, she said. Space News was unable to obtain comment from Russian officials by press time, but U.S. industry sources said Russia is interested in restarting NK-33 production to power its Soyuz rockets.

Nikolai Yakushin, the deputy general director of Moscow-based United Engine Corp., wrote Orbital Sciences Chief Executive Officer David W. Thompson in late June to give assurance that Russia will be able to meet Orbital's demand for the NK-33 engine from existing inventory and a restart of NK-33 production in Russia, according to a U.S. industry source familiar with the letter.

Information posted on Russia's Samara Space Center Web site says Russia has developed a draft design for a Soyuz 2-3 launch vehicle to include a "gimbaled sustainer engine NK-33-1 with upgraded power capability" for use on the central stage of the rocket.

Van Kleeck said most of Aerojet's NK-33 modifications are specific to Taurus 2, though Russia may be interested in some modern technologies the company has developed. One U.S. industry source said Russia is eyeing a new gimbal and a number of modern actuators that Aerojet designed for its Americanized NK-33 variants.

"There are a couple of things they are interested in, but we haven't taken those discussions very far. The specific vehicle mods would not be of interest ... it's more the new hardware that we might be putting in," Van Kleeck said, adding that any modifications to the original engine would be subject to U.S. licensing requirements for export to Russia.

At this point, Van Kleeck said talks are concentrated on where the new line would be built, though she said Aerojet would prefer a U.S. production line if a sound business case can be made.

"The negatives to restarting a Russian production line are that you are dealing with purchasing something from another country, and there are just a lot of steps to bringing something like that into this country," she said, adding that U.S. production would give Aerojet an opportunity to immediately respond to problems that could potentially crop up during manufacturing.

Although the two sides are considering the start of two separate production lines — one U.S., one Russian — Van Kleeck said she is not convinced there is demand for both lines.

"There's a significant investment to put a line like this in place," she said, adding that regardless, Aerojet is fully prepared to enter production, and has been since the 1990s when the now-defunct Kistler Aerospace designed its K-1 reusable rocket around Aerojet's modified NK-33.

"We have all the drawings to produce the engines, and have had them translated and are prepared to go into production," she said. "We need to make sure we have the supply base for various components we are buying, and we have some process work to do to replicate things in this country, but we truly don't see significant risks to do this. It's not a trivial process to go into production, but we're fully prepared to do that if it makes economic sense."

That said, engines produced in Russia likely would cost less than engines produced domestically, she said. In addition, because the NK-33 originates in Russia, it is likely that restarting a production line there could be done more quickly than starting from scratch in the United States, a scenario that could take four or five years.

"We believe there would be a price benefit of being able to purchase the engines from Russia. That might not be true in five years, but that's the case today," Van Kleeck said. "Given that uncertainty, we are evaluating both scenarios for U.S. customers, and believe the Russians are doing the same to evaluate their needs."

At this point, the only clear demand for the NK-33 from Aerojet's perspective is Orbital and its CRS commitment, which one U.S. industry source said entails two Taurus 2 launches per year. But if the launch rate were to increase, Van Kleeck said there could be a need for new production down the road.

"From a U.S. perspective, in an optimistic sense, you could make the argument that someone needs to start setting up the line three years from now," she said. "We're evaluating nominal as well as optimistic cases."

This fall, Aerojet is planning a long-duration, high-power test firing of the NK-33 in Samara, Russia. Scheduled for late September or early October, the test could raise confidence in the engine.

"A successful demonstration will increase the confidence level and allow us to reduce some of the performance margins we'll be carrying," Antonio Elias, vice president and general manager of Orbital's advanced programs group, said Aug. 28. "By performing this ground test, we'll be able to fly with smaller reserves."

Van Kleeck said the upcoming test, which Aerojet has been contemplating for more than a year, is not related to discussions about restarting production.

"If, however, these tests result in other future applications, they could become related. If the test is wildly successful, it could lead to future customers and it could drive the need for production sooner," she said.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #98 on: 08/30/2009 07:47 pm »
Merlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded. How hard is it to make a new engine? I'm sure if there's a large demand for the Taurus II and they run out of engines, someone could just make a new one. Couldn't cost more than $200 million, half a billion tops. Might be a good idea to have one on the back-burner to use as a bargaining chip with the Russians.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Taurus II and availability of the NK33
« Reply #99 on: 08/30/2009 07:57 pm »
Merlin was first test-fired a year after SpaceX was founded. How hard is it to make a new engine? I'm sure if there's a large demand for the Taurus II and they run out of engines, someone could just make a new one. Couldn't cost more than $200 million, half a billion tops. Might be a good idea to have one on the back-burner to use as a bargaining chip with the Russians.
Matching NK-33 performance would be much more difficult than building Merlin. Despite being designed in the 60s, it's still a pretty hot engine.

Merlin 1c:
T/W 96 (according to wikipedia)
ISP 275(sl) 304 (vac)

NK-33:
T/W 136
ISP 295 (sl) 331 (vac)


Tags:
 

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