US Launch Vehicles and Spacecraft: Discussion & News

George1 wrote:US Orion Rocket Passes Review, Moves to Assembly Stage - Lockheed Martin

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151026/1029144116/us-orion-rocket-lockheed-martin-nasa.html#ixzz3piOhpsoS

Lockheed Martin!!
Ooh boy, this ain't gonna end well.

Miser Pays Twice: Low-Cost Super Strypi Rail-Launched Rocket Fails in Debut


The debut of a new, rail-launched experimental rocket for small satellites failed less than a minute into its flight, the US Air Force said, according to Spacenews.com.

The rail-launched Super Strypi rocket was part of the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)-4 mission.

"The ORS-4 mission on an experimental Super Strypi launch vehicle failed in mid-flight after liftoff at 5:45 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (7:45 p.m. PST/10:45 p.m. EST) today from the Pacific Missile Range Facility off Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii," the Air Force said in a brief statement on November 4.

Project officials wanted to build a new launcher that would provide a low-cost launch option for smaller satellites. The Super Strypi project was expected to cost about $15 million per mission and bring as much as 300 kilograms of load into orbit.

Currently US defense organizations, such as the US Army, the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office build heavy-lift rockets that cost billions of dollars.

No Space Without Moscow: US Buying Once Sanctioned Russian Rocket Engines


Washington continues to purchase rocket engines from Moscow, as the US has removed them from the list of sanctioned materials, Russia's trade representative to the United States told RIA Novosti.

According to Alexander Stadnik, the rocket engines were initially sanctioned by the United States, but Washington removed them from the list.
"They must have understood that they needed this Russian equipment for development of rocket equipment, otherwise they would have to limit themselves in a series of expensive projects. It is evident that this is the reason the supplies of our engines were continued."

Stadnik noted that the sides were continuing cooperation with previously signed contracts.

In January, Russian rocket producer Energia signed a $1 billion contract with US Orbital Sciences Corporation for the delivery of 60 RD-181 engines. The contract also includes a provision on a range of services including flight training, installation of the engine and engine testing.

In the late 1990s, the Russian Energomash company won a contract with United Launch Alliance to supply RD-180 engines for the Atlas rockets. This contract, valued at about $1 billion, remains in place.

The West, led by Washington, has been imposing sanctions on Russia since 2014, when a military and political crisis in Ukraine escalated, with the US and the EU alleging Russia's involvement.

All systems go again on more RD-180 sales to the US. Plus McCain is pissed off by the decision. Got to be win-win.


WASHINGTON (Sputnik), Leandra Bernstein — Russia stands to get a multi-million dollar bonus from the US government spending bill, which allows future purchases of the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine, US Senator John McCain told Sputnik. "They relaxed the prohibition on the [RD-180] engines. We just gave [Russian President] Vladimir Putin tens of millions of dollars," McCain said after the US Senate passed the 2016 spending bill.

Asked whether Russia came out a winner in the US budget, McCain stated, "Yes… on the Russian rocket engines, yes."

On Friday, the Congress passed an all-encompassing 2,200 page budget that includes a provision allowing the United States to continue purchasing the Russian RD-180 rocket engines, which it uses for national defense and other space launches.

In 2014, Congress strictly limited future purchases of the RD-180 at the same time it imposed tough economic sanctions on Russia. President Barack Obama signed the final spending bill into law on Friday evening.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151219/1032001136/mccain-thinks-russia-winner.html#ixzz3uiUiG2D9

U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

Excellent analysis. The other detail is that Russia's launch costs are intrinsically lower than those of the US and the EU.
I applaud the effort to build reusable rockets, but the predictions of Russia's demise are premature and idiotic.

higurashihougi wrote:Threaten or not I don't know, but the U.S. continued to buy Russian RD-180

https://www.rt.com/usa/326955-us-russian-rocket-engines/

The US has ordered 20 additional RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, days after US Congress lifted the ban on the use of Russian engines to get American ships into space. However, the move has been lambasted by some politicians in Washington.

United Launch Alliance announced that it placed an order for more RD-180 rockets to be used by Atlas V launch vehicle, on top of 29 engines that the company has ordered before US sanctions against Russia were introduced over Crimea last year.

I guess all those Congress blowhards had to eat their shit. This is clearly not what we were promised.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

Shuttle RS-25s were practically rebuilt after every flight at great expense - that's part of the reason why it cost ~$1B to launch a shuttle. In this instance, reuseability failed comprehensively to deliver on its promise of cheaper access to space.

You are comparing SpaceX Merlin engine to NK-33s??? Merlin are low-tech gas-generator engines while NK-33 is a closed-cycle master-piece. You are correct that Merlins have a higher power-to-weight ration, but thats because it is simpler and inefficient and dumps energy overboard via its turbine exhaust while the NK-33 wastes nothing. Thats why the NK-33 specific impulse (the TRUE measure of an engines efficiency) is 297 sec at sea level, while the poor little Merlin slouches along at 282... (at vacuum its 331 vs 311).

I like how you point out that "if some engine stops working".... Tell me the last time a Soyuz or Proton main engine (not vernier) "stopped working"...

Take a look at the recovered F9 core - its engine bay and lower section is scorched from the heat of its vertical descent (the airflow carries the heat up and around the core rather than down and away as it does during ascent) and if anyone really believes that this recovered stage can simply be wiped down, refuelled and relaunched is quite frankly deluding themselves. At best, the engine bay will need to be dismantled. thermal insulation replaced, and heat-affected metallic components will need to be replaced (consider what an under-strength strut did to the previous F9 flight, now imagine the effect of heat-weakened components in the engine bay which carry the full engine thrust force). They will likely be able to be salvaged and put under heat treatment to return them to the proper temper, but it still adds to the refurb workscope.

"rusophyle apologyst"???? What the fuck are you smoking? I've said NOTHING that isn't properly considered and defensible. Maybe SpaceX have all the answers and can make a real go out of re-use of returned hardware, but its VERY POSSIBLE that like the shuttle before, the F9 reuseability promises will remain undelivered. Again, only time will tell.

Thanks Big_Gazza. The F9 looks like gimmick and not a serious system. Maybe when new materials are discovered/created that
can be thermally stressed with little effect, then all of these dreams of reusable launchers will come true. Until then, it is all
theater.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

Shuttle RS-25s were practically rebuilt after every flight at great expense - that's part of the reason why it cost ~$1B to launch a shuttle. In this instance, reuseability failed comprehensively to deliver on its promise of cheaper access to space.

You are comparing SpaceX Merlin engine to NK-33s???  Merlin are low-tech gas-generator engines while NK-33 is a closed-cycle master-piece.  You are correct that Merlins have a higher power-to-weight ration, but thats because it is simpler and inefficient and dumps energy overboard via its turbine exhaust while the NK-33 wastes nothing.  Thats why the NK-33 specific impulse (the TRUE measure of an engines efficiency) is 297 sec at sea level, while the poor little Merlin slouches along at 282... (at vacuum its 331 vs 311).

I like how you point out that "if some engine stops working"....  Tell me the last time a Soyuz or Proton main engine (not vernier) "stopped working"...

Take a look at the recovered F9 core - its engine bay and lower section is scorched from the heat of its vertical descent (the airflow carries the heat up and around the core rather than down and away as it does during ascent) and if anyone really believes that this recovered stage can simply be wiped down, refuelled and relaunched is quite frankly deluding themselves. At best, the engine bay will need to be dismantled. thermal insulation replaced, and heat-affected metallic components will need to be replaced (consider what an under-strength strut did to the previous F9 flight, now imagine the effect of heat-weakened components in the engine bay which carry the full engine thrust force).  They will likely be able to be salvaged and put under heat treatment to return them to the proper temper, but it still adds to the refurb workscope.

"rusophyle apologyst"????  What the fuck are you smoking?  I've said NOTHING that isn't properly considered and defensible.  Maybe SpaceX have all the answers and can make a real go out of re-use of returned hardware, but its VERY POSSIBLE that like the shuttle before, the F9 reuseability promises will remain undelivered.  Again, only time will tell.

thanks for nothing that is. rs-25 were man-rated and that increased costs much more then usual , also used older technology. this is something new and well thought out.
wrong , its different concept , merlin d uses- lower chamber pressure and simpler gas generator, safer direct injection instead of showerplate ,and thus lighter ,cheaper ,and safer ,+ reusable engine because its componenets are not stressed mechanicaly as other engines.
 
                             ....  ISP
RD-180 26,700 kPa 338
NK-33 14,500 kPa 331
Merlin 1D 9,700  kPa 311

their ""loss"" of only less then 10% ISP for all that gain in other areas is actually  impressive!!
Wrong again ,its core stage on return is empty of fuel so it uses only 1 of 9 engines to land. ahahahaha...
and even that 1 is refurbished withour problem you dont need much thrust for empty core stage and youre going down not lifting anyway ,its black from coal dirt deposit and its nothing.
but continue russophyle apologyst....

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites

The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

Shuttle RS-25s were practically rebuilt after every flight at great expense - that's part of the reason why it cost ~$1B to launch a shuttle. In this instance, reuseability failed comprehensively to deliver on its promise of cheaper access to space.

You are comparing SpaceX Merlin engine to NK-33s???  Merlin are low-tech gas-generator engines while NK-33 is a closed-cycle master-piece.  You are correct that Merlins have a higher power-to-weight ration, but thats because it is simpler and inefficient and dumps energy overboard via its turbine exhaust while the NK-33 wastes nothing.  Thats why the NK-33 specific impulse (the TRUE measure of an engines efficiency) is 297 sec at sea level, while the poor little Merlin slouches along at 282... (at vacuum its 331 vs 311).

I like how you point out that "if some engine stops working"....  Tell me the last time a Soyuz or Proton main engine (not vernier) "stopped working"...

Take a look at the recovered F9 core - its engine bay and lower section is scorched from the heat of its vertical descent (the airflow carries the heat up and around the core rather than down and away as it does during ascent) and if anyone really believes that this recovered stage can simply be wiped down, refuelled and relaunched is quite frankly deluding themselves. At best, the engine bay will need to be dismantled. thermal insulation replaced, and heat-affected metallic components will need to be replaced (consider what an under-strength strut did to the previous F9 flight, now imagine the effect of heat-weakened components in the engine bay which carry the full engine thrust force).  They will likely be able to be salvaged and put under heat treatment to return them to the proper temper, but it still adds to the refurb workscope.

"rusophyle apologyst"????  What the fuck are you smoking?  I've said NOTHING that isn't properly considered and defensible.  Maybe SpaceX have all the answers and can make a real go out of re-use of returned hardware, but its VERY POSSIBLE that like the shuttle before, the F9 reuseability promises will remain undelivered.  Again, only time will tell.

thanks for nothing that is. rs-25 were man-rated and that increased costs much more then usual , also used older technology. this is something new and well thought out.
wrong , its different concept , merlin d uses- lower chamber pressure and simpler gas generator, safer direct injection instead of showerplate ,and thus lighter ,cheaper ,and safer ,+ reusable engine because its componenets are not stressed mechanicaly as other engines.
 
                             ....  ISP
RD-180 26,700 kPa 338
NK-33 14,500 kPa 331
Merlin 1D 9,700  kPa 311

their ""loss"" of only less then 10% ISP for all that gain in other areas is actually  impressive!!
Wrong again ,its core stage on return is empty of fuel so it uses only 1 of 9 engines to land. ahahahaha...
and even that 1 is refurbished withour problem you dont need much thrust for empty core stage and youre going down not lifting anyway ,its black from coal dirt deposit and its nothing.
but continue russophyle apologyst....

There you go with your stupid "russophyle apologyst" crap.  I don't even mention Russia, you sign off with a Russian flag, yet I'M the "russophyle apologyst"?

ISP is king, regardless of your assertions, and for a given set of propellants, ISP is proportional to chamber pressure.  Reducing chamber pressure to increase reliability to achieve man-rating is perfectly fine, but it sacrifices performance, and the alternative technique is to build heavier but more robust engines to not only handle the high pressures, but can also withstand multiple full-duration firings.  SpaceX adopts the former, while Energomash adopts the later.  Which is the better path is open for debate, but I prefer the Energomash approach, especially as their products are staged combustion, and RD-series engines, once lit, go like blazes and don't quit.

Ask yourself - if Musk/SpaceX concept of using a large number of smaller simpler engines is such a winner, why does ULA and the US Military still insist in using RD-180s (despite the political issues), and why do so many in the US want to exercise their negotiated rights to start manufacture in US under license? Why does the Atlas use a single large chamber engine per core? Why do Ariane 5 core use a single engine?

Musk & Space X also claim their engine config has been developed for using a single unit as a return engine, but this isn't overly convincing.  Design specification for a low thrust return engine burning for extended periods are very different from a main ascent engine, and trying to do the same job with a single design places too many design constraints on the engines main job of getting to altitude.  The Merlin cannot be throttled to very low thrust levels and this mandates a landing trajectory at a high decent rate and a sudden deceleration just prior to touchdown.  Its a finicky maneuver and difficult in practice.   A much better config would be use of 3-4 RD-180 class engines with a dedicated centreline descent engine optimized for low thrust and capable of wide throttle operation.  Bring the stage down at a more leisurely and controlled pace, and have the ability to hover precisely and stabilize prior to committing to the touchdown. SpaceX didn't do this, because they were ideologically wedded to the idea of 100% in-house hardware and lacked the tech for world-class high performance engines, so they had to cobble together a reuseable scheme based on what they could build and then make it work however well they can.

Face facts - the Merlin is a poor-mans engine, and Musk has chosen this approach simply because he lacks the IP for better technology (and doesn't want to pay to buy them).  SpaceX hypes their "cheaper & simpler" engine design but  the rationale for clustering large numbers of combustion chambers is the same today as when Korolev was forced to cluster 30x NK15s on the N1 1st stage due to lack of availability of a suitable large chamber engine. Musk might emphasis the advantages of an "engine out" capability, but simply using a large number of engines increases the chance of a single unit failure, so I don't see any real advantage, especially when RD-series engine reliability is taken into account.

Edit: I should add however that I do like the Merlin engine for using high-pressure fuel from the turbopump to supply hydraulic power to engine gimbal mechanism. The advantages are that a heavy HPU and fluid reservoir is not required, and it eliminates any risk of losing hydraulic pressure due to a shortage of fluid.

there is some thrust augmentation due to engine spacing and incoming air heating and expanding underneath it. even n-1 was using that effect.
like i said less then 10% loss of isp is impressive for simplicity ,less parts, and low pressure chamber which other cheaper and easily produced materials can be used and still be reusable. tolerances are amazing. you can put small steel bearing and pump would still works thats advantage of gas generator compared to closed cycle , and closed cycle engines are heavier ,and because combustion pressure is low you dont waste much fuel for gas generator anyways ,lol. there is usually always some fuel left in primary stages i am surprised you didnt know ,because you never cutoff at 0 fuel but at 2-5% fuel because you can have instability... so 5% -7%even that is enough to land.
and youre wrong -combustion pressure doesnt increase isp proportionatly, but very slightly the higher you go ,less and less gain you have.
merlin still cant replace rd-180 its stupid they are diferent categories -i cant belive you pull this off only to discredit yourself.

PapaDragon wrote:

Rmf wrote:............................................
thanks for nothing that is. rs-25 were man-rated and that increased costs much more then usual , also used older technology. this is something new and well thought out.
wrong , its different concept , merlin d uses- lower chamber pressure and simpler gas generator, safer direct injection instead of showerplate ,and thus lighter ,cheaper ,and safer ,+ reusable engine because its componenets are not stressed mechanicaly as other engines.
 
                             ....  ISP
RD-180 26,700 kPa 338
NK-33 14,500 kPa 331
Merlin 1D 9,700  kPa 311

their ""loss"" of only less then 10% ISP for all that gain in other areas is actually  impressive!!
Wrong again ,its core stage on return is empty of fuel so it uses only 1 of 9 engines to land. ahahahaha...
and even that 1 is refurbished withour problem you dont need much thrust for empty core stage and youre going down not lifting anyway ,its black from coal dirt deposit and its nothing.
but continue russophyle apologyst....

1) Method for engine retrieval used by SpaceX is most complicated and inefficient there is.

2) Airbag/parachute combo is far cheaper and superior.

3) Airbag/parachute combo is also what will most likely be used for Angara engine retrieval as announced already by Roskosmos.


This may be hard to swallow for SpaceX fanboy like yourself but by all criteria SpaceX is at most 2nd best launch company in USA.

We know you want some of that Elon's musk but he is simply No.2

http://comedycentral.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/south-park/clip-thumbnails/season-11/1109/south-park-s11e09c14-bono-is-crap-16x9.jpg?

Your observations are supported by todays failed attempt at a F9 landing on sea barge.  Vehicle apparently tipped over due to a failure of a landing strut to open and lock in place.  My personal preference is to leverage existing technology of UAV flight controls and flyback the core on a glide profile using a pivioted deployable wing and small air-breathing engine to increase cross range capability or to provide an emergency go-around capability, similar to the Baikal concept.  Mass penalty would be higher with the wing and engine (and landing gear/skids) as opposed to carrying the fuel margin for a controlled descent, but I'd suggest that the technique is more reliable and much less thermally stressful on the engine bay. One disadvantage is the need for a landing strip, but this is not too significant for State-owned enterprises operating from established Cosmodromes (whereas private operators like SpaceX would balk at the cost of establishing and maintaining such facilities).

More info on todays F9 launch follows (which is still a full success BTW as the payload is up safe and sound).

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/01/17/falcon-9-jason-3-mission-status-center/