znapel

Mr. Bruno, I tried to ask this before on Twitter, but the limitations of 140 characters messed things up...

Could you explain how the USAF's plan to fund an RD-180 alternative fit into ULA's plans?

They're at a stage of talking about what studies need to be funded, whilst ULA is actually funding ongoing development on engines right now. With NGLS in the works, does ULA have a place for the product of their efforts?

Thanks for taking the time to come back and answer some more questions Tory. I don't check out AMAs much because people doing them seem to pop in for an hour, answer a few token questions and leave after plugging their book/movie/whatever. I look forward to hearing more from you next month!

Congrats on a boring launch (the best kind) last night ; P

given that they use completely different fuels and would require different tankage.

They do, but making a rocket will take less time than making an engine. They'll decide in 2016-2017 which to down select to and move forward. This is both for funding reasons and I think so that they can freeze the rocket design and push forward. They'll prep for BE-4, but if it doesn't happen, then hey, they have an existing rocket that is KerLox already that they can switch over to using the AR-1.

IMHO it's not worth developing an RD-180 replacement for the Atlas V. They're on the verge of having enough engines to finish out the block-buy (though recent reports said they're backpedaling on that for legal reasons). If BE-4 works out then Atlas V will be phased out as soon as certification goes through. They'd be developing an engine for a rocket who's days are numbered.

This is a good summary of NGLS... Mentions the engines.

ULA are working with Aerojet-Rocketdyne to develop the AR-1 as a possible backup to the BE-4. AFAIK, the USAF hasn't even picked a manufacturer or engine design yet. They're still in the 'lets do some studies' phase of things...