Marshall developing a reusable light rocket (engine)

AL.com ^ | 8/8/03 | SHELBY G. SPIRES

[Brett66]

Marshall developing a reusable light rocket

Engine could save NASA millions, make travel safer

08/08/03

By SHELBY G. SPIRES

Times Aerospace Writer shelbys@htimes.com

A reusable rocket engine program managed at Marshall Space Flight Center may hold the key to lowering the cost and improving the safety of space travel, Marshall engineers hope.

The RS-84 engine, built by Boeing Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, Calif., is being developed for use in reusable and expendable rockets. If it goes into production, it would be America's second reusable engine use after the space shuttle main engine, also developed by Marshall.

The Marshall-led program has about $171 million in its budget and about 80 people work on the engine, according to NASA budget documents. But if development extends beyond preliminary test phases, the budget would increase, said Danny Davis, Marshall's RS-84 project manager.

The RS-84 is in a preliminary design phase while Boeing and Marshall engineers develop major components like turbo pumps and complete the engine's design. The goal is to build a prototype, test it and make a decision by 2007 whether to put the engine into production.

"There is a range of vehicles and customers that would be able to use this engine," Davis said. "Of course, NASA is interested in it for a reusable launch vehicle, but the Department of Defense has expressed interest in (the RS-84) as a possible engine for an expendable launch vehicle."

The agency is working on vehicles in its Next Generation Launch Technology program that could replace the space shuttle. The Air Force manages the Pentagon's expendable launch vehicles, like the Boeing Delta rockets built in Decatur, which launch defense spy and communications satellites.

Aerospace experts say launch costs and vehicle reliability undercut the industry's ability to make space a commercial enterprise. A space shuttle launch costs about $500 million for a science mission and $700 million for an International Space Station construction mission. An expendable rocket costs $50 million to $200 million.

NASA wants the RS-84 engine to produce more than 1 million pounds of thrust and be used for at least 100 missions. It would be overhauled at 50 missions, Davis said. Now, the $58 million shuttle main engines last for about 10 launches.

Also, by combining the new engine with an older rocket fuel, Marshall managers hope the RS-84 engine would cut down maintenance costs.

Development and testing of the engine will be done at Marshall and at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Marshall engineers are testing designs and parts for the engine's turbo pumps. Parts of the engine will be used in firing tests at Stennis. These tests will give engineers the information needed to build a prototype engine, said Kathy Kynard, RS-84 deputy program manager.

Kerosene, or RP-1, rocket fuel would be used in the RS-84 engine. Kerosene has been used in rockets before - notably as a fuel for the F-1 engines on first stage of the Saturn V moon rocket, which was designed and partially tested in Huntsville.

The engine development program could benefit NASA beyond delivering a new rocket engine, said Garry Lyles, who heads Marshall's Next Generation Launch Technology program.

"It's been a long time since we looked at anything like this. A generation of engineers has worked on nothing but (liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen) type engines, and our expertise was getting slim," Lyles said. "This program is a good way to improve our knowledge base."

Even though Marshall engineers have a wide range of experience with kerosene-burning rocket engines, it's not as simple as "blowing the dust off some Apollo-era program," Lyles said.

"We have never built a reusable RP-1 engine before," Lyles said. "The others were one-time use engines. We threw them away. So, there's work to be done in making the RS-84 reusable."

An advantage of a kerosene-fuel engine is a smaller fuel tank. The space shuttle's external tank stands nearly 15 stories tall, and almost 75 percent of the tank space is dedicated to liquid hydrogen.

"Using liquid hydrogen as a fuel has the advantage of great performance, but it takes up a lot of room. You have to have a lot of it," Davis said. "It's not the same way with (kerosene). The tank would be smaller, and that would cut weight out of the vehicle."

[Brett66]

Ping.

[Brett66]

I have a question about this. If MSFC is developing this, then who will produce it? I suppose Boeing,LockMart etc. would. Do they simply hand over all of the designs to them for free? Can anyone get these designs? How is this determined? This is something I never fully understood.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

How long will it tale until this "Next Generation" technology is available?

The Shuttle program is essentially in crisis now that we have lost two of them.

I find it amazing NASA has nothing else ready to go.

Do we wait 5, 10, 15 or 20 more years until real spece exploration and exploitation can once again move forward?

[jmcclain19]

This, along with the recent development of the use of ethernet technology in rockets, as opposed to using the thousands of yards of cable that is used now in each rocket, is a huge step in making space more readily available to consumers for commercial use. Anything that can sigificantly drop the price of launching something or someone into space is a step in the right direction.

Right now the cheapest Launch vehicle is the Pegasus for about 16 to 20 million, drop by half and you will have a niche space tourist industry.

[Brett66]

Unfortunately I think NASA will be tied up with space shuttle and ISS operations for at least another decade. It will be interesting to see what they come up with to spend their money on when shuttle operations are terminated. Surely the OSP won't cost as much as the shuttle to operate, but based on past history, I'm sure it will prove to be far more expensive than they ever imagined. I suspect the next time Americans set foot upon the moon, it will be a private company beginning construction on a hotel. NASA will have no part in such activity, it's beneath them, yet more ambitious than anything they would plan. Ultimately NASA will be irrelevant to the long-term development of space.

[Normal4me]

I don't see this flying 50 missions before a major overhaul. Nasa isn't going to be cutting corners for awhile.

</my $.02>

[KevinDavis]

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[Doe Eyes]

Without knowing the program details, assume the government owns the design. They would solicit proposals for production of the engines. A company is awarded a production contract, based on the merits of their proposal. The production program would be either a fixed fee, cost plus, or some variant thereof.

[RightWhale]

Nothing wrong with developing new big motors. 5% improvement here, 10% there, it makes a difference. This R&D should never stop and should in fact increase.

[KevinDavis]

I agree with you. It seems we have lost on aspect in space exploration, and that is R&D.

[jimkress]

Just think what the guys competing for the X prize could do with $110 million. While Boeing and NASA bureaneers waste billions of our tax dollars, the X prize seekers are making real space travel possible.

[Brett66]

Thanks for that answer.

[Brett66]

Just think what the guys competing for the X prize could do with $110 million.

Yes, that would be great to see that kind of investment. Hopefully, once the X-Prize is won, we'll see all kind of investor interest pick up. That kind of capital could be available in the next ten years. I bet we could see hotels in LEO,with a robust Earth-to-orbit transportation system, with that kind of money in play.

[LibWhacker]

This R&D should never stop and should in fact increase.

Amen to that! Past and current generations of big rocket engines have always struck me as way too clunky, costly and dangerous. There HAS to be a better way.

[Iris7]

Pratt & Whitney have a reusable rocket engine in production. The Pratt guys don't go for this throw away stuff. Looks like their engine may go a thousand hours before overhaul. I'll see if I can get good stats. If I can I'll be back.

[Lawgvr1955]

Do we wait 5, 10, 15 or 20 more years until real spece exploration and exploitation can once again move forward?

I was just a youngster when I saw the movie "2001" during the high water mark of NASA's moon exploration. I figured that by the year 2000 I would be vacationing on the moon or Mars. I have given up any belief that the common man will set foot on anything but terra firma.

[Brett66]

The RD-180 is the one you're talking about right?

Characteristics

Nominal Thrust:
933,400 pounds(vacuum)

Nominal Thrust:
860,200 pounds(sea level)

Length:
140 inches

Diameter:
118 inches

Vacuum Specific Impulse:
337.8 sec

Weight:
11,889 pounds

[The_Victor]

I have a question about this. If MSFC is developing this, then who will produce it?

It will depend upon how th contract tis written. As stated, "The RS-84 engine, built by Boeing Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, Calif., is being developed for use in reusable and expendable rockets." Typically this would mean that the final design belongs to NASA, but Boeing, Canoga Park would have a distinct advantage for production, which would intially prevent competators from entering the market. There are occasions that the contract would allow technological developments to belong to the contractor, but that's pretty rare.

[Iris7]

I read about this engine some time ago, and forgot the name. I think what I read could easily have been RD-180.

The Pratt people have been very good for a very long time.

Your picture shows a beautiful piece of hardware, I'd love to get a close look and see the parts. Put on the freshly washed double rinsed white cotton gloves, feel the parts, and look at them under a magnifier. Be a great way to spend a vacation.