-
#60 by baldusi on 30 Aug, 2013 17:48
-
Which stand? The Merlin's, probably. The 1st stage was rated at 15MN when they bought it. And they are finishing the FH, which is sure to be rated at 15MN. Plus, they must be building or retrofitting one for the Raptor (which is 3MN or so LOX/CH4).Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]...
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
If one company could test the RD-180 easily, it's them. Not gonna happen, but they clearly could. -
#61 by ChrisWilson68 on 30 Aug, 2013 20:30
-
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
No. This is the stand SpaceX uses to test full Falcon 9 first stages. Even the F9v1.0 first stage had more thrust than a single RD-180, and they tested them on that stand for the full mission duration of nearly three minutes. More recently, they've used this stand for F9v1.1 first stage testing, and that has even more thrust.
-
#62 by Lurker Steve on 30 Aug, 2013 20:50
-
Which stand? The Merlin's, probably. The 1st stage was rated at 15MN when they bought it. And they are finishing the FH, which is sure to be rated at 15MN. Plus, they must be building or retrofitting one for the Raptor (which is 3MN or so LOX/CH4).Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]...
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
If one company could test the RD-180 easily, it's them. Not gonna happen, but they clearly could.
A test stand that is used for the full stage isn't really suitable for testing engines, correct ? So rule out the test stand in the picture.
The Merlin test stand used to test the 1D "might" be suitable, but they haven't seen an engine that large on that stand. If you compare the size of the Merlin and RD-180, it might not fit, especially if you want to try gimble tests. Besides, that stand is busy testing production engines. SpaceX can't make it available for another companies engine development.
I assume Stennis would have a test stand available. All of the "A" stands will be used for J-2X followed by RS-25 testing. B-1 is used for the RS-68, and B-2 will be updated for SLS stage testing.
E-1 is used for AJ-26, but there are supposed to be 2 additional E test stands. Besides, once Aerojet wraps up testing the available AJ-26s / NK-33s, that stand will be available.
-
#63 by Lars_J on 30 Aug, 2013 21:01
-
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]...
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
Unlikely... If the stand handles 9x147,000=1,323,000 lbf, it can handle a 860,568 lbf RD-180. -
#64 by JohnFornaro on 31 Aug, 2013 14:17
-
Personally, I don't see RT as a reliable source for news. YMMV.
Still, the political situation between the US and Russia could deteriorate, at least in principle. IOW: It could happen.SpaceX might have something to say about that
10 posts
Next thread, let's put a bit more effort into it, and get the post count down to single digits. -
#65 by JohnFornaro on 31 Aug, 2013 14:20
-
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]...
Sorry. That was post #54. We already have a winner. -
#66 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2013 14:47
-
Get this back on topic please.
-
#67 by LouScheffer on 01 Sep, 2013 00:31
-
[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?
Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one. Since there are no major design bugs, it should mostly be a problem of metallurgy and tolerances. The US is pretty good at tolerances, so if the appropriate alloys for working in oxygen rich environments are available, it should be pretty straightforward. Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
Also, the qualification cycle could be a lot shorter in this case. Whenever a problem arises, just look at the existing example to see how they solved it. Also, you could build and test the first few examples in parallel, since you know there are no major bugs whose fixes will cause enormous re-work (unlike a new engine design).
Overall, reproducing an existing and working engine seems *much* easier than designing and qualifying a new one...
-
#68 by Robotbeat on 01 Sep, 2013 01:31
-
The US is good at tolerances, Russia is good at metallurgy.
-
#69 by Tcommon on 01 Sep, 2013 02:50
-
I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?
Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one... -
#70 by Herb Schaltegger on 01 Sep, 2013 14:16
-
The US is good at tolerances, Russia is good at metallurgy.
The U.S. is good at metallurgy too, when there's money for it (most people have NO IDEA how much obscure, highly-precise metallurgy is required for nuclear materials engineering and processing).
If there is a real need to build RD-180's or a U.S. derivation of it (e.g., to launch national security payloads), the funding will be found. -
#71 by AncientU on 01 Sep, 2013 18:54
-
Wasn't it going to cost $6B and more than a decade to get an RS-25E line up and running?
I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?
Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one... -
#72 by ChrisWilson68 on 01 Sep, 2013 20:48
-
Wasn't it going to cost $6B and more than a decade to get an RS-25E line up and running?
I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?
Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one...
Two big differences there: the engines themselves are very different (hydrogen is trickier) and in the case of RS-25E you're talking about making significant changes from the previous engine, versus RD-180 where you're talking about cloning an existing engine, where you already have not only existing copies but all the technical information about how it is built.
-
#73 by Antares on 01 Sep, 2013 21:31
-
Handling high temperature GOX is far trickier than hydrogen.
-
#74 by baldusi on 02 Sep, 2013 14:08
-
Handling high temperature GOX is far trickier than hydrogen.
Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract. And I think the RS-84 had developed its own. And in the IPD Rocektdyne had demonstrated an OR LH2/LOX oxidizer TP. While AeroJet had supplied the FR LH2/LOX fuel TP. Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy, seals, valves, etc. Might have as much as four different working formulas, in fact (NK-33, RD-180, RS-84 and IPD).
I repeat, the only reason the US haven't advanced more than the Russians on ORSC is because they Russians sold them for cheap. If they stop the sale of RD-180, they'll convert a good paying happy customer into a spiteful competitor.
Btw, I think this information on another thread is important:1. Outsourcing of RD-191 production to Polyot currently is delayed. In the at least next 5 years this engine will be produced only on NPO Energomash.
This means that NPO Energomash is earning good money on the RD-180 contract now. And that they need to keep the production line as busy as possible. Again, stopping the RD-180 would be idiotic.
In the last interview Lopota said that
a) requirements for production numbers for RD-191 are lowered
b) NPO Energomash update its facilities and increase its production capabilities
therefore now NPO Energomash could itself produce necessary quantity of RD-191.
2. Production of RD-180 for RD AMROSS currently is economically viable. Price was seriously increased in 2011. -
#75 by EE Scott on 02 Sep, 2013 16:47
-
At what point does the RD-180 start to seem like a dead-end?
As long as ULA buys them, they will be (somewhat) at the mercy of the supplier, and the option of manufacturing them here in the U.S. appears to make them too expensive to be practical when compared to RS-68. So now ULA gets a high performance engine at a low-performance price. But the uncertainty of the RD-180 touched upon in this thread could make it a poor choice as a foundational element for future evolved LV, a la Atlas Phase2. -
#76 by Antares on 03 Sep, 2013 00:20
-
Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract....Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy,
Do we know this? It's one thing to have a drawing that says a part needs to be so big and so thick and made of such metal with such coating. It's another to actually be able to make that metal and get the coating to stick. Energomash and Kuznetsov would have had to transfer, in effect, the plans for their plants to the U.S. That's hard to believe, not impossible but hard. -
#77 by baldusi on 03 Sep, 2013 01:56
-
Rocketdyne did the OR TP on the IPD. AJ and Teledyne are demonstrating the Powerhead of the AJ-1E6. And Energomash did gave them full documentation in 2003. That included even the tooling and certification documentation. But again, IPD and the AJ1E6 are the best examples that they know how to do ORSC.Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract....Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy,
Do we know this? It's one thing to have a drawing that says a part needs to be so big and so thick and made of such metal with such coating. It's another to actually be able to make that metal and get the coating to stick. Energomash and Kuznetsov would have had to transfer, in effect, the plans for their plants to the U.S. That's hard to believe, not impossible but hard. -
#78 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 05:12
-
It would be unfortunate if this happened - but at least it would be interesting to see if PwR (now Aerojet) could put their money where their mouth is and actually build a domestic RD-180, something they have claimed to be able to do.
If they could produce it economically, that is of course a wholly different question.
This brings up something I asked on another thread.
If Aerojet owns Rocketdyne now, they own the rights to RD-180, now right? Import rights and license to manufacture in the US if they want?
Well, isn't Aerojet promoting their AJ-1E6? And wouldn't that be very similar to RD-180? A dual chamber engine right about 1Mlbs of thrust? A little more powerful than RD-180, but still similar, with similar weight and size?
So...something like this could actually be a pretty convienient excuse to do one of two things. Develop AJ-1E6 with perhaps an Atlas V kit (if such a thing is even possible...but I'm thinking a variant of the AJ-1E6 that would make it easier to mount to Atlas V) or just a change to Atlas V to mount it.
Or, ULA basically asks USAF/DoD if they can retire Atlas V, and make and support only Delta IV. That would allow ULA to retire two pads and focus on producing just one core and one upper stage. That upper stage would be the base of NASA DUUS potentially. IT could be upgraded with MB-60 if DUUS were to use it (I think that was the original idea behind MB-60).
And...most importantly, Delta IV already has the heavy version flying with two pads that can launch it.
If SpaceX can successfully bid and get some USAF/DoD contracts starting after 2015 when I believe they will accept competitive bids to Atlas and Delta, then USAF might consider F9 along with Delta IV as the redundant assures space access, and not subsidize ULA to support two different EELV's then. SpaceX has some things they have to do first like establish at vertical integration at least on the East Coast. West coast has limited government launches, so they might not be going after that there yet, as they built horizontal integration there, and demolished the Titan Mobile tower that might have actually been able to be modified for Falcon 9.
Now they'd have to build a brand new one. Haven't heard any plans for that.
But I think Delta IV and SLC-6 could handle all west coast government launches, so SpaceX might not be worried about that yet.
They would need something added to LC-40, or to take over LC-39A and have it there.
So, if RD-180 were to be banned for export to the US, it might have very little negative impact, and could actually make for a more streamlined US rocket fleet in either the retirement of Atlas V and ramp up of Delta IV production, or the development of the US built AJ-1E6 to replace RD-180.
Out of curiosity, is such an issue like this perhaps part of the reason USAF didn't want to standardize on the Atlas V over the last 10 years, when it seemed like the cheaper LV of the two?
-
#79 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 05:32
-
Come on people. This isn't about business, this is about Syria.
State politics often trump business interests, especially when the business is a state run enterprise.
So, no, it probably makes no business sense for the Russians to cut off sales to the US, but Russia doesn't have a lot of leverage over the US. They're going to use what little leverage they have, wherever they have it. If it does a little damage to the balance sheet of a small state-run enterprise, it's just the price to be paid.
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Even if the cutoff is short term, it will hurt ULA. Supply uncertainty at a time when their pricing model is being decimated does not bode well for ULA's future.
Russians lose, ULA loses, SpaceX is the only winner. If they're smart, and they are, SpaceX will now double down on heavy.
Huh?
Aerojet has like 30-40 NK-33's, and Antares is the only LV that uses them.
Also Aerojet is planning to build a US built version in the AJ-500 and/or the AJ-1E6.
And Aerojet owns Rocketdyne now, so if they can't buy more RD-180's, they might build an AJ-1E6 to be an easy switch out for the RD-180. Fly on both Antares and Atlas V.
Or Atlas goes away and Delta IV ramps up production.
