NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: LOXRP1 on 10/31/2014 03:59 pm
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
-
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Huh? Launch history is not a requirement. The AJ-26 had no launch history before Antares flew for the first time. The RD-180 didn't have launch history before the first Atlas III launch.
-
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Huh? Launch history is not a requirement. The AJ-26 had no launch history before Antares flew for the first time. The RD-180 didn't have launch history before the first Atlas III launch.
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012.
- Ed Kyle
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012.
- Ed Kyle
something has changed last two days then. Frank was talking the other direction.
-
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management.
-
something has changed last two days then. Frank was talking the other direction.
No, he was talking about return to flight and not long range plans.
-
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management.
I looked for the video of Frank is part of management Jim couldn't find it again......but things happen in two days. just not up to date :o
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
-
IMO they'd be better off killing antares and just buying flights on Atlas. But this just seems silly. One Russian design with questionable history fails, so we opt to use another Russian design with questionable history? I don't see this being viable or happening.
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
Actually, looking at the Main Engine System, it has a single drop for propellant and a single point for fill drain. As it looks, they have made a sort of module that, for all effects and purposes, is a single engine.
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
No flight history. I know Jim has and will argue against me on that. However, flight history or the lack there-of was the leading argument used against Spacex, and other startups in recent years, an argument which I believe has substantial bearing.
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
your getting into the drop in replacement claim.
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
big differences who does Orbital go for support?
AJ-26 AR
RD-180 RD AMROSS
RD-193 ???
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
Switch to Atlas to avoid relying on Russian engines?
big differences who does Orbital go for support?
AJ-26 AR
RD-180 RD AMROSS
RD-193 ???
Orbital wouldn't get any support from RD AMROSS if they selected the RD-180, they were negotiating directly with NPO Energomash
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
-
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.
Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.
The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.
Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.
Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)
The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
-
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.
Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.
The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.
Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.
Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)
The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
Ukraine has the RD-120 production line, the first stage version was the RD-120K, which is NPO Energomash. And the thrust of the RD-120K is just 784kN at sea level they would lose 4% of thrust, 1second of isp, have worst T/W, need new control logic and all piping, structure and TVC should weight less than 230kg or they will have a heavier Main Propulsion System.
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Exactly. Go to Atlas, and lose money each flight on the contract, all so they could avoid issues with Russian engines, which are also present on Atlas? FF, you need to take your logic back to the garage and tinker on it a bit more.
IF they were planning to try using the RD-180 (and thus needed some negotiating power with ULA), and IF they wanted to hedge their return-to-flight bets, I could see them possibly launching one or two Cygnus on Atlas in the short term. Or even offering the super-sized Cygnus on an Atlas if there were interest in putting the larger Cygnus in a farther orbit (L1/2 maybe?) than Antares 130 could handle. That would be a nice business incentive for ULA to be accommodating, and it might provide a nice "assured access" second source LV for Cygnus customers, and it might open up one or two more opportunities for enhanced Cygnus customers. (Big IF on the last one...lots of people talk, but few write checks from a bank account with that kind of money.)
But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
-
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.
Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.
The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.
Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.
Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)
The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
Ukraine has the RD-120 production line, the first stage version was the RD-120K, which is NPO Energomash. And the thrust of the RD-120K is just 784kN at sea level they would lose 4% of thrust, 1second of isp, have worst T/W, need new control logic and all piping, structure and TVC should weight less than 230kg or they will have a heavier Main Propulsion System.
Let me clarify that. Yuzmash has a license to build RD-120 as a second stage engine for Zenit. I am not if they are contractually allowed to build the engine for any other purpose.
Also, the sea level variant of RD-120, the "K" indeed does not exist in the Ukraine, although the modification to provide for sea level operation has been "marketed" by Yuzhnoye for many years, as part of their efforts to "sell" paper rockets.
The technical issues indeed are real - RD-120 is half the thrust of RD-191, and so four would be required. And it is not as advanced an engine as RD-191/193.
Orbital would have to significantly upgrade the 2nd stage to use RD-120 on the first stage.
-
How about this?
ESA is ending ATV production, so they are about to run afoul of the IGA in their contributions to ISS resources. So, how about launching Cygnus on Ariane for a bit?
-
IMO they'd be better off killing antares and just buying flights on Atlas. But this just seems silly. One Russian design with questionable history fails, so we opt to use another Russian design with questionable history? I don't see this being viable or happening.
Anatres is lower cost then an Atlas V.
Let me clarify that. Yuzmash has a license to build RD-120 as a second stage engine for Zenit. I am not if they are contractually allowed to build the engine for any other purpose.
Also, the sea level variant of RD-120, the "K" indeed does not exist in the Ukraine, although the modification to provide for sea level operation has been "marketed" by Yuzhnoye for many years, as part of their efforts to "sell" paper rockets.
The technical issues indeed are real - RD-120 is half the thrust of RD-191, and so four would be required. And it is not as advanced an engine as RD-191/193.
Orbital would have to significantly upgrade the 2nd stage to use RD-120 on the first stage.
Four RD-120s should have slightly more thrust then the two AJ-33.
Might be able to increase the performance with modern controls so the loss may not be as great as it would seem at first.
How about this?
ESA is ending ATV production, so they are about to run afoul of the IGA in their contributions to ISS resources. So, how about launching Cygnus on Ariane for a bit?
It would be a massive overkill but I guess they could make some sorta super Cygnus to take advantage of such a powerful LV or maybe have it ride with second vehicle.
It's powerful enough that it could easily lift Cygnus and a CST-100 or DreamChaser at the same time though the payload interface would be an engineering challenge in it's own right.
Soyuz 2 probably would be a closer match.
-
How about this?
ESA is ending ATV production, so they are about to run afoul of the IGA in their contributions to ISS resources. So, how about launching Cygnus on Ariane for a bit?
Didn't ESA agree with NASA to do the Orion service module instead of more ATV flights to ISS? Plus Ariane is complete overkill for launching Cygnus.
I've been wondering, they said they lost $200 million of hardware. If Antares is a fairly low cost launcher, then how the heck much does a Cygnus cost?
-
So is the RD-193 somehow different from the RD-151 used in the South Korean Naro-1 rocket?
But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
Question is whether a few Antares incl. all related fixed costs are cheaper than a few additional Atlas V. Maybe they are.
-
150 family is derated 190 family. Ones digit are variants for each application or which design improvements have been rolled in.
-
Posters on NK (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic7939/message1304964/#message1304964) calculated that the swap would increase payload capability by 800-1000 kg. And replacing existing second stage with liquid one would add another massive increase, almost doubling payload to orbit (they used Antares w/RD-193 + 3rd stage of Soyuz 2.1b instead of existing second for calculations) to 10 mT.
No wonder Orbital were attempting to get their hands on RD-0124...
-
Is there any source for this that isn't Russian state media or wishful thinking on NK?
-
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.
Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.
The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.
Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.
Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)
The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
Ukraine has the RD-120 production line, the first stage version was the RD-120K, which is NPO Energomash. And the thrust of the RD-120K is just 784kN at sea level they would lose 4% of thrust, 1second of isp, have worst T/W, need new control logic and all piping, structure and TVC should weight less than 230kg or they will have a heavier Main Propulsion System.
Let me clarify that. Yuzmash has a license to build RD-120 as a second stage engine for Zenit. I am not if they are contractually allowed to build the engine for any other purpose.
My post was in response to Jim's comments that tend to make me think/react (a good thing) ;)
"No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management."
if Orbital gets creative there are other opportunities.
-
How about this?
ESA is ending ATV production, so they are about to run afoul of the IGA in their contributions to ISS resources. So, how about launching Cygnus on Ariane for a bit?
interesting but might be better posted in the other thread dealing with a quick launch, or two to keep the Orbital contract & ISS supplies going.
-
Posters on NK (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic7939/message1304964/#message1304964) calculated that the swap would increase payload capability by 800-1000 kg. And replacing existing second stage with liquid one would add another massive increase, almost doubling payload to orbit (they used Antares w/RD-193 + 3rd stage of Soyuz 2.1b instead of existing second for calculations) to 10 mT.
No wonder Orbital were attempting to get their hands on RD-0124...
They might do a Castor XLA. And with an extra tonne to ISS they can do the Super Cygnus with 3.4tonnes of cargo. ISS will need 15 to 17tonnes per year. Three Dragon plus two Super Cygnus per year are 16tonnes or pressurized. That and two Commercial Crew will give downmass opportunities five times a year while assuring the cargo needs (Progress and HTV will continue).
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012.
- Ed Kyle
Going to put my Business Opportunity hat on:
The ATK/Orbital merger opens up the Opportunity to permanently fix the engine problem for the Antares Delta II class launcher.
With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.
ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
Edit: fix quote
-
With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.
ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
No, the Ukraine does not control the IP of the RD-120K and therefore cannot partner with others.
And no, they can not tap into that funding unless it is for the USAF.
-
I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500. I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?
-
I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500. I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?
your talking long term
this might be more short term thinking
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlasfalcon 9 and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on atlasfalcon 9 cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Here you go, now it makes sense.
They can even use the super enhanced cygnus on a F9 (can they?) for crs1 and do less missions (4 instead of 5) for less $ each (compared to Atlas, I don't know the price of Antares). It's not like spacex won't work with orbital.
Of course that's for the short term only.
-
Posters on NK (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic7939/message1304964/#message1304964) calculated that the swap would increase payload capability by 800-1000 kg. And replacing existing second stage with liquid one would add another massive increase, almost doubling payload to orbit (they used Antares w/RD-193 + 3rd stage of Soyuz 2.1b instead of existing second for calculations) to 10 mT.
No wonder Orbital were attempting to get their hands on RD-0124...
I wonder if a Methane upper stage could offer even better performance as there are a few engines they could use such as the XR-5M15 probably would need four of them and the Chase-10 probably could use just one or two depending on the mission since it's in the same thrust class as the RL-10.
Though Xcor probably could design a new engine to the specs they may need so clustering would be unnecessary.
The performance of either engines probably can be improved significantly with additions like nozzle extensions as on the RL-10B.
Maybe see if commonality can be had with the Startolaunch rocket.
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
-
I apologize for being so far behind the times, but I'd thought until last week that the eventual path forward was the AJ-500. I haven't been able to find much solid information on AJ-500/AJ-1000/AR-1??? this past year, so is that all just paper?
The response to Orbital's RFP for future Antares propulsion supposedly had 2 Russian and 1 American responses.
The American response is believed to be a solid motor(s) solution from ATK. Possibly 3.7m composite motors.
Russian responses are likely Kuznetzov proposing new build NK-33 and something from NPO Energomash. RD-181 or RD-193 have both shown up in press stories.
Recently a rumor has surfaced that Orbital is trying to secure RD-180 via ULA/RD-AMROSS. I'm skeptical, but it does solve certain problems: RD-180 has an export license (don't know if it would cover Antares), RD-180 has flight history on an American rocket (which makes NASA happy), and with ULA transitioning Atlas to new Blue Origin engine some partners may be motivated to develop Orbital as a customer.
AJ won't have a new American-built engine ready in time. Orbital needs something in 24 months or less.
-
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
No, already covered in several previous threads of speculation on a new engine for Antares. The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else. That means a new pad, probably not at MARS. Not acceptable at this point in the program.
-
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.
-
Here you go, now it makes sense.
They can even use the super enhanced cygnus on a F9 (can they?) for crs1 and do less missions (4 instead of 5) for less $ each (compared to Atlas, I don't know the price of Antares). It's not like spacex won't work with orbital.
Of course that's for the short term only.
No, that makes less sense.
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
-
With Ukraine (RD-120K) as an engine partner; ATK/Orbital has surplus manufacturing ability to cast, and produce their own staged combustion engine in the USA. If the company wishes to add very advanced manufacturing to the mix, they know where to find me.
ATK/Orbital could even tap into this funding to do the job.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
1) No, the Ukraine does not control the IP of the RD-120K and therefore cannot partner with others.
2) And no, they can not tap into that funding unless it is for the USAF.
1) for sake of discussion let me address this. This is something I've been saying for a long time and few are understanding it.
1) Control of the IP is an Open question as we have no access to the agreements made after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ownership of the RD-120 Serial production says something about ownership under international law.
Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.
==============================
2) going by prior experience, some newspace believe it's above contracts, and some laws.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34977.0
all things being equal: what's good for one firm should be good for all.
ATK is a defense contractor they know what to do.
-
I guess Antares isn't really critical to national security and Russia has not interest in stopping the export of its engines so I don't see why Orbital shouldn't buy Russian.
150 family is derated 190 family. Ones digit are variants for each application or which design improvements have been rolled in.
So if RD-151 is just a thrust-reduced RD-191 (209t to 170t) it might be too heavy...?
I'm just trying to figure out why they need to develop a new version when they have the RD-151 to sell.
-
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.
I learn something new every day here.
I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.
Thanks!
-
Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.
This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.
US patent laws are not applicable.
US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.
You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engine
Just because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.
-
How is first stage roll control accomplished on the Atlas V/RD-180? Would whatever that approach is also work on the Antares?
Believe the two nozzles gimbal independently. Should work on Antares.
I learn something new every day here.
I just sort of implicitly assumed that they were locked together with one TVC set which, in retrospect, is a stupid assumption.
Thanks!
They need to gimbal independently to provide roll control during first stage flight. I believe the thrust vectoring is down by the green actuators in this picture:
-
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
-
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
They don't need a tank stretch to take advantage of more thrust... they're sorely needing it already.
-
The RD193 would be most compatible with Antares, but to make most of it the Antares would need larger fuel tanks ie . Pad and infrastructure wouldn't need to many modifications.
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
A single BE3 would make a good upper stage engine if they ever decided they need a high energy upper stage.
With a BE3 upper stage they probably could get away with relatively low performance engines in the first stage such as four RS-27s.
Actually the RS-27 makes more sense then the RD-120K if you're going to change the number of first stage engines.
-
Patents are for 20 years. the RD-120 was 1980's technology. Any patents would become open and no longer protected.
the internal IP owned by, and developed by the Ukrainian company is theirs to do with as they please.
This is something I've been saying for a long time and you are't understanding it.
US patent laws are not applicable.
US companies just can't pair up with another foreign company and produce an engine. There are ITAR and EAR considerations.
You don't know anything about IP or agreements wrt this engine
Just because one company can build an engine doesn't mean it knows how to modify the engine or design another.
Understand your points Jim, and agree with them for the most part. Only addressed the points listed, its for others like yourself to add the additonal information.
-
Can someone list the differences between various NPO Energomash engines, especially the RD-180/181/183(?) and RD-191/193? There are so many models out there that it is easy to get confused.... :-X
-
See the top picture in this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29810.msg972847#msg972847
Pretty much lays it out from NPO EMs perspective.
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
Exactly. Go to Atlas, and lose money each flight on the contract, all so they could avoid issues with Russian engines, which are also present on Atlas? FF, you need to take your logic back to the garage and tinker on it a bit more.
IF they were planning to try using the RD-180 (and thus needed some negotiating power with ULA), and IF they wanted to hedge their return-to-flight bets, I could see them possibly launching one or two Cygnus on Atlas in the short term. Or even offering the super-sized Cygnus on an Atlas if there were interest in putting the larger Cygnus in a farther orbit (L1/2 maybe?) than Antares 130 could handle. That would be a nice business incentive for ULA to be accommodating, and it might provide a nice "assured access" second source LV for Cygnus customers, and it might open up one or two more opportunities for enhanced Cygnus customers. (Big IF on the last one...lots of people talk, but few write checks from a bank account with that kind of money.)
But I doubt very much launching on Atlas makes any financial sense for Orbital in the long run, certainly not for CRS2. The whole point of Antares was that the lower-cost segment of the Delta II market was poorly served by extremely expensive EELV launches.
Atlas is switching to a new engine. They have enough of the existing engines on hand to continue flying for some time should a total embargo occur (which it sort of did and sort of didn't grey area now).
Second of all, CRS 2 is not a given. Also CRS is not driven by the launch vehicle it is driven by carrier component upmass. What Cygnus flies on is irrelevant.
Third of all, what would likely make the "most" technical sense, not necessarily financial, short term anyway, would be to keep the Antares vehicle and switch to a U.S engine, preferably an off the shelf concern rather than a totally new motor, there are a few things that come to mind. However, this would be more expensive than switching to another Russian motor, again in the short term, so its unlikely they do this. I personally think at this point its just plain stupid to continue relying on Russian engines, for one because of relations with Russia, and the long term outlook for said relations, and two because they are not necessarily reliable. In my opinion in any long term planning from both logistics and cost standpoint you would be better off with an in house engine.
But in all likely-hood they will switch to this other motor. And then if there is ever further sanctioning placed on Russian industry or banking concerns they will be stuck with whatever engines they happen to have on hand and thats it. Or, they will have another failure. But in any event, IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
-
...
IMHO events of the last 3 years to me seem to have a common teaching, and that is get off reliance on foreign engines if you want to save money long term.
Problem is Orbital have no in-house LRE resources. The list of engines available even including the Russian ones are few, never mind Orbital need the new engines in 24 months or less.
There is only SpaceX & AJR left as large LRE manufactures in the US. Maybe Blue United will be added in about 5 years.
So Orbital will play one the card from the crappy hand they got deal or folded.
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
cheers, Martin
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191. With those production rates Orbital will not be stuck with an orphan. There should be incremental improvements over time if it becomes a high production engine.
Carrying a 2 year buffer stock should help offset any political situations that arise. This would put NASA at ease.
-
From what I've been reading in these forums, even before the current issues in eastern Europe, Americans felt really uneasy using Russian hardware and/or Russian services, whilst at the same time having no trouble buying TVs, clothing, cellphones, computers, etc. from communist China and defense components from Europe.
-
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
BE3 is LH2/LOX engine. Thus they would have to rebuild the first stage to fully cryogenic in this case. And perhaps a single RS-68A would be better.
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
lets please keep the geopolitical ramblings down to a minimum here since we other similar threads for that.
Thanks,
RH117
-
From what I've been reading in these forums, even before the current issues in eastern Europe, Americans felt really uneasy using Russian hardware and/or Russian services, whilst at the same time having no trouble buying TVs, clothing, cellphones, computers, etc. from communist China and defense components from Europe.
That's how proparanda works. Since most people can't be bothered to do a research in order to form their own opinions, mass media tells them whom to like, and whom to hate.
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash? ::)
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
lets please keep the geopolitical ramblings down to a minimum here since we other similar threads for that.
It's not "geopolitical ramblings". It's an on-topic discussion about a possibility that export of RD-193 will be banned by Russian government.
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
Launching Cygnus on Falcon9 certainly beats not launching Cygnus at all. It may not be a long term solution but it would be a solution.
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
-
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
There are at least three things in this statement that would not withstand scrutiny by Jim.
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
-
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
I'm seeing panic. The best thing that can happen is the industry has a robust roster of reliable launchers to pick from. Going the other way and SpaceX becomes ULA with better PR.
-
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
No, that is robustness and quite wrong. If Dragon were using Antares, where would ISS logistics be?
-
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine :P
"On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
-
Am I just being silly in thinking that domestic production of the RD-180 would solve multiple problems for both ULA and Orbital, and might be less expensive than the development of entirely new stages (ULA-LOX/LNG, Orbital-whatever)?
-
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine :P
"On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
RD-193 is the youngest sibling from the RD-191 Subfamily. RD-191 is gimbaled variant and RD-193,intended for Soyuz core stage, is fixed variant and is surround by the four nozzles of the Soyuz core stage steering engine. RD-193 has not been flown to date as it was in development cycles.
-
I'll just leave this here for your RD-181 and RD-193 comparing needs: http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/models/
-
I'll just leave this here for your RD-191 and RD-193 comparing needs: http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/models/
The engines shown is RD-193 and RD-181, NOT RD-193 and RD-191
-
Doubt there is much difference in shape between 181 and 191.
-
I'll just leave this here for your RD-181 and RD-193 comparing needs: http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/models/
good linkage ;)
this might be even better.
http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/rd120/
-
Doubt there is much difference in shape between 181 and 191.
There are differences in engine mount and fuel oxidizer piping are completely different.
-
Yes the RD-193 and RD-181 are very different. I was saying I doubt the RD-191 and RD-181 are much different. ???
-
I was saying I doubt the RD-191 and RD-181 are much different. ???
Really? I thought the 18X series had two combustion chambers, whereas the 19X/15X series has one combustion chamber. Or am I mistaken?
-
At one point didn't we have a big "Antares Engines" thread?
Did that get merged into something else or am I misremembering? There was stuff in there about the RD series engines, theoretical solid boosters, etc. A whole bunch of stuff.
-
At one point didn't we have a big "Antares Engines" thread?
Did that get merged into something else or am I misremembering? There was stuff in there about the RD series engines, theoretical solid boosters, etc. A whole bunch of stuff.
In order of most recent post:
Thread 1: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32141.0
Thread 2: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.0
Thread 3: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30922.0
There may be more discussions intertwined inside other thread, but these are the main threads on this.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Of course I'd be surprised if SpaceX wanted to be an engine supplier, especially to a competitor, but to me it would be a better choice that being dependent yet again on Putin's Russia.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Of course I'd be surprised if SpaceX wanted to be an engine supplier, especially to a competitor, but to me it would be a better choice that being dependent yet again on Putin's Russia.
Falcon 5, back from the dead! ;D An amusing thought, but very unlikely.
-
I was saying I doubt the RD-191 and RD-181 are much different. ???
Really? I thought the 18X series had two combustion chambers, whereas the 19X/15X series has one combustion chamber. Or am I mistaken?
It has been my opinion (not that it's worth much) since Dec '12 when NPO EM first mentioned RD-181 that they are using -18x as a series designation for engines intended for the U.S. market.
That slide I linked to up-thread clearly shows RD-180 for Atlas V and RD-181 for Antares.
The only deviation from that was them pushing the notional RD-175(?) for SLS(!).
It is also possible given the differing plumbing that RD-181 is designed around the attachments unique to the Antares/AJ-26 combination.
Truth in advertising: I am not an Aerospace Engineer/Rocket Scientist.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.
-
We should find out tomorrow about the new engine. See below:
Announcement tomorrow on going forward plans for Antares:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1985588
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Of course I'd be surprised if SpaceX wanted to be an engine supplier, especially to a competitor, but to me it would be a better choice that being dependent yet again on Putin's Russia.
NASA wouldn't like it as both ISS suppliers would dependent on same engine. A failure of either LV would instantly ground the other LV until engine was eliminated or longer if engine was at fault.
-
Will be very interested to see how this turns out. I am expecting them to switch to either RD193 or another Russian motor but who knows. I wish/hope they would switch to a domestic U.S. motor of some type, either something BE is developing or (spacex? unlikely though) or switch to flying out on Atlas V for CRS until a domestic US engine was ready. But they won't. IMO though anything is better than continuing with the NK33.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.
Same oxidizer and fuel - LOX/RP-1 - otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it as a possibility.
NASA wouldn't like it as both ISS suppliers would dependent on same engine. A failure of either LV would instantly ground the other LV until engine was eliminated or longer if engine was at fault.
SpaceX has flown 130 Merlin engines with only one flight failure, so I'd say at this point the design is pretty mature. And yes, mature designs do have issues, but they get fixed pretty quick. That said I would agree that where possible NASA wants diversity for a good reason, but for me I'd rather be dependent on a SpaceX design than an engine from Putin's Russia.
But as I said in my original post, I don't think it will happen.
-
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
None, yet. It's been specifically designed to replace NK-33 on Soyuz 2.1v, but I haven't seen any indication of when that's actually supposed to happen.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.
Same oxidizer and fuel - LOX/RP-1 - otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it as a possibility.
I think he means Oxidiser/Fuel ratio, i.e. the AJ-26 runs oxidiser-rich, while the Merlin 1D runs fuel-rich. As a result, they'd have to move the bulkhead so as to carry more fuel and less oxidiser.
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
Launching Cygnus on Falcon9 certainly beats not launching Cygnus at all. It may not be a long term solution but it would be a solution.
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
@This.
If Cygnus were to launch on Falcon, it's not like ULA would close shop and Atlas and Delta would go away leaving only Falcon. ULA and the EELV's will always be there and could be used if there was an issue with Falcon. And vice versa.
However, ULA is more expensive for a few reasons. High overhead is one, but meeting USAF/DoD standards is another. Cygnus doesn't need anything more than F9/SpaceX already have. Their processing and pad flow are similar. Horizontal HIB, MTE, etc. Cygnus doesn't -need- ULA's features and capabilities whoc USAF/DoD do, and pay extra for.
Besides, I don't think OSC/ATK is going to get out of the launch business, but they may need an interim option to keep Cygnus flying to the ISS while they re-engine Antares, if the AJ26 was determined to be the cause of the failure and they decide to not launch Antares using that engine again. Even if the problem was not related to the AJ26, the pad will take time to fix, and they pay just decide to go ahead with the new engine in the mean time and do the re-engine work and pad repairs in parallel. So they'd need about a 2-year interim option. That could be SpaceX or ULA...but SpaceX would likely have a lower cost of OSC/ATK and Cygnus doesn't need more than a "budget" launch service like F9 or Antares.
Besdies, if F9 were to have a failure and for some reason, and be grounded for a length of time (somewhat unlikely given how everything is built in-house so everything could be directly investigated and evaluated and they'll soon have a 2nd pad at the Cape in case one were to suffer Wallops-like launch failure damage) then NASA would have other problems as neither of their COTS providers would be able to launch. There'd probably be something quickly worked out with ULA to get at least Cygnus flying on Atlas or Delta. I don't know that Dragon's downmass capabilities are quite as critical, so in such a scenario the larger volume of Cygnus would probably get the first to get an emergency transfer. And it's already designed to launch inside a PLF like a traditional satelite I think. Not sure what adaptation would be required to get Dragon launching on Atlas or Delta.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Of course I'd be surprised if SpaceX wanted to be an engine supplier, especially to a competitor, but to me it would be a better choice that being dependent yet again on Putin's Russia.
Why not just launch on F9 then and save the development?
-
SpaceX already has pad facilities for support ISS payloads so launching Cygnus on F9 has some pluses. Not sure how ULA a setup for this if Cygnus was to fly on a Atlas. I suspect Jim would have some knowledge on this.
-
SpaceX already has pad facilities for support ISS payloads so launching Cygnus on F9 has some pluses. Not sure how ULA a setup for this if Cygnus was to fly on a Atlas. I suspect Jim would have some knowledge on this.
The payloads are loaded the payload processing facility.
-
I am not an expert on rockets or foreign policy, but I think the fact that these engines are Russian is over-blown. It certainly makes some sense to have an all US fall-back for DoD payloads, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians make some good engines.
I personally prefer to have some mutually beneficial economic ties for lower impact vehicles like Antares. It may give governments leverage but it also serves to add some pressure to play nice.
-
I am not an expert on rockets or foreign policy, but I think the fact that these engines are Russian is over-blown. It certainly makes some sense to have an all US fall-back for DoD payloads, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians make some good engines.
I personally prefer to have some mutually beneficial economic ties for lower impact vehicles like Antares. It may give governments leverage but it also serves to add some pressure to play nice.
If (heaven forbid) we were to have a major invasion overseas, or a war, precipitated by Russia then the sanctions we have seen so far will ultimately lead to a total ban by one side, then the other, on imports & exports. That's a worst case scenario, and leverage would not be the biggest factor on the world stage.
In this case, the spaceflight companies (and American Government/military) have the most to lose by not gaining access to a necessary part to their rocket or putting a payload to orbit. For Russia, it's only money that they can disperse for compensation.
-
I am not an expert on rockets or foreign policy, but I think the fact that these engines are Russian is over-blown. It certainly makes some sense to have an all US fall-back for DoD payloads, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians make some good engines.
I personally prefer to have some mutually beneficial economic ties for lower impact vehicles like Antares. It may give governments leverage but it also serves to add some pressure to play nice.
If (heaven forbid) we were to have a major invasion overseas, or a war, precipitated by Russia then the sanctions we have seen so far will ultimately lead to a total ban by one side, then the other, on imports & exports. That's a worst case scenario, and leverage would not be the biggest factor on the world stage.
In this case, the spaceflight companies (and American Government/military) have the most to lose by not gaining access to a necessary part to their rocket or putting a payload to orbit. For Russia, it's only money that they can disperse for compensation.
This is why we should have some systems that use all American parts. But some does not need to be all. Also I think that it is probably easier to find a supplier if you have money than it is to find a buyer if you have engines. Loss of a revenue stream can have pretty far ranging impacts on an economy. (or so I am told by political ads decrying plant closures that are somehow related to a candidate from wrong party.)
-
I think he means Oxidiser/Fuel ratio, i.e. the AJ-26 runs oxidiser-rich, while the Merlin 1D runs fuel-rich. As a result, they'd have to move the bulkhead so as to carry more fuel and less oxidiser.
All engines runs fuel rich, and the difference lies in preburner/gas generator mixture ratio.
-
Cygnus is also meant to supply the ISS. If the state of affairs with Russia deteriorates to a degree where Russia no longer supplies engines for this purpose me somehow thinks the purpose itself will fall away, too.
If it happened now, after all, the US could not even send astronauts to ISS anymore, after all.
This is an international project depending heavily on Russia. You no longer want to play with Russia? No need for CRS/Cygnus anymore so no need to secure any "all US" (nonsense anyway, you always have _some_ stuff coming from abroad) supply of engines.
-
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine :P
"On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
RD-193 is the youngest sibling from the RD-191 Subfamily. RD-191 is gimbaled variant and RD-193,intended for Soyuz core stage, is fixed variant and is surround by the four nozzles of the Soyuz core stage steering engine. RD-193 has not been flown to date as it was in development cycles.
Fixed nozzle sorrounded by 4 steerng nozzles?
Dont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles， which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?
And as far as I know, Rd193 is a downgraded version of Rd191, with lower thrust.
-
Dont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles， which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?
No. It's a separate engine with four nozzles, RD-0110
IIRC Soyuz-2-1v doesn't even have enough thrust to leave the ground without it (using NK-33)
-
Dont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles， which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?
No. It's a separate engine with four nozzles, RD-0110
IIRC Soyuz-2-1v doesn't even have enough thrust to leave the ground without it (using NK-33)
Are you sure?
(http://www.spacebuild.net/s1/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rd-108-engine.jpg)
Perhaps Rd-0110 was adopted for suyuz 2.1v, not for other soyuzs.
And russians seems to be good at complicating things.
-
Are you sure?
That's neither an RD-193 nor an NK-33 but an RD-108. With that engine Soyuz is definitely not getting off the ground but needs four boosters :)
-
Dont' the 4 steering nozzles share the same turbopump with the main nozzles， which means the steering nozzles are part of the main engine?
No. It's a separate engine with four nozzles, RD-0110
IIRC Soyuz-2-1v doesn't even have enough thrust to leave the ground without it (using NK-33)
And it occurs to me that RD-0110 was an upper stage engine for early soyuz LV. Perhas some modification has been made for use in atmosphere.
-
Cygnus is also meant to supply the ISS. If the state of affairs with Russia deteriorates to a degree where Russia no longer supplies engines for this purpose me somehow thinks the purpose itself will fall away, too.
If it happened now, after all, the US could not even send astronauts to ISS anymore, after all.
This is an international project depending heavily on Russia. You no longer want to play with Russia? No need for CRS/Cygnus anymore so no need to secure any "all US" (nonsense anyway, you always have _some_ stuff coming from abroad) supply of engines.
OSC can buy enough engines at a or 2 times, so there will be no need for follow-on procurement.
-
RD151 is developed for Naro use only?
Why bother develope so many new engines?
-
And it occurs to me that RD-0110 was an upper stage engine for early soyuz LV. Perhas some modification has been made for use in atmosphere.
For info on the RD-0110R, see here:
http://russianspaceweb.com/rd0110r.html (http://russianspaceweb.com/rd0110r.html)
-
RD151 is developed for Naro use only?
Why bother develope so many new engines?
AIUI, RD-151 was developed in such a way as to comply with MTCR.
For info on KSLV/Naro, see:
http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html (http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html)
-
RD151 is developed for Naro use only?
Why bother develope so many new engines?
AIUI, RD-151 was developed in such a way as to comply with MTCR.
For info on KSLV/Naro, see:
http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html (http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html)
Thanks for your infomation.
-
RD151 is developed for Naro use only?
Why bother develope so many new engines?
AIUI, RD-151 was developed in such a way as to comply with MTCR.
For info on KSLV/Naro, see:
http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html (http://russianspaceweb.com/kslv.html)
No matter how Rd-151 was born, it is a working engine. It can replace NK-33 on soyuz 2.1v and Antares, and perhaps other engines.
-
Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but in looking at the specs for the AJ-26 and Merlin 1D it looks like you could replace two AJ-26 with five Merlin 1D. It's an almost exact match, with a little more sea level thrust and a little less vacuum thrust.
Different O/F, different isp, different cycle (you have to deal with the gas generator output), different TVC, different diameters... etc. Save for the thrust nothing similar.
Same oxidizer and fuel - LOX/RP-1 - otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it as a possibility.
Same propellant (LOX/RP-1), different oxidizer to fuel ratio. Merlin's are about 2.35, while RD-180/193 are about 2.73. That requires different tanks, and since it changes the density, it might require longer tanks. This impacts GSO, Pad, erector, etc.
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else. That means a new pad, probably not at MARS.
Minotaur V already launches next to the Antares pad. What makes you think a Castor 120-based rocket, like AthernaII or an Orbital/ATK equivalent, wouldn't be allowed? If a RSRM Castor 900 or single-segment Dark Knight was proposed (AthenaIII) I could see an argument, but not these.
-snips-
Athena 2cS with six boosters would lift 4.19 tonnes to a 500 km x 28.5 deg LEO ...
It is a number that bumps up close to Delta 2 and Antares capability. ...
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to go with a solid ATK first stage? They are already using or will use a ATK 30XL for the second. ATK has a good track record.
The launch safety criteria for solids violate overpressure in case of failure at the MARS pad IIRC, and would most likely never be given a waiver by FAA, NASA or anyone else. That means a new pad, probably not at MARS.
Minotaur V already launches next to the Antares pad. What makes you think a Castor 120-based rocket, like AthernaII or an Orbital/ATK equivalent, wouldn't be allowed? If a RSRM Castor 900 or single-segment Dark Knight was proposed (AthenaIII) I could see an argument, but not these.
-snips-
Athena 2cS with six boosters would lift 4.19 tonnes to a 500 km x 28.5 deg LEO ...
It is a number that bumps up close to Delta 2 and Antares capability. ...
Minotaur family excluding Minotaur-C versions are not subject to FAA because they are government launchers (managed through USAF; DoD, not FAA/NASA; DoC) . Since Antares is a civilian launcher it is subject to stricter criteria to ensure enforced safety. I will let other people like Jim provide the details as I'm at work right now.
-
How about as a short term solution. Use a recovered F9 first stage (provided SpaceX gets one back soon).
Use the Antares second stage. Let Orbital provide any adapter and they could process all their stuff elsewhere at the cape then shortly before flight integrate both sections at LC40.
SpaceX could have an anchor user for used F9 boosters and by just selling the booster and launch they could give Orbital some great pricing.
-
How about as a short term solution. Use a recovered F9 first stage (provided SpaceX gets one back soon).
Use the Antares second stage. Let Orbital provide any adapter and they could process all their stuff elsewhere at the cape then shortly before flight integrate both sections at LC40.
SpaceX could have an anchor user for used F9 boosters and by just selling the booster and launch they could give Orbital some great pricing.
It's a nonstarter. Breaks the rule: "rockets are not Legos"
There are many ways it wouldn't work, I will let it up to others to point out the ways.
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Would need to do loads analysis, aerodynamic work, get the avionics to talk to each other, etc. etc.
Faster (and therefore cheaper) to just use a proper F911
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
they are intuitively obvious .
Somebody with a tagline such as "Old space, limited knowledge unlimited arrogance….New space Thump, Thump" should be able to point them out.
-
Minotaur family excluding Minotaur-C versions are not subject to FAA because they are government launchers (managed through USAF; DoD, not FAA/NASA; DoC) . Since Antares is a civilian launcher it is subject to stricter criteria to ensure enforced safety. I will let other people like Jim provide the details as I'm at work right now.
And yet a solid has been proposed as an Antares first stage. Perhaps yours and the previous "overpressure IIRC" comments are invalid. I will let Chris Gebhardt provide the details as I'm busy.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atk-expand-alternative-atlasv-rd-180/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atk-expand-alternative-atlasv-rd-180/)
-
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnus
We know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.
My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
-
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2
1st stage: 1 RS27
2nd stage: 1 AJ-10
:D
-
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.
Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
-
This topic is about RD-193, a very interesting engine, and I look forward to getting information about RD-193.
Discussions about other engines, and your personal design for a new launcher should go elsewhere.
Elects Danderman mod for the day :o
-
I have an idea.. clean sheet design for Antares 2
1st stage: 1 RS27
2nd stage: 1 AJ-10
:D
You forgot the solids, without them, you would be lucky to get a corona capsule to the ISS ;)
-
It was just tongue in cheek, mostly.
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RD-191 has the design requirement of throttling to 30% and was optimized for the center core of the A5. Also, it has a TVC. The RD-193 was designed as a replacement of the NK-33 on the Soyuz-2.1v, which lacks an integrated TVC (it uses the RD-0110R vernier engine) and doesn't needs to throttle (at least not so much). And since the RD-191 needs to work both as a booster and a sustainer, it might have an expansion ratio different than a pure core engine.
From the POV of NPO Energomash, Americans like to use American designed TVC on Russian engines (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). And Aerojet had already modified the NK-33 TVC to move the whole engine (I believe). Thus, an RD-193 could be almost a drop in replacement for the NK-33, while an export version of the RD-191 would be unnecessary heavy and have excessive capabilities (i.e. more expensive than necessary).
-
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnus
We know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.
My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
Do they have a fairing for Soyuz carrying Cygnus?
-
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
which company?
-
Some time ago Anatoly Zak wrote:
Along with its use on the Soyuz-2.1v and other upgrades of the Soyuz family, the experimental engine could serve as a basis for the yet-to-be developed RD-181 engine intended for "foreign" launch vehicles [and] the final configuration of RD-193 would not include gimbal suspension.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html
Does this imply the possibility that RD-193 will be the engine without TVC for Russian domestic use, and RD-181 will be essentially the same engine but with thrust vectoring, for export to the United States?
-
(while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company).
which company?
We are talking about TVC? I think the TVC on Atlas V on RD-180 is russian made. A complete package.
The TVC on NK-33 on Antares is a Moog System (and a whole bunch of others things are from Moog, like second stage TVC and the valves, which replaced some russian designs on the NK-33).
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.
I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
-
Are you not capable of pointing out the ways Jim?
Jim was being very nice. You should let it go.
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.
I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
Hahahahaa! That's rich.
This should be fun. Someone pass the popcorn.
-
This should be fun. Someone pass the popcorn.
Before the age of rockets, movie theaters use to serve devil'd eggs instead of popcorn.
-
I've spent my entire career running circles around guys like Jim...If he responds to my posts, I will respond to him.
I never run away from people like him...In the end they all go thump thump. Every one of them.
Running in circles means you are failing around and never got anywhere. Also, the rest sounds like a bit of "unlimited arrogance".
And like I said, they are intuitively obvious, so you must want somebody to school you in the basics of launch vehicle integration.
Here are the reasons stated below, for those with "limited knowledge":
The Spacex facility isn't sited for solids
The erector is not designed to lift a loaded vehicle.
The erector is design for a vehicle with a constant diameter.
The solid stage is not compatible with the Falcon 9 fairing.
The cranes are not certified for solids nor likely have the lifting capability.
The GSE in the hangar is not sized to hold the solid stage nor designed for mating it to the first stage.
The empty launch vehicle is lifted as a whole onto the erector, the solid stage would put loads into the 1st stage.
The OSC stage avionics are not compatible with the Spacex booster avionics or launch control system.
The first stage gets additional structural strength by pressurization, this would not be available prior to erection and hence there may be issues with the stage supporting a loaded solid stage.
Like I said, it is a non starter.
I believe I just heard a "thump thump" and it wasn't me.
-
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnus
We know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
All would enable larger capacity than Antares and pricewise Falcon 9 would win just ahead of Soyuz and lagging quite far behind would be Atlas V 401. A though nut to crack, I don't know how eager they are to launch with F9 and if they go with Soyuz they should know that the Soyuz only has a limited amount of years that it will be flown from CSG. So they can't choose it as the default back-up for the remainder of the ISS cargo program, namely CRS-2.
My 50 cents, its going to be Soyuz nonetheless.
Do they have a fairing for Soyuz carrying Cygnus?
Soyuz 2 has a wide fairing.
-
Well since this article came out: http://spacenews.com/article/launch-report/42460orbital-to-accelerate-upgraded-antares-use-other-vehicles-for-cygnus
We know they are in talks with three companies.
Two in the US and one in Europe.
Since Athena and Rockot don't have the capability or cant upgrade on time I think it is safe to say that those companies are SpaceX (Falcon 9), ULA (Atlas V 401) and Arianespace (Soyuz ST).
Any arguments against this reasoning?
ULA can't sell to Orbital.
There are three possible US suppliers:-
LM - Atlas V
Boeing - Delta IV
SpaceX - Falcon 9
Cheers, Martin
-
ULA can't sell to Orbital.
I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
-
ULA can't sell to Orbital.
I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
Only governmental flights can be sold and managed directly by ULA. Commercial flights are the responsibility of the original designer that deveoloped and flew their launcher before the creation of ULA. ULA will in turn be contracted for building the rocket and Launcher ops as well as some other areas. SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer. Jim is capable of providing additional details and corrections as I'm going off my memory of previous commercial flights.
-
SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer.
Spacecraft processing and checkout are always managed by the customer.
LM/Boeing only provide mission management for commercial missions
-
Going back to my horsetrading argument only the other way around.
Are there currently scheduled Atlas flights for payloads that could be lifted by Falcon 9?
If so could one imagine one of them quickly transitioning to the Falcon core for the court halted Argentine launch thus freeing up an Atlas core for Orbital?
-
while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company
Who are you and what did you do with the real baldusi, who I always find to be accurate and logical? RD-180 is 100% Russian designed and built. 70% of parts are common with 170.
-
while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company
Who are you and what did you do with the real baldusi, who I always find to be accurate and logical? RD-180 is 100% Russian designed and built. 70% of parts are common with 170.
That's a partial quotation (in an unfortunate error I forgot one apostrophe). I was talking about the RD-180's TVC. Which I remember Jim stating it had been designed by an American company, but still produced by NPO Energomash. At least from the Intelsat-27 failure we know it's completely different TVC from the rD-171/M.
-
Which I remember Jim stating it had been designed by an American company, but still produced by NPO Energomash. At least from the Intelsat-27 failure we know it's completely different TVC from the rD-171/M.
Sounds strange to me. When AR looked into RD-180 they were not allowed to propose any enhancements, as that would violate ITAR. How would a US-company (given American company == US-company) design a TVC and would be allowed to export its design?
-
They're from Arsenal in St. Petersburg (not Florida).
-
They're from Arsenal in St. Petersburg (not Florida).
and not England. ;D
http://arsenal207.ru/projects.html
РУЛЕВОЙ ПРИВОД РП РД 180 - TVC RD-180, first picture.
I know, people who know, won't be allowed to comment, but my guess:
- Tripple redundant hydraulic actuator (accepting three command signals)
- Two LVDT for position feedback
- And even if it is here not visible, the cyclinder on the rod end is wired, so I assume there is a force measurement cell inside
- Most likely pressure sensors on A and B side
http://en.dfnc.ru/Steering-gears-for-rockets
“Arsenal -207” being headed by Mr.Vladimirov has upgraded steering gears for the RD170 liquid rocket engine in relation to a fundamental improvement of speed and dynamic characteristics required for development, certification and integration of the RD180 liquid rocket engine and has worked out the design documentation on a new steering gear for the RD180 liquid rocket engine that are used in the launch vehicle “Atlas” within the frame of an international collaboration of OJSC “NPO “Energomash” with Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin (USA).
-
Looks like India may have an alternative to RD193.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32477.0
This would give Orbital an alternative engine in future if RD193 supply was cut off for political reasons. SCE 200 is not a domestic engine but relationships with India are a lot more stable.
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191.
It is somewhat offtopic here, because we focus on Antares, but Angara will not migrate to 193. They need the performance of 191 to hit the payload targets of the A5, which is the only thing their main customer (MoD) cares about. Do keep in mind that the transfer of production of RD-191 into Khrunichev is not officially cancelled. That is why 191 is kept separate from the rest of the "family". It is a package deal that can be moved between major organizations, while 193 and 181 are intended for continuation of in-house production at Energomash.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the RD-191 has the design requirement of throttling to 30% and was optimized for the center core of the A5. Also, it has a TVC. The RD-193 was designed as a replacement of the NK-33 on the Soyuz-2.1v, which lacks an integrated TVC (it uses the RD-0110R vernier engine) and doesn't needs to throttle (at least not so much). And since the RD-191 needs to work both as a booster and a sustainer, it might have an expansion ratio different than a pure core engine.
From the POV of NPO Energomash, Americans like to use American designed TVC on Russian engines (while it is manufactured in Russia, the RD-180 was designed by an American company). And Aerojet had already modified the NK-33 TVC to move the whole engine (I believe). Thus, an RD-193 could be almost a drop in replacement for the NK-33, while an export version of the RD-191 would be unnecessary heavy and have excessive capabilities (i.e. more expensive than necessary).
ok, now I understand where this drop in replacement thinking is going. Careful, your real close to hitting Jim's lego button ;D
Drop in does not work as that system is designed, and owned by Aerojet as part of the AJ-26. Aerojet wishes to sell its own engines.
Orbital/ATK could develop their own system, but do they have the time available?
-
A question I saw earlier but still have not seen an answer for concerns Antares using sub cooled liquid oxygen for the AJ-26. Does anyone know if the replacement engines will be compatible with this and if not what effect that will have on available O2 capacity? Does sub cooling it significantly increase density? I found a couple papers on it but they were behind paywalls.
-
Does anyone know if the replacement engines will be compatible with this and if not what effect that will have on available O2 capacity? Does sub cooling it significantly increase density?
Antares has been quoted using oxygen cooled to 78K, this gives 5% density increase compared to normal boiling point 90.2K .
Don't know definitive answer to the first question but on a general note engines not designed for subcooled LOX are likely to perform the same (with minor orifice tuning to account for the higher oxidizer pump performance) using it while engines designed for subcooled LOX may not even be able to run using normal temp LOX.
IIRC NK-33 needs the subcooled LOX for the lubrication of complex oxidizer inducer/pump combo bearings. Also the substantially lower vapor pressure of subcooled LOX may play a role. A pump tuned to take full advantage of that would cavitate using normal temp LOX.
-
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:
2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
-
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:
2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
NPO Energomash annual report for 2013
В качестве ближайших перспектив на 2014 год запланированы следующие работы:
2. Выпуск технического отчета по конструкции двигателя РД181 для РН «Антарес»;
http://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=24614&type=2
That translates (usiong Google) to:
As the immediate prospects for 2014 are scheduled the following work:
2. Issue a technical report on the design of the engine RD181 for RN "Antares" ;
from the RD-181
-
According to Izvestia newspaper, NPO Energomash received all necessary approvals from the Government to sell RD-181 for non-military purposes: http://izvestia.ru/news/581858 (in Russian)
-
http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/771489
-
Anatoly Zak russianspaceweb.com web site update - new page is dedicated to Energomash RD-191 Liquid Propellant Rocked Engine
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd191.html (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd191.html)
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
-
Looks like this needs a change of thread title to RD-181.
cheers, Martin
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=url
-
Orbital Sciences: 'If/when US alternative available, we'll consider it for Antares. Till then, the RD-181 is the only viable engine option.'
Orbital: Russian estimates of $1B for our RD-181 contract include all options that are way beyond our commitment, & rounds up value too.
I dunno, feels weak. If Orbital really wants to refute the $1B number, I think they're going to have to make the actual price per engine public.
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=url
Bad translation, the contract was signed by EnergoMASH, not Energia:
http://rt.com/news/223383-rd181-antares-rocket-engine/
-
That article doesn't say who signed it.
-
I dunno, feels weak. If Orbital really wants to refute the $1B number, I think they're going to have to make the actual price per engine public.
The only people they have to refute it to is customers. And that won't be public.
-
I dunno, feels weak. If Orbital really wants to refute the $1B number, I think they're going to have to make the actual price per engine public.
The only people they have to refute it to is customers. And that won't be public.
Earlier someone at Orbital claimed it was nowhere near $1B. When the only source was some article in Russian press I was inclined to believe them. But now it seems like the full contract is worth pretty close to $1B, and Orbital is making sort of weak attempts to minimize it.
Nobody wants to be the company that just "sent a billion dollars to Russia."
I don't think Orbital could have done things any better. I just wish they'd either say "Yeah the engines cost [$16M] each" or if the numbers are so secret they should just say "no comment" and have a better NDA with their supplier in the first place.
-
$16 million is nice number when you divide One Billion by 60.
But is it really $16 or is it lower than $16 for each engine. Do other program expenses exist in the contract? Maybe the per unit cost is lower, while there are other engineering costs, support costs, and options for other engineering work and upgrades that bring it to one billion?
Dividing total program costs by the number of units produced is how you end up in a death spiral. Of course that may imply that if they only buy 20 engines the price tag with "overhead" will be well north of $16 million...
Edit: Also, what rubble conversion rate did they use?
-
SpaceNews: Orbital says the $1B report is too high
http://spacenews.com/orbital-sciences-expects-rd-181-delivery/
>
...the value, even when all options are included, is well shy of $1 billion .
-
Peter B. de Selding (SpaceNews) reports via twitter:
Orbital ATK: 'We have completed full-duration hot-fire certification testing of the new main engine for the Antares rocket.'
So this engine exists.
I really want pictures.
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=url
Bad translation, the contract was signed by EnergoMASH, not Energia:
http://rt.com/news/223383-rd181-antares-rocket-engine/
Wooo boy. Well I am glad they settled on something but disappointed they went with another Russian motor. Still think they would have been better off going to Blue Origin or a similar concern for a new motor. Would have been more expensive in the short term but something tells me they may live to regret not doing it in the long term.
Oh well. I wonder if they release images/video of the hot firing?
-
New Antares engine, contract signed: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-firm-seals-1-billion-deal-to-supply-us-rocket-engines-62019/
It's official, thank God, I thought the Congress may have scared few guys buying russian engines but I was wrong.
Why is there a contract being signed with Energia? It is NPO Energomash who is producing the engines - or are they owned by Energia?
RSC "Energia" through its subsidiary ZEM RKK "Energy" became the owner of 13.98% of the shares of NGOs "Energomash" - the leading Russian manufacturer of liquid rocket engines (the remaining shares of the company - owned by the state).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fizvestia.ru%2Fnews%2F553886&edit-text=&act=url
Bad translation, the contract was signed by EnergoMASH, not Energia:
http://rt.com/news/223383-rd181-antares-rocket-engine/
Wooo boy. Well I am glad they settled on something but disappointed they went with another Russian motor. Still think they would have been better off going to Blue Origin or a similar concern for a new motor. Would have been more expensive in the short term but something tells me they may live to regret not doing it in the long term.
Oh well. I wonder if they release images/video of the hot firing?
Engines start arriving this summer. No other company could do that.
RD-180 or RD-181 was only way to save Antares.
-
Title needs to be changed as RD-193 is an ungimballed LRE intended only for Soyuz 2.1v, whereas gimballing RD-181 is direct export version of RD-191 NOT RD-193 which is intended for Antares and other foreign rockets.
-
Roscosmos Facebook Post Роскосмос Yesterday at 11:50 AM ·
Партия двигателей РД-181 передана заказчику
В НПО #Энергомаш представителями американской компании Orbital Sciences Corporation были подписаны формуляры на очередную партию из четырех товарных двигателей РД-181.
В течение трех дней до передачи двигателей представители компании-заказчика проводили их внешний осмотр, проверку запасных частей, инструментов и принадлежностей, а также сопроводительной документации. Данная приемка #РД181 является второй в 2019 году. В ближайшее время двигатели будут подготовлены и отправлены компании-заказчику.
Жидкостный ракетный двигатель РД-181 разработан и производится АО "НПО Энергомаш" в рамках заключенного в декабре 2014 года контракта с компанией Orbital Sciences Corporation. Двигатель предназначен для установки на американские ракеты-носители Antares.
Фото: Brady Kenniston
Batch of rd-181 engines was transferred to the customer
In ngo #energomash representatives of the American Company Orbital Sciences Corporation Signed Forms for another batch of four product engines rd-181.
Within three days before the transfer of the engines, the representatives of the customer conducted their external inspection, inspection of spare parts, tools and accessories, as well as accompanying documentation. This acceptance #rd181 is the second in 2019 The engines will soon be prepared and shipped to the customer company.
Rd-181 Liquid rocket engine was developed and produced by АО "NPO Énergomaš" as part of the contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation Signed in December 2014 The engine is designed to be installed on American Antares launch vehicles.
-
So that's another two Antares launches
-
https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1234372886888144902
NPO Energomash will produce and deliver to USA another four #RD181 engines for Antares launch vehicles.
https://ria.ru/20200302/1566466276.html
The four new engines have numbers 24A to 27A.
-
There are some confusing reports about "US ban" on Russian rockets and/or engines and/or space cooperation more generally (ISS notwithstanding, as usual): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52681.0
ULA is mandated to stop using Russian engines, at least for government (only DoD or also NASA?) payloads. ULA is anyway moving entirely to Vulcan without Russian engines.
What's the situation with Antares? Can NG continue to purchase engines from Russia?
-
There are some confusing reports about "US ban" on Russian rockets and/or engines and/or space cooperation more generally (ISS notwithstanding, as usual): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52681.0
ULA is mandated to stop using Russian engines, at least for government (only DoD or also NASA?) payloads. ULA is anyway moving entirely to Vulcan without Russian engines.
What's the situation with Antares? Can NG continue to purchase engines from Russia?
I believe they can keep using the Russian engines for commercial flights, just not military.
-
If I'm not mistaken the Russian engine ban was for "national security" payloads. So NASA and commercial clients can still use it.
-
If I'm not mistaken the Russian engine ban was for "national security" payloads. So NASA and commercial clients can still use it.
The ban on Russian designed or made engines for national security payloads has been around for a while (2015 NDAA, with a relaxation in the 2017 NDAA).
The recent news coverage was because BIS published a new "Military End User" list of entities to be treated as part of the armed forces for export control purposes, which makes technical cooperation more difficult:
JSC Central Research Institute of Machine Building (JSC TsNIIMash);
JSC Rocket and Space Centre—Progress;
Mission Control — Moscow is part of TsNIIMash.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28052/addition-of-military-end-user-meu-list-to-the-export-administration-regulations-and-addition-of