Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/23/2014 11:49 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/23/2014 11:39 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 05/23/2014 10:28 pmWouldn't the logical way out of this be for the USAF to let a contract to ULA as prime to start producing domestic RD-180s?If by "logical" you mean "most expensive", then yes.More expensive than doing a new design? Hard to believe.I think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/23/2014 11:39 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 05/23/2014 10:28 pmWouldn't the logical way out of this be for the USAF to let a contract to ULA as prime to start producing domestic RD-180s?If by "logical" you mean "most expensive", then yes.More expensive than doing a new design? Hard to believe.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/23/2014 10:28 pmWouldn't the logical way out of this be for the USAF to let a contract to ULA as prime to start producing domestic RD-180s?If by "logical" you mean "most expensive", then yes.
Wouldn't the logical way out of this be for the USAF to let a contract to ULA as prime to start producing domestic RD-180s?
TR-107 is the only way to save AV. It's basically done. It's the right thrust, It's inexpensive. It's all U.S. With the line up and running it would also be the right choice for SLS advanced boosters.
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 05/23/2014 10:15 pmDo not think that the Republicans, and their staffs, will not realize what this amendment does. Like deltaV says, it would be an enormous power shift to SpaceX. However, if what Elon tweeted was true you could also see ULA broken up much like the Bells in the 80s. If that happens SpaceX is in deep... stuff.Ultimate losers in all of this are Boeing and LockMart.Those two para didn't hang together for me. If ULA was broken up, wouldn't the halves go back to the parents? Why would that mean SpaceX was in deep ... stuff ?Not that I think it likely ULA would be broken up at this point...
Do not think that the Republicans, and their staffs, will not realize what this amendment does. Like deltaV says, it would be an enormous power shift to SpaceX. However, if what Elon tweeted was true you could also see ULA broken up much like the Bells in the 80s. If that happens SpaceX is in deep... stuff.Ultimate losers in all of this are Boeing and LockMart.
Quote from: clongton on 05/24/2014 12:44 amI think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1202647#msg1202647has a file with pics of some of the parts they manufactured.
I think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?
Why can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?
Quote from: Star One on 05/24/2014 07:18 amWhy can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?Senate defense bill offers mixed messages on RD-180 replacement, EELV competition
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 05/24/2014 07:23 amQuote from: Star One on 05/24/2014 07:18 amWhy can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?Senate defense bill offers mixed messages on RD-180 replacement, EELV competitionI saw that and it rather downplays what's in the OP's article, relegating it to just a single paragraph a third of the way down. Which makes me wonder how much weight there actually is in this.
Where are *any* of the parts that make the RD-180 so unique?...Did they duplicate any of the metallurgy that was so unique to the engine?
Key processes & materials demonstrated at subscale; majority demonstrated at full scale.
Quote from: clongton on 05/24/2014 03:15 amWhere are *any* of the parts that make the RD-180 so unique?...Did they duplicate any of the metallurgy that was so unique to the engine?And the answer is, from:http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestQuote from: PWRKey processes & materials demonstrated at subscale; majority demonstrated at full scale.(Side note: See AIAA 2007-5487 for more info on US co-production.)There is little doubt in my mind that the short list of pragmatic questions asked by Chuck have answers that are known here and there in the PWR personell skill set. They will not be answered in this forum, and the Cretans will only be presented with the sound bite, "Key processes demonstrated", as if to imply that the problem is completely solved.
Quote from: Prober on 05/24/2014 01:40 amQuote from: clongton on 05/24/2014 12:44 amI think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1202647#msg1202647has a file with pics of some of the parts they manufactured.Thanks for that. The stator and preburner assemblies are CAD models, not fabricated hardware.Stator vanes are easy to manufacture. I was doing that for P&W engines in the 1970's.The other 6 items are extremely simple basic shapes that could be milled in a garage.I see nothing there of any difficulty. Where's the turbine generator?Where's the fuel injector?Where are *any* of the parts that make the RD-180 so unique?If they had actually made those instead of these non-discript and simple parts then I would have more confidence.Did they build anything of any difficulty?Did they duplicate any of the metallurgy that was so unique to the engine?Did they document any of the assembly specifications?How much torque was used for bolting assemblies together, and which assemblies?What was the surface finish value of mating surfaces?Making more than 1,000 CAD models proves only that the designer can operate CAD software.Do the CAD models fit together properly? Do those models faithfully duplicate the actual parts? Are the tolerances invoked consistent with the Russian standards? Are there proper geometric constraints on any of them or are these simply surface volumes? What kind of GD&T was invoked? How were the fluid boundaries handled? Were the design disciplines properly integrated, and to what protocols?I don't know the answer to these, but rolling out such simple-to-make pieces is not proof of the ability to duplicate the engine. That's why I said that I think it would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. So far I remain unimpressed because I could have manufactured everything I see there myself in my uncles old machine shop. A pile of simple parts does not an engine make.
I have a question of my own:Are the chinese making and using their flavor of the RD-180? They have repeatedly demonstrated casual disregard for intellectual property, as fits their political denigration of any individual rights, so licensing should not present an obstacle. They have also demonstrated a well honed ability to reverse engineer and manufacture complex high tech items; witness their emminently succesful HSF program, largely built on Russian expertise, AIUI.The metallurgy has been said to be the "secret sauce" in this design. Well?
My question; Why are we going back and forth on the RD-180. We bought and paid millions to design it so we could build it in the USA. So why not build it?Why re invent the wheel?
Quote from: Prober on 05/24/2014 04:49 pmMy question; Why are we going back and forth on the RD-180. We bought and paid millions to design it so we could build it in the USA. So why not build it?Why re invent the wheel?I'm not opposed to it, but I have serious reservations, some of which you answered. The bigger problem, given the current state of political relations, is that the engine may have been overtaken by events. The time to build it may actually have passed us by. For example, DIRECT provided NASA with an affordable and sustainable way forward to save CxP, but they did not adopt it in a time frame that allowed for its benefits to actually be applicable. It's time is past, and as great as it was, adopting it now would be a step backwards. I see domestic production of the RD-180 in a similar light. It may be too late to start such a process. There are other options showing up that can solve the Atlas-V MPS problem quicker and for less money than starting up a domestic RD-180 program. It is very likely that all those millions we paid to be able to do it have now been wasted. That is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
There are other options showing up that can solve the Atlas-V MPS problem quicker and for less money than starting up a domestic RD-180 program.
Quote from: clongton on 05/24/2014 05:42 pm There are other options showing up that can solve the Atlas-V MPS problem quicker and for less money than starting up a domestic RD-180 program. Not true, any engine that requires any Atlas redesign will take longer and be more expensive.
I've been saying for months the RD-180 is a non issue the USA can manufacture it.
...the "designs" still have to be licensed and there is no guarantee that the license won't be revoked at some point in the future.