RD-180 Ban Modification

[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.

Update: The proposed amendment in question has been revoked.

[DGH]

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 ?

I cannot confirm your numbers but they match my estimates.
I would guess 4 delivered in 2018 to round out the order.
ULA is also negotiating for another 30 engines after this order.

[Prober]

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.

everything is stupid now

sorry but there was nothing "honorable" about SpaceX actions in court.   Not sure if you did some of the reading of what they wished the judge to do regarding the Rd-180.  There was No honor in any of it.

[friendly3]

Update: The proposed amendment in question has been revoked.

Good news !

[Space Ghost 1962]

sorry but there was nothing "honorable" about SpaceX actions in court.   Not sure if you did some of the reading of what they wished the judge to do regarding the Rd-180.  There was No honor in any of it.

I did read all of it and have no clue what you are referring to. Really good habit to call things out if they are documented so it's not a baseless aspersion but a validated claim we can examine/debate meaning of it.

Same goes for others here. Ok if you don't like something. Tell what it is first before you assume why you're concluding something about it.

Update: The proposed amendment in question has been revoked.

Good news !

No surprise. It violated certain procedural and ethics rules in Congress, as well as other interesting things. Not that that hasn't happened before ...

[Prober]

LM speaks from the Paris airshow....

Lockheed says rocket launch venture urgently needs U.S. law waiver 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airshow-lockheed-says-rocket-launch-171639395.html

[woods170]

LM speaks from the Paris airshow....

Lockheed says rocket launch venture urgently needs U.S. law waiver 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airshow-lockheed-says-rocket-launch-171639395.html

How very much unsurprising...

[Space Ghost 1962]

Pentagon seeks repeal of Russian rocket ban

Mr. Carter and Mr. Clapper said in their letter phasing out the Russian engine may be more difficult than it seems.

“We are working diligently to transition from the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine onto domestically sourced propulsion capabilities, but are concerned that section 1608 [of the National Defense Authorization Act] presents significant challenges to doing so while maintaining assured access to space,” the letter reads.

Since when have we been "working diligently"? Perhaps since SX was qualified by AF?

In their letter to Congress, Mr. Carter and Mr. Clapper said that even if the Air Force certifies SpaceX quickly, losing access to both the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets could leave the Air Force with “a multiyear gap where we have neither assured access to space nor an environment where price-based competition is possible.”

Note the unplanned transition from "assured access" (which honestly was a dangerous fiction) to "price-based competition" (which is too small and specialized to really be considered a market - both of these are blatant fictions).

Chickens come home to roost?

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told The Washington Times the Pentagon’s efforts are legally redundant and politically misguided.

“Waiver authority already exists for the purpose of obtaining Russian-made rocket motors for national security space launches. I think the Pentagon is trying to create a bit of fear in the short term with the idea that they can pile up Russian motors that we’ll be eventually forced to use. What the Pentagon should do is work to decrease reliance on foreign motors and Russian motors specifically, instead of working to line Putin’s pockets,” Mr. Hunter told The Washington Times.

House anxiety and local favoritism.

Senators are currently debating amendments to the 2016 version of the National Defense Authorization Act on the floor. The current House version “would prohibit with certain circumstances and a waiver the Secretary of Defense from awarding or renewing a contract if such contract carries out such space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.”

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said last month the purpose of the ban was to prevent, “over $300 million of precious U.S. defense resources from subsidizing Vladimir Putin and the Russian military industrial base.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, formally complained to the Pentagon in March that the Defense Department was not acting quickly enough to eradicate American dependence on Moscow.

Senate traditional homily on "what we should do" but have never done.

ULA spokeswoman Jessica Rye told The Times that such a gap could endanger U.S. national security.

“A clarification in the FY‘15 National Defense Authorization Act is needed in order to ensure the nation responsibly transitions from the RD-180 to a domestic alternative in a way that does not impact the launch of our national security payloads,” she said.

ULA plays national security threat "card".

[a_langwich]

In their letter to Congress, Mr. Carter and Mr. Clapper said that even if the Air Force certifies SpaceX quickly, losing access to both the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets could leave the Air Force with “a multiyear gap where we have neither assured access to space nor an environment where price-based competition is possible.”

Note the unplanned transition from "assured access" (which honestly was a dangerous fiction) to "price-based competition" (which is too small and specialized to really be considered a market - both of these are blatant fictions).

You are conflating "free market" with "price-based competition."  There is nothing approaching a free market in the economic sense in the LV business, but there is still price-based competition in the overall market and every reason to believe it is on the way back for the domestic government launch market.  It's possible there could be a situation where price-based competition would break down, but right now it does not appear that will be the case.  Price isn't the only factor in LV competition, but it is one factor and it appears there will be competition.

Nor was assured access purely fiction.  It may not have been 100% assured under every scenario, but it was assured enough that Putin/Rogozin quickly backed down from trying to block export of RD-180s.  They could see the combination of a multi-year supply buffer, plus the Delta IV, were enough supply that they couldn't hold the US LV business hostage (in the way they've held European gas supplies hostage multiple times).  In addition, the sanctions plus their currency crisis and need for hard foreign currency left them needing RD-180 sales.

Gutting that crisis negotiation strategy surely is a tangible victory for the dollars put into assured access, as opposed to the purely hypothetical scenarios where it might have failed.

I agree with you that USAF hasn't done much in the last year to transition from RD-180; ULA has been doing work on Vulcan and Blue has been working on BE-4, and DOD has been just watching in that regard (although there's no doubt they've been working hard on SpaceX cert--working hard but maybe not smart).

I think Congress wants USAF to make the AR-1 happen, and that's probably a good contingency plan.  But even in the most optimistic scenario, the AR-1 isn't going to be ready before the ban takes place.  If it suffers delays--and although AJR has far more big engine experience than Blue, the AR-1 is far far more aggressive and ambitious an engine design and starting later--the AR-1 could arrive after Vulcan has flown and is well on its way to being certified.

Congress is also concerned that ULA is just floating Vulcan as a paper rocket, while planning to keep using Atlas V and Russian RD-180s after all this blows over.  I think that's a legitimate concern, unlikely at this point but a few months or years down the road and the likelihood and financial incentives could change dramatically.


The other obvious question is, if Congress is so concerned about sending dollars to Russia, why were they so quick to underfund commercial crew yet again?  Buying ISS launch services from Russia is sending more money than just these few RD-180s under discussion.  The less-cynical answer probably lies in the different members of Congress who work on NASA's budget vs the ones who work on the armed services funding.  Perhaps Administrator Bolden could acquaint Sen. McCain of the dollars-to-Russia cost of underfunding commercial crew, to get him to apply a little pressure during the conference committee.  The more cynical answer involves guessing what lies inside the opaque whirlwind of cattle excrement and flatulence on Capitol Hill, and I won't go there.

[guckyfan]

I am very surprised you see both BE-4 and Vulcan as possible paper systems. I thought them very real. Except thei financing of Vulcan. The ULA owners are not financially committed at this time. But that could very well be a bluff, to force lifting the RD-18 ban. Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

[Space Ghost 1962]

I am very surprised you see both BE-4 and Vulcan as possible paper systems.

The virtues and defects of BO are its inherent secrecy. It could be doing "warp drive" engines for real or for fantasy - either way you won't know until too late.  Don't doubt they can build an engine. Doubt that they can supply a means to engine Vulcan. Until then all that's likely are paper AR/BO engines that don't perform on a test stand to where you can sign-off on building/funding a LV.

If you want to get an engine, going to a BO or AR affords respective options of "theory of fast" or "theory of expectation". Given that in reality nothing much was seriously happening, "theory of fast" might mean "catch up".

Also, "catch up" while having a "theory of manufacturing" that is consistent with Russian pricing, which is highly unlikely AR's way. In fact, the only way AR's approach makes sense is if it built and launched Atlas as they have fantasized.

Leaves ULA with the "FATlas theory" that accommodates the two BO theories given prop changes.

But theories are theories - they require money, time, execution ... and risk to become real. The whole shtick about AV is "no risk" ... except for that tiny little RD180 at the bottom.

I'm a "nuts and bolts" type. AR shows photos of engine components I can believe in running on test stands. Looks like nuts and bolts to me. Some of them are even supposedly full scale. Part of the test stand is occupied.

BO tells me of subscale tests. I already know they hide significant failures, including recent ones. And, from personal experience of watching a $100M business flop from another Bezo's venture going right straight into the wall at full throttle, told a warning in purple crayon letters a mile high not to do certain things, it did so. Thus my skepticism. Good for them if the magic wand touches the sub scale, and whoosh, it's replaced by a full scale engine that shakes the test stand apart for 10 minutes.

They are aptly abbreviated. I "smell" something. Perhaps some Dial soap might help them clean up? Bezo's doesn't even have to pay for it if he's so short on funds to not afford it. I'll float him a few bars. If it becomes Blue as a result, that's great. Won't hold my breath.

Mind you Congress/AF don't get off easy here. SX isn't a saint either by a long shot. They just provoked exiting the status quo.

I thought them very real. Except thei financing of Vulcan. The ULA owners are not financially committed at this time. But that could very well be a bluff, to force lifting the RD-18 ban.

ULA is very real. As real as real gets.

ULA's parents hold the funds, not ULA. They've used ULA profits to pay back past EELV funds. They've always been hesitant on grand LV upgrades. This is a grand upgrade. The grand symphony of metal bending is yet to happen.

If the RD180 ban is lifted, they don't have to do anything. Nor AF/Congress. As before. That's the optimal expense path. For a while ...

Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

Building the wrong rocket or one that lacks an engine also will do so. Airbus heading same. Have one shot each.

Q: Are the ULA/Airbus plans the right ones for today? Next year? Next decade? Or subject to change w/o notice, like we've seen from SX? Been wondering about this a lot lately.

[Semmel]

Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

Building the wrong rocket or one that lacks an engine also will do so. Airbus heading same. Have one shot each.

Q: Are the ULA/Airbus plans the right ones for today? Next year? Next decade? Or subject to change w/o notice, like we've seen from SX? Been wondering about this a lot lately.

Me too. I really dont understand how a rocket manufacturer is comfortable with building rockets but not the engines. How comes they think this is a good idea? The interfacing (mechanical, electrical, fluids, control) must be a nightmare! Thats like a car manufacturer outsourcing the development and construction of the engine of a new car model..

[TrevorMonty]

Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

Building the wrong rocket or one that lacks an engine also will do so. Airbus heading same. Have one shot each.

Q: Are the ULA/Airbus plans the right ones for today? Next year? Next decade? Or subject to change w/o notice, like we've seen from SX? Been wondering about this a lot lately.

Me too. I really dont understand how a rocket manufacturer is comfortable with building rockets but not the engines. How comes they think this is a good idea? The interfacing (mechanical, electrical, fluids, control) must be a nightmare! Thats like a car manufacturer outsourcing the development and construction of the engine of a new car model..

Most aircraft manufacturers don't build engines, which has been the industry standard for decades and proven very successful.

[sdsds]

I am very surprised you see both BE-4 and Vulcan as possible paper systems.

I share your surprise at that. I am also surprised to see a "nuts and bolts" analyst describe Delta as, "a fictional equivalent to Atlas." Delta obviously does not have the same low costs as Atlas, but no one is claiming assured access to space has been cheap.

In another industry I witnessed the effectiveness of analysts leveraging Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to shape the behavior of participating businesses. Talk of BO and secrecy, warp drives and Dial soap, combined with references to going, "into the wall at full throttle" and the use of a "magic wand" in their development process is ... reminiscent of that.

Not making an accusation. Just sayin'.

[davey142]

.......
I'm a "nuts and bolts" type. AR shows photos of engine components I can believe in running on test stands. Looks like nuts and bolts to me. Some of them are even supposedly full scale. Part of the test stand is occupied.

BO tells me of subscale tests. I already know they hide significant failures, including recent ones. And, from personal experience of watching a $100M business flop from another Bezo's venture going right straight into the wall at full throttle, told a warning in purple crayon letters a mile high not to do certain things, it did so. Thus my skepticism. Good for them if the magic wand touches the sub scale, and whoosh, it's replaced by a full scale engine that shakes the test stand apart for 10 minutes.

They are aptly abbreviated. I "smell" something. Perhaps some Dial soap might help them clean up? Bezo's doesn't even have to pay for it if he's so short on funds to not afford it. I'll float him a few bars. If it becomes Blue as a result, that's great. Won't hold my breath.
........

Does Mr. Bruno's assessment of Blue Origin being years ahead not mean anything? I mean, I would hope the guy running ULA would know a thing or two about the engine he plans on putting on his rocket!

[Space Ghost 1962]

I am also surprised to see a "nuts and bolts" analyst describe Delta as, "a fictional equivalent to Atlas." Delta obviously does not have the same low costs as Atlas, but no one is claiming assured access to space has been cheap.

You've got a point. Perhaps the fatigue of a decade of watching the divergence between Atlas/Delta grow, to be replaced with rationalizations has taken its toll. The nuts and bolts of "assured access" do require more than paying the bill for them to function as an "assurance".

If suddenly we are considering "price competition", where "cost competition" is not too far behind, as well as "business model" and "manufacturing base" shifts also concurrently, the landscape of comparison becomes somewhat tortured. All of these are now "apples to oranges" that are not easily reconciled.

From the past perspective, everything is consistent up to when court settlement means Musk gets let in the door to AF launches. Then, from that moment, effectively Delta is overdue for cancellation because of its hopelessly out of date cost structure (among other things).

A more sensible perspective is not the rigid legalism that might in the end doom vital assets that restrict the field of action and blind sight a powerful nation. Instead of the blind "pay down" as was done, one has a "set aside" for likely action in view of the future. Hidden "ire" here is directed at the loss of this option, because a narrow minded view continually erased/erases it. False economy.

In another industry I witnessed the effectiveness of analysts leveraging Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to shape the behavior of participating businesses. Talk of BO and secrecy, warp drives and Dial soap, combined with references to going, "into the wall at full throttle" and the use of a "magic wand" in their development process is ... reminiscent of that.

Not making an accusation. Just sayin'.

Not me. It's dripping sarcasm directed at certain "minions of orthodoxy", using their own words of the past, in the current context to jab them with the net effect of past actions. Yes, "told you so". We needed the options. Didn't get them.

My angle looking to the future, if you must know, is seeing how much of this lesson of avoided preordained "history" is being learned, or are again powerful options being swept aside in the pell mell rush to a cynical endpoint that might not have any relevance any more. Crickets chirping.

Does Mr. Bruno's assessment of Blue Origin being years ahead not mean anything? I mean, I would hope the guy running ULA would know a thing or two about the engine he plans on putting on his rocket!

Look at it another way. What are his options? What does he do to achieve his stated goal of saving ULA?

He's got three - RD180, AR1, BE4.

Lobby like he11, and continue with Atlas indefinitely. If he fails, at least he's bought time.

AR1's really not a great option for him, because of the "business as normal" won't cut it. Short explanation.

BE4 means a new stage. He can do that, taking on significant risks even if the engine was "real" *now*.

What else can he do? Out of options - which was why this whole series of events has run its course.

Congress/AF have either never believed in doing any engines except RS68 for EELV, or have the fantasy that one can be replicated on an unreasonable time schedule. Neither were ever acceptable. Clearly they never wanted to go down the road of "hydrocarbon boost", for fear of another "engine to nowhere". RS68 was a good enough scare. But then, aren't you forced to "reinvest" even some in not letting the gap between Atlas/Delta get large? Well, it got way to large. In fact, it was too large to begin with. And that is uncomfortable to some. Tough.

[Kim Keller]

Me too. I really dont understand how a rocket manufacturer is comfortable with building rockets but not the engines. How comes they think this is a good idea? The interfacing (mechanical, electrical, fluids, control) must be a nightmare! Thats like a car manufacturer outsourcing the development and construction of the engine of a new car model..

Airplanes. All airplanes. Boats. All boats. Even some car companies outsource their engines, even more their transmissions. It's really not that big of a deal.

[Coastal Ron]

BO tells me of subscale tests. I already know they hide significant failures, including recent ones.

Are you talking about Blue Origin's most recent suborbital carrier failure?  If so they didn't "hide" the failure, they stated that it failed.  Sure there wasn't tons of video showing every angle of it's glorious failure, but not showing such video does not constitute a coverup.

Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

Building the wrong rocket or one that lacks an engine also will do so. Airbus heading same. Have one shot each.

It's an interesting situation here.  I would agree that ULA has to do something, as does Arianespace, and their decisions will lock them into a business model for a decade or more.  And SpaceX has done a lot in a decade, so the question is whether ULA and Arianespace will be bold (i.e. look to compete 1:1 with SpaceX) or timid (i.e. willing to be #2 or #3 in the market, and without a clearcut advantage).

[nadreck]

It's an interesting situation here.  I would agree that ULA has to do something, as does Arianespace, and their decisions will lock them into a business model for a decade or more.  And SpaceX has done a lot in a decade, so the question is whether ULA and Arianespace will be bold (i.e. look to compete 1:1 with SpaceX) or timid (i.e. willing to be #2 or #3 in the market, and without a clearcut advantage).

When you say "SpaceX has done a lot in a decade" you are alluding to them being a (fast) moving target that picking a strategic direction to compete with them today may well end up a long ways from what the SpaceX reality is  10 years from now.

To compete 1:1 with SpaceX with products that will only be mature in 10 years is probably a doomed strategy, instead trying to come up with something vastly superior to SpaceX is probably the only possible strategy to beat them. That means something completely different. Either a new process that makes an expendable vehicle at 1/10th the cost of todays that can be launched at a much lower range and integration costs, or jumping in with a fully reusable vehicle and somewhat cheaper range and integration costs.

However the end game is not entirely obvious from here given the number of interest groups that will want to keep ULA and Arianespace running.

[Space Ghost 1962]

This thread is drifting. Let me address things and then redirect.

BO tells me of subscale tests. I already know they hide significant failures, including recent ones.

Are you talking about Blue Origin's most recent suborbital carrier failure?  If so they didn't "hide" the failure, they stated that it failed.  Sure there wasn't tons of video showing every angle of it's glorious failure, but not showing such video does not constitute a coverup.

No - mean more. As an example of my above expressed concern, with your stated example, what specifically failed, why did it fail, and what is the remedy so it doesn't fail. Others do this as standard practice. And am not implying "a cover up" or being some dumb internet conspiracy ranter - all that nonsense belongs in a black hole.

Let me distill it for you. I expect we should see AR1 and BE4 regular updates (say monthly) with pictures showing something. Like when SSME was in development (we saw the explosions, if you remember, on national TV!). I see some but not what we should be seeing. In fact, we're not seeing SpaceX Merlin/Raptor stuff either for that matter.

Inconsistent.

Not building Vulcan is very much liquidating ULA.

Building the wrong rocket or one that lacks an engine also will do so. Airbus heading same. Have one shot each.

It's an interesting situation here.  I would agree that ULA has to do something, as does Arianespace, and their decisions will lock them into a business model for a decade or more.  And SpaceX has done a lot in a decade, so the question is whether ULA and Arianespace will be bold (i.e. look to compete 1:1 with SpaceX) or timid (i.e. willing to be #2 or #3 in the market, and without a clearcut advantage).

This is more of the discussion we should be having. My issue is the concern that providers are not being responsive to competition - won't suggest "why" - and that for this thread it means that the ban is a test of wills. Generally, that isn't a productive use of time. Nor appropriate given the description by the AF of this being a "moon shot" class of activity. Inconsistent.

Why this is a significant concern is due to the significant consequences of missed opportunities.

Airplanes. All airplanes. Boats. All boats. Even some car companies outsource their engines, even more their transmissions. It's really not that big of a deal.

Sort of irrelevant to this thread vehicle service providers sourcing engines. In a nutshell its economics supply and demand. Situations change and so do sources in/out of house (or country?).

The ban is a political response to a political challenge. Just as Ariane is a long term economic policy response to a political threat decades old.

To compete 1:1 with SpaceX with products that will only be mature in 10 years is probably a doomed strategy, instead trying to come up with something vastly superior to SpaceX is probably the only possible strategy to beat them. That means something completely different. Either a new process that makes an expendable vehicle at 1/10th the cost of todays that can be launched at a much lower range and integration costs, or jumping in with a fully reusable vehicle and somewhat cheaper range and integration costs.

However the end game is not entirely obvious from here given the number of interest groups that will want to keep ULA and Arianespace running.

Our long term policy (some kind of competition based on some kind of merit) and our sheer pragmatism of just get it done (e.g. RD180 ban gets in the way) are at loggerheads.

If we have the first, shouldn't Vulcan/Ariane 6 be well and effectively funded with a convergence of competitive results. Assuming they are funded to be competitive.

Or - if we are not genuine to policy, shouldn't we just be revoking the ban outright and flying Atlas as pragmatically as possible?

Clearly this was an open mess we just accepted in the past and papered over. Fine, that's the past. Done.

But how are we working, whatever way, such that things are any different (and not a continuation of the past mess)? Specifically about engines here, as they are what this thread is all about.