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

DoD Picks Two RD-180 Replacement Efforts

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 29, 2016
Filed under , , , ,
DoD Picks Two RD-180 Replacement Efforts

Air Force Awards Final Rocket Propulsion System Prototype OTAs, Space and Missile Systems Center
“Today the Space and Missile Systems Center awarded the final Other Transaction Agreements for shared public-private investments in Rocket Propulsion System prototypes. One award is to Aerojet Rocketdyne for development of the AR1 rocket propulsion system. The initial government investment is $115.3 million. The other award is to United Launch Alliance for development of the Vulcan/BE-4 rocket propulsion system and the ACES rocket propulsion system. The initial government investment is $46.6 million with $45.8 million for the Vulcan/BE-4 effort and $0.8 million for the ACES effort.”
Aerojet Rocketdyne, ULA Announce Public-Private Partnership with USAF to Develop RD-180 Replacement Engine
“The U.S. Air Force selected Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to share in a public-private partnership to develop jointly the AR1 engine an American-made rocket propulsion system.”
Aerojet Rocketdyne Names Dynetics as Key AR1 Engine Team Member
“Following the U.S. Air Force selection of AR1 for a Rocket Propulsion System award, Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AJRD), named Dynetics of Huntsville, Alabama, as a key team member for the AR1 engine development.”
United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin Partner with Air Force to Develop New, All-American Rocket Engine
“United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Blue Origin LLC, a privately-funded aerospace company owned by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, entered into a public-private partnership with the U.S. Air Force to develop a new rocket propulsion system to power Vulcan — ULA’s next-generation launch system.”

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

26 responses to “DoD Picks Two RD-180 Replacement Efforts”

  1. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    If dod is not going to find the raptor I think nasa should.

  2. Steve Harrington says:
    0
    0

    The RS-68 (Delta 4) cost $500M in 2002 dollars, and took 4.7 years.
    http://www.rocket-propulsio

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      The RS-68 is a LH2/LO2 engine which is more difficult.

      • Oscar_Femur says:
        0
        0

        Don’t underestimate the difficulty involved with oxygen-rich staged combustion engine designs.

      • Steve Harrington says:
        0
        0

        Staged combustion engines, like the RD-180 and the SSME are much more difficult to develop than gas generator engines like RS-68. The point is that $100M is a drop in the bucket for staged combustion rocket engine development.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          I’d be surprised that LH2 engines with the colder temps and smaller molecules would be less difficult.

  3. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    So Aerojet Rocketdyne gets more than twice the money that Blue Origin gets. Am I the only one that thinks this stinks?

    • korichneveygigant says:
      0
      0

      If I was investing I would choose Rocketdyne vs BO, given their track record and reputation. As innovative/newspace as Blue Origin is they are still a newcomer and do not have the reputation behind them. Just my .02

      • duheagle says:
        0
        0

        Just remember this sound investment advice which you see on every prospectus: “Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.” Caveat emptor.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I question both Aerojet Rockedyne’s track record and reputation. Their projects don’t always go smoothly and come in on time and under budget. One of the biggest reasons that both SpaceX and Blue Origin developed their own engines is that there is quite a shortage of modern, affordable, US engines on the market. That fault lies partly with Aerojet Rocketdyne and their business model of not developing new engines without a huge influx of US government money to pay the bills.

        • korichneveygigant says:
          0
          0

          Yes, but my original post is meant more of a “perception is reality” statement

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Agreed that the perception is that Aerojet Rocketdyne is the “trusted supplier”. But, today’s reality is that any US company with the right engineering talent and a few hundred million dollars of cash (from private investors) can develop a liquid fueled rocket engine that would likely have taken Aerojet Rocketdyne far more (US government) money to design, build, test, and qualify.

            The fact that Aerojet Rocketdyne keeps getting more government money than the far cheaper commercial startups is also evidence that politics is at play here. Having spent decades playing that game, I suppose it should come as no surprise that Aerojet Rocketdyne is quite good at the game.

  4. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    […]

  5. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Is the AR1 the RD-180 built under license? Or is it Yet Another new engine?

    [Oh. *There* it is.]

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      It could be used as an RD-180 replacement, but it is not simply an American-built RD-180. The AR-1 has design heritage from the F-1 engine used on the Saturn V rocket.

      http://www.defensetech.org/

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        This makes me hopeful that if AR-1 gets developed further, we may see it go even farther into the F1-B. Found a nice comparison between the two here:

        http://seradata.com/SSI/wp-

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          I don’t know for certain, but I would suppose that the AR-1 is based on their earlier work on the F-1B. Should larger engines be required in the future I’m sure that’s the way they’d like to go.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “Should larger engines be required”

            Or, they could us much simpler engines ganged together, designed easier to design, easier to build, easier to maintain, and demonstrably effective. I wonder about the thinking behind these efforts?

          • korichneveygigant says:
            0
            0

            “ganging” smaller engines together means more hardware, manifolds and other bits that add to the overall complexity of the system, which is why, bigger is better in some cases.

            Add on top of this that not all engines of the same design produce the exact same thrust/combustion characteristics and it can add stress to your structure/system.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            OK, in that light, why has SpaceX chosen the simple model of 9 kerosene engines? Lower thrust per engine, unequal forces applied to the rocket structure above, all of those issues are tiny compared to billions required to make another fussy engines when the simpler one has (by that time) been performing for years).

            Isn’t this another example of the American vs. Russian model? Gotta have the latest and greatest while, for instance, Soyuz has been flying for 50 years (a stretch, I admit, but still)? Gotta stretch the tech, boys, we are grounded until we ground out the last 20% of thrust or ISP or whatever?

            Meanwhile Mr. Musk has himself a set of Merlin engines, not exactly cutting edge but they work and are doing amazing things. With kerosene.

            His choice of methane for Raptor rather than the marginal utility of hydrogen is another example- methane being a big and easily managed molecule, hydrogen being the devil incarnate.

            But no. We’ve gotta have a new hydrogen/oxygen engine even though there are at least half a dozen other paths to follow that lead to the same place with much less time and much less money.

            On the other hand I’m not a rocket scientist.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think a big factor for nine engines on the Falcon 9 is fault tolerance. The vehicle can have a total (but not catastrophic) failure of one engine and still make the desired orbit on the remaining eight. A vehicle using three engines, each with three times the thrust, couldn’t do that. Also, a single Merlin is the right size for the second stage. So, except for the small difference between sea-level and vacuum versions, they only have one engine to support.

          • korichneveygigant says:
            0
            0

            That is why I stuck the qualifier in there “bigger is better in some cases”

            I have no idea why SpaceX chose its engine or configuration, but I am sure it was down selected for pro’s and con’s based on what they had seen through their design process.

            the reason why you always see hydrogen is pretty simple, energy density.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            In what case is bigger better? You have a company that has demonstrated the utility of small cheap engines using lower-density fuels. What is the point of a new and difficult engine? They have shown (or, in the case of FH, will show) that they can use these engines to deliver mighty loads.

            I’m still face palming.

            I know a fair amount about design process, which is simply a regularized way to achieve a set of goals. The process can be applied in architecture as well as in engineering. But if you go into it with preconceptions, or if you approach it without the requisite open mind, you end up with garbage. Shiny, new garbage.

            Musk and his boys went into a design process with a clean slate (I guess, as I wasn’t there). The process sent them in a new direction- use many cheap and easily-built engines that didn’t depend on hydrogen. They showed it worked. Then they super-cooled the kerosene and the O2, gaining as they went without using H2. The engine was developed quickly and inexpensively, as these things go. Then they figured out how to make a very long skinny rocket work, allowing them to add more fuel.

            Now they are many years ahead of everybody else. And as they look back, the other rocket boys are crying to Uncle Sam for $$ so they can build a new giant motor.

            Someone here smart please tell me where I am wrong.

          • korichneveygigant says:
            0
            0

            So if that is the case why not just gang a bunch of kestrel (or draco) together on the first stage and have a 100% common engine and even further save money?

            facepalming indeed

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            Actually, the AR-1 is indeed designed to be ganged together in pairs. It can also be made as a single engine.