Military Review

The Pentagon has announced a contract with 2-American companies that will create a replacement for Russian rocket engines RD-180

90
U.S. Department of Defense publishes information about how over time Washington is going to abandon the Russian rocket engines RD-180. As you know, previously, representatives of the US authorities stated that they would abandon Russian rocket engines by the middle of 2017, then plans had to be moved until the spring of 2019. The new day is a new plan ... In a material published by the press service of the main US military department, it is stated that the refusal of the RD-180 should occur “no later than December 31 of 2019 of the year”.


The material states that the US Air Force enters into contracts with two US companies. This is about Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR) и United Launch Services (ULS). The first company is ready to create the AR1 rocket engine, which will later be able to exploit NASA, including for military purposes. Preliminary amount of the contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne is about 115 million dollars, of which half - the budget, and the other half - the funds invested by the company.

The Pentagon has announced a contract with 2-American companies that will create a replacement for Russian rocket engines RD-180


According to US military estimates, the total contract could be worth more than 0,53 billion dollars. Plus - more than 200 million dollars - on a contract with United Launch Services.

The plans of NASA and the US Air Force said that the new American engines will have to "remove the US dependence on Russian rocket propulsion systems." Today, the RD-180 is used on American Atlas V missiles. Previously, Senator John McCain was harshly criticized by the US authorities for rocket engine orders. It must have been after the publication of the Pentagon press service that McCain had a holiday ...
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vend
    Vend 1 March 2016 14: 50
    0
    By the time they create the engines, they are already outdated and will be inferior to Russian wink Or is it another cut dough in the American laughing
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 1 March 2016 14: 55
      +7
      Quote: Wend
      will become obsolete and will give way to Russian

      Yes, the flag in their hands and drumsticks in the anus. They have already tried to create a semblance of this engine.
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 1 March 2016 14: 57
        +1
        I will wait with interest for the result.
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 1 March 2016 15: 36
          +5
          From the text of the article
          The plans of NASA and the US Air Force ... the new American engines will have to "remove the US dependence on Russian missile power plants."

          Ha! And, I remember that it was the United States that campaigned all the countries of the world for a "market" economy throughout the world with the elimination of its regulation by the nation state!
          It was good for the United States to campaign for the so-called earlier. A "market" economy - in fact, for the establishment of its own colonial "new world order" - when its own economy dominated the national economies of all other countries in the world. And when it suddenly became clear in Syria that the US and NATO were lagging behind Russia in military matters, the Americans immediately started talking about the need to protect their national "independence" from Russia in technical matters. At the same time, the idea of ​​a "market" economy of the United States was immediately hit on the side! laughing
          Thus, this statement by the United States only confirms the objections of the patriotic Russian economists that The “market" economy, as such, does not fit into the sovereignty of nation-states, but is only a Machiavellian instrument of enslaving them.
        2. Andrey Skokovsky
          Andrey Skokovsky 1 March 2016 19: 32
          +1
          Quote: Pereira
          I will wait with interest for the result.

          even I'm afraid we’ll gobble up popcorn until we wait ...
          1. Marconi41
            Marconi41 2 March 2016 00: 56
            0
            Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
            even I'm afraid we’ll gobble up popcorn until we wait ...

            In what you are right. But I’m sure that the Americans will finish the engines sooner or later. Therefore, our Roskosmos does not need to click the tabla. It is necessary to offer something newer and more efficient than the RD-180.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Fat
          Fat 1 March 2016 15: 47
          +1
          Quote: Tatiana
          The "market" economy, as such, does not fit into the sovereignty of nation-states, but is only a hidden tool for their enslavement.

          Bravo good Let's become "antiglobalists"
    2. Pravdarm
      Pravdarm 1 March 2016 14: 56
      +2
      I think they also want to make their engines, but so far only plans
      no later than December 31 2019
      And we need to now think tightly about improvement and build competitiveness! Do not miss the leadership!

      PS:
      McCain has a holiday.
      S. Lavrov: "Congratulations, B. b!"
    3. SAG
      SAG 1 March 2016 14: 56
      +1
      Who is to blame for them, who is right, is not for us to judge;
      Yes, it's still there now.

      Author: I. A. Krylov
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 1 March 2016 15: 06
        +4
        The material published by the press service of the main military department of the United States states that the abandonment of the RD-180 should occur "no later than December 31, 2019."

        "We have created a man-made engine!
        The American path will not grow to it! " smile
        1. Igor39
          Igor39 1 March 2016 15: 17
          0
          Import substitution however laughing
      2. yuriy55
        yuriy55 1 March 2016 15: 18
        +5
        It is possible without Ivan Andreevich:

        To invent a rocket engine.
        You should not climb on the rampage.
        And sit down for books, take up science ...
        You look, and something sensible
        Created your hands.
        But, if you were a spawn you were a dunce,
        And your hands have grown, sorry, but from p.p.,
        Write what you want here ...
        Balloon in your hands and a trampoline ... laughing
    4. Blondy
      Blondy 1 March 2016 16: 00
      0
      Guys, well, that’s not even funny.
    5. 73bor
      73bor 1 March 2016 16: 35
      0
      This engine has been produced for about 40 years, it’s like the production of AK assault rifles in the USA, only it will be more complicated and not the fact that they will be able to, for the USA it’s a curiosity to do copying, let them turn to China for advice!
      1. Silkway0026
        Silkway0026 1 March 2016 21: 28
        +2
        Twenty, actually. But it’s not easier for the Pindocs, their engines are useless anyway ... And how did they fly to the moon? )))
    6. sgazeev
      sgazeev 1 March 2016 18: 15
      +1
      Quote: Wend
      By the time they create the engines, they are already outdated and will be inferior to Russian wink Or is it another cut dough in the American laughing
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 1 March 2016 14: 51
    +4
    Yes, release 8 AI background ... all of you in the ass are citing for e-mail. Why fly into space.?

    Ay pad an incredible achievement! Robot on Venus (1975) is nothing compared to the iPad!
    1. serg1970
      serg1970 1 March 2016 14: 53
      +2
      Yes, release 8 AI background ... all of you in the ass are citing for e-mail. Why fly into space.?

      Well this is the Pentagon, but will you cut a lot of di on the phone?
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 1 March 2016 14: 57
        +1
        Quote: serg1970
        Will you cut a lot of di on the phone?

        The main thing to be able to. And skillfully, you can cut a lot.
  3. VP
    VP 1 March 2016 14: 52
    0
    F-35 also modestly started laughing
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 1 March 2016 19: 45
      0
      F-35 also modestly started,
      and what, did he beat everyone? This canoe is unknown when it will function.
      1. VP
        VP 2 March 2016 05: 24
        0
        There is such a thing, unknown to you, the irony is called ...
  4. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 1 March 2016 14: 55
    +4
    God help and ... and the locomotive towards. Patience and luck will turn to face you and may even be able to reproduce the product of backward subhuman specimens of 1995 in 2019.
  5. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 1 March 2016 14: 58
    +2
    McCain is still a lobbyist, everything cannot calm down. I wonder who he is more for promoting his "products" zashushitsya (AR) or (ULS)? In general, what's the problem then? Where are the drawings of those "lunar"?
  6. Yukon
    Yukon 1 March 2016 14: 58
    +1
    Stripes have a dream: to make rocket engines no worse than Russian ones. Well, the master is the master. Let them dream. The main thing for us is to go forward ourselves.
    1. Koshak
      Koshak 1 March 2016 16: 34
      +2
      Quote: Yukon
      Stripes have a dream: to make rocket engines no worse than Russian ones. Well, the master is the master. Let them dream. The main thing for us is to go forward ourselves.

      Well, as they say: "Fresh food, but gray with difficulty"
      1. sgazeev
        sgazeev 1 March 2016 18: 20
        0
        Quote: Koshak
        Quote: Yukon
        Stripes have a dream: to make rocket engines no worse than Russian ones. Well, the master is the master. Let them dream. The main thing for us is to go forward ourselves.

        Well, as they say: "Fresh food, but gray with difficulty"

        Hey you up there again from you there is no salvation
        I can’t listen anymore
        I'm this your corps de ballet
        Hey you up there do not stomp like elephants ... laughing
    2. Voyager
      Voyager 1 March 2016 16: 50
      +1
      Are you sure you can’t?
      1. raf
        raf 1 March 2016 17: 59
        +3
        Quote: Voyager
        Are you sure you can’t?

        They will be able to, current when and for what grandmother?
    3. opus
      opus 1 March 2016 18: 28
      +2
      Quote: Yukon
      . Let them dream.

      you read SUCH and questions arise:
      United Launch Allianc (Boeing + Lockheed) He isn’t there? mirage?




      1. opus
        opus 1 March 2016 18: 35
        0
        while Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PRW) Is this all a myth? Fake?



        [Center[/ Center]



        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 1 March 2016 19: 50
          +1
          A really good RS-25 cost them a lot of money and required cryogenic fuel. And the Falcon rot last time was discussed with you.
          Euro Volcano is generally primitive and also has solid fuel boosters, which became the death of Challenger.
          I heard that the Samara people initiatively want to restore the production of NK-33 by the way, while the price will be competitive.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 1 March 2016 21: 02
            +1
            The RS 25, only advanced, was re-launched into the series and at the end of 2018, these engines will have to lift the SLS rocket.
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 1 March 2016 21: 14
              0
              And they don’t have any more worthy liquid engines, so I won’t be surprised at this news.
            2. opus
              opus 1 March 2016 22: 16
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              these engines will need to lift the SLS rocket.



              not only they but also new composite cryogenic tanks


              new boosters

              all avionics on the new EB


              ------------------
              selective laser smelting

              friction welding
  7. 8140
    8140 1 March 2016 15: 05
    -1
    Young Americans, so deliciously throw our effective. Engaged for the future and still buy more. Then they will refuse, as soon as they create their own, everything is progressive. As soon as they refuse to purchase, they will immediately openly use the rd-180 in military launches, they will give a damn, it’s not necessary anymore. Where our gain I do not understand. They give it back, since over a decade, the question arises, probably ours have already created a line, there isn’t even one new engine of the next generation, well, or they’ll create one ... I haven’t heard. I only heard about some alterations, based on the good old proven technologies, like RD 191 (only now. The period of its creation 1998-2011). And where are the new developments? AND! Right! I forgot about bonuses! ;) for effective ...
    1. VP
      VP 1 March 2016 15: 24
      +5
      I didn’t understand anything at all. Russian is not native or what?
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 1 March 2016 15: 37
      0
      Quote: 8140
      they will immediately openly use rd-180 in military launches, they’ll give a damn, it’s not necessary anymore
      Wrong think, citizen. The fact that the engines were purchased does not mean that they were installed from the warehouse and without the participation of Russians and flew into space. There is such an article in the service contract, which spells out the participation of Russians in pre-flight training. Otherwise NO responsibility.
      1. opus
        opus 1 March 2016 18: 11
        +2
        Quote: Hedgehog
        There is such an article in the service contract, which spells out the participation of Russians in pre-flight training

        Have you read it (the contract)?
        I wonder where?

        Where did you see "ours"?
        This one with "self-tanning"


        or






        Goodbye occurs when unloading a transport container with IL-76



        The marketing and implementation of this engine to the customer, Lockheed Martin, is handled by the AMROSS joint venture created by NPO Energomash and Pratt-Whitney (USA)

        1. opus
          opus 1 March 2016 18: 16
          +3
          January 13, 1996 - NPO Energomash was announced the winner of a competition for the development of a liquid-propellant rocket engine for the upgraded Atlas IIAR rocket company Lockheed Martin (USA).

          June 5, 1996 - NPO Energomash and Pratt & Whitney signed a contract for the joint development and production of prototypes, testing and certification of the new Russian booster engine RD-180. On July 14, 1996, this contract entered into force after receiving the approval of the relevant government departments of the Russian Federation.

          November 15, 1996 - the first firing test of the RD-180 liquid propellant rocket, developed for the first stage of the American Atlas IIAR LV, was conducted at the stand of NPO Energomash in Khimki.

          July 29, 1998 - the first firing test of the RD-180 liquid propellant rocket as part of the Atlas III LV stage of the Lockheed Martin company at the stand of the Marshall Center in Huntsville, USA.

          January 2, 1999 - the first production RD-180 engine was shipped to the United States.

          March 31, 1999 - completion of certification tests of RD-180 LPRE.

          May 24, 2000 - the first launch of the Atlas 3A launch vehicle with the RD-180 engine.

          2001 - certification tests of RD-180 were carried out for use in the Atlas 5 launch vehicle.

          2002 - certification tests of RD-180 were carried out for use in the heavy version of the Atlas 5 launch vehicle.

          February 21, 2002 - the first launch of the Atlas 3V launch vehicle with the RD-180 engine.

          August 21, 2002 - the first launch of the Atlas 5 launch vehicle with the RD-180 engine.

          September 27, 2002 - a license agreement was signed to export to the USA a complete set of design, technological and test documentation for the RD 180 engine.

          December 4, 2002 - export licenses obtained a complete set of technical documentation for the RD 180 engine under license agreement.
        2. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 1 March 2016 19: 53
          -1
          Quote: opus
          Have you read it (the contract)?

          This was written in the media. In addition, in the same place they wrote that the coconuts, having technical documentation, failed to make such an engine on their own.
          1. opus
            opus 1 March 2016 20: 37
            0
            Quote: Hedgehog
            This was written in the media.

            our media and not such "write". A little bit behind how the SMI are lagging behind (I will not mention those)
            Neither you nor the media could see the contract.

            Parties not PAO. The contract neither you nor the media will not see (not yet completed)
            Quote: Hedgehog
            In addition, they also wrote about

            the one who wrote like this and says "hole" instead of "hole", that such documentation and production the writing journalist has a rather vague idea about it ...
            Ask the "media" what they wrote:
            1.This is where:

            2.chO do it

            3. Is it difficult to recreate such a technology (for the US it is definitely problematic)

            4.Fuck this mondula?

            5. And whose is the 5 coordinate machine produces this zagagulin.

            Do you know what it is? Hardly
            This is the rotor of the oxidizer booster pump unit
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 1 March 2016 21: 13
              0
              There is a joke of this kind!

              The Americans stole the blueprints of a secret Soviet fighter, make-assemble them, but it turns out a steam locomotive .... wassat

              These technologies are no secret, but there are critical areas where the chain falls apart. Similarly to the production of turbine blades, the Chinese have broken how much dough into the AL-31F analog and the beard .... not everything is so simple actually.

              And also the technology of obtaining materials for the engine. So induction furnaces have long been known for example. wassat
              1. opus
                opus 1 March 2016 22: 03
                0
                Quote: kugelblitz
                And also the technology of obtaining materials for the engine.

                I understand it says what kind of thread Bolivians can.
                but the Americans have everything: the technological base and technology and materials and money (the fact that they are candy wrappers does not change anything)







                NASA Completes Critical Design Review for Space Launch System
                SLS will take off soon


                they, like cool managers, took advantage of the 90s and for some penny ($ billion) provided themselves with DU, they didn’t even feel a puncture with the Shuttle).
                Did not sit idly by
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 2 March 2016 08: 04
                  +1
                  Above you showed a picture with the so-called "laser melting", which gives some advantages, BUT what is it in essence? Sintering of materials in layers, similar to 3D printing. It means obviously lower mechanical properties. I decided to check the correctness of my judgment and those! wassat

                  During NASA tests, it was found that parts for J-2X and RS-25 rocket engines made of nickel alloys by the SLM method are slightly inferior in material density to analogues made by casting with subsequent welding of components. On the other hand, the absence of welds favorably affects the strength of products


                  And now I recommend that you read about investment casting, an old, but extremely effective technology that allows you to get very high qualifications, allowing casting, including in a vacuum or inert atmosphere.
                  1. opus
                    opus 2 March 2016 13: 21
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    and on those!

                    and what? This is the old antiquated antiseptic method: urinate in a barrel, ferment urine for a year, then soak the crowns of a log house?
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    And now I recommend you read about casting

                    I don’t need to recommend it, I did practice after the 4th year in St. Petersburg, where they "pour"
                    1. kugelblitz
                      kugelblitz 2 March 2016 14: 38
                      0
                      Well, if you know about this technology, you should be aware that in the same way you can print the model on a 3D printer, then fill in the metal with obviously suitable characteristics and get a part with a better crystalline output, and I emphasize monolithic structural! wassat

                      Once you talk about the pros, then mention the cons. Like friction welding, it was conceived in theory for minimal thermal impact on the metal crystal lattice. But IMHO a good solder with high characteristics allows you to solder even different metals, and even with high tensile strength, not inferior to welding. Minus of solder in its price and poor interaction with strongly oxidizing elements. There is such a thing in high-temperature solder.
                      1. opus
                        opus 2 March 2016 15: 57
                        0
                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        that similarly you can print the model on a 3D printer

                        type Yes, and what 3D printers are produced in the Russian Federation? forgot

                        Direct metal laser sintering - DMLS
                        selective laser sintering-SLS
                        laminated object manufacturing, LOM
                        Replicating Rapid Prototyper
                        all the words are "non-Russian"

                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        the output is a part with a better crystalline, and I emphasize a monolithic structure!

                        what?
                        Well tell me how mono-CRYSTAL get the product?
                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        Once you talk about the pros, then mention the cons.

                        1. I am not telling anything.
                        2. I'm just trying to prove on my fingers that Americans are not "stupid", they have technology (at least not worse than what we have, but in fact better)
                        3. by soldering, the Americans themselves docks and refuse it not because of +/-, but because of the cost
                      2. kugelblitz
                        kugelblitz 2 March 2016 16: 49
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        Yes, and what 3D printers are produced in the Russian Federation?


                        Each fan of the West in a state close to the sink, always leads the same argument. Why is always Russia alone opposed to the rest of the world? We also do not grow bananas with pineapples! lol

                        Although a scumbag juchel issued [I immediately warn of moderation, these links are by no means advertising, but only an argument in the dispute !!!]

                        http://magnum3d.ru/magnum-creative-2-pro/



                        http://picaso-3d.com/ru/products/printers/picaso-3d-designer/



                        http://www.printbox3d.ru/3D-printer-PrintBox3D-One.html

                      3. opus
                        opus 2 March 2016 17: 33
                        0
                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        Every fan of the West is in a state close to discharge,

                        I am not a fan. I'm realist.
                        I worked at our plants RKO, was at them (Germany and the USA).
                        Something "petryu" in this.
                        and I didn’t pass the exam, after graduating from high school in 1985

                        CE is not for me.

                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        but only an argument in the dispute !!!]

                        This is not an argument. It is a laugh.



                      4. kugelblitz
                        kugelblitz 2 March 2016 18: 09
                        0
                        You asked me about printers, I introduced you. For a lost or gasified model, that's enough. And the minus you already understand how low density, the possibility of microcracks and generally low mechanical properties. wassat
          2. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 2 March 2016 08: 13
            0
            And where do they go? If there is no other base, as ours still fly on Protons and Unions. Rather, there is, but the Angara perspective.
            And since SLS is unlikely to be a commercial rocket, solid-fuel boosters and the expensive RS-25 are worth nothing. I can’t take Falcon seriously, an extremely inefficient and unreliable rocket.

            By the way, yes, the use of RS-25 indirectly speaks about the problems of creating a new engine, I can say that I was right above the post. And I believe that until 2025, the Americans will not have a new reliable closed-circuit engine.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 2 March 2016 09: 21
              0
              "And I believe that the Americans will not have a reliable new closed circuit engine until 2025." - I believe that in 6 - 9 years they can make a new engine, they have everything for this and competition and money and technologies, including advanced operating systems for design, modeling and calculation.
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 2 March 2016 11: 21
                +1
                Well, I just designated the term of 9 years, even with the acceleration of CAD. Since in addition to paperwork, physical tests of individual units and parts will go on, then the stands and only then directly on the media.
                Moreover, again, tests on the media will encounter problems that CAD and the test bench will not reveal, say, vibrations of certain sections, sensor calibration, local heating, and other factors. Only a competent and experienced designer can intuitively predict emerging problems.
                Yes, and nowadays, on average, due to the complexity of the design of engines, development times stretch sometimes for decades.
            2. opus
              opus 2 March 2016 16: 04
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              And where do they go? If there is no other base, as ours still fly on Protons and Unions

              and they just count money (Americans are pragmatic to the absolute)

              and on protons / unions we fly the same because of money, and because we can’t technologically overpower either another taxiway or another LV
              Quote: kugelblitz
              And since SLS is unlikely to be a commercial missile,

              yet, as will be. We are waiting for 2018 and they fly to Mars with her and to the moon again.
              privateers will deal with trifles

              Quote: kugelblitz
              By the way, yes, the use of RS-25 indirectly indicates problems with

              says that this taxiway has great potential, it is not out of date in the 21st century, there are 15 pieces in stock + kits for 40 units, the process technology and the storage system are saved






              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 2 March 2016 16: 56
                0
                The last time you pointed out one inaccuracy, when discussing the price of Falknovsky engines, you said the price one engine, but did not indicate the general, plus additional fuel, probably 9 pieces is not simple, valves. wassat
                1. opus
                  opus 2 March 2016 17: 30
                  0
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  you said the price of one engine, n

                  READ CAREFULLY


                  15000 $ / per ton

                  there are all given in this specific ratio
                  thousand dollars per tonnage (kN) of thrust.
                  where does 9 or 20?

                  SpaceX formally announced the Falcon 9 launch vehicle on September 8, 2005, describing the new rocket as a “fully reusable heavy carrier” [26]. For the middle version of the Falcon 9, the mass of the cargo displayed at DOE equal to 9,5 t и price of $ 27 million per flight.


                  Withdrawal cost at GPO satellite mass up to 6,4 t will be $ 90 million (2015)
                  ------------------------ the rest is "on the drum".
                  As well as Tesla cars and trading in emission-free bonuses from the state of California.
                  the result-price of the offer is important.
                2. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 2 March 2016 18: 44
                  +1
                  Well, yes, a rocket with a launch mass of 540 tons put 11 satellites into orbit each weighing 172 kg.
                  Only 1.9 tons of payload in low orbit. wassat
  • Fantazer
    Fantazer 1 March 2016 15: 08
    0
    McCain has a holiday ... today he is a hero
    He defeated the budget with his bare head.
    Jumping on a trampoline I realized at that moment
    that, giving Russia the last shisha he
    Seny cannot make a holiday.
    give stockings.
  • valent45
    valent45 1 March 2016 15: 13
    0
    Americans! order a better new trampoline! Cheaper will come!
    1. opus
      opus 1 March 2016 18: 58
      0
      Quote: valent45
      Americans! order a better new trampoline! Cheaper will come!


      already:



      The RS 68s on Delta 4 launch vehicles cost NASA $ 60 / tonne of thrust ($ 000 million).

      A kerosene liquid propellant rocket engine with a higher thrust but lower specific pulse of the 180 RD (Atlas 5 launch vehicle) is NASA's nominally half the cost - 30 000 $ / tf (11 million $).

      RD 191 standing on the "armament" of the Angara RN, in relative prices, is considered one of the most expensive kerosene LPR in the world - 36 000 $ / ton (250 million rubles).

      The price of RD 171, on the basis of which RD 180/191 was created, is in the range of 22 $ / ton ($ 000-13 million). This scatter is partly due to the fact that the last two engines were created for the US domestic market, in particular for the Atlas 15 launch vehicle (RD 5 as the main engine of the central unit, and RD 180 as the engine for side units). However, RD 191 remained unclaimed in the United States, even after the creation of a more budgetary RD 191 (version without UVT).

      The most “cheap” closed-cycle engine can be considered the NK 33-1 LRE. Given the restoration of production, the price of the modification of NK 33-1 for the new Soyuz 2-3 launch vehicle can be up to $ 25 / tf ($ 000 million). Officially, NK 4,5-33 will be used until the old NK 1 reserves are depleted and replaced by RD 33 engines.

      Merlin 1D with an approximate price of $ 15 / tf (~ $ 000 million), very successfully "joined" the US rocket engine market.

      A good film about the RD-170, its production and testing:



      In 2015, 87 missile launches were completed. The year was opened with the launch of Falcon 9 on January 10, and closed with the launch of the Chinese Long March rocket on December 28. Russia made the most launches - 29, USA - 20, China - 19. Even Iran launched its own rocket, it happened on February 2, the Safir rocket was launched.

      Almost all the start-ups are collected in one video, the duration of which is about half an hour.
  • Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 1 March 2016 15: 18
    0
    That is, they themselves can no longer come up with a reliable engine request
    1. Fat
      Fat 1 March 2016 15: 59
      +1
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      That is, they themselves can no longer come up with a reliable engine request

      They can for sure. RD-180 debugged and serial. The Americans are from development to piece iron for several years and 0.53 billion. Testing and debugging HZ. how much time and billion. Launching a series - hz. how much time and billion. But now you can't save on a cheap one, you have to reinvent the wheel again. But "sovereign feelings" do not suffer.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 March 2016 17: 29
        +1
        The Americans bought a license with all the technology and documentation.
        And even the plant has long been ready. But to buy ready-made engines and have a supply of them was
        much cheaper than starting production on site. Therefore, things got up.
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 1 March 2016 20: 01
        -1
        Quote: Thick
        They can for sure.

        Of course they can. They can do a lot. Only since 2002, having received licensed technical documentation, they did not even manage to repeat the existing one.
        There is a suspicion that they are used to importing other people's brains, because there are none of their own, and those that are really not capable of anything.
        1. opus
          opus 1 March 2016 20: 48
          0
          Quote: Hedgehog
          Having received licensed technical documentation, they did not even manage to repeat the existing one.

          Yes Yes

          Pratt & whitney rocketnene







          everything imports and brains and components
          faces are all so Asian ..

          and names (former USSR?):



          China equipment (used)




          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 2 March 2016 10: 57
            0
            Quote: opus
            Yes Yes Yes Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

            Yes Yes. Only for an unknown reason, the engine in the first frame for an unknown reason, the Americans did not put their missiles on. Yes, and none of the ones shown were installed on their Atlas V, so I see no reason to stupidly clog the forum with pictures that are not directly related to the topic.
            1. opus
              opus 2 March 2016 13: 28
              0
              Quote: Hedgehog
              therefore, I see no reason to stupidly clog the forum with pictures that are not directly related to the topic.

              I don’t see the point of stupidly carrying stupid things about the backwardness of Americans, their impotence in terms of technology, lack of brains, etc., and without understanding the essence of the matter,sitting at an American computer (BIOS, processor, board, etc.) or under an American license, using the American Internet and the American OS and typing in ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Exchange) ...

              Shl. my "pictures" on your forum are at least some kind of ARGUMENT (for a primate, a visual one will do), but you have poorly literate chatter, designed for the low feelings of an electrate (part) who did not pass the exam
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 6 March 2016 08: 07
                0
                Linux is Danish. Boards are Taiwanese, however Intel bought and buys technology from Elbrus. Regarding ASCII, the country of origin of the English language should be unpleasant, we have Cyrillic.
                America really has nothing but Ford and the Wright brothers - everything else is bought or purchased immigrants, who usually come with this, rather than do it on the spot.
  • nozdrevat58
    nozdrevat58 1 March 2016 15: 33
    0
    They will not soon reach such engines, even if they hurry. It so happened that he served on Baikonur - product 8K69 (zhrd-260), even then (1979) there were no analogues. These engines threw the warhead into an orbit of 100-150 km and a range of 10 thousand. Say: they flew to the moon ... In RD, the main thing is thrust, time, and speed of delivery. If you see colleagues - respond
    1. opus
      opus 1 March 2016 21: 45
      0
      Quote: nozdrevat58
      product 8K69 (zhrd-260)

      8K69 had RD-264 (1973)
      AT + UDMH

      3600 kg
      Thrust
      Sea level: 4521 kN
      Vacuum: 4610 kN
      Specific impulse:
      Sea level: 293 s
      Vacuum: 318 s
      this is 4 x RD-263 (1965) with a common TNA



      Aerojet LR87(1959)Aerozine 50+N2O4

      839 kg
      Thrust (vac.) 733 kN
      Thrust (SL) LR87-3: 647 kN
      Isp (vac.) 2,840 Ns / kg (290 s)
      Isp (SL) 2,510 Ns / kg (256 s)
      specific, quite comparable


      LR-87-AJ-7 (2)
      1,912.8 kN
      2,313.1kN
      Americans went to the RTTT
      Solid Rocket Booster, SRB


      thrust 12,000 kN

      and reusable (not always true ... belay )
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 2 March 2016 11: 34
        0
        By the way, in the RDTT Research Institute of Thermotechnology caught up with the Americans, creating the same Frontier for example. In addition, solid propellant rocket engines have irreplaceable problems, such as the inability to regulate and drop traction, the inability to stop until the fuel is completely exhausted, cracking the fuel, and the weight of the hull. wassat
        1. opus
          opus 2 March 2016 13: 18
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          By the way, in the RDTT Scientific Research Institute of Heat Engineering caught up with the Americans, creating the same Frontier for example

          Well share , once "by the way" caught up.
          I’ll just remind you (suddenly not in the know)
          1. SRB single-stage rather than 2,3
          2. SRB reusable, not 1no
          3. SRB acceleration over the entire active section allows the astronaut to survive (that neither SS-X-31, RS-12M2R, RT-2PM, RSM-56) will ever give
          4. Do not forget that RSM-56, RS-12M2R, RT-2PM, RSM-56-none of them in terms of energy excellence (fuel, tare) did not even come close to UGM-133A Trident II (D5)
          In the best case, the UGM-96A Trident I S-4 and LGM-30G Minuteman II.
          Just do not grumble-JUST numbers
          Quote: kugelblitz
          In addition, solid propellant rocket engines have irreplaceable problems, such as the inability to regulate and drop traction, the inability to stop until the fuel is completely exhausted, cracking the fuel, and the weight of the hull.

          Besides:
          1. They are stored for 30 years (LGM-30G is the same) and do not "crack", they can tolerate 1 month
          2.Arian, Delta, Atlas, Shuttle Launch boosters - did not crack, and did not crack
          3. For the 40-50km boost stage, what is there to regulate? Combustion surface area = thrust, formula for changing the combustion area - change in thrust on the march
          In space solid propellant rocket engines, so-called channel combustion charges are widely used, which burn on surfaces that are formed by internal axial channels of a circular, star-shaped, or other cross-section. In order to exclude burning on end surfaces (as well as on part of internal ones), they are applied the so-called armor coatings - based on the same materials that are used to heatproof the body, or the critical section area of ​​the nozzle or by injecting liquid into the solid propellant chamber, introducing capillary inhibitors / combustion catalysts in the TTZ checker. The thrust direction of the solid propellant rocket motor is changed with the help of gas rudders; deviating cylindrical nozzle (deflector); auxiliary control engines; oscillating nozzles of the main engines, etc.

          4. There is no single engine on the earth that would provide a thrust of 12000 kN - 13800 kN, such a rail simply can not be created.
          ATRA’s attack is limited only by the imagination and capabilities of the launch complex
          5.Heavy?
          tna RD-170 (dry engine weight 9755 kg.) under 3000kg. Outrageous cost.
          Solid Rocket Booster dry weight 91,000 kg, with a total of 591 kg
          6.Don't stop? what nonsense.
          Simplest: reduction of pressure in the "chamber" of the solid propellant rocket motor (throttling).
          here's a re-launch, yes. There is a problem. Is it NECESSARY?
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 2 March 2016 14: 58
            0
            Just add to the requirements of the RTTT Yars corps as stability during transportation, secondly it is a full-fledged rocket, not an accelerator.
            Secondly, directly comparing Trident and Mace, it is worth considering the second features of it.
            1. opus
              opus 2 March 2016 15: 11
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              to the requirements of the body of the solid propellant rocket engine Yarsov as stability during transportation,

              Squish Yars to the ground from a height of 50km?
              Well, or at least water, then reuse.

              How?

              Threat .Solid Rocket Booster withstands the transportation of rail, car, Avia




              rises, flips, lowering, transportation both horizontally and vertically (to SK)
              Quote: kugelblitz
              Secondly, directly comparing Trident and Mace, it is worth considering the second features of it.

              Well enlighten.
              Just do not forget, you "left" from
              Quote: kugelblitz
              By the way, in the RDTT Scientific Research Institute of Heat Engineering caught up with the Americans, creating the same Frontier for example

              DIGITAL?
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 2 March 2016 15: 47
                0
                Kaneshno, the fact that the rocket is three-stage, we do not think! wassat

                Secondly, one moment, flops with a parachute head part into the water!
                1. opus
                  opus 2 March 2016 17: 59
                  0
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  Kaneshno, the fact that the rocket is three-stage, we do not think!

                  did not understand the humor?
                  Quote: opus
                  4.No engine ground singlethat would provide a thrust of 12000 kN - 13800 kN, such a rail simply can not be created.
                  ATRA’s attack is limited only by the imagination and capabilities of the launch complex

                  3 steps, this is THREE RDTT.
                  Tsiolkovsky memoirs, how we get into space ("rocket train")

                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  Secondly, one moment, flops with a parachute head part into the water!

                  yes, at least four "arguments"

                  After separating from the system at an altitude of 45 km, the SRB, continuing the flight by inertia, reach a maximum flight altitude (approximately 67 kilometers), after which, using a parachute system, they land in the ocean, at a distance of about 226 km from the launch site. Accelerators are brought down in a vertical position, the vertical landing speed is 23 m / s. At the splash site, accelerators are selected by technical service ships and delivered to the manufacturer for recovery and reuse.
                  WITHOUT (!!!) TPK, without chassis hydraulic shock absorbers, without damping ability (pneumatic) of tires)

                  Normal speed fall parachutist 50-60 meters per second or 180-200 kilometers per hour. Entering water at such a speed is the same as concrete.

                  The vertical landing speed of a parachutist with a parachute is about 6 m / s (corresponds to a jump to the ground from a height of 1,5 m)

                  Do you yourself consider the overload for SRB?
                  ΔF = ΔmΔv / Δt

                  "I give a grudge" there will be more transverse overloads experienced by Topol-m when marching on the pu.
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  And so be it, if you love pictures,

                  smart yes, "love"
                  hint to you for calculating SRB congestion

                  September 16.09.2011, XNUMX: ISS crew landing (attention to flattening of the dome)


                  Overloads ONLY when opening a parachute at a speed of about 450 km / h

                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  do not hate Russian developers like that

                  this is not for me.
                  where and when did I write this.
                  I just want to say that

                  Zadornov's pearls for the mentally retarded
                  1. opus
                    opus 2 March 2016 18: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: opus
                    hint to you for calculating SRB congestion




                    At a height of H = 50 m at a vertical descent speed of VY = - 5 m / s, the helm deviated by diving three times in pulses due to the aircraft being above the glide path. Deviation of the elevator to the dive exceeded that required for balancing within 4,5 s. As a result, the vertical overload decreased to nY = 0,85. This led to a rapid increase in the vertical rate of decline, which at a height of H = 15 m exceeded VY = - 9 m / s. The crew did not recognize the dangerous situation in time. Only 2 seconds before the runway touched at a pitch angle of 6,5 °, the elevator was completely deflected for cabling. The vertical overload at the time of contact increased to nY = 1,32, sink rate decreased to VY = - 6 m / s, the pitch angle increased by 7 ° and became equal to ~ 0,5 °. Landing of the aircraft occurred at almost three points with an overload of nY = 4,8 (according to KZ-63 records), which led to its destruction.
                  2. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 2 March 2016 18: 35
                    0
                    You are comparing an accelerator and a rocket. wassat

                    Secondly, Yars and Rubezh have a very high starting impulse, are able to penetrate a cloud of a nuclear explosion, some tricky warheads, false targets, a bunch of equipment !!! This is a military missile, look at something similar to something Peacekeeper, a heavy missile weighing 89 tons!
                    1. opus
                      opus 2 March 2016 21: 16
                      0
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      You are comparing an accelerator and a rocket.

                      this was discussed. is not it?
                      I want a rocket, see (below about M4 / 5)


                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      have a very high starting impulse

                      This term "starting impulse" is not familiar to me ...
                      if the specific impulse of the solid propellant rocket engine is Yars and Rubezh, you will not find it (so far the secret)
                      at Poplar-m-weak, worse than a minuteman 3 (100 year old)
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      a lot of equipment !!!

                      1000kg, including prbb (bus) you will not push much
                      Quote: kugelblitz
                      I’m looking at a similar Peacekeeper

                      where do you "look" at her

                      Minotaur IV (the same Peacekeeper SLV, only 4 stage Orion-38 or Star-48V) OSP-2 PK


                      SR-118-2200 kN


                      Unsurpassed yet (in terms of specific parameters) masterpiece
              2. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 2 March 2016 15: 57
                +1
                And so be it, if you love pictures, here you have a typical road situevina. This is not a concrete carry!


                PS, I’m saying I’ve caught up, so you shouldn’t hate the Russian developers like that, after all, the first satellite, Gagarin, hard and soft landings on the Moon, and her first satellite on my profile picture, didn’t come from the bulldozer. wassat
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 March 2016 15: 34
    +1
    The technology of rocket engines includes not only work on the design itself, but also test benches, test methods, measurements of everything and everything. In Soviet times, all this was created and developed in the USSR, enormous resources were spent. I will not say anything about the engineering school of mattress, but without this work on the infrastructure they will not have any engines.
    1. opus
      opus 3 March 2016 01: 18
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      I will not say anything about the engineering school of mattress, but without this work on the infrastructure they will not have any engines.

      don’t tell (if you don’t know, don’t grind nonsense)
      1. Research Center. NASA's John Glenn has been around since 1942. The main subject of his scientific and applied interest are jet engines and space rocket technology in general.
      2. The experimental base Plum Bru: there are cryogenic, hypersonic and other installations. The laboratory testing base of the center allows you to study the operation of the stages of missiles, other units at any height in a wide range of temperatures and speeds, under icing conditions, as well as with zero gravity.
      3. Stands of the Space Center. John Stennis was created in 1961 (Stand A-1 allows dynamic loading of up to 7562 kN, stand A-2 is designed for fire tests of the cruise engine of the Space Shuttle transport system. It allows dynamic loading of up to 4893 kN, stand A-3 for testing the engine J -2X under vacuumThe stand B-1 / B-2 has a double mount and is designed to test the engine of the Delta-IV rocket. Allows dynamic load up to 48 930 kN. E-complex for testing small engines and their components. Stand N-1: given to Rolls-Royce
      4. US Navy Barking Sands Pacific Missile Range
      5. The Western missile range until 1955 was called the Pacific Missile Range.
      6. The eastern range of the U.S. Air Force
      7. Space Center (KC) them. John F. Kennedy
      8. The center of space flights to them. Robert Goddard
      9. Missile-testing facilities on about. Wallops


      well, the little things
      Space Center. L. Johnson
      -Center of space flights to them. J. Marshall
      Langley Research Center founded in 1917
      Research Center. D. Ames
      Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
      -MIT laboratories, Australian rocket testing ground (jointly with the university), etc.
      US Army White Sands (New Mexico): now only P with ranges not exceeding the size of the test fields
      Cape Canaveral-Skid-Strip aerodrome (265 launches, 12,6 percent), Vandenberg air bases (799 launches, 37,9 percent), Edwards Avb (eight launches, 0,4 percent) and from submarines, located in designated areas of the oceans (1 launches, 034 percent)

      all sorts of zhulaki and garages, which now I can’t remember
  • Alexez
    Alexez 1 March 2016 15: 37
    +1
    To build a new engine in a couple of years, test it and launch it in a series - well, well ... belay
    1. vlad_vlad
      vlad_vlad 1 March 2016 16: 33
      +3
      I do not understand the joyful mockery of many commentators:
      1.the fact that the Americans are "byaki, p.i.n.dosy, and are to blame for everything" - I understood that
      2. the fact that sooner or later the Americans want to replace the RD-180 is clear
      3. what they can do in spite of the comments in this forum is also clear
      4. there is enough money and knowledge to amers

      I have only one question - why all this time our designers did not take advantage of the situation and did not create any new, better, cheaper RD-181 ?? and would not sell to the same amers, Europeans? then it would not be necessary now to puff in pursuit.
      1. opus
        opus 2 March 2016 13: 33
        0
        Quote: vlad_vlad
        I do not understand the joyful mockery of many commentators:

        Yes, everything is clear.
        1. Many commentators have a level of intelligence, so-so (USE)
        2.Populism (this is now in demand, for this you can + get)
        3. Banal ignorance of reality
        4. And all this (mockery) is written on American technology. American Internet is the same
  • isker
    isker 1 March 2016 16: 10
    +1
    115 million - and this is with American appetite, and even a space engine, and even from scratch?! ...
    Tales and Legends of the Potomac, First Edition ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 March 2016 17: 43
      +1
      From scratch, they will not do a new engine for sure, since from 180 the main components will be rolled up.
  • gg.na
    gg.na 1 March 2016 16: 54
    0
    They said, like, we’re going to abandon the rd-180 engines, but they realized that they won’t succeed. But as a way to give back, they decided that now they will take time and then everyone will forget what and why and how it was and there you can see if they have time to come up with something themselves or just stupidly continue to buy our engines! After that, everyone will not have other problems before no one will even remember about this refusal!
  • olgen58
    olgen58 1 March 2016 17: 07
    0
    Enough mind
  • Santjaga_Garka
    Santjaga_Garka 1 March 2016 19: 06
    0
    I feel that everything will shift again by five or two years, they will cut the hardfoot, they will build what flies barely, they will report as an extra class, they will be adopted and after a couple of accidents they will return, so that they will be back in 25-30 fly on ours and it’s not ipet *)
  • Icebreaker
    Icebreaker 1 March 2016 19: 29
    +1
    The phrase was embarrassing, can someone explain:
    The first company is ready to create an AR1 rocket engine, which subsequently will be able to operate NASA, including for military purposes.

    That is, it turns out now we are supplying them with the RD-180, which they can use (and use, I am sure, if they can) for military purposes? !! belay
    1. Tjeck
      Tjeck 1 March 2016 19: 57
      0
      In practice, they launch military satellites on their engines, but in theory they can. I don’t remember exactly, but last year the French felts the French felts who else from Europe (not the essence) even launched a military apparatus on a proton.

      Ps: They can create an analogue and will certainly create it, no matter how RD-180 is already a pensioner. But will be compared by factor cost / effectiveness they are unlikely to succeed.
  • vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 1 March 2016 23: 37
    0
    Quote: Pereira
    I will wait with interest for the result.

    And I wonder who will buy the RD-180 if the United States refuses. DPRK, China, India? :) Here McCain will be delighted! :)