Quote from: woods170 on 05/11/2014 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 05/09/2014 02:48 amA recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.Surely, negotiate => payments.If payments for the engines remain banned for years (highly unlikely, I hope!!), surely licence payments for domestic production would fall foul of the same prohibition?cheers, Martin
Quote from: deltaV on 05/09/2014 02:48 amA recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.
And here's the article from Russia Today:http://rt.com/news/158680-russia-usa-rocket-gps/#.U3IlAMseP8c.twitter"Moscow is banning Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit, said Russia’s Deputy PM, Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of space and defense industries.According to Rogozin, Russia is also halting the operation of all American GPS stations on its territory from June 1.Russia currently hosts 11 ground-based GPS stations, the Deputy PM said.The move comes after the US refused to place a signal correction station for Russia’s own space-based satellite navigation system, GLONASS, on American territory, he explained."However, another article from ITAR-TASS is less definitive about the RD-180 "ban":http://en.itar-tass.com/world/731443"Rogozin noted that Russia may terminate supplies of NK-33 and RD-180 rocket engines to the US, if they are used for military purposes. "Still, even the threat of a ban is a PR debacle for ULA.
Quote from: MP99 on 05/11/2014 07:35 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/11/2014 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 05/09/2014 02:48 amA recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 3hGriffin: we have the ability to produce the RD-180 in the US. The question, though, is should we? License for doing so expires in 2022.That expiration of the license makes domestic production a lot less attractive IMHO.No it doesn't. They will simply negotiate an extension of the licensed period.Surely, negotiate => payments.If payments for the engines remain banned for years (highly unlikely, I hope!!), surely licence payments for domestic production would fall foul of the same prohibition?cheers, MartinIn case you had not noticed: the ban on payments for RD-180 was lifted a few days ago. It's back to business-as-usual. IMO, the same will happen to the licensed period. It will be extended in the name of 'national security', along with the US not switchting to domestic production of RD-180 by simply continuing to buy straight from the Russians.IMO, in the end, the injunction will not have made any difference. There is language for starting development of a domestic replacement for RD-180 in the House proposal, but I do not think that language will make it to the final bill. Simply put: this will all blow over.
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/boeing-no-new-russian-rd-180-engines-needed-ula-bulk-buy-dealQuoteBoeing: No New Russian RD-180 Engines Needed For ULA Bulk Buy Deal>"We believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have," says Roger Krone, president of Boeing Network and Space Systems. ULA has 16 RD-180s on U.S. soil, according to an industry official.>>Should it run short of RD-180s, ULA and U.S. Air Force, its customer, can shift some launches from the Atlas V manifest to Delta IV. "That is not our desired approach," Krone says. "We’d just as soon not move the manifest.">>
Boeing: No New Russian RD-180 Engines Needed For ULA Bulk Buy Deal>"We believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have," says Roger Krone, president of Boeing Network and Space Systems. ULA has 16 RD-180s on U.S. soil, according to an industry official.>>Should it run short of RD-180s, ULA and U.S. Air Force, its customer, can shift some launches from the Atlas V manifest to Delta IV. "That is not our desired approach," Krone says. "We’d just as soon not move the manifest.">>
Considering nearly all RD-180 launches on the books are USAF, that's pretty definitive.
If we say ULA has ~16 RD-180 in country that can be used for military launches, they can maybe last through the end of 2016 at the current rate of military launches.
Now that the Russians have banned the use of the RD-180 for military operations, would you care to revisit that statement that it's "business as usual"?
No, "military operations" are "operations conducted by a military organization", and USAF is a military organization. Period. Launching a USAF weather satellite is a military operation.Atlas V has never launched a "weapons system". Ever. If that was the intention of the sanctions, the Russians are idiots. They're not idiots. They clearly meant the launch of USAF and NRO payloads. It doesn't matter if ULA or USAF declares a launch to not be a military operation. What matters is that the Russians declare it to be one. And I doubt ULA wants to violate this rule, because they would risk causing the Russians to ban all exports of RD-180.
Quote from: simonbp on 05/15/2014 02:29 pmNo, "military operations" are "operations conducted by a military organization", and USAF is a military organization. Period. Launching a USAF weather satellite is a military operation.Atlas V has never launched a "weapons system". Ever. If that was the intention of the sanctions, the Russians are idiots. They're not idiots. They clearly meant the launch of USAF and NRO payloads. It doesn't matter if ULA or USAF declares a launch to not be a military operation. What matters is that the Russians declare it to be one. And I doubt ULA wants to violate this rule, because they would risk causing the Russians to ban all exports of RD-180.go back and look at the actual agreements (and Russian language). I believe the same words were used when RD-180 was first approved for Atlas III.
I know this thread is about funding for a liquid engine, but I'm just curious why ATK Liberty launch vehicle is not being considered as an alternative satellite launcher? Maybe a new thread is needed...
Quote from: clongton on 05/09/2014 04:13 pmDomestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.It's be sweet...but I don't think ULA could do it. Wouldn't a new wider core Atlas (say 5m to use Delta IV dooling) with a single F-1B on it...no longer be an Atlas? As Jim has said several times, ULA can only operate the current Atlas V and Delta IV. They can't develop a new LV. I suppose the real question is, what is a "new" LV and what is just a growth of Atlas? Would Atlas PHase 2 been a new LV or a growth of Atlas? And thus could have been designed and built by ULA?Anyway, I think the easier route to go than a new core with a new F-1B engine, is to modify the existing core to mount either a TR-107 or an RS-84. Both would be similar in size and performance to RD-180, and should be able to be used on the current Atlas cores with minimal MPS or pad modificaitons.Note: I do like the F-1, and think an LV with a 5m kerolox core, new 5m mide body Centaur, and the new MARC-60 (MB-60) that it looks like AJR and MHI will develop for the JAXA H-X LV, would make for a very sweet workhorse LV. Just not sure if it's the most feasibel upgrade, or even legal for ULA to do. Jim could probably clarify that.
Domestic production of the RD-180 is only allowed until the license expires in 2020. What do we do then - start over at square 1 and develop a new engine? If they started today, it will be 3 to 4 years before a production engine could be delivered to ULA, leaving only 2 to 3 years that we'd be allowed to build them. What's the cost analysis delta between doing a domestic RD-180 (only buildable for 2-3 years) and completing and deploying the F-1B that we can build & fly for as long as we liked? This thread is about funds for a domestic engine to replace the Russian-bought RD-180, but I've heard nobody mention the F-1B. A new Atlas powered by it would be a sweet workhorse for LM & ULA - all domestic.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 05/15/2014 03:34 pmI know this thread is about funding for a liquid engine, but I'm just curious why ATK Liberty launch vehicle is not being considered as an alternative satellite launcher? Maybe a new thread is needed...Well, [are there segments other than any NASA may have rights to available?]. I don't think they would restart an old line when their advanced solid would be a better choice. And with the SLS advanced booster not chosen, it's a rather iffy proposition. Surely they could enter, but then the EU itself has in the past (Iraq War) declared embargos on military parts supplied to the US. Due to the nature of this whole situation, I think they's want everything to be all dometic or at least easily and quickly replaced by domestic parts if necessary.
Well, [are there segments other than any NASA may have rights to available?]. I don't think they would restart an old line when their advanced solid would be a better choice.