Author Topic: Funding for a domestic liquid engine in the National Defense authorization bill  (Read 207344 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3h
Griffin: 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
In 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.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2014 07:32 am by woods170 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Considering nearly all RD-180 launches on the books are USAF, that's pretty definitive. Atlas is a military launcher first and foremost, and without any military launches, Atlas is effectively grounded when current supplies are expended.

What's not clear is if this affects domestic production. If Russia won't sell engines for military launches, will they allow license production of RD-180s for military launches?

Either way, the whole situation kinda kneecaps ULA's traditional argument that they are a reliable launch provider. Doesn't matter how good your rocket is if you have to ask Putin if you can launch it.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2014 10:21 pm by simonbp »

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
A recent tweet (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/464436170219606016) caught my eye:
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3h
Griffin: 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
In 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.

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"?

It was noted on another http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34684.msg1198303#msg1198303 thread that the number of RD-180's actually on US soil is only 16, so it looks like an engine development program may really be needed, and far sooner than comfortable.


http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/boeing-no-new-russian-rd-180-engines-needed-ula-bulk-buy-deal

Quote
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."
>
>

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
I heard about the same number third-hand from someone who talked to a ULA higher-up. Whatever the precise number is, I think it's safe to say there are less than 20 RD-180s in the USA right now.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
One thing to keep in mind is that under the current arrangements the only satellites that are classified as military would be weapons platforms.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Considering nearly all RD-180 launches on the books are USAF, that's pretty definitive.
A quick look seems to indicate only about half of the Atlas V launches lined up are national security (DoD/NRO). The other half is NASA, commercial, and other non-defense government launches

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019)

There are 14 Atlas V launches on the books for the rest of 2014 + 2015. Six are clearly military launches, two are GPS (which is operated by USAF), two are commercial, two are NASA, one is NOAA, and the last is the mysterious CLIO, which is probably NRO/other military.

So, if you count GPS and CLIO, 64% of upcoming launches are military payloads. This is a little biased, as there have already been four launches this year, 3/4 of them military payloads. So the overall 2014-2015 ratio is 67% military payloads (and 89% US government launches).

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.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2014 09:15 pm by simonbp »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying allow military to claim dibs on all existing RD-180s currently on US soil, thus bumping NASA and commercial from access until Russia releases a new batch which would be only for non-military? I suppose such a requisition/appropriation could be done in the name of national security, but boy there would be some serious howling by any commercial users currently on the manifest. There would be a lot of politicians making hay out of it too. Would not be pretty I think.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2014 01:58 am by TomH »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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"?


Military operations is defined as weapons systems, it is business as usual.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
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.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
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.

You have missed the point; the agreement with NPO Energomash has always excluded military launches. In the past this has been narrowly defined and agreed upon to only include weapon systems.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
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.

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.

also available in the public magazines of that time.   Google is your friend ;)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Paper rocket using European stage and European engine, both of which seem to have a limited lifertime in europe anyway.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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...

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'd want everything to be all dometic or at least easily and quickly replaced by domestic parts if necessary.

Edit/CR: Text in [] generalised to avoid any disclosure of L2 material
« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 06:57 am by CuddlyRocket »

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 1811
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.

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.

Just a quick question I've seen the TR-107 mentioned a few times in topics concerning the future of the RD-180. What is the status of the rocket engine division since being bought by Northrop? Is it still active, and do they have people with the knowledge to revive this engine program? From what I've read it looks like the engine development was completed and test fired, and it looks like it was done for not a lot of money either. Of course the lead guy on that project and others now work for SpaceX so could this engine dev be revived? Cost and spec wise it seems to be the most likely alternative, but that depends on whether the talent is still there. Of course that leaves out what sort of work would be required to integrate it. Certainly seems like an easier project to revive if the talent is there than the RS-84 would be.

Of course if it could be integrated, what changes would be needed for control, fuel ratios etc? I do realize that they aren't Lego.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
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...

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.
I was thinking more along the lines of the new composite motors "The Dark Knights" with a Centaur upper stage (would need 3 stages for GEO). You never know what they are thinking over there now that ATK in joined with Orbital. Might be a good opprtunity for them...

And then I remember this thread... ;D

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34593.0

Edit/CR: Text in [] generalised to avoid any disclosure of L2 material
« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 06:57 am by CuddlyRocket »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline MP99

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.

But, do we know why there are only four sets available?

Possible that they exist but have been reserved for other uses?

Cheers, Martin

Edit/CR: Text in [] generalised to avoid any disclosure of L2 material
« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 06:57 am by CuddlyRocket »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0