-
#60
by
TrevorMonty
on 02 Nov, 2014 19:09
-
I think RD193/RD181 would be a good choice, it gives the extra performance they need. Long term both the Angara and Soyuz may move to it as it is lighter and lower cost version of RD191. With those production rates Orbital will not be stuck with an orphan. There should be incremental improvements over time if it becomes a high production engine.
Carrying a 2 year buffer stock should help offset any political situations that arise. This would put NASA at ease.
-
#61
by
SIEP
on 02 Nov, 2014 19:21
-
From what I've been reading in these forums, even before the current issues in eastern Europe, Americans felt really uneasy using Russian hardware and/or Russian services, whilst at the same time having no trouble buying TVs, clothing, cellphones, computers, etc. from communist China and defense components from Europe.
-
#62
by
wtrix
on 03 Nov, 2014 14:19
-
There is one other option which nobody has mentioned and that is Blue Origin BE3 . Flight ready ( currently being certified) but would need a whole new LV and infrastructure. Would probably need around 7 engines but does give the option of reusability and engine out capability.
BE3 is LH2/LOX engine. Thus they would have to rebuild the first stage to fully cryogenic in this case. And perhaps a single RS-68A would be better.
-
#63
by
gospacex
on 03 Nov, 2014 14:56
-
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.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
-
#64
by
russianhalo117
on 03 Nov, 2014 16:23
-
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.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
lets please keep the geopolitical ramblings down to a minimum here since we other similar threads for that.
Thanks,
RH117
-
#65
by
asmi
on 03 Nov, 2014 18:25
-
From what I've been reading in these forums, even before the current issues in eastern Europe, Americans felt really uneasy using Russian hardware and/or Russian services, whilst at the same time having no trouble buying TVs, clothing, cellphones, computers, etc. from communist China and defense components from Europe.
That's how proparanda works. Since most people can't be bothered to do a research in order to form their own opinions, mass media tells them whom to like, and whom to hate.
-
#66
by
gospacex
on 03 Nov, 2014 21:10
-
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.
I would discuss politics per se elsewhere. But Russian-related politics can easily affect export of Russian engines.
What's the point in switching to another Russian engine if it carries the same risk of being banned for export by Rogozin?
NK-33s at least had the advantage of AJ already knowing everything about them and having plans to build their own replicas.
Wasn't the threat (such as it was) only to withhold RD-180 for military launches?
Can anyone predict how much more silly Putin can become?
lets please keep the geopolitical ramblings down to a minimum here since we other similar threads for that.
It's not "geopolitical ramblings". It's an on-topic discussion about a possibility that export of RD-193 will be banned by Russian government.
-
#67
by
Lobo
on 04 Nov, 2014 06:38
-
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.
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
-
#68
by
asmi
on 04 Nov, 2014 06:48
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we
right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
-
#69
by
guckyfan
on 04 Nov, 2014 07:17
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
Launching Cygnus on Falcon9 certainly beats not launching Cygnus at all. It may not be a long term solution but it would be a solution.
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
-
#70
by
woods170
on 04 Nov, 2014 07:59
-
Besides, a long time stand down of Falcon 9 is not impossible but with their launch record and their proven ability to identify and rectify problems fast a long time stand down is now very unlikely.
There are at least three things in this statement that would not withstand scrutiny by Jim.
-
#71
by
ChrisWilson68
on 04 Nov, 2014 08:06
-
If they were going to move Cygnus to another launcher I'd think F9 would be the logical choice. It would be cheaper than Atlas, Cygnus is designed for horizontal integration already,and OSC payloads have already flown on F9. OSC and SpaceX really aren't in competition with each other (at this time) as they both have COTS contracts and OSC is not competing for commercial crew nor even commercial payloads (yet). Dragon and Cygnus capabilities don't really overlap.
And I'm sure Elon would jump at the chance to be NASA's sole commercial cargo launcher.
This would defeat the whole purpose of keeping two separate systems for redundancy. And we right now see how wise that actually was. Imagine what would happen if F9 would become the only LV for COTS and then fail.
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
-
#72
by
kevin-rf
on 04 Nov, 2014 10:02
-
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
I'm seeing panic. The best thing that can happen is the industry has a robust roster of reliable launchers to pick from. Going the other way and SpaceX becomes ULA with better PR.
-
#73
by
Jim
on 04 Nov, 2014 11:09
-
What you and so many other people are missing is the fact that having two dissimilar launch systems increases the chance of a failure in the first place. What we see right now isn't that it was wise to have two separate systems but that it was unwise from the point of view of reliability.
No, that is robustness and quite wrong. If Dragon were using Antares, where would ISS logistics be?
-
#74
by
Prober
on 04 Nov, 2014 13:10
-
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine
"On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility.
During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.htmlmaybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
-
#75
by
Lee Jay
on 04 Nov, 2014 13:29
-
Am I just being silly in thinking that domestic production of the RD-180 would solve multiple problems for both ULA and Orbital, and might be less expensive than the development of entirely new stages (ULA-LOX/LNG, Orbital-whatever)?
-
#76
by
russianhalo117
on 04 Nov, 2014 13:31
-
Guyz we are drifting off the topic of a changeover to another engine
"On October 19, 2012, NPO Energomash announced that three days earlier, an experimental RD-193 engine completed its fifth live firing without leaving test bench No. 2 at the company's NIK-751 test facility. During five tests, the engine burned for a total of 678 seconds. Following the tests, the engine was to be disassembled and checked for any defects to clear it for further tests, NPO Energomash said."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html
maybe someone can focus on the history and see if this engine has a flight history?
RD-193 is the youngest sibling from the RD-191 Subfamily. RD-191 is gimbaled variant and RD-193,intended for Soyuz core stage, is fixed variant and is surround by the four nozzles of the Soyuz core stage steering engine. RD-193 has not been flown to date as it was in development cycles.
-
#77
by
CardBoardBoxProcessor
on 04 Nov, 2014 14:12
-
-
#78
by
russianhalo117
on 04 Nov, 2014 14:22
-
-
#79
by
CardBoardBoxProcessor
on 04 Nov, 2014 14:44
-
Doubt there is much difference in shape between 181 and 191.
