>>> so... the Ares-1 is DEAD >>>
gaetanomarano
early rumors from the Obama-Bolden meeting say that the Ares-1 is
DEAD:
--
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
--
as already said two weeks ago in my “Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD”
article:
--
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
--
Robert Clark
> --
> early rumors from the Obama-Bolden meeting say that the Ares-1 is
> DEAD:
> --
> as already said two weeks ago in my “Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD”
> article:
> --http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
> --
Thanks for that info. Since we will be using a heavy lift launcher to
be ready by 2018, this will be well within the time range to allow a
new heavy thrust liquid fueled engine to be developed.
As I argued before considering the development already done on the
RS-84 heavy thrust kerosene engine, a prototype version could be ready
by 2012 if development was restarted this year:
RS-84 Engine.
http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/RS-84RocketEngineOverview.pdf
This article from 2002 stated the development costs for two heavy
thrust liquid fueled prototypes would cost $1.3 billion:
TICKET TO RIDE.
"Potential replacements for the Space Shuttle
are taking shape as NASA struggles to finalise
the requirements for a second-generation
reusable launch vehicle."
GRAHAM WARWICK / WASHINGTON DC
8-14 OCTOBER 2002 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
"Engine development"
"The success of our architecture depends
on the success of NASA's engine development
programme," says Young. The space
agency is funding work on four main
engine candidates, two hydrogen fueled
and two kerosene-fueled. Pratt &
Whitney and Aerojet are developing
the Cobra, a 600,000 lb-thrust (2,670kN)
hydrogen-fueled, staged-combustion, first and
second-stage engine, while Boeing's
Rocketdyne division is working on the
650,000 lb thrust-class RS-83. Rocketdyne
is also pursuing the RS-84, a kerosene fueled,
staged-combustion, first-stage
engine generating 1,100,000 lb thrust,
while TRW is developing the 1,000,000 lb
thrust-class TR107.
The plan is to test two prototype
engines at a cost of $1.3 billion. "NASA will
go for prototype engines that bracket the
requirements of the three contractors,"
says Ford. He suggests the emphasis has
shifted towards the kerosene-fuelled
engines. "NASA wants to address kerosene
first to reduce risk," he says. The USA has
little experience with kerosene-burning
rocket motors, having focused for decades
on cryogenic engines."
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202996.html
Then if NASA chose to develop one of these, such as the RS-84, to save
costs, it conceivably might only cost $650 million (!) Then since the
Air Force also wants a heavy thrust LOX/kero engine for its flyback
booster program, the cost to NASA if the costs were shared might only
be $325 million. NASA would only have to spend $108 million per year
over 3 years to develop a reusable heavy thrust engine(!!)
Also, the Air Force is already funding a heavy lift engine to power
their proposed flyback boosters. However, since they're envisioning
the heavy lift versions of such boosters to be used 1 to 2 decades
down the road, they are taking a leisurely approach to the development
of such an engine:
Developers Seek to Speed Reusable Rocket Engines.
Apr 10, 2008
By Guy Norris/Colorado Springs, Colo
"Aerojet is meeting with the US Air Force in a bid to speed
development of a US-designed, reusable hydrocarbon rocket engine that
could play a key part in plans for an operationally responsive space
vehicle.
"Dubbed HC Boost, the technology development program is aimed at
providing an improved, home-grown alternative to the Russian RD-180,
the only other viable current-production hydrocarbon rocket engine.
Unlike the RD-180, however, the US engine would be designed to be re-
usable for up to 100 missions, have up to 15% better performance and
would operate for up to 50 missions between engine overhauls.
"More importantly perhaps, says the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) which is leading the program, it would help pave the way for
responsive access to space in terms of days and weeks, rather than
months. The development would also, it says, free up U.S. dependency
from the Energomash-produced RD-180, which is used to power the Atlas
V launcher.
"Aerojet is currently working on the HC Boost under a $109 million
contract spread over almost nine years. The Sacramento, Calif.-based
rocket specialist believes that more can be achieved by compressing
the schedule and, at the same time, shifting the focus from a pure
technology-driven research effort to a demonstration effort. "If we
can do it in half the time they'd get a lot more for the money," says
Aerojet president Scott Neish."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/REUSE04108.xml&show=us
Aerojet wants to accelerate this pace to perhaps 4 to 5 years and
produce a prototype engine, undoubtedly also requiring increased
funding. It's interesting this time frame would be about the same time
it took to produce a working prototype of the Rocketdyne RS-84 heavy
lift hydrocarbon engine if its development was restarted this year.
Whether it's the Aerojet version or the Rocketdyne version, I
definitely think that for low cost access to space, early development
of such an engine should be made a priority.
Bob Clark
David Spain
> says Ford. He suggests the emphasis has
> shifted towards the kerosene-fuelled
> engines. "NASA wants to address kerosene
> first to reduce risk," he says. The USA has
> little experience with kerosene-burning
> rocket motors, having focused for decades
> on cryogenic engines."
> http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202996.html
I don't get this last quote from Bob Ford of Martin. Maybe that's
true of Martin after the Titan I, but the Atlases and Deltas
marched on with RP-1 for quite some time.
However, I see the Atlas-V uses the Russian RD-180. So exactly
what is the state of RP-1 rocketry in the USA? Is it as dire as
Bob Ford would have us believe? I'm sceptical of that statement.
Dave
Damon Hill
news:6u4onom...@ws125.sysdef.com:
The Russians have extensive experience with high-thrust staged-
combustion engines, whereas the only largish US hydrocarbon engine
developed to active flight status has been SpaceX's Merlin, which
is a straightforward 'legacy' design, meant to be simple and
inexpensive, as are the engines flown on earlier versions of Delta
and Atlas.
I would like very much to see staged-combustion hydrocarbon engines
developed and flown in the US, but it's not going to be cheap. At
the moment, SpaceX is the "leader" in the US by being retrotech.
And I'm not sure that building engines based on the NK-33 or RD-180
is exactly leadership, so much as catchup.
--Damon
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
> ..... So exactly
>what is the state of RP-1 rocketry in the USA? Is it as dire as
>Bob Ford would have us believe? I'm sceptical of that statement.
>
IIRC, the last major RP-1 engine built was the Saturn V's F1.
Pre-Atlas V Atlases had kerosene engines, I think, as did the Delta 2.
But the Delta 4 is all cryogenic. So are the Space Shuttle Main
engines. It's been a while since the US buil a t new RP-1 engine, but
given how many cryogenic engines have been used as first stages, why
not stick with that?
Michael Gallagher
<ma...@gaetanomarano.it> wrote:
>--
>early rumors from the Obama-Bolden meeting say that the Ares-1 is
>DEAD:
>--
>http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
>--
Assuming this report is true -- and I have learned to be cautious
where rumors from the Obama camp are concerned -- that's disapointing.
The Ares I's techincal problems weren't insurmountable; the Augustine
panel acknowledged it was a good program and the question was not
whether it COULD be built but SHOULD it be.
(Personally, Ares I & V's resonance with the Saturn 1B and Saturn V
gave the whole concept a retro-cool vibe I liked. And a successful
Orion Ares 1 flight would send some individuals to eat at Kentuky
Fried Crow, which would have been very satisfying. But I digress.)
As to the international partnerships, I don't like the idea about
being dependent on other countries for the landers and habitats. It
only saves us money if they don't insist we send money to pay for it,
as with the Russian components of the station. If we're going to
bring other countries in, we should contribute our own hardware in
addition to theirs and not slack off.
And why fly all the way to the Moons of Mars but not land on Mars
itself? That may be intruging to some eggheads, but does lack some
common sense. Orbital mechanics dictatse how long you have to stay at
Mars before beginning the return trip. If you're going to be stuck
there anyway, why NOT land? "Oh, we're the first to fly to a point in
space. Yeah. Why are we there again?" At least Mars is a place to
go. Demos is like a rest stop on the way.
The larger question is one of consistency across administrations;
nothing can get done if we change gears every 4-8 years. Obama didn't
continue with everything Bush started, although he kept the
destination; will Obama's successor follow through on what he
implements? I don't know how we can get that level of consistency,
but that's what needed for anything to get done.
BradGuth
> On Dec 18, 5:18 am, gaetanomarano <m...@gaetanomarano.it> wrote:
>
> > --
> > early rumors from the Obama-Bolden meeting say that the Ares-1 is
> > DEAD:
> > --http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
> > --
> > as already said two weeks ago in my “Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD”
> > article:
> > --http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
> > --
>
> Thanks for that info. Since we will be using a heavy lift launcher to
> be ready by 2018, this will be well within the time range to allow a
> new heavy thrust liquid fueled engine to be developed.
> As I argued before considering the development already done on the
> RS-84 heavy thrust kerosene engine, a prototype version could be ready
> by 2012 if development was restarted this year:
>
>
> Aerojet wants to accelerate this pace to perhaps 4 to 5 years and
> produce a prototype engine, undoubtedly also requiring increased
> funding. It's interesting this time frame would be about the same time
> it took to produce a working prototype of the Rocketdyne RS-84 heavy
> lift hydrocarbon engine if its development was restarted this year.
> Whether it's the Aerojet version or the Rocketdyne version, I
> definitely think that for low cost access to space, early development
> of such an engine should be made a priority.
>
> Bob Clark
H2O2 and propargyl alcohol, or H2O2 and cyclopropane.
~ BG
BradGuth
Why not stick with H2O2 and propargyl alcohol, or H2O2 and
cyclopropane?
~ BG
Pat Flannery
> IIRC, the last major RP-1 engine built was the Saturn V's F1.
> Pre-Atlas V Atlases had kerosene engines, I think, as did the Delta 2.
> But the Delta 4 is all cryogenic. So are the Space Shuttle Main
> engines. It's been a while since the US buil a t new RP-1 engine, but
> given how many cryogenic engines have been used as first stages, why
> not stick with that?
Although the plumbing and turbopump design must be very complex, the
tri-propellant RD-701 engine is interesting, particularly if you were
trying to build something with the high isp needed to make a STTO
vehicle practical: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd701.htm
Pat
BradGuth
Why not stick with H2O2 and propargyl alcohol, or H2O2 and
cyclopropane?
~ BG
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Destination Mars?
And even if a good heavy lift rocket gets
built, it will take trillions more to do it right.
If not it will just be flags and foot steps in
distant dust by irradiated Spam from a can.
Now if the powerful could find resources
on Mars to strip mine, perhaps it will happen
that John Q. Public will get to pay to develop
the tech enable the action.
Now here in the States equals then in the USSR circa 1984?
Am I a pessimist, a realist, or an optimist?................Trig