Article

2014-05-27 Science & Technology

Support Grows For New U.S. Rocket Engine

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Squinty 2014-05-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:03|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:35|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 10:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 11:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 11:38|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 18:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2014-05-27 18:16|| Front Page Top

22:31 Pappy
22:15 charger
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:48 trailing wife
21:38 JosephMendiola
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:36 trailing wife
21:35 JosephMendiola
20:25 Nero
20:07 Silentbrick
20:05 Lone Ranger
19:35 Airandee
19:26 Secret Asian Man
19:26 Mike Kozlowski
19:08 Whulet Shavins7256
18:45 3dc
18:39 Frank G
18:38 3dc
18:38 Frank G
18:36 3dc
18:32 Frank G
18:24 Whulet Shavins7256
18:23 Whulet Shavins7256
18:18 Frank G