New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#51 2014-05-14 19:39:02

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,578
Website

Re: Expedite US access to space

GW Johnson wrote:

It's about 40% art

When I built an automated calibration rack for Micropilot, I made a point of documenting how to build it. That's so a successor could repair it. Pressure to calibrate transducers for pitot tubes came from an aquarium air pump, and I documented the make/model and store I bought it from. Vacuum for the pressure transducer for altitude was produced with another aquarium air pump, different model. And that had to be modified for an air hose. The pump had a nipple for pressure out, but open grade for intake. I had to use a drill press to produce a pressure tight fit for an intake hose. I also used silicone tubing for air instead of polypropylene because it had to operate in an environmental chamber that would go from -55°C to +75°C. This was all documented. Including instructions to drill the air pump with a drill press. Bit size, how deep to drill, how to orient the pump under the drill.

So Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne should hire me. Hint, hint, hint!

But the RD-180 engine is manufactured by NPO Energomash. According to Wikipedia, "headquarters in Khimki, Moscow and its satellite facilities in Samara, Perm, and St. Petersburg." Do you really think Russia would let you watch the manufacture of an RD-180?

Offline

#52 2014-05-14 20:14:54

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

I just remembered another kerosene burning engine..test-fired the rocket engine that will power the next-generation heavy-lift booster, the Long March 5 it has the capacity to carry a 20-ton (18 metric tons) payload capable of 118 tons of thrust.

China tests new rocket engine and slates moon landing for 2013 or http://www.space.com/21957-china-rocket … ation.html

What if China were to supply there engine for Atlas use ...what a kick that would be if it were to happen in light of what is occuring...

Offline

#53 2014-05-14 22:19:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

Boeing: No New Russian RD-180 Engines Needed For ULA Bulk Buy Deal as ULA has 16 RD-180s on U.S. soil, according to an industry official.

Should it run short of RD-180s, ULA and U.S. Air Force, its customer, can shift some launches from the Atlas V manifest to Delta IV. "That is not our desired approach," Krone says. "We’d just as soon not move the manifest."

Offline

#54 2014-05-16 17:40:50

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

While military use might be in question its the other that seems to be full speed ahead for purchases. USA to purchase Russia's Energomash rocket engines after 2016 Orbital Science’s technical specialists will visit Energomash next week to negotiate RD-181 purchases

1040548.jpg


Russia will continue rocket engines supplies to US — Russian official
the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia president Vitaly Lopota said.

“No one has cancelled engines supplies. We are continuing manufacturing in compliance with the effective contracts,” he told ITAR-TASS on Friday. In the US the RD Amross joint venture adapts the engines for use in the Atlas V launch systems.

Offline

#55 2014-05-20 22:03:34

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

With questions swirling, ULA hastens Delta 4 production

The 36-core block buy is equivalent to 28 launches because four of the flights will use the Delta 4-Heavy, which is comprised of three first stage rocket cores to boost performance for heavier payloads. Of the 36 rocket cores ordered by the Air Force, Gass said 20 are for the Atlas 5 and 16 are for the Delta 4.

The Delta 4 rocket costs more than an Atlas 5 to put the same mass into orbit, requiring strap-on solid rocket boosters to loft a satellite that an Atlas 5 could launch with just its liquid-fueled first and second stages.

ULA’s launches cost an average of $225 million;

The Delta 4 Heavy, its most powerful rocket, runs about $350 million a launch;

The lower end of the Delta costs $164 million; $64 million is already paid for, ULA representatives explained, and the per-launch price comes down below $100 million.

Any launch of the Atlas V (version 401) over the current buy would cost less than $100 million (this is the rocket closest to Musk’s Falcon 9).

Atlas 5 rocket set for launch amid cloud of controversy

"All across the government we thought it was an excellent idea for a variety of reasons to bring in Russian engines, not least because we wanted to understand the technology of a clearly superior engine, and learn how to build it ourselves, and one of the absolute constraints on approval of the deal that the policy-levels of government is that we would learn how to coproduce the engine," said Mike Griffin, the former NASA administrator who recently did a Defense Department study on replacing the RD-180.

"Well, the bottom line is the DOD did not invest, industry did not invest, Congress did not make them, and it never happened, and as people have been frank to admit, it was for reasons of money.

Last edited by SpaceNut (2014-05-21 09:57:03)

Offline

#56 2014-05-24 21:07:33

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

"Mr Putin's Russia is giving us some problems," said Senator Bill Nelson, who flew aboard Space Shuttle Columbia in 1986.

"So we put $100 million in the defense bill to develop a state-of-the-art rocket engine to make sure that we have assured access to space for our astronauts as well as our military space payloads."

I really do not see what a poultry 100 million is going to buy in the hands of the military....

Offline

#57 2014-05-25 07:16:13

RGClark
Member
From: Philadelphia, PA
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 532
Website

Re: Expedite US access to space

Support Grows For New U.S. Rocket Engine.
Amy Butler Frank Morring, Jr. May 26, 2014
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support … ket-engine

Possibilities might be the engines investigated a decade ago for a possible
heavy lift booster. Unfortunately they were cancelled in 2004 after the Ares
V was decided upon. One such engine was the reusable RS-84.

In 2009 when the Obama administration was considering producing a heavy lift
kerosene engine there was talk of resurrecting the RS-84, but it was
cancelled again when the SLS was decided upon. This article from 2003 said
it would take until 2007, 4 years, to produce it:

RS-84 Engine Passes Preliminary Design Milestone.

Huntsville – Jul 16, 2003
The RS-84 is one of two competing efforts now under way to develop an
alternative to conventional, hydrogen-fueled engine technologies. The RS-84
is a reusable, staged combustion rocket engine fueled by kerosene — a
relatively low-maintenance fuel with high performance and high density,
meaning it takes less fuel-tank volume to permit greater propulsive force
than other technologies.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zm.html

IF development continued for an additional year up to 2004 and IF the
development materials and designs were retained, then conceivably
development could be restarted and completed in just 3 additional years.

In any case I’d like to see a study done to see how long and how much it
would cost to complete its development.

Another possibility might be the TR-107:

NASA invests $21 million in TR107 engine development.
6 May 2003
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nasa- … z32b7sNvZf

Bob Clark


Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nano … 13319568#/

Offline

#58 2014-05-25 07:26:50

RGClark
Member
From: Philadelphia, PA
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 532
Website

Re: Expedite US access to space

The father and son astronauts Owen and Richard Garriott argue we should
accelerate the pace at which we get an independent U.S. space capability:

It's Time to Push for US Human Spaceflight Independence (Op-Ed).
Richard Garriott, Cosmonaut/Astronaut, and Owen Garriott, Astronaut
(retired) | May 07, 2014 12:54am ET

After more than two decades of development, it is essential that the United
States keeps the ability to visit, work and return from the ISS within its
national capabilities. Yet, it is surprising to see how little discussion,
much less pressure, is being applied to accelerating plans to regain an
independent capability for human spaceflight. Now seems to be the time for
Congress, NASA and the general public to all push hard, and get one or more
of these U.S. systems in space as soon as possible."
http://www.space.com/25785-american-hum … riott.html

Considering that SpaceX intends to fly their own crews to LEO in 2015, we could
have NASA flights to the ISS by 2015 with funding. Odd that SpaceX
is not pressing the issue since they plan to make their own, independent of
NASA, crewed test flights to LEO then.

Two more articles arguing for accelerating commercial crew:

May 14, 2014, 1:14pm EDT
Elon Musk was right: What Russia's anti-NASA plan means for C. Fla.
Richard Bilbao
Reporter-Orlando Business Journal

It means U.S.-based commercial space transport is even more important
than ever, said Frank DiBello, president and CEO of Space Florida, an agency
behind fostering the growth of Florida's space industry.
“This type of news even further magnifies the need for the U.S. to be
aggressive about enabling commercial space market expansion ASAP. As with
transport of crews to the ISS, we cannot wait much longer. Swift action must
be taken to ensure our states and commercial U.S. companies have the tools
they need — whether that be dedicated launch infrastructure or engines — to
keep our national space program intact without reliance on others,” he said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog … -plan.html

EXPLORING OPTIONS.
By ROGER LAUNIUS
Former Chief Historian of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), 1990-2002

To avoid reliance on good Russian–American relations, the United
States must accelerate the development of an American rocket. Bolden has
already asked for this, telling the U.S. Congress that “the choice here is
between fully funding the request to bring space launches back to American
soil or continue to send millions to the Russians.” Thus far, Congress has
not acted to accelerate the development of an American-built rocket.
http://www.themarknews.com/2014/05/13/e … options-2/

  Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2014-05-25 07:28:54)


Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nano … 13319568#/

Offline

#59 2014-05-25 08:07:31

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 22,264

Re: Expedite US access to space

Turning back time to constellation...
2007-09-07 08:03:14

SpaceNut wrote:

There were lots of engine projects going before the Columbia accident and those were all canned. Some of them could have been what we could have used today in the building of the visions flight of ships. These were under the OSP and SLI programs.

Such things as the RS-84 kerosene and the RS-83 Hydrogen buring were amoung them.

The RS-83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-83 was being design as a replacement reuseable beyound shuttle but the work could have been transferred into the ARES V with more power than the RS-68's for even greater payloads to orbit.

So while you may have what you think is a solution NASA will not care, the decision has been made until such time that it will not work and then NASA will move on....

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB