Comments on: Air Force starts search for an RD-180 replacement

By: Garp Newton

Garp Newton — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:04:10 +0000

Then they can certainly stick with the Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy. Then rational people would ask why are they requesting information on a new rocket at all? The fact that they issued this RFI at all indicates that what you are saying is simply not true. At all.

By: MORE REALITY

MORE REALITY — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:15:50 +0000

Enthusiasts are putting way too much stock in re-usability as applied to national security spaceflights. More often than not, DoD/NRO will want a factory-fresh F9 core that will require all the fuel be dedicated to placing a payload in orbit even if it has to pay more to get it there. Re-usability has a lot of promise, but it’s not a foregone conclusion yet and will take some time before customers both in the civil sector and the national security payload market will trust a re-used core for their payloads.

By: kiloy

kiloy — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 02:21:20 +0000

Heard today news 1000 Russian troops invade into Ukraine with tanks and military vehicles fired missiles from Russia at a Ukraine border post, then rolled into the country. That opened a new front in the war in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russia separatists and the new government of President Petro Poroshenko.I wonder if this accelirate Air Force RFI more than ever before! Hre the link http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/28/u-n-security-council-meets-on-ukraine-crisis/20954045/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D522092

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:07:37 +0000

Elements of the Airforce “loves the Atlas” Others in the airforce would rather see more funding for their projects and would like cheaper launch systems to the extra funds could go to them. The DOD is still pursuing how many different launch sytems to make it cheaper to launch more sats with shorter lead times.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:54:13 +0000

And who exactly wants to buy them?
AJ won’t waste effort making product they can’t sell.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:42:29 +0000

NASA did not fund development of the F9.
They funded development of the Dragon, and the necessary software and hardware development for Dragon to reach ISS.
F9 (and F1 before that) was developed with internal SpaceX funds.
It should be noted that a lot of the money SpaceX got from NASA’s CRS contract went into F9 development, but what SpaceX does with their income is their business.
It’s sorta like complaining that Apple used profits from Mac to fund ipod, ipad and so on.

By: Garp Newton

Garp Newton — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:24:13 +0000

The last I heard the Raptor is really going to be a BFE, so powerful that they could probably sell the gas generator for other to use as a small engine.

And do you really think a business (which SpaceX is) would not want to provide a product (Raptor) to a customer (ULA)

Not a chance. They already have their hands full already. What the Air Force wants is more American players. Putting two of them on an Atlas V tank would not work anyways. The density and thermal properties of methane are radically different than RP-1.

What the Air Force wants here is a methane powered Falcon 9 clone, and so a better bet would be for somebody to come up with a 150 klb Merlin 1D clone implemented in methane. Clearly SpaceX could do that, but somebody else could do it too. Heck, I might even try it. But I’d rather get moving with an engine by a competitor that might be more amenable to subbing out the airframe, possibly not even to Boeing. I might even try that as well. Or simply selling the engines to a competitive airframe market like GE or Rolls Royce does. And once this gets rolling we’ll need operators as well.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:10:19 +0000

Matt said:

“The Falcon 9 Heavy is still a paper rocket.”

You keep chanting that to yourself if it makes you sleep better…

In reality the Falcon Heavy shares about 99% heritage with the current Falcon 9. If the Air Force decides to fund a replacement engine for the RD-180, whatever launcher it is attached to would in essence be “a paper rocket” until it too flies. Yet the Air Force funds paper rockets all the time.

Apparently the Air Force doesn’t have the same aversions that you do.

“Falcon needs to mature as a system…”

Again, using that logic the Air Force is going to have ZERO confidence in any new RD-180 replacement engine, and ZERO confidence in any new launcher that it’s attached to.

But the Air Force doesn’t use your system of validation. So far SpaceX has six perfect launches of the current Falcon 9 v1.1 in less than one year – it took Atlas V 3 years to get six perfect launches.

I’d say the Falcon 9 has matured at a much faster rate than Atlas V (Delta IV too).

“…too many anomalies to risk national security payloads on at this time.”

What “anomalies” are you talking about? Every Falcon 9 v1.1 flight has been a 100% success.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:30:32 +0000

As I understand it Raptor is to be about 667kN and 470s isp compared with a RD-180’s 1,270kN and 275s isp. So clearly 2 raptors could provide equivalent performance to a single RD-180. And as the RD–180 is a two thrust chamber engine there should be little problem adapting raptors to the Atlas thrust structure.
Yes, Raptor is to be methane. Yes, it comes from SpaceX who is clearly Satan’s child. But if hydrogen is to be considered then methane needs to be considered too. Raptor is not only compatable, but delivers to Atlas a modest performance upgrade because of it’s higher isp.
And do you really think a business (which SpaceX is) would not want to provide a product (Raptor) to a customer (ULA)

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 22:06:28 +0000

I agree.

If they want to create competition and low cost, a Cots program for reusable launchers would help create competition. SpaceX could join the program and get money to help in their already advanced test program. They could use some money for making their upper stage reusable too. And any others companies who wants to compete with spacex should need a reusable launcher going forward if spacex succeed (which seem likely to me). That would be money well spent IMHO.