I’m interviewing with Aerojet Rocketdyne tomorrow, and I was curious what happens if and when Lockheed acquires the company. Does it becomes a part of LM space? Do they fire everyone?
Gov't Not So Secret Closed Down But Still Open Research Lab
As a juvenile delinquent I used to break into this place and make the black SUV's chase me around.
The Gov't claimed in 1994 they would shut it down. As a lot of people in the Inland Empire drink water and well the gov't knew stuff was leaking into the groundwater in 1992.
They claimed again in 2003 we will shut it down.
Then again in 2006
2009 to 2019 we going to shut it down and clean it up.
For Vampire the legendary Pink Pond is often a good source of fun & new exciting races of creatures.
Irl we got a kid to drink from the pink pond. Don't worry he is still alive.
From https://dtsc.ca.gov/aerojet-rocketdyne-chino-hills/
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What kind of materials have been found and removed from the Site?
A. Cleanup has focused on three elements: Solid Waste Management Units, Open Burn/Open Detonation Units, and Depleted Uranium (DU) test areas. The primary materials of concern are chemicals found in explosives, which include RDX, HMX, and perchlorate. Depleted uranium was used in the military ordnance that was tested. Some unexploded ordnance, known as Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) was also found.
Q. Has all the ordnance in the area been removed?
A. A great deal of work has been done to remove these materials, including two separate screenings of the OB/OD Unit and an independent third party Quality Assurance (QA) analysis. The analysis did not identify any quality issues regarding the past munitions investigations. However, DTSC has determined that there is a potential for residual MEC present at portions of the Site because of the terrain at the site and limitations in technologies used for locating and removing ordnance.
DTSC public noticed a workplan in 2016 to remove residual MEC in approximately 20 acres at the site. This workplan will be implemented following the results of the comprehensive human health and ecological risk assessment. it is important that until completion of all ongoing cleanup activities, the public obey the “unauthorized personnel keep out” signs surrounding the Site.
Q. Why hasn’t the cleanup work been completed yet?
A. It is DTSC’s goal to thoroughly investigate the site and carefully evaluate what needs to be done. It takes time to be careful and thorough, and to respond properly to community concerns about any prop
... keep reading on reddit ➡The European Service Module on Orion uses an old Orbital Maneuvering System engine repurposed from the Space Shuttle. These will power Artemis 1 through 6. NASA has made plans for Artemis 7 through 14: “NASA has awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc. of Redmond, Washington, for the development of the Orion Main Engine (OME).”* The cost will be $600 million, including development and 7 engines. The price tag is a disgrace, of course, especially since it will probably be a modernization of the AJ10-190 already used as the OMS. Any really innovative design would require a redesign of the Orion ESM, the propellant system of which is built around an MMH/NTO** engine. Hey, you know what else is an MMH/NTO engine? The SuperDraco.
How can the SuperDraco be optimized for this use and save U.S. taxpayers about 550 million dollars? Yes, Orion will be dead by Artemis 7, but a lot of development money will be spent between now and then. It will be interesting to show there’s a cheap alternative, even if it can’t politically happen.
So, how can an SD, optimized for sea level, and generating 68 kN with an isp of 235 be adapted to replace a vacuum optimized engine generating 27 kN with an Isp of 316? A big vacuum nozzle is a good start. Aside from throttling down the SD, can it more efficiently be derated and built to a reasonably modified design? (Sorry, I don’t know the thrust-to-weight ratio of these engines.) What other redesign can be done to improve the Isp? A failure to do that means the SD can’t replace the AJ10-190.
-* in 2019 NASA committed to ordering “a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.”
-** Unlike other AJ10 engines the -190 uses this combination. Btw, NTO and N2O4 are the same thing, nitrogen tetroxide is a common way of referring to dinitrogen tetroxide. So don’t be confused, the -190 and SuperDraco use the same oxidizer. MMH is Monomethylhydrazine, the fuel for both.
I'm almost done with my MS so I'm starting to look at jobs. I found a couple positions at AR near Seattle working 12 hr Friday-Sunday shifts which sounds great (I love the Pacific Northwest and it would be awesome to have weekdays off).
However, I know that AR was having problems and doesn't have a great reputation as an employer. Have they changed since they were acquired by LM recently? Anyone willing to share their experiences?
Does anyone know the status of Aerojet's AR1? I get the impression a working prototype was produced.
In a hypothetical world were ULA gets fed up waiting for the BE-4 how possible is it to switch to the AR1?
Would it be a lot of rework to switch the AR1 fuels? Is it a case of having yo rework everything (injector plates, combustion chamber, etc..) or is it more modifying the preburners to change the fuel mix?
Could Vulkan get away with modifying the height of the tanks to support RP1 instead?
There are some obvious differences for sure. Demand, first and foremost: Think of how many Raptors are required for a fully stacked Starship and Super Heavy booster vs just the 4 RS-25's required for SLS.
I would imagine there are differences in workflow as well though. Differences in inspections and testing procedures too - not to mention just something as macro as company culture overall.
How many engines does each company produce each year?
Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne
https://focusinvesting.biz/lockheed-martin-to-acquire-aerojet-rocketdyne-strengthening-position-as-leadership-in-space-and-hypersonic-technology/
