Aerojet Rocketdyne and two other firms on Monday said they are exploring options for obtaining the data rights to the Atlas 5 launch vehicle and swapping out its Russian-built engine with the AR1 engine that Aerojet Rocketdyne is developing.
Julie Van Kleeck, Aerojet Rocketdyne's vice president for advanced space and launch systems, said adapting a new U.S.-built engine to the Atlas 5 rocket was the "lowest risk, most rapid and affordable" way to end U.S. reliance on Russian engines. She said it made no sense to retire the most capable and flexible launch system available today.
I couldn't imagine why LM/ULA would give up the rights for the entire LV if they weren't profiting from it.
Mike Gruss (@Gruss_SN) tweeted at 7:54 PM on Mon, May 11, 2015:.@ulalaunch says they have "no intention of selling or transferring" rights to Atlas 5 rocket.(https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/597912810123833344?s=03)
There is definitely a case to be made for, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Whatever happened to the idea of keeping Russian rocketeeers making stuff for us instead of the axis of evil?
I wonder what Griffin's interest in this is?
AR thinks an RD-180 replacement possible in record time (which they can do), and that ULA won't accept it but the AF will.
If this were to come off, AV would continue operating through engine certification with certain advantages ahead of Vulcan. Vulcan would take years to certify for certain missions. If both continued, likely they'd share pad/infrastructure for an indefinite period.It would make it very hard on ULA to do Vulcan, because Vulcan would seriously compete with AV. But would potentially give AF a necessary "fall back" option it desires.
Does ULA "own" all of Atlas? Answer - no.
True, but contracts have interesting clauses in them in case the operator won't/can't. Perhaps these matter?
This sure looks like a solution looking for a problem. Usually you enter into a market by addressing an underserved portion of the market or by providing a better service to existing customers. I'm not sure what they think they are doing.
Meanwhile, the Air Force collected industry input from a draft request proposals for risk-reduction work in developing a replacement for the Atlas V’s Russian RD-180. Julie Van Kleeck, vice president of space and launch for Aerojet Rocketdyne, says the Air Force should focus its funding efforts – service officials plan to spend $150-160 million for risk reduction for various options for new rocket systems. She contends the problem at hand is replacing the Russian RD-180, not necessarily developing an all-new rocket. “We believe there is an engine problem, not a launch vehicle problem,” she tells Aviation Week. At issue is whether this funding could be “spread too thin,” according to one industry source, if it supports not only an RD-180 replacement but other systems critical to an entirely new rocket, such as solid boosters or a new upper stage.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/12/2015 04:45 amThis sure looks like a solution looking for a problem. Usually you enter into a market by addressing an underserved portion of the market or by providing a better service to existing customers. I'm not sure what they think they are doing.No, this is Aerojet Rocketdyne looking for a way to survive. They need to get a large chunk of Gov't funding for AR-1 development, and they seem to be hoping that they'll get a bigger piece of the pie if they can convince the Air Force that there's a realistic way to keep Atlas V flying.QuoteMeanwhile, the Air Force collected industry input from a draft request proposals for risk-reduction work in developing a replacement for the Atlas V’s Russian RD-180. Julie Van Kleeck, vice president of space and launch for Aerojet Rocketdyne, says the Air Force should focus its funding efforts – service officials plan to spend $150-160 million for risk reduction for various options for new rocket systems. She contends the problem at hand is replacing the Russian RD-180, not necessarily developing an all-new rocket. “We believe there is an engine problem, not a launch vehicle problem,” she tells Aviation Week. At issue is whether this funding could be “spread too thin,” according to one industry source, if it supports not only an RD-180 replacement but other systems critical to an entirely new rocket, such as solid boosters or a new upper stage.http://aviationweek.com/space/industry-team-hopes-resurrect-atlas-v-post-rd-180So Aerojet is trying to prevent the funding from getting "spread too thin" (ie being spent on anything except AR-1 development) by giving the Air Force a potential path, however unlikely, to keeping Atlas V flying.