● Settle of ONE fuel booster type and ONE upper stage fuel type
● Build at least TWO engines of each type
● EVERYTHING uses these engines, period.

For a first stage booster engine the fuel can be RP-1/LOX or CH4/LOX, let’s just pick one. Let’s say we pick RP-1/LOX. The next thing is to design at least two engines around this fuel. One can be the RS-84, the other can be an F-1A derivative, yet another can be a Merlin 2. Then let’s make the engine interfaces uniform and interchangeable. Now let’s make the Delta V, Atlas VI, SLS core booster, SLS strap-ons and maybe even the SpaceX Falcon 2.0 compatible with the any of these engines. A Delta, SpaceX and Atlas may each use one engine. The SLS may use 4 in the core and 1 in each liquid boosters. Basically, if there is a grounding due to an engine issue, everything can fly on the other engine(s).

The same thing goes for upper stage engines. Basically, you can have a J-2X, two RL-60s or a bunch of RL-10Xes. And, make it such that basically you can switch launch vehicle chassis and keep the engines or vice versa.

Let’s face it, if you put a new engine on the Atlas V that is NOT the RD-180 it’ll have to be re-certified. If that engine uses a different fuel it’ll have to be re-tanked and re-certified. Basically, it’s as much an Atlas as the Atlas V was an Atlas II when they went from balloon tanks and dropping two of three RS-56 engines on the way up to using a single Russian engine with a rigid tank. It’s an Atlas in name only.

The discussion should really be whether the USA should default to using just the Delta IV, or using the D-IV and having Lockmart develop a new launch vehicle using a new engine, or using the D-IV and using SpaceX’s Falcon family, or all of the above at different points in time.

US-built RD-180: Even with the metallurgy fully in-hand, legacy aerospace couldn’t reverse-engineer this engine in a hurry (ca. 24 months – the interval ULA says their stockpile of RD-180’s will cover). They already say they need five years. I’m inclined to believe them. If the metallurgy isn’t in-hand, as is widely rumored, then tack on still more time. As noted by many others, by the time this engine could reasonably exist, it would be hopelessly obsolete. NASA, DoD, USAF and NRO will have long since made other arrangements – F9 and FH – to get their birds up. Atlas V will be Rip Van Winkle. Naturally, this is the option Congress looks increasingly ready to mandate.

AJ-26 family: Given that legacy aerospace has all the rights to this engine, cloning it would probably not be doable on a schedule much better than the RD-180 knock-off. Still, it would be a lot more worthwhile. The NK-33/AJ-26 is a lot smaller than the RD-180 and could be clustered (4 engines) to make an F9-class booster and (12 engines) to make an FH-class heavy that could both follow in SpaceX’s clustered, fault-tolerant, potentially reusable footsteps. It represents no option when it comes to saving the Atlas V, of course. Ironically, it may not have a future even with its original customer. Since Orbital’s recent merger with ATK, the inside track for Antares re-engineering seems to be a big, new ATK solid. There is a high probability the NK-33/AJ-26 will once again slip into the shadows of history.

Dynetics F-1A/F-1B: A single, non-throttleable, monster engine is not what’s needed. These beasts are about twice the size of what an Atlas V is currently built to handle and have no clusterability or reuseability hooks unless used in some future BFR. Nobody’s going to spec-build a Saturn V-plus BFR except SpaceX. After SpaceX does it and proves out a market, a competitor based on this class of powerplant might have a viable future. Keep the blueprints in a safe place, but don’t figure on dusting them off any time soon. Legacy aerospace is not the place from which to expect bold ventures. They might or might not be able to follow, but leadership is no longer in their DNA.

SpaceX Raptor: No way to be sure how long this beast will take to fully prove out, but it’ll be in subsystem tests at Stennis fairly soon and might even be testable as a full-up unit within two years. Again, Raptor represents no solution to ULA’s RD-180 problem, but of all the options here considered, the Raptor is the only one that has metal already bent and the firmest commitment from its developer to follow through. We’ll see the Raptor in series production, crated and ready to go before we see any of these other potential engines realized.

RS-84 Engine Passes Preliminary Design Milestone.
Huntsville – Jul 16, 2003
“The RS-84 is one of two competing efforts now under way to develop an alternative to conventional, hydrogen-fueled engine technologies. The RS-84 is a reusable, staged combustion rocket engine fueled by kerosene — a relatively low-maintenance fuel with high performance and high density, meaning it takes less fuel-tank volume to permit greater propulsive force than other technologies.”
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zm.html

Unfortunately it was cancelled in 2004 after the SLS was decided upon. But if all the development materials and designs from then were saved and assuming there was actual 1 years further development up to 2004, then conceivably development could be restarted and completed in just 3 additional years.
In any case I’d like to see a study done to see how long and how much it would cost to complete its development.

Bob Clark

Bob Clark

Which mission of the Atlas V or the Delta IV has been an absolute time sensitive cargo, launch on at an EXACT specific time or else the mission is scrubbed?

My first encounter seeing the lack of desire of our industry counterparts to compete with each other was back in the Shuttle days when the largest contractual consolidation of the Shuttle program began. I was younger and naive and thought the competition would force many improvements that I had seen stymied under the existing contracts. You’ll imagine my surprise when the large players joined up as United Space Alliance. I thought, they are refusing to compete! In any other industry that would have been called a “refusal to deal”, a per se antitrust violation. In our industry I was odd man out, instead seeing everyone embrace the “potential savings”, the “simplicity”. The savings never came, and the program became even less able to efficiently do upgrades or anything related to costs going down and safety going up.

And here we are again, debating ULA, engines, new players and competition. Most of the arguments devolve into trash talk, here in forums. That’s to be expected. Far worse, I see the same vein of chatter and useless debate among internal NASA and industry groups, projects and organizations. This is not a good sign.

Perhaps it’s just the way of things. There are still people upset about the breakup of Ma’Bell. There are still industries (like cable TV) that place endless energy and resources toward maintaining monopoly conditions, with a government blessing, rather than competing in truly open markets. And here we are, as well. I suppose that after the end of ULA like arrangements, once the launch market, and many other space markets, get truly competitive, healthy, and decide what they want to be when they grow up, that people will still be angry over what happened, and write alternative histories about it all. Much like you still find books about how the breakup of Ma’Bell was a bad thing.

Monopolies never go down easy. What was the phrase…?
“A people should know when they are conquered. Would you Quintus? Would I?”

Aerojet/PWR’s top executives are going to be visiting the Pentagon soon and asked some very, very pointed questions about ‘when, how much and why’. What options are there?

* US-built RD-180 – iffy because I’m not sure if the metallurgy has ever been duplicated;
* AJ-26 family – Once again, this depends a lot on how far Aerojet have got in duplicating NK-33 and, most importantly, how far off of ‘hypothetical’ AJ-26-500 has got.
* Dynetics F-1A and derivatives – Very, very far away in terms of schedule and price.
* SpaceX Raptor – Once again, very, very far away.