-
#280 by Star One on 14 May, 2014 06:43
-
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:
QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
That's very interesting. So really it all comes down to words & their definitions. -
#281 by woods170 on 14 May, 2014 09:45
-
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs -
#282 by Ben the Space Brit on 14 May, 2014 09:59
-
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance?
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
That aside, about two years ago I suggested that ULA specialise with Delta-IV doing USAF/NRO launches and Atlas-V on civil/NASA launches. This was shot down by other posters at the time because there were few advantages and many disadvantages to doing so. I could never have guessed (and find no pleasure in learning) that this concept may yet be forced upon ULA by geopolitics. -
#283 by fregate on 14 May, 2014 10:54
-
<chanting>Space Race! Space Race! Space Race!</chanting>
Unfortunately I could not share your optimism about "Space Race 2.0". History fact - it took whole 20 (!) years from ASTP flight in 1975 to Shuttle-Mir program (from 1995). Therefore, we could expect next joint venture only after 2034
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson.
-
#284 by Jim on 14 May, 2014 10:55
-
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
EELV interfaces are the same -
#285 by Jim on 14 May, 2014 11:00
-
Take the rocket at hand here. Did outsourcing make it cheaper compared to a company that builds engines in house? of course not. Could it not have been Lockheed's or Boeing's (or ULA's) business to make rocket engines? of course it could have.
Because airframe manufacturer's buy engines from engine manufacture's.
Boeing, Lockheed, MCD, Airbus all bought engines from GE, P&W and RR.
Legacy rockets were GD, Martin, Douglas, buying from Rocketdyne, Aerojet and P&W. -
#286 by fregate on 14 May, 2014 11:14
-
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Rocket Propulsion Systems for Access to Space (available for FREE download from NAP web site)
Page 259-260QuoteRD-180 BOOSTER ENGINE FOR THE ATLAS V FIRST STAGE
The engine that powers the first stage of the Atlas V EELV is the RD-180. The RD-180 is a two-thrust chamber version of the original Russian RD-170 (four chambers), which is used to power the first stage of the Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash Ukrainian manufactured Zenit launch vehicle. This engine provides the required performance, operability, and reliability of the RD-170 in a size (933,400 lbf of vacuum thrust) that meets the booster needs of the Atlas V version of the EELV (first used in the United States to successfully power all the Atlas III launches).
The RD-180 is a total propulsion unit/engine system with hydraulics for control valve actuation and thrust vector gimbaling, pneumatics for valve actuation and system purging, and a thrust frame to distribute loads, all self contained as part of the engine. The engine, which employs a LOx lead start, a staged combustion cycle, and a LOx-rich turbine drive, delivers 10 percent better performance than kerosene (RP-1)-fueled operational U.S. booster engines and can provide relatively clean, reusable operation (beyond one mission duty cycle).
After a highly competitive procurement process, Lockheed Martin selected the RD-180 engine to provide the booster propulsion for its Atlas III launch vehicle and the Atlas V for the Air Force's EELV.
The RD-180 is a staged-combustion cycle engine. The two thrust chambers can gimbal ±8 degrees. The engine has a health monitoring and life prediction system. The fewest possible interfaces are utilized between the launch pad and vehicle (pneumatic and hydraulic systems are self-contained, electrical panels consolidated, and a thrust frame simplifies the mechanical interface).
The engine offers relatively clean operations with a staged-combustion, oxidizer-rich pre-burner and oxidizer start and shutdown modes that eliminate the potential for coking and unburned kerosene pollution. Between 40 and 100 percent continuous throttling allows real-time trajectory matching and engine checkout on the pad before launch commit. The RD-180 was developed and qualified in 42 months at a much lower cost than past U.S. booster engine developments because of the strong flight-proven RD-170 heritage.
Page 113QuoteFinding 4-2. The current family of U.S. EELV boosters does not need to be replaced for the next 15 to 20 years, nor are there plans to do so. Nevertheless several candidate designs were started under NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001.
Recommendation 4-2. DoD should begin work relatively slowly, investing about $5 million per year in the committee’s judgment on technology development for an advanced-cycle booster engine that could provide the basis for a new far-term access-to-space vehicle. -
#287 by Ben the Space Brit on 14 May, 2014 11:48
-
It reminds me of the shuttle SRBs. They started off as an interim solution, then the replacement liquid boosters got deferred, de-funded and ultimately cancelled. Now they've become a virtue in their own right with Congress vetoing ESAS designs that didn't use them!
RD-180 seems to have also benefited from this tendency of the status quo to just ossify in place when there is no pressing demand to force change and there are obvious short-term financial benefits to keep things as they are. This current situation seems to be proof that this passive course ultimately is a false economy. -
#288 by Michael Bloxham on 14 May, 2014 12:18
-
It's *easy* money; where organizations don't have to compete. When I did my economics degree, this was called 'rent-seeking behaviour': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
-
#289 by Joel on 14 May, 2014 12:50
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
-
#290 by Ben the Space Brit on 14 May, 2014 13:02
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
I'm pretty sure that there will be national security implications from that which makes it less likely. -
#291 by AncientU on 14 May, 2014 13:07
-
I just learned that "Rogozin told reporters the Russian government has instructed Roscosmos to work with partners in the Asia-Pacific. Later Tuesday, Rogozin said on Twitter that Russian space officials will discuss bilateral cooperation on space projects with China on May 19, the eve of President Vladimir Putin's visit there".
So a future with Russia/China vs US/rising private companies seems far more exciting than the actual "boring" status quo.
The other shoe just dropped...
Should there be a separate (space policy?) thread on this? -
#292 by muomega0 on 14 May, 2014 13:17
-
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:
QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
It is a very interesting strategy, initially based on
A) Two LVs are required by DOD and NASA (more risk with 1)
B) Create a short term (2020) critical milestone with commercial crew
-Atlas is retained for NASA
2020 ISS pullout, no russian backup, 'several' Atlas based LVs for COTS and peaceful availability
Russia and SpaceX fill the role otherwise.
-Delta is retained for DOD: no RD-180s for non-peaceful
-New liquid engine/LV:
o current Delta/Atlas not cost competitive
o declare that it takes the 'same' time to rebuild versus build a new engine
o state that LV meets the future critical and economic needs with significant cost reductions
- domestic RD-180 is a bonus
- Shortage of cash? No problem.
o SpaceX can survive on 7 or less of 52 launches
o downselect COTS early on to meet this "critical" 2020 date
o delay SLS
o After a few years:
- stretch the schedule
- ask Russia if they will reconsider ISS support until the new competitive LV is in place
- Ask Russia if they will provide backup for BEO HLV
o WTH, throw in a F1 too even though NASA does not need it as yet another backup
o kill all other technology development like a LEO depot for cash
One LV and a two year supply for the other was the strategy, and with this new plan, all the same decades old hardware lives on (Delta and Falcon for DOD, Atlas and Falcon for COTs), while the USG pays for the new engine/LV certification to phase out Atlas and Delta. Russia continues to shop their services...so keep them in the peaceful loop or else.... -
#293 by woods170 on 14 May, 2014 13:26
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company. -
#294 by LouScheffer on 14 May, 2014 13:28
-
There's a third reason as well - sometimes customers demand it. Airline customers don't want Boeing or Airbus to make their own engines (though both other reasons apply as well in the case of jet engines). Customers want to pit the airplane makers against each other, and the engine folks against each other, independently. This helps keep all parties technically and financially honest.
You're both right but for different reasons. Although if you're looking for a perfect example of what meekGee means by pushing risk onto someone else, look no further then what Boeing did on the 787 program.Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been. -
#295 by LouScheffer on 14 May, 2014 13:32
-
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company. -
#296 by Star One on 14 May, 2014 14:03
-
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
Precisely. Talking like this about ESA whilst using Russian engines seems a little odd. -
#297 by newpylong on 14 May, 2014 15:49
-
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
There is a big difference between physically bringing a payload to another country vs using a foreign component in the US to launch. Find me something as complex as a launch vehicle in the US that doesn't have at least one foreign component - as simple as a bolt or as crucial as an engine. -
#298 by bad_astra on 14 May, 2014 15:49
-
Why would military/intel payloads for the USA launch on Ariane when we still have Delta IV?
-
#299 by baldusi on 14 May, 2014 16:17
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Current ECA can't do restarts, and ES doesn't have the same performance. Plus, it would be awfully expensive for most launches. And those big solids means a different launch environment. Not to mention the different vehicle interfaces. But that's just on top of the political issues.
