No, messing with the issue will create problems. Remember this is Congress making this call. The US state Dept might wish to go another way. Cash in the end might still be the driver.
Wrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.
Quote from: Jim on 12/05/2014 11:52 amWrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.I did get the pretty strong sense that stakeholders in these launches wouldn't regard going cold turkey on RD-180 as the preferred option.
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 12/06/2014 05:24 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/05/2014 11:52 amWrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.I did get the pretty strong sense that stakeholders in these launches wouldn't regard going cold turkey on RD-180 as the preferred option.Doesn't ULA have a stockpile of RD-180 engines? So even if future purchases are canceled they could still bridge the gap until the new engine is online by using the RD-180 engines in storage?
Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines....United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years....The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
So what if Mr. Putin reacts to this unfriendly language and orders a stop on RD-180 shipments?For sure this will mean loss of many millions of $ but the sanctions against Russia caused multibillion damages to them already. So why should he care?
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.htmlQuoteDespite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines....United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years....The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon" edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
Quote from: ngilmore on 12/13/2014 06:07 pm"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.htmlQuoteDespite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines....United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years....The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon" edit: change guesstimate to 5 yearsIt was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.
The original contact was for 101 engines. However, if I recall correctly in December 2012 there was an announcement for the signing of a second contract for an additional 31 engines. Anyone else remembers this?So the total contracted engines could be either 101 or 132. Of course it does not mean that all have been “ordered” for delivery. All would depend on the exact wording of the final bill.Back to lurking and learning.
Quote from: Hauerg on 12/13/2014 06:21 pmSo what if Mr. Putin reacts to this unfriendly language and orders a stop on RD-180 shipments?For sure this will mean loss of many millions of $ but the sanctions against Russia caused multibillion damages to them already. So why should he care?Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/13/2014 06:38 pmUnfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.I am not sure, unfriendly language would be enough motivation in the current economic environment.
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
Reuters has done some digging and comes up with cost and profit numbers from AMROSS on the RD-180:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-russia-capitalism-rockets-special-rep-idUSKCN0J22BQ20141119QuoteRD Amross buys the engines from Energomash for $20.2 million each on average, according to Amross’s current contract with Energomash, dated June 5, 2014.Amross adds $3.2 million to each engine, a 15 percent markup. It then sells them to ULA for $23.4 million, according to an amendment to Amross’s contract with ULA, dated Oct. 2, 2014.In all, Amross will reap $93 million in mark-ups over the course of the deal. The $680 million contract calls for 29 engines to be delivered from this year through 2017.The current arrangement follows an earlier, $303 million contract proposal that called for Amross to deliver 12 engines to ULA from 2011 to 2013.In an August 2011 report, the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency detailed the deal. It said that middleman Amross would pay $17.9 million per engine on average. Amross then planned to add on average $5.5 million in “profit” to the price of each engine – an extra 31 percent - before reselling them to ULA. The profit mark-ups totalled more than $66 million.In a 67-page report, Pentagon auditors called the proposal “not acceptable for the negotiation of a fair and reasonable price.” They contested the $66 million profit “in its entirety, as unallowable excessive pass-through charges” under federal contracting law. The services Amross cited to justify the profit “constituted ‘no or negligible value,’” they concluded. The auditors also contested $14.4 million in overhead expenses.The findings were extraordinarily blunt, said Charles Tiefer, a military contracting specialist and professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, who reviewed the document for Reuters.“The bottom line is that the joint venture between the Russians and Americans is taking us to the cleaners,” Tiefer said. He said he had reviewed Pentagon audits critical of Iraq War contracts, but those “didn't come anywhere near to how strongly negative” the Amross audit was.QuoteIn June, Energomash and Amross finished up a new agreement to supply RD-180 engines to the Air Force program.ULA is paying $23.4 million per engine – the same price originally called for in the prior contract that caused all the wrangling.
RD Amross buys the engines from Energomash for $20.2 million each on average, according to Amross’s current contract with Energomash, dated June 5, 2014.Amross adds $3.2 million to each engine, a 15 percent markup. It then sells them to ULA for $23.4 million, according to an amendment to Amross’s contract with ULA, dated Oct. 2, 2014.In all, Amross will reap $93 million in mark-ups over the course of the deal. The $680 million contract calls for 29 engines to be delivered from this year through 2017.The current arrangement follows an earlier, $303 million contract proposal that called for Amross to deliver 12 engines to ULA from 2011 to 2013.In an August 2011 report, the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency detailed the deal. It said that middleman Amross would pay $17.9 million per engine on average. Amross then planned to add on average $5.5 million in “profit” to the price of each engine – an extra 31 percent - before reselling them to ULA. The profit mark-ups totalled more than $66 million.In a 67-page report, Pentagon auditors called the proposal “not acceptable for the negotiation of a fair and reasonable price.” They contested the $66 million profit “in its entirety, as unallowable excessive pass-through charges” under federal contracting law. The services Amross cited to justify the profit “constituted ‘no or negligible value,’” they concluded. The auditors also contested $14.4 million in overhead expenses.The findings were extraordinarily blunt, said Charles Tiefer, a military contracting specialist and professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, who reviewed the document for Reuters.“The bottom line is that the joint venture between the Russians and Americans is taking us to the cleaners,” Tiefer said. He said he had reviewed Pentagon audits critical of Iraq War contracts, but those “didn't come anywhere near to how strongly negative” the Amross audit was.
In June, Energomash and Amross finished up a new agreement to supply RD-180 engines to the Air Force program.ULA is paying $23.4 million per engine – the same price originally called for in the prior contract that caused all the wrangling.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/14/2014 12:42 amQuote from: ngilmore on 12/13/2014 06:07 pm"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.htmlQuoteDespite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines....United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years....The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon" edit: change guesstimate to 5 yearsIt was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.Atlas V started with engine number 9? What happened to number 8?