NASA Cancels RS-84
ed kyle
program, an effort to develop a high-thrust, highly-
efficient, reusable hydrocarbon rocket engine. RS-84's
cancellation cements Russian Energomash's now-total
dominance of the high-thrust hydrocarbon engine field
and looks like the beginning of the end for U.S. rocket
engine manufacturing.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
I think that companies like XCOR would differ.
Derek Lyons
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Dholmes
"ed kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:88d21cfd.0403...@posting.google.com...
I have to say rather disappointing.
I have not seen any word yet on the RS-83 yet has anyone?
Sander Vesik
So what you are saying is that if US government doesn't pay for
it US companies are not able to develop rocket engines?
>
> - Ed Kyle
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Alan Erskine
What is your source of information? Space.com and spaceref.com don't
mention this at all. Nor, for that matter, does Boeing's website.
--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alante...@bigpond.com
Rand Simberg
Erskine" <alaner...@bigpond.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>What is your source of information? Space.com and spaceref.com don't
>mention this at all. Nor, for that matter, does Boeing's website.
Henry Spencer
ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...looks like the beginning of the end for U.S. rocket
>engine manufacturing.
Only if you think the future of US rocket-engine manufacturing is in being
government design bureaus forevermore.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | he...@spsystems.net
ed kyle
Well, yeah. No high-thrust rocket engines, in any country,
have been fully developed without government support. And
before you say "RS-68" or "RD-180", ask yourself if those
engines would have been developed without government money
for EELV.
- Ed Kyle
ed kyle
> In article <88d21cfd.0403...@posting.google.com>,
> ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >...looks like the beginning of the end for U.S. rocket
> >engine manufacturing.
>
> Only if you think the future of US rocket-engine manufacturing is in being
> government design bureaus forevermore.
There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
There have been none since Beal tried and failed.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >...looks like the beginning of the end for U.S. rocket
>> >engine manufacturing.
>>
>> Only if you think the future of US rocket-engine manufacturing is in being
>> government design bureaus forevermore.
>
>There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
>development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
Again, XCOR, among others, would disagree.
Jorge R. Frank
news:41096f05....@news.west.earthlink.net:
I suppose it depends on how one defines "high-thrust."
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Rand Simberg
R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
>>>development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
>>
>> Again, XCOR, among others, would disagree.
>
>I suppose it depends on how one defines "high-thrust."
Mr. Kyle probably defines it as "large enough to lift a heavy
booster." If that's the case, then it doesn't matter, since we don't
need one.
Henry Spencer
ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Only if you think the future of US rocket-engine manufacturing is in being
>> government design bureaus forevermore.
>
>There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
>development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
>There have been none since Beal tried and failed.
In other words, there have been none since the last time there was a
vehicle requirement for them. It's not obvious that there is anything
wrong with this.
And by the way, Beal's development effort didn't "fail". Development was
proceeding generally successfully -- perhaps not quite as quickly as
originally intended, but without disastrous problems -- when the sponsor
pulled the plug because of a combination of poor market projections and
political problems.
ed kyle
Is XCOR Aerospace going to launch the manned Lunar/Mars
missions? Or are you saying that it is the missions
themselves that "we don't need"?
- Ed Kyle
Charles Buckley
He's saying that we don't necessarily need a new heavy booster.
Missions launched from assembly in LEO don't require a heavy
booster, for example.
Not having a heavy launcher just means that you do it with the
existing tools at hand.
Rand Simberg
edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >>>There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
>> >>>development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
>> >>
>> >> Again, XCOR, among others, would disagree.
>> >
>> >I suppose it depends on how one defines "high-thrust."
>>
>> Mr. Kyle probably defines it as "large enough to lift a heavy
>> booster." If that's the case, then it doesn't matter, since we don't
>> need one.
>
>Is XCOR Aerospace going to launch the manned Lunar/Mars
>missions?
Perhaps, if they're given an opportunity.
>Or are you saying that it is the missions
>themselves that "we don't need"?
Well, actually, we don't need them, but that wasn't what I was saying.
We can do lunar/Mars without heavy lift, or new government-developed
high-thrust engines.
Sander Vesik
But this is a biased picture that derives more from the past and
ballistic missile based lineage of launchers than from some kind
of inherent necessity.
ed kyle
> In article <88d21cfd.0403...@posting.google.com>,
> ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Only if you think the future of US rocket-engine manufacturing is in being
> >> government design bureaus forevermore.
> >
> >There are no U.S.-based commercial high-thrust rocket engine
> >development efforts now, and none for the forseeable future.
> >There have been none since Beal tried and failed.
>
> In other words, there have been none since the last time there was a
> vehicle requirement for them. It's not obvious that there is anything
> wrong with this.
like the big test stands and the technical expertise, will
wither away, making it less likely that future development
will happen in North America.
> And by the way, Beal's development effort didn't "fail". Development was
> proceeding generally successfully -- perhaps not quite as quickly as
> originally intended, but without disastrous problems -- when the sponsor
> pulled the plug because of a combination of poor market projections and
> political problems.
Sure it failed. It failed due to lack of commercial market
demand. Clearly, non-government-funded high-thrust rocket
engine development is *technically* possible.
- Ed Kyle
ed kyle
> ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message news:<10797317...@haldjas.folklore.ee>...
> > > ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > News today that NASA has canceled the Rocketdyne RS-84
> > > > program, an effort to develop a high-thrust, highly-
> > > > looks like the beginning of the end for U.S. rocket
> > > > engine manufacturing.
> > >
> > > So what you are saying is that if US government doesn't pay for
> > > it US companies are not able to develop rocket engines?
> > >
> >
> > Well, yeah. No high-thrust rocket engines, in any country,
> > have been fully developed without government support. And
> > before you say "RS-68" or "RD-180", ask yourself if those
> > engines would have been developed without government money
> > for EELV.
>
> But this is a biased picture that derives more from the past and
> ballistic missile based lineage of launchers than from some kind
> of inherent necessity.
>
That same past is littered with failed attempts by
non-government outfits to build commercial launch
vehicles. Remember American Rocket Company? Beal?
The outfit that tried to launch Conestoga? Kistler?
Roton? Then there were/are a host of startups that
produced nothing more than Power-Point presentations.
Orbital Sciences comes closest to having succeeded,
but it is now almost totally dependant on Uncle Sam.
OSC's heir apparent, if it succeeds technically, is
SpaceX - a company that is angling for access to the
same taxpayer money.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> But this is a biased picture that derives more from the past and
>> ballistic missile based lineage of launchers than from some kind
>> of inherent necessity.
>>
>
>That same past is littered with failed attempts by
>non-government outfits to build commercial launch
>vehicles. Remember American Rocket Company? Beal?
>The outfit that tried to launch Conestoga? Kistler?
>Roton? Then there were/are a host of startups that
>produced nothing more than Power-Point presentations.
Because unlike NASA's many failed attempts, *they weren't funded*.
Henry Spencer
ed kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In other words, there have been none since the last time there was a
>> vehicle requirement for them. It's not obvious that there is anything
>> wrong with this.
>
>If no engine development is underway, the resources needed,
>like the big test stands and the technical expertise, will
Oddly enough, Beal didn't need (or plan to need) any of those resources.
You're assuming that future big-engine development must be done the
NASA/Rocketdyne way. It's almost certainly cheaper to start from scratch
and forget those facilities: it costs less to build new facilities than
to pay for the standing army that operates those.
Sander Vesik
>
> That same past is littered with failed attempts by
> non-government outfits to build commercial launch
> vehicles. Remember American Rocket Company? Beal?
> The outfit that tried to launch Conestoga? Kistler?
> Roton? Then there were/are a host of startups that
This is not somehow specific to rocketry though - other
industries have been in the past been dependent on gover
ment and evolved to a larger degree of independence.
> produced nothing more than Power-Point presentations.
But whats tha point of even counting those? You know, I
can create 3 new ones like that in a day singlehandedly.
> Orbital Sciences comes closest to having succeeded,
> but it is now almost totally dependant on Uncle Sam.
> OSC's heir apparent, if it succeeds technically, is
> SpaceX - a company that is angling for access to the
> same taxpayer money.
Well, in the specific case of hydrocarbon engines you
were interested in, say starchaser might be a way that
makes sure they stay around - and its so far not
sonsored by goverment and making its way slowly towards
more powerful engines.
ed kyle
Which gets me back to my original point, which was that
no high-thrust rocket engines, in any country, have been
fully developed without government support.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >That same past is littered with failed attempts by
>> >non-government outfits to build commercial launch
>> >vehicles. Remember American Rocket Company? Beal?
>> >The outfit that tried to launch Conestoga? Kistler?
>> >Roton? Then there were/are a host of startups that
>> >produced nothing more than Power-Point presentations.
>>
>> Because unlike NASA's many failed attempts, *they weren't funded*.
>
>Which gets me back to my original point, which was that
>no high-thrust rocket engines, in any country, have been
>fully developed without government support.
The past is not relevant to the future. At least not in the
simplistic way that you seem to view it.
Coridon Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T
> The past is not relevant to the future. At least not in the
> simplistic way that you seem to view it.
It must be such a burden on you to be an omniscient to be trapped among
mere mortals...
--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese
Rand Simberg
Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T<H+ESE)sympatico.ca)> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in
>news:411dbc16....@news.west.earthlink.net:
>
>> The past is not relevant to the future. At least not in the
>> simplistic way that you seem to view it.
>
>It must be such a burden on you to be an omniscient to be trapped among
>mere mortals...
I wouldn't know.