Orbital Sciences tests Soviet NK-33 rocket engine

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/

It work!!

Anonymous writes:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/

So OSC is still at it? I've been looking at the Taurus II when SpaceX
finally flew their first Dragon and this thing really looks dreadful
against the Falcon 9. They use two four decades old russian engines on
their first stage and they buy these engines from Aerojet who bought
them from the russians who were stockpiling them since 40 years. Most of
the remaining parts of the first stage are build by Yuzhnoye SDO,
designers of the Zenit. The second stage is a solid, (developed by and
bought from ATK) and since you can't really get a nice orbit insertion
with that, they need a third stage, fueled by hypergolic fuels.

What they've got is a rocket with three different engines and fuels,
build by four companies, the first stage engines two companies and 40
years removed from those who designed it (and this is a tricky engine
with a high pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle and
oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps, which need advanced
metallurgy to avoid the pumps consuming themselves). And two of such
engines, which doubles the probability of an engine failure with still
no engine-out capabilities. Sounds like a true winner.

This is basically the exact opposite of what SpaceX did with the Falcon
9, which is an extremely straight and simple rocket with just two
stages, both using the same tanks and the same engines and most of its
parts designed and build by SpaceX with all the expertize right beside
the pad instead of two companies and four decades away.

And what for? For launching a 2,000 kg payload on a spacecraft with no return
capabilities (Cygnus).

I'm really looking forward to the first launch of this thing.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 12/21/2010 2:50 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
writes:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/

So OSC is still at it? I've been looking at the Taurus II when SpaceX
finally flew their first Dragon and this thing really looks dreadful
against the Falcon 9. They use two four decades old russian engines on
their first stage and they buy these engines from Aerojet who bought
them from the russians who were stockpiling them since 40 years. Most of
the remaining parts of the first stage are build by Yuzhnoye SDO,
designers of the Zenit. The second stage is a solid, (developed by and
bought from ATK) and since you can't really get a nice orbit insertion
with that, they need a third stage, fueled by hypergolic fuels.

What they've got is a rocket with three different engines and fuels,
build by four companies, the first stage engines two companies and 40
years removed from those who designed it (and this is a tricky engine
with a high pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle and
oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps, which need advanced
metallurgy to avoid the pumps consuming themselves). And two of such
engines, which doubles the probability of an engine failure with still
no engine-out capabilities. Sounds like a true winner.

Okay, but other than that...;-)
The NK-33 does have a really good specific impulse, especially
considering that it was the first attempt at designing a liquid fueled
rocket engine by the Kuznetsov design bureau, who normally built jet
engines.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Okay, but other than that...;-)
The NK-33 does have a really good specific impulse, especially
considering that it was the first attempt at designing a liquid fueled
rocket engine by the Kuznetsov design bureau, who normally built jet
engines.

Yes, this engine is a plain miracle, no doubt. A bit wasted on that
launcher, though.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Dec 21, 5:50*pm, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

1. since you can't really get a nice orbit insertion
with that, they need a third stage, fueled by hypergolic fuels.

2. What they've got is a rocket with three different engines and
fuels,


3. And two of such
engines, which doubles the probability of an engine failure with still
no engine-out capabilities.


4. the expertize right beside
the pad instead of two companies and four decades away.

1. No, it does need a third stage for ISS cargo. The spacecraft does
the orbital insertion corrections. OSC is working on a liquid
upperstage to replace the solid

2. See number #1
3. And when was the last time that happened? Engine out capability
is over rated. Most of the velocity increment is provided by the
Falcon 9 second stage and it has no engine out capability.
4. And your point is? Engine experts are not at the launch site,
they are at the factory. They have to travel no matter what company
they work for.