SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#61

Post by omegaworks » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

coreymgilmore wrote: post #4

Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. Ther…

> Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? For the same reason a company that sells a CRUD app might only support Oracle and not other databases. Always working with the same vendor each time reduces technical complexity. People will knee-jerk and say "corruption" but an engineer should be able to at least see where the USAF is coming from. Given that this is national-security grade stuff…

>Markets are messy, they go through transition and disruption. That's not acceptable in a national-security context.

Then we should not beat around the bush and pretend we live in a Capitalist system when we clearly must make exceptions for only the private, for-profit contractors that we spend billions of dollars and the majority of the federal budget on.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#62

Post by mrfusion » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:30 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #35

coreymgilmore wrote: post #4

Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. Ther…

Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they wou…

What is crossfeed?

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#63

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #62

InclinedPlane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they wou…

What is crossfeed?

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#64

Post by ChillyWater » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:44 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #62

InclinedPlane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they wou…

What is crossfeed?

Usually, with aircraft or spacecraft, this is a reconfigurable plumbing setup that allows engines/jets to use the fuel source from a different engine on the fly. For instance, the Shuttle could perform OMS to RCS crossfeeds.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#65

Post by tanzam75 » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

rst wrote: post #60

jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to Russian engines that US built engines could not supply? I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder…

Among kerosene/oxygen rockets, the RD-180 gets an unusually high amount of propulsive kinetic energy per unit of fuel (technically, high specfic impulse), in part due to a more efficient combustion cycle (staged combustion), and in part due to very advanced materials science the Russians have, that the US hasn't matched. (And other engines with similar performance are also Russian: the RD-170, which is signficantly l…

The Chinese are developing an engine, the YF-100, based on the Russian RD-120. It's a staged combustion engine with an oxygen-rich preburner -- very similar technology to the RD-180.

The YF-100 has already gone through a full-length test firing on the ground, and the CZ-7 rocket that it's mounted on is scheduled for a test flight later this year.

If the Chinese have been able to make it, then I see no reason why we can't.

P.S. Does Pratt & Whitney still make rocket engines? I thought they sold Rocketdyne to Aerojet?

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#66

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, May 01, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #62

InclinedPlane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they wou…

What is crossfeed?

The Falcon Heavy uses 3 identical cores as the "first stage" of the vehicle. If each of the stages burns at the same rate and burns out at the same time then it's basically just one big stage and the Falcon Heavy would just be a 2-stage launcher. Adding more stages increases payload performance of launchers because you're dumping dead weight. The plan for the Falcon Heavy is to have cross feed between the engines so that effectively the center stage's engines are run off the outer stages' fuel tanks until those tanks are dry. Then the outer stages separate and the center stage fires alone (as a 2nd stage) until it is depleted, then the upper stage fires (as a 3rd stage), massively increasing overall payload.

The Delta IV Heavy throttles down the center core during launch and peels away the outer cores first in a sort of "virtual crossfeed" scenario, though this comes at the cost of liftoff thrust.

The only problem with crossfeed for the Falcon Heavy is that it leaves the center core traveling a lot faster and a lot farther down range than the first stage of a Falcon 9 normally would be, which might make it a lot harder to return to the launch site for reusability. However, as a worst-case scenario the Falcon Heavy could be operated without crossfeed with all lower stage cores burning out at the same time, which would reduce payload significantly but the cost savings would probably make it worthwhile even so.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#67

Post by mrfusion » Thu, May 01, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #66

mrfusion wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is crossfeed?

The Falcon Heavy uses 3 identical cores as the "first stage" of the vehicle. If each of the stages burns at the same rate and burns out at the same time then it's basically just one big stage and the Falcon Heavy would just be a 2-stage launcher. Adding more stages increases payload performance of launchers because you're dumping dead weight. The plan for the Falcon Heavy is to have cross feed between the engines so…

You might need to dumb it down a bit more for me :-(

What's a core? Why would the stages burn at the same time? I thought the second stage wouldn't turn on until the first stage is jettisoned?

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#68

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, May 01, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

127001brewer wrote: post #5

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

Not as many as you'd think. If we restrict the field to merely high power liquid fueled rocket engines that are potentially for sale (to be differentiated from makers of rocket engines that are an integral part of, say, a nationalized launch vehicle, and not for sale as parts) then you have: NPO Energomash, RKK Energiya, Aerojet-Rocketdyne, and maybe SpaceX.

Other than those companies, if you want a liquid fueled rocket engine with more than 100 kN of thrust then you'll have to make one for yourself or go begging to one of the vertically integrated rocket makers (Snecma makes the Ariane 5 first stage engine, China, India, and Japan have their own launchers, as do a few other countries).

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#69

Post by nraynaud » Thu, May 01, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

rst wrote: post #50

nraynaud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that leaves only China (maybe India ? I don't remember where they are space-wise) with a capacity to send people into space. I don't think Ariane can be fitted for people.

And Russia, of course; American astronauts have been going up on Soyuz since the end of the Shuttle program. If you're suggesting that the US could go to China for replacement transportation services: not likely. NASA is currently barred by Congress from any cooperation with the Chinese at all on space exploration. At least one of the US commercial crew competitors are likely to have working hardware long before that…

yes, that what the "leave" meant :)

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#70

Post by rst » Thu, May 01, 2014, 5:27 PM UTC

tanzam75 wrote: post #65

rst wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among kerosene/oxygen rockets, the RD-180 gets an unusually high amount of propulsive kinetic energy per unit of fuel (technically, high specfic impulse), in part due to a more efficient combustion cycle (staged combustion), and in part due to very advanced materials science the Russians have, that the US hasn't matched. (And other engines with similar performance are also Russian: the RD-170, which is signficantly l…

The Chinese are developing an engine, the YF-100, based on the Russian RD-120. It's a staged combustion engine with an oxygen-rich preburner -- very similar technology to the RD-180. The YF-100 has already gone through a full-length test firing on the ground, and the CZ-7 rocket that it's mounted on is scheduled for a test flight later this year. If the Chinese have been able to make it, then I see no reason why we c…

You appear to be right about P&W.

About the engines: heck, the Space Shuttle Main Engine was staged-combustion Oxygen-Hydrogen. The question isn't whether the US could produce such an engine. It's how soon, and how reliably. ULA has laid in what they say is a two-year stock of engines as a hedge against ... hiccups in the supply chain, but they'd need new engines after that. For a clean-sheet design, that would be a crazy aggressive schedule. With RD-180 design docs in hand, well... we may soon see.