Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 02:52 amPredict that lobbyists will speak of a "backup engine" for Atlas V as a means to keep funding AR-1 after a BE-4 selection. That vision dies hard.Or NASA keeping it alive as an SLS Block 2 booster engine option. - Ed Kyle
Predict that lobbyists will speak of a "backup engine" for Atlas V as a means to keep funding AR-1 after a BE-4 selection. That vision dies hard.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 02:52 amPredict that lobbyists will speak of a "backup engine" for Atlas V as a means to keep funding AR-1 after a BE-4 selection. That vision dies hard.Or NASA keeping it alive as an SLS Block 2 booster engine option.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 02:52 amPredict that lobbyists will speak of a "backup engine" for Atlas V as a means to keep funding AR-1 after a BE-4 selection. That vision dies hard.For that to be even viable AR-1 will have to switch to burning methane instead of RP-1.
You can do dual development work for the core, based on 2 different propellants, for only so long. Right up to CDR. After that, all bets are on a single propellant. And that will be methane. And with it, the "backup" role for AR-1 goes away. Quickly IMO.
But I agree that won't stop Aerojet-Rocketdyne lobbyists from keeping the pressure on certain folks in US Congress. After all, government funding is their bread-and-butter.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/20/2017 12:58 pmQuote from: Hauerg on 10/20/2017 07:27 amWhich, of course, is the best combination on this planet right now.This needs to be said now (and quickly)... the 'industry leader' is in third place in head-to-head competition.Soon -- five years from now -- they might not have a single vehicle flying their engines.One word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.
Quote from: Hauerg on 10/20/2017 07:27 amWhich, of course, is the best combination on this planet right now.This needs to be said now (and quickly)... the 'industry leader' is in third place in head-to-head competition.Soon -- five years from now -- they might not have a single vehicle flying their engines.
Which, of course, is the best combination on this planet right now.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/20/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 02:52 amPredict that lobbyists will speak of a "backup engine" for Atlas V as a means to keep funding AR-1 after a BE-4 selection. That vision dies hard.Or NASA keeping it alive as an SLS Block 2 booster engine option. - Ed KyleYep, Ed nailed it. Even though solids have a leg up for SLS advanced booster, and despite the fact said booster is unlikely to ever fly, I imagine funds will be made available to continue development of AR-1.
If AR-1 has any plans for use on a liquid booster for SLS, NASA would have to find funds to support it's development. The AF would no longer do so since it would no longer have a NSS role.
The save it for use on Atlas V is not an option because it would take the AF to fund the Atlas V redesign in order to mount the AR-1 on it, as well as pad mods and tooling etc. A significant amount of funds that would result in a new rocket that has to go through qualification and then the 3 flight success for certification to take DOD payloads all at 2 years behind the Vulcan, a few $100's million if not billion AF expense.
But all those who predict gloom and doom for AJR, that is far from the truth. AJR is more than just a few liquid rocket engines. Their main income comes from SRMs for munitions and rockets used by fielded systems which are expended regularly and are in significant production and will remain that way for years. There are other small engines RCS thrusters etc that they also manufacture for use in sats that are also likely to remain in production.
AR-1 is but a small development program in a large company.
Added: NOTE - the Vulcan with BE-4 being 2 years ahead of any use on Atlas V would basically put the Vulcan into flight tests by the time that a Atlas V with AR-1 redesign would go through a CDR.
It is just too far out in time to be a program that will continue past this year unless BE-4 has some sort of sever engine design problem which this test shows that is now an unlikely occurrence.
But we await the BE-4 full thrust full duration burn before the fait of AR-1 is sealed. Which would definitely occur before the end of this FY2018 and possibly even before the end of this CY2017.
One word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/20/2017 01:06 pmOne word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.It's not very likely but it might not survive either. Delta IV is already being discontinued and ULA could pick BE-3 for ACES. The remaining user is SLS which could also get cancelled.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 10/20/2017 05:32 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/20/2017 01:06 pmOne word: RL10It will still be around five years from now.It's not very likely but it might not survive either. Delta IV is already being discontinued and ULA could pick BE-3 for ACES. The remaining user is SLS which could also get cancelled.Underestimates the fundamental effectiveness of the RL10.It may fly in other ways for many decades. BTW Centaur advantages as well like this.
Added: NOTE - the Vulcan with BE-4 being 2 years ahead of any use on Atlas V would basically put the Vulcan into flight tests by the time that a Atlas V with AR-1 redesign would go through a CDR. It is just too far out in time to be a program that will continue past this year unless BE-4 has some sort of sever engine design problem which this test shows that is now an unlikely occurrence. But we await the BE-4 full thrust full duration burn before the fait of AR-1 is sealed. Which would definitely occur before the end of this FY2018 and possibly even before the end of this CY2017.
AJR have been working on reducing RL10 build cost by redesign it to enable use of modern manufacturing technology. I think it is still ULA preferred engine but having BE3U as option helps keep AJR on their toes.Its in AJR best interest to bring price down so ULA can stay competitive. Less ULA flys the less engines they buy.
I would love to see boosters for SLS with 6 AR-1's on each booster with say a Merlin in the middle and NASA learn how to land the boosters. Then SLS would be a more capable rocket and save money with reuse of the boosters.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/20/2017 04:19 pmAdded: NOTE - the Vulcan with BE-4 being 2 years ahead of any use on Atlas V would basically put the Vulcan into flight tests by the time that a Atlas V with AR-1 redesign would go through a CDR. It is just too far out in time to be a program that will continue past this year unless BE-4 has some sort of sever engine design problem which this test shows that is now an unlikely occurrence. But we await the BE-4 full thrust full duration burn before the fait of AR-1 is sealed. Which would definitely occur before the end of this FY2018 and possibly even before the end of this CY2017.I thought the AR-1 was supposed to be largely a drop in replacement for the RD-180 requiring little in the way of changes to Atlas V CCB.
Quote from: Patchouli on 10/20/2017 09:01 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/20/2017 04:19 pmAdded: NOTE - the Vulcan with BE-4 being 2 years ahead of any use on Atlas V would basically put the Vulcan into flight tests by the time that a Atlas V with AR-1 redesign would go through a CDR. It is just too far out in time to be a program that will continue past this year unless BE-4 has some sort of sever engine design problem which this test shows that is now an unlikely occurrence. But we await the BE-4 full thrust full duration burn before the fait of AR-1 is sealed. Which would definitely occur before the end of this FY2018 and possibly even before the end of this CY2017.I thought the AR-1 was supposed to be largely a drop in replacement for the RD-180 requiring little in the way of changes to Atlas V CCB.The engines are completely different. The RD180 is a single engine with dual TC which will be replaced by a pair of independent engines. The thrust structure, piping, software, and a lot of other items all in the same area is 100% different. Nothing is common. This is not an engine upgrade by a higher thrust version of engine in same family with similar thrust and piping connections, controllers, and software. Also the mixture ratio is different meaning the placement of where the dome separating the LOX and RP-1 tanks has to be moved creating a new tank design which must be structurally qualified. Basically you end with a nearly completely new booster.
Didn't Aerojet claim they could completely replicate RD-180s plumbing and structural interfaces?
It's premature to call the BE-4 test the end of AR-1. Aerojet Rocketdyne have quite a bit of lobbying power and even if it is not picked by ULA for Vulcan, it may end up being kept alive regardless.
Congress may even hatch a plan to mandate integration of AR-1 with the existing Atlas V booster regardless of Vulcan using BE-4. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's not beyond them.
There is also the remote possiblity another company that wants to enter the launch market with an RLV picks it up.
Large reusable ORSC engines are expensive and take years to develop. Buying from AJR would cut costs, risk and schedule enormously. DC-X which is forefunner of many RLVs today, used plain old RL-10s rather than develop brand new engines.
I'm sure AJR will welcome them with open arms. Highly unlikely though, isn't?
The amount of money spent on something has no relationship to how long it should survive in the marketplace. And if the marketplace does move to reusable launchers, then engines that enable that are what AJR should really be focused on if they want to stay in the rocket supplier business.