Author Topic: Aerojet Rocketdyne's proposed RD-180 replacement - the AR-1 (aka AJ-1E6)  (Read 169974 times)

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4634
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1148
  • Likes Given: 592
BUMP For RD-181:
Per likely  strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/

RD-181 doesn't have anything to do with AR-1.
it might in the near future because the RD-181 ban goes into effect well before the last possible ISS CRS2 flight. AR-1 was initially marketed after the Antares launch failure and later extended to replace RD-180, which for the latter engine is a slimmer chance of happening.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • US
  • Liked: 3004
  • Likes Given: 1798
BUMP For RD-181:
Per likely  strong lobbying efforts via Aerojet Rocketdyne and others Congress adds RD-181 in latest version of Russian engine ban: http://spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/

RD-181 doesn't have anything to do with AR-1.
it might in the near future because the RD-181 ban goes into effect well before the last possible ISS CRS2 flight. AR-1 was initially marketed after the Antares launch failure and later extended to replace RD-180, which for the latter engine is a slimmer chance of happening.

The ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1119
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 398
If memory serves, the RD-180 ban allowed purchases for commercial and NASA launches. Does the RD-181 ban allow purchases for commercial and NASA launches as well?

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4634
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1148
  • Likes Given: 592
If memory serves, the RD-180 ban allowed purchases for commercial and NASA launches. Does the RD-181 ban allow purchases for commercial and NASA launches as well?
currently yes. The reason why RD-181 was added to the ban because NGIS is planning on increasing their launch offerings including to payloads that require the lower tiers of EELV2.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 25
H.R.2810 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Last Action:   12/12/2017 Became Public Law No: 115-91

Page 1010

Foreign commercial satellite services: cybersecurity threats and launches (sec. 1603)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1612) that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract for satellite services with any entity if such services will be provided using satellites launched from a covered foreign country or using a launch vehicle that is designed or manufactured in a covered foreign country or that is provided by the government of a covered foreign country or by an entity controlled in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of, the government of a covered foreign country, regardless of the location of the launch.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would add an exception for satellites launched prior to December 31, 2022.



SEC. 1603. FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SATELLITE SERVICES: CYBERSECURITY
THREATS AND LAUNCHES.
(a) CYBERSECURITY RISKS.—Subsection (a) of section 2279 of title 10, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting a semicolon; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting: ‘‘; or’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(3) entering into such contract would create an unacceptable cybersecurity risk for the Department of Defense.’’.

(b) LAUNCHES.—Such section is amended— (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b): ‘‘(b) LAUNCHES AND MANUFACTURERS.—

‘‘(1) LIMITATION.—In addition to the prohibition in subsection (a), and except as provided in paragraph (2) and in subsection(c), the Secretary may not enter into a contract for satellite services with any entity if the Secretary reasonably believes that such satellite services will be provided using satellites that will be— ‘‘(A) designed or manufactured in a covered foreign country, or by an entity controlled in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of, the government of a covered foreign country; or ‘‘(B) launched using a launch vehicle that is designed or manufactured in a covered foreign country, or that is provided by the government of a covered foreign country or by an entity controlled in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of, the government of a covered foreign country, regardless of the location of the launch (unless such location is in the United States).

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The limitation in paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to— ‘‘(A) a launch that occurs prior to December 31, 2022; Or ‘‘(B) a contract or other agreement relating to launch services that, prior to the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, was either fully paid for by the contractor or covered by a legally binding commitment of the contractor to pay for such services.

‘‘(3) LAUNCH VEHICLE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘launch vehicle’ means a fully integrated space launch vehicle.’’
.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—Subsection (f) of section 2279 of title 10, United States Code, as redesignated by subsection (b)(1)(A), is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

‘‘(1) The term ‘covered foreign country’ means any of the following: ‘‘(A) A country described in section 1261(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 2019). ‘‘(B) The Russian Federation.

‘‘(2) The term ‘cybersecurity risk’ means threats to and vulnerabilities of information or information systems and any related consequences caused by or resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, degradation, disruption, modification, or destruction of such information or information systems, including such related consequences caused by an act of terrorism.’’.

(d) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— (1) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such section 2279 is further amended— (A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘services’’ and inserting ‘‘services and foreign launches’’; (B) by striking ‘‘subsection (b)’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)’’; (C) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘launch or other’’; (D) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘prohibition in subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘prohibitions in subsection (a) and (b)’’; and (E) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by striking ‘‘prohibition under subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘prohibition under subsection (a) or (b)’’. (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 135 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 2279 and inserting the following:
‘‘2279. Foreign commercial satellite services and foreign launches.’’.

(e) APPLICATION. — Except as otherwise specifically provided, the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to contracts for satellite services awarded by the Secretary of Defense on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5255
  • Likes Given: 657
The ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.

That is my understanding as well. The ban only applies to US military launches. Commercial and US civil (NASA, NOAA, etc) can still use the engines.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8397
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4792
  • Likes Given: 1516
The ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.

That is my understanding as well. The ban only applies to US military launches. Commercial and US civil (NASA, NOAA, etc) can still use the engines.

Correct.
Quote from: US Congress
(e) APPLICATION. — Except as otherwise specifically provided, the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to contracts for satellite services awarded by the Secretary of Defense on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

So, the ban applies to military launches only.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 25
Ban on US DOD missions - yes.   However the effects will have ramifications to the commercial satellite industry. 

Commercial satellite operators that utilize a launch service with Russian Federation engines (such as as RD-180 and RD181) as defined, and/or launch services on Proton M or Soyuz after December 31, 2022 will not be able to sell their capacity to the US DOD.   Many of these operators lease capacity in regions the that US DOD requires capacity (MENA and ASEAN).   

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 66
What about Atlas V and Starliner?

Offline ZachS09

What about Atlas V and Starliner?

Eventually, Vulcan will start launching Starliner.

But first, several Atlas V/Starliner flights will be flown.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2018 01:24 PM by ZachS09 »
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Liked: 2434
  • Likes Given: 1365
The ban doesn't apply to CRS-2.

That is my understanding as well. The ban only applies to US military launches. Commercial and US civil (NASA, NOAA, etc) can still use the engines.

ULA isn't going to keep bleeding money into Atlas V and buying RD-180 to service commercial and civil missions. They will move those to Vulcan as soon as they can, to commonize everything and cut costs.

I can't see Antares moving to AR-1 either. That would entail a significant redesign and probably a higher marginal cost, for a vehicle with only a single customer in CRS. Since Antares doesn't fly DoD missions there's no reasons to switch except costs, but AR-1 likely is not cheaper than RD-181. NGIS would probably also prefer to move CRS to Omega (vs. paying more for an AR-1 engines Antares), since the higher flight rate would help amortize that investment, and being built entirely in house increases their margins.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8397
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4792
  • Likes Given: 1516
Ban on US DOD missions - yes.   [/b]However the effects will have ramifications to the commercial satellite industry.[/b]

Commercial satellite operators that utilize a launch service with Russian Federation engines (such as as RD-180 and RD181) as defined, and/or launch services on Proton M or Soyuz after December 31, 2022 will not be able to sell their capacity to the US DOD.   Many of these operators lease capacity in regions the that US DOD requires capacity (MENA and ASEAN).   

No, there will be no ramifications at all IMO.
Antares, using RD-181, has been unable to get a foothold in the commercial market for the past decade. The signs are not looking positive for the future either.
Atlas V, using RD-180, will go away shortly after 2022, to be replaced by Vulcan, with an all-American engine.
Proton is on the way out as well, being retired in favor of Angara.
And Soyuz is not really suited to launch comsats to GTO/GEO. The largest use of Soyuz for comsat launches will end shortly after 2022 when Soyuz-from-Kourou is replaced by the upgraded versions of Vega.
And no US provider in his/hers right mind would continue launching its comsats on Russian vehicles with the oncoming surge of new, cheaper, US launch vehicles (Falcon 9, FH, New Glenn, NGIS, etc.).

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4634
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1148
  • Likes Given: 592
Ban on US DOD missions - yes.   [/b]However the effects will have ramifications to the commercial satellite industry.[/b]

Commercial satellite operators that utilize a launch service with Russian Federation engines (such as as RD-180 and RD181) as defined, and/or launch services on Proton M or Soyuz after December 31, 2022 will not be able to sell their capacity to the US DOD.   Many of these operators lease capacity in regions the that US DOD requires capacity (MENA and ASEAN).   

No, there will be no ramifications at all IMO.
Antares, using RD-181, has been unable to get a foothold in the commercial market for the past decade. The signs are not looking positive for the future either.
Atlas V, using RD-180, will go away shortly after 2022, to be replaced by Vulcan, with an all-American engine.
Proton is on the way out as well, being retired in favor of Angara.
And Soyuz is not really suited to launch comsats to GTO/GEO. The largest use of Soyuz for comsat launches will end shortly after 2022 when Soyuz-from-Kourou is replaced by the upgraded versions of Vega.
And no US provider in his/hers right mind would continue launching its comsats on Russian vehicles with the oncoming surge of new, cheaper, US launch vehicles (Falcon 9, FH, New Glenn, NGIS, etc.).
The only reason RD-181 was added was because NGIS planned to expand offerings for lower tier EELV thus it had to be added.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • US
  • Liked: 3004
  • Likes Given: 1798
The only reason RD-181 was added was because NGIS planned to expand offerings for lower tier EELV thus it had to be added.

RD-181 wasn't just "added" to anything.  The 2015 NDAA and all subsequent NDAA's restrict Russian rocket engines for EELV use, period.  It never had specific language for banning just RD-180.  (The funding for developing a replacement engine does call it an RD-180 replacement.)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12813
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3802
  • Likes Given: 741
The only reason RD-181 was added was because NGIS planned to expand offerings for lower tier EELV thus it had to be added.
Northrop Grumman is proposing Omega for EELV-2, as I understand things.  I don't recall ever reading about Antares being involved in the proposals, but perhaps you've run across different information.

 - Ed Kyle

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • USA
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 13
Doesn't make contractual sense either. Even if Antares was politically or technically viable for low-end EELV missions, EELV2 requires both providers to meet *all* reference missions, which Antares can't do with any realistic upgrade path (at absolute best, it might be able to reach the mid-range Atlas V missions. Not DIVH and above). Neither USAF nor NG is going to be interested in certifying a rocket that would only be able to perform missions between now and like 2022

Tags: