Can BE-4 be a copy of NK-33
It is no secret that the US is now a space boom. True, this boom is very specific.
For example, the SLS rocket reminds me very much of the Energy rocket. Yes, I know that Energy-Buran is a clone of the Space Shuttle, but a more successful clone, so I don’t need to talk about it in the comments.
Dream Chaser looks a lot like Soviet BOR. They in the enlarged view were planned to be launched instead of Buran.
')
The US space star Falcon-9 looks very much like Zenith, you just need to replace the RD-107/108 forced quarters instead of the RD-170 to the maximum. True, the Merlin prototype was the Fastrac / MS-1, a motor developed by NASA with a non-cooled ablation nozzle.
So when I saw the BE-4 layout, I said to myself: Wow, this reminds me a lot of things, only the turbine is horizontal. When I saw the pictures of the BE-4, I said to myself that this engine is incredibly similar to one other engine, which in turn does not look like any other engine that I saw - NK-15 / NK-33. First of all, a clean design of the CS, when all the hydraulics are integrated into the turbine on the side of the engine.
How is this possible? Pros and cons.
Behind.
Vs.
Theoretically, you can accidentally make the engine look similar in design, but the likelihood of this is very, very small.
Pictures for reflection:
NK-33
The layout of BE-4 for BE-3, which was expected:
The layout of BE-4, which was presented at the presentation in the form of a layout and about which I then thought that it reminds me of something:
Final Layout BE-4
RD-191
I think in the comments I will write that I am very wrong, but I would like arguments.
PS I do not strongly believe in the commercial prospects of Vulkan and this is why. In fact, the Vulkan is an Atlas-5 with a methane first stage, which in turn is done purely because of BE-4 plus optimized costs, such as the new cheaper RL-10, which in turn are perfectly placed on Atlas-5. Those. all the costs of developing a new rocket actually give a reduction of well by $ 20 million per launch (the difference between the cost of the RD-180 and BE-4, plus the cost of methane well by $ 5 million and minus a larger tank volume. Ie, we spent billion to create a new rockets, recaptured as much as 25 million for launch. A business of unprecedented scale. And if you consider that competitors cut prices, the ULA is actually where it was and stayed.
For example, the SLS rocket reminds me very much of the Energy rocket. Yes, I know that Energy-Buran is a clone of the Space Shuttle, but a more successful clone, so I don’t need to talk about it in the comments.
Dream Chaser looks a lot like Soviet BOR. They in the enlarged view were planned to be launched instead of Buran.
')
The US space star Falcon-9 looks very much like Zenith, you just need to replace the RD-107/108 forced quarters instead of the RD-170 to the maximum. True, the Merlin prototype was the Fastrac / MS-1, a motor developed by NASA with a non-cooled ablation nozzle.
So when I saw the BE-4 layout, I said to myself: Wow, this reminds me a lot of things, only the turbine is horizontal. When I saw the pictures of the BE-4, I said to myself that this engine is incredibly similar to one other engine, which in turn does not look like any other engine that I saw - NK-15 / NK-33. First of all, a clean design of the CS, when all the hydraulics are integrated into the turbine on the side of the engine.
How is this possible? Pros and cons.
Behind.
- The NK-33 drawings have long been located in the USA, and the NK-33 in the USA is known as AJ-26. This is not just a renamed engine, it replaced the electronics, added retractable nozzle nozzles.
- There is a constant flow of personnel between firms in the United States, so experience and technology are easily transferred from one firm to another. Of course there are patents, etc. but, after all, no one bothers to do more than one to one, but something quite similar.
- Blue Origin doesn’t have any experience in creating such engines - their most powerful engine is the BE-3, which looks a bit like BE-4 very remotely, if at all. Besides, BE-3 is a rather weak engine.
- Hydrogen engines are quite simply converted to methane, it would seem easier to increase BE-3 and convert to methane, but no.
- Despite the enthusiasm for space-based private companies, private space companies are not very willing to do something from scratch, they are basically ready to invest money in something already ready, all the more so because billionaires don’t have much money. Only the development of a motor from scratch costs a billion, the development of a rocket is another billion and you are no longer a billionaire.
- NK-15 / NK-33 are technologies of the 60s, in contrast to the RD-180 it is technically possible to copy NK-33, especially on methane. The fact is that methane has two important properties - its cooling capacity is 3 times higher than kerosene and high-frequency stability allows, with the same characteristics, to create a CS at least 1.5 times more than kerosene engines, i.e. engine create much cheaper and faster. Not for nothing, the AR-1 lags far behind - no, not because it is developed by stupid people, but because it is on kerosene.
- BE-4 developed somehow very quickly. Here the main business of skating tourists on a simple suborbital rocket can not run, and the engine is almost ready.
- Lockheed Martin is known for developing the F-35, and there are persistent rumors that the F-35 is the former Yak-201, but the F-35 swiveling nozzle is 100% a clone from the Yak-141 swiveling nozzle, by coincidence, Lockheed Martin is one of the owners of ULA which will make Vulkan, a rocket developed specifically for BE-4 even then when the results of the competition were not known! The fact is that it is pointless to develop a new missile for the AR-1, since the AR-1 is designed for fasteners from the RD-180. And the rumors that Vulkan will be only methane went for a long time.
Vs.
Theoretically, you can accidentally make the engine look similar in design, but the likelihood of this is very, very small.
Pictures for reflection:
NK-33
The layout of BE-4 for BE-3, which was expected:
The layout of BE-4, which was presented at the presentation in the form of a layout and about which I then thought that it reminds me of something:
Final Layout BE-4
RD-191
I think in the comments I will write that I am very wrong, but I would like arguments.
PS I do not strongly believe in the commercial prospects of Vulkan and this is why. In fact, the Vulkan is an Atlas-5 with a methane first stage, which in turn is done purely because of BE-4 plus optimized costs, such as the new cheaper RL-10, which in turn are perfectly placed on Atlas-5. Those. all the costs of developing a new rocket actually give a reduction of well by $ 20 million per launch (the difference between the cost of the RD-180 and BE-4, plus the cost of methane well by $ 5 million and minus a larger tank volume. Ie, we spent billion to create a new rockets, recaptured as much as 25 million for launch. A business of unprecedented scale. And if you consider that competitors cut prices, the ULA is actually where it was and stayed.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/422065/
All Articles