Aren't SSME's too expensive to be disposable?

[mattblack]

Energia? You mean 2 flights, don't you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[giofx]

From Astronautix.com (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm):<br /><br />First operational Russian cryogenic engine system, built to the same overall performance specifications as America's SSME, but using superior Russian technology. The result was an engine of similar size, thrust, and specific impulse but lower cost. Feed Method: 35,000 rpm dual-stage turbopump. A single pre-burner burns fuel-rich at 527 Celsius to drive the single-shaft high pressure turbopump. Some of the pre-burner gas drives the oxygen low pressure pump. The fuel low pressure pump is driven by GH2 from the main chamber cooling loop.. Throttle range is 45%. Throat diameter 261 mm, exit diameter 2420 mm. The original RD-0120 engines are mothballed at Baikonur. <br /><br />Although the SSME may have been the starting point, Soviet engine technology led that of the United States in many other detailed points of liquid rocket design. By the mid-1960's the USA had practically abandoned development of liquid fuel engines, with the sole exception of the SSME. The US military preferred to use solid rocket motors for missile and booster stage applications. Russian rocket engineers had spent their entire lives perfecting military liquid fuel rockets and had never favoured solid fuel. Therefore Russian Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene and N2O4/UDMH engines were of much higher performance than those in the US. On the other hand the Soviet Union had not developed any Lox/LH2 engines over 40 tonnes thrust and none actually been flown in space. The contribution of unique Soviet technology and the inevitable changes that occurred during development resulted in the MKS RD-0120 main engine being different in detail from the SSME while retaining the same performance. <br /><br />In the first stages of the development of the RD-0120, different basic engine schemes were evaluated before a single-shaft turbo-pump for both liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen was selected (the SSME had separate turbo-pumps for each fuel compon

 

[giofx]

The Energia Heavy Launcher did 10 flight, i was not speaking of Energia-Buran.

 

[krrr]

It did two flights, one with a contraption called Polyus, the other with Buran.

 

[giofx]

From astronautix:<br /><br />Manufacturer Name: RD-0120. Government Designation: 11D122. Other Designations: RO-200. Designer: Kosberg. Developed in: 1976-90. Application: Energia core stage. Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 200,000 kgf. Thrust(vac): 1,961.00 kN. Isp: 455 sec. Isp (sea level): 359 sec. Burn time: 600 sec. Mass Engine: 3,450 kg. Diameter: 2.42 m. Length: 4.55 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber Pressure: 218.00 bar. Area Ratio: 85.7. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 6. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 57.97. Country: Russia. Status: Out of Production. First Flight: 1987. Last Flight: 1988. Flown: 10. References: 308.

 

[krrr]

"Flown: 10"<br /><br />Well the Energia rocket had four of these engines, so 8 were flown on the two flights. The number 10 given must be a mistake.

 

[propforce]

Man... I am impressed with the propellant knowledge of this group <<thumb up>> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... You can't buy the Russian SSME, the RD-0120 because it's not in production anymore! And nobody knows how much will it cost to restore the production...."</i><br /><br />Last time I check, Aerojet was selling them and they have quite a few in inventory. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"...Nobody wants the fate of Energia...."</i><br /><br />Apparently the CEV heavy lift launcher does <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Oh yes. Now that I recall. But surely you recognize, if it weren't for the CRS at this age, we could not have maintain the enthusiasm as if every subject is a new and has never been discussed before <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Some of us can also dazzle you with info on the Orion Nuclear Propulsion concept.<br /><br />Pennies per pound to low earth orbit, 4000 tons at a time!<br /><br />Isp to put shopping malls on the moon, with 1950s technology.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

I can just see it... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... Some of us can also dazzle you with info on the Orion Nuclear Propulsion concept. ..."</i><br /><br />Yes, the idea of spewing radiative cloud all over Earth's atmosphere sounds really dazzle me <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Some more dazzle:<br /><br />Boron can be put in the radiation channel of the Orion nukes to absorb the neutrons. It actually improves the efficiency of the concept to do so.<br /><br />Once in space, (outside earth's Van Allen belts) solar wind (which can be radioactive anyhow) sweeps away the effluent.<br /><br />This may help even more, a <i> pure fusion</i> Orion type drive. Drop a thousand He3 pellets per second and zap them with a laser and away you go. Perhaps the detonation of a fuel pellet can recharge the laser, too, along with motorvating the vehicle.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

At 30+ million a pop, we might have hoped to goshen it was wrong.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Boy, a warehouse full of those would be pricey. What's it cost to keep 1 SSME in staorage annually? <br /><br />Times 350.<br /><br />Ouch again.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... No, the reusable SSME is 60 million dollars each. ..."</i><br /><br />Now is that $60M for a one-time purchase, then reused X number of times, or is it a $60M per engine per use? <br /><br />If it's a one-time purchase for a brand new engine, any idea on what NASA pay for refurb/maint. in-between flights? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... Boy, a warehouse full of those would be pricey. What's it cost to keep 1 SSME in staorage annually? ..."</i><br /><br />That's not the expensive part.<br /><br />The expensive part is keeping thousands of NASA & contractor personnel employeed in between flights <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />Hardware is cheap... people are expensive !!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[redgryphon]

Propforce, any likelihood, do you think, of densified LH2/LOX on either the Delta IV or SDHLV? I've read that they tested an RS-68 with densified propellants and it worked OK.

 

[vogon13]

As I said, hope to goshen that figure is wrong.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... They were not very specific about what the 60 million was for. We tried to get details but no joy. We ASSUMED they took the production cost, certification and standard refurbishment cost between flights for a engine 1/2 way through it's design life. ..."</i><br /><br />Thanks for the info.<br /><br />Since technically the SSME is still a <i>developmental program</i>, I would assume NASA has paid for the design, development and certification cost already. I would venture to guess the $60M pays for the unit production & ATP cost. What's not clear is if it also pays for the refurbishment cost.<br /><br />Flight support is probably paid out of another bucket of money.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>".... Prop, any likelihood, do you think, of densified LH2/LOX on either the Delta IV or SDHLV? I've read that they tested an RS-68 with densified propellants and it worked OK...."</i><br /><br />Hi Red, I am not aware of any RS-68 testing with densified propellant. Can you provide links?<br /><br />There have been <i>studies</i> on using densified LH2/LO2 propellant, as well as "cross-feed" (in the case of Heavy configuration), with RS-68 but no actual testing was conducted that I am aware of.<br /><br />NASA has studied the used of densified propellant on the STS but it remained a study. There has not been talks on propellant densification on the SDHLV, but that does not mean it is not an option. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I knew of RL-10 testing with a lot of different fuels (including some densified testing I *think*), but that probably has nothing to do with anything in this context...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Googled a bit, and ran across this, which is interesting for the site name and some cool pictures...<br /><br />http://militarynuts.com/ar/t300.htm<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[redgryphon]

No, Wayne, you are right. It wasn't a RS-68 but an RL-10-B2 ignition test with densified LH2.<br /><br />Here's the PDF report.<br /><br />It's only an ignition test, but it's a start! (groan)<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

My memory about how bad my memory is getting might be worse than I thought.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>