-
#420 by Kabloona on 18 Dec, 2014 00:34
-
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia.
How was that supposed to work? Before the political crisis everyone was perfectly happy, but you think that back then Aerojet or Rocketdyne should have designed a highly complex rocket engine for ULA or Orbital, just in case something would go wrong and someone would need an engine? I think no one can expect to develop an engine like an RD180 or RD181 on own money just in case it is needed.
No, not everyone was perfectly happy. Many in Congress, and probably in the Pentagon too, have been unhappy for years about sending national security dollars to Russia but were unable to force ULA to develop an alternative engine.
Meanwhile ULA raked in their profits and was happy with the status quo as long as the defense budget kept raining dollars. No one should be shedding tears for them now that they have to break the piggy bank and spend a few hundred million to develop a new engine. -
#421 by Prober on 18 Dec, 2014 01:08
-
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia.
How was that supposed to work? Before the political crisis everyone was perfectly happy, but you think that back then Aerojet or Rocketdyne should have designed a highly complex rocket engine for ULA or Orbital, just in case something would go wrong and someone would need an engine? I think no one can expect to develop an engine like an RD180 or RD181 on own money just in case it is needed.
No, not everyone was perfectly happy. Many in Congress, and probably in the Pentagon too, have been unhappy for years about sending national security dollars to Russia but were unable to force ULA to develop an alternative engine.
Huh? pure nonsense please go read the history at the end of the Soviet Union. It was the US Government that promoted the purchase of Russian engines. It's all there in black and white.
-
#422 by QuantumG on 18 Dec, 2014 01:28
-
Huh? pure nonsense please go read the history at the end of the Soviet Union. It was the US Government that promoted the purchase of Russian engines. It's all there in black and white.
Please refrain from rendering judgement on other member's opinions.
The US government isn't a single opinion. There are many voices. Some have felt strongly about using Russian engines (one way or the other) and some have not. This is an opportunity for the nahs to get their ways.
-
#423 by Prober on 18 Dec, 2014 01:45
-
Huh? pure nonsense please go read the history at the end of the Soviet Union. It was the US Government that promoted the purchase of Russian engines. It's all there in black and white.
Please refrain from rendering judgement on other member's opinions.
The US government isn't a single opinion. There are many voices. Some have felt strongly about using Russian engines (one way or the other) and some have not. This is an opportunity for the nahs to get their ways.
Major difference between historical fact and opinion. Opinions should be respected, however when opinions are used to try and rewrite historical fact, that's a no go.
-
#424 by baldusi on 18 Dec, 2014 02:33
-
NPO Energomash did that (both RD-193 and RD-181), SpaceX did that, Blue Origin did that, Orbitec did that, XCOR did that, SNC did that. After the COTS program was done! Did Aerojet invested on a replacement for the NK-33? No, they went for SLS money. They got their TAN patent and never implemented on anything. Did Rocketdyne planned products after the Shuttle program was given a deadline? Nope, they lobbied for J-2X, RS-25E and they had the RS-68A money. Did they develop a replacement for the RL10, or did developed a channel wall version? Nope, decided to use the NGE DoD money and when that dried up they left it there. Or did they pushed to have have the RD-180 built locally? Nope, they were happy to leave manufacturing to the Russians and have a "free" 15% through RD AMROSS.That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia.
How was that supposed to work? Before the political crisis everyone was perfectly happy, but you think that back then Aerojet or Rocketdyne should have designed a highly complex rocket engine for ULA or Orbital, just in case something would go wrong and someone would need an engine? I think no one can expect to develop an engine like an RD180 or RD181 on own money just in case it is needed. -
#425 by Robotbeat on 18 Dec, 2014 04:15
-
This.A killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault.
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.
- Ed Kyle
I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.
And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy. -
#426 by WindnWar on 18 Dec, 2014 04:54
-
So from what I've read, they will operate the engine in a reduced throttle mode equivalent to the AJ-26 output on the existing Antares tanks until they can redesign the thrust structure to handle the extra thrust. Any ideas on how that will impact the performance, isp?
Won't this also limit them increasing the amount of cargo Cygnus can carry to what the Antares could do with the AJ-26 until they have a new thrust structure? I assume there is probably some extra margin in the existing structure for a modest increase in output but if they have to keep it close to what the AJ-26 could do until its redesigned I'm curious what the impact is on performance. -
#427 by asmi on 18 Dec, 2014 05:41
-
I wonder if they will perform another test flight after the upgrade is implemented.
-
#428 by Remes on 18 Dec, 2014 05:49
-
NPO Energomash did that (both RD-193 and RD-181)
These are not new developments. All going back on RD-170, on RD-180. RD-193 hat clearly Soyuz as a customer and potentially Antares (even before the Antares mishap).
I think we all agree there is a big difference between changing existing high power oxidizer rich engines and developing one from scratch just because of an vage assumption who might be a potential customer.QuoteBlue Origin
Bezoz was a week or two ago in the news, because his companies are making no profits. Next to "government subsidized lala land" we have now also "venture capital lala land".QuoteXCOR
New entrant, willing to invest money, willing to wait years for profit. I don't follow their work, but Wikipedia tells me they having nothing remotely compared to RD-193. That are really different worlds.QuoteOr did they pushed to have have the RD-180 built locally? Nope, they were happy to leave manufacturing to the Russians and have a "free" 15% through RD AMROSS.
I think some russians at RDAMROSS get a "handling fee" for RD-180 and ULA has a "handling fee", too. Nothing for anybody else (if I'm not mistaken).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1293272#msg1293272
Aside from that: We know, why the RD-180 was not produced in the US. It wouldn't add value (before the crisis) and it would have been more expensive. Plus all the risk associated with taking the same engine + all parts beeing produced/assembled/tested by different companies.
I really don't see that under anything close to "free market rules" (beeing able to earn money and pay the workers) one could have made a RD-181 like engine from scratch without government funding. -
#429 by Prober on 18 Dec, 2014 12:21
-
This.A killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault.
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.
- Ed Kyle
I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.
And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.
Not really AR fault why do you think Rocketdyne was sold off? Low launch rates, and the company lives or dies by Government programs. Even the mighty SpaceX is going corporate. Read some of the employee reports if you don't wish to believe it. But the fact is SpaceX needs the government money too.
I've been pushing for sometime that AR made a major mistake when they did the merger. They should have made two divisions within the company and cleaned the government stuff away from a clean "commercial" type company. The company still needs this to survive IMHO.
-
#430 by edkyle99 on 18 Dec, 2014 13:53
-
So from what I've read, they will operate the engine in a reduced throttle mode equivalent to the AJ-26 output on the existing Antares tanks until they can redesign the thrust structure to handle the extra thrust. Any ideas on how that will impact the performance, isp?
I suspect that the future first stage modifications would go beyond just modifying the thrust structure. When extra thrust is available, it can't be fully exploited unless more propellant is carried. More propellant means longer tanks.
Won't this also limit them increasing the amount of cargo Cygnus can carry to what the Antares could do with the AJ-26 until they have a new thrust structure? I assume there is probably some extra margin in the existing structure for a modest increase in output but if they have to keep it close to what the AJ-26 could do until its redesigned I'm curious what the impact is on performance.
- Ed Kyle -
#431 by asmi on 18 Dec, 2014 14:01
-
Not necessarily - remember it will get more thrust AND better Isp. Higher TWR will reduce gravity losses too.
-
#432 by edkyle99 on 18 Dec, 2014 14:07
-
Huh? pure nonsense please go read the history at the end of the Soviet Union. It was the US Government that promoted the purchase of Russian engines. It's all there in black and white.
Congress went along with the plan, but it was approved on the understanding that U.S. production of RD-180 would be established. Also recall that Rocketdyne was bidding for the Atlas IIAR propulsion contract (using a pair of RS-X engines), but pulled out of the competition, conceding the contract to Russia. Lockheed Martin lobbied hard for RD-180.
- Ed Kyle -
#433 by edkyle99 on 18 Dec, 2014 14:10
-
Not necessarily - remember it will get more thrust AND better Isp. Higher TWR will reduce gravity losses too.
True, but these are marginal improvements. An extra 50 tonnes of propellant could result in a substantial performance improvement.
- Ed Kyle -
#434 by Oli on 18 Dec, 2014 14:32
-
I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.
And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.
Blue Origin exists since 2000. They will have developed 2 engines by 2019 and not earned a single dime. How is Aerojet supposed to compete with that?
My advice to them: Search for a 'visionary' billionaire who is willing to fund a new engine regardless of economic considerations.
Either way, employees and knowhow will transfer form Aerojet to Blue Origin and SpaceX, as I'm sure it already has. Nothing is really lost.
-
#435 by baldusi on 18 Dec, 2014 14:59
-
Isn't Antares-130 T/W close to 1.1. Just putting a bit more thrust will help things significantly. I'd guess that the extra propellant will help. And they might now do away with densified LOX. But will lose a few percents of performance due to propellant density and propellant ration might be slightly affected.Not necessarily - remember it will get more thrust AND better Isp. Higher TWR will reduce gravity losses too.
True, but these are marginal improvements. An extra 50 tonnes of propellant could result in a substantial performance improvement.
- Ed Kyle
I guess they will try to retrofit the under rated engines to their existing tanks but they already have a design for the new tanks (more propellant, correct O/F and non densified LOX) in Ukraine. I really trust the structural engineers at Yuzhnoye (the QC guys at Yuzhmash... not so much). -
#436 by woods170 on 18 Dec, 2014 16:33
-
Oh yes they can. A good number of the established US aerospace companies have enough money in the bank to do an all out engine development program and still make a profit on their other activities. The fact that they don't is that most of those aerospace companies are stuck in the past: when something new is required, they look to the US government to pay for the development. Well guess what: CRS, and other service-oriented programs totally changed that situation. The only companies to fully understand this are new-space: Blue and SpaceX.That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia.
How was that supposed to work? Before the political crisis everyone was perfectly happy, but you think that back then Aerojet or Rocketdyne should have designed a highly complex rocket engine for ULA or Orbital, just in case something would go wrong and someone would need an engine? I think no one can expect to develop an engine like an RD180 or RD181 on own money just in case it is needed.
The US government is no longer requiring engines to be developed: RS-68 and J-2X are IMO the final two engines ever developed under full US government authority. And yes, that implies that IMO I don't see the Congressionally mandated new-engine development program going anywhere.
These days the various agencies of the US government that 'do' space require services, not hardware. The hardware needed to provide such services is now the responsibility of industry. Aerojet and Rocketdyne could have jumped on that band-wagon. But they didn't and they are now about to miss the boat alltogether. Energomash is laughing it's socks off over Aerojet-Rocketdyne's lack of insight into the future. -
#437 by edkyle99 on 18 Dec, 2014 17:16
-
Isn't Antares-130 T/W close to 1.1. Just putting a bit more thrust will help things significantly.
Just increasing the thrust to weight ratio to reduce gravity losses might boost LEO payload by 100 or 150 kg, but increasing the first stage propellant load could increase LEO payload by 500 kg, or, if the extra propellant mass were divided between the two stages, perhaps 700 kg more, or between three stages (assuming a small hydrazine maneuvering third stage) up to 1,500 kg more.
- Ed Kyle -
#438 by Lars-J on 18 Dec, 2014 18:41
-
This.A killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault.
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.
- Ed Kyle
I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.
And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.
Not really AR fault why do you think Rocketdyne was sold off? Low launch rates, and the company lives or dies by Government programs. Even the mighty SpaceX is going corporate. Read some of the employee reports if you don't wish to believe it. But the fact is SpaceX needs the government money too.
I've been pushing for sometime that AR made a major mistake when they did the merger. They should have made two divisions within the company and cleaned the government stuff away from a clean "commercial" type company. The company still needs this to survive IMHO.
You are misunderstanding the core problem. It has NOTHING to do with having government or commercial contracts. The core issue for AR is a fundamental unwillingness to use income (from any contract) and feed that back into internal research and development of new products. The source of that income does not matter.
Now the shareholders are mostly to blame for this - but they are reaping the seeds too now - but there is a "no development without government earmark" sickness that has permeated the aerospace community for too long. -
#439 by Lobo on 18 Dec, 2014 19:38
-
This.A killer for Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Some of those funds were originally headed for California. Now they're Russia-bound. I shed no tears, however, because it is the U.S. company's own fault.
That's a fact. Aerojet and/or Rocketdyne should have gotten off their respective *sses years ago and should have started developing engine(s) to compete with the stuff from Russia. The fact that they didn't is now taking significant bites out of their business.
- Ed Kyle
I'm kind of appalled at Aerojet/Rocketdyne's unwillingness to compete. Even ULA is basically doing everything they can to get engines from someone else. Doesn't Aerojet/Rocketdyne have ANY will to survive??! It's like they won't lift a finger of real, hardcore engineering work without someone else totally footing the bill. I see some news bites of 3d printing some rocket thruster (old news, others have done it years ago, now), but nothing real.
And it's a shame! They make great engines! But I doubt they'll exist in 10 years without a huge change in strategy.
Not really AR fault why do you think Rocketdyne was sold off? Low launch rates, and the company lives or dies by Government programs. Even the mighty SpaceX is going corporate. Read some of the employee reports if you don't wish to believe it. But the fact is SpaceX needs the government money too.
I've been pushing for sometime that AR made a major mistake when they did the merger. They should have made two divisions within the company and cleaned the government stuff away from a clean "commercial" type company. The company still needs this to survive IMHO.
Well, it would seem the RD-181 was probably the only real choice for a "plug and play" engine that could be adapted to Antares within a time frame that didn't kill Antares entirely, so I see why they did that.
AS to PWR and AJ (prior to the merger) , on the surface it would appear that they didn't really give proper thought to future needs/demands and invest capital and business plans accordingly. There's really no reason PWR couldn't have at least had a US-built RD-180 in the works with an eye on making it streamlined and affordable enough to be comparable to the Russian built one. Especially once OSC got the COTS contract, as that would be a 2nd US LV's that would be using a very similar type and class of engine. (2XNK-33 and a single RD-180). A 2nd potential customer for such an engine there, especially as there could be issues with a decades old engine, and if not, then there'd always be the issue of a limited stock of those enignes. Not sure when the merger was in the mix, but as soon as it was starting behind the scenes (I would guess it was in the works for a year or more before it actually happened?), seems like there might have been a pretty good time there to start talking to ULA and OSC and see if they could hammer out some commitments for a US-built replacement enigne that could be adapted to both LV's. So that both LV's would get a current, modern, US-supplied booster engine. As long as the price was in the ballpark I'd think both ULA and OSC would be interested in such an engine. AR-1 came along a little late. If it was part way through development/testing right now, that could have but Rocketdyne into a good position right now to be the supplier for US built booster engines, instead of being boxed out.
Regardless of all of that, I think SpaceX probably thinks this is all very good news. They'll be the only (affordable) US LV supplier using US-made engines. That fact has different levels of importance to different customers. But it has more importantce to government when US-Russian politics flair up. (less when they are good). Commercial customers probably care less, but they do care if there are supply problems, real or imagined. ULA is being forced to develop a new LV using new engines (which ultimately may end up being very good for ULA, but in the interim, it requires some big money and big changes.) And OSC is forced to move from their current Soviet-era repurposed Russian engines to new Russian engines because it's the only engine available in the short term. OSC still has the spectre of Russian supply hanging over it's head, which ULA is now moving away from. They may have to move again in the future if they want to be a long term player in the commercial and government launch market.
SpaceX is not dealing with any of those issues, which allows them to streamline and expland and tinker with things like reusability. They have no issue with supply of any major component to Falcon, and if there were some sort of engine problem, F9 can tolerate an enigne out. I believe a probably like Antares had on their las launch to one of the 9 Merlin engines wouldn't have resulted in LOM. (please correct me if that's wrong).
And I don't mean that in any sort of SpaceX amazing people way, just mean they probably view AJR apparently dropping the ball on adapting to future rocket engine needs, and OSC needing to then go to the RUssians for their engines as good news for them. It means OSC will take longer before it could be any sort of legitimate commercial LV competator to SpaceX, and it means they'll always have Atlas V issues with politics to contend with.
