Comments on: Pentagon confirms study into reliance on RD-180 engine underway

By: chriss

chriss — Tue, 13 May 2014 18:48:02 +0000

The US can built their own engines but most scientists will tell you how important Russia is in space exploration. Both countries have their own strategic merits which are close to impossible to eliminate. I hate it when politics affect science .feel free to reply on madalachristopher@yahoo.com

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:00:25 +0000

Yes but they never did anything about it. SpaceX however has and with their own dime. ULA gave up on commercial and therefore looked for government handouts before they would tackle any new developments, engines or vehicles.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:57:58 +0000

Orbital as it’s their problem. NASA shouldn’t need to get involved as there are U.S. alternatives currently available.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:55:44 +0000

You’ve got redundancy in Progress / Soyuz and say Falcon 9 / DragonCrew. What I think you’re looking for is competition and additional U.S. capability and in that I agree.

By: Mader Levap

Mader Levap — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:23:31 +0000

“I have always believed the US acted far too benignly toward Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Unlike Germany or Japan after WWII, Russia was not humbled. It should have been disarmed and its territory dismembered.”
How I can call it anything else than complete, utter drivel? You are detached from reality even more than I thought, and that’s pretty hard thing to do.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:28:33 +0000

… Even in Russia, these AJ-26/NK-33 engines have been out of production for a long time. …

How many years before the Antares needs new engines?
Developing the new engines may need putting in the 10 year plans of both NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:17:34 +0000

NASA is learning from its mistakes. Not have redundancy meant that when the Saturn V was cancelled for several years NASA could not launch people into space, until the Space Shuttle was developed. A similar situation occurred when the Shuttle was cancelled.

Commercial Resupply Services uses 2 different launch vehicles to get to the ISS. Commercial Crew Development is using the same successful method.

Just consider the major problems NASA would now be having if it had given the Atlas V a monopoly.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:35:06 +0000

That’s fair. But Aerojet has complete design documentation and permission to produce these engines in the U.S., though clearly it would be cheaper for the Russians to do it. Even in Russia, these AJ-26/NK-33 engines have been out of production for a long time. In that respect, it’s quite a different situation than with the RD-180s.

By: Crash Davis

Crash Davis — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:52:15 +0000

“Commercial space has zero reliance on Russia.”

As everyone knows, Orbital’s Antares relies on the first stage NK-33 Russian engines, a Ukraine first stage core and propellant tanks, and an Italian Cygnus spacecraft.

Yep, 100% made in America Cowboy. Sheesh.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:15:11 +0000

Why? Unless you’re looking for redundancy (something that NASA hasn’t worried about in the past) then just go with F9. It’s capable of lifting any of the commercial vehicles.