NASA's new focus plan revealed

Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/
New enabling technologies for General Bolden and the heroic men and
women of Star Command's engineering division!

Pat

On Feb 23, 8:28�am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/
New enabling technologies for General Bolden and the heroic men and
women of Star Command's engineering division!

Pat

nasa high point is doing studies, overselling, then run away costs

On Feb 23, 7:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/

It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
...

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?

Unfortunately the US has no large (currently produced) LOX/kerosene engine
which is better than the RD-180. Besides the obvious reason that we don't
want to keep relying on the Russians for our launch vehicle engines, you may
want to note how old the RD-180 design is. Certainly the US could do
better, given some R&D dollars. Getting NASA back to R&D is a good thing.

As for the Russian angle, look how they appear to be charging NASA much
higher costs for Soyuz flights than they do for tourists. This is not a
good thing for the US.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On 2/23/2010 7:32 AM, Allen Thomson wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Pat wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/

It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?

They might actually be able to do that. When it was designed the RD-170
on the Energia booster units was built for reuse,so it may be more
complex and robust than it needs to be, as well may be its RD-180
offspring. So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and
cheaper, sort of the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
They might actually be able to do that. When it was designed the RD-170 on
the Energia booster units was built for reuse,so it may be more complex
and robust than it needs to be, as well may be its RD-180 offspring.

It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design. The
"more complex" part, I'm not so sure about. If you have an engine like the
RD-180 which is a staged combustion engine which is regeneratively cooled,
there is no fundamental reason that it can't be classified as reusable.

So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and cheaper, sort of
the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.

True you often can make an expendable version of an engine which is
simplified in some ways, but I have a feeling that what you're really doing
when making an expendable version is tweaking the design so it's easier to
manufacture. If that results in some trade-offs which would otherwise
reduce "reusability", then that trade would likely be made. But there is a
point where shaving margins off an engine makes it less reliable, even for a
single use.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On 2/24/2010 7:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design. The
"more complex" part, I'm not so sure about. If you have an engine like the
RD-180 which is a staged combustion engine which is regeneratively cooled,
there is no fundamental reason that it can't be classified as reusable.

So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and cheaper, sort of
the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.

True you often can make an expendable version of an engine which is
simplified in some ways, but I have a feeling that what you're really doing
when making an expendable version is tweaking the design so it's easier to
manufacture. If that results in some trade-offs which would otherwise
reduce "reusability", then that trade would likely be made. But there is a
point where shaving margins off an engine makes it less reliable, even for a
single use.

I could picture them going with a simple non-staged combustion engine
and ablative nozzle that lowers isp in exchange for lower production costs.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/2010 7:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design.
The
"more complex" part, I'm not so sure about. If you have an engine like
the
RD-180 which is a staged combustion engine which is regeneratively
cooled,
there is no fundamental reason that it can't be classified as reusable.

So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and cheaper, sort
of
the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.

True you often can make an expendable version of an engine which is
simplified in some ways, but I have a feeling that what you're really
doing
when making an expendable version is tweaking the design so it's easier
to
manufacture. If that results in some trade-offs which would otherwise
reduce "reusability", then that trade would likely be made. But there is
a
point where shaving margins off an engine makes it less reliable, even
for a
single use.

I could picture them going with a simple non-staged combustion engine and
ablative nozzle that lowers isp in exchange for lower production costs.

And much lower ISP. The RS-68's lower performance (compared to the SSME's)
was the main reason that the Ares V kept getting bigger and bigger. In the
end, I think it was a false economy to choose the "cheaper" RS-68 for Ares V
considering how it made the rest of the vehicle bigger (10m diameter core),
more complicated (SRB's lengthened to their limit), and more expensive. The
expensive part impacted the ground infrastructure nearly everywhere to
handle the much larger diameter and much heavier SRB's. When you start
talking about the concrete foundation of your launch pads not being strong
enough to handle the weight of the new launch vehicle, you're getting into
massively expensive upgrades.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Allen Thomson wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/

It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

Reducing our dependency on Russia would be a good enough reason by
itself, IMO.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

Reducing our dependency on Russia would be a good enough reason by
itself, IMO.


I've lost track of this stuff somewhat, but doesn't P&W have license
(and presumably the blueprints and manufacturing techniques) to
manufacture RD-180s independently of Russia? Pat's point about the
engine being designed for somewhat more demanding requirements than
needed now should be noted.