SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the still-would-be-throwing-them-away dept.
NASA could use an engine developed by Blue Origin instead of the four RL-10 engines currently used by the Space Launch System (SLS):
[One] problem with legacy hardware, built by traditional contractors such as Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne, is that it's expensive. And while NASA has not released per-flight estimates of the expendable SLS rocket's cost, conservative estimates peg it at $1.5 to $2.5 billion per launch. The cost is so high that it effectively precludes more than one to two SLS launches per year.
[...] [The RL-10] engines, manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne, are also costly. (Ars understands that NASA paid an average of $17 million for each RL-10 engine for the maiden Exploration Upper Stage vehicle). So in October, to power the EUS, the space agency issued a request for information to the aerospace community for "a low cost drop-in replacement engine to minimize program cost." According to the document, the initial set of four engines would be needed in mid-2023 to prepare for the third flight of the SLS rocket, known as Exploration Mission-3.
Then, after an extension of the deadline for responses beyond mid-November, NASA revised the RFI on December 1. The revised document no longer seeks a "drop-in replacement" for the RL-10 engine, rather it asks for a "low-cost replacement engine." Although this seems like a subtle change, sources within the aerospace industry indicated to Ars that it is significant. According to NASA, it was done to increase the number of responses.
[...] That would probably include Blue Origin's BE-3U engine, which the company plans to use for its upper stage on the New Glenn heavy lift rocket. This is a modified version of the BE-3 engine that powers the New Shepard rocket, which has now flown successfully seven times. Blue Origin has previously marketed the BE-3U to Orbital ATK for its Next Generation Launch System, which is looking for an upper stage engine. A single BE-3U provides about 120,000 pounds of thrust, which exceeds the 100,000 pounds of thrust provided by four RL-10 engines.
Just cancel SLS and give that money to SpaceX, Blue Origin, or anybody willing to launch competitively.
Related: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
First SLS Mission Will be Unmanned
Commercial Space Companies Want More Money From NASA
Trump Space Adviser: Mars "Too Ambitious" and SLS is a Strategic National Asset
Boeing CEO Says His Company Will Carry Humans to Mars Before SpaceX
President Trump Signs Space Policy Directive 1
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 18 2017, @02:46PM (3 children)
Depending on a person's level of sophistication, it's not really all that subtle a difference. In the first instance, Nasa was looking for an engine meeting all the same specifications, ie, "drop-in". In the latter instance, they are willing to shitcan their specifications, and are willing to consider any engine capable of accomplishing the mission. They save a zillion dollars if the new engines don't have to match physical dimensions, match existing plumbing, etc, etc, etc.
Want me to remodel your old delapidated house? It's gonna cost big money. Want me to just rebuild your old ramshackle dive? I can do that a helluva lot cheaper, and guarantee better results.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 18 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
> Want me to remodel your old delapidated house? It's gonna cost big money.
> Want me to just rebuild your old ramshackle dive? I can do that a helluva lot cheaper
The more precise parallel would be that the new cooking range doesn't have to be the exact dimensions of the old one, it will be worth it even if we have to get some guys to adjust the countertops, electrical and gas pipes after all.
Since we throw away the range and the countertop after every meal instead of designing them to be washable, the threat of losing their cash cow could convince the current range supplier to lower their price...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 18 2017, @06:10PM (1 child)
You nailed it, bob_super. I couldn't stretch my mind far enough to consider throwing away the range and countertop after each use, but you nailed it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 18 2017, @06:59PM
In their defense, except for that moment when they used the $500M/use non-stick pan, throwing away the range and countertop is what they've always done.
Some kid in the neighborhood claims you can reuse stuff, but since his newfangled "cleanable" kitchen blew up a few times, and the boss wants us to keep using our reliable disposable kitchens, it's hard to change minds. Nobody ever got fired for buying Boeing, you know.