Author Topic: RD-180 Ban Modification  (Read 124479 times)

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
RD-180 Ban Modification
« on: 05/27/2015 03:10 am »
Since ULA and its parent companies have said that development of Vulcan depends on ULA being allowed to fly Atlas V with the RD-180 until Vulcan is certified, the RD-180 ban and its possible modification by Congress at the request of the Air Force is still a significant issue.

The purpose of this thread is to focus RD-180 discussion here so that the Vulcan thread can focus on Vulcan itself and not the RD-180 issue.

For starters, here are the latest statements from ULA and Boeing on the subject.

http://spacenews.com/ula-execs-say-rd-180-engine-ban-blocks-path-to-next-gen-rocket/
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 03:12 am by Kabloona »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #1 on: 05/27/2015 03:56 am »
Even if RD180 ban is lifted the future is still not clear for ULA. Tory said they need 10 launches a year to stay viable. With DOD launches forecast to drop to 5, even without SpaceX they would be struggling. Not only are SpaceX going to take some of the few DOD missions but also some of the NASA missions.

 ULA needs to find a few commercial plus ISS missions to reach their 10 launch minimum.

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #2 on: 05/27/2015 09:48 am »
Maybe this is the thread to ask this question.

Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)
That gets them till mid-2018.
They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.
That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.
The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.
That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.
A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.

What do I have wrong?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #3 on: 05/27/2015 04:05 pm »
Maybe this is the thread to ask this question.

Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)
That gets them till mid-2018.
They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.
That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.
The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.
That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.
A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.

What do I have wrong?


This came up in one of the Sowers Q/A threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1361641#msg1361641

I'm a little confused about this as I was under the impression that "Vulcan Centaur" would be capable of conducting AF launches almost immediately after EIS. I don't know exactly what's going on with Vulcan Centaur certification. Is the issue the inevitable lag between certification and actually flying task orders?

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #4 on: 05/27/2015 05:47 pm »
Maybe this is the thread to ask this question.

Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)
That gets them till mid-2018.
They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.
That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.
The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.
That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.
A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.

What do I have wrong?


This came up in one of the Sowers Q/A threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1361641#msg1361641

I'm a little confused about this as I was under the impression that "Vulcan Centaur" would be capable of conducting AF launches almost immediately after EIS. I don't know exactly what's going on with Vulcan Centaur certification. Is the issue the inevitable lag between certification and actually flying task orders?

Maybe the time between 2020 & 2022 could be covered by commercial launches? It would also speed up any cert work that was required.

Offline sts9

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #5 on: 05/27/2015 07:17 pm »
Thank you for the topic:
Does anyone have the exact numbers of deliveries from the RD180 to stand today:
101 on order ?
6 Atlas 3A/B launched
54 Atlas 5 launched
13 inventory ?? with 5 delieveries in 2014
8 delieveries every year 2015 to 2017 planned
sum 97 ?

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #6 on: 05/30/2015 10:25 am »
Since ULA and its parent companies have said that development of Vulcan depends on ULA being allowed to fly Atlas V with the RD-180 until Vulcan is certified, the RD-180 ban and its possible modification by Congress at the request of the Air Force is still a significant issue.

The purpose of this thread is to focus RD-180 discussion here so that the Vulcan thread can focus on Vulcan itself and not the RD-180 issue.

For starters, here are the latest statements from ULA and Boeing on the subject.

http://spacenews.com/ula-execs-say-rd-180-engine-ban-blocks-path-to-next-gen-rocket/

I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #7 on: 05/30/2015 11:29 am »
Since ULA and its parent companies have said that development of Vulcan depends on ULA being allowed to fly Atlas V with the RD-180 until Vulcan is certified, the RD-180 ban and its possible modification by Congress at the request of the Air Force is still a significant issue.

The purpose of this thread is to focus RD-180 discussion here so that the Vulcan thread can focus on Vulcan itself and not the RD-180 issue.

For starters, here are the latest statements from ULA and Boeing on the subject.

http://spacenews.com/ula-execs-say-rd-180-engine-ban-blocks-path-to-next-gen-rocket/

I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.

No way - ULA isnt crazy enough to pull such a stunt - if they even tried to abuse some loophole, congress would block that in a heartbeat.

Also, AFAIK that ban is a bit wider, than just saying, that EELVs cant use RD-180.

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #8 on: 05/30/2015 11:29 pm »

I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.

No way - ULA isnt crazy enough to pull such a stunt - if they even tried to abuse some loophole, congress would block that in a heartbeat.

Also, AFAIK that ban is a bit wider, than just saying, that EELVs cant use RD-180.

Well, so long as OrbATK is allowed to use the RD-181, they'll have one good argument on their side. Perhaps they'll just stike a deal with OrbATK to import more RD-181s than strictly necessary and then go ahead and say "Hey, we happen to have a stack of really useful engines kicking around. Would be a shame if we wouldn't use them."

Given that OrbATK have agreed on options for up to 60 RD-181 engines and I really don't see OrbATK having 30 Antares launches in their future, that seems to be a real possibility.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #9 on: 05/30/2015 11:56 pm »
Maybe this is the thread to ask this question.

Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)
That gets them till mid-2018.
They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.
That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.
The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.
That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.
A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.

What do I have wrong?


This came up in one of the Sowers Q/A threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1361641#msg1361641

I'm a little confused about this as I was under the impression that "Vulcan Centaur" would be capable of conducting AF launches almost immediately after EIS. I don't know exactly what's going on with Vulcan Centaur certification. Is the issue the inevitable lag between certification and actually flying task orders?

Maybe the time between 2020 & 2022 could be covered by commercial launches? It would also speed up any cert work that was required.

The Vulcan can fly commercial missions from day one assuming they can find customers, may have to heavily discount first flight or two. NASA should allow them to use it for ISS cargo missions assuming they win some from CRS2. NB Antares maiden flight flew a Cygnus to ISS.
I'm guessing that CC flights of CST100 will use Atlas until NASA are happy with Vulcan.
Besides the commercial satellites and ISS missions there also the usual NASA satellites and planetary missions, these need a NASA certification of Vulcan. ULA can still use Atlas for these just have to compete against F9 and FH.

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #10 on: 05/31/2015 12:46 am »
Well, so long as OrbATK is allowed to use the RD-181
OrbATK isn't doing national security launches, and I think Russian engines would be a problem for them if they were to attempt to do so.

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #11 on: 05/31/2015 12:50 am »
I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.

The letter of the law is more general than that.
Quote
(a) In General.-Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c), beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 19, 2014], the Secretary of Defense may not award or renew a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities under the evolved expendable launch vehicle program if such contract carries out such space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
Prohibition on Contracting With Russian Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program

~Kirk

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #12 on: 05/31/2015 12:42 pm »
I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.

The letter of the law is more general than that.
Quote
(a) In General.-Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c), beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 19, 2014], the Secretary of Defense may not award or renew a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities under the evolved expendable launch vehicle program if such contract carries out such space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
Prohibition on Contracting With Russian Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program

~Kirk

Yes, but Subsection b) include the possibility of a waiver. Provided that:

"(1) the waiver is necessary for the national security interests of the United States; and [DING]

"(2) the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. [DING]

So it is entirely possible.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #13 on: 05/31/2015 01:42 pm »

Yes, but Subsection b) include the possibility of a waiver. Provided that:

"(1) the waiver is necessary for the national security interests of the United States; and [DING]

"(2) the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. [DING]

So it is entirely possible.

And hence it makes no sense to talk about the RD-181 for Atlas

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #14 on: 05/31/2015 02:39 pm »
Note that the joint conditions are not satisfied for the upcoming competed GPS launches or any other payload within the ability of F9 expendible.  IF the payload is too massive for F9, Delta Heavy could satisfy the too expensive clause, so a waiver could be obtained.  Same goes for situation where F9 becomes unavailable.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2015 02:40 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #15 on: 05/31/2015 03:44 pm »
Note that the joint conditions are not satisfied for the upcoming competed GPS launches or any other payload within the ability of F9 expendible.  IF the payload is too massive for F9, Delta Heavy could satisfy the too expensive clause, so a waiver could be obtained.  Same goes for situation where F9 becomes unavailable.

GPS III payloads should be well within F9 capabilities.

http://spacenews.com/40904usaf-rejected-spacex-offer-to-launch-gps-3-satellites-for-80m-each/

Quote
Industry sources have long said that SpaceX was vying for the GPS 3 missions, which appear well suited to the capabilities of the Falcon 9. The court filing is the first public disclosure of the asking price.

And that was before the planned performance upgrades of v1.2.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2015 03:46 pm by Kabloona »

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #16 on: 05/31/2015 03:57 pm »
Yes, but Subsection b) include the possibility of a waiver. Provided that:

"(1) the waiver is necessary for the national security interests of the United States; and [DING]

"(2) the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. [DING]

So it is entirely possible.
This sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #17 on: 05/31/2015 04:11 pm »
This sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.

Not if you demand that there must always be a second provider. Which is the case, as far as I know.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #18 on: 05/31/2015 04:22 pm »
This sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.

Not if you demand that there must always be a second provider. Which is the case, as far as I know.
"fair and reasonable price" seems to be the magic wording. So if ULA cannot compete and SX is still offering "fair and reasonable price" there is no need for waiver and RD-180.

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
Re: RD-180 Ban Modification
« Reply #19 on: 05/31/2015 05:12 pm »
This sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.

I just ran across this proposed amendment from Representative Mike Coffman (Colorado), dated 6 May, 2015:
Quote
The Secretary of the Air Force may not award a contract to a certified launch provider of the United States unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the launch provider has one or more launch vehicles that is able to accommodate all medium-weight and heavy-lift classes of payloads included in the national security manifest.
Assurance of Full Launch Capability

Did the EELV program initially have language like this which was removed at some point in order to allow SpaceX to compete its F9 prior to FH certification?

~Kirk

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1