-
#80 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 05:44
-
I would think that the Atlas V customers will demand some sort of equivalent engine if the RD-180 becomes scarce in the future. I cannot figure out why the Russians would actually curtail the RD-180 avaibility.
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
The only other launch vehicle is the Delta IV Heavy.
The Delta IV Heavy is not a practical alternative for many of these payloads. I expect the total Delta IV Heavy package at the system level and launch rate probably costs well in excess of $500M each.
SpaceX Falcon 9 can take on the Atlas V 401,411, 511, and maybe the 421, 521...not the 3 to 5 solid Atlas V series. Though the DOD may be unloading their battle ship ComSat Platforms in the out years.
I'm not sure about the alphabet soup of those payload names, but I'm assuming they are USAF/DoD payloads. Add to that NASA payloads, and you have -government- payloads. USAF pays such a high price on Delta IV to maintain that line along with Atlas. If Atlas goes away, then ULA would build more Delta 4 CCB's and DCSS's. They could drop an entire production line and two launch complexes! Bumping all of those payloads that won't fit on Delta IV Medium + 5,4 to D4H would probably still be money saved after retiring a whole LV and it's associated costs.
Comparing Atlas prices to Delta IV prices isn't really an accurate comparison I don't think. The government pays for the costs of two CCB productions lines (although they are more integrated now), three upper stage production lines, two different SRB's, and four launch complexes. All of those costs are paid for and broken up into how many launches of each are done per year. So although right now Delta IV is more expensive than Atlas V, if Delta IV production is ramped up, and Atlas is retired, they won't necessarily stay that way.
Also, I don't know that -any- government payload will go to SpaceX until after 2015, when I believe USAF will consider other launch providers other than ULA and give them a chance to bid. And then SpaceX will need vertical integration for some or all of those payloads (maybe they have some that can be horizontally integrated?)
The government will cover the costs they need to cover to get their payloads launched. If Delta is the only EELV available, then they'll pay for what they have to. And Nothing will be going to SpaceX for a few years at least.
Sounds like there's a decent stock of RD-180's that can also be used up in the interim too while either there's an RD-180 replacement made, or Delta IV production ramped up while the last RD-180's are flown out and Atlas retired.
-
#81 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 05:49
-
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
Per the updated Delta IV planners guide, up to 8 GEM-60's can be added "relatively" easily (might need to ask Jim on that one)... closing the gap between the the heavier Atlas V variants and the Delta IV Medium +'s. Given how many launches were predicted for the Delta IV during its development, I can't see how it couldn't be ramped up if need be...
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them. I think Downix said that once upon a time. Don't have any knowledge myself to verify that, but I Think it's safe to say that Delta IV could be ramped up to meet the need if RD-180's aren't available for Atlas. And as it's already "government certified" with vertical integration on both coasts, the government would do and pay what it had to do to assure their payloads got launched on Deltas.
-
#82 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 06:00
-
One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjecture
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Only the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Could be a good excuse for Aerojet to start manufacturing the AJ-26-500.
Doing so would solve both OSC's and ULA problems of engine supply as two of theme would be a close replacement for a single RD-180.
No, the AJ-1E6. It's closer to RD-180 in that it's a dual chamber engine with single turbo pump, with performance that should be close to RD-180.
Wasn't the RD family derived from the NK-33 anyway? I thought I heard that somewhere. the NK-33 was cancelled after the dozens were built, and locked away. Something about the face lost in the N-1 program, so the Soviets locked them up and "buried" them. But that tech didn't just go away, and was integrated into a the RD family for Energia.
Not 100% sure on that though. But I think the NK's and RD's are similar. So I think an AJ-1E6 might be very much like and RD-180. Made in the US, and could be used on Antares, Atlas -and- SLS.
-
#83 by a_langwich on 04 Sep, 2013 07:11
-
Btw, I think this information on another thread is important:
2. Production of RD-180 for RD AMROSS currently is economically viable. Price was seriously increased in 2011.
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 incorrect.
Okay, that sounds like then it isn't purely a negotiating tactic for more money from ULA / AJ-Rocketdyne.
I've read articles with noises that Deputy PM Rogozin was talking about pulling various different space industry participants into one large state corporation. Perhaps that includes NPO Energia and NPO Energomash?
So perhaps this is a negotiating strategy for internal politics, i.e., not only do we control your contracts with the Russian government, but also all your international contracts as well. All your base belong to us.
In this view, the hostage (RD-180 export license) taken for negotiations gets returned unharmed if the parties come to a nice settlement. -
#84 by DGH on 04 Sep, 2013 10:18
-
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
Per the updated Delta IV planners guide, up to 8 GEM-60's can be added "relatively" easily (might need to ask Jim on that one)... closing the gap between the the heavier Atlas V variants and the Delta IV Medium +'s. Given how many launches were predicted for the Delta IV during its development, I can't see how it couldn't be ramped up if need be...
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them. I think Downix said that once upon a time. Don't have any knowledge myself to verify that, but I Think it's safe to say that Delta IV could be ramped up to meet the need if RD-180's aren't available for Atlas. And as it's already "government certified" with vertical integration on both coasts, the government would do and pay what it had to do to assure their payloads got launched on Deltas.
This series of post got me thinking.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
-
#85 by baldusi on 04 Sep, 2013 14:00
-
This series of post got me thinking.
Delta IV and RS-68 were designed to be cheap at high production rates (the factory was sized for upto 40 cores per year!). Yet, they have had 10 years working on lowering the costs at low rates of production. To the point that now the factory has more limited capacity but can output Atlas V, Centaur and Delta IV. The Fleet Unification Program, Common Avionics, and the future Common Upper Stage have all worked in this direction. I seriously doubt that they could lower that much the costs.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
Besides, RS-68 was supposed to be cheap, but had the inherent subsidy of the Shuttle on the engine factory. That's gone.
And Delta IV was optimized for commercial payloads. For pure DoD the Atlas V has a superior flow.
The Delta IV M+(4,4) would be useful for covering only the AV 431, since the M+(4,2) is a good match for the AV 421. And it's basically free, since the new Common Core is based off the M+(5,4). But the 431 has only been used 2 in the last 10 years, and both were commercial payloads! Thus, I think that DoD has no actual need for the M+(4,4). I don't know what would be the performance of a M+(5,6) or the M+(5,8). But the M+(5,4) is about a match for the AV 531, so it's possible that the M(5,6) could cover the AV 551. And in any case, only MUOS currently require the 551. Thus, you could save your last AV for those missions.
But the problem is exactly that it would require to go back to a custom core. That's not nice since they went to great effort exactly to do the opposite (a true common core for single core). If they do away with Atlas V they could add an extra custom core. But the main reason was about payload flexibility, not so much cost. Delta IV has way longer lead times than Atlas V. And if you look at the delay causes on ULA site, you'll note that payloads are notoriously risky in schedule issues. Thus, the ability to swap payloads late in the process, say until L-3 months, is a great asset. But with customs they couldn't do that. Since the M+(5,6/8) payloads are few, this might not be such a big issue, since they'd still have the flexibility most of the time.
In other words, yes, Delta IV could replace Atlas V if necessary, but I don't think it would lower the costs that much, and DoD would lose the flexibility and schedule margin that dual fleet offers. -
#86 by LouScheffer on 04 Sep, 2013 14:46
-
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.
This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c). -
#87 by Robotbeat on 04 Sep, 2013 15:05
-
The size and manufacturing technology of the engines matters a lot. You can't just say that one engine will cost less than 9 others. One 747 engine costs more than 10 car engines, because first of all car engines are much smaller and second of all they are crazily mass-produced. Merlin 1D is designed for large-scale manufacturing in a way that RS-68 isn't. Also, Merlin 1D each has much less thrust.
-
#88 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 17:06
-
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.
This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c).
Well, from what I've gathered by reading posts from Jim and others who seem to be in the know, most of Delta IV and Atlas V's high costs in reality have been sort of a serious of events that were never part of the original plan.
The EELV competition to replace Titan IV, Atlas II and III, and Delta II and III with a single modular family that would be low cost enough to compete in the commercial market so the government wouldn't have to subsidize it's full costs, but flexible enough to cover the full range of expected government and commercial payloads.
Hence the CCB system of both Atlas V and Delta IV. The idea was to keep just one winner though.
So, first there was the scandal of Boeing steeling some LM information. I think that, and USAF deciding they didn't want to put all of their eggs in one basket with one new and unproven EELV, lead to the forced merger to ULA, and the support of both EELV's.
So now you had two LV's splitting up the government launches that each one by themselves had planned for. Then, in meeting all of the government mandates, and having those low flight rates, they found it difficult to get their prices down enough to compete for commercial payloads. Especially in the early 2000's when the directly government subsidized launchers like Proton, Soyuz, and Ariane V were trying to to get those commercial payloads. ULA had to satisfy the US government first and foremost. And they couldn't be directly subsidized to keep their commercial costs down like those other launchers. (I think there's laws prohibiting that sort of direct government subsidy) So, in order to keep ULA operating both LV's, the government ponied up and paid them enough per launch to cover all of their overhead costs to maintain and support both systems.
I think ULA tried to drop the price of Atlas 401, but they said ArianeSpace just would drop their price more and could do it with ESA subsidies. So ULA just more or less let that business go, and focused exclusively on catering to the government, and the government paid them top dollar to make sure they made enough to stay afloat.
Although I think both Atlas and Delta were designed to make 30-40 CCB's per year originally, that was when they thought there would only be one EELV chosen, and they'd get ALL government launches, and several commercial ones. I think that's where Delta in particuar was supposed to see a pretty dramatic cost decrease.
But...as it turns out, not only were two LV's splitting government payloads, there was only like half the annual launches predicted which actually fly per year. So they cut their production in half again from the original prediction. So instead of 30-40 Delta IV cores per year, there were 3-4 per year. (38 CCB's flown in the last 11 years since the beginning of the program by my count).
The entire overhead of the CCB's, two upper stages, and two launch complexes had to be paid for by those 3-4 CCB's per year. So yea...they were pretty expensive. Not to mention the PWR production line of RS-68's had to be maintianed by just 3-4 engines per year. After RS-25 went away, that would get even worse.
So in short, each EELV originally planned on probably 20 government launches per year and 10-20 commercial launches per year by themselves.
They only got a few commercial launches early on, and none for the last several years. (I think 9 commercial payloads total over the life of both EELV's) And I think there's only been about 5-10 government launches per year, not 20.
And then they have to share those between two different EELV's.
So I think that probably explains most of their high costs. Even then Atlas 401 was fairly affordable, but just couldn't compete with the subsidized ArianeSpace and the Russians for many of those commercial payloads when they'd dump their price below Atlas's.
So...then the question becomes, if SpaceX starts to get government contracts, and ULA is allowed to streamline as they see fit...including retiring one LV...and they keep Delta IV (so they don't have to mess around with the fickle Russians any more), they could cut their overhead maybe in half by closing two Atlas Pads, and downsizing the Atlas CCB production line, as well as Centaur. What would that do for the Costs of Delta IV?
Although ULA would be getting fewer contracts as a few would be going to SpaceX, Delta IV could actually be flying more as there would be no Atlas flights. ULA could/should downsize and cut overhead.
I would think Delta IV prices would come down at least some. Perhaps not enough to be commercially viable, but enough to make them competative with SpaceX...who's government launch prices will probably be higher than commercial, as they'll need to add vertical integration, and follow the myriad of rules and regulations of the USAF to get into compliance with them. Those expenses won't be cheap, and SpaceX will probably let their government launch prices carry that investment, so they can keep their commercial prices low enough that they don't loose business to ArianeSpace and the Russians.
So I expect the prices that the government pays for launches of a vertically integrated Falcon from say pad 39A to be significantly higher than for a commercial launch of a horizontally integrated Falcon from LC-40. Delta IV will probably be inline with that, and USAF will make sure they get enough business to keep Delta flying so they retain redundant space access. Even if it means paying for it.
-
#89 by Prober on 04 Sep, 2013 18:58
-
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.
This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c).
SpaceX is built around a different model take a look see the number of
(need term) employees. -
#90 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 23:24
-
ISTM AJ 1E6 is least likely to be taken forward as engine for SLS's advanced booster. But, just imagine for a moment it does win a development contract there.
It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?
Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.
One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??
Cheers, Martin
Yea, that's kinda what I was thinking too. Rather than having RD-180 for Atlas, AJ-26 for Antares, and maybe F-1B for SLS, just one domestic engine to cover all of those applications. Could make for some good economics of scale.
And before people worry too much about an Aerojet monopoly on the launch market, obviously there's SpaceX.
Besides, Aerojet Rocketdyne would own and build AJ-1E6, AJ-26, F-1B, and I assume take over PWR's role in RD AMROSS?
So it wouldn't really be much different than them just building one AJ-1E6 for them all.
They'll own RS-68A and RL-10 too. But it's sort of 6 of one, half dozen of the other. One way is more streamlined though.
-
#91 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 23:30
-
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.
Yea. Even if this gets all ironed out, what about next time?
Also, Atlas is a redundant LV to Delta IV for ULA (or vice versa). But they -really- don't need two redundant EELV's. Only because USAF have wanted them to have they. But the EELV competition was only supposed to have a single clear winner, LM/Altas or Boeing-MD/Delta (not sure if there were other EELV competators). So really not reason for ULA to keep both lines if USAF were to not require them to and pay for that expense. That could happen in 2015, we'll see.
So...if RD-180 is a "dead" end, that would make the decision pretty easy as to which EELV to drop. -
#92 by Lobo on 04 Sep, 2013 23:53
-
This series of post got me thinking.
Delta IV and RS-68 were designed to be cheap at high production rates (the factory was sized for upto 40 cores per year!). Yet, they have had 10 years working on lowering the costs at low rates of production. To the point that now the factory has more limited capacity but can output Atlas V, Centaur and Delta IV. The Fleet Unification Program, Common Avionics, and the future Common Upper Stage have all worked in this direction. I seriously doubt that they could lower that much the costs.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
Besides, RS-68 was supposed to be cheap, but had the inherent subsidy of the Shuttle on the engine factory. That's gone.
And Delta IV was optimized for commercial payloads. For pure DoD the Atlas V has a superior flow.
The Delta IV M+(4,4) would be useful for covering only the AV 431, since the M+(4,2) is a good match for the AV 421. And it's basically free, since the new Common Core is based off the M+(5,4). But the 431 has only been used 2 in the last 10 years, and both were commercial payloads! Thus, I think that DoD has no actual need for the M+(4,4). I don't know what would be the performance of a M+(5,6) or the M+(5,8). But the M+(5,4) is about a match for the AV 531, so it's possible that the M(5,6) could cover the AV 551. And in any case, only MUOS currently require the 551. Thus, you could save your last AV for those missions.
But the problem is exactly that it would require to go back to a custom core. That's not nice since they went to great effort exactly to do the opposite (a true common core for single core). If they do away with Atlas V they could add an extra custom core. But the main reason was about payload flexibility, not so much cost. Delta IV has way longer lead times than Atlas V. And if you look at the delay causes on ULA site, you'll note that payloads are notoriously risky in schedule issues. Thus, the ability to swap payloads late in the process, say until L-3 months, is a great asset. But with customs they couldn't do that. Since the M+(5,6/8) payloads are few, this might not be such a big issue, since they'd still have the flexibility most of the time.
In other words, yes, Delta IV could replace Atlas V if necessary, but I don't think it would lower the costs that much, and DoD would lose the flexibility and schedule margin that dual fleet offers.
Yea, that's a good point. Now Delta has a true common booster core. You don't really want to go back to custom cores again. And really, if you were to standardize on the Delta and drop Atlas, that's what D4H is for. They could fill that apparently seldom used narrow gap filled by the Atlas-541 and 551 (only 5 launches of those configurations in the history of Atlas V) So, anything that would otherwise use the 541/551 just gets moved to D4H.
And it sounds like there's just one payload already slated that would use either of those?. MUOS? Dunno what that is, but -could- that, for example, be moved to a D4H if it needed to be? It won't, because there's enough RD-180's around to take care of it like you said. But hypothetically it could fly on D4H couldn't it?
And if there's enough of an increase in Delta CCB production, then D4H could come down in price to be closer to that of Atlas 551 perhaps. So probably no need to make the customer Delta CCB's in the M+ (5,6) and M+ (5,8).
But, I think replacing Delta with Atlas could reduce prices, at least some (probably not greatly). Because ULA gets to unload a whole lot of overhead in the process, and at the same time, perhaps double the production of a single CCB. Add some SpaceX competition for government launches in there, and I think you might see some price reduction anyway. At least get it down to an Atlas launch cost, thus eliminating the last argument for Atlas and RD-180.
Dunno about Delta being less smooth and flexible for USAF/DoD launches. Could ULA do anything about the flow of Delta to fix that? -
#93 by baldusi on 05 Sep, 2013 00:09
-
First, DoD appears to value the dual pad approach. Thus, they can run simultaneous operations.
The fact with Delta IV flow is that it requires a lot of more time on the HIF, than Atlas V on the VIF. And that's a seconde difference. Delta is horizontally integrated. But for vertically integrated (i.e. all DoD and NASA) payloads, they have to do more time on pad. And if they have to take the core back to the HIF they have to demate. Atlas gets everything done on the VIF, and only moves to pad on its MLP already integrated. And if they needed higher rate of launch, they could do it with a second MLP instead of an additional pad that Delta IV would need.
Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, Falcon and Antares all also do vertical integration. But they simply can't do vertical integration (except for Soyuz at CSG), thus all is made in the HIF, no need to take the pad save for launch. that's also the reason that all commercial payloads are compatible with horizontal integration. And Delta IV assumed a good fraction of launches to be commercial. -
#94 by asmi on 05 Sep, 2013 02:20
-
Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines. -
#95 by baldusi on 05 Sep, 2013 18:06
-
More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines. -
#96 by Robotbeat on 05 Sep, 2013 18:26
-
...which is also a great rocket oxidizer, if you can handle it!
More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
-
#97 by Herb Schaltegger on 05 Sep, 2013 20:14
-
...which is also a great rocket oxidizer, if you can handle it!
More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
Well, not "oxidizer" so much as "fluoridizer." Heh, chemistry puns FTW. Getting back to my last point on this topic (several pages and many words ago), the U.S. has a LOT more experience with this kind of metallurgy than most people realize because it's not widespread knowledge - from the mid-1940's through today, this kind of specialized metallurgy is at the heart of nuclear materials manufacture and processing. It's just never (in the U.S. at least) been applied to rocketry.
-
#98 by Robotbeat on 05 Sep, 2013 20:17
-
Are you saying hot, high-pressure oxygen-rich environments are often used for nuclear materials processing?
-
#99 by asmi on 05 Sep, 2013 21:17
-
Getting back to my last point on this topic (several pages and many words ago), the U.S. has a LOT more experience with this kind of metallurgy than most people realize because it's not widespread knowledge - from the mid-1940's through today, this kind of specialized metallurgy is at the heart of nuclear materials manufacture and processing. It's just never (in the U.S. at least) been applied to rocketry.
Not even close.
