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 DannyB on Monday December 18 2017, @02:56PM (2 children)
It's just so unfair! How will our poor downtrodden aerospace companies survive if the flow from the public teat is reduced?
Reduce costs? Very unreasonable indeed!
The SLS engines are EXACTLY the right thing. Just what we should be using. It is based on the SSME (space shuttle main engine). It is the best of both worlds. Take a very expensive re-usable engine, and put it on an expendable launcher. How can you possibly beat that for top revenue earner?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)
How can you possibly beat that for top revenue earner?
Easy, just keep moving the goal post so you can study the thing indefinitely and never actually have to make it work.
This is optimal both for cash flow to industry and hang around till retirement for the NASA 'engineers'.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 18 2017, @05:17PM
NASA actually gets some stuff done now and then, especially when projects are smaller and can be completed within one Presidential Administration's lifetime. The big projects just go one forever without making any progress.
Where you really see this a lot is with military contracts.