|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... 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! I'd like to see this R&D go forward. Mostly because it would surely replace ATK's large segmented solid rocket boosters (those things are evil). Other technologies that were mentioned (and I support): 1. "in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, especially for cryogenic liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen", in other words, fuel depots :-) 2. "Inflatable modules could be launched to the International Space Station to test lightweight alternatives for space habitation and transportation." In other words, something like Transhab would be back as a NASA R&D project. :-) 3. "Automated rendezvous and docking is also a likely mission for the flagship demonstration program." Considering the Russians have been doing this routinely since the 70's, it's inexcusable that the US hasn't developed the same technology. 4. "NASA may also test closed-loop life support systems aboard the space station." Developing better life support systems on ISS is a must. As we're seeing with the first generation of US built ISS hardware, making these sorts of systems function reliably in zero gravity isn't as easy as it seems. 5. "autonomous precision landing" 6. "advanced in-space propulsion" I see this as a good thing. The POR was to go back to the moon using 1960's and 1970's technologies. This never made sense to me, especially the large segmented SRB part. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's new focus plan revealed
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's Moon base plan | JOHN PAZMINO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 16th 06 04:58 PM |
NASA's New Plan Drill Is A 60-Watt Time | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 6th 06 07:04 PM |
NASA's New Plan Drill Is A 60-Watt Time | [email protected] | News | 0 | May 5th 06 10:49 PM |
NASA'S SPACE EYES FOCUS ON DEEP IMPACT TARGET (STScI-PR05-18) | INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 2nd 05 07:44 PM |
Revealed: Europe's master plan for space technology (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | July 7th 03 08:56 PM |