 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / February 2010NASA'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 > 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:( > 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? > So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the > RD-170? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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  Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >> Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new >> kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 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 > 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 Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 >> It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design. >> The [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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 Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon > In the end, I think it was a false economy to choose the "cheaper" RS-68 for Ares V ...I actually chalk it up not so much as an effort to reduce costs, but to throw the Former Soviet Empire a bone in the form of a propaganda move that said "Hey, here's proof we're no longer going to nuke one another! We're using their engines and paying them for the damn things!" OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> In the end, I think it was a false economy to choose the "cheaper" RS-68 for Ares V > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nuke one another! We're using their engines and paying them for the > damn things!" You're confusing the RS-68 (a US engine, used in the Ares V) with the RD-180 (a Russian engine, used in the Atlas V). >You're confusing the RS-68 (a US engine, used in the Ares V) with the >RD-180 (a Russian engine, used in the Atlas V). ...Frack. Yeah, I am, aren't I? Mea culprit on this one. Good catch. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new >> kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. > 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 Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.