"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 5:30:17 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

I'm confused. The program to replace the RD-180 is focused on engines
with around 400,000 lb thrust at sea level. This focuses them on the
AR-1 (kerosene/LOC) and BE-4 (methane/LOX). Why are they not looking
at the RS-25 (LH2/LOX with similar thrust) or the Raptor engine
(methane/LOX)?


RS-25 is hella expensive and ULA already knows that LH2/LOX produces a
large, expensive, vehicle (e.g. Delta IV). So that's right out since
Delta IV is already flying (no development costs there). But do note
that ULA really wants to ax Delta IV in favor of Atlas V due to its high
cost.

So why aren't they using something other than RS-25 on SLS?

Raptor (methane/LOX) isn't "fully baked" yet (BE-4 is ahead of it).

That sounds wrong to me. SpaceX test fired a full up Raptor engine
(albeit a lower thrust developmental engine) at their Texas facility
last year. The BE-4 has never been test fired and they didn't even
have a full engine put together until this year.

Seems like we're getting a lot of different engines when it might be
more efficient to settle on just a couple.

AR-1 is a "backup" engine at this point since it's so far behind BE-4 in
both schedule and (estimated) per unit price. But, AR-1 is about the
right size for two of them to be a "drop-in" replacement for RD-180 on
Atlas V. So, if ULA stumbles on Vulcan, an AR-1 engined Atlas V might
be a good stop-gap measure.


Aerojet Rocketdyne says they can start delivering AR1 engines in 2019,
so the finish line isn't all that far behind BE-4. Blue Origin says
the BE-4 will cost 60% of what an AR1 costs (at $12.5 million each);
so BE-4 engines are only around $7.5 million each? The government is
paying a lot of money to develop AR1, so I'd bet on it being pushed
for use somewhere. And AR1 does have the advantage of not needing a
bunch of new infrastructure to handle fueling and such.


Three separate heavy lift vehicles in development that
would be capable of taking men to the Moon or Mars.


Actually only one 'program'. And two commercial efforts.


I don't really understand that. Last time one vehicle was
developed and they built 16 of them and had programs in
place to use them within a reasonable period of time, that
provided economies of scale and focus to do the program.
It was a national scale program and accomplished great
things.


Last time we had a single government program that spent money like
water, made the trip, and then had no follow-on, which is why we can't
get beyond LEO anymore.


The current approach doesn't make sense; too many vehicle
types in development and no real focus toward building
enough of them to have an actual program.


The 'government program' (how we did Apollo) is the high priced
spread. It's true that it makes no sense because it has no real goal
(it changes with every President) and is too expensive to fly. The
other two efforts are commercial efforts, make more sense, spend a lot
less money, and will be far cheaper to fly.

If we did it the old way, we would ONLY have SLS, Musk and Bezos would
keep their money, and we'd get another 'flags and footprints' mission
to somewhere at best.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw