-
ATK expand on its domestic alternative to Atlas V’s RD-180
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:03
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atk-expand-alternative-atlasv-rd-180/ - by Chris Gebhardt.
Some important notes. This was originally built around the RFI. ATK offered to answer questions, we sent them off. There was a big delay in getting them back, by which time ULA went with Blue Origin.
However, with all the engine news of late, we've recycled this into overviewing (given we have more info) the ATK option and aligning it with the updated angle of domestic options, post-Antares and so on.
-
#1
by
Prober
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:29
-
Glad to see some real refreshing news compared to the recycled stuff out there.
-
#2
by
TomH
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:43
-
BE-4 is reasonable. I don't see a solid being chosen. I would think AR-1 is much more realistic than a solid.
-
#3
by
arachnitect
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:47
-
The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals agreed with the complaint and ordered an injunction on the engine’s import.
I believe this refers to a temporary injunction that was lifted about a week later, or did I miss something huge?
Very curious whether the proposed ATK RD-180 replacement is a single/or multiple motor solution.
The repeated insistence that the motor fits within the existing capabilites of the company is interesting, I don't know if anything can be read into that. Is this a steel-cased segmented motor? (RSRM family?)
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:56
-
Not sure why you're quoting my name there!
However, that was about drivers on the timeline of the decisions.
-
#5
by
arachnitect
on 07 Nov, 2014 01:58
-
Not sure why you're quoting my name there! However, that was about drivers on the timeline of the decisions.
Apologies! Fixed.
-
#6
by
Prober
on 07 Nov, 2014 14:53
-
Not sure why you're quoting my name there! However, that was about drivers on the timeline of the decisions.
Chris, you and the NSF team need a major thumbs up on your articles. Anyone who puts out real factual information needs to be recognized.
Orion is in the news now. Sadly the Grasshopper crash, and the Orbital, and VG events have poisoned real news. So called "New space" has blended with the NASA launch program into unreadable trash articles.
So Chris, and the other NSF writers, keep pumping out the good stuff it matters.
-
#7
by
baldusi
on 07 Nov, 2014 19:42
-
Minor nit-pick. The RD-180 is manufactured by NPO Energomash. It is received, processed and supported in the US by RD AMROSS. But very nice article.
-
#8
by
Stan Black
on 08 Nov, 2014 13:52
-
The 101 engines were for both Atlas III and V rockets?
Under the original joint-venture contract, Energomash was contracted to deliver 101 RD-180 engines, enough for 101 missions of the Atlas V, for the fixed price of $1 billion USD.
Lockheed Martin company has declared intention to order not less than 101 engines RD-180 for use in a structure of “Atlas 3” and “Atlas 5” launch-vehicles.
http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/rd180/
-
#9
by
edkyle99
on 08 Nov, 2014 14:40
-
The 101 engines were for both Atlas III and V rockets?
Under the original joint-venture contract, Energomash was contracted to deliver 101 RD-180 engines, enough for 101 missions of the Atlas V, for the fixed price of $1 billion USD.
Lockheed Martin company has declared intention to order not less than 101 engines RD-180 for use in a structure of “Atlas 3” and “Atlas 5” launch-vehicles.
http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/dejatelnost/engines/rd180/
Here's how it was reported at the time.
http://www.aeroworldnet.com/5th06177.htm"Paris (June 17, 1997) -- Lockheed Martin announced today that it is buying 101 RD-180 rocket engines from RD Amross, a joint venture between US Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash of Russia. The exclusive contract, estimated at over $1 billion, calls for the engines to be produced in Khimsky, Russia for use on the Atlas IIAR launcher Lockheed Martin will place into service in late 1998.
While the principle purpose of the order seems to be to satisfy demand for the International Launch Services (ILS) commercial launch venture announced two weeks ago with Intersputnik, Lockheed Martin said it also hopes to underline its intent to win the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) contract expected to be let by the U.S. Air Force a year from now."
- Ed Kyle
-
#10
by
soldeed
on 08 Nov, 2014 23:23
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
-
#11
by
edkyle99
on 08 Nov, 2014 23:59
-
-
#12
by
edkyle99
on 09 Nov, 2014 02:30
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
It was Pratt & Whitney that signed on to RD AMROSS for RD-180 imports. Pratt & Whitney also built RL-10 for the EELV entrants.
Rocketdyne pulled out of the Atlas IIAR competition, all but ceding the contract to the Russians. At the time, Rocketdyne was focused on developing RS-68 for Delta 4, which it accomplished. It also had the SSME contract.
Aerojet, known for AJ-10 and the Titan engines, imported the NK-33 engines and spent years working on them, with ultimately sad results it seems.
Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne) - a company that seems to be on a path that has little future in space launch propulsion. While the old-line U.S. rocket propulsion companies (now merged) stood still for two decades or more, SpaceX and Blue Origin pushed U.S. liquid space propulsion forward. If BE-4 replaces RS-68 and some other engine replaces RL-10, it is nearly game over. I wonder if NASA will have a company left to build its future SLS core engines.
- Ed Kyle
-
#13
by
Zed_Noir
on 09 Nov, 2014 13:10
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
It was Pratt & Whitney that signed on to RD AMROSS for RD-180 imports. Pratt & Whitney also built RL-10 for the EELV entrants.
Rocketdyne pulled out of the Atlas IIAR competition, all but ceding the contract to the Russians. At the time, Rocketdyne was focused on developing RS-68 for Delta 4, which it accomplished. It also had the SSME contract.
Aerojet, known for AJ-10 and the Titan engines, imported the NK-33 engines and spent years working on them, with ultimately sad results it seems.
Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne) - a company that seems to be on a path that has little future in space launch propulsion. While the old-line U.S. rocket propulsion companies (now merged) stood still for two decades or more, SpaceX and Blue Origin pushed U.S. liquid space propulsion forward. If BE-4 replaces RS-68 and some other engine replaces RL-10, it is nearly game over. I wonder if NASA will have a company left to build its future SLS core engines.
- Ed Kyle
Well Ed, you could always swapped the RS-25 engines with BE-4 engines in a SLS core with re-config tankage. Also refitted the upper stage with BE-3 engine(s).
Just semi-kidding for a Block A1 (Alternate Block 1).
-
#14
by
Lobo
on 10 Nov, 2014 17:25
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
It was Pratt & Whitney that signed on to RD AMROSS for RD-180 imports. Pratt & Whitney also built RL-10 for the EELV entrants.
Rocketdyne pulled out of the Atlas IIAR competition, all but ceding the contract to the Russians. At the time, Rocketdyne was focused on developing RS-68 for Delta 4, which it accomplished. It also had the SSME contract.
Aerojet, known for AJ-10 and the Titan engines, imported the NK-33 engines and spent years working on them, with ultimately sad results it seems.
Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne) - a company that seems to be on a path that has little future in space launch propulsion. While the old-line U.S. rocket propulsion companies (now merged) stood still for two decades or more, SpaceX and Blue Origin pushed U.S. liquid space propulsion forward. If BE-4 replaces RS-68 and some other engine replaces RL-10, it is nearly game over. I wonder if NASA will have a company left to build its future SLS core engines.
- Ed Kyle
Well Ed, you could always swapped the RS-25 engines with BE-4 engines in a SLS core with re-config tankage. Also refitted the upper stage with BE-3 engine(s). Just semi-kidding for a Block A1 (Alternate Block 1).
If there were issues with RS-25 supply for SLS, I think that would favor SpaceX with their BFR, as they would then have more ammunition to lobby for a NASA BLEO HSF switch to their services, vs. redesigning the SLS core for a new engine like the BE-4...especially since it's a different fuel and the engine and core loads would be completely different than currently.
-
#15
by
newpylong
on 10 Nov, 2014 19:08
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
Why would they? No one has asked for one, besides J-2X.
-
#16
by
newpylong
on 10 Nov, 2014 19:10
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
It was Pratt & Whitney that signed on to RD AMROSS for RD-180 imports. Pratt & Whitney also built RL-10 for the EELV entrants.
Rocketdyne pulled out of the Atlas IIAR competition, all but ceding the contract to the Russians. At the time, Rocketdyne was focused on developing RS-68 for Delta 4, which it accomplished. It also had the SSME contract.
Aerojet, known for AJ-10 and the Titan engines, imported the NK-33 engines and spent years working on them, with ultimately sad results it seems.
Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne) - a company that seems to be on a path that has little future in space launch propulsion. While the old-line U.S. rocket propulsion companies (now merged) stood still for two decades or more, SpaceX and Blue Origin pushed U.S. liquid space propulsion forward. If BE-4 replaces RS-68 and some other engine replaces RL-10, it is nearly game over. I wonder if NASA will have a company left to build its future SLS core engines.
- Ed Kyle
Well Ed, you could always swapped the RS-25 engines with BE-4 engines in a SLS core with re-config tankage. Also refitted the upper stage with BE-3 engine(s). Just semi-kidding for a Block A1 (Alternate Block 1).
Much more than a "tank reconfig". They will throw in the towel if it ever gets to that point. Redesigning the core is game over.
-
#17
by
TomH
on 11 Nov, 2014 04:26
-
After they began this venture to Import russian engines it seems the great Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne is seriously lagging in their ability to design and build their OWN innovative new AMERICAN engines. Do they even have a serious R&D department anymore?
Pratt & Whitney....Rocketdyne......Aerojet.....Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne)
- Ed Kyle
Not quite accurate. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) was formed in 2005 when Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion and Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power were merged following the latter's acquisition from Boeing. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne was one division of Pratt & Whitney. That division was sold off to GenCorp which merged it with its subsidiary, AeroJet-General Corp. to form Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Pratt & Whitney itself is still an extant corporation which manufactures turbine engines for both aircraft as well as for electricity generation plants. It just signed a contract to provide 36 F135 engines for F-35 fighters. PW and GE are the primary US turbine manufacturers and their only international competitor of significance (and it is quite significant) is Rolls Royce of the UK.
@soldeed: As for them having no R & D department, have you ever heard of F-1B, AJ-1E6, or AR-1? The first was PWR and Dynetics' proposed engine for an SLS advanced booster. The second was proposed by AJ for the same purpose. After the merger, AJR and Dynetics coupled to propose AR-1 which could be used both as an SLS advanced booster engine as well as an RD-180 replacement. AR-1 would be an easier replacement than BE-4 as it uses the same fuel: RP-1. BE-4 will require an entire new stage in that it uses CH
4 as fuel.
-
#18
by
Zed_Noir
on 11 Nov, 2014 09:49
-
Now all three are part of one company (Aerojet Rocketdyne) - a company that seems to be on a path that has little future in space launch propulsion. While the old-line U.S. rocket propulsion companies (now merged) stood still for two decades or more, SpaceX and Blue Origin pushed U.S. liquid space propulsion forward. If BE-4 replaces RS-68 and some other engine replaces RL-10, it is nearly game over. I wonder if NASA will have a company left to build its future SLS core engines.
- Ed Kyle
Well Ed, you could always swapped the RS-25 engines with BE-4 engines in a SLS core with re-config tankage. Also refitted the upper stage with BE-3 engine(s). Just semi-kidding for a Block A1 (Alternate Block 1).
If there were issues with RS-25 supply for SLS, I think that would favor SpaceX with their BFR, as they would then have more ammunition to lobby for a NASA BLEO HSF switch to their services, vs. redesigning the SLS core for a new engine like the BE-4...especially since it's a different fuel and the engine and core loads would be completely different than currently.
@Lobo, I agree with you. But Ed was asking for possible domestic replacement SLS core engines.
Much more than a "tank reconfig". They will throw in the towel if it ever gets to that point. Redesigning the core is game over.
Well the Congressional critters could keep it going as a "backup" launch system, at least long enough to get another term in office. Unless the SLS program is replace with something else that is in service.
-
#19
by
edkyle99
on 11 Nov, 2014 14:13
-
Not quite accurate. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) was formed in 2005 when Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion and Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power were merged following the latter's acquisition from Boeing. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne was one division of Pratt & Whitney. That division was sold off to GenCorp which merged it with its subsidiary, AeroJet-General Corp. to form Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Pratt & Whitney itself is still an extant corporation which manufactures turbine engines for both aircraft as well as for electricity generation plants. It just signed a contract to provide 36 F135 engines for F-35 fighters. PW and GE are the primary US turbine manufacturers and their only international competitor of significance (and it is quite significant) is Rolls Royce of the UK.
Thanks for that rundown of the often tangled corporate world! Of course I only mean to talk about the rocket engine divisions of said companies.
As for them having no R & D department, have you ever heard of F-1B, AJ-1E6, or AR-1?
My problem with these engines is that they don't exist in hardware, or at least not in significant hardware. BE-4 is halfway through development. Aerojet/Rocketdyne has nothing like that on a test stand. I'm not sure it even has a test stand. This is lead or follow business. Blue and SpaceX are leading.
- Ed Kyle
-
#20
by
Prober
on 11 Nov, 2014 15:05
-
As for them having no R & D department, have you ever heard of F-1B, AJ-1E6, or AR-1?
My problem with these engines is that they don't exist in hardware, or at least not in significant hardware. BE-4 is halfway through development. Aerojet/Rocketdyne has nothing like that on a test stand. I'm not sure it even has a test stand. This is lead or follow business. Blue and SpaceX are leading.
- Ed Kyle
I'm more encouraged by what I see. Only wish (again) Aerojet/Rocketdyne would have segregated the companies in the merger. One company for Government work & One more commercial. They do seem to be shackled by the past.
Just semi-kidding for a Block A1 (Alternate Block 1).