-
#60
by
Lurker Steve
on 22 Apr, 2014 18:30
-
And, please no changes that require any rework to the pad.
We waited long enough for the state to finish construction. We don't want to go there again.
-
#61
by
USFdon
on 22 Apr, 2014 18:42
-
Has there been any definitive info on Aerojet starting production of domestic AJ-26's? I know there were comments about an agreement made with Teledyne Brown concerning stateside production and that Aerojet has been fiddling with the NK-33's since the 1990's (including getting a license / documentation). The NK-33 / AJ-26 is a simpler engine than the RD-170 family so presumably it would be easier to produce here. Or was this more hand-waving, PowerPoint studies?
-
#62
by
a_langwich
on 22 Apr, 2014 21:47
-
Has there been any definitive info on Aerojet starting production of domestic AJ-26's? I know there were comments about an agreement made with Teledyne Brown concerning stateside production and that Aerojet has been fiddling with the NK-33's since the 1990's (including getting a license / documentation). The NK-33 / AJ-26 is a simpler engine than the RD-170 family so presumably it would be easier to produce here. Or was this more hand-waving, PowerPoint studies?
I think "definitive info" on any of the options may wait until Orbital announces its decision. I doubt either Aerojet or NK Engines would announce a new production line without a firm order in hand.
I agree that the three choices are likely NK Engines, Aerojet Rocketdyne, and NPO Energomash. But I wonder if Aerojet pitched an AJ-26 production, AJ-500 or AJ-1E6, or a domestic RD-180. And similarly, I wonder if NPO Energomash pitched an RD-181 or an RD-180 (the differences might be vanishingly small here, as I suspect the RD-181 would share as much of the RD-180 production as possible--in fact, it might share all but the nameplate
).
I would think the only way Orbital would get US production for the up-front investment they listed ($30M) would be if both Orbital and ULA committed to a long-term buy of a jointly used engine (ie domestic RD-180). Doesn't seem likely without a Congressional thumb on the scales, or some other event that would break the existing ULA contract to RD AMROSS -> NPO Energomash.
Of the two Russian companies, probably NPO Energomash would need the least investment to reach production. But bid prices don't always sort in the same order as company costs.
-
#63
by
Lars_J
on 22 Apr, 2014 22:08
-
Please don't forget T/W and isp. Antares relies on a 130:1 T/W and SC isp. You can't use gas generators and get the same performance. Not even a scaled Merlin 1D.
Don't fall into the "isp uber alles" philosophy. Of course a different engine could be used. Just add power, and stretch the tanks. The primary performance that actually matters is how much payload is put in the desired orbit. Isp and T/W are secondary to that.
And then you are talking about Antares 2. I find it simplistic when I said both high T/W and isp that you only mentioned isp. Not to mention O/F ratios. Sure, you could put an F-1B, use a bigger tank, and it will probably have even better performance. And be bigger and a completely new first stage. The point is that OSC wants to pay just 30M on the re-engine program (but is willing to pay more for each individual engine). That means same tank, mostly same GSE and physical interfaces.
Given the lack of an exact replica engine, anything you do will be a "Antares II", no matter what you do. This is why I'm suggesting that excluding engines that don't have the same thrust, isp, or T/W ratio is a pointless thought experiment anyway. So why not widen the possibilities? If Orbital truly believes in the future of Antares (or derivatives thereof), they should be examined.
-
#64
by
USFdon
on 22 Apr, 2014 23:26
-
Sort of like Ed Kyle's concept for an GG Atlas V with stretched RP-1 tanks and twin MA-5D (?) / RS-X engines? Rocketdyne has resurrected the MA-5 and RS-27/H-1 families in the past, so I guess it's possible*. I don't see a Kerolox LR-87 coming back though... that's been out of production for half a century.
*Though with the shuttering of Canoga Park and Santa Susana, it could be difficult
-
#65
by
Avron
on 22 Apr, 2014 23:35
-
Why not go to ATK for the boost stage?
-
#66
by
arachnitect
on 23 Apr, 2014 00:11
-
Please don't forget T/W and isp. Antares relies on a 130:1 T/W and SC isp. You can't use gas generators and get the same performance. Not even a scaled Merlin 1D.
Don't fall into the "isp uber alles" philosophy. Of course a different engine could be used. Just add power, and stretch the tanks. The primary performance that actually matters is how much payload is put in the desired orbit. Isp and T/W are secondary to that.
And then you are talking about Antares 2. I find it simplistic when I said both high T/W and isp that you only mentioned isp. Not to mention O/F ratios. Sure, you could put an F-1B, use a bigger tank, and it will probably have even better performance. And be bigger and a completely new first stage. The point is that OSC wants to pay just 30M on the re-engine program (but is willing to pay more for each individual engine). That means same tank, mostly same GSE and physical interfaces.
Given the lack of an exact replica engine, anything you do will be a "Antares II", no matter what you do. This is why I'm suggesting that excluding engines that don't have the same thrust, isp, or T/W ratio is a pointless thought experiment anyway. So why not widen the possibilities? If Orbital truly believes in the future of Antares (or derivatives thereof), they should be examined.
The cost to move to larger tankage is an issue. Would the existing Yuzhnoye tooling still work? What about all the GSE, shipping fixtures, etc. Is the HIF big enough? Can the TEL handle it? Do they have to take a jackhammer to the launch mount?
They really want to bolt on a different engine and be done with it. Some extra thrust would be nice.
Does the subcooled LOX imply tank changes if they go to RD-180?
Why not go to ATK for the boost stage?
Culbertson said it's going to stay liquid, but I'm sure more than one person at Orbital has thought about the solid possibilities.
2.5 or 3 segment RSRM + Castor 120 + Castor 30? Basically Athena III.
-
#67
by
ChrisWilson68
on 23 Apr, 2014 06:40
-
What about the stage itself? If they choose a US-built motor, are they still going to source the stage from Ukraine? What if the factory ends up annexed by Russia?
This is a purely commercial rocket that barely makes the US built percentage. If Yuzhnoye is annexed by Russia, they'd be happy since that would give them immediate access to the Russian government market. And keeping the tooling working would probably make them keep a very special price for Orbital. Of course that's always the chance that some of the SLS tank researches (one is even RP-1/LOX composite out of autoclave common bulkhead) might be offered. But of course that would be an Antares II. And for that they would need an actual demand for such a rocket. As it is, they have something like one year to actually get all the necessary tanks for the CRS-1 contract.
I think it highly unlikely anyone at Orbital would be happy to see that factory annexed by Russia. If that happens, there will almost certainly be serious sanctions and counter-sanctions between Russia and the West. Russia might outright ban sales of rocket components to the U.S. or the U.S. Congress might ban such purchases from Russia, or, more specifically, from occupied Ukrainian territory. Even if there isn't an outright ban, there will be a lot of political sentiment against depending on such production, and since most of the business for this rocket comes from the U.S. government, it would put Orbital in a very uncomfortable position.
And the idea you suggest that Orbital could get Russian government business sounds like fantasy to me. Russia has lots of its own launch providers to support, there's no way they would go to Orbital even if the whole Ukraine conflict hadn't happened.
-
#68
by
john smith 19
on 23 Apr, 2014 07:22
-
Orbital have stated they want to get into the market segment of the old Delta II.
There was
always a limited number of NK33's and while they were enough for the COTS programme (I think there were about 50 made so 25 launches possible).
Then the new Soyuz started using them.
If Orbital
really want a slice of that Delta II sized market (that ran for 30+ years and 100s of launches) either an NK33 restart or a new engine has to happen.
The
ideal drop in replacement for the AJ26 is of course
another AJ26. IMHO the trade range is roughly.
AJ26< engine with same specs < Engine with same Isp <Nearest match US engine <Nearest match foreign engine.
My instinct is there is no way Orbital can get a new engine for the same money as the old. The question is how big a knock on effect will the mismatch have on the stage design? At some point on the Isp/T:W range Orbital will have to scrap the
whole vehicle and start over. That cost is why I think a better fit Russian engine would win over a not as good US engine.
US engine mfg is good. Near drop in performance is
better. 
Or maybe there is a US engine design with better than NK33 specs for Isp and T:W? Merlin 1d is claimed better T:W but (I think) Isp is
the killer for triggering stage re-design, rather than the thrust transfer structure (awkward but relatively localized).
-
#69
by
baldusi
on 23 Apr, 2014 12:19
-
What about the stage itself? If they choose a US-built motor, are they still going to source the stage from Ukraine? What if the factory ends up annexed by Russia?
This is a purely commercial rocket that barely makes the US built percentage. If Yuzhnoye is annexed by Russia, they'd be happy since that would give them immediate access to the Russian government market. And keeping the tooling working would probably make them keep a very special price for Orbital. Of course that's always the chance that some of the SLS tank researches (one is even RP-1/LOX composite out of autoclave common bulkhead) might be offered. But of course that would be an Antares II. And for that they would need an actual demand for such a rocket. As it is, they have something like one year to actually get all the necessary tanks for the CRS-1 contract.
I think it highly unlikely anyone at Orbital would be happy to see that factory annexed by Russia. If that happens, there will almost certainly be serious sanctions and counter-sanctions between Russia and the West. Russia might outright ban sales of rocket components to the U.S. or the U.S. Congress might ban such purchases from Russia, or, more specifically, from occupied Ukrainian territory. Even if there isn't an outright ban, there will be a lot of political sentiment against depending on such production, and since most of the business for this rocket comes from the U.S. government, it would put Orbital in a very uncomfortable position.
And the idea you suggest that Orbital could get Russian government business sounds like fantasy to me. Russia has lots of its own launch providers to support, there's no way they would go to Orbital even if the whole Ukraine conflict hadn't happened.
Please re-read my sentence. The subject is Yuzhnoye. I meant that Yuzhnoye would be happy. They have been losing business like crazy for not being Russian.
It would be a complication for Orbital. But as I stated above, they are very close to receiving their full manifest of CSR-1 tanks.
-
#70
by
Lurker Steve
on 23 Apr, 2014 13:44
-
What about the stage itself? If they choose a US-built motor, are they still going to source the stage from Ukraine? What if the factory ends up annexed by Russia?
This is a purely commercial rocket that barely makes the US built percentage. If Yuzhnoye is annexed by Russia, they'd be happy since that would give them immediate access to the Russian government market. And keeping the tooling working would probably make them keep a very special price for Orbital. Of course that's always the chance that some of the SLS tank researches (one is even RP-1/LOX composite out of autoclave common bulkhead) might be offered. But of course that would be an Antares II. And for that they would need an actual demand for such a rocket. As it is, they have something like one year to actually get all the necessary tanks for the CRS-1 contract.
I think it highly unlikely anyone at Orbital would be happy to see that factory annexed by Russia. If that happens, there will almost certainly be serious sanctions and counter-sanctions between Russia and the West. Russia might outright ban sales of rocket components to the U.S. or the U.S. Congress might ban such purchases from Russia, or, more specifically, from occupied Ukrainian territory. Even if there isn't an outright ban, there will be a lot of political sentiment against depending on such production, and since most of the business for this rocket comes from the U.S. government, it would put Orbital in a very uncomfortable position.
And the idea you suggest that Orbital could get Russian government business sounds like fantasy to me. Russia has lots of its own launch providers to support, there's no way they would go to Orbital even if the whole Ukraine conflict hadn't happened.
Please re-read my sentence. The subject is Yuzhnoye. I meant that Yuzhnoye would be happy. They have been losing business like crazy for not being Russian.
It would be a complication for Orbital. But as I stated above, they are very close to receiving their full manifest of CSR-1 tanks.
How much commonality is there between the Antares, Vega, and Zenit first stages, all built by the same factory ?
-
#71
by
baldusi
on 23 Apr, 2014 14:54
-
How much commonality is there between the Antares, Vega, and Zenit first stages, all built by the same factory ?
Vega first stage (P80) is done in Italy. You might mean the AVUM? That's a tiny stage, not unlike a mini Fregat.
Antares and Zenit use the same tank tooling. And since Yuzhnove does tanks and pressurization system, my guess is that's just a shortened Zenit stage. There's the "little" issue that Antares uses subcooled LOX, so it might not be that straight. But my guess is that it has a lot of commonality in manufacturing.
If they use the same pressurization system, that might mean same valves, regulators, He tanks, heat exchangers, etc. The thrust structure would be different. And the TVC of the AJ-26 and the RD-171M are very different. Probably pad interfaces are conceptually similar but totally custom (like using US made connectors and such). And let's not forget that Zenit is certified for RG-1 and Antares for RP-1.
The other launcher that Yuzhnove currently manufactures is the Cyclon-4, which is a completely different tooling and design. It has different propulsion, diameter, propellant, avionics, fairing, etc.
-
#72
by
baldusi
on 23 Apr, 2014 15:12
-
Please don't forget T/W and isp. Antares relies on a 130:1 T/W and SC isp. You can't use gas generators and get the same performance. Not even a scaled Merlin 1D.
Don't fall into the "isp uber alles" philosophy. Of course a different engine could be used. Just add power, and stretch the tanks. The primary performance that actually matters is how much payload is put in the desired orbit. Isp and T/W are secondary to that.
And then you are talking about Antares 2. I find it simplistic when I said both high T/W and isp that you only mentioned isp. Not to mention O/F ratios. Sure, you could put an F-1B, use a bigger tank, and it will probably have even better performance. And be bigger and a completely new first stage. The point is that OSC wants to pay just 30M on the re-engine program (but is willing to pay more for each individual engine). That means same tank, mostly same GSE and physical interfaces.
Given the lack of an exact replica engine, anything you do will be a "Antares II", no matter what you do. This is why I'm suggesting that excluding engines that don't have the same thrust, isp, or T/W ratio is a pointless thought experiment anyway. So why not widen the possibilities? If Orbital truly believes in the future of Antares (or derivatives thereof), they should be examined.
In my book new engine means new stage. But it's more like a v1.1 or a v2.0 version.
Gas Generator RP-1/LOX engines usually have an O/F around 2.35, while ORSC use around 2.65. Antares as is has limited T/W, thus, you can't really go lower. But a 130% throttle might be perfectly manageable. The structure and avionics are designed fro two nozzles. If you put a single one you'd have to add some roll control mechanism. How is the fuel and oxidizer plumbing? How difficult is to adapt the thrust structure and plumbing? What about working fluids? Is the TVC electromechanical or hydraulic? Does it uses fuel as working fluid or another thing? There's a very long list of things to take care of that make it a simple drop-in or an almost new design effort.
I know that on this very site an Orbital propulsion engineer said that either dual RD-193 or a single RD-180 would be an almost drop in and improve performance significantly.
The dual AJ-26 (called MES in in the Antares) has a thrust in vac of 3,630kN and 301s/332s of isp and weights 4,825kg. An RD-180 has 3,830kN, isp of 311s/338s and weights 5,480kg. It's not exactly the same but it's so close that's almost made for it. Dual RD-193 is around that, too. And a RD-181 would probably be done to improve thrust structure, plumbing and fluid compatibility.
Now, an AJ-1E6 might be a bit different. But it's done by the same company that adapted the NK-33 into the AJ-26, thus things like ECU, TVC and fluids are bound to be similar. And it uses an evolved thrust chamber of the NK-33, so it shouldn't be that much different. Overall, we are talking about extremely close engines. Everything withing a 20% of the other. That's a far cry from five Merlin 1D o a single F-1B or RS-27B.
-
#73
by
newpylong
on 23 Apr, 2014 20:24
-
Please don't forget T/W and isp. Antares relies on a 130:1 T/W and SC isp. You can't use gas generators and get the same performance. Not even a scaled Merlin 1D.
Don't fall into the "isp uber alles" philosophy. Of course a different engine could be used. Just add power, and stretch the tanks. The primary performance that actually matters is how much payload is put in the desired orbit. Isp and T/W are secondary to that.
And then you are talking about Antares 2. I find it simplistic when I said both high T/W and isp that you only mentioned isp. Not to mention O/F ratios. Sure, you could put an F-1B, use a bigger tank, and it will probably have even better performance. And be bigger and a completely new first stage. The point is that OSC wants to pay just 30M on the re-engine program (but is willing to pay more for each individual engine). That means same tank, mostly same GSE and physical interfaces.
Given the lack of an exact replica engine, anything you do will be a "Antares II", no matter what you do. This is why I'm suggesting that excluding engines that don't have the same thrust, isp, or T/W ratio is a pointless thought experiment anyway. So why not widen the possibilities? If Orbital truly believes in the future of Antares (or derivatives thereof), they should be examined.
The future of Antares highly revolves around cost. If they can't find a drop in replacement and have to start major modifications to the first stage, GSE, transportation, etc and so on, any possibility of being able to offer what they can now is lost and they might as well call it quits after the last CRS flight.
-
#74
by
edkyle99
on 25 Apr, 2014 20:14
-
Reviewing the Antares engine story today, it has occurred to me interesting, given the timing of the new Antares engine procurement process, that Orbital dropped its RD-180 lawsuit against ULA a couple of months ago. When the suit was dropped, Orbital said that it was seeking a business resolution of the dispute.
I can imagine all kinds of "business resolutions" for this matter. Money would be one. An agreement to support and use and participate in domestic RD-180 production could be another. Or, perhaps, an agreement to support an RD-180 replacement that would serve both rockets. Cost sharing, to the benefit of both.
But I'm only guessing. We'll have more insight by August it appears, when the new engine contract is announced.
- Ed Kyle
-
#75
by
baldusi
on 25 Apr, 2014 20:46
-
I concur with Ed. They've got something. And specially in current climate an indigenous replacement can't be ruled out. Specially with those 550klbf thrust chambers that Aerojet is demonstrating for SLS. A high isp/high T/W 1.1Mlbf AJ-1E6 might do wonders. Specially if it allows ULA to both solve the Russian dependence issue AND consolidate the fleet. I didn't do the numbers, but it might happen that they could use less or no solids for the Atlas 400, specially if HED pays for the dual Centaur.
And Antares would greatly benefit too. My only worry is isp, since the AJ-1E6 will be based on the technology of the AJ-26 and it only has 302/332s vs 311s/338s of the RD-180. Can they increase the isp a bit more so when coupled with the increased thrust (933klbf vs 1100klbf) have the same performance? Can they increase performance and let ULA consolidate with less versions?
-
#76
by
Lars_J
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:35
-
A high isp/high T/W 1.1Mlbf AJ-1E6 might do wonders. Specially if it allows ULA to both solve the Russian dependence issue AND consolidate the fleet. I didn't do the numbers, but it might happen that they could use less or no solids for the Atlas 400, specially if HED pays for the dual Centaur.
And Antares would greatly benefit too. My only worry is isp, since the AJ-1E6 will be based on the technology of the AJ-26 and it only has 302/332s vs 311s/338s of the RD-180.
How does it solve the Russia dependence problem? AJ-26 is not an American engine. Is AeroJet Rocketdyne any closer to domestically producing an NK-33 variant than they are to producing a domesic RD-180?
-
#77
by
USFdon
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:49
-
How does it solve the Russia dependence problem? AJ-26 is not an American engine. Is AeroJet Rocketdyne any closer to domestically producing an NK-33 variant than they are to producing a domesic RD-180?
A part of their Advanced Booster Contract is to begin working on parts of the AJ-1E6. This coupled with their continuing work in the Air Force HCB program makes it seem, at least to me, that Aerojet is further along this path than meets the eye.
-
#78
by
baldusi
on 26 Apr, 2014 20:11
-
A high isp/high T/W 1.1Mlbf AJ-1E6 might do wonders. Specially if it allows ULA to both solve the Russian dependence issue AND consolidate the fleet. I didn't do the numbers, but it might happen that they could use less or no solids for the Atlas 400, specially if HED pays for the dual Centaur.
And Antares would greatly benefit too. My only worry is isp, since the AJ-1E6 will be based on the technology of the AJ-26 and it only has 302/332s vs 311s/338s of the RD-180.
How does it solve the Russia dependence problem? AJ-26 is not an American engine. Is AeroJet Rocketdyne any closer to domestically producing an NK-33 variant than they are to producing a domesic RD-180?
The fact that the AJ-1E6 thrust chamber uses some of the technology on the NK-33 doesn't makes it less American. It's 100% designed and built in the US.
-
#79
by
Lars_J
on 26 Apr, 2014 22:18
-
The fact that the AJ-1E6 thrust chamber uses some of the technology on the NK-33 doesn't makes it less American. It's 100% designed and built in the US.
It doesn't exist yet, so we'll see. But it could be.
).