You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Support Grows For New U.S. Rocket Engine
2014-05-27
The Atlas V--always the less expensive of ULA's fleet (partly owing to the Russian engine sourcing), the most competitive in the commercial market, and the nearest peer to Space Exploration Technologies' (SpaceX) new Falcon family--is effectively over, an industry source says. This longtime player in the space industry preferred talking on background. The convergence of a Russian threat to cut off RD-180 supply, SpaceX's impending certification to compete with the Falcon 9v1.1 and the lawsuit filed by SpaceX April 28 claiming ULA's sole-source deal with the U.S. Air Force was anticompetitive has put so much pressure on the Atlas V that it is unlikely to survive, the source says.

If Atlas V goes away, the industry source says, the U.S. could eventually be left with a SpaceX/Falcon and ULA/Delta IV fleet for assured access.

The problem is the latter's high cost, due in part to Boeing's decision to build the RS-68 LOx/hydrogen first stage during its development, and to a lower volume of launches than hoped. This would trigger a need for a new rocket and, thus, a new engine to fulfill the assured access policy--the very engine recently garnering such swift support.

The "Mitchell Commission," led by Air Force Maj. Gen. (ret.) Howard Mitchell, a longtime Air Force space insider who is now a vice president at the Aerospace Corp., is backing the idea of a new liquid oxygen/hydrocarbon engine. And so is Shelton. "I would love to see us produce an engine; our industrial base has kind of withered," Shelton said at the Space Symposium. "Personally, what I would like to see us pursue is hydrocarbon boost," Shelton says. "I don't think LOx/kerosene is the way to go. Certainly LOx/hydrogen is a thing of the past." LOx/hydrogen requires big tanks owing to its low density and cryogenics, yet it is highly energetic. Kerosene is more dense, like a liquid, but not as effective. Engineers are now exploring whether methane--with qualities between the two--can balance these trades. It can be located on the rocket adjacent to the LOx tanks and is expected to produce good thrust, but work remains to make the technology operational.

Shelton says a new engine project is apt to be only slightly more expensive than the $800 million it would cost to establish U.S. RD-180 production.
Posted by:Squinty

#10  For Nasa it's just as much of a problem. For so many years their guiding light was a real wunderkind NAZI of Hitler's. That's got to twist a few organizational standard behaviors.
Posted by: 3dc   2014-05-27 18:16  

#9  The problem is the Air Force doesn't understand the concept of Free Markets and Capitalism even though they are sworn to defend the USA. They are much more comfortable with Fascist or Socialist state industries where of course it is right and proper that they should be giving good jobs at after working hand in glove with them to create the captive markets.

SpaceX told the Air Force procurement officer to take a hike when he asked for a job before granting the contract. Next he went to PWR who imports the Russian engines and they said "Glad to have you aboard and thanks on the side for the bulk buy contract."

Somebody needs to remind the military what system they are defending. It's not Nazi system and not a Soviet one.
Posted by: 3dc   2014-05-27 18:09  

#8  Part of the problem is that a VP of Boeing's was caught doing some unethical stuff with a bunch of Lockheed's cost estimate stuff

I recall when that happened. I was still tangentially involved in the biz. The military holds the top commander responsible for lapses in the chain of command. The top commander picks the sub-commanders and is responsible for the consequences of that choice.

Somebody at Boeing put that VP into that job. Of course the people at the bottom who were doing their best also suffer the consequences and that isn't fair. But actions have consequences which is a lesson I continually try to teach my kids.
Posted by: Squinty   2014-05-27 11:38  

#7  This is what Boeing has to beat in a new rocket engine design.

The Merlin 1D has a vacuum thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding 150.

The pintle-style injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo program for the lunar module landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.

Propellant is fed via a single-shaft, dual-impeller turbopump operating on a gas generator cycle. The turbopump also provides the high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic actuators, which then recycles into the low-pressure inlet. This design approach eliminates the need for a separate hydraulic power system and means that thrust vector control failure by running out of hydraulic fluid is not possible. A third use of the turbopump is to provide roll control by actuating the turbine exhaust nozzle (on the second-stage engine).

Combining three functions into one device that can be verified as functioning before the vehicle is allowed to lift off provides a significant improvement in system-level reliability.
Posted by: Squinty   2014-05-27 11:13  

#6  Basically, in response to real misconduct the Air Force cut off its nose to spite its face, and said Boeing couldn't be competitive anymore, only Lockheed could, which Lockheed used as leverage to get ULA off the ground.

Their position is stronger than ever. They've got the Contract, they've gotten everyone to ignore that they've outsourced the engine to Russia, they just can't build any more rockets.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2014-05-27 10:59  

#5  Part of the problem is that a VP of Boeing's was caught doing some unethical stuff with a bunch of Lockheed's cost estimate stuff, so as "punishment" of Boeing and its own nose they decided to give most of the EELV contract to Lockheed, so that Atlas got economy of scale but Delta didn't, since the Delta was only kept around for those use cases that Lockheed couldn't fulfill because they didn't build an Atlas V heavy the way they said they would.

(There seemed to be a recurring pattern of Lockheed being allowed to violate the contract rules but Boeing not being allowed the same leeway over the fifteen year or so length of the program).

This helped force the merger into ULA.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2014-05-27 10:56  

#4  BTW, I have no ties, financial or otherwise, with SpaceX. I am just impressed with what they have done.
Posted by: Squinty   2014-05-27 10:35  

#3  ULA is a duopoly and hence not conducive to competition. A competitive marketplace will always produce a better, more cost effective product than a monopoly. Just look at the VA.

I have no doubt that if Boeing and LMCO were allowed to compete, better products would be the result.
Posted by: Squinty   2014-05-27 10:33  

#2  Just a for-instance... we used to produce the RL-10 (which is on the upper stage of both the Delta and Atlas) for much less money than it costs today. WE could try producing it for the original price, and maybe also try to make the RS-68 more cheaply.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2014-05-27 10:23  

#1  SpaceX, a private venture, produced a product that is so competitive that the Boeing/LMCO products can't compete. A new engine ain't the answer.
Posted by: Squinty   2014-05-27 10:03  

00:00