-
New Antares Engine - NPO EM RD-181
by
LOXRP1
on 31 Oct, 2014 15:59
-
-
#1
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 17:48
-
-
#2
by
Jim
on 31 Oct, 2014 17:54
-
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Huh? Launch history is not a requirement. The AJ-26 had no launch history before Antares flew for the first time. The RD-180 didn't have launch history before the first Atlas III launch.
-
#3
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 18:23
-
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
Huh? Launch history is not a requirement. The AJ-26 had no launch history before Antares flew for the first time. The RD-180 didn't have launch history before the first Atlas III launch.
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
-
#4
by
edkyle99
on 31 Oct, 2014 18:23
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012.
- Ed Kyle
-
#5
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 18:29
-
Some discussions in the Russian press about Orbital using the NPO Energomash RD-193 for a new Antares engine.
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/757591
not enough launch history. Can't see this as a real fix.
It seems to be happening, if the quote of Orbital Sciences Vice-President for Public Relations Barron Beneski is correct. There really is no other choice besides something from Energomash unless Orbital decides to fund its own engine. RD-193 is designed to replace NK-33, while being based on existing RD-170/180 technology and know how. It will also eventually power Soyuz 2-1v. Energomash has been test firing RD-193 since 2012.
- Ed Kyle
something has changed last two days then. Frank was talking the other direction.
-
#6
by
Jim
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:13
-
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management.
-
#7
by
Jim
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:14
-
something has changed last two days then. Frank was talking the other direction.
No, he was talking about return to flight and not long range plans.
-
#8
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:19
-
You made my point Jim....don't think Orbital management wants another low launch history engine. Orbital is not ULA, IMHO they would prefer the RD-180 if they must upgrade.
No, I did not. Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are not flight ready engines available. Who the heck do you think picked this engine? It was Orbital management.
I looked for the video of Frank is part of management Jim couldn't find it again......but things happen in two days. just not up to date
-
#9
by
Danderman
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:25
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
-
#10
by
FinalFrontier
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:27
-
IMO they'd be better off killing antares and just buying flights on Atlas. But this just seems silly. One Russian design with questionable history fails, so we opt to use another Russian design with questionable history? I don't see this being viable or happening.
-
#11
by
gongora
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:31
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
-
#12
by
baldusi
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:34
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
Actually, looking at the Main Engine System, it has a single drop for propellant and a single point for fill drain. As it looks, they have made a sort of module that, for all effects and purposes, is a single engine.
-
#13
by
FinalFrontier
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:36
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
No flight history. I know Jim has and will argue against me on that. However, flight history or the lack there-of was the leading argument used against Spacex, and other startups in recent years, an argument which I believe has substantial bearing.
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
-
#14
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:51
-
I suspect that integrating RD-180 with Antares would be more difficult than RD-193, due to the one engine vs two engines issue.
your getting into the drop in replacement claim.
-
#15
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:57
-
Why is the RD-193 "questionable"? It's a new engine by the same company that makes the very reliable RD-180, it's designed specifically to replace the current engine on Antares, and it's derived from an existing line of engines. Not really the same situation as AJ-26.
big differences who does Orbital go for support?
AJ-26 AR
RD-180 RD AMROSS
RD-193
-
#16
by
rayleighscatter
on 31 Oct, 2014 19:59
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
Switch to Atlas to avoid relying on Russian engines?
big differences who does Orbital go for support?
AJ-26 AR
RD-180 RD AMROSS
RD-193
Orbital wouldn't get any support from RD AMROSS if they selected the RD-180, they were negotiating directly with NPO Energomash
-
#17
by
gongora
on 31 Oct, 2014 20:00
-
Besides the fact that they end up depending on Russian engines, and should relations sour again that would be a problem. Why not just opt to fly with atlas and save themselves the trouble?
How much would flying on Atlas cost them? It may not make economic sense to do so.
-
#18
by
Prober
on 31 Oct, 2014 23:30
-
Or Orbital could obtain staged combustion engines RD-120 from Ukraine.
Ukraine has serial production of the engine and also had plans for its own launcher using it.
The US state Dept. had issued help for Ukraine so no issues there, maybe even some funding help.
Its a fine engine even China purchased some and tweeked it for the CZ-5.
Only problem might be the need for 4 engines (haven't run the numbers)
The mounting hw for 4 has been designed and/or manufactured
-
#19
by
SIEP
on 01 Nov, 2014 00:45
-
It isn't the RD-120 made also by Energomash?
In any case, I don't understand how political responses like gospacex's (#18) are allowed.
