-
#300
by
baldusi
on 29 Oct, 2014 11:31
-
Assuming (and that is all it is so far) that the ORB-CRS-3 anomaly is ultimately due to an engine failure this gives NK-33 a failure rate of 1-in-4, as of now, including the two test stand failures. Am I correct?
(Asked not to bash but because I genuinely want the information)
You should take then failures/firings. That should include the flown engines test stages. And each Antares fly 2 engines. So it was a 1-in-8 failure in flight, plus at least 2-in-10 in test stand.
-
#301
by
bad_astra
on 29 Oct, 2014 14:31
-
Pegging future hopes to another Russian engine that's already been used as a political asset once in a situation that shows no sign of being resolved. What could go wrong?
-
#302
by
daveklingler
on 29 Oct, 2014 16:10
-
Yesterday's launch failure drew renewed political debate over Russian engines, whether or not the NK had anything to do with it. Given the amount of flak ULA has taken over the RD-180, I wonder that they didn't find a way to avoid it.
-
#303
by
asmi
on 29 Oct, 2014 16:17
-
Pegging future hopes to another Russian engine that's already been used as a political asset once in a situation that shows no sign of being resolved. What could go wrong?
Not that anyone would care, but all the talk about banning RD-180 was for military launches only, of which Antares is not (at least atm).
-
#304
by
edkyle99
on 29 Oct, 2014 19:29
-
Assuming (and that is all it is so far) that the ORB-CRS-3 anomaly is ultimately due to an engine failure this gives NK-33 a failure rate of 1-in-4, as of now, including the two test stand failures. Am I correct?
(Asked not to bash but because I genuinely want the information)
This was the fifth Antares launch, so at most one in 10 engines have failed in flight assume this was an engine failure. One additional Antares first stage was used for a static test on the launch pad but was then removed from the launch processing cycle. I'm not sure how many engines have been tested and not flown, but I do know that engine E18 is currently on Stennis Test Stand E1.
This might not have been an engine failure. High pressure staged combustion engines of this type are absolutely unforgiving of foreign particle ingestion, for example.
- Ed Kyle
-
#305
by
asmi
on 30 Oct, 2014 03:09
-
Hmm...
Американская компания Orbital Sciences некоторое время назад провела тендер среди мировых производителей двигателей для своей ракеты-носителя Antares. Газета «Известия» со ссылкой на свой источник в Роскосмосе сообщает, что тендер выиграло химкинское НПО «Энергомаш» с двигателем РД-193. По информации издания, официальные результаты конкурса пока не объявляются, так как руководство американской компании ведёт консультации относительно гарантий поставок этих двигателей в условиях введённых США санкций против России.
Оригинал статьи: http://russian.rt.com/article/56923#ixzz3Hb71wgwk
My translation:
American company Orbital Science organized a tender among world engine manufacturers for Antares rocket. "Izvestia" newspaper reports from their source in Roscosmos that NPO "Energomash" won this tender with its RD-193 engine. According to their source, official results are not yet publicized since company management is trying to secure guarantees that engines will be delivered despite US sanctions against Russia.
I would just add that RD-193 engine has been designed to be a drop-in replacement for NK-33 for Soyuz-2.1v LV, it's got fixed nozzle so it will have to rely on suspension for gimbal (just like original NK-33).
-
#306
by
Antares
on 30 Oct, 2014 03:12
-
And someone in the government of Russia leaks that info on the day after a failure because without that engine, the Ukrainians (and Americans) have nothing to attach to the stage. The 1980s called....
-
#307
by
asmi
on 30 Oct, 2014 03:19
-
And someone in the government of Russia leaks that info on the day after a failure because without that engine, the Ukrainians (and Americans) have nothing to attach to the stage. The 1980s called....
Yea, but leaving politics aside this actually makes sense - since the engine has been specifically designed to replace NK-33, re-engining Antares to that engine should be the easiest way among other options.
-
#308
by
SkipMorrow
on 30 Oct, 2014 12:16
-
Very slight tangential question. With all the discussion here about different engine possibilities for OSC, it occurred to me that the reality is, there aren't a huge number of different engines available in the modern world. It's not like the number of different kinds of cars. Or car engines for that matter. Is there a site that lists all of the engines in use today and what capabilities/characteristics they have? I'm going to guess that there are what, maybe 30 different engines in use today??? I'm not interested in older, historic engines (although, they ARE *interesting*, but not really germane to the issues of today)
-
#309
by
asmi
on 30 Oct, 2014 12:24
-
Very slight tangential question. With all the discussion here about different engine possibilities for OSC, it occurred to me that the reality is, there aren't a huge number of different engines available in the modern world. It's not like the number of different kinds of cars. Or car engines for that matter. Is there a site that lists all of the engines in use today and what capabilities/characteristics they have? I'm going to guess that there are what, maybe 30 different engines in use today??? I'm not interested in older, historic engines (although, they ARE *interesting*, but not really germane to the issues of today)
You can just look at the vehicles that are currently flying. There are only a handful of them.
-
#310
by
baldusi
on 30 Oct, 2014 12:55
-
And someone in the government of Russia leaks that info on the day after a failure because without that engine, the Ukrainians (and Americans) have nothing to attach to the stage. The 1980s called....
Yea, but leaving politics aside this actually makes sense - since the engine has been specifically designed to replace NK-33, re-engining Antares to that engine should be the easiest way among other options.
It's designed to replace the NK-33A flying on the Soyuz-2.1v, this engine has a new Russian controller, for example. And since it uses the RD-0110 vernier engine, it doesn't need any TVC. The AJ-26 uses an AeroJet developed TVC, ECU, APU and they even moved around the piping a bit. So it might or might not be such a drop in. But the Antares has all the propulsion subsystem abstracted into the Main Engine System (MES), which includes the two AJ-26, the TVC, APU, start up and even thrust transfer structures. So, swapping the AJ-26 for either 2 x RD-181, 2 x RD-191, 2 x RD-193 or 1 x RD-180 would be relatively easy. Probably the easiest would be the RD-180 which already has everything needed in on package.
No other existing engines in the world are so close in thrust, isp, O/F, structure and nozzle numbers as those.
If they are in a hurry, it is RD-180 or nothing. I don't know if I wrote about it here, but anything that needs a new export license from the Russian version of ITAR, i snot less than three years away, if you are lucky.
-
#311
by
asmi
on 30 Oct, 2014 13:18
-
It's designed to replace the NK-33A flying on the Soyuz-2.1v, this engine has a new Russian controller, for example. And since it uses the RD-0110 vernier engine, it doesn't need any TVC. The AJ-26 uses an AeroJet developed TVC, ECU, APU and they even moved around the piping a bit.
As far as I understand, gimbal system on AJ-26 moves the engine as whole, not just nozzle like most engines with "built-in" gimbal capability.
No other existing engines in the world are so close in thrust, isp, O/F, structure and nozzle numbers as those.
If they are in a hurry, it is RD-180 or nothing. I don't know if I wrote about it here, but anything that needs a new export license from the Russian version of ITAR, i snot less than three years away, if you are lucky.
Orignal article in "Izvestia" newspaper (
http://izvestia.ru/news/578744#ixzz3HbDtPA1X in Russian) noted that Russian govt will not block a deal, according to their source. There are some more details in that article:
- tender has been held at the end of 2013, so not in any way related to the failure
- AeroJet and Kuznetsov participated as well, as well as other companies (ATK Aerospace is also mentioned)
- Kuznetsov's CEO is disappointed that Energomash undercut them, and is saying that their bid is no longer under consideration for the Antares project
Energomash and Orbital declined to comment on the matter until results of the tender are officially announced.
-
#312
by
rusty
on 05 Nov, 2014 02:39
-
Hmm... American company Orbital Science organized a tender among world engine manufacturers for Antares rocket. "Izvestia" newspaper reports from their source in Roscosmos that NPO "Energomash" won this tender with its RD-193 engine. According to their source, official results are not yet publicized since company management is trying to secure guarantees that engines will be delivered despite US sanctions against Russia.
I would just add that RD-193 engine has been designed to be a drop-in replacement for NK-33 for Soyuz-2.1v LV, it's got fixed nozzle so it will have to rely on suspension for gimbal (just like original NK-33).
That's one route, swapping a refurbished Soviet engine for a new Russian engine. Another would be using ATK's ties to launch AthenaII or an Orbital-equivalent dual-Castor 120 "Taurus II".
-snips- ... Athena 2cS with six boosters would lift 4.19 tonnes to a 500 km x 28.5 deg LEO ... It is a number that bumps up close to Delta 2 and Antares capability. ...
-
#313
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Nov, 2014 02:44
-
Would any Russian engines still need to be tested and handled by Aerojet? or can OrbitalATK do this themselves.
-
#314
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 05 Nov, 2014 13:19
-
Well with today's announcement....the words of Valentin Glushko about the Kuznetsov engines in 1974 rings to mind:
“You can't build a lunar base using rotten engines.”(Boris Chertok, Rockets and People, Volume IV: The Moon Race, NASA SP-2011-4110 P.525)
-
#315
by
woods170
on 05 Nov, 2014 13:22
-
Would any Russian engines still need to be tested and handled by Aerojet? or can OrbitalATK do this themselves.
Given todays statement by Orbital this question is now moot.
-
#316
by
baldusi
on 05 Nov, 2014 13:28
-
Would any Russian engines still need to be tested and handled by Aerojet? or can OrbitalATK do this themselves.
Given todays statement by Orbital this question is now moot.
Why? Due to ITAR and the Russian equivalents, RD-180 are bench tested by NPO Energomash on Russia, but received, stored, and supported in the US by RD AMROSS with US engineers. Basically, ULA still needs the US engineering and support. That's the biggest issue with the RD-193, unless they can get RD AMROSS to handle it. Else, they will have to duplicate the US structure for much less engines.
-
#317
by
Norm38
on 05 Nov, 2014 13:47
-
I heard on the radio on the drive to work that Orbital announced (today?) that they will most likely NOT be using the AJ-26 engines for any further Antares flights. That says to me that they have no confidence in an ability to inspect/approve the AJ-26 with respect to the turbopumps. Due to whatever factors, the engine has been deemed unreliable and is shelved.
So Antares is grounded for the foreseeable future. There will be no quick return to flight, they need a complete redesign with a whole new engine and a whole new test flight regime. Assuming they can just "drop in" the RD-180 RD-193, what's the down time for that? A year?
-
#318
by
MattMason
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:02
-
I heard on the radio on the drive to work that Orbital announced (today?) that they will most likely NOT be using the AJ-26 engines for any further Antares flights. That says to me that they have no confidence in an ability to inspect/approve the AJ-26 with respect to the turbopumps. Due to whatever factors, the engine has been deemed unreliable and is shelved.
So Antares is grounded for the foreseeable future. There will be no quick return to flight, they need a complete redesign with a whole new engine and a whole new test flight regime. Assuming they can just "drop in" the RD-180, what's the down time for that? A year?
That's almost right. Orbital and NASA just announced their plans, abandoning the AJ-26 and stepping up work for the replacement engines already on the drawing board, with MARS repaired in the coming year. Doing that time, one or two Cygnus flights will go using "non-Antares" vehicles.
The Antares/ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread is all over this speculation of probable vehicles for those one or two flights. Atlas V is the general consensus since Falcon launches are pretty booked and NASA would be putting more eggs in one basket by overloading SpaceX with two cargo modes.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35950.510
-
#319
by
Prober
on 05 Nov, 2014 15:46
-
Would any Russian engines still need to be tested and handled by Aerojet? or can OrbitalATK do this themselves.
Given todays statement by Orbital this question is now moot.
and the big looser today is AJR, they are stuck with an inventory of engines.
