RD-180 Ban Modification

[Prober]

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.

fair is the key word ULA is using. 

[ArbitraryConstant]

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.

That is not a counter argument because it does not seem to me as though the waiver clause is written to apply to that case, only the "fair and reasonable price" case. I'm not denying govt/mil desire two providers, but the waiver is not written to allow Russian engines to enable a second provider. It seems more like it's written to allow Russian engines in lieu of Delta IV.

[woods170]

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:

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

Emphasis mine.
Well, well, well. If that isn't an anti-SpaceX amendment then I don't know what. That amendment, if it makes into law, is solely meant to prevent SpaceX from being awarded NSL launches for an additional number of years, until FH gets certified.

Politicians... you love to hate them.

[AncientU]

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.

As long as there is a block buy being flown out, there are two providers. (Three, in fact.)

[AncientU]

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:

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

1. Politicians have no shame.
2. Amendment prevents ULA from dropping Delta Heavy until Vulcan ACES is certified sometime in mid-to-late-2020s. It actually would be harmful to ULA being competitive because FH will be certified in 3 years or so, and ULA's cost structure will be unsupportable.
3. Politicians have no shame.  (Did I mention that?)

[notsorandom]

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.

You are correct that the first Cygnus flew to the ISS. Because it used a good amount of well characterized hardware a separate demo flight was not seen as necessary. The Antares however did have a demo flight before lifting the first Cygnus. Its payload was a mass simulator.

[jongoff]

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:

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

Emphasis mine.
Well, well, well. If that isn't an anti-SpaceX amendment then I don't know what. That amendment, if it makes into law, is solely meant to prevent SpaceX from being awarded NSL launches for an additional number of years, until FH gets certified.

Politicians... you love to hate them.

I wish both pro-SpaceX and pro-ULA lawmakers would stop trying to use the law to prevent Atlas V on the one hand or F9/FH on the other from competing. Let SpaceX bid F9 even before they have FH ready, and don't put artificial limits on ULA bidding Atlas V as they're trying to transition to Vulcan.

Stop putting thumbs on either scale, and just let them compete.

~Jon

[woods170]

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:

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

1. Politicians have no shame.

2. Amendment prevents ULA from dropping Delta Heavy until Vulcan ACES is certified sometime in mid-to-late-2020s. It actually would be harmful to ULA being competitive because FH will be certified in 3 years or so, and ULA's cost structure will be unsupportable.
3. Politicians have no shame.  (Did I mention that?)

Emphasis mine.
That was the plan anyway. So, this peace of proposed legal language does not affect ULA all that much. Yet it specifically hurts SpaceX.

And yeah, politicians have no shame.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

...this peace of proposed legal language does not affect ULA all that much. Yet it specifically hurts SpaceX.

And yeah, politicians have no shame.

Agreed. Whilst ULA wouldn't be able to retire Delta, they wouldn't need to launch an unsupportably huge amount of heavies, all whilst keeping their slice of the pie secure for a few more years.

Even if that gets in, which I'm sure somebody will sniff out, at most it's a procrastination tactic. Might be enough of a procrastination tactic for them to figure out how to regain the competitive edge for the next decade or so, but at the same time, it doesn't exactly incentivise them to press ahead with reform.

A wee bit cancerous all round.

[QuantumG]

I wish both pro-SpaceX and pro-ULA lawmakers would stop trying to use the law to prevent Atlas V on the one hand or F9/FH on the other from competing. Let SpaceX bid F9 even before they have FH ready, and don't put artificial limits on ULA bidding Atlas V as they're trying to transition to Vulcan.

I wish for a pony.

Stop putting thumbs on either scale, and just let them compete.

Stop telling me that Santa Claus doesn't exist!   

[mkent]

I wish both pro-SpaceX and pro-ULA lawmakers would stop trying to use the law to prevent Atlas V on the one hand or F9/FH on the other from competing. Let SpaceX bid F9 even before they have FH ready, and don't put artificial limits on ULA bidding Atlas V as they're trying to transition to Vulcan.

I wish for a pony.

A unicorn would be even better.

I agree with Jon.  The Russian engine ban was originally supposed to prevent ULA from ordering more engines (leaving them with 29 engines).  They were to be allowed to fly out the ones already on order.  Somehow that got changed along the way to only allowing engines already paid for (five engines).

Put that language back to the original plan to let ULA compete, and let SpaceX compete with Falcon 9. 

Perhaps restrict SpaceX to only launches they can do (e.g. none that require vertical integration until that is demonstrated), but there's no reason not to compete launches which SpaceX has shown they can perform.

[Kabloona]

Air Force says a decision on a waiver for the RD-180 expected soon:

Greaves said the Air Force had examined the possibility of obtaining data rights to the Atlas 5 rocket after a query by a group of companies led by Aerojet, which are interested in building a new engine for the launch vehicle.

The matter is being reviewed by Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante, who last month welcomed the initiative, and the Pentagon's top arms buyer, Frank Kendall.

He said "intense discussions" were also underway about whether to issue a waiver to a fiscal 2015 law to allow ULA to compete for more than five rocket launches between 2019 and 2022, and a decision was likely soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-military-space-idUSKBN0OI2PL20150602

Use of the word "waiver" seems to suggest exercising the waiver clause written into the law, rather than having the law changed. But the waiver clause hinges on the launch services not being obtainable at a "fair and reasonable price" without the RD-180.

"(b) Waiver.-The Secretary may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) with respect to a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] not later than 30 days before the waiver takes effect, that-

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

"(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.

 If the SecDef issued a waiver now based on that language, would/could SpaceX protest that the waiver was improperly granted because the specified conditions were not met, ie F9 could provide some of those "waivered" launches at a "fair and reasonable" price instead of Atlas?

Seems like one of the topics of "intense discussion" might be how to issue a waiver without provoking another legal battle with SpaceX.

[baldusi]

"(b) Waiver.-The Secretary may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) with respect to a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] not later than 30 days before the waiver takes effect, that-

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

"(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.

 If the SecDef issued a waiver now based on that language, would/could SpaceX protest that the waiver was improperly granted because the specified conditions were not met, ie F9 could provide some of those "waivered" launches at a "fair and reasonable" price instead of Atlas?

Seems like one of the topics of "intense discussion" might be how to issue a waiver without provoking another legal battle with SpaceX.

Well, this could work for anything Atlas V 531+ in performance. I wonder how is the USAF mission requirements. Could mean 30% to 50% of next competed missions.

[Brovane]

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:

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

Well that certainly is interesting.  I wonder if Coffman inserted this to act as a bargaining Chip to get the RD-180 ban changed?  If this language is left as is, I can see another SpaceX lawsuit.  Basically the back-room conversation will be if you allow ULA to use all the RD-180 engines it currently has under contract (not just paid for), I will then remove the language blocking SpaceX from competing for EELV launch contracts using the Falcon 9.  Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. 

[clongton]

I think it is just disgusting the way Congress, the Air Force, Russia and ULA have acted wrt this issue. Once the ban was issued it should have just been left alone. It only affected engines that had not been ordered yet and allowed ULA to use whatever it had, including ordered but not paid-for engines, any way it seemed fit. Then Russia upped the anti by banning the use of the engine for national security launches. So what does Congress do? Changes the language to make it engines paid for, not ordered. So what does ULA do? Retires the Delta-IV, the only ULA alternative to the Atlas in the extremely idiotic belief that it could force the Congress to modify the ban. Everything is stupid - just plain stupid. The only entity that acted honorably in this issue was SpaceX. And all they did was speak publicly what thousands of us have been saying for years - that using Russian engines for national security launches was a national security problem. The courts took it from there and then everybody went into their knee-jerk reactions.


Solve the problem this way. Effective immediately, and until 2019, when ULA states the Vulcan is supposed to become operational, ULA uses the Delta-IV for national security launches. It doesn't even matter that it's more expensive, because the government is completely used to paying anything ULA asks for, whether it's justified or not. Split the DoD launches 50/50 between Delta and Falcon; non-competed until 2019/12/31 (ULA's stated date). After that compete DoD launches between Falcon and Vulcan. Let ULA run thru its RD-180 stock on commercial and NASA launches, then retire it. DoD competed launches begin 2016/01/01 - period. If 2019 comes and goes with no Vulcan, then - Oh Well. No new date. That's incentive for ULA to not perpetuate a stupid game but to step up to the plate and get the job done. Call it a transition period because of the unusual nature of current events.

[Brovane]

I think it is just disgusting the way Congress, the Air Force, Russia and ULA have acted wrt this issue. Once the ban was issued it should have just been left alone. It only affected engines that had not been ordered yet and allowed ULA to use whatever it had, including ordered but not paid-for engines, any way it seemed fit. Then Russia upped the anti by banning the use of the engine for national security launches. So what does Congress do? Changes the language to make it engines paid for, not ordered. So what does ULA do? Retires the Delta-IV, the only ULA alternative to the Atlas in the extremely idiotic belief that it could force the Congress to modify the ban. Everything is stupid - just plain stupid. The only entity that acted honorably in this issue was SpaceX. And all they did was speak publicly what thousands of us have been saying for years - that using Russian engines for national security launches was a national security problem. The courts took it from there and then everybody went into their knee-jerk reactions.


Solve the problem this way. Effective immediately, and until 2019, when ULA states the Vulcan is supposed to become operational, ULA uses the Delta-IV for national security launches. It doesn't even matter that it's more expensive, because the government is completely used to paying anything ULA asks for, whether it's justified or not. Split the DoD launches 50/50 between Delta and Falcon; non-competed until 2019/12/31 (ULA's stated date). After that compete DoD launches between Falcon and Vulcan. Let ULA run thru its RD-180 stock on commercial and NASA launches, then retire it. DoD competed launches begin 2016/01/01 - period. If 2019 comes and goes with no Vulcan, then - Oh Well. No new date. That's incentive for ULA to not perpetuate a stupid game but to step up to the plate and get the job done. Call it a transition period because of the unusual nature of current events.

I don't think the Vulcan would be EELV certified by 12/31/2019.  It first has to do at least 3 successful commercial launches and then go through the certification process just like SpaceX.  I expect it will be quicker than what happened with SpaceX but I wouldn't expect anything until 2021. 

[edkyle99]

And all they did was speak publicly what thousands of us have been saying for years - that using Russian engines for national security launches was a national security problem.

Bu-bu-but "U.S. production of RD-180 engines a major step closer" (2003)
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0309/24rd180/

and "Pratt & Whitney will build some two dozen more RD-180s in Florida to launch government payloads".
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/q32001.pdf (2001)

Etc. 

What.  You didn't believe them or something? 

 - Ed Kyle

[Newton_V]

I think it is just disgusting the way Congress, the Air Force, Russia and ULA have acted wrt this issue. Once the ban was issued it should have just been left alone. It only affected engines that had not been ordered yet and allowed ULA to use whatever it had, including ordered but not paid-for engines, any way it seemed fit. Then Russia upped the anti by banning the use of the engine for national security launches. So what does Congress do? Changes the language to make it engines paid for, not ordered. So what does ULA do? Retires the Delta-IV, the only ULA alternative to the Atlas in the extremely idiotic belief that it could force the Congress to modify the ban. Everything is stupid - just plain stupid. The only entity that acted honorably in this issue was SpaceX. And all they did was speak publicly what thousands of us have been saying for years - that using Russian engines for national security launches was a national security problem. The courts took it from there and then everybody went into their knee-jerk reactions.


Solve the problem this way. Effective immediately, and until 2019, when ULA states the Vulcan is supposed to become operational, ULA uses the Delta-IV for national security launches. It doesn't even matter that it's more expensive, because the government is completely used to paying anything ULA asks for, whether it's justified or not. Split the DoD launches 50/50 between Delta and Falcon; non-competed until 2019/12/31 (ULA's stated date). After that compete DoD launches between Falcon and Vulcan. Let ULA run thru its RD-180 stock on commercial and NASA launches, then retire it. DoD competed launches begin 2016/01/01 - period. If 2019 comes and goes with no Vulcan, then - Oh Well. No new date. That's incentive for ULA to not perpetuate a stupid game but to step up to the plate and get the job done. Call it a transition period because of the unusual nature of current events.

There are so many incorrect statements in this post. 
Russia hasn't banned anything.  It's McCain, through his SpaceX-paid-for-lobbyists, that started this mess in the 1st place.  Now your complaining that ULA is using their puppet congressmen for their benefit???
It's fine when SpaceX uses the political system to get what they want, but "disgusting" when everyone else does???
It's funny.  SpaceX and their owner is the 800 lb gorilla in the room here.

[Kabloona]

Russia hasn't banned anything.  It's McCain, through his SpaceX-paid-for-lobbyists, that started this mess in the 1st place.  Now your complaining that ULA is using their puppet congressmen for their benefit???
It's fine when SpaceX uses the political system to get what they want, but "disgusting" when everyone else does???
It's funny.  SpaceX and their owner is the 800 lb gorilla in the room here.

Let's be fair. The Air Force and some in Congress have been uneasy about the RD-180 long before SpaceX showed up, but no one wanted to put up the funds for an alternative, and now the geopolitical chickens have come home to roost. Surprise.

SpaceX may have finally learned the art of politics, however distasteful to Musk, because it's the only way they were finally allowed to break into the game, but they're still relative babes/newcomers, hardly the 800 lb gorilla compared to Boeing and LockMart. Let's see how fast those RD-180 waivers get granted.

Plenty of blame to go around, but the wood for the bonfire was stacked a long time ago, with everyone including the Air Force standing around saying, "yeah, that's a fire hazard, someone should do something about it," and no one following through.

[a_langwich]

Plenty of blame to go around, but the wood for the bonfire was stacked a long time ago, with everyone including the Air Force standing around saying, "yeah, that's a fire hazard, someone should do something about it," and no one following through.

The irony here is Russia threatened to light the fire but did not, because the "fire prevention measures"--i.e. banning exports would burn Russia much worse than the US, which actually does have reasonable mitigation measures in place.

Instead, the damage (though so far damage is hypothetical) is self-inflicted.  Not by ULA, by Congress.  Not because of the transition away from RD-180, that's a good idea in the current environment, but because certain members of Congress want to tighten the screws and "punish" ULA by setting an arbitrarily tight deadline.  Or, they wanted to prevent ULA from faking a Vulcan but continuing to use Atlas V indefinitely, but then incompetently botched writing the legal method for accomplishing that objective.

Let's review, here:  the EELV vendor of record has agreed to eliminate the RD-180 engine from the government's most popular, flexible, and up till now most cost-effective launch vehicle.  They've agreed to do this without asking for government development money.  Zip!  They've asked merely for the chance to compete for a certain number of launches to address the development funding and maintain cash flow through to the availability for EELV contracts of the new vehicle (that implies certification, not merely first flight).  Their new launch vehicle is being designed not only to eliminate the RD-180, but also to cut launch costs to be competitive, which promises lower costs for the government in the future. 

Despite whatever historical bile people want to drag into this, what's not to like about this situation?  We should be cheering.  Instead, people are saying the government should spend billions more on Delta IV launches, and prevent ULA from bidding based on a completely arbitrary and tight deadline.  Some are even looking at forcing ULA to hand over IP and perhaps factories, employees, and launch facilities to another consortium.  Said consortium is asking for government money to develop its engine; would be asking for money to work on its launch vehicle; is offering at best only the status quo for pricing after all the government investment; and which has a low-to-impossible chance of executing a competitive launch services package unless ULA falls on its sword or they can convince the government to knife ULA for them and move critical ULA assets over to them.  These are strange times indeed.

Incidentally, the assumption Delta IV was cancelled to try forcing Congress' hand may be unfounded.  An alternate assumption is the Delta IV cancellation is necessary to free up internal money and manufacturing resources to fund Vulcan development.  Delta IV of course is much larger, which means it takes a disproportionate part of the manufacturing floor, it has customized cores which multiplies the space requirements and makes the manufacturing process inflexible, and it has two pads and processing facilities.  It has always been less competitive than Atlas V.  In the same way people want to ax the ISS to free up that budget for exploration, ULA has had its eye on Delta for some time.  The consolidation has been clearly planned and talked about going back years, though in unspecific terms--Jim has talked about it, and ULA has been working the consolidation plan since 2007? or before.  The issue was when to pull the trigger; SpaceX getting certified probably had as much to do with it as any RD-180 ban, except the RD-180 ban triggered the need for a new launch vehicle design which would need large amounts of funding which would trigger the need to find every possible way to save money internally.  If Vulcan manufacturing starts ramping for a 2019 launch debut, the manufacturing floor and equipment getting freed up by a 2018 previous-model shutdown is actually pretty tight.


In truth, I think USAF can sit on this problem for a couple of years, and see how Vulcan development takes place.  I suspect ULA has some schedule reserve in place, and if things go well, the difference between 9 and 14 RD-180s will become moot.  If it looks like Vulcan is far along, but there are some glitches with engine development, then a few waivers could be issued.  Or, USAF could offer to pay full price in advance for a Vulcan launch or two, and use the launch for various test and non-nat-sec payloads.  (One Vulcan would easily be less than the cost of substituting a Delta IV Heavy for a higher-end Atlas launch in the near term.  AND it incentivizes completion of a new low-cost LV rather than pushing a vendor to keep producing its highest-cost, least competitive product.) 

If USAF wanted to hedge its bets, it could also pump money into finishing the AR-1.  There's the danger that engine wouldn't get immediately used if BE-4 pans out, but hedged bets _always_ represent higher cost than the pure gamble if it pays.

Who knows?  Perhaps Aerojet Rocketdyne could use a test-fired complete AR-1, and oh the flight of fancy! raise private money to develop with Dynetics and Shafer a competitive launch vehicle.  AJR of all people should realize a clean-sheet design of your own is much easier to execute than trying to reverse-engineer and duplicate someone else's previous work, including choices they made based on infrastructure you do not have.  Or, failing that--and there's no doubt an all-new LV coming into the market is extremely risky with only moderate payoff--Aerojet Rocketdyne might be able to talk OrbitalATK into making an EELV nat-sec-payload capable version of Antares using its AR-1.  There's also the chance that into the 2020s SLS may revive the look at an LRB competition.