Comments on: Armed Services Committee to take up authorization bill with RD-180 and other provisions

By: Sean Lynch

Sean Lynch — Thu, 22 May 2014 10:21:43 +0000

On March 27th Gass assured congress that ULA could build the RD-180. Do it, and on ULAs’ dime.
Not one taxpayer cent to design a US engine for Atlas V Mr. Gass, it’s your rocket, your poor choices, your problem. You, or LM/Boeing pay to build a new engine, not the taxpayer.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Thu, 08 May 2014 18:44:57 +0000

Lets compare like with like.

How much is the proposed total grant for a new engine probably for the Atlas V?

Using the COTS project how much did NASA pay SpaceX towards developing the Merlin engine?
Using COTS how much did NASA pay SpaceX towards the Falcon 9?
Using COTS how much did NASA pay OSC towards the Antares?
Using CCDev how much did NASA pay SpaceX towards man-rating the Falcon 9? (Dragon is a separate but related cost)
Using CCDev how much did NASA pay Boeing towards man-rating the Atlas V? (CST-100 and DreamChaser are separate but related costs.)

How much would man-rating the Delta IV cost, allowing use of Atlas V parts?

By: Malmesbury

Malmesbury — Thu, 08 May 2014 09:32:38 +0000

“Why does everything have to take 5 years? Why not 2?”

If you want a picked “bid” from an aerospace prime, under FAR, it will take 3 years to get the design for coffee mug and tshirt logos for the project to get sorted out.

By: Jim Nobles

Jim Nobles — Thu, 08 May 2014 00:48:41 +0000

I’m thinking that an American made engine for the Atlas can only drive the price up.

How can that possibly be competitive? I think the only choice ULA has is to keep using the RD-180 until they just can’t get them anymore. Then let the sun set.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 07 May 2014 21:29:40 +0000

“what if the rest of atlas is so obsolete by 2019 that ula just wants to get rid of it”

I made this point before, and I think it’s a good one. The Falcon is technologically current. Atlas is not. Developing a new engine to prop up an old launcher may make little business sense. I mean, my Chevy Nova is reliable, and gets me from one side of town to the other. When the engine on it goes out, am I smart to replace it?

By: josh

josh — Wed, 07 May 2014 19:29:53 +0000

this might end up a big waste of money. the engine is obviously intended as a replacement for the rd 180, and to be used on atlas v. what if the rest of atlas is so obsolete by 2019 that ula just wants to get rid of it because even the government won’t pay their insane prices anymore?

By: josh

josh — Wed, 07 May 2014 19:27:13 +0000

the real question is why do you bring obama into this? we’re talking about a draft bill in congress the white house had nothing to do with. it’s like you’re obsessed with the guy.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Wed, 07 May 2014 19:00:57 +0000

As I understand it, SpaceX are currently planning Raptor to have 1,000,000lbs thrust at sea level, a sea level Isp of 380s and a vacuum Isp of 400s. The big selling point is its compromise of impulse with long-duration space idle without complex tank cooling/boil-off mitigation.

By: Jim Nobles

Jim Nobles — Wed, 07 May 2014 18:35:20 +0000

Dude, don’t blame the 5 year thing on Obama, he’s got nothing to do with it. That’s industry’s number. And I bet they end up with more than a billion dollars of taxpayer’s money too. If they actually do this thing. Which I doubt.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Wed, 07 May 2014 17:34:26 +0000

The engine, to be completed by 2019

5 years. Safely beyond the time horizon for Obama, which is all he ever wants in a decision. Why does everything have to take 5 years? Why not 2? This isn’t something complex, like the Keystone XL pipeline. We already have the engines we want to copy and the legal right to do so. Get to it!