Author Topic: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine  (Read 42949 times)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #20 on: 05/24/2014 01:40 am »
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?

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"?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1202647#msg1202647

has a file with pics of some of the parts they manufactured.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #21 on: 05/24/2014 01:41 am »
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.
I would really like some solid documentation on this.

There is not a lot of public information on the TR-107.  There are a few people, who deserve to be trusted, that have stated this.  I would like to see it.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #22 on: 05/24/2014 02:06 am »

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.

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...

I didn't get that one either.  Keyboard malfunction?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #23 on: 05/24/2014 03:15 am »
I 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#msg1202647

has 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.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2014 03:16 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #24 on: 05/24/2014 07:18 am »
Why can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?

Offline Sean Lynch

"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #26 on: 05/24/2014 09:45 am »
Why can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?
Senate defense bill offers mixed messages on RD-180 replacement, EELV competition

I 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.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2014 09:47 am by Star One »

Offline Sean Lynch

Why can I find no further reporting on this, rather strange?
Senate defense bill offers mixed messages on RD-180 replacement, EELV competition

I 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.
The full text of the senate version of the bill isn't available yet, and it still has markups and committees to get through.
It's easy to talk about making amendments, but a lot of publicized amendments don't make the final cut and unadvertised riders sneak their way in...
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #28 on: 05/24/2014 01:07 pm »
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?

And the answer is, from:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest

Quote from: PWR
Key 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.

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?

The PWR presentation is intentionally vague on this matter.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #29 on: 05/24/2014 03:46 pm »
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?

As many said before: ULA, not the USAF should have cared for a REAL capability to produce the RD-180 in the US. IF the USAF now gets involved into financing th localized version, question would have to be asked: The important one:
What happened to the "assured" capability money if it did not assure anything (see the enormous lead times for the Delta IV).
The block buy might be obsolete as well. At least at the contracted prices.

IF The money for an engine program comes from the USAF the HAVE to compete ist, milestones based, fixed price.


Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #30 on: 05/24/2014 04:35 pm »
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?

And the answer is, from:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest

Quote from: PWR
Key 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.

ok, the top sheet from the report.....maybe L2 will have it all.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #31 on: 05/24/2014 04:42 pm »
I 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#msg1202647

has 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've been saying for months the RD-180 is a non issue the USA can manufacture it.   Let me pull up the material and post it that fills in some of the blanks of your questions.

I'd like to know the SW PW used to input the design. 
Has P&W upgraded the Designs to the new SW 2013-2014?   

"PWR and ULA have worked hand-in-hand with NPO Energomash throughout the development, certification, and production programs to assure program requirements are met. In addition to NPO Energomash providing Design Authority and manufacturing of RD-180 engines, PWR has developed extensive analytical and manufacturing capabilities. The analytical capabilities have enabled PWR to independently analyze performance, aero-thermal, structural, and control aspects of the engines operation utilizing state-of-the-art tools. As part of the RD-180 U.S. Co-Production program, PWR developed an extensive set of analytical models that are available to analyze issues should they arise. This was made possible by a license agreement between RD AMROSS and NPO Energomash that resulted in a complete set of design, manufacturing, test, and tooling documents being delivered to PWR to enable full co-production in the U.S. PWR utilized this documentation to demonstrate its ability to produce RD-180 hardware in the U.S. RD-180 stator and preburner assemblies were manufactured, assembled and tested in the U.S. as part of the Co-Production program. This effort also included replication of Russian materials utilized in the stator with preburner assembly."

I've said all along this has been a manufacturing issue.   Or Maybe just willpower to manufacture call.

« Last Edit: 05/24/2014 05:19 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #32 on: 05/24/2014 04:49 pm »

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?

Go to the China thread;   China purchased the RD-120 SC engine from Ukraine.  They reworked it and its their future engine.  So did China buy the "secret sauce", or reverse engineer it?

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?

« Last Edit: 05/24/2014 05:22 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #33 on: 05/24/2014 05:30 pm »
Great information on the efforts thus far to domestically produce the RD-180. But 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. This is not a design / manufacturing issue, it is a political issue. One which will only be resolved by having a completely domestic engine for NS payloads. Or at least that's the language being used from various parts of the USG.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #34 on: 05/24/2014 05:42 pm »
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?

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #35 on: 05/24/2014 06:46 pm »
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?

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.
...hundreds of millions according to Mr. Gass.
I think you are right, that ship has sailed from a Congressional (public) funding perspective.  ULA can still do it on their own dime -- but don't hold your breath.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #36 on: 05/24/2014 06:47 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.

Offline Sean Lynch

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.
Indeed, the Atlas V is a fine bird as it is, given its tremendous launch success history.
A drop in replacement that requires no LV mods is a must.
A purpose built US designed engine for the Atlas V will still put the Atlas V in a position of having to re-certify and that puts the future availability of the Atlas V in question beyond 2016-17.
I have a concern that a domestic RD-180 is still considered Russian in light of McCain's proposed amendment...which apparently has caveats...but we have yet to see the actual working of the SASC amendments (see link below).
 
I don't see congress asking scientists and engineers the quickest way to resolve the RD-180 supply issue for Atlas V in the near term 2017-18 that will help cover future Atlas V launches. In the attachment from [ur=http://www.ulalaunch.com/launch.aspxl]ULA[/url] we see that ULA plans on launching 10 Atlas V's in the 2014-15 time frame. How many engines will be left to cover 2016-2020?

Given the proposed amendments the issue becomes; how does America keep it's science and security payload launch cadence up without drastic budget impacts?
 
SASC OKs FY2015 NDAA - Adds Money for ORS, New Rocket Engine; Wants More Launch Competition


edit-typo
« Last Edit: 05/25/2014 12:08 am by Sean Lynch »
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #38 on: 05/25/2014 07:08 am »
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.

In other threads several have stated that the license expires in 2020 or 2022 (sources differ). If this is true, why pay the cost of setting up a line, which would take several years I would think, only to face shutting down production shortly thereafter and be in the same boat all over again?

Gen. Shelton wants a new methane engine anyway:

http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine
« Last Edit: 05/25/2014 07:10 am by TomH »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
« Reply #39 on: 05/25/2014 10:58 am »
I've been saying for months the RD-180 is a non issue the USA can manufacture it.

 Air Force Space Command chief Gen. William Shelton said “I don’t see us going into an RD-180 co-production mode. There will still be a reliance on Russian system engineering and subject-matter expertise . . . so you have not necessarily solved the problem”.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0