Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.
Thanks for the post jongoff, really interesting what we start to learn when we talk to the people who actually know.
But I fear the damage is done and whatever happens, the AF will be directed to start a new completely domestic engine program.
My guess is they'll make more money off of a new clean-sheet engine then they would've from a domestic RD-180.
Thanks for the post jongoff, really interesting what we start to learn when we talk to the people who actually know.
But I fear the damage is done and whatever happens, the AF will be directed to start a new completely domestic engine program.
In some ways I wonder how heartbroken exactly Aerojet is that the new conventional wisdom is that an RD-180 domestic production program would be so expensive that we may as well do a whole new clean-sheet engine. I'm kind of skeptical that a domestic RD-180 development would be as expensive and time consuming as all that, but am not surprised that Aerojet isn't working very hard to dispel that rumor. My guess is they'll make more money off of a new clean-sheet engine then they would've from a domestic RD-180.
~Jon
Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.
There's a huge difference between J-2X, which was a new engine development based loosely off of an engine that was out of production for decades, and an RD-180 project that would be derived from an existing, in-production engine. It is true the same company is involved, but hopefully being run as a DoD project there's a slightly higher chance of success than a NASA engine project.
~Jon
I wonder could the F-1B be a good choice for a replacement engine esp considering they have gotten rid of a lot of the parts that made it expensive.
It's a fairly low pressure GG cycle engine so qualifying it should be much easier and faster.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
And, a full PDF link of that book:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA471183
Take a look at page 167 for an especially sad table ..
In the last three decades, only one new U.S. government-sponsored booster engine, the SSME, has
been developed and gone through flight certification. Some significant upgrades have been incorporated
into the SSME since its original certification for flight in the 1970s. These upgrades increased reliability
and safety and somewhat increased mean time between engine refurbishment. They did not appreciably
advance rocket engine technology.
Since 1980 only one new first-stage rocket engine has been developed in the United States. [Now two with Merlin] This engine, the RS-68, was funded primarily by Boeing Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power. It was developed as a low-cost expendable booster engine for the Delta IV EELV. Engine performance of the RS-68 is
poorer than that of the 1960s-era Saturn V second- and third-stage J-2 engines, both of which were simple
open-cycle, gas-generator-powered designs. However, important advancements in engineering
methodology and capability were made by the developer through incorporation of comprehensive
modeling, computer-aided design/manufacturing, and advanced manufacturing technologies
While the United States has developed almost no new booster rocket technology during the last 30
years or more, the new spacefaring nations of Europe, Asia (including India), and the Middle East have
been developing their own new vehicle and propulsion systems to catch up. They, along with the former
Soviet Union, are believed to have developed 40 to 50 new engines using several propellant combinations
in addition to LOx/LH2. Many of these engines can now be considered to be today’s state of the art.
Does the US really have the expertise any more -- to bring a new engine to full flight qualification?
Does the US really have the expertise any more -- to bring a new engine to full flight qualification?Yes, J2-X, Merlins demonstrate it. What US doesn't have is a healthy competitive environment that would foster more independent innovation. Note that the industry consolidated down to one engine builder, and only new entrants like SpaceX, XCOR, BO have stepped up to diversify things a bit again.
Deserves a cross-post here too
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine
All the recent sound bites compiled, plus some interesting verbiage at the very end ..
I wonder could the F-1B be a good choice for a replacement engine esp considering they have gotten rid of a lot of the parts that made it expensive.