-
#320 by kevin-rf on 14 May, 2014 21:10
-
I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching...
The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? 
moved out, mostly to US (duck)
So will they be annexing New York next? -
#321 by RyanC on 14 May, 2014 21:20
-
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches? -
#322 by Rocket Science on 14 May, 2014 21:36
-
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin...I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching...
The question is, where are all the adults in Russia?
moved out, mostly to US (duck)
So will they be annexing New York next?
-
#323 by JosephB on 14 May, 2014 21:38
-
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids. -
#324 by friendly3 on 14 May, 2014 21:44
-
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
And how on Earth can they say that "we believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have"? -
#325 by RyanC on 14 May, 2014 21:54
-
Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
A key question to ask is:
"Are we counting engines already integrated or in an advanced stage of integration with their launch vehicle in the total engine count, or is the 16~ engine count for "bare" unallocated engines still in their shipping containers only?" -
#326 by Lobo on 14 May, 2014 21:59
-
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 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.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
-
#327 by Patchouli on 14 May, 2014 22:43
-
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 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.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
-
#328 by AncientU on 14 May, 2014 23:20
-
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 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.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
Then, after three successful flights, including two successes in a row, they could submit their data and eventually be certified as an EELV and begin to compete against the incumbent... unless a huge block buy foreclosed that option. -
#329 by Lobo on 14 May, 2014 23:25
-
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
Oh, I think it's easier than that. TR-107 and RS-84 are very similar in size, weight, thrust, and ISP to RD-180. (size a bit different because of a single larger nozzle vs two smaller ones.)
The Atlas boat tail would need to be changed to a degree, surely. But as far as thrust and power and tank size/ratio, I believe both TR-107 and RS-84 are throttleable. So while there's some more thrust at lift off (not a bad thing), it can be throttled down to mirror the propellant consumption of RD-180 so the Atlas core tanks don't need to be changed at all. That should make the transition as cheap as possible.
ULA/USAF would be paying them to take up development again specifically for the Atlas V. So they would get to tell them what they want. Might even be able to modify the engine to mount on Atlas with less modification that's it's original design.
For example RS-84 (I like the TR-107 better, but there's more specifics on the RS-84 that I could find).
Thrust (sl): 4,665.000 kN (1,048,733 lbf).
Height: 4.67 m (15.32 ft).
Diameter: 2.74 m (8.98 ft).
Thrust: 5,159.00 kN (1,159,789 lbf).
Specific impulse: 335 s.
Specific impulse sea level: 301 s.
RD-180:
Thrust (SL) 860,568 lbf (3.83 MN)
Height: 3.56 m (11.67 ft).
Diameter: 3.15 m (10.33 ft).
Specific impulse: 339 s.
Specific impulse sea level: 313 s.
So, RD-180 had the edge in seal level impulse, but they are very close in vacuum impulse, which is the more important number.
-
#330 by JMSC on 15 May, 2014 01:45
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Well Russia is hardly against sanctions, certainly not when it comes to cutting off natural gas supplies to Ukraine or other nations they have an issue with. The current sanctions are better understood by the term condemn and copy which many people have applied to Putin's policies. E.g. he condemns the Maiden demonstrators but then copies the movement and funds his own demonstrators in Eastern Ukraine. In the case western sanctions, they have been imposed Oligarchs close to Putin with the idea that if the West hits these influential people in the pocket they will in turn try to get Putin to stop his actions in Ukraine to protect their lucrative business connections in the West .
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left. -
#331 by CJ on 15 May, 2014 01:54
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
-
#332 by Avron on 15 May, 2014 01:55
-
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else -
#333 by JMSC on 15 May, 2014 02:05
-
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else
And trade in Russian space services such as Soyuz flights to the ISS, RD-180 sales, sales of Soyuz to the EU, and in particular US licenses for Russian Satellite launches fattens his bank account quite nicely, he wants to keep it all going and taking ULA as a hostage with the RD-180 is a good way to promote what he wants. In other terms he is letting the US know that if we sanction Russian high tech trade in space technology too much he's going to hurt the hostage. -
#334 by ChrisWilson68 on 15 May, 2014 02:10
-
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else
That's a lot of claims that are far outside the mainstream, and you've presented no evidence at all to back them up.
-
#335 by WHAP on 15 May, 2014 02:11
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother? -
#336 by spacetraveler on 15 May, 2014 02:30
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
This is the most important short term question in this thread. -
#337 by Thorny on 15 May, 2014 02:42
-
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
Perhaps that only includes separate engines and not those already mated to launch vehicles? -
#338 by WHAP on 15 May, 2014 02:49
-
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
This is the most important short term question in this thread.
And it should be answered, one way or another, in about 8 days. -
#339 by sdsds on 15 May, 2014 04:48
-
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
But I bet you've never seen an image of Dreamchaser on Delta IV.
So. Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? 
