This isn't capitalism.
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready. <snip>
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/18/2015 08:32 pmNot for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
Quote from: rcoppola on 03/18/2015 07:15 pmThis has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready. <snip>One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that. And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/18/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 03/18/2015 08:32 pmNot for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.Possibly, but since we can't look into the senators personal thoughts, your comment will remain an assumption at best.
Regardless of the RD-180, ULA had/has to re-invent itself to be viable into the 2020s.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/18/2015 08:37 pmThe minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.That's not entirely true. They still have SpaceX coming up as competition as well as any foreign launch service provider for non-national security launches. Even if the engine language were dropped ULA will have a nearly 20 year old design at that point which will become harder and harder to compete.
If the RD-180 is prematurely cut off before a new engine and vehicle is certified, there will be no other launch provider who can perform the full range of launch capabilities currently required under the law, Bruno said
The current narrow interpretation of the Defense Authorization bill could preclude ULA from receiving previously ordered engines, which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.
DIV was intended as the sole winner riding the Shuttle economics chain. Almost made it to, and in comparison to Shuttle, with enough flights it would have. Since they went all out with the "new" to do this, a lot of things left for "improvement" after winning followed. Unlike AV where much was "evolved" with past increments of development, more of a repackaging of what was there, and not dependent on Shuttle economics chain, given the rather cynical view of it paying off from LM.
And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
Why is the USAF involved at all with a replacement engine development program? Let ULA and Jeff Bezos fund their own engine development program. The other provider did it with Paypal money. Let Amazon money pay for the next one.
If I was to gamble, I would put money on No! At the end of the day, they want to be able to compete with SpaceX and the other providers.
Stop playing games with RD-180. I don't see anyone blocking Exxon from their their billion dollar contracts for Natural gas exploration with Russia. Keep buying them as long as we can or need to. And remove any arbitrary language about how many or what they can or can't launch.