NASA unlikely to produce fully operational rocket engine of its own before 2020 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 06:23:00 pm
content: NASA says it’s unlikely to produce a fully operational rocket engine of its own before 2020.USA banned from using Russian rocket enginesUSA banned from the International Space StationUSA's 11 GPS stations in Russia terminatedMoscow to ban US from using Russian rocket engines for military launches.Moscow is banning Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit, said Russia’s Deputy PM, Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of space and defense industries.“We proceed from the fact that without guarantees that our engines are used for non-military spacecraft launches only, we won’t be able to supply them to the US,” Rogozin is cited as saying by Interfax news agency.If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added.The US relies on Russian-made RD-180 and NK-33 engines to launch military and civilian satellites into space, with NASA saying it’s unlikely to produce a fully operational rocket engine of its own before 2020.The Deputy PM also announced that Russia is considering halting the operations of all American GPS stations on its territory, starting from June 1.Such a measure would be employed if the US fails to decide on hosting stations for Russia’s space-based satellite navigation system, GLONASS, before May 31, he explained.“We’re starting negotiations, which will last for three months. We hope that by the end of summer these talks will bring a solution that will allow our cooperation to be restored on the basis of parity and proportionality,” Rogozin said.But if the negotiations turn out to be fruitless, operation of the 11 American GPS station in Russia will “be permanently terminated” from September 1, he warned.According to Rogozin, Moscow also isn’t planning to agree to the US offer of prolonging operation of the International Space Station (ISS).“We currently project that we’ll require the ISS until 2020,” he said. “We need to understand how much profit we’re making by using the station, calculate all the expenses and depending on the results decide what to do next.”“A completely new concept for further space exploration” is currently being developed by the relevant Russian agencies, the official explained.Previously, the US space agency, NASA, had asked Russia’s Roscosmos to keep the ISS in orbit till 2024.Relations between Moscow and Washington have seriously deteriorated after the accession into Russia of the Ukrainian Republic of Crimea, which refused to recognize the new coup-imposed authority in Kiev.The US and its EU partners have introduced several waves of sanctions against Russia, which have seen assets frozen and travel bans imposed on dozens of the country’s politicians and businessman, as well as the cessation of joint projects in different areas, including space.However, Rogozin stressed that Russia will apply restrictive measures of its own only as a response to sanctions imposed by the West.“We won’t be first to adopt sanctions, especially in the high-tech area. For us it is a matter of employment of our specialists,” he said.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 06:30:37 pm
content: Why are they banned from the ISS?Too bad it seems to be falling apart, wish I could send some of my kerbals to help

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 06:32:27 pm
content: Sign. Load up the tanks, warm up the nukes, let's get this over with. Looks like it's 1979 again, folks.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 06:49:19 pm
content: Boeing has scheduled their first unmanned test flight of commercial CST-100 for early 2017. Boeing is among a trio of American aerospace firms that are on a mission to restore America’s capability to fly humans to Earth orbit and the International Space Station. The trio includes SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corp.Chris Ferguson, commander of NASA’s final shuttle flight, is now spearheading the Boeing’s “space taxi” project as director of Crew and Mission Operations.“It’s been over 1000 days and counting since we landed [on STS-135],” Ferguson noted.The last shuttle flight (STS-135), commanded by Ferguson, was in July 2011. Since then no American astronauts have launched to space from American soil on American rockets and spaceships.Since July 2011, American astronauts have been dependent on the Russian Soyuz capsule to shuttle them to and from the ISS. However, Ferguson and the Boeing team hope to change the situation, and soon.The goal is to get Americans back into space from U.S. soil and provide reliable and cost-effective U.S. access to destinations in low Earth orbit like the ISS and the proposed private Bigelow space station.Boeing has reserved a launch slot at Cape Canaveral with United Launch Alliance (ULA) for early 2017. The first flight of CST-100 will be unmanned. If all goes well, the maiden CST-100 orbital test flight with humans would follow around mid-2017.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 06:54:01 pm
content: Replacing Russian Rocket Engine Isn’t Easy, Pentagon SaysThe Pentagon has no “great solution” to reduce its dependence on a Russian-made engine that powers the rocket used to launch U.S. military satellites, the Defense Department’s top weapons buyer said.“We don’t have a great solution,” Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said yesterday after testifying before a Senate committee. “We haven’t made any decisions yet.”Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Air Force to review its reliance on the rocket engine after tensions over Russia’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea region prompted questions from lawmakers about that long-time supply connection. United Launch Alliance LLC, a partnership of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Boeing Co. (BA), uses the Russian-made RD-180 engine on Atlas V rockets.Among the options the Air Force is outlining for Hagel are building versions in the U.S. under an existing license from the Russian maker or depending only on Delta-class rockets that use another engine, Kendall said. The U.S. also could accelerate the certification of new companies to launch satellites that don’t use the Russian engine, he said.Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., a Hawthorne, California-based company that’s trying to break into the military launch market, said at a March 5 congressional hearing that launches may be at risk because of dependence on the Russian engine.‘Very Dependent’SpaceX claimed in a complaint filed April 28 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington that the Air Force illegally shut it out of the market for military satellite launches by giving a monopoly to the joint venture of Chicago-based Boeing and Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed. Musk’s company says the contract funnels money from U.S. taxpayers to Russia’s military industrial complex and potentially to those under U.S. sanctions because of the continuing Ukraine crisis.SpaceX won a court order yesterday temporarily blocking the Air Force from buying the Russian rocket engines. Judge Susan Braden’s preliminary injunction doesn’t cover existing contracts or payments. Braden said her decision was reached after considering public interest, national defense and security concerns.The Air Force review, which hasn’t been submitted to Hagel, found that the Russian company, NPO Energomash, is “very dependent on their sales to us,” Kendall said. “That company really needs the sales. From that side of it, we’re in pretty good shape.”Two-Year SupplyThe options for minimizing a cutoff have drawbacks, such as harnessing the time and know-how to build the engines in the U.S. and limited production capability for the Delta rocket, Kendall said.The United Launch Alliance has stockpiled about a two-year supply of the engines based on the current planned satellite launch schedule, Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann said in an e-mail in March.The joint venture is also taking delivery of five more engines this year, ULA spokeswoman Jessica Rye said in an e-mailed statement.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 07:04:38 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on May 13, 2014, 06:49:19 pmthe 3 Americans stuck in the ISS right now can wait 4 or 5 years, no problem (their recurring on board movie is Gravity)but....since the Russians have 2 Cosmonauts there too, they'll probably all come back down together.

author: dfmischler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 07:19:42 pm
content: I would think the answer is to provide one of the Russian-made rocket engines to the Chinese, and tell them that we want to buy a million of them. Within 5 years they will be all over ebay...

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 07:30:15 pm
content: Quote from: dfmischler on May 13, 2014, 07:19:42 pmChinese already replicated many of our engine and spacecraft designs quite a while ago.They also have operational manned rockets, unlike the USA.However, they don't seem to like the idea of joining the ISS, or selling any of that tech.

author: scientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 09:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: dfmischler on May 13, 2014, 07:19:42 pmRoscosmos already did that. Wanna know why Shenzhou looks like a scaled up Soyuz? it literally is.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 09:29:39 pm
content: QuoteIt would surprise me if they do produce a (new) operational rocket before 2025 - they have one operational now.QuoteThose Neocons in the state department didn't quite think through,.Ask Nuland.QuoteThe Chinese was not invited to join ISS, on the notion that inviting them could help their space industry,.Some one failed to think more than a couple steps ahead.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 06:59:48 am
content: Well that's what you get if you depend too much on one supplier.This is true for businesses so why would it not be true for governments?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:48:41 am
content: There is always the French and the Indians who have launch capabilities, otherwise it's a case of raiding the museums.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:27:56 am
content: I think the USA has plenty of capability to clone the old engines,or even the Russki ones,if they put their minds ,& will,to it!I wonder who the genius was,who decided to use the Russian ones,though----I bet he was showered with honours for saving money,at the time!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:34:06 am
content: QuoteWell, but what US government did expect when overthrowing Ukraine government and later applying sanctions to Russia. That they will admit that US is so powerful and bow to them? That's not the case with Russians, they will always hit back.http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90c_1395058419

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:36:01 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on May 14, 2014, 08:27:56 amYou might underestimate what this will take. I once saw a documentary about the apollo engines that were created from an enormous amount of experiments to find the right mixture, shape, fuelchamber proportions, size etc. etc. to create a stable rocketengine. They might clone this 1:1 but to make a smaller or larger version will take an equal amount of experiments since there is no proven simulation that works, still today they are unable to simulate this behaviour which I found quite interesting. We know a lot but still there are a lot of unknowns that only with practical experimentation can be created.I think the real question is, why would any country spend billions of coins to still put some humans in space while a lot of their own people do not even have a roof over their head and food on the table

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:54:39 am
content: Quote from: wraper on May 14, 2014, 08:34:06 amI wouldn't say that US have overthrown the Ukrainian government. Sure, they were not sad when angry mob removed the Russia's puppet from the seat, but I really doubt that they were the initiators.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 09:37:37 am
content: So you are telling, that the USA lost the space race for the moment. That is not news. The only thing the USA was first was the moon landing, everything else the USSR did first. And that is basically only because the Nedelin catastrophe in 1960.Maybe the CIA can steal the Buran's schematic, since the russians succesfully updated the stolen Space shuttle.This whole thing is ridiculous.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 11:48:05 am
content: This is massively overblown.Take away Atlas V and ULA still has Delta IV Medium and Delta IV Heavy. This is a very impressive suite of vehicles.As for motors, RS-68 and RS-25 are home-built, high performancein-productionmotors (LH2/LOX) which are very appropriate for high C3 type missions.Not to mention SpaceX and Orbital are in the mix. SpaceX in particular has rapidly ramping capability, and happen to make (in Merlin 1D) arguably the best RP/LOXmotor in the world. If versatility is a criteria, then it is by far.Taking away Atlas V sucks, because it's anice rocket,but this is hardly a disaster.Elon Musk did warn of exactly this quite recently:http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-to-congress-heres-why-you-should-pick-spacex-16570920If you want to skip dancing with the ad, the pertinent quote (in front of congress) is:Elon Musk:"...What would make sense for long-term security is to phase out the Atlas IV, which depends on the Russian engine, have ULA operate the Delta family and SpaceX operate the Falcon family."[Edited to remove a redundancy]

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 06:51:41 pm
content: While the USa did once have the ability to make big rocket engines, and still has the plans, the very important undocumented know how of how to assemble the things, test them and even how to make the parts has largely disappeared. Thus the large amount of looking at museum pieces to see how they were put together, and from what.This is one of those products where you need a lot more than a list of the parts to put it together. You need a lot of care in welding ( not documented) and selection of material as well.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:27:14 pm
content: SeanB>>While the USa did once have the ability to make big rocket engines, and still has the plans, the very important undocumented know how of how to assemble the things, test them and even how to make the parts has largely disappeared. Thus the large amount of looking at museum pieces to see how they were put together, and from what.<<I find it impossible to agree. The only liquid fuel motors the US ever built that were bigger than thecurrently in productionUS-Built RS-68 is the Saturn V's F-1! The RS-68 is the most powerful LH2/LOX motor ever built! Plus, the Delta IV family is in the exact same lifting class as Atlas V! It can even carry more to LEO or GEO. On the solid motor side, the SRB's for SLS are going to be the largest ever made. (Please note, I'm not in any way suggesting that the use of an SRB on a manned vehicle is a good thing.)Plus, as far as looking at old designs, they successfully resurrected J-2 from Apollo as the J-2X (even better than before). This motor is going into SLS along with RS-25.Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem here. No capability has been lost. In fact, I'd agree with Musk that the US should have never depended on Atlas V because of the source of the motors.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:36:59 pm
content: Forget the Russians, NASA should not have a problem winning the Hack A Day competition.They may have to remove Dave from the terrorist list though to improve their chances.

author: scientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:56:45 pm
content: I recall they decided against putting J-2X in the Space Launch System, because they have enough RS-25s, but they're still using F-1B. That engine is batshit amazing.I agree that this whole thread is a circlejerk for the NASA haters.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 03:46:39 am
content: Quote from: scientist on May 14, 2014, 07:56:45 pm"The Pentagon has no “great solution” to reduce its dependence on a Russian-made engine that powers the rocket used to launch U.S. military satellites, the Defense Department’s top weapons buyer said."“We don’t have a great solution,” Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said yesterday after testifying before a Senate committee. “We haven’t made any decisions yet.”You don't work for the Pentagon, they don't know shit, but you doNASA just purchased a number of bouncy castles, will add seat belts so nobody falls out, and expect to lift off into space with them.Up, up, and away ... Strong winds blew the bouncy castle high off the ground with the kids inside it. (they fell out early enough to not be critically hurt)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 03:56:35 am
content: Quote from: staxquad on May 13, 2014, 06:23:00 pmGood. Teach the stupid Yanks a lesson. Effectively cancelling their manned space program, practically stifling the private US rocket industry, and going to the most ridiculous pie-in-the-sky long term rocket programs because of vested interests, and one of the dumbest things the US government has ever done.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 04:03:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 15, 2014, 03:56:35 amThe only bad part is that we won't be able to send things like the canadarm up as easily.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 04:55:49 am
content: QuoteIt's RS-25 and J-2X now.http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/#.U3RELfldV8FQuoteIsthatwhat that was? Explains much...QuoteSLS is only one in a series of "Joke" programs since the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) back in '89. It's basically a battle between an agency that's struggling design programs to protect its own civil service jobs vs a congress that doesn't understand or appreciate science and technical stuff, as they are 99% lawyers.Dumb is their Dominion.And to make everyone feel better, your Elon Musk moment of cool upon cool:If anyone hasn't been following, the last Falcon 9 launch had a successful simulated soft-landing in the Atlantic a few weeks ago.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 04:58:53 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on May 15, 2014, 04:03:31 amOh yeah thanks for the arm man!Regarding the rest of it... Can we not buy rockets directly from Starsem and use them ourselves? I mean they're launched out of Kazakhstan, not Russia.I found an owners manual, if NASA needs it.http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-soyuz/Soyuz-Users-Manual-March-2012.pdf

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 05:03:30 am
content: QuoteWhy would we bother when we have other rockets to do the same job? Only Atlas V uses the Russian motors.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 05:07:35 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on May 15, 2014, 05:03:30 am??,?, ???????!

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 05:22:43 am
content: QuoteI apologize for any lack of clarity. Perhaps we are talking about two different things.The OP is about the Russians not selling us rocket engines which we only need foronerocket (Atlas V). Delta IV Medium and Heavy use American engines, as does Falcon 9.Why do we need to buy foreign rockets? Even without Atlas V, we have lost no capability.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 10:47:30 am
content: QuoteHe is criticizing ULA because of money, not his love for space or the space program.

author: Dave Turner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 07:30:44 pm
content: Hopefully there won't be influential politicians with knee-jerk reactions insisting on immediate (if not yesterday) results.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 07:35:48 pm
content: They need to take the 90 billion they want to spend on a bullett train here in California and invest it in aerospace, desalinization, and fusion power development. Nobody will ride the train and the lawsuits are so backed up it will never get off the ground. Spend te money where it will do some good! Skunk works is close to net power gain. A couple billion would put us there!

author: scientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 10:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 15, 2014, 03:56:35 amI'd like to see the Aussies launch a rocket.

author: kolonelkadat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 10:44:34 pm
content: Has nasa ever built its own rockets?building rockets seems like something they would have Boeing do.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 11:25:42 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 14, 2014, 08:36:01 amMeanwhile Europe flies rockets into space all the time... and let's not forget about China.The Space Shuttle development has focussed too much on solid fuel rockets (which can be used in ICBMs) so now the US is behind on general purpose rockets. OTOH it could be a lot of FUD produced by NASA to get their budgets increased.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 11:41:08 pm
content: QuoteWhich does not invalidate his point. Or, that what they did was extremely cool.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 11:57:06 pm
content: QuoteTrue. Just that one needs to factor in his bias in consideration of his points.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 03:43:13 am
content: Looks like we still build some engines.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 03:19:37 pm
content: Quote from: scientist on May 15, 2014, 10:08:32 pmWe launched quite a few,& even one satellite,but we did cheat a bit,------we bought the rockets from the USA.The Brits launched some fairly big ones from Woomera,but I guesstheydon't count.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 05:33:28 pm
content: There is a Bruce in America that needs a fosters. Load a keg up in that ICBM and send it over!That's how I envision the Aussie space program Should be. Way more fun too!Ladies and Bruces, there is Too much Monty Python in my diet!