Jump to content

Russia to end ISS participation in 2020, ban rocket engine export to US

Kryten

By Kryten
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

xenomorph555

xenomorph555

Posted
Posted
Wait so you hate the government space program and you hate private space programs?

Nah, just messing with you, the programs are great although the government one is a bit off right now due to congress and im not a massive fan of some of the private designs especially bigelow.

Mainly i'm just jealous because i'm british.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xenomorph555

xenomorph555

Posted
Posted
That's a pretty valid point. :/ Our space program is still launching bottle rockets.

"Britain is the only country that has had satellite launch capability's and has given them up"-why do we suck so much DX

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deathsoul097

Deathsoul097

Posted
Posted
"Britain is the only country that has had satellite launch capability's and has given them up"-why do we suck so much DX

Ugh, I know right? Perhaps if Skylon succeeds we will have our launch capabilities again. I guess that would rely on the government backing REL and their projects though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted

When is SpaceX's Raptor engine going to be completed? It's thrust is supposed to be very similar to the RD-180 (RD-180 puts out 4150 kN of thrust in vacuum, (I'm aware they don't use it in vacuum though :P) and the Raptor puts out 4400 kN of thrust in vacuum. Raptor uses methane as the main fuel, RD-180 uses RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene).

If they could get SpaceX to build a replacement for the Common Core Booster (CCB, what the Atlas V rocket use, a RP-1 kerosene and LOX liquid oxygen fueled RD-180) using liquid methane and liquid oxygen, with the Raptor engine, that would be great. Maybe they could do that and keep the Centaur rocket stage, that would be great. Centaur uses the RL10A-4-2 which is American made (either 1 or 2 engines, depending on the Atlas model/varient), and it's had near perfect success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xenomorph555

xenomorph555

Posted
Posted
When is SpaceX's Raptor engine going to be completed? It's thrust is supposed to be very similar to the RD-180 (RD-180 puts out 4150 kN of thrust in vacuum, (I'm aware they don't use it in vacuum though :P) and the Raptor puts out 4400 kN of thrust in vacuum. Raptor uses methane as the main fuel, RD-180 uses RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene).

If they could get SpaceX to build a replacement for the Common Core Booster (CCB, what the Atlas V rocket use, a RP-1 kerosene and LOX liquid oxygen fueled RD-180) using liquid methane and liquid oxygen, with the Raptor engine, that would be great. Maybe they could do that and keep the Centaur rocket stage, that would be great. Centaur uses the RL10A-4-2 which is American made (either 1 or 2 engines, depending on the Atlas model/varient), and it's had near perfect success.

Not being rude or anything but at this moment in time raptor is a paper engine, it may be heavily designed and components may be being tested but it will take 4-7 years for it to materialise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moon Goddess

Moon Goddess

Posted
Posted
Errrrrr, i am not sure how to understand that...... Because if you talk about war, let me assure you there won´t be a space programm afterwards for many, MAANY years.

I read a thing that told about odds that the Russian Federation may go thru further revolution and further breakup into smaller piece, but I think we're getting WAY too political is why I was just saying 6 years allows for a lot of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.Random

J.Random

Posted
Posted (edited)

Erm. Guys. It's not exactly like that.

About russian engines. US already bought them. More precisely, some US corporation bought them (Lokheed? P&W? Not sure which one. Edit/Addendum: bought them, stockpiled them, and probably has a license to produce them). As I remember, usage of russian engines in military projects is blocked by US court because of court case filed by - guess who - SpaceX. So, Russia has nothing to do with it, it's internal US case. Two companies fight for the market.

But there's another ban. Basically, it's something like "if you're using US technology, you can't launch it into space on russian launch vehicle", something like that. And this one is serious bee's knees. It screws with Roscosmos' business, it screws with Europe launches (some of them are postponed already). And it was this ban's introduction when Rogozin said (joking, probably) that US will have to deliver their astronauts to ISS using trampolines.

As for the ISS end of life in 2020 - didn't US plan to end it exactly in that year?

Edited by J.Random
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Erm. Guys. It's not exactly like that.

About russian engines. US already bought them. More precisely, some US corporation bought them (Lokheed? P&W? Not sure which one. Edit/Addendum: bought them, stockpiled them, and probably has a license to produce them).

There are two different engines involved here; NK-33, a set of antiques imported to the US en mass by P&W, and RD-180, new-build engines produced by Energomash and imported a few at a time by LM. There are rumours that NK-33 requires certain parts from Russia shortly before launch and/or maintenence by Russian engineers, but even if this is not the case the stockpile will run out within a few years at the planned launch rate. The RD-180 stockpile is set to last a couple of years at most, but LM do have plans and a production licence; the problems are time and cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted
Erm. Guys. It's not exactly like that.

About russian engines. US already bought them. More precisely, some US corporation bought them (Lokheed? P&W? Not sure which one. Edit/Addendum: bought them, stockpiled them, and probably has a license to produce them). As I remember, usage of russian engines in military projects is blocked by US court because of court case filed by - guess who - SpaceX. So, Russia has nothing to do with it, it's internal US case. Two companies fight for the market.

But there's another ban. Basically, it's something like "if you're using US technology, you can't launch it into space on russian launch vehicle", something like that. And this one is serious bee's knees. It screws with Roscosmos' business, it screws with Europe launches (some of them are postponed already). And it was this ban's introduction when Rogozin said (joking, probably) that US will have to deliver their astronauts to ISS using trampolines.

As for the ISS end of life in 2020 - didn't US plan to end it exactly in that year?

Not like what? And I don't believe that Pratt and Whitney is even in the rocket engine business anymore, Aerojet merged with P&W Rocketdyne to form Aerojet Rocketdyne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberion

Tiberion

Posted
Posted
Erm. Guys. It's not exactly like that.

About russian engines. US already bought them. More precisely, some US corporation bought them (Lokheed? P&W? Not sure which one. Edit/Addendum: bought them, stockpiled them, and probably has a license to produce them). As I remember, usage of russian engines in military projects is blocked by US court because of court case filed by - guess who - SpaceX. So, Russia has nothing to do with it, it's internal US case. Two companies fight for the market.

But there's another ban. Basically, it's something like "if you're using US technology, you can't launch it into space on russian launch vehicle", something like that. And this one is serious bee's knees. It screws with Roscosmos' business, it screws with Europe launches (some of them are postponed already). And it was this ban's introduction when Rogozin said (joking, probably) that US will have to deliver their astronauts to ISS using trampolines.

As for the ISS end of life in 2020 - didn't US plan to end it exactly in that year?

You need to update your information, because virtually all of it is out of date.

US Court injunction on importing engines: Rescinded - will require proof that the money is getting to one of the sanctioned parties to be re-instated.

The use of the already delivered engine was never banned, only acquiring new ones.

Sanction article: http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40444us-sanctions-against-russia-sowing-confusion-caution-among-space-firms

Original ban article: http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40447us-court-ruling-halts-purchases-of-atlas-5-rocket-engines-from-russia

Ban being lifted: http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40509judge-lifts-temporary-ban-on-rd-180-engine-purchases

Yesterday/Today: Russian DPM Rogozin did indeed call for Russia banning co-operation with the US in Space: http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40547rogozin-calls-for-ban-on-us-military-use-of-rd-180

And finally, no, they were about to agree to run the ISS through 2028: http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37460us-russia-close-to-completing-technical-assessment-of-flying-iss-through

Frankly I hope our government has it in them to call the bluff. We should be building the engine here, keep the jobs and taxes at home, and not be relying on a state-corporation of a government which is increasing unfriendly (to everyone) That means pressing forward with commercial crew with as much speed as safety allows, but so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HeadHunter67

HeadHunter67

Posted
Posted
How are they going to get down without Soyuz?

By 2020, they will be able to choose between Dragon or Orion. Dragon is expected to be human rated by next year, if I recall, and Orion's moving along nicely.

This news is good news for Elon Musk, who has been trying to find a way to break ULA's non-competitive monopoly on military launch contracts. I love the Delta IV, but if worse comes to worst, maybe Boeing can get SpaceX to design them a new engine. :sticktongue:

As for the Russian modules on the ISS, they've only got Zvezda, Rassvet, Pirs and Poisk. Zarya is actually owned by NASA. The only significant loss might be Zvezda; I'm unsure to what extent its systems have been made redundant by new modules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted
By 2020, they will be able to choose between Dragon or Orion. Dragon is expected to be human rated by next year, if I recall, and Orion's moving along nicely.

Dragon and Orion are for different missions and/or needs. Orion is for deep space -- for visiting the Moon once we put an asteroid in orbit there, and possibly for mars as the Crew Return Vehicle.

Dragon is for LEO missions to the ISS (both the unmanned Dragon and the manned DragonRider). Though, I'm not sure if Elon Musk has any Mars plans under the belt once they get the other components figured out (and I think SpaceX is nowhere near as close as NASA is to reaching Mars).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HeadHunter67

HeadHunter67

Posted
Posted
Dragon and Orion are for different missions and/or needs. Orion is for deep space -- for visiting the Moon once we put an asteroid in orbit there, and possibly for mars as the Crew Return Vehicle.

And if you check some of NASA's graphics, it would seem that part of that mission profile includes a rendezvous with the ISS when needed.

As for Dragon Rider, carrying crew to and from the ISS is one of the main reasons it was designed - specifically to eliminate our dependence on Soyuz after the Shuttle program ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted

I know, they might use Orion for the ISS. They also say (and hopefully this won't happen!) that they could use an SLS/Orion launch as a last resort way to get astronauts to the ISS. But that would be awfully expensive. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted

I don't... I closely follow the Dream Chaser, it's my favorite of the bunch. Lower G's on re-entry and it strays from a capsule design (which isn't bad, it's just nice to have the lower G forces of the Dream Chaser). CST-100 just seems very basic, which isn't always a bad thing, though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soda Popinski

Soda Popinski

Posted
Posted
Dragon and Orion are for different missions and/or needs. Orion is for deep space -- for visiting the Moon once we put an asteroid in orbit there, and possibly for mars as the Crew Return Vehicle.

Dragon is for LEO missions to the ISS (both the unmanned Dragon and the manned DragonRider). Though, I'm not sure if Elon Musk has any Mars plans under the belt once they get the other components figured out (and I think SpaceX is nowhere near as close as NASA is to reaching Mars).

Well the Red Dragon concept is for an unmanned Mars sample return mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
Ending rocket engine purchases will be a field day for SpaceX

I was thinking the same thing. Then I was thinking how mad I was that I don't have any SpaceX stock.

How are they going to get down without Soyuz?

Wait, and let air resistance do it for them? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CluelessModeler

CluelessModeler

Posted
Posted

Same old bickering between two nations that aren't quite over the Cold War.

Maybe once these buffoons on both sides that are relics of wars past die off, we will be able to get something meaningful accomplished...

Until then, we shall have competitions to see who's nether regions are bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.Random

J.Random

Posted
Posted

It's interesting how you call Russia "unfriendly". It's almost as if Russia wasn't provoked to act this way. Seriously, I was expecting better from KSP community. Very disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...