Engine Providers Pitch Ideas for RD-180 Replacement to Government
Launch of Atlas V with NROL-33 satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on May 22, 2014. (Credit: ULA)
Space News reports on an invite-only meeting last month during which America’s leading space companies discussed their ideas for replacing the Russian-supplied RD-180 engine that powers United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V engine.
The meeting was attended by White House and Pentagon officials, who are devising a strategy to eliminate the nation’s dependence on the Russian engine amid a deteriorating relationship between the two countries over the Ukraine war.
Some of the companies, including Aerojet Rocketdyne, ATK, Blue Origin and to a lesser extent SpaceX, coalesced around the idea of developing a next-generation main-stage engine, sources said.
Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, the dominant U.S. supplier of large liquid-fueled rocket engines, is working on a kerosene-fueled, 500,000-pound-thrust concept dubbed AR-1, which the company has said could be fully developed in four years for less than $1 billion. In one scenario, sources said, two AR-1 engines would replace the RD-180 engine on the Atlas 5. The RD-180 generates nearly 900,000 pounds of thrust.
Representatives from Blue Origin, the Kent, Washington, firm bankrolled by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, said the Air Force also should consider a liquid-oxygen/methane engine. Brooke Crawford, a spokeswoman for Blue Origin, declined to comment.
Officials from ATK Aerospace of Promontory, Utah, the largest U.S. supplier of solid-rocket motors, suggested the Air Force consider that as an alternative to the liquid-fueled engine envisioned by the service. The industrial base to produce a large, solid-fueled rocket is already in place, the company said, according to sources….
SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, could offer an engine as well. However, sources said SpaceX likely is more interested in simply offering the full-up Falcon 9 as a means of assured access to space. The Falcon 9 is currently being certified to carry military payloads, and SpaceX has a heavy-lift vehicle in development that is expected to debut next year.
The U.S. Air Force is heavily dependent upon the Atlas V for military and intelligence satellite launches. Although ULA stresses there have been no interruptions in RD-180 deliveries, a consensus has formed that the U.S. needs to eliminate its dependence on the Russian engine.
Although SpaceX’s Falcon 9 will soon be certified to carry military payloads, it cannot fully replace the Atlas V and ULA’s other launch vehicle, Delta IV. The larger Delta IV, which is used almost exclusively by the military, does not depend on Russian engines, but it is much more expensive than Atlas V.
Read the full story.
31 responses to “Engine Providers Pitch Ideas for RD-180 Replacement to Government”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Man, if I were SpaceX I wouldn’t be interrested in selling engines at all. Whole rocket or gtfo 😛
Developing, producing and maintaining a new engine line would only be a distraction for them imho.
Agreed, F9 and F9H should be able to replace Atlas V. Besides SpaceX is already developing a new engine, the methane fueled Raptor, though I understand it will be used on much bigger rockets than the Atlas.
There has been references to an interim rockets at least in the beginning based off of the Raptor CH4/LOX as well as it replacing the Falcon Heavy’s 2nd Stage…
With reusability being SpaceX’s next big thing… which it looks likely at this point… Once the Raptor has been developed I fully expect SpaceX to shift away from its current architecture towards full cycle Methane CH4/LOX engines.
No I don’t think they will at all.
Their current F9v1.1 and forthcoming FH is fully capable of servicing their target markets now and in the future so there’s no benefit for them to change, only a lot of cost. There’s also the possibility of upgrading the Merlin Vac providing improved performance but again, I haven’t heard of it being seriously considerred.
Admittedly I did hear about the possibility of a Raptor second stage for FH (Garrett Reiseman in his recent presentation mentioned it) but don’t really think there’s a business case for it.
Raptor is being developed for their Mars vehicles, not their Earth ones. 🙂
Cheers.
I would tend to disagree…
Musk is going towards CH4 Methane / LOX for a very specific reason and the business case certainly wouldn’t be for the Mars Colonial Transporter MCT or the BFR…
Although his stated goal is to colonize Mars he needs to be able to fund it as well as make it feasible and that goes directly through “Reusability”!
I listened to Reiseman as well and what he did do is “Slip Up” by offering up the potential of the Raptor as a second stage solution for the Falcon Heavy… Also, the question that was posed to him didn’t come out of the blue!
The Falcon Heavy definitely beats the Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy to LEO but not to GTO!
There’s your business case!
LOX / RP1 is not the way to go for reusability and my bet… and I feel very confident about this… is you are not just going to see the Raptor but also a smaller commercially viable version based on the full cycle CH4 / LOX engine before the Raptor is fully developed and I have heard reference to this before as a test article!
You’re not going to get by the coking problems of RP1 to the point of just filling her up and launching her again… maybe once if their lucky!
There’ll be a lot of work and cost to swap but if, as you say, the business case aligns then it will be worth it.
Me, I’m now an ex-beancounter and I’ve run some of the numbers and I can’t close the case but I’m also not privy to all the numbers, just some educated guesses.
So think we’ll just agree to disagree. As they say, time will tell.
Cheers.
One of the things that tends to lend itself towards the side of supplementing a business case is the potential of government contracts such as the CC”t”CAP… Opps…
This in effect will make it feasible and then some!
Yes that could help however SpaceX doesn’t seem interested in a potential engine government contract. They’d rather simply sell their launch services, not bits of hardware.
Cheers
Oh but another agree to disagree statement LOL!
SpaceX definitely wants NASA to fund their Dragon V2 and their Raptor! Remember that SpaceX is approaching this from the Fixed Price side of things and they stand to make some VERY Serious money here!
V2? Yes if possible via CCtCap but they’ll do it alone if necessary. Raptor? SpaceX has never TTBOMK ever looked for government funding for this engine. About all is the refurbishment of their test stand at Stennis.
Source please.
Cheers
Dragon Version 2 and they are funding everything through dollars made! Correct? Which would include the Raptor Correct?
Ok so my take on this is as follows:
F1 got a bit of funding via AF but most was Elon’s plus some investor.
F9 got nothing via a specific program. All was via internal investors, plus advance contracts which wasn’t much initially.
Dragon Cargo was funded through a combination of COTS-C and SpaceX internal funds (investor, contracts, etc). Gov’t funding dependent on SpaceX contributions.
Dragon V2 has been developed in the same way with NASA Commercial Crew Program funding and SpaceX internal from contracts and investors.
Raptor has received nothing from any government contracts or programs assigned specifically to it. Internal funding all the way.
So the point I was making is that unless a specific government program is providing funding via a SAA, all funding is via launch contracts and investor funds, ie. internal funding.
Cheers
There is no doubt that Elon invested heavily and to the point of almost going belly up! But you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be!
All money is of course through contracts but not just launch contracts and that includes NASA’s $1.6 billion “Fixed Price” contract to the ISS!
Which means SpaceX can use any or all of the monies made above and beyond what it costs them to provide services for NASA as they see fit!
In a Nutshell it’s semantics!
If SpaceX makes money then they can spend it wherever they please to fund whatever they deem fit and there isn’t any restrictions such as what a government Cost Plus type contracts would dictate. And that would include the CC”i”CAP Money!
Ok but you stated above that “SpaceX definitely wants NASA to fund their Dragon V2 and their Raptor!” Raptor was what I was raising my primary objection about. SpaceX has never stated that and there’s no NASA or other program in place at present.
In addition, it is not correct to assume that all monies won by SpaceX on contracts can be used as they see fit. This certainly hasn’t applied to COTS-C or the Commercial Crew Program. That has been specifically applied to only those vehicles (i.e. Dragon Cargo and Dragon V2) and not to developing launch vehicles or pads or unrelated engines.
Wrt RD-180, a replacement won’t be funded by NASA.
Cheers
Again Semantics’…
Every contract from NASA so far has been on the Fixed Cost Model, so you are incorrect! NASA paid a fixed price award to SpaceX and they could have spent the excess capital on Cheese Burgers if they had wished too!
And what I stated above simply meant what Elon has been doing and that is funding his dream as he sees fit!
If you want to go on about what services he’s been paid for that’s fine but that in no way translates into how they intend to use that capital!
Make Money and push the boundaries that is what SpaceX is doing! And absolutely no one is telling them how they should spend that money! Not in any of the contracts they have won thus far!
Although if Shelby were to get his way that would all change!
Wayne. You really need to read the COTS Space Act Agreements as well as the various ones associated with Commercial Crew. You are simply not correct in stating that SpaceX could have spent those monies on what they wanted. Read them first and then post on them.
CCtCap will be the same. Once Commercial Crew contracts are issued, they will be in the same vein as CRS and launch contracts which I agree, SpaceX will presumably have profit to spend as they see fit, but not the SAA’s.
Edit: I’m not going to discuss this further since you’ve made up your mind. The contracts are in the public arena.
Cheers.
Of course they are going to spend the awards to accomplish the goals set fourth and not run off to Hawaii and abscond with the ill-gotten goods! Geeesssshhhh…
I have followed this from day one… like I’m the geek that watches congress when the science committee is in session…
I will try it this way… R&D on “Profits” made whether from NASA or commercial launch services can be spent however SpaceX deems fit!
And Yes that means the Profits made if any on commercial crew contracts in the beginning which there were none I am sure… It was all Fixed Price Contracts so of course they had to accomplish the tasks set fourth but the rest was theirs to do with as they wish… Like fund the Falcon 9 – R Dev 1.
Their goal is to make money first so that they can fund technology which will enable them to reduce the cost of accessing space!
Edit as well… Agreed this is now tantamount to kicking a dead horse LOL!
I swore black and blue that I wouldn’t answer and now I am – huh!!
Look, the specific COTS and CC agreements were performance-based agreements in that there were milestones that the companies had to achieve before NASA paid for them. That is the difference between the fixed price contracts and these ones plus of course, the companies had to put skin in the game as well, ie. invest their own money in the program. Sure they were fixed price but payment was only made by NASA when agreed milestones were achieved, not before and not at all if the milestone was not achieved. For example, the original companies for COTS were SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler (RpK). RpK failed a financial milestone (i.e. one where they had to provide a finance source) and were scrubbed from the competition with Orbital Sciences replacing them.
So you see, none of the companies involved in these programs made ‘profits’ and in fact had to finance some of the program themselves thus reducing NASA financial risk. NASA was never going to pay more than they had agreed to and only if milestones were achieved.
This is different to say a launch contract which may be fixed price but where you would expect some money to be made over and above cost, i.e. traditional profit, and where the excess of price over cost can be applied wherever the company decides to apply it.
It’s been a fun conversation but now I really really do have to go. You can find out lots more at http://www.nasaspaceflight…. or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Cheers.
I understand the structure of the mildstones and that they are awarded upon successfully completing them. I also understand that there are substantial private investments made to complete those mildstones. But in the end and there was quite a bit of light cast on this with Senator Shelby’s language which was added into the latest appropriations bill and highlights the benifits of Fixed Price over Cost Plus contracts and Fixed Pricing has been the model since the begining of NASA’s competitions, both cargo and crew.
Profits are profits and where they come from or how they are used to compete to get the upper hand has no distinction whatsoever.
That’s all I am saying!
It’s been a pleasure!
“The Falcon Heavy definitely beats the Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy to LEO but not to GTO!”
Atlas V with 5 SRBs (well over $200m) can put just shy of 9 tonnes to GTO. For Delta IV Heavy (over $400m) your’e looking at a little over 14 tonnes. SpaceX are quoting Falcon Heavy at over 21 tonnes to GTO and that’s at $140m.
Although the initial reasoning for CH4 was as a preference over LH2 for Mars missions, the general advantages of CH4 over RP1 are quite significant. Cost is a big factor and becomes a very important for reusable rockets and CH4 is cheaper than RP1. RP1 may soot up a bit, but they should still be OK for perhaps a few hours of use, which could translate to may be double digit missions – CH4 though would be a big improvement. Also, CH4 can be used as its own pressuriser (as can LOX); completely eliminating the need for helium. Raptor is destined for BFR/MCT, but they have stated the intent of a “family of CH4 engines”. Come 2020 Merlin RP1 will likely give way to CH4.
Listening to Reisman speak, I don’t think he was being coy over FH, I think he genuinely doesn’t know much more about it than we do – for now his interests lie elsewhere. Putting a Raptor upper stage on FH will not be easy. Merlin 1D is 720 kN (161,000 lbf) and Raptor should be 8,200 kN. (For comparison, the RL10s on delta and atlas are 110kN and 185kN, but they use LH2 are so have higher isp and less fuel mass). The isp of raptor is higher than merlin, but to make good use of Raptor you would need a much large upper stage with much more fuel. Put simply, Raptor is not sized for FH, it is sized for a larger rocket. Some other future CH4 engine perhaps, but by that time SpaceX may well be looking at going all CH4 anyway.
First off I think the numbers for the Falcon Heavy are up in the air but if you listen to the line of questioning to Reisemam about Slide number 9 the Falcon Heavy’s numbers to GTO simply didn’t jive… there was certain unknowns as to the “Plumbing” as they put it… which got down to whether or not the Falcon Heavy would be using Crossfeed or not…
So you could be correct but I would be Very interested in your sources because the numbers you are giving were the same numbers that were questioned on that slide and are still questionable at this time at best!
The most solid numbers I have heard and seen is about 1,000 lbs less than the Atlas V as well as the Delta IV to GTO.
So I don’t know but I would like too!
Also, RP1 Cokes badly and all indications are its not an easy issue to navigate around when you are talking about reusability
LH2 is incredibly destrcutive in that it causes a change metallugically to the surfaces and causes the metal to become brittle…
My source is SpaceX’s website. They quote two purchasable configurations for FH: up to 6.4 tonnes and up to 21.2 tonnes. Many, including Reisman, have speculated that the lower figure is sans x-feed. However, it may be all 3 cores recovered, whereas the higher payload limit may require expending the centre core. Also, the 6,400kg to GTO yields 45,600kg to LEO and the 21,200kg to GTO gives 53,000kg to LEO. Clearly, there is something extra to improve the upper stage lift to GTO. It might be “plumbing” (x-feed or not x-feed) or it might be about expending that central core. The price difference is about $60m, so I’m guessing that it’s sacrificing the central core that enables the leap in payload to GTO.
I have read that it might be one of two possibilities…
1. Expending the center core… which I don’t believe they intend to do… but maybe they might considering the second possibility…
2. Stretching the second stage because in the end its a lack of fuel capacity on board the second stage…
I guess what we might see is a slightly longer Falcon Heavy but I am not sure their launch or processing architecture would accommodate that…
Indeed. SpaceX has been here before with Stratolaunch. They’ll do better sticking to their own offerings than become a vendor for other launch providers.
Ooooh, my fav orbital transfer. The well known GTFO trajectory.
Why can’t they sell the engines they use on falcon?
I’d guess that’s because the Merlin engines used on the Falcon 9 are much smaller than the RD-180 used on the Atlas V. The Atlas V uses only one engine (two exhaust nozzles, so it looks like two, but it’s only one), whereas the Falcon 9 uses, well, 9 😉
Now obviously, it’s possible to put together 9 smaller engines to power an EELV-class medium lift launcher (heck, SpaceX just launched one a few hours ago), but it seems that the powers that be have got it in their heads that they have to build an RD-180 replacement, not just have the capability to get this class of payloads to orbit on US-powered vehicles.
So, on further thought, it would seem that if they were to use Merlin engines, then the best way to use them would be to use them in the Falcon 9 – which is already in this class and is already actually using them. However, that would present one very major problem:
If SpaceX already has the rocket for the engines, what would there be left for Lockheed to do?
Don’t be surprised if LockMart proposes to manage the contract and collect the money. I’ve been part of projects that when they finally gain respect, the establishment comes in and says … “Well you seem to be doing all the work around here. Nothing for me to do but manage your time and money.”. I don’t think for a minute Space X would go for it. But don’t be srprised to see it proposed at some point. Maybe even soon.
Why would they want to is more the question?
“…Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, the dominant U.S. supplier of large liquid-fueled rocket engines…”
Hmm. Doug might want to rephrased that to the only US supplier of HydroLox engines with about a handful of new build RS-68A engines and a double handful of rebuilds RL-10 engines annually. The dominant global liquid fuel rocket engine maker is SpaceX. For their 5 missions so far this year, they have churn out 50 Merlin engines so far.
Good point. In fact, they have made many more when u think of grasshopper and FH.