This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Building All-American Rocket Engines

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 21, 2014
Filed under ,

The Time for a New, All-American Advanced Liquid Rocket Engine Is Now, Mark Albrecht and Don Kerr, Roll Call
“We do not suggest that space cooperation with Russia is bad or that it should be totally curtailed or discouraged, but simply that there are elements of U.S. infrastructure that cannot be outsourced indefinitely. We must revitalize America’s space infrastructure, and the right place to start is with an advanced-hydrocarbon-fueled booster engine — an engine critical to U.S. leadership in rocket propulsion for access to space.”
Keith’s note: The authors dismissial of SpaceX progress and their 100% indigenous American engines is odd. The engines exist and are operational NOW. They also seem to be unaware of the much much larger, American-made engines that SpaceX (and undoubtedly Blue Origin) are developing. That said, the authors do make a good point about having non-Russian engines that other American launch vehicles could use. Alas, the authors decline to say who should pay for these new engines.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

27 responses to “Building All-American Rocket Engines”

  1. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    They do have a point that even the newest SpaceX engines are based on old technology and no HC engine produced by the US is even close in Isp to what the Ruskis have in the RD series. The question is, Is it worth the time, expense, and operational risk developing HC engine, or should we just go for cutting edge and develop a high Isp GH2GOX engine?

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      Isp is not the best measure of performance.

      Lifecycle cost is, and this is what SpaceX understands.

    • korichneveygigant says:
      0
      0

      chemical rocket technology is pretty mature, hence why we havent had any huge breakthroughs and why the new engines are based on old technology and why some really old engines are still used (looking at OMS for the ESA service module). But I do think SpaceX has added value with their methods and processes to try and make space access cheaper.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The cutting edge is not necessarily H2O2. It has advantages for upper stages where mass is critical and not much thrust is needed. But an H2 fueled booster stage has a larger tank volume and engine mass that cancel out the advantage in Isp, and H2 requires a lot of insulation. Methane may be a better choice, an Isp a little better than RP-1 and not really any harder to store than LOX.

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      Chemical rocket technology is nowhere near maturity, there is so much more research to be done in improvement of pumps, cycles, injectors, burning efficiency, …., on the solids side – micrograining, higher energy fuels, ….

      By cutting edge, I meant using better technology, (see all above) as well as some radical concepts such as fluorine/oxygen mix for the oxidizer and cryoslush hydrocarbon fuels (methane, ethane, acetylene, …)

  2. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    NASA has sponsored the development of several small rocket engines over the last 20 years. See the products of Masten and XCOR.

    NASA’s own Project Morpheus HD5 engine burns methane+LOX with an Isp 321s to produce 5,000 lb-f.

    For a higher Isp replace the helium pressurisation with a turbo pump. For more thrust use say 5 engines or a larger engine.

  3. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    There is a litany of half finished engine development projects littered all around. XRS-2200, J-2X, RS-83, RS-84, TR-107, HCB .. The list is long, long. In all these years, cannot get even just one across the finish line ? Complacency, stagnation, lameness, mismanagement across the board.

    In 2006, late Bob Sackheim wrote this in Journal of Propulsion and Power:

    “The space propulsion industry and, indeed, the overall space transportation industry in the United States have been in decline since the first human landing on the moon in 1969. The hoped-for reversal to this decline through the space shuttle and space station programs never really materialized. From an 80 % market share in the late 1970s, the U.S. share of the world launch market fell to ∼20% by 2002. During that period, only two new booster engines have been developed and flight certified in this country. “

    DOI: 10.2514/1.23257

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      well, just to be strictly accurate. the XRS-2200 was completed and test fired several times (using a J-2 turbopump), the J-2X test program was successfully completed recently (though the engine itself has now been mothballed, since it won’t be needed for many years), the RS-83 and RS-84 were developed as part of the SLI program and were cancelled along with the SLI program itself, they never got past the preliminary design phase, so were never started and can’t be said to be half-finished. the TR-107, on the other hand, was completed and successfully test fired many times, however, also was cancelled along with the SLI program itself. and finally, AFAIK the HCB is still a currently ongoing project.

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        And none of it ever got to the launch pad. The talent, skills and capabilities exist, nobody will dispute that.

        The impotence and stagnation come from somewhere else.

        • Jonna31 says:
          0
          0

          The problem isn’t a nebulous force of nature, bad luck, or the Easter bunny. The problem is people and leadership.

          Starting with Goldin, we’ve had, in order: a disaster, a bean counter, a fantasist, and a sycophant with questionable priorities.

          With Presidents, we’ve had Bill Clinton who only cared about space as a way of engagement with Russia, George W Bush who only cared about space in a kind of emotional sense that didn’t involve spending money, and Barack Obama who tried to essentially shut down non-commercial manned space flight, really because he only cares about Health Care, and little else.

          Most of those engines were attached to a program that leadership failed on. XRS-2200? With a space vehicle like the the X-33/VentureStar, it’s mostly a curiosity. J-2X? A legacy of Constellation that will likely never fly.

          SpaceX’s greatest resource isn’t it’s engine, or its technology and design. It’s the people and the leadership, that set out a vision a decade ago, and stuck to that vision.

          If Charlie Bolden really wanted to do this country a public service when testifying before Congress, he would have excoriated every Congress, every NASA Administrator and every President, including his boss, for leading the nation to this point. We are here today because they forgot the most important thing about “leads” and “leadership” in the name of expediency: you have to work hard to keep them. He would tell them that if VentureStar happened, we’d be talking about a successor to it about now. He’d remind them that if Constellation were properly funded, the conservative date for the first launch of Ares I / Orion was last month. He’d tell the truth, and name names and dare congress to fund NASA with what it actually needs or just end the charade once and for all.

          But he won’t do it, because the NASA of 2014 is the NASA where even the memo announcing suspension of ties with Russia became a pissing match “President Obama’s plan” and Congress. Because he is not a leader, and both his Executive and Congressional bosses don’t truly care about spaceflight.

          Instead of coming up with a new engine for the Atlas V for some pointless reason, just retire it. It’s not needed. Rely in Delta IVs and Falcon 9s / Heavy. And next decade, make sure the RS-25E is legitimately economical and fly the SLS only when really big stuff needs to fly. With a generalized space flight solution for every scale, we can get past this pointless morass of launch vehicle debates and start actually doing things in space again.

          • savuporo says:
            0
            0

            Interestingly, you only seem to hold government figures accountable for the string of fizzles. But not CEOs or VPs of space industry.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I think we in the space advocate community bear part of the blame. Even we haven’t been able to come to a consensus as to what we want human spaceflight to accomplish. Four people on Mars in 20 years, and 100 people sustainably in space permanently are conflicting goals.

            Nor can we blame the administrator for everything. The X-33 became too closely tied to the concept of SSTO and was cancelled when the NASA manager became convinced it would not achieve SSTO. practical cost does not depend on SSTO per se, but it does depend on reusability. X-33 could have been quite useful as a technology demonstrator in investigating the performance, maintainability and operating cost of reusable VTOHL vehicles and the effectiveness of the linear external-expansion engine.

          • OpenTrackRacer says:
            0
            0

            It’s amazing how these comments never get fair without a political rant. It’s also amazing how you’re blaming the Obama Administration for trying to shut down commercial spaceflight when it’s actually Congress that’s done the damage by shorting the budget requests for commercial crew each and every year. I expect you’ll be blaming Obama for cancelling the Space Shuttle program next…

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          we’re doing great at designing, building, and testing engines. not so much on putting them on fuel tanks and launching them :p

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        NASA has plans to use 2 or 4 Centaurs for SLS upper stage.

  4. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    It is interesting how this proposed approach hearkens back to earlier days of NACA when it prototyped advanced subsystems for industry. However, it is also juxtaposed with the 21st century launch services approach where NASA or DOD pays a provider to deliver payload to orbit, or beyond – regardless what technology is used in the rocket. It reflects conservatism on the part of launch providers such as ULA who are unwilling to pioneer new rocket technology themselves even when they already charge the government a premium.

  5. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    The ORSC RD-180 has an Isp of 311 versus Merlin’s 282, but Merlin in much better thrust to weight. RD-180 has a horrendous chamber pressure almost 4000psi. Would be interesting to see if the US could do a LOX/RP1 engine that’s lighter than the RD-180 with advanced materials, cheaper, with the high Isp of the ORSC. I expect the fuel weight dominates so the higher Isp is better, but at what cost?

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I think NASA funding for the Raptor would be the best course at present. It has about the same thrust as the RD-180 and a lot of potential for growth. There are advantages to methane even for a booster stage and it is much easier to handle than hydrogen.

  7. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Lets see, they spent $3.3 billion on the J2X and then put it on the shelf.

    Not a good track record to start.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      How much did they really spend and how much was profit? ? What is the Mark up for profit and overhead on these deals. Isn’t it a great track record for there investors? ??

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        Immaterial. The $3.3 billion was the price that NASA paid.

        The investors at SpaceX are the only ones that need to know the costs at SpaceX, but considering that they are the largest manufacturer of Ker/LOX engines, their per unit cost will be low, and using automation similar to the automation at Tesla, those costs will be pretty darn low on a per unit basis.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Immaterial?????
          Dennis
          In a true free market I would agree with you, but that is not what the space industry has been or is. It is the customers/NASA job to see that our taxes are spent wisely. Because of cost plus contracts and monopoly conditions you end up with the customer/nasa/taxpayer/me getting ripped off.

          Spacex is developing merlin on their own dime. I would bet it won’t cost them 3.3 billion dollars!

          In another thread someone asked what does NASA do?? Isn’t the answer to that question, that they see to it, that our space/science dollar is spent WISELY???

          You should be living on the moon, traveling to and from earth to over see your many lunar projects, by now. But your not?????

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    While a call to arms is always useful, raising awareness about
    thinking long term about investment decisions, a new LOX/RP engine
    development has to first assure an approach that will produce the
    outcome of prices per engine, not just making some engine. As Huntsman points out below, “how” you do it is as important as “what”.

    Think of some questions along the way-

    If the new engine is to make Atlas, Antares and Falcon happy, then it must be an engine in the range of about 400klbf of thrust (the size driver is the least module of thrust, Antares scale). Double these and you get close to what Atlas and Falcon need. But SpaceX already knows what Merlins cost them, and would a new provider be as cheap for two of these new ones, delivered? We’d be talking perhaps $5 to $7M a unit? $10-15M for two? Would the per unit price be paramount in development? Or would a customer caught up on performance, price insensitive, and willing to pay many times this, like Atlas and the Air Force, drive the development requirements?

    So at $5M a unit, perhaps selling 20 a year to ULA, and 20 to SpaceX, and 5 to Orbital, would be about $225M in engine
    revenue for some TBD company. But we have seen where such numbers would be a drop in revenue for a maker like Rocketdyne. So it’s time to ask the real hard questions about a new engine program-the first one being if we are to get a unit engine price that actually creates more space launch at ever lower prices, because of the accessibility of a supplier of very low cost engines?

    Lacking such clarity, absent such an approach, emphasizing how as much as what, and having a business case that benefits many players, existing and new, not just one launcher, we would once again have another failed start, lost in past approaches that are no longer appropriate to the times.

    The single “stuckee” would get their engine, years late, expensive, and yet the bigger picture would be none the better afterwards. We’d still have an uncompetitive engine base with no prospects for moving the US launcher industry as a whole forward.

  9. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    One guy from Lockheed Martin and the other guy who launches billions of dollars worth of NRO spysats on Lockheed and Boeing boosters…of course they are going to diss SpaceX and try to steer the procurement back to their good buddies in the military -industrial-space complex.

    Therein lies the problem. One common engine for all those various
    boosters? How narrow and shortsighted is THAT ? They also ignore or
    conveniently forget that the US contractors have blueprints and engines in hand to build domestic RD-180’s from scratch, but chose not to after being granted a licenses to do just that . Why ? Because the American private military-industrial-space contractors love their money too much ,and cannot or will not build an American RD-180 because ( a) they don’t realize the shareholder profit margin in it, and ( b) cannot come anywhere near the bargain price of $ 10 million per engine from the Russians . They still have fifty engines in the warehouse , bought and paid for in year 2000 dollars , shrewdly buying them when Boris Yeltsin’s Neo-Russia was on the rocks financially and was selling the USSR’s family jewels. or the oligarchs werre, anyway. A shrewd buy , but it had the consequence of taking away the incentive for US engine developers to do something new and exciting. And here we are…

    Bottom Line: When an Atlas V flies for $ 140-180 million per launch give or take, it is NOT the price of the Russian engine that is driving that high cost.

    These guys need to be taken to the woodshed for saying that SpaceX Merlins are old tech, not efficient nor unworthy. That’s like saying piston powered engines have no place in modern automobiles since pistons have been used in gasoline engines since the 19th century. SpaceX’s use of the pintle engine is smart, and their manufacturing tech is state of the art.
    I note the RL-10 Centaur hydrogen upper stage on Atlas and Delta is “old tech” . The RS-68 first flew 12 years ago. And where did that big 1.2 million pound thrust RS-84 kerosene engine program go , Boeing – Rocketdyne ? Ever get around to cutting metal on that one ? No, you
    killed it back in 2005. Where we at with the J2-X , which is your
    grandather’s J-2 all over again ? Last I looked, the J2-X was in a coma.

    I do believe SpaceX is well along with its big methane new engine program, sometimes called the Raptor project.

    All in all, this essay from Albrecht and Kerr is to be taken as self-serving propaganda, not forward policy

  10. Robert Clark says:
    0
    0

    Back in the 70’s studies were done that showed the SSME’s could be converted to hydrocarbon fueled. According to the studies this would be cheaper than developing a whole new engine from scratch.

    Bob Clark