Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2013 12:08 am
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
--
Presumably this is about Syria.
Post by: asmi on 08/28/2013 12:39 am
Post by: Khadgars on 08/28/2013 12:40 am
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2013 12:40 am
Post by: RocketmanUS on 08/28/2013 12:44 am
How long would it take for U.S. industry to get the first U.S. made engine ready to be installed on a launch vehicle?
How much might each unit cost?
Could benefit the U.S. economy and workers :).
Post by: sdsds on 08/28/2013 12:58 am
An unnamed representative of Russia’s Federal Space Agency told the Izvestia newspaper that the Security Council is reconsidering the role of Russia’s space industry in the American space exploration program, particularly the 2012 contract on delivering to the US heavy-duty RD-180 rocket engines.
And the background the article provides on this is good:
in 1996 [Energomash] signed a contract for production of 50 RD-180 engines and an option for the production of another 51 units. [...] RD-AMROSS [...] has already delivered 63 engines to the US [...], reportedly 40 of them have already been used. In December 2012, a new contract was signed to deliver another 31 engines.
Can anyone confirm (or wish to dispute) the total is 50+51+31=132 engines contracted for, of which 63 have been delivered and 40 flown?
Post by: manboy on 08/28/2013 01:02 am
Post by: fregate on 08/28/2013 01:11 am
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2013 01:13 am
Quote from: article
In the 1990s Russia agreed not only to sell unique engines to the US, but also provided the Americans with full documentation on the engine’s design specifications. But the US space industry opted to buy ready engines instead of trying to make them on the own, because of the technological and material engineering gap between the two countries’ space industries.
I thought that the reason for buying the RD-180s in the 1990s was to prevent former Soviet engineers from being hired by rogue states and terrorists organizations.
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 08/28/2013 01:55 am
Post by: Antares on 08/28/2013 02:09 am
Atlas V flight rate could be slowed in favor of D4 or F9 if domestic replacement cost needed to be spread out over more years. D4 flight rate could be increased if LC39 were made multi-user (likely with MLPs for each vehicle). D4 bottleneck is at the launch site not production.
Another factor is if SLS continues and then if it goes with solid or RP boosters in later configurations.
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2013 02:13 am
SpaceX might have something to say about that
10 posts ;D
Post by: jongoff on 08/28/2013 04:45 am
Oh well. At least we can wow those Ruskies with our big moon rocket we can barely afford to launch...
~Jon
Post by: Lars_J on 08/28/2013 05:31 am
If they could produce it economically, that is of course a wholly different question.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/28/2013 05:52 am
If they did block those exports, the net effect would be to add a lot of cost, some risk, and possibly some delay, to future Atlas V flights. And the costs to Russia would be either losing the ability to produce this kind of engine or having to pay a lot themselves to keep the production line open.
Only SpaceX would win.
Post by: Downix on 08/28/2013 06:51 am
There are multiple options available to address the loss of engines. The most developed of these is the Dynetics option.
Post by: tj on 08/28/2013 07:24 am
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
The only other launch vehicle is the Delta IV Heavy.
The Delta IV Heavy is not a practical alternative for many of these payloads. I expect the total Delta IV Heavy package at the system level and launch rate probably costs well in excess of $500M each.
SpaceX Falcon 9 can take on the Atlas V 401,411, 511, and maybe the 421, 521...not the 3 to 5 solid Atlas V series. Though the DOD may be unloading their battle ship ComSat Platforms in the out years.
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/28/2013 07:32 am
IMHO it has nothing to do with RF national security or any other political reasons, just pure business - statements like those are simply leverage to review LRE prices - according to Energomash, LRE RD-180 had been sold for a price that currently below cost of manufacturing (!)From the article.
"In 2011 Russia’s Audit Chamber announced that the RD-180 rocket engines delivered to the US according to the 1996 contract were sold for only half of their real production value. The total loss in 2008-09 reached 880 million rubles (about $30 million) or 68 percent of all financial losses of NPO Energomash at the time, the Audit Chamber said."
So re-negotiating a fairer price for this hardware IE what they cost to make at least, would cut their losses by at least 68% of the companies losses.
LockMart got a very good deal for those engines and it seems they are overdue for a re-pricing. :(
I am amazed that after this much time the USAF or DoD has not thrown some money at PwR to study the engine and see what mfg it in the US would take (or at least to identify the tough parts, EG new or unfamiliar materials, or unusual mfg processes).
Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2013 07:47 am
Agreed. This is just posturing by Russia to force a re-negotiation of the price paid for RD-180 deliveries.IMHO it has nothing to do with RF national security or any other political reasons, just pure business - statements like those are simply leverage to review LRE prices - according to Energomash, LRE RD-180 had been sold for a price that currently below cost of manufacturing (!)From the article.
"In 2011 Russia’s Audit Chamber announced that the RD-180 rocket engines delivered to the US according to the 1996 contract were sold for only half of their real production value. The total loss in 2008-09 reached 880 million rubles (about $30 million) or 68 percent of all financial losses of NPO Energomash at the time, the Audit Chamber said."
So re-negotiating a fairer price for this hardware IE what they cost to make at least, would cut their losses by at least 68% of the companies losses.
LockMart got a very good deal for those engines and it seems they are overdue for a re-pricing. :(
I am amazed that after this much time the USAF or DoD has not thrown some money at PwR to study the engine and see what mfg it in the US would take (or at least to identify the tough parts, EG new or unfamiliar materials, or unusual mfg processes).
In the end Russia is not gonna stop RD-180 deliveries because it will hurt them more than it wil hurt the USA.
Post by: a_langwich on 08/28/2013 08:27 am
IMHO it has nothing to do with RF national security or any other political reasons, just pure business - statements like those are simply leverage to review LRE prices - according to Energomash, LRE RD-180 had been sold for a price that currently below cost of manufacturing (!)From the article.
"In 2011 Russia’s Audit Chamber announced that the RD-180 rocket engines delivered to the US according to the 1996 contract were sold for only half of their real production value. The total loss in 2008-09 reached 880 million rubles (about $30 million) or 68 percent of all financial losses of NPO Energomash at the time, the Audit Chamber said."
So re-negotiating a fairer price for this hardware IE what they cost to make at least, would cut their losses by at least 68% of the companies losses.
LockMart got a very good deal for those engines and it seems they are overdue for a re-pricing. :(
That's one interpretation. Another would be this is a way to extract much, much higher prices, and set the floor of the negotiated price to 68% higher. There is truth, and then there is what a price negotiator tells you about how your price will hurt his poor, starving children.
Quote
I am amazed that after this much time the USAF or DoD has not thrown some money at PwR to study the engine and see what mfg it in the US would take (or at least to identify the tough parts, EG new or unfamiliar materials, or unusual mfg processes).
I think they did. Perhaps now we will see whether those studies were perfunctory or not.
It's time for American engine makers--uh, THE American engine maker--to wake up. This COULD be a very positive development to help re-invigorate their capabilities.
And time for Orbital Sciences to wake up and smell the coffee, as well. They ought to be pitching NASA/DOD on helping to fund an American production line for the engine of their choice, rather than demanding the right to piggyback on someone else's outsourcing investment. Maybe they can take advantage of this situation, quickly, while they still have a few years left before their current pipeline runs dry.
Post by: a_langwich on 08/28/2013 09:07 am
At the current flight manifest, we have enough RD-180's warehoused to last for several years. Now, with the Delta IV Common Booster Core program, the cost to launch the Delta IV (one of the reasons why Atlas V has been more popular) drops enough that the Delta IV can be ramped up to conserve the Atlas V engines.
There are multiple options available to address the loss of engines. The most developed of these is the Dynetics option.
The Dynetics option? Are you referring to the new F-1A? Of which there is only a gas generator tested? And which is enormously different from any of the Russian engines which it would replace? And so would require designing an entirely new launch vehicle, would require extensive analysis and testing, and would then be considered an entirely unproven new design? Or is there a Dynetics option to produce a SC kerolox in the RD-180 thrust range, so that Atlas could be transitioned toward that?
As others have commented, the Delta IV is underpowered compared to Atlas. I have seen no evidence that Delta IV prices are coming down, can you provide links for that? The impression I've gotten is that ULA has been moving toward Atlas and away from Delta, except for the Heavy.
The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/28/2013 09:13 am
IMHO it has nothing to do with RF national security or any other political reasons, just pure business - statements like those are simply leverage to review LRE prices - according to Energomash, LRE RD-180 had been sold for a price that currently below cost of manufacturing (!)From the article.
"In 2011 Russia’s Audit Chamber announced that the RD-180 rocket engines delivered to the US according to the 1996 contract were sold for only half of their real production value. The total loss in 2008-09 reached 880 million rubles (about $30 million) or 68 percent of all financial losses of NPO Energomash at the time, the Audit Chamber said."
So re-negotiating a fairer price for this hardware IE what they cost to make at least, would cut their losses by at least 68% of the companies losses.
LockMart got a very good deal for those engines and it seems they are overdue for a re-pricing. :(
That's one interpretation. Another would be this is a way to extract much, much higher prices, and set the floor of the negotiated price to 68% higher. There is truth, and then there is what a price negotiator tells you about how your price will hurt his poor, starving children.
Yes, that's a good point. We shouldn't take it as a given that Russia is losing so much money on each engine just because of these reports. They might be influenced by a bargaining strategy, and they might be influenced by domestic politics (it's not that our domestic rocket business can't make money -- it's that the evil Americans are taking advantage of us and keeping us from making money).
QuoteI am amazed that after this much time the USAF or DoD has not thrown some money at PwR to study the engine and see what mfg it in the US would take (or at least to identify the tough parts, EG new or unfamiliar materials, or unusual mfg processes).
I think they did. Perhaps now we will see whether those studies were perfunctory or not.
It's time for American engine makers--uh, THE American engine maker--to wake up. This COULD be a very positive development to help re-invigorate their capabilities.
Actually, there are two American engine manufacturers. Those Merlin 1D engines don't grow on trees. While ULA and SpaceX are likely to both be hesitant to work with each other, if ULA had a compelling need for a new design to replace RD-180 and SpaceX looked like they could do it cheaper and better, and if it gave SpaceX a chance to jump-start development of an engine they'd like to have anyway, it's possible it would benefit both companies so much they'd agree to do it.
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2013 09:59 am
I am amazed that after this much time the USAF or DoD has not thrown some money at PwR to study the engine and see what mfg it in the US would take (or at least to identify the tough parts, EG new or unfamiliar materials, or unusual mfg processes).
Was already done in the mid 2000'a
Post by: DGH on 08/28/2013 10:33 am
http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/There is a simple way for Russia to play this.
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
--
Presumably this is about Syria.
ULA plans to launch 8-10 Atlas V rockets a year over the next several years.
Russia need only deliver less than 8 engines a year to quickly put them in the driver’s seat while still making money.
Does anyone know how many a year they are delivering?
Post by: zt on 08/28/2013 12:01 pm
http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/There is a simple way for Russia to play this.
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
--
Presumably this is about Syria.
ULA plans to launch 8-10 Atlas V rockets a year over the next several years.
Russia need only deliver less than 8 engines a year to quickly put them in the driver’s seat while still making money.
Does anyone know how many a year they are delivering?
you also need to know the size of the US stockpile and the realistic lead time for developing and qualifying the US manufacturing process.
Post by: fregate on 08/28/2013 02:02 pm
http://www.npoenergomash.ru/about/news/news2_1226.html
company shipped 60 LREs (mass produced, does not include test articles), and 45 of them already had been used to launch Atlas LVs. So, there are only 15 remaining (!)
Post by: Linze on 08/28/2013 02:59 pm
State politics often trump business interests, especially when the business is a state run enterprise.
So, no, it probably makes no business sense for the Russians to cut off sales to the US, but Russia doesn't have a lot of leverage over the US. They're going to use what little leverage they have, wherever they have it. If it does a little damage to the balance sheet of a small state-run enterprise, it's just the price to be paid.
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Even if the cutoff is short term, it will hurt ULA. Supply uncertainty at a time when their pricing model is being decimated does not bode well for ULA's future.
Russians lose, ULA loses, SpaceX is the only winner. If they're smart, and they are, SpaceX will now double down on heavy.
Post by: Danderman on 08/28/2013 03:18 pm
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2013 03:49 pm
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
And their tanks are made in the Ukraine
Post by: Linze on 08/28/2013 04:13 pm
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
Only suggesting they could be restricted from receiving any replenishment of their existing supply, including but not limited to spares.
With or without any supplier issues, Orbital's future as a primary launch provider seems iffy. They're probably incapable of being price competitive in the medium range, let along 10 years out. They're smart folks, one supposes they'll start evolving their business.
This misses the main point, which is that this news came directly from the Russian government's primary mouthpiece to the west. This is about Syria and nothing else. This is a relatively small business as compared to Russia's big earners, oil, gas, raw materials, arms.
It's easy to see them risking, even sacrificing it for political gain. If this comes directly from the Kremlin, it's unlikely there will be much internal push back.
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2013 04:16 pm
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
Only suggesting they could be restricted from receiving any replenishment of their existing supply, including but not limited to spares.
With or without any supplier issues, Orbital's future as a primary launch provider seems iffy. They're probably incapable of being price competitive in the medium range, let along 10 years out. They're smart folks, one supposes they'll start evolving their business.
This misses the main point, which is that this news came directly from the Russian government's primary mouthpiece to the west. This is about Syria and nothing else. This is a relatively small business as compared to Russia's big earners, oil, gas, raw materials, arms.
It's easy to see them risking, even sacrificing it for political gain. If this comes directly from the Kremlin, it's unlikely there will be much internal push back.
Too many unsubstantiated statements to even bother pointing out
Post by: Linze on 08/28/2013 04:30 pm
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
Only suggesting they could be restricted from receiving any replenishment of their existing supply, including but not limited to spares.
With or without any supplier issues, Orbital's future as a primary launch provider seems iffy. They're probably incapable of being price competitive in the medium range, let along 10 years out. They're smart folks, one supposes they'll start evolving their business.
This misses the main point, which is that this news came directly from the Russian government's primary mouthpiece to the west. This is about Syria and nothing else. This is a relatively small business as compared to Russia's big earners, oil, gas, raw materials, arms.
It's easy to see them risking, even sacrificing it for political gain. If this comes directly from the Kremlin, it's unlikely there will be much internal push back.
Too many unsubstantiated statements to even bother pointing out
When reading political tea leaves, conjecture is part and parcel.
Clearly the Russians are angry. Clearly they seem to be making threats regarding these exports.
It's unclear whether they would go through with those threats, but it's unarguable that this is a tiny business sector within the greater Russian export economy. It's also unarguable that it is fully within Putin's power to restrict these sales.
It would be cavalier to ignore the true potential for a halt in shipments. Though a good guess might have the Russians announcing a shipment halt to start in 2015, then rescinding it before that date arrives. Such a 'paper' cessation still could have real impacts on ULA's business.
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2013 04:43 pm
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/28/2013 04:52 pm
But they're just bluffing.
And really the US National Security would be just fine, even if we would have to spend a little bit more (but not a huge deal with multipliers greater than 1). We have Delta IV for a reason.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/28/2013 05:28 pm
One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjecture
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Only the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Post by: USFdon on 08/28/2013 06:29 pm
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
Per the updated Delta IV planners guide, up to 8 GEM-60's can be added "relatively" easily (might need to ask Jim on that one)... closing the gap between the the heavier Atlas V variants and the Delta IV Medium +'s. Given how many launches were predicted for the Delta IV during its development, I can't see how it couldn't be ramped up if need be...
Post by: Nickolai on 08/28/2013 06:41 pm
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Orbital's supply is in Sacramento. Are you suggesting that the Russians are planning an attack on Sacramento?
Well, there goes the element of surprise ;D ;D ;D
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/28/2013 07:04 pm
Come on people. This isn't about business, this is about Syria.I don't think so. Russian discussion along these lines was raised a year or two ago. In addition, why aren't we hearing threats to stop hauling U.S. astronauts to ISS, etc.?
In my opinion, this is about money. Energomash is stuck with a bad deal.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Antares on 08/28/2013 07:45 pm
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.
The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
Most thought-provoking post I've read in a long time.
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/28/2013 07:48 pm
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.
They did at one time say they would be happy to sell components like Dracos to NASA.
Post by: baldusi on 08/28/2013 08:28 pm
NASA is not ULA.SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.
They did at one time say they would be happy to sell components like Dracos to NASA.
Post by: simonbp on 08/28/2013 08:31 pm
It's about money. The timing is about Syria. The Bear likes to mess with American doves.
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
Most thought-provoking post I've read in a long time.
Agree on both accounts.
Are RD-180 and RD-170 made on the same production line? If so, then Sea Launch's chain of problems may have really driven up the effective per-unit cost of RD-180 relative to the mid-2000s when the Zenit flight rate was much higher.
Post by: baldusi on 08/28/2013 08:50 pm
Two things happened that could have generated this problem. First, they never expected the USD to be so weak. And second, given the overall reduction from planned launch rate (both SL and AV), not only they would get worse factory utilization, but the fixed price contracts would extend further in time, where the inflation would progressively eat your margins. Imagine if Atlas had launched 10 times per year and Sea Launch another 6. Not only would have they had double factory utilization, but they would be over their 100 engine delivery and they would be selling at a renegotiated price. And they would have earned a lot more when the fixed price had a higher real value. I mean, that in the early 2000s they would be selling lots of engines that at 12M a pop would have been a great price.
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/28/2013 09:08 pm
NASA is not ULA.
I didn't say they would sell them to ULA.
Post by: a_langwich on 08/29/2013 03:56 am
Both do use the same line. In fact, Zenit changed from RD-171 to RD-171M, which applied all the improvements of the RD-180 (like new injectors and such). It's also 300kg lighter. The Sea Launch troubles might have impacted. The expected launch rate of Atlas V may also have impacted. I have read around, that Energomash had inherited the Sea Launch contract signed in Ukranian rubles, and that was the main cause of loss. If I'm not mistaken, they are getting about the same for an RD-171M to as for an RD-180.
Two things happened that could have generated this problem. First, they never expected the USD to be so weak. And second, given the overall reduction from planned launch rate (both SL and AV), not only they would get worse factory utilization, but the fixed price contracts would extend further in time, where the inflation would progressively eat your margins. Imagine if Atlas had launched 10 times per year and Sea Launch another 6. Not only would have they had double factory utilization, but they would be over their 100 engine delivery and they would be selling at a renegotiated price. And they would have earned a lot more when the fixed price had a higher real value. I mean, that in the early 2000s they would be selling lots of engines that at 12M a pop would have been a great price.
Makes a lot of sense. I imagine ULA management, especially since they cranked up prices on their total launch package to USAF, would be sympathetic to those arguments, within reason of course. After all, their customers are not fixated on lowest cost as the primary criterion, and any alternative US-based production would likely not be cheaper.
But having the Russian government hold export approval hostage is probably not going to be received as sympathetically, especially in the context of all the other political events happening around the world. For one thing, any responsible manager has to take a close look and say, okay, what are my options if RD-180 shipments stop?
And on that score, I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years? I'm as skeptical of that as I am of SpaceX schedules. But, like SpaceX, I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
If I were DOD or Congress, there is no way I would accept that assurance without a full duration test fire of an engine produced domestically. No production line, just an engineering test article, and possibly covered by a small government-provided budget (after all, according to Rocketdyne no development is needed) for "program assurance." That money would be very well spent, even if no domestic RD-180 were ever produced.
Demonstrating that option provides some negotiating leverage--not a lot, since domestic production might or might not be cost effective, but it nixes the possibility that ULA or DOD would be unable to come up with an alternative, it takes years off the potential lag, and it builds confidence in a schedule to get things going if needed.
Furthermore, building and test firing a full, high-performance, staged combustion kerolox engine would be valuable experience. Some employees would be learning a LOT. That learning could also pay dividends, both for future engine proposals and also for additional perspective on hydrolox designs like the RS-68 and RS-25E. You have to ask yourself, if ANY other country in the world had the license to produce an RD-180 domestically, would they not have done so?
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Post by: fregate on 08/29/2013 05:02 am
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2013 05:05 am
Rumor has it, let's wait for facts...
You must be new around here ;)
Post by: MP99 on 08/29/2013 05:48 am
It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?
Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.
One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??
Cheers, Martin
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/29/2013 01:33 pm
ISTM AJ 1E6 is least likely to be taken forward as engine for SLS's advanced booster. But, just imagine for a moment it does win a development contract there.
It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?
Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.
One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??
Cheers, Martin
Wasn't there a program to get additional thrust out of the RD-180 as well ? I can't imagine the AJ1E6 would be a bad thing in the Atlas.
Post by: Prober on 08/29/2013 01:56 pm
ISTM AJ 1E6 is least likely to be taken forward as engine for SLS's advanced booster. But, just imagine for a moment it does win a development contract there.
It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?
Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.
One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??
Cheers, Martin
I like the way you think
If Aerojet and others can keep from adding a lot of bells and whistles to the AJ 1E6; then it can be manufactured "cheap".
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/29/2013 03:27 pm
The Wikipedia article on the RD-180 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 ) shows one being fired at Marshall, so yes.
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Post by: baldusi on 08/29/2013 05:59 pm
And on that score, I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years? I'm as skeptical of that as I am of SpaceX schedules. But, like SpaceX, I would be delighted to be proven wrong.They already have all the IP and know how to manufacture the RD-180 domestically. They wouldn't have to do a full qualification testing. They might have to qualify some materials, probably, but the rest would be a full RD-180. Now, if they decide to try to add improvements, that's a whole different matter.
BTW, they could order the DIV M+(4,4) (36mon lead time) to cover, basically, the whole AV 4xx line, and thus they would only need to keep some 531 and all 541/551. But that's about 6 flights total upto now. And the DIV M+(5,6) and M+(5,8) are "easy", but have some extra lead time (48mon) and, I think, would require customized cores. The really hurt here would be to NASA's program, since they use the most 401. But I guess SpaceX would be pretty happy about it.
So overall, it wouldn't really hurt the US that much, it would cost a little bit more (given the over 100B EELV program), could result either in a more competitive internationally Delta IV and SpaceX or in a way more competitive SpaceX plus an RD-180 factory in the US. Which, might even mean the bankruptcy of Sea Launch and extremely serious problems to NPO Energomash. I can only think of a very angry Italian making this sort of decision (and I'm Italian, too).
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/29/2013 06:01 pm
That was roughly 15 years ago now, a precursor to Atlas III. I think that these were the last high-thrust tests of this class at MSFC. I'm not sure about the status of this test stand today.The Wikipedia article on the RD-180 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 ) shows one being fired at Marshall, so yes.
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: daveklingler on 08/29/2013 07:10 pm
Rumor has it, let's wait for facts...
You must be new around here ;)
And yet, on the basis of that rumor, it wouldn't surprise me to hear about new block grants to PWR, Dynetics and AJ some time in the next 12 months.
Post by: Lars_J on 08/29/2013 07:59 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
Post by: Patchouli on 08/30/2013 05:40 am
One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjecture
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Only the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Could be a good excuse for Aerojet to start manufacturing the AJ-26-500.
Doing so would solve both OSC's and ULA problems of engine supply as two of theme would be a close replacement for a single RD-180.
Post by: RocketmanUS on 08/30/2013 05:43 am
Have they built let alone tested this engine concept?One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjecture
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Only the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Could be a good excuse for Aerojet to start manufacturing the AJ-26-500.
Doing so would solve both OSC's and ULA problems of engine supply as two of theme would be a close replacement for a single RD-180.
Post by: baldusi on 08/30/2013 05:04 pm
Post by: newpylong on 08/30/2013 05:15 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
Post by: Prober on 08/30/2013 05:24 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw (http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw)
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
Can you say Grasshopper ;D
Post by: baldusi on 08/30/2013 05:48 pm
Which stand? The Merlin's, probably. The 1st stage was rated at 15MN when they bought it. And they are finishing the FH, which is sure to be rated at 15MN. Plus, they must be building or retrofitting one for the Raptor (which is 3MN or so LOX/CH4).Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
If one company could test the RD-180 easily, it's them. Not gonna happen, but they clearly could.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/30/2013 08:30 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
No. This is the stand SpaceX uses to test full Falcon 9 first stages. Even the F9v1.0 first stage had more thrust than a single RD-180, and they tested them on that stand for the full mission duration of nearly three minutes. More recently, they've used this stand for F9v1.1 first stage testing, and that has even more thrust.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/30/2013 08:50 pm
Which stand? The Merlin's, probably. The 1st stage was rated at 15MN when they bought it. And they are finishing the FH, which is sure to be rated at 15MN. Plus, they must be building or retrofitting one for the Raptor (which is 3MN or so LOX/CH4).Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
If one company could test the RD-180 easily, it's them. Not gonna happen, but they clearly could.
A test stand that is used for the full stage isn't really suitable for testing engines, correct ? So rule out the test stand in the picture.
The Merlin test stand used to test the 1D "might" be suitable, but they haven't seen an engine that large on that stand. If you compare the size of the Merlin and RD-180, it might not fit, especially if you want to try gimble tests. Besides, that stand is busy testing production engines. SpaceX can't make it available for another companies engine development.
I assume Stennis would have a test stand available. All of the "A" stands will be used for J-2X followed by RS-25 testing. B-1 is used for the RS-68, and B-2 will be updated for SLS stage testing.
E-1 is used for AJ-26, but there are supposed to be 2 additional E test stands. Besides, once Aerojet wraps up testing the available AJ-26s / NK-33s, that stand will be available.
Post by: Lars_J on 08/30/2013 09:01 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
An RD-180 would rip that stand to shreds.
Unlikely... If the stand handles 9x147,000=1,323,000 lbf, it can handle a 860,568 lbf RD-180.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/31/2013 02:17 pm
Still, the political situation between the US and Russia could deteriorate, at least in principle. IOW: It could happen.
SpaceX might have something to say about that
10 posts
Next thread, let's put a bit more effort into it, and get the post count down to single digits.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/31/2013 02:20 pm
Is there a test stand in the US to fire an RD-180?
Sure... http://tinyurl.com/obzbrdw
[Ducks and runs]... ;D
Sorry. That was post #54. We already have a winner.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/31/2013 02:47 pm
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/01/2013 12:31 am
[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one. Since there are no major design bugs, it should mostly be a problem of metallurgy and tolerances. The US is pretty good at tolerances, so if the appropriate alloys for working in oxygen rich environments are available, it should be pretty straightforward. Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?
Also, the qualification cycle could be a lot shorter in this case. Whenever a problem arises, just look at the existing example to see how they solved it. Also, you could build and test the first few examples in parallel, since you know there are no major bugs whose fixes will cause enormous re-work (unlike a new engine design).
Overall, reproducing an existing and working engine seems *much* easier than designing and qualifying a new one...
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/01/2013 01:31 am
Post by: Tcommon on 09/01/2013 02:50 am
I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one...
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/01/2013 02:16 pm
The US is good at tolerances, Russia is good at metallurgy.
The U.S. is good at metallurgy too, when there's money for it (most people have NO IDEA how much obscure, highly-precise metallurgy is required for nuclear materials engineering and processing).
If there is a real need to build RD-180's or a U.S. derivation of it (e.g., to launch national security payloads), the funding will be found.
Post by: AncientU on 09/01/2013 06:54 pm
Wasn't it going to cost $6B and more than a decade to get an RS-25E line up and running?I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one...
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/01/2013 08:48 pm
Wasn't it going to cost $6B and more than a decade to get an RS-25E line up and running?I bet they could do it for a billion dollars.[...] I am entirely unconvinced by previous Rocketdyne handwaving about how of course they could build it. Not so much that they couldn't do it at all, but building a complete domestic RD-180, running through the necessary qualification test cycles, and getting a qualified one with equivalent performance into an Atlas V in four years?Simply copying a working example is much easier than designing a new one...
Two big differences there: the engines themselves are very different (hydrogen is trickier) and in the case of RS-25E you're talking about making significant changes from the previous engine, versus RD-180 where you're talking about cloning an existing engine, where you already have not only existing copies but all the technical information about how it is built.
Post by: Antares on 09/01/2013 09:31 pm
Post by: baldusi on 09/02/2013 02:08 pm
Handling high temperature GOX is far trickier than hydrogen.Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract. And I think the RS-84 had developed its own. And in the IPD Rocektdyne had demonstrated an OR LH2/LOX oxidizer TP. While AeroJet had supplied the FR LH2/LOX fuel TP. Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy, seals, valves, etc. Might have as much as four different working formulas, in fact (NK-33, RD-180, RS-84 and IPD).
I repeat, the only reason the US haven't advanced more than the Russians on ORSC is because they Russians sold them for cheap. If they stop the sale of RD-180, they'll convert a good paying happy customer into a spiteful competitor.
Btw, I think this information on another thread is important:
1. Outsourcing of RD-191 production to Polyot currently is delayed. In the at least next 5 years this engine will be produced only on NPO Energomash.This means that NPO Energomash is earning good money on the RD-180 contract now. And that they need to keep the production line as busy as possible. Again, stopping the RD-180 would be idiotic.
In the last interview Lopota said that
a) requirements for production numbers for RD-191 are lowered
b) NPO Energomash update its facilities and increase its production capabilities
therefore now NPO Energomash could itself produce necessary quantity of RD-191.
2. Production of RD-180 for RD AMROSS currently is economically viable. Price was seriously increased in 2011.
Post by: EE Scott on 09/02/2013 04:47 pm
As long as ULA buys them, they will be (somewhat) at the mercy of the supplier, and the option of manufacturing them here in the U.S. appears to make them too expensive to be practical when compared to RS-68. So now ULA gets a high performance engine at a low-performance price. But the uncertainty of the RD-180 touched upon in this thread could make it a poor choice as a foundational element for future evolved LV, a la Atlas Phase2.
Post by: Antares on 09/03/2013 12:20 am
Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract....Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy,
Do we know this? It's one thing to have a drawing that says a part needs to be so big and so thick and made of such metal with such coating. It's another to actually be able to make that metal and get the coating to stick. Energomash and Kuznetsov would have had to transfer, in effect, the plans for their plants to the U.S. That's hard to believe, not impossible but hard.
Post by: baldusi on 09/03/2013 01:56 am
Rocketdyne did the OR TP on the IPD. AJ and Teledyne are demonstrating the Powerhead of the AJ-1E6. And Energomash did gave them full documentation in 2003 (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0309/24rd180/). That included even the tooling and certification documentation. But again, IPD and the AJ1E6 are the best examples that they know how to do ORSC.Yet, the technical know-how was transferred both with the RD-180 contract AND the NK-33 contract....Thus, the current Aerojet Rocketdyne has the knowledge and technologies for OR LOX metallurgy,
Do we know this? It's one thing to have a drawing that says a part needs to be so big and so thick and made of such metal with such coating. It's another to actually be able to make that metal and get the coating to stick. Energomash and Kuznetsov would have had to transfer, in effect, the plans for their plants to the U.S. That's hard to believe, not impossible but hard.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 05:12 am
It would be unfortunate if this happened - but at least it would be interesting to see if PwR (now Aerojet) could put their money where their mouth is and actually build a domestic RD-180, something they have claimed to be able to do.
If they could produce it economically, that is of course a wholly different question.
This brings up something I asked on another thread.
If Aerojet owns Rocketdyne now, they own the rights to RD-180, now right? Import rights and license to manufacture in the US if they want?
Well, isn't Aerojet promoting their AJ-1E6? And wouldn't that be very similar to RD-180? A dual chamber engine right about 1Mlbs of thrust? A little more powerful than RD-180, but still similar, with similar weight and size?
So...something like this could actually be a pretty convienient excuse to do one of two things. Develop AJ-1E6 with perhaps an Atlas V kit (if such a thing is even possible...but I'm thinking a variant of the AJ-1E6 that would make it easier to mount to Atlas V) or just a change to Atlas V to mount it.
Or, ULA basically asks USAF/DoD if they can retire Atlas V, and make and support only Delta IV. That would allow ULA to retire two pads and focus on producing just one core and one upper stage. That upper stage would be the base of NASA DUUS potentially. IT could be upgraded with MB-60 if DUUS were to use it (I think that was the original idea behind MB-60).
And...most importantly, Delta IV already has the heavy version flying with two pads that can launch it.
If SpaceX can successfully bid and get some USAF/DoD contracts starting after 2015 when I believe they will accept competitive bids to Atlas and Delta, then USAF might consider F9 along with Delta IV as the redundant assures space access, and not subsidize ULA to support two different EELV's then. SpaceX has some things they have to do first like establish at vertical integration at least on the East Coast. West coast has limited government launches, so they might not be going after that there yet, as they built horizontal integration there, and demolished the Titan Mobile tower that might have actually been able to be modified for Falcon 9.
Now they'd have to build a brand new one. Haven't heard any plans for that.
But I think Delta IV and SLC-6 could handle all west coast government launches, so SpaceX might not be worried about that yet.
They would need something added to LC-40, or to take over LC-39A and have it there.
So, if RD-180 were to be banned for export to the US, it might have very little negative impact, and could actually make for a more streamlined US rocket fleet in either the retirement of Atlas V and ramp up of Delta IV production, or the development of the US built AJ-1E6 to replace RD-180.
Out of curiosity, is such an issue like this perhaps part of the reason USAF didn't want to standardize on the Atlas V over the last 10 years, when it seemed like the cheaper LV of the two?
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 05:32 am
Come on people. This isn't about business, this is about Syria.
State politics often trump business interests, especially when the business is a state run enterprise.
So, no, it probably makes no business sense for the Russians to cut off sales to the US, but Russia doesn't have a lot of leverage over the US. They're going to use what little leverage they have, wherever they have it. If it does a little damage to the balance sheet of a small state-run enterprise, it's just the price to be paid.
Don't be shocked if Orbital's supply is similarly threatened. In Orbital's case, a lack of supply could potentially doom the company.
Even if the cutoff is short term, it will hurt ULA. Supply uncertainty at a time when their pricing model is being decimated does not bode well for ULA's future.
Russians lose, ULA loses, SpaceX is the only winner. If they're smart, and they are, SpaceX will now double down on heavy.
Huh?
Aerojet has like 30-40 NK-33's, and Antares is the only LV that uses them.
Also Aerojet is planning to build a US built version in the AJ-500 and/or the AJ-1E6.
And Aerojet owns Rocketdyne now, so if they can't buy more RD-180's, they might build an AJ-1E6 to be an easy switch out for the RD-180. Fly on both Antares and Atlas V.
Or Atlas goes away and Delta IV ramps up production.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 05:44 am
I would think that the Atlas V customers will demand some sort of equivalent engine if the RD-180 becomes scarce in the future. I cannot figure out why the Russians would actually curtail the RD-180 avaibility.
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
The only other launch vehicle is the Delta IV Heavy.
The Delta IV Heavy is not a practical alternative for many of these payloads. I expect the total Delta IV Heavy package at the system level and launch rate probably costs well in excess of $500M each.
SpaceX Falcon 9 can take on the Atlas V 401,411, 511, and maybe the 421, 521...not the 3 to 5 solid Atlas V series. Though the DOD may be unloading their battle ship ComSat Platforms in the out years.
I'm not sure about the alphabet soup of those payload names, but I'm assuming they are USAF/DoD payloads. Add to that NASA payloads, and you have -government- payloads. USAF pays such a high price on Delta IV to maintain that line along with Atlas. If Atlas goes away, then ULA would build more Delta 4 CCB's and DCSS's. They could drop an entire production line and two launch complexes! Bumping all of those payloads that won't fit on Delta IV Medium + 5,4 to D4H would probably still be money saved after retiring a whole LV and it's associated costs.
Comparing Atlas prices to Delta IV prices isn't really an accurate comparison I don't think. The government pays for the costs of two CCB productions lines (although they are more integrated now), three upper stage production lines, two different SRB's, and four launch complexes. All of those costs are paid for and broken up into how many launches of each are done per year. So although right now Delta IV is more expensive than Atlas V, if Delta IV production is ramped up, and Atlas is retired, they won't necessarily stay that way.
Also, I don't know that -any- government payload will go to SpaceX until after 2015, when I believe USAF will consider other launch providers other than ULA and give them a chance to bid. And then SpaceX will need vertical integration for some or all of those payloads (maybe they have some that can be horizontally integrated?)
The government will cover the costs they need to cover to get their payloads launched. If Delta is the only EELV available, then they'll pay for what they have to. And Nothing will be going to SpaceX for a few years at least.
Sounds like there's a decent stock of RD-180's that can also be used up in the interim too while either there's an RD-180 replacement made, or Delta IV production ramped up while the last RD-180's are flown out and Atlas retired.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 05:49 am
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
Per the updated Delta IV planners guide, up to 8 GEM-60's can be added "relatively" easily (might need to ask Jim on that one)... closing the gap between the the heavier Atlas V variants and the Delta IV Medium +'s. Given how many launches were predicted for the Delta IV during its development, I can't see how it couldn't be ramped up if need be...
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them. I think Downix said that once upon a time. Don't have any knowledge myself to verify that, but I Think it's safe to say that Delta IV could be ramped up to meet the need if RD-180's aren't available for Atlas. And as it's already "government certified" with vertical integration on both coasts, the government would do and pay what it had to do to assure their payloads got launched on Deltas.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 06:00 am
One has to know how to read the tea leaves to make the conjecture
The points on Orbital are also nonsense
Only the failure of ATK could cause Orbital issues.
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Could be a good excuse for Aerojet to start manufacturing the AJ-26-500.
Doing so would solve both OSC's and ULA problems of engine supply as two of theme would be a close replacement for a single RD-180.
No, the AJ-1E6. It's closer to RD-180 in that it's a dual chamber engine with single turbo pump, with performance that should be close to RD-180.
Wasn't the RD family derived from the NK-33 anyway? I thought I heard that somewhere. the NK-33 was cancelled after the dozens were built, and locked away. Something about the face lost in the N-1 program, so the Soviets locked them up and "buried" them. But that tech didn't just go away, and was integrated into a the RD family for Energia.
Not 100% sure on that though. But I think the NK's and RD's are similar. So I think an AJ-1E6 might be very much like and RD-180. Made in the US, and could be used on Antares, Atlas -and- SLS.
Post by: a_langwich on 09/04/2013 07:11 am
Btw, I think this information on another thread is important:2. Production of RD-180 for RD AMROSS currently is economically viable. Price was seriously increased in 2011.This means that NPO Energomash is earning good money on the RD-180 contract now. And that they need to keep the production line as busy as possible. Again, stopping the RD-180 would be incorrect.
Okay, that sounds like then it isn't purely a negotiating tactic for more money from ULA / AJ-Rocketdyne.
I've read articles with noises that Deputy PM Rogozin was talking about pulling various different space industry participants into one large state corporation. Perhaps that includes NPO Energia and NPO Energomash?
So perhaps this is a negotiating strategy for internal politics, i.e., not only do we control your contracts with the Russian government, but also all your international contracts as well. All your base belong to us.
In this view, the hostage (RD-180 export license) taken for negotiations gets returned unharmed if the parties come to a nice settlement.
Post by: DGH on 09/04/2013 10:18 am
AEHF and MUOS, for example, require the Atlas V 531 and 551, respectively.
Many of NASA deep space SVs (e.g. MRO, MSL, New Horizons) require the Atlas V 441, 451, 541 or 551.
The Delta IV M+, even with 4 solids, does not have the performance of the 3, 4, or 5 solids based Atlas V.
Per the updated Delta IV planners guide, up to 8 GEM-60's can be added "relatively" easily (might need to ask Jim on that one)... closing the gap between the the heavier Atlas V variants and the Delta IV Medium +'s. Given how many launches were predicted for the Delta IV during its development, I can't see how it couldn't be ramped up if need be...
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them. I think Downix said that once upon a time. Don't have any knowledge myself to verify that, but I Think it's safe to say that Delta IV could be ramped up to meet the need if RD-180's aren't available for Atlas. And as it's already "government certified" with vertical integration on both coasts, the government would do and pay what it had to do to assure their payloads got launched on Deltas.
This series of post got me thinking.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
Post by: baldusi on 09/04/2013 02:00 pm
This series of post got me thinking.Delta IV and RS-68 were designed to be cheap at high production rates (the factory was sized for upto 40 cores per year!). Yet, they have had 10 years working on lowering the costs at low rates of production. To the point that now the factory has more limited capacity but can output Atlas V, Centaur and Delta IV. The Fleet Unification Program, Common Avionics, and the future Common Upper Stage have all worked in this direction. I seriously doubt that they could lower that much the costs.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
Besides, RS-68 was supposed to be cheap, but had the inherent subsidy of the Shuttle on the engine factory. That's gone.
And Delta IV was optimized for commercial payloads. For pure DoD the Atlas V has a superior flow.
The Delta IV M+(4,4) would be useful for covering only the AV 431, since the M+(4,2) is a good match for the AV 421. And it's basically free, since the new Common Core is based off the M+(5,4). But the 431 has only been used 2 in the last 10 years, and both were commercial payloads! Thus, I think that DoD has no actual need for the M+(4,4). I don't know what would be the performance of a M+(5,6) or the M+(5,8). But the M+(5,4) is about a match for the AV 531, so it's possible that the M(5,6) could cover the AV 551. And in any case, only MUOS currently require the 551. Thus, you could save your last AV for those missions.
But the problem is exactly that it would require to go back to a custom core. That's not nice since they went to great effort exactly to do the opposite (a true common core for single core). If they do away with Atlas V they could add an extra custom core. But the main reason was about payload flexibility, not so much cost. Delta IV has way longer lead times than Atlas V. And if you look at the delay causes on ULA site, you'll note that payloads are notoriously risky in schedule issues. Thus, the ability to swap payloads late in the process, say until L-3 months, is a great asset. But with customs they couldn't do that. Since the M+(5,6/8) payloads are few, this might not be such a big issue, since they'd still have the flexibility most of the time.
In other words, yes, Delta IV could replace Atlas V if necessary, but I don't think it would lower the costs that much, and DoD would lose the flexibility and schedule margin that dual fleet offers.
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/04/2013 02:46 pm
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c).
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2013 03:05 pm
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 05:06 pm
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c).
Well, from what I've gathered by reading posts from Jim and others who seem to be in the know, most of Delta IV and Atlas V's high costs in reality have been sort of a serious of events that were never part of the original plan.
The EELV competition to replace Titan IV, Atlas II and III, and Delta II and III with a single modular family that would be low cost enough to compete in the commercial market so the government wouldn't have to subsidize it's full costs, but flexible enough to cover the full range of expected government and commercial payloads.
Hence the CCB system of both Atlas V and Delta IV. The idea was to keep just one winner though.
So, first there was the scandal of Boeing steeling some LM information. I think that, and USAF deciding they didn't want to put all of their eggs in one basket with one new and unproven EELV, lead to the forced merger to ULA, and the support of both EELV's.
So now you had two LV's splitting up the government launches that each one by themselves had planned for. Then, in meeting all of the government mandates, and having those low flight rates, they found it difficult to get their prices down enough to compete for commercial payloads. Especially in the early 2000's when the directly government subsidized launchers like Proton, Soyuz, and Ariane V were trying to to get those commercial payloads. ULA had to satisfy the US government first and foremost. And they couldn't be directly subsidized to keep their commercial costs down like those other launchers. (I think there's laws prohibiting that sort of direct government subsidy) So, in order to keep ULA operating both LV's, the government ponied up and paid them enough per launch to cover all of their overhead costs to maintain and support both systems.
I think ULA tried to drop the price of Atlas 401, but they said ArianeSpace just would drop their price more and could do it with ESA subsidies. So ULA just more or less let that business go, and focused exclusively on catering to the government, and the government paid them top dollar to make sure they made enough to stay afloat.
Although I think both Atlas and Delta were designed to make 30-40 CCB's per year originally, that was when they thought there would only be one EELV chosen, and they'd get ALL government launches, and several commercial ones. I think that's where Delta in particuar was supposed to see a pretty dramatic cost decrease.
But...as it turns out, not only were two LV's splitting government payloads, there was only like half the annual launches predicted which actually fly per year. So they cut their production in half again from the original prediction. So instead of 30-40 Delta IV cores per year, there were 3-4 per year. (38 CCB's flown in the last 11 years since the beginning of the program by my count).
The entire overhead of the CCB's, two upper stages, and two launch complexes had to be paid for by those 3-4 CCB's per year. So yea...they were pretty expensive. Not to mention the PWR production line of RS-68's had to be maintianed by just 3-4 engines per year. After RS-25 went away, that would get even worse.
So in short, each EELV originally planned on probably 20 government launches per year and 10-20 commercial launches per year by themselves.
They only got a few commercial launches early on, and none for the last several years. (I think 9 commercial payloads total over the life of both EELV's) And I think there's only been about 5-10 government launches per year, not 20.
And then they have to share those between two different EELV's.
So I think that probably explains most of their high costs. Even then Atlas 401 was fairly affordable, but just couldn't compete with the subsidized ArianeSpace and the Russians for many of those commercial payloads when they'd dump their price below Atlas's.
So...then the question becomes, if SpaceX starts to get government contracts, and ULA is allowed to streamline as they see fit...including retiring one LV...and they keep Delta IV (so they don't have to mess around with the fickle Russians any more), they could cut their overhead maybe in half by closing two Atlas Pads, and downsizing the Atlas CCB production line, as well as Centaur. What would that do for the Costs of Delta IV?
Although ULA would be getting fewer contracts as a few would be going to SpaceX, Delta IV could actually be flying more as there would be no Atlas flights. ULA could/should downsize and cut overhead.
I would think Delta IV prices would come down at least some. Perhaps not enough to be commercially viable, but enough to make them competative with SpaceX...who's government launch prices will probably be higher than commercial, as they'll need to add vertical integration, and follow the myriad of rules and regulations of the USAF to get into compliance with them. Those expenses won't be cheap, and SpaceX will probably let their government launch prices carry that investment, so they can keep their commercial prices low enough that they don't loose business to ArianeSpace and the Russians.
So I expect the prices that the government pays for launches of a vertically integrated Falcon from say pad 39A to be significantly higher than for a commercial launch of a horizontally integrated Falcon from LC-40. Delta IV will probably be inline with that, and USAF will make sure they get enough business to keep Delta flying so they retain redundant space access. Even if it means paying for it.
Post by: Prober on 09/04/2013 06:58 pm
Supposedly, I've heard around here, if Delta IV were to get enough launches, it's costs could come down enough that even SpaceX would have a hard time competing with them.This does not seem impossible in principle - one ablative engine should be cheaper than 9 regenerative ones. (At least assuming no re-use.)
But if it's true in practice, why does ULA not offer Delta IV at SpaceX prices? Surely customers would jump at a proven rocket with low cost, and their volume would go way up. But ULA doesn't do this, so they must not really believe it. Possible reasons are:
(a) "Enough launches" are more launches than really exist.
(b) They believe SpaceX has underestimated costs, and can't make a profit at current prices.
(c) Requires too much up-front investment (say developing a cheap RL-10 replacement)
My personal guess would be that they believe all of (a), (b), and (c).
SpaceX is built around a different model take a look see the number of
(need term) employees.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 11:24 pm
ISTM AJ 1E6 is least likely to be taken forward as engine for SLS's advanced booster. But, just imagine for a moment it does win a development contract there.
It's about 20% more thrust than RD-180 - could a de-rated version be slotted into "Atlas Va"?
Maybe also fitted in an upgraded version of Antares.
One new engine shared three ways around US launch providers??
Cheers, Martin
Yea, that's kinda what I was thinking too. Rather than having RD-180 for Atlas, AJ-26 for Antares, and maybe F-1B for SLS, just one domestic engine to cover all of those applications. Could make for some good economics of scale.
And before people worry too much about an Aerojet monopoly on the launch market, obviously there's SpaceX.
Besides, Aerojet Rocketdyne would own and build AJ-1E6, AJ-26, F-1B, and I assume take over PWR's role in RD AMROSS?
So it wouldn't really be much different than them just building one AJ-1E6 for them all.
They'll own RS-68A and RL-10 too. But it's sort of 6 of one, half dozen of the other. One way is more streamlined though.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 11:30 pm
At what point does the RD-180 start to seem like a dead-end?
As long as ULA buys them, they will be (somewhat) at the mercy of the supplier, and the option of manufacturing them here in the U.S. appears to make them too expensive to be practical when compared to RS-68. So now ULA gets a high performance engine at a low-performance price. But the uncertainty of the RD-180 touched upon in this thread could make it a poor choice as a foundational element for future evolved LV, a la Atlas Phase2.
Yea. Even if this gets all ironed out, what about next time?
Also, Atlas is a redundant LV to Delta IV for ULA (or vice versa). But they -really- don't need two redundant EELV's. Only because USAF have wanted them to have they. But the EELV competition was only supposed to have a single clear winner, LM/Altas or Boeing-MD/Delta (not sure if there were other EELV competators). So really not reason for ULA to keep both lines if USAF were to not require them to and pay for that expense. That could happen in 2015, we'll see.
So...if RD-180 is a "dead" end, that would make the decision pretty easy as to which EELV to drop.
Post by: Lobo on 09/04/2013 11:53 pm
This series of post got me thinking.Delta IV and RS-68 were designed to be cheap at high production rates (the factory was sized for upto 40 cores per year!). Yet, they have had 10 years working on lowering the costs at low rates of production. To the point that now the factory has more limited capacity but can output Atlas V, Centaur and Delta IV. The Fleet Unification Program, Common Avionics, and the future Common Upper Stage have all worked in this direction. I seriously doubt that they could lower that much the costs.
Even if Russia did ban sales of RD-180 engines it is not expected to take affect until 2015 with a 20+ engine stockpile it would not really bite until 2017-2018.
If DOD wanted to protect itself from the possibility of a RD-180 cut off the cheapest and easiest way would be to purchase a Delta 4,4 and a Delta 5,8 for delivery in say 2016 and 2017.
Assuming they would have launched the satellites anyway the cost would just be the difference between the two launch vehicles. The Delta 5,8 would be very useful for dual GPS launches planned to start in 2019.
Besides, RS-68 was supposed to be cheap, but had the inherent subsidy of the Shuttle on the engine factory. That's gone.
And Delta IV was optimized for commercial payloads. For pure DoD the Atlas V has a superior flow.
The Delta IV M+(4,4) would be useful for covering only the AV 431, since the M+(4,2) is a good match for the AV 421. And it's basically free, since the new Common Core is based off the M+(5,4). But the 431 has only been used 2 in the last 10 years, and both were commercial payloads! Thus, I think that DoD has no actual need for the M+(4,4). I don't know what would be the performance of a M+(5,6) or the M+(5,8). But the M+(5,4) is about a match for the AV 531, so it's possible that the M(5,6) could cover the AV 551. And in any case, only MUOS currently require the 551. Thus, you could save your last AV for those missions.
But the problem is exactly that it would require to go back to a custom core. That's not nice since they went to great effort exactly to do the opposite (a true common core for single core). If they do away with Atlas V they could add an extra custom core. But the main reason was about payload flexibility, not so much cost. Delta IV has way longer lead times than Atlas V. And if you look at the delay causes on ULA site, you'll note that payloads are notoriously risky in schedule issues. Thus, the ability to swap payloads late in the process, say until L-3 months, is a great asset. But with customs they couldn't do that. Since the M+(5,6/8) payloads are few, this might not be such a big issue, since they'd still have the flexibility most of the time.
In other words, yes, Delta IV could replace Atlas V if necessary, but I don't think it would lower the costs that much, and DoD would lose the flexibility and schedule margin that dual fleet offers.
Yea, that's a good point. Now Delta has a true common booster core. You don't really want to go back to custom cores again. And really, if you were to standardize on the Delta and drop Atlas, that's what D4H is for. They could fill that apparently seldom used narrow gap filled by the Atlas-541 and 551 (only 5 launches of those configurations in the history of Atlas V) So, anything that would otherwise use the 541/551 just gets moved to D4H.
And it sounds like there's just one payload already slated that would use either of those?. MUOS? Dunno what that is, but -could- that, for example, be moved to a D4H if it needed to be? It won't, because there's enough RD-180's around to take care of it like you said. But hypothetically it could fly on D4H couldn't it?
And if there's enough of an increase in Delta CCB production, then D4H could come down in price to be closer to that of Atlas 551 perhaps. So probably no need to make the customer Delta CCB's in the M+ (5,6) and M+ (5,8).
But, I think replacing Delta with Atlas could reduce prices, at least some (probably not greatly). Because ULA gets to unload a whole lot of overhead in the process, and at the same time, perhaps double the production of a single CCB. Add some SpaceX competition for government launches in there, and I think you might see some price reduction anyway. At least get it down to an Atlas launch cost, thus eliminating the last argument for Atlas and RD-180.
Dunno about Delta being less smooth and flexible for USAF/DoD launches. Could ULA do anything about the flow of Delta to fix that?
Post by: baldusi on 09/05/2013 12:09 am
The fact with Delta IV flow is that it requires a lot of more time on the HIF, than Atlas V on the VIF. And that's a seconde difference. Delta is horizontally integrated. But for vertically integrated (i.e. all DoD and NASA) payloads, they have to do more time on pad. And if they have to take the core back to the HIF they have to demate. Atlas gets everything done on the VIF, and only moves to pad on its MLP already integrated. And if they needed higher rate of launch, they could do it with a second MLP instead of an additional pad that Delta IV would need.
Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, Falcon and Antares all also do vertical integration. But they simply can't do vertical integration (except for Soyuz at CSG), thus all is made in the HIF, no need to take the pad save for launch. that's also the reason that all commercial payloads are compatible with horizontal integration. And Delta IV assumed a good fraction of launches to be commercial.
Post by: asmi on 09/05/2013 02:20 am
Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
Post by: baldusi on 09/05/2013 06:06 pm
More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/05/2013 06:26 pm
...which is also a great rocket oxidizer, if you can handle it! ;)More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/05/2013 08:14 pm
...which is also a great rocket oxidizer, if you can handle it! ;)More than high temperature is high temperature oxygen. That's close to an oxytorch. I think that only fluoride is more corrosive of metals.Anyone know if the RD-180 uses weird alloys, or more-or-less conventional alloys in unusual ways?It is said that the new class of high-temperature resistant stainless steel was invented specifically for these engines.
Well, not "oxidizer" so much as "fluoridizer." ;) Heh, chemistry puns FTW. Getting back to my last point on this topic (several pages and many words ago), the U.S. has a LOT more experience with this kind of metallurgy than most people realize because it's not widespread knowledge - from the mid-1940's through today, this kind of specialized metallurgy is at the heart of nuclear materials manufacture and processing. It's just never (in the U.S. at least) been applied to rocketry.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/05/2013 08:17 pm
Post by: asmi on 09/05/2013 09:17 pm
Getting back to my last point on this topic (several pages and many words ago), the U.S. has a LOT more experience with this kind of metallurgy than most people realize because it's not widespread knowledge - from the mid-1940's through today, this kind of specialized metallurgy is at the heart of nuclear materials manufacture and processing. It's just never (in the U.S. at least) been applied to rocketry.Not even close.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/05/2013 11:29 pm
Are you saying hot, high-pressure oxygen-rich environments are often used for nuclear materials processing?
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)
Which was my first point that no one actually responded to several pages ago.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/05/2013 11:48 pm
Okay, I know they /could/ do it, but even still the specific alloys suited for the environment still isn't something the US has some living experience with. UF6 is one thing, high temperature/pressure oxygen is another. Both harsh, both corrosive, but the requirements are different enough that I doubt the necessary alloys are the same.Are you saying hot, high-pressure oxygen-rich environments are often used for nuclear materials processing?
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)...
Post by: strangequark on 09/05/2013 11:58 pm
Okay, I know they /could/ do it, but even still the specific alloys suited for the environment still isn't something the US has some living experience with. UF6 is one thing, high temperature/pressure oxygen is another. Both harsh, both corrosive, but the requirements are different enough that I doubt the necessary alloys are the same.Are you saying hot, high-pressure oxygen-rich environments are often used for nuclear materials processing?
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)...
We have the alloys. There's not much on it, but lookup Mondaloy.
Post by: asmi on 09/06/2013 12:35 am
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)This isn't about technology anymore, is it? ;)
If it is, you should have no problems telling us which components of nuclear reactor contain oxygen at temperature of around 3000K at pressure 3,868 psia (almost 270 times higher than atmosphere pressure)?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/06/2013 02:16 am
interesting! Metallurgy is a pretty interesting topic to me... I'd like to learn more.Okay, I know they /could/ do it, but even still the specific alloys suited for the environment still isn't something the US has some living experience with. UF6 is one thing, high temperature/pressure oxygen is another. Both harsh, both corrosive, but the requirements are different enough that I doubt the necessary alloys are the same.Are you saying hot, high-pressure oxygen-rich environments are often used for nuclear materials processing?
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)...
We have the alloys. There's not much on it, but lookup Mondaloy.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/06/2013 02:19 am
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)This isn't about technology anymore, is it?
Changing the subject back to what I actually wrote, and not about your and Chris' attempt to sidetrack it, it's never been simply about the technology. It's always been about the money. Certain segments of U.S. industry know very well how to deal with metallurgy for precision applications in chemically difficult conditions. As I have actually written (three times in this thread now, for those of you playing along at home and keeping track of the subject at hand), is that if this whole issue turns into something more than a drumbeat to renegotiate RD-180 prices, U.S. industry would have little real difficulty manufacturing an RD-180 equivalent engine IF THE MONEY WAS FOUND TO DO SO.
Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it. But if it the United States absolutely had to have an oxygen-rich staged combustion engine, it could be done.
Post by: arachnitect on 09/06/2013 02:35 am
I don't think what Herb is talking about is in reactors, it's stuff that happens in fuel processing and warhead fabrication.Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)This isn't about technology anymore, is it? ;)
If it is, you should have no problems telling us which components of nuclear reactor contain oxygen at temperature of around 3000K at pressure 3,868 psia (almost 270 times higher than atmosphere pressure)?
The problem as I see is not that the Aerojet/RD folks couldn't handle the oxy-rich issue, it's that they basically need to replicate the exact process the Russians are using in order to preserve engine commonality.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that in addition to the material properties there are geometry problems as well... you need to control the way the gas moves through the engine. Since the engineers have access to complete engines this shouldn't be issue though.
General Staged Combustion thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18646.0)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/06/2013 02:58 am
I don't think what Herb is talking about is in reactors, it's stuff that happens in fuel processing and warhead fabrication.
Bingo! And I doubt you'll find anyone familiar with those processes who would agree with the idea that oxygen-rich staged combustion is harder or "worse" to deal with than the issues involved with processes involving fluorine and radioactive trans-uranic elements.
Post by: Proponent on 09/06/2013 10:32 am
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2013 02:20 pm
... it's never been simply about the technology. It's always been about the money.That's right.
During the SLS Mission Concept Review (MCR) Requirements Analysis Cycle (RAC) a couple years ago, RAC Team 2 studied a plethora of kerosene fueled rocket concepts for SLS. These included gas generator (GG) and oxygen rich staged combustion (ORSC) concepts, including one design that used ORSC for both the first and second stage. After comparing numerous concepts, Team 2 chose GG over ORSC, "due to lower engine development risk and less costly growth options".
Falcon 9 versus Atlas V and/or Antares would be a marketplace test of GG versus ORSC if all of the engines were built in the same country.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Prober on 09/06/2013 02:43 pm
Nope. I'm sating that the chemistry and metallurgy of highly-reactive materials in high pressure (and for that matter very low pressure) environments is a lot more well-understood in some areas of industry anyone in this thread seems to think. The blanket throw-away statement that basically only ex-Soviet/Russian metallurgists could ever understand the issues involved in oxygen-rich staged combustion is complete nonsense. There are a LOT of highly-specialized metallurgists in any nuclear-capable nation who understand this kind of stuff and could build an RD-180 or equivalent, given the appropriate financial support. The fact that you mention fluorine is your clue. ;)This isn't about technology anymore, is it? ;)
If it is, you should have no problems telling us which components of nuclear reactor contain oxygen at temperature of around 3000K at pressure 3,868 psia (almost 270 times higher than atmosphere pressure)?
The problem as I see is not that the Aerojet/RD folks couldn't handle the oxy-rich issue, it's that they basically need to replicate the exact process the Russians are using in order to preserve engine commonality.
General Staged Combustion thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18646.0)
Its a known issue(s). Watching Aerojet with getting Antares up ready their experience level is up there.
Post by: Antares on 09/06/2013 02:52 pm
Post by: strangequark on 09/06/2013 03:43 pm
If the knowledge exists domestically, then why hasn't it been applied to ORSC LPREs?
Cost of developing a staged combustion engine, ox-rich or no, has been the biggest factor there, and you know it. For Goddard's sake, we've only developed two flight engines in the two decades since the West was made aware of ORSC engine work in Russia. RS-68 is hydrogen, so the tech was inapplicable, and Merlin was designed to be easy and low cost.
Sadly, the appetite for building new engines in this country just isn't there anymore, regardless of cycle.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/06/2013 05:18 pm
...For Goddard's sake...I'm stealing that.
Post by: sdsds on 09/06/2013 06:38 pm
USAF assessed the ability of ULA to continue flying Atlas if new shipments of RD-180 were halted. USAF had full insight into ULA and RD-AMROSS activities. With that insight USAF is satisfied the propulsion needs of Atlas will be met. Who are we to question that conclusion?
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 06:57 pm
Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can. It's just been USAF that's determined they wanted ULA to operate both instead of settling on one or the other...and will pay for that.
Given ULA's current flight rate, I don't think they have enough launches a year to max out a single EELV, much less two.
Unless they were to add a bunch of commercial lauches, I'd bet that the Delta IV line and facilities could handle their government payload manifests just fine.
If ULA -could- add a fair amount of commercial launches, I think they still could handle it. As more payloads launch form the Eastern Range than the western, they could always add another tower and MSS to LC-37, as there are two pads there, and have consolidated operations at one launch complex. Not many payloads, Government or commercial, launch from the Western Range so I would expect SLC-6 could handle all potential government and commercial launches for some time. Especially with SpaceX getting some of the limited commercial launches there.
But if it the United States absolutely had to have an oxygen-rich staged combustion engine, it could be done.
Interesting question...-is- there really a need for a US ORSC engine?
SpaceX doesn't think so for their current operations, and are exploring it only for a methane application, where they don't want to use RP-1 or LH2.
I don't know for sure, but I think a big reason LM went with RD-180 was that they could get it pretty cheap, and save themselves having to develop a new booster engine, staged combustion or otherwise. It existed, and had good perfomance. They'd went to it originally with the Atlas III, and then carried it over to the new Atlas V. I think Atlas V was basically a bit bigger core than the Atlas III, and a CBC core which could mount SRB's or outboad boosters, per the EELV competition requirements? (Where Atlas III could not?)
If I understand that correctly, then nothing magic about ORSC there, just price and availability.
McDonnel-Douglas opted for a new LH2 engine from Rocketdyne, as they were about the only US engine making option, and they had really only been doing LH2 in the RL-10 and RS-25 engines for years. (and maintaining rather than really pursuing RS-27A in RP-1? A decades old design).
Sounds like RS-68 was pretty simple, and a simple GG. Far more simple that RS-25. Development went pretty smooth. And even a GG LH2 engine crushes ORSC in ISP...338s vs. 410s vac. (but obviously has other drawbacks)
72s higher for GG LH2 vs ORSC RP-1.
Conversely, even a GG RP-1 such as the M1D (booster version) will have a vacuum ISP of only about 28s less than RD-180, and even the old RS-27A had an ISP of only about 36s less.
And the RS-68 would/could be pretty cheap if made in sufficient quantities.
So...-does- the US -really- need an RP-1 ORSC engine?
I don't know that the US really even needs Atlas V as long as there's Delta IV. SpaceX has a pretty loaded manifest with their cheap and dirty GG RP-1 engines...so all seems good there. And SLS, in it's current core design, probably doesn't beenfit from ORSC vs. GG if it were to go with liquid boosters. The burn time of the boosters is too short. (It would for AJAX, smaller core and would keep the Atlas V/RD-180 boosters for 100s more than SLS LRB. That was part of the core design).
Antares probably does need ORSC engine as that's what what it's designed to have...but does the US really -need- Antares? Falcon and Delta could launch Cygnus if need be.
Well, if we really need it, as Herb said, I'm sure we can do it (AJ-1E6, RS-84, or US-built RD-180)...but do we really need to replace RD-180 if the Russians stop selling it to us?
That's a fair point I think.
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 06:58 pm
;-)
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 07:13 pm
I think the Russians know that by selling RD-180 at a price point not very far above their cost they have effectively quashed investment in U.S. development and production of similar engines.
Isn't that also sort of what ArianeSpace did with the commercial US launch market? Priced so ULA couldn't compete with Atlas V, and so no new investment in a new US launch provider for several years to try to compete once ULA sort of gave up and focused on government launches? Until Elon decided to go for it anyway. And later, OSC.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 09/06/2013 08:23 pm
If the knowledge exists domestically, then why hasn't it been applied to ORSC LPREs?
Cost of developing a staged combustion engine, ox-rich or no, has been the biggest factor there, and you know it. For Goddard's sake, we've only developed two flight engines in the two decades since the West was made aware of ORSC engine work in Russia. RS-68 is hydrogen, so the tech was inapplicable, and Merlin was designed to be easy and low cost.
Sadly, the appetite for building new engines in this country just isn't there anymore, regardless of cycle.
So, only 10 years ago, Boeing-Rocketdyne was still working on the RS-84, which was I assume also was an ORSC RP-1/LOX engine. The articles say the engine made it to the PDR level, so I assume most of the materials challenges must have been worked out by then, correct ?
Post by: arachnitect on 09/06/2013 08:26 pm
Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can.
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV. 2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV. Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/06/2013 09:18 pm
Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can.
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV. 2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV. Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Post by: baldusi on 09/06/2013 09:47 pm
M(4,4) is already "developed", since they used the (5,4) core for the "common" core. In fact, it has barely 6months extra lead time. That covers upto the 431, which btw, has only been used by commercial payloads. And the M+(5,4) covers upto 531. Only MSL used 541, and 551 was used twice by NASA (New Horizon and Juno) and twice by MUOS. So, M(5,6) could probably cover 551, or they could save the last Atlas for MUOS. But overall, I don't think anything will happen.Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can.
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV. 2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV. Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 09:48 pm
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV.
What NASA science missions does NASA have that can't fly on Delta IV? Just because they are currently using Atlas V, does that mean Delta IV can't be used?
I think they've opted for Atlas V because it has a couple of variants between Delta IV M+ (5,4) and D4H that they have needed, and are cheaper than D4H. But if ULA standardized on Delta IV, it's reasonable to assume that with a higher flight rate, Delta IV priced could come down at least to be similar to the Delta Atlas prices.
So how is that throwing NASA under the bus?
There will also be FH available in the next few years.
2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV.
And one if not both could use F9 if Atlas was no longer available. I believe both are LV neutral. Besides, there will only be one CCP winner. There won't be a situation where two providers need Atlas. And assuming that winner isn't SpaceX (if it is, then this is a moot point) Boeing has said outright they could go to F9, and might after two initial flights on Atlas. I would assume the same could go for SNC.
Besides, Boeing wanted Delta for CST-100 originally. CST-100 is slated to initially fly on an Atlas V-412. I can't find any LEO performance to 51.6 deg ISS orbit for it, but is it anything a Delta M+ (5,4) couldn't do? as well? The upper stage is already being man-rated for SLS, and the RS-68A means the booster is close to being man rated.
Although a switch to F9 is most likely due to cost (should be even less than Atlas V) , and F9 will already be man-rated. Elon won't turn them away if he looses the commercial crew competition, but I imagine right now he's not offering F9 to them because currently they are his competition.
Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
Orbital probably has enough AJ-26 engines to fill out it's COTS contract. Yes, getting an additional COTS contract could be in jeopardy if they can't get an ORSC engine replacment. But, there are other options than RD-180. They don't currently have RD-180. The AJ-26-500 would be a domestically made AJ-26 tuned up for more thrust, so it should drop right in. AJ-1E6 would be two AJ-26-500's sharing a single turbopump, so it should fit right in to. Again, domestically made. If Aerojet won't make either of those for OSC if OSC gets a COTS contract extension, Cygnus could always fly on Delta IV medium (no SRB's) or F9. If NASA deemed they really needed the capabilities unique to Cygnus, and OSC couldn't continue launching it on Antares, I would think they could adjust the contract to include the launch prices of Delta IV if they didn't want both of their cargo ships flying on F9. (which they may or may not care about)
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Yup, the other option other than AJ-26-500 and AJ-1E6, is Aerojet-Rocketdyne building a domestic copy of RD-180. If USAF wants ULA to maintain Atlas V, Aerojet-Rocketdyne could go that way and supply US-RD-180's to both OSC and ULA.
However, I think the increased engine price of a domestically developed and produce RD-180 (even if it's a copy) could make Atlas more costly, and it would be more cost effective to retire it and ramp up Delta IV production to get those prices down to where the Atlas with the US-RD-180 would cost.
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 10:06 pm
Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.
Atlas V is cheaper than Delta IV at current production rates of a few cores of each made per year. And I'm going to -guess- that the cost difference is mainly due to the price difference between what ULA can buy the RD-180 for compared to what they can buy the RS-68A for at current production rates of a handful of each per year.
I'm assuming that costs to make each core and each upper stage is pretty similar, especially now they are all made at the same plant in Decatur.
So, what happens if Atlas is retired, and twice as many D4 CCB's are made per year? (maybe more than twice because some Atlas 541 and 551 would move to D4H....3 cores instead of one)
Even if twice the CCB production rate didn't lower core or upper stage costs any, (because ULA would basically be trading Atlas V cores for Delta IV cores, not gaining more launches per year), the RS-68A production rate would double, or more (more D4H launches).
If the RS-68A production rate doubled or more, then I'd think it's price per unit would come down?
Also, two launch complexes could be retired.
The thing here is, if Atlas were retired, and ULA kept it's current manifest and flight rate, Delta 4 production would double, and the Atlas infrastructure would be closed. That means D4 prices will likely not stay what they are now.
M(4,4) is already "developed", since they used the (5,4) core for the "common" core. In fact, it has barely 6months extra lead time. That covers upto the 431, which btw, has only been used by commercial payloads. And the M+(5,4) covers upto 531. Only MSL used 541, and 551 was used twice by NASA (New Horizon and Juno) and twice by MUOS. So, M(5,6) could probably cover 551, or they could save the last Atlas for MUOS. But overall, I don't think anything will happen.
And that's a good point. There's only a small number of payloads that have every flown on Atlas 541 and 551. Delta IV M+ can cover any Atlas smaller than 541. Only a handful of payloads would need to be moved from 541 or 551 to D4H. And those can be planned for if they aren't already on the manifest. Sounds like there's just one payload on the manifest (MUOS) that would need to have an Atlas saved for it, or be moved to D4H. Future payloads could either be designed to trim down to to an M+(5,4) capacity, or plan for the D4H costs (which should hopefully come down).
Or fly on FH.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/06/2013 11:13 pm
Bad guess. There's more to it than just the engines.Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.
Atlas V is cheaper than Delta IV at current production rates of a few cores of each made per year. And I'm going to -guess- that the cost difference is mainly due to the price difference between what ULA can buy the RD-180 for compared to what they can buy the RS-68A for at current production rates of a handful of each per year. ...
Post by: joek on 09/06/2013 11:14 pm
In short, ULA's freedom of movement with respect to Atlas V and Delta IV is seriously constrained, and there is going to be no change for the foreseeable future as ULA has very little say in the matter. The shots are being called by DoD (and further constrained by Boeing and LM); DoD owns the EELV program; DoD provides ULA their bread and butter; DoD funded and signed off on RD-180 Co-Production Successfully Concluded (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14224.0). The most likely outcome if Russia embargoes RD-180 shipments any time in the near future (specifically, before existing Atlas V commitments are met 2017-2018) is that domestic RD-180 production will be started.
Post by: Lobo on 09/06/2013 11:34 pm
I think we hashed this out previously in the How Should ULA’s Business Model Change going Forward? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30867.0) thread. Which at one point I posed the question as to why not Delta IV instead of Atlas V as the heir apparent? The simple answer appears to be that (per Jim) Atlas V and Delta IV have unique capabilities, that there is a significant dependence on Atlas V by key customers (specifically, NSS) for the foreseeable future ...
In short, ULA's freedom of movement with respect to Atlas V and Delta IV is seriously constrained, and there is going to be no change for the foreseeable future as ULA has very little say in the matter. The shots are being called by DoD (and further constrained by Boeing and LM); DoD owns the EELV program; DoD provides ULA their bread and butter; DoD funded and signed off on RD-180 Co-Production Successfully Concluded (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14224.0). The most likely outcome if Russia embargoes RD-180 shipments any time in the near future (specifically, before existing Atlas V commitments are met 2017-2018) is that domestic RD-180 production will be started.
But granted, I think that thread was before Russia was making rumblings about pulling RD-180. This thread is about the potential fall out if they did pull RD-180.
There's a good chance that probably won't happen from what several here have posted, but just in case, that's what we are talking about.
I don't think USAF or DoD can force Russia to sell them to us to maintain the Atlas line. But they can pay Aerojet-Rocketdyne to develop and buld a US version of RD-180 in such an event. True.
I guess USAF/DoD would have to evaluate how important the unique capabilities of Atlas V were to them, and if they wanted to shell out the money to develop and build our own.
In situations like this, where you are evaluating a situation where you have access to both lines unhindered into the forseeable future, then yea, if Atlas has some applications that are more desirable for it's use, it's pretty easy to say that you'll just continue as-is into the forseeable future.
But, if the apple cart gets upset, then sometimes people take another look at how much they really -need- those advantages. Especially if you feel your nose was tweaked in the process.
The other issue is, for the "forseeable" future, USAF and DoD will be using ULA EELV's exclusively. But after 2015, SpaceX has a chance to come in and get some of those launches. If they are successful, and there is an alternate LV to both Delta -and- Atlas, which may or may not have some of the same advantages Atlas does (I don't know if F9 would) then that can change the equation too.
Dropping the money to develop a US made RD-180 might not seem so necessary depending on what role F9 might play just beyond the "forseeable" future.
But, if USAF pays for a US made RD-180, I'm sure AJR will do it. And OSC may try to get it too for Antares. Which would probably mean AJ-1E6 won't go anywhere because a US made RD-180 could cover pretty much anything AJ-1E6 would do. Even as an SLS LRB option.
PS: Speaking of which...where is Jim on the conversation? I'd assumed he'd have swooped in and slapped several of us around by now. :-)
He probably knows better than any how "important" USAF would consider Atlas, and if it's important enough to make a US RD-180 or not.
Post by: joek on 09/06/2013 11:52 pm
But granted, I think that thread was before Russia was making rumblings about pulling RD-180. This thread is about the potential fall out if they did pull RD-180.
My assumption has always been based on a conservative reading of DoD/NSS position that "assured access" assumes the (foreign) supplier may pull the plug. DoD/NSS plans must have always assumed that Russia might "pull the RD-180". To assume or plan otherwise (especially for DoD/NSS) invites a public hanging, and would question why they spent the money for certifying domestic production of the RD-180.
Post by: arachnitect on 09/07/2013 01:25 am
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV.
What NASA science missions does NASA have that can't fly on Delta IV? Just because they are currently using Atlas V, does that mean Delta IV can't be used?
[...]
There will also be FH available in the next few years.
It's not a matter of performance, it's just that NASA simply doesn't deal with Delta IV right now. It's not on NLS II. Is Delta certified for nuclear payloads? These things can all be done, it just takes time and money.
FH is years and years away.
2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV.
And one if not both could use F9 if Atlas was no longer available. I believe both are LV neutral. Besides, there will only be one CCP winner.
"Neutral" is a relative term. Many cars have both diesel and petrol versions, but that doesn't mean you can just swap engines between them. Again, they could redo all the wind tunnel work and pad planning if they really had to, but it would be a big setback to two of the providers.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Yup, the other option other than AJ-26-500 and AJ-1E6, is Aerojet-Rocketdyne building a domestic copy of RD-180. If USAF wants ULA to maintain Atlas V, Aerojet-Rocketdyne could go that way and supply US-RD-180's to both OSC and ULA.
Orbital has enough engines for their current contract, but apparently NASA want them to sort out their long term situation before they get more flights. If Orbital are willing to re-engineer Antares for RD-180, they can cost share with Atlas.
However, I think the increased engine price of a domestically developed and produce RD-180 (even if it's a copy) could make Atlas more costly, and it would be more cost effective to retire it and ramp up Delta IV production to get those prices down to where the Atlas with the US-RD-180 would cost.
Without access to the $ numbers we're all just guessing. What I'm trying to convey is that the hassle of realigning the whole program around Delta IV comes with real costs in time and money, and NASA gets particularly hard hit. My guess is that it might be better just to take the cost hit and build the engines here -and if Aerojet/Rocketdyne is going to start building them here, they should offer to bring Orbital on board.
Post by: Lobo on 09/07/2013 11:41 pm
Without access to the $ numbers we're all just guessing. What I'm trying to convey is that the hassle of realigning the whole program around Delta IV comes with real costs in time and money, and NASA gets particularly hard hit. My guess is that it might be better just to take the cost hit and build the engines here -and if Aerojet/Rocketdyne is going to start building them here, they should offer to bring Orbital on board.
Agreed. And yes, I am just guess. I think it's an educated guess as it involves involves the economics of scale and standardization, which bring costs down normally in production. But yes, there'd have to be a study done by people with access to all the numbers and information. And given everything, as you said, it could be that they just opt to go with a domestic RD-180 replacement.
I would guess if that's the case, they we wouldn't see an AJ-1E6 as there'd be no need for it at that point. Or that AJ-1E6 would be specifically developed to be a drop in replacement in size and dimensions for RD-180, just perhaps based a little more on NK heritage than RD heritage.
Don't know that it's really -needed-, but I never really thought both EELV's were needed, just one as per the original plan. But, USAF -wanted- it and paid for it, and so there you go. And the same could very well be the case here.
Personally, whether it's really -needed- or not, I'd very much like to see US launchers flying on US-built engine. Even if it has some Russian heritage.
I think the RS-68 a little better that way as it's a US design in addition. But, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see us making an RD-180 (or equivalent) rather than importing them.
Post by: baldusi on 09/08/2013 12:21 am
Post by: EE Scott on 09/08/2013 02:25 am
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/08/2013 03:49 am
Atlas V has more flexible avionics, in that it is able to provide longer launch windows in some cases.My understanding is the Delta IV avionics is going to be, or is being, updated to use, essentially, the Atlas V system. RIFCA, the current Delta IV system, was first used by Delta II in 1995. It was Delta's first ring laser gyro system, and it has done more than "just fine" over the years - all you have to do is marvel at its flight record - but is now a bit outdated.
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: EE Scott on 09/08/2013 04:36 am
Atlas V has more flexible avionics, in that it is able to provide longer launch windows in some cases.My understanding is the Delta IV avionics is going to be, or is being, updated to use, essentially, the Atlas V system. RIFCA, the current Delta IV system, was first used by Delta II in 1995. It was Delta's first ring laser gyro system, and it has done more than "just fine" over the years - all you have to do is marvel at its flight record - but is now a bit outdated.
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect?
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for this background. I had read that they'd base the new phase 2 EELV avionics on the Atlas system, but didn't know they may change the Delta IV over to it. So differences in avionics and flight software are not really factors in any potential choice between the two LVs should the RD-180 cease being offered for sale.
Post by: baldusi on 09/08/2013 05:09 am
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/08/2013 06:27 am
Stopping Atlas V use would save two pads upkeep, btw.Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Makes more sense to stop Delta IV and switch to domestic kerolox.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/08/2013 07:54 am
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/08/2013 11:35 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/08/2013 11:55 am
Do some people want no one in Space? How did it get to this? (rhetorical). Sigh...
(We'd better watch out - someone might pull the thread-locking trigger any minute >:( )
Post by: Proponent on 09/08/2013 12:14 pm
It's about money. The timing is about Syria. The Bear likes to mess with American doves.
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
Most thought-provoking post I've read in a long time.
Mightn't this just be a Russian domestic political dust-up that has spilled onto the international stage? The scenario would be that Energomash somehow stepped on the toes of somebody powerful, and that somebody is now threatening Energomash. The timing might still about about Syria, in that Energomash's antagonist would have realized that Syria would make Putin particularly receptive to the idea of bashing the US.
What I find attractive about this hypothesis is that it explains the senselessness of the act. The official reason for cutting off the supply RD-180s is to prevent the US military from launching satellites, but all it would actually do is make launches a little more expensive in the short run and stimulate the US rocket-engine industry.
And it would be a really dumb way for Energomash to try to negotiate higher prices, because even at a higher price there's nothing to stop the Russian government from withholding RD-180s in the future. This kind of threat only makes the product less attractive.
But, the parties to a political infight typically don't care about the larger consequences of their actions -- they just want to win the battle. There's a case to be made that the changes in ITAR in 1999 in which the US so effectively shot itself in the foot were motivated in significant part by political domestic squabbles. Maybe the RD-180 threat is something similar.
Post by: AncientU on 09/08/2013 02:50 pm
Not that it matters much to this discussion, but the methane option being explored by SpaceX is likely going to be fuel rich which will be much simpler according to this site a while back (which I cannot find at the moment).
But if it the United States absolutely had to have an oxygen-rich staged combustion engine, it could be done.
Interesting question...-is- there really a need for a US ORSC engine?
SpaceX doesn't think so for their current operations, and are exploring it only for a methane application, where they don't want to use RP-1 or LH2.
Post by: Lobo on 09/08/2013 03:08 pm
The Common Avionics update is basically to adapt the Atlas V avionics on Delta. But is also required to handle the RL-10C, and is the version that will be used by the Crewed Atlas and ths ICPS. Next ULA project is Common Upper Stage, I believe.
What's the latest on that? ACES is what I'd heard they want as a common upper stage for awhile. But now heard something about a common DCSS from Downix I think. Any info out there on that?
Post by: Lobo on 09/08/2013 03:30 pm
Well; I wouldn't want to be accused of exaggerating - which happens all the time (I rarely actually do so). But I hate being right about this. To paraphrase John Fornaro who came up with "Nothing Firsters" - there are people round here who want to ban or cancel everything. I've seen opinions that range for demanding the cancellation of SLS, Liberty, Atlas V, Delta IV-H and even Antares as well, because of it's possible engine shortage.
Do some people want no one in Space? How did it get to this? (rhetorical). Sigh...
(We'd better watch out - someone might pull the thread-locking trigger any minute >:( )
Hmmm...I think you are missing the point that I've been getting at here if you think I've been advocating cancellation of Atlas because I don't want to go anywhere. But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
Now Falcon will be competing for some of that limited government business too, as well as Antares (visa vi COTS).
So it just begs the question, in Atlas actually does suffer a major problem like this in engine supply, is it vital...or even necessary...to keep it being a redundant EELV?
Not that I don't want to go anywhere...quite the opposite. Rather make things more affordable so we can go more places.
If there's good reasons to keep and operate Atlas if we don't get cheap Russian engines any more, that's cool. I don't know. Just asking the question. :)
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/08/2013 03:41 pm
Post by: EE Scott on 09/08/2013 04:44 pm
Currently they have two excellent LVs to work with, which provides many advantages. The biggest downside of course is how much they are paying for the capabilities. But access to space for DoD and NSA, etc., is a such a basic and vital capacity for national security that overpaying for assured access might not be such a bad trade off. Just think where the U.S. was when everything was supposed to be launched from the shuttle, then the shuttle was grounded. So that gives me hope that they will either bite the bullet and start setting up production of RD-180 domestically, or replace with a different U.S. hydrocarbon engine. (F-1B, RS-84, ...).
Post by: joek on 09/08/2013 05:32 pm
The thing here is, if Atlas were retired, and ULA kept it's current manifest and flight rate, Delta 4 production would double, and the Atlas infrastructure would be closed. That means D4 prices will likely not stay what they are now.
While Delta IV prices would undoubtedly decrease, the question is whether there would be a net benefit. The short answer appears to be "no", at least from the EELV program perspective. See the excerpt below from EELV Program Assessment (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/11_F_1256_EELV_ProgramAssessment_September16_2010.pdf), OSD, September 2010. (Unfortunately much of the presentation is redacted but there are a few other interesting tidbits.)
Post by: baldusi on 09/08/2013 08:58 pm
If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).Stopping Atlas V use would save two pads upkeep, btw.Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Makes more sense to stop Delta IV and switch to domestic kerolox.
Post by: joek on 09/08/2013 09:14 pm
But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
This is getting OT, but those assertions are questionable and at minimum require additional context ...
The relevant basis for comparison is Atlas V and Delta IV as they exist, not the "original" EELV requirements or program structure ~1994-1996; that skips about five years of critical history ~1997-2002. The Atlas V and Delta IV programs were both originally required to show that they could meet DoD's requirements. However, could vs. would began to diverge ~1997-1998.
If the original (1994-1996) EELV program plan had been followed, then yes, it is likely that the sole-source winner--who would have received a $1.8B cost-plus contract for engineering, manufacturing and development--would meet all of DoD's requirements. And if the DoD had awarded two of those contracts, then we would have "100% duplication". But that is not what happened.
That "original" plan went out the window in 1998 with the program's restructuring based on competitive commercial acquisition and "best effort" in meeting DoD requirements. Which is why, e.g., LM requested (and was granted) a waiver for constructing a West coast pad in 1999 (LM was getting cold feet due to concerns about commercial demand and competition), why DoD funded the development and first flight of Delta IV heavy (there was obviously no commercial demand to pay for it), and why we don't have an Atlas V heavy today.
Moreover, it was the (*cough*) crash (*cough*) of the commercial launch market that sunk the EELV competitive commercial acquisition strategy, and what brought us to where we are today with ULA. The DoD was projected to be only 30% of the EELV launch market when the critical decisions were made in 1998. While the lower than expected government flight rate and international competitors were contributing factors, they were not the only reasons, and arguably not the primary reasons.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 03:08 am
Certainly! I think neither should be cut at very least until another vehicle is proven operationally.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).Stopping Atlas V use would save two pads upkeep, btw.Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Makes more sense to stop Delta IV and switch to domestic kerolox.
My point is that I think Atlas V is the cheaper one, both now and probably with domestic rd180 as well. People exaggerate how important just an engine is to the cost of a launch.
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/09/2013 03:29 am
If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 04:31 am
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lars_J on 09/09/2013 04:56 am
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.
Yep. I think it is wise for to keep both for assured access, either until A) a new LV replaces either (Delta V? Atlas VI? Something else), or B) another option enters the marketplaces and proves itself. (SpaceX?)
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 04:58 am
Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Ummm....you rebuild it?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/09/2013 04:58 am
There's only one Heavy pad on each coast.It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:01 am
Really odd hearing about how Atlas V should be canceled from an SLS advocate. It flies more often than any other vehicle in the US fleet, and ten times more often than SLS will.
What does SLS advocacy or no have to do with Atlas?
This point makes no sense...
And, if there two EELV's that launch 10 times as much as SLS will, would not one EELV launch 20 times as much then?
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:12 am
It has NO engine shortage,
Then why was this thread started?
and it's engine can be manufactured domestically.
Delta's already is.
It is the cheaper of the two EELVs,
Primarily because of the cheap Russians engines, no?
and the only vehicle (now that D2 is gone) that is nuclear-certified
How important is that? (I don't know), and is there any reason Delta couldn't be? (I don't know)
, and one of only two commercial crew launch vehicles, relied on by two thirds of the current partners.
Relied on currently because of the -existing- situation but not dependent on if that situation were to change enough.
The US DoD needs assured access to space, and that can't be done with a single vehicle. Those are all facts right now, the rest is speculation.
As Jim has said before, there was no backup for Titan. So "assured access" to space in having redundant vehicles is current policy, but not an indelible one. As I understand, the main reasons behind USAF floating both EELV candidates was a) Boeing got in trouble for spying on LM secrets b) Both were brand new LV's and USAF didn't want to select just one right off so to avoid an STS situation if there was a problem with the EELV chosen after it was too late to go back and switch to the other.
So, if I understand that correctly, redundancy for assured access it's not "fact" so much as " current policy". In fact, redundant LV's in the same class was actually only started with the EELV competition, and not anything needed prior.
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:24 am
But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
This is getting OT, but those assertions are questionable and at minimum require additional context ...
The relevant basis for comparison is Atlas V and Delta IV as they exist, not the "original" EELV requirements or program structure ~1994-1996; that skips about five years of critical history ~1997-2002. The Atlas V and Delta IV programs were both originally required to show that they could meet DoD's requirements. However, could vs. would began to diverge ~1997-1998.
If the original (1994-1996) EELV program plan had been followed, then yes, it is likely that the sole-source winner--who would have received a $1.8B cost-plus contract for engineering, manufacturing and development--would meet all of DoD's requirements. And if the DoD had awarded two of those contracts, then we would have "100% duplication". But that is not what happened.
That "original" plan went out the window in 1998 with the program's restructuring based on competitive commercial acquisition and "best effort" in meeting DoD requirements. Which is why, e.g., LM requested (and was granted) a waiver for constructing a West coast pad in 1999 (LM was getting cold feet due to concerns about commercial demand and competition), why DoD funded the development and first flight of Delta IV heavy (there was obviously no commercial demand to pay for it), and why we don't have an Atlas V heavy today.
Moreover, it was the (*cough*) crash (*cough*) of the commercial launch market that sunk the EELV competitive commercial acquisition strategy, and what brought us to where we are today with ULA. The DoD was projected to be only 30% of the EELV launch market when the critical decisions were made in 1998. While the lower than expected government flight rate and international competitors were contributing factors, they were not the only reasons, and arguably not the primary reasons.
Actually, I think it is on topic, as the issue of a possible change in the current Status quo for one of the EELV's is reason to rethink the current situation and look make sure that it would be worth it to start a domestic RD-180 engine program rather than retire Atlas.
Lots of good arguments for keeping Atlas by several on here. I daresay there's some "Atlas homers" here to seem to be taking the thought of retiring it pretty personally.
But regardless, thanks for the additional EELV information. And yes, I was mainly referring to the original EELV program, rather than what it became. 1997-2002 changed things some (more than I knew, again, thanks for the additional information. Always good to learn more! :-) ) but it shouldn't be beyond reason to look at situation today (2013) and see if or how it's changed since 2002. The situation that made keeping both EELV's in 2002 may or may not exist today, and may or may not exist in the next few years. People with far more info that I will have to look at that. But...as this is a discussion forum, we are discussing it here. :-)
It could very well be that in the interim 11 years, the needs of USAF/DoD have changed such that Delta fills one niche, and Atlas another, and having LV's better for those niches is worth USAF paying ULA to maintain both despite low flight rates into the forseeable future?
I just would be curious as to why. (and many here are giving good reasons why that I wasn't aware of).
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:32 am
The thing here is, if Atlas were retired, and ULA kept it's current manifest and flight rate, Delta 4 production would double, and the Atlas infrastructure would be closed. That means D4 prices will likely not stay what they are now.
While Delta IV prices would undoubtedly decrease, the question is whether there would be a net benefit. The short answer appears to be "no", at least from the EELV program perspective. See the excerpt below from EELV Program Assessment (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/11_F_1256_EELV_ProgramAssessment_September16_2010.pdf), OSD, September 2010. (Unfortunately much of the presentation is redacted but there are a few other interesting tidbits.)
This is the kind of study that would likely be done to evaluate starting domestic RD-180 production vs retiring Atlas. That's for that. Yea, heavily redacted unfortunately (but thanks for posting it). But from the slide you referenced, it looks like that $1 billion investment in the consolidation to Delta IV only involved a 2nd pad at Cape Canaveral. The question would be, is...is that really necessary given even the consolidated flight rate? As Ed just suggested. And without that, how would that change a break even point?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 05:38 am
There is no shortage. Let me simply repeat what the start of the thread actually says, since you forgot:It has NO engine shortage,
Then why was this thread started?...
http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/ (http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/)
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
...
There is no shortage (hence the stockpile) even if Russia were to cut off new deliveries tomorrow, which they won't.
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:44 am
There's only one Heavy pad on each coast.It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
- Ed Kyle
Additionally, how badly damaged could/would one of the pads be?
LC-41would blow up the Atlas mobile launcher, but is there another one there? There's some infrastructure at the pad, but what couldn't be replaced in short order? The Atlas VIF is far enough away it should be safe, and I think that's why it's that far away. Same with LC-37. The tower would be destroyed, would the MST be too? The other facilities there like the Delta HIF should be far enough away they should be ok. How quick could they be back and operational?
Same with the VAFB pads? I think the Atlas pad is very similar to the Cape's, but SLC-6 is a modified Shuttle launch facility, so would the mobile service structures be damaged in the event of a Delta blowing up on the pad? Or are they far enough away? The tower would be blown up likely.
Anyway, my guess is, if there was just one pad on each coast, and one blew up, USAF/DoD would modify their manifest to accommodate repair operations at the pad. For example, are there any usual USAF/DoD payloads that couldn't wait a year to be launched? And if not, are there any that couldn't then be moved to the SpaceX pad, assuming SpaceX gets compliant with USAF launch requirements in the next few years?
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 05:46 am
There is no shortage. Let me simply repeat what the start of the thread actually says, since you forgot:It has NO engine shortage,
Then why was this thread started?...http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/ (http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/)
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
...
There is no shortage (hence the stockpile) even if Russia were to cut off new deliveries tomorrow, which they won't.
Then there's probably not much chance of anything in the status quo changing, huh?
But, I think the conversation we've been having given the hypothetical possibility of an interruption in supply.
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/09/2013 12:12 pm
Additionally, how badly damaged could/would one of the pads be?
LC-41would blow up the Atlas mobile launcher, but is there another one there? There's some infrastructure at the pad, but what couldn't be replaced in short order? The Atlas VIF is far enough away it should be safe, and I think that's why it's that far away. Same with LC-37. The tower would be destroyed, would the MST be too? The other facilities there like the Delta HIF should be far enough away they should be ok. How quick could they be back and operational?
Same with the VAFB pads? I think the Atlas pad is very similar to the Cape's, but SLC-6 is a modified Shuttle launch facility, so would the mobile service structures be damaged in the event of a Delta blowing up on the pad? Or are they far enough away? The tower would be blown up likely.
Anyway, my guess is, if there was just one pad on each coast, and one blew up, USAF/DoD would modify their manifest to accommodate repair operations at the pad. For example, are there any usual USAF/DoD payloads that couldn't wait a year to be launched? And if not, are there any that couldn't then be moved to the SpaceX pad, assuming SpaceX gets compliant with USAF launch requirements in the next few years?
I think it has been pointed out in the past, the rocket gets back to operational status in less time than it would take to switch rockets. A good data point would be to look how long Delta IV was down when they cracked the pad with a LOX leak.
They most likely could rebuild the pad in less time than it would take switch rockets.
Quote
There's only one Heavy pad on each coast.Ed. The SLC-41 was built so it could be converted to a Heavy Pad, SLC-3 at Vandenberg was not. Most likely the Heavy payloads have the least flexibility when switching rockets. I would bet it would be less time to build an entirely new pad from scratch.
- Ed Kyle
It is also worth noting, that some large NRO LEO satellites have flown from CCAFS. I would argue, modified to fly from. The only real risk is large payloads to GSO. It is possible to fly to GSO from Vandenberg with some performance hit. Meaning only payloads that cannot upgrade to a larger rocket (GSO bound heavies) would be left on the ground until a new pad is built.
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 04:46 pm
I think it has been pointed out in the past, the rocket gets back to operational status in less time than it would take to switch rockets. A good data point would be to look how long Delta IV was down when they cracked the pad with a LOX leak.
They most likely could rebuild the pad in less time than it would take switch rockets.
And that was kind of my point to Robotbeat's argument about assured access with redundancy. I hadn't even thought of the issues of taking payloads designed to fly one one EELV and then having to switch them to the other, and the difficulties in that.
But this isn't the height of the cold war any more. How critical is it for USAF/DoD payloads to go up on time in the event of a major problem like a pad being damaged and needing repaired. I don't know if there's many needs to loft a new spy satellite up ASAP to monitor some movement of Soviet warhead from one place to another. At this point I think they are just replacing their existing network of survellence satellites as they get near the end of their service life. How often is it that that replacement couldn't be delayed a year in such a circumstance?
I don't know myself, I'm just assuming that 6 months or a year delay in a payload while a pad was repaired, even a secret national security payload, isn't the big deal it would perahps have been a few decades ago.
And thus, is having two pads on each coast operational all that necessary for assured space access?
If so, I'd think it'd be more important to have two pads on each coast that can launch the same LV, so that if one was damaged, they critical payload could be moved to the other and launched on the same LV and integrated in the same way. Something that's not currently possible.
Something like a combination of LC-39 and LC-41, where there's a single VIF and then two pads that the mobile launcher could go out to either in case one was damaged.
Or LC-17 with two towers on two pads.
Or adding another MSS and tower to LC-37. The Delta's could be integrated in the same HIF, but then go out to either pad.
I think that would be better for assured access to guard against an inturruption in flights due to a a damaged pad, and obivously that hasn't been seen as important enough to do yet by USAF.
Having two redundant LV's as a hedge against one being grounded for assured access to space I think more applies to a new LV that could have some design flaw that would cause it to be grounded and fixed...which could be a long and difficult process depending on the problem. I think that was part of the reason USAF kept both EELV's while retiring most of their existing ELV's. But I think it's save to say after 10 years that neither Delta nor Atlas has any such design flaws that would require any long term grounding. So I don't know that that conern is still applicable today.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 05:58 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/09/2013 06:22 pm
A case in point, the last two alleged KH-11's (when FIA-I failed). Lockheed is alleged to have build USA-224 launched in 2011 from program leftovers and USA-245 is alleged to be a very expensive fresh build. The program is alleged to be "done". The replacement is alleged to be a new design. If a failure had happened, it will be years (multiple fingers) before a replacement could be launched. By then Delta IV will have flown a dozen more times. Even if a new pad was needed.
Post by: LOXRP1 on 09/09/2013 08:33 pm
1) AerojetRocketdyne does not have the rights to the RD-180. Those rights are held by the joint venture, RD AMROSS. The PWR share of RD AMROSS was retained by Pratt & Whtney. AerojetRocketdyne is currently out of the RD-180 business.
2) Those interested in US RD-180 production experience, especially metallurgy experience, should find a copy of AIAA 2007-5487, which describes the production of a full scale, completely domestic RD-180 preburner and stator (argueably the heart of the engine). Steels, nickels, coppers, bar, sheet, forging, weld wire, braze alloy, coatings. 47,000 pounds worth.
Post by: Lobo on 09/09/2013 10:21 pm
A couple of points
1) AerojetRocketdyne does not have the rights to the RD-180. Those rights are held by the joint venture, RD AMROSS. The PWR share of RD AMROSS was retained by Pratt & Whtney. AerojetRocketdyne is currently out of the RD-180 business.
2) Those interested in US RD-180 production experience, especially metallurgy experience, should find a copy of AIAA 2007-5487, which describes the production of a full scale, completely domestic RD-180 preburner and stator (argueably the heart of the engine). Steels, nickels, coppers, bar, sheet, forging, weld wire, braze alloy, coatings. 47,000 pounds worth.
Interesting.
So that begs the question, who would build a US RD-180 now? I'm presuming that that rocket engine assets to do it resided in Rocketdyne, not Pratt & Whitney. But PW has the rights, so they would presumably have to be the ones to build it?
Do they have that capability readily? Or would it need to be developed from scratch? SpaceX did that, so no reason it can't be done I'd imagine. I'd just thing that Rocketdyne was the owner of the facilities that actually build rocket engines out of hte PWR conglomerate, and PW lost that by selling off Rocketdyne.
Post by: joek on 09/09/2013 11:13 pm
Post by: arachnitect on 09/09/2013 11:22 pm
The current Aerojet Rocketdyne - UTC - RD-AMROSS - RD180 rights situation is not intended or expected to be permanent; see Aerojet Withholds Rocketdyne Payment Pending Russian Approval of RD-Amross Transfer (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36438aerojet-withholds-rocketdyne-payment-pending-russian-approval-of-rd), SpaceNews, July 2013.
In other words, the plan still is to transfer the RD-AMROSS stake to the new Aerojet, correct? It just isn't yet complete.
Or does LOXRP1 know something we don't?
Post by: LOXRP1 on 09/10/2013 02:38 am
Post by: joek on 09/10/2013 03:07 am
Just saying that alongside technical issues here, there are many many political ones. Ownership of RD AMROSS being but one. Its probably easier to solve the technical ones.
Are you saying that you have (1) specific knowledge of factors that may prevent transfer of UTC AD-AMROSS rights to GenCorp; or (2) are simply making a general statement as to potential political barriers to transfer of UTC AD-AMROSS rights to GenCorp? I ask because I would hope and expect that both UTC and GenCorp would have done appropriate consultation and due dilligence before conducting the transaction. Beyond that, are we missing something obvious?
Post by: Prober on 09/11/2013 10:00 pm
Since the subject is manufacturing rocket engines. Water jet cutting etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nyb_V7Hfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nyb_V7Hfc)
Post by: Lobo on 09/14/2013 12:03 am
Got a real find here
Since the subject is manufacturing rocket engines. Water jet cutting etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nyb_V7Hfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nyb_V7Hfc)
If I spoke Russian, it'd probably make more sense. ;-)
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/19/2013 02:28 pm
Aerojet has enough NK-33s on hand to allow Orbital to complete the current Antares launch contracts.
I would imagine that Orbital would go back to a solid first stage for launching Cygnus in the future if a suitable replacement for the AJ-26/NK-33 can't be found.
Article in Av Week about this exact problem is here: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_18_2013_p0-618174.xml . The part relevant to this thread says:
Quote
Once the old Russian engines run out, Culbertson said, Orbital has plans to find a replacement that will enable it to continue flying Antares.
“We’re looking at what the options are, who has engines that might be compatible and what’s available and how long would it take to develop and/or order them,” Culbertson said. “So we’ve got a very active effort going on.”
That effort includes discussions with “everybody who says they make an engine,” he said.
Post by: USFdon on 09/19/2013 08:12 pm
Post by: Lurker Steve on 09/19/2013 08:15 pm
Safe to assume that they will try to get their hands on the remaining NK-33's in Russia?
I think the remaining ones are spoken for (Soyuz 2.1 ??)
If Orbital commits, they will restart production on new NK-33s.
Post by: baldusi on 09/19/2013 10:21 pm
Problem is who's paying for all the new tooling and modernization program at JSC "KUZNETSOV". Soyuz-2.1v could replace the NK-33 with a RD-193 to become Soyuz-2.1d. Since the NPO Energomash has made some serious investment on the production front, they can supply all the necessary RD-171M for Zenit, RD-180 for Atlas V, RD-191 for Angara and the RD-192 for Soyuz-2.1d. If the manufacturing of Angara takes off and the production is moved to Perm, then they would have a lot of spare capacity for RD-193.Safe to assume that they will try to get their hands on the remaining NK-33's in Russia?
I think the remaining ones are spoken for (Soyuz 2.1 ??)
If Orbital commits, they will restart production on new NK-33s.
Post by: Prober on 09/19/2013 11:56 pm
Post by: Lobo on 09/20/2013 06:22 pm
Safe to assume that they will try to get their hands on the remaining NK-33's in Russia?
How many NK-33's are left in Russia?
Post by: Lobo on 09/20/2013 07:04 pm
Problem is who's paying for all the new tooling and modernization program at JSC "KUZNETSOV". Soyuz-2.1v could replace the NK-33 with a RD-193 to become Soyuz-2.1d. Since the NPO Energomash has made some serious investment on the production front, they can supply all the necessary RD-171M for Zenit, RD-180 for Atlas V, RD-191 for Angara and the RD-192 for Soyuz-2.1d. If the manufacturing of Angara takes off and the production is moved to Perm, then they would have a lot of spare capacity for RD-193.Safe to assume that they will try to get their hands on the remaining NK-33's in Russia?
I think the remaining ones are spoken for (Soyuz 2.1 ??)
If Orbital commits, they will restart production on new NK-33s.
All that's possible, I just hate to see two US launchers dependant on Russian engines, even if it's economically more attractive.
I still think there could be a real market for a US-made replacement for RD-180/NK-33/RD-193. Actually not much need for the singular NK-33/RD-193, if there was an RD-180 replacement. As that could be used for both Atlas V and Antares.
If Aerojet-Rocketdyne is able to come up with a 100% US-made RD-180 replacement that could compete cost wise with the Russian one, then the whole RD AMROSS deal can go away (I think?) and we can have two launchers sharing the same engine. Whether that's an AJ-1E6 or whatever. Developed with the needs of both Atlas and Antares in mind.
Orbital needs to probably lock down more commercial business for Antares than just COTS though, to make having a US made engine more attractive.
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/20/2013 08:32 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/20/2013 09:07 pm
If Aerojet-Rocketdyne is able to come up with a 100% US-made RD-180 replacement that could compete cost wise with the Russian one, then the whole RD AMROSS deal can go away (I think?) and we can have two launchers sharing the same engine. Whether that's an AJ-1E6 or whatever. Developed with the needs of both Atlas and Antares in mind.Here's the problem. Aerojet Rocketdyne is now a monopoly. It controls U.S. access to both RD-180 and NK-33. It produces no hydrocarbon engine of its own, and has no incentive to do so.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: a_langwich on 09/20/2013 09:15 pm
Just saying that alongside technical issues here, there are many many political ones. Ownership of RD AMROSS being but one. Its probably easier to solve the technical ones.
Well, if the American entities are the ones trying to "solve" all the problems, yes, the political problems (in Russia) are well-nigh unsolvable.
That said, a little patience, and perhaps all this works out. As soon as Russia approves export of the RD-180 again, A/R takes PWR's place in RD AMROSS, and things move along.
Whether Russia will re-approve the export to the new entity is unknown. Common sense says of course they will, but common sense is often a casualty in politics. I think eventually they will.
Even if Russia does go ahead and re-approve the export, to jump back on the old soapbox, certain lessons remain:
--if ULA ever had any thoughts about gradually phasing out Delta in favor of Atlas, they should reconsider (and if USAF is considering its interests properly, it should block that direction)
--outsourcing LRE production may make short-term business sense for ULA, but if they allow Aerojet/Rocketdyne's engine capabilities to wither, they are placing their family jewels in someone else's vise
Other musings...
--the SLS work on J-2X and RS-25D/E (and F-1A?) is probably helping Rocketdyne maintain its engineering and production capabilities. If SLS were to be cancelled and an EELV-class launch / fuel depot approach were taken, would Aerojet/Rocketdyne have enough business to maintain its LRE experience? It's hard to believe they could maintain a robust engineering staff and robust production capability on a tiny handful of RS-68s per year, plus RL-10s when that glut gets worked out. Are there big USAF LRE-development contracts I'm forgetting? There might be a few more Delta launches with the depot approach, but likely a good chunk of business would go to cheaper new space companies, especially when lifting fuel. Of course this is not a showstopper, it's just an added cost to the EELV/depot alternative. It does, however, join many other commonly-ignored costs.
Some of the jobs in that "jobs program" are saving the bacon of ULA right now, or at least making it less sensible for Russia to keep holding them over the fire.
Post by: a_langwich on 09/20/2013 10:48 pm
If two out of four (five or six, are we counting Minotaur and Pegasus?) medium US launch vehicles need Russian engines, that's not exactly that big of a deal. They should do what's cheapest and most effective. That's capitalism.
The Minotaurs do not exist past the inventory of surplus Minuteman/Peacekeeper motors.
What happens if Aerojet/Rocketdyne goes bankrupt on the paltry business of RS-68s for Delta? Or, to avoid bankruptcy, lays off most of their engineering staff, and gets rids of all their excess production capacity? That's capitalism, too. Have you considered why Pratt & Whitney was selling Rocketdyne? And why nobody else was particularly interested in buying? Here's a hint: it wasn't because they were doing fabulously well, and making great profits.
If that happens, ULA and USAF are in trouble, because their RD-180 hedge got wiped out AND their RS-68 program is extremely fragile. Not only that, but virtually all of their options (and every other American launch company) to build any future launch vehicle are gone, unless they start a new liquid engine company and liquid engine program, or use foreign suppliers, or stick to solid rockets. Maybe Northrop Grumman / TRW still has some capability, although I wonder how much of their expertise is now at SpaceX.
Just because SpaceX had a billionaire investor coupled with angel VCs, and put together an excellent team, and built a liquid rocket engine and orbital launch vehicle from scratch, doesn't mean that approach is likely to work again. Blue Origin hasn't done it yet. Armadillo, Masten, XCOR, Virgin/Scaled, Rotary Rocket, Space Launch, AirLaunch, the list could go on a long time...haven't done it. Orbital built an orbital launch vehicle, but has always bought engines from someone else.
Let me make it clear: I don't have a problem with using foreign suppliers. I thought the original RD-180 purchase was a smart decision. I'm a fan of the NK-33. But strategically, you have to consider all of the costs, and if outsourcing engines kills off your domestic liquid engine supplier or even just cripples its ability to compete, you will pay in the long term.
Post by: Prober on 09/20/2013 11:10 pm
This is not just an engine problem. This is an mfg. industry problem in general. Slap a label on something and sell it is easier than manufacturing it.If Aerojet-Rocketdyne is able to come up with a 100% US-made RD-180 replacement that could compete cost wise with the Russian one, then the whole RD AMROSS deal can go away (I think?) and we can have two launchers sharing the same engine. Whether that's an AJ-1E6 or whatever. Developed with the needs of both Atlas and Antares in mind.Here's the problem. Aerojet Rocketdyne is now a monopoly. It controls U.S. access to both RD-180 and NK-33. It produces no hydrocarbon engine of its own, and has no incentive to do so.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: woods170 on 10/18/2013 06:16 am
http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/37737atlas-5-engine-maker-stays-with-utc-for-now
Quote
“There are a number of risks and uncertainties relating to the [RD Amross] acquisition,” GenCorp said in its SEC filing, dated Oct. 15, citing Russian government regulatory approval as one of the necessary conditions to the purchase. It raised the possibility that Russian regulators might refuse the transfer of UTC’s ownership to GenCorp.
Post by: Prober on 10/18/2013 11:30 pm
New development. Apparently there is some truth in the rumour:If Russia wishes to go down this road, more power to them. As a business person, several work arounds are available.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/37737atlas-5-engine-maker-stays-with-utc-for-now (http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/37737atlas-5-engine-maker-stays-with-utc-for-now)Quote“There are a number of risks and uncertainties relating to the [RD Amross] acquisition,” GenCorp said in its SEC filing, dated Oct. 15, citing Russian government regulatory approval as one of the necessary conditions to the purchase. It raised the possibility that Russian regulators might refuse the transfer of UTC’s ownership to GenCorp.
Post by: LOXRP1 on 11/01/2013 12:09 pm
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/156/
Post by: Lobo on 12/06/2013 03:41 pm
Four more RD-180 engines delivered to the US.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/156/
Time to stockpile!
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/06/2013 04:54 pm
Does that mean they have actually produced a complete working RD-180 engine that has been fired on a test stand ?
Post by: Lars_J on 12/06/2013 04:58 pm
So the press release says that P&W demonstrated the ability to co-produce the engine in the US.
Does that mean they have actually produced a complete working RD-180 engine that has been fired on a test stand?
Of course they haven't.
Post by: sdsds on 04/03/2014 06:09 am
Four more RD-180 engines delivered to the US.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/156/
And a hint that the next batch is expected ~1 year after those:
an industry source told me recently that ULA has two-and-a-half years worth of engines in the United States. “We have many more on contract with deliveries beginning in November,” the source said.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/spacex-turns-up-heat-on-ula-sen-feinstein-writes-secdef/
Does anyone know, is this once again expected to be a batch of four engines?
Post by: DGH on 04/03/2014 09:29 am
Four more RD-180 engines delivered to the US.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/156/
And a hint that the next batch is expected ~1 year after those:
an industry source told me recently that ULA has two-and-a-half years worth of engines in the United States. “We have many more on contract with deliveries beginning in November,” the source said.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/spacex-turns-up-heat-on-ula-sen-feinstein-writes-secdef/
Does anyone know, is this once again expected to be a batch of four engines?
Looks like 5.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39441air-force-to-re-examine-rd-180-production-dual-launch-funding (http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39441air-force-to-re-examine-rd-180-production-dual-launch-funding)
ULA currently has 2.5 years’ worth of Atlas 5 engine inventory on hand at its factory in Decatur, Ala., and is expected to receive five engines next year and six engines in 2015.
Post by: The_Ronin on 04/03/2014 06:47 pm
Shelton, Sapp, Loverro and Klinger all back idea of US built competitor to RD-180. Rep. Rogers says finding the $$$ is Congress' problem.
Why is finding the money Congress's problem? I would think that P&W and ULA would pony up out of pocket if they wanted to keep Atlas flying. Let me rephrase that... they SHOULD pony up out of pocket.
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/03/2014 06:49 pm
Post by: The_Ronin on 04/03/2014 06:56 pm
That is not how ULA is designed to work.
Entirely too sad and true.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/03/2014 07:20 pm
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN
Shelton, Sapp, Loverro and Klinger all back idea of US built competitor to RD-180. Rep. Rogers says finding the $$$ is Congress' problem.
Why is finding the money Congress's problem? I would think that P&W and ULA would pony up out of pocket if they wanted to keep Atlas flying. Let me rephrase that... they SHOULD pony up out of pocket.
ULA has an engine supplier. If the US government wants them to use a higher cost builder for the exact same or equivalent engine, then they need to cover the cost increase.
I'm not sure what it takes to develop a domestic RP-1 manufacturing base for this sized engine, but it could be on the same order of magnitude that NASA wanted to spend to develop a commercial space flight industry. Both efforts will have / require significant US Government funding.
Post by: peter-b on 04/03/2014 07:50 pm
I'm not sure what it takes to develop a domestic RP-1 manufacturing base for this sized engine, but it could be on the same order of magnitude that NASA wanted to spend to develop a commercial space flight industry.
That's unreasonably expensive. :o ::)
Post by: Kasponaut on 04/03/2014 08:03 pm
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN
Shelton, Sapp, Loverro and Klinger all back idea of US built competitor to RD-180. Rep. Rogers says finding the $$$ is Congress' problem.
Why is finding the money Congress's problem? I would think that P&W and ULA would pony up out of pocket if they wanted to keep Atlas flying. Let me rephrase that... they SHOULD pony up out of pocket.
The Congress AND the US rocket engine makers SHOULD pony up RIGHT NOW and start making a US replacement for the RD-180 NOW!
Post by: BrightLight on 04/03/2014 08:18 pm
Are there no alternatives to the Atlas or Antares in existence?
Are there payloads that can only be launched on the Atlas or Antares?
Are there no other engines that can go into an Atlas or Antares?
Post by: butters on 04/03/2014 08:30 pm
Why should the American tax payer fund the building of a Russian engine in the US?
That's like asking why the American taxpayer should fund the violent overthrow of democratically-elected governments. We've been voting for this kind of foreign policy for several decades. Why should anybody else pay for consequences? Although an argument could be made that lobbying from ULA's parent corporations does have a substantial impact on U.S. foreign policy. Maybe ULA should pay after all.
Post by: BrightLight on 04/03/2014 08:35 pm
If there is a critical need and/or national security requirement that dictates the RD-180 engine on a LV then the government should step in, else ULA and Orbital have a problem. That being said, will the government fork over 1 billion to build our own 1980's era engine?Why should the American tax payer fund the building of a Russian engine in the US?
That's like asking why the American taxpayer should fund the violent overthrow of democratically-elected governments. We've been voting for this kind of foreign policy for several decades. Why should anybody else pay for consequences? Although an argument could be made that lobbying from ULA's parent corporations does have a substantial impact on U.S. foreign policy. Maybe ULA should pay after all.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/03/2014 08:49 pm
I'm not sure what it takes to develop a domestic RP-1 manufacturing base for this sized engine, but it could be on the same order of magnitude that NASA wanted to spend to develop a commercial space flight industry.
That's unreasonably expensive. :o ::)
On paper the TRW TR107 seems like one option for replacement engine. I don't know what stage it's developed was taken to.
Post by: Kasponaut on 04/03/2014 09:04 pm
Why should the American tax payer fund the building of a Russian engine in the US?
Are there no alternatives to the Atlas or Antares in existence?
Are there payloads that can only be launched on the Atlas or Antares?
Are there no other engines that can go into an Atlas or Antares?
I mean a newly developed US engine.
Post by: a_langwich on 04/03/2014 10:33 pm
Why should the American tax payer fund the building of a Russian engine in the US?
Presumably, the American tax payer would not have to fund anything other than paying for more launches.
Let me repeat, because it will be forgotten in the noise, not a single dollar of US taxpayer funds has yet been requested or been proposed by anyone involved AFAIK. There is every likelihood that this will be resolved by the market, and Aerojet/Rocketdyne and ULA and perhaps Orbital will either choose to accept the risk of Russian production, or arrange funding US production by a large block-buy order of engines.
But, in the hypothetical case that private financing alone could not do the job, here are some reasons why the taxpayer might see it as the best use of their dollars:
-- The RD-180 is one of the highest performing kerolox engines in the world,
-- it has an extensive flight history demonstrating reliability and performance,
-- the Atlas V is already designed around it, so its use makes existing investments perform,
-- the US manufacturing base could really use the experience at building an ORSC and learning from Russian manufacturing whatever is useful,
-- the ongoing engineering experience with ORSC provides valuable new capabilities and experience and perceived credibility or TRL for follow-on engine and LV development, and
-- developing an alternative, if done by NASA/USG, would cost a billion+ and years of time, and if past history predicts will result in a cancelled program and no engine AFTER the billions and years are spent.
Are there no alternatives to the Atlas or Antares in existence?
Yes, there are. Atlas alternatives include the Delta IV, which is reportedly a little more expensive, and the Falcon 9, which is a little less proven, both of which cover only the lower end of Atlas V's capability range. To cover the higher end, there is the Delta IV Heavy, which is much more expensive, and the Falcon Heavy, which has not flown yet, and will not be ready to compete if its manifest is any guide until 2017. Atlas V is currently the most versatile launch vehicle in the American inventory, and it would be desirable to maintain that capability.
With regard to Antares, it's harder to say. Obviously it provides competition for Falcon 9 in commercial cargo, and launch assurance if a flight mishap occurs to SpaceX. It provides "industrial assurance" in the event that something happens to Elon Musk or SpaceX the company. But AFAIK they have not settled on an RD-180 re-engine to Antares, so an American production RD-180 might not even be used by Antares. (Presumably the business case for American production might force this to be settled before a production line was financed.)
Are there payloads that can only be launched on the Atlas or Antares?
For the Atlas V 541/551 launches, the only current alternative costs perhaps a hundred million dollars more. In some cases, yes, that means they can only be launched on Atlas or they won't go at all.
Not sure about MMRTG launches, whether they can go on Delta or not. Only Atlas is being human-rated for Commercial Crew vehicles; of course SpaceX has Dragon (crew) but again for mission assurance and schedule maintenance it is desirable to have two launch providers.
Are there no other engines that can go into an Atlas or Antares?
Rockets aren't Legos. Anything is possible, with a billion here and 5-6 years there, but it is unlikely the business case for an extensive redesign of Atlas would close without help from the US taxpayer. There are no close alternatives in the US, close meaning kerolox engines of roughly similar thrust and efficiency numbers.
Antares is perhaps a little different, since it may be facing a mandatory engine swap, and because Orbital may have done design work for several different engines. The RD-180 is the closest alternative to its AJ-26. Other alternatives might include restarting NK-33 production in Russia, starting Russian RD-181 production, or trying to get export approval for Russian RD-193 engines. Negotiations for those last three might be ticklish given the current situation, but who knows? Money opens doors.
I think (can you tell? :) ) that US production could be a good thing, and would prove to be a good investment for the US taxpayer if asked to fund a few parts of the process. SpaceX has their Merlin 1D, but unless you want the rest of the industry to close up shop and crown SpaceX as the new monopoly, there needs to be a commercially available good kerolox alternative.
Post by: Antares on 04/04/2014 06:49 pm
Post by: pippin on 04/04/2014 06:52 pm
Edit: everything, not anything.
Post by: BrightLight on 04/04/2014 06:58 pm
Well, they are not without competition so they can't charge anything...if ULA has development funds, they can use those (It is my understanding that ULA has no internal development funds) or the parent company can support P&W to build the US version of the RD-180. Since there is competition how will LM or ULA justify the government paying to build the US version?
Post by: pippin on 04/04/2014 07:00 pm
Post by: Lobo on 04/28/2014 09:46 pm
A rebuilt engine is a new configuration.....it would not be certified to fly payloads per the new NASA/NRO/Air Force certification standard (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34573.msg1189798#msg1189798)....and an interesting, related article from Doug:... Or would they pay ULA to fund Aerojet to built a US built RD-180 and still support both EELV's?
ULA Speeds Up Engine Deliveries as House Mulls Ban on Russian Motor Use
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/28/52226/
I wonder, as brought up by the article, how all this will play out for Orbital as well?
Since this is a little too far off topic for the Musk Presser thread here, I figured this was a better home for this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34552.540
-----
Interesting. Would actually sound like there couldn't be a US built RD-180 that could be a drop in substitute for the Russian built one? It'd have to go through a new qualification process?
That would make a US built version less likely to be a reality it would seem.
So can the government ban the purchase of RD-180 all together? Or just ban their use on certain payloads, like DoD payloads?
For example, if ULA had a commercial customer for an Atlas V-401, could they continue to buy and use RD-180's for such payloads, and just payloads under the ban to Delta IV? Could OSC at some point buy them for commercial payloads?
Or would they be banned from any future purchases of RD-180's completely, by any US company for any reason?
Post by: DragonRider on 05/13/2014 02:18 pm
Russia will ban the United States from using Russian-made rocket engines for military launches, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-13/russia-responds-to-us-sanctions-over-ukraine/
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2014 02:26 pm
Of interest:Also banning GPS in Russia, and ending ISS in 2020, according to the following story. I'll need to see this story reported by other news agencies though. If true, it is sobering.
Russia will ban the United States from using Russian-made rocket engines for military launches, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-13/russia-responds-to-us-sanctions-over-ukraine/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3155391/posts
OK, ITAR-TASS reports that RD-180 (and NK-33) "may" be banned "if" they are used for "military purposes", whatever that means. There seems to be a background about GLONASS stations not being allowed in the U.S.
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/731443
Whatever the real story turns out to be, it seems quite clear that, given their use as a political lever, Russian rocket engines are no longer going to be part of long-term U.S. space planning - unless U.S. leadership is entirely asleep at the switch.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/13/2014 02:38 pm
Functionally, there is no way Russia can enforce this rule other than by just cutting off all supply of RD-180s and NK-33s and that isn't likely. That said, one should never underestimate a politician's ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
I'm not going to shout "the sky is falling" because Russia does not speak with one voice when it comes to policy and previous announcements have faded into history without action. However, if I were responsible for launches for Space Command and the NRO, I would be calling in the reps from ULA and Aerojet/PWR for urgent consultations.
Post by: Kabloona on 05/13/2014 02:58 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/13/2014 03:00 pm
Post by: newpylong on 05/13/2014 03:00 pm
They can go ahead and leave the ISS. They can't even launch one module on time let alone enough for an entire station. Then there is the funding. They want to build PPK, Angara, a SHLV and now OPSEK all at the same time?
Post by: rst on 05/13/2014 03:02 pm
Functionally, there is no way Russia can enforce this rule other than by just cutting off all supply of RD-180s and NK-33s and that isn't likely. That said, one should never underestimate a politician's ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
I thought that all of Aerojet's NK-33s, and ULA's claimed two-year reserve of RD-180s, were already out of Russia, in which case it would be tough for Russia to somehow pull them back.
On the other hand, is ULA currently reliant on Russian assistance for Atlas launches? I do remember hearing about a Russian engineer being on site as part of launch review; does anyone know what's their role?
Post by: Kabloona on 05/13/2014 03:04 pm
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
But even "talk" of a ban changes the political dynamic. ULA cannot afford even the perception that the RD-180 supply may be in jeopardy. It undercuts their "assured access" claims, forces DoD/Congress to consider options for building a domestic replacement, and opens the door a little wider for competition from SpaceX.
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2014 03:06 pm
I thought that all of Aerojet's NK-33s, and ULA's claimed two-year reserve of RD-180s, were already out of Russia, in which case it would be tough for Russia to somehow pull them back.There are stories about "spare parts" that limit what the U.S. users can do without Russian engineering assistance. One rumor was about "starting cartridges" for NK-33, for example, only being provided shortly before launch. Rumor though.
On the other hand, is ULA currently reliant on Russian assistance for Atlas launches? I do remember hearing about a Russian engineer being on site as part of launch review; does anyone know what's their role?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/13/2014 03:16 pm
Post by: Kabloona on 05/13/2014 03:22 pm
I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines
Not when the US is the biggest loser from intellectual property theft around the globe and is trying to maintain legal protections for US intellectual property. Violating the RD-180 license would win a battle but lose a war.
Post by: woods170 on 05/13/2014 03:25 pm
I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines. What is required is for the hand-wringers crying that it would 'cost too much' to be slapped down.Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
Post by: woods170 on 05/13/2014 03:26 pm
This exactly.I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines
Not when the US is the biggest loser from intellectual property theft around the globe and is trying to maintain legal protections for US intellectual property. Violating the RD-180 license would win a battle but lose a war.
Post by: BrightLight on 05/13/2014 03:31 pm
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines. What is required is for the hand-wringers crying that it would 'cost too much' to be slapped down.Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
Post by: Kabloona on 05/13/2014 03:33 pm
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines. What is required is for the hand-wringers crying that it would 'cost too much' to be slapped down.Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
It has the license until 2022, at which time renewal is not guaranteed, obviously.
And it would take the US probably 5-6 years just to develop the capacity to produce the RD-180, meaning there would be only maybe a year or two of production before the license expires...if we were lucky.
So the real issue is what happens after 2022.
Post by: AncientU on 05/13/2014 03:40 pm
I think the real question is what happens in 2014.As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?I find it really, really hard to believe that, if Russia decides to play hard-ball, the US won't just tear up the RD-180 license and do whatever they like including building their own spare parts, starter cartridges and even full engines. What is required is for the hand-wringers crying that it would 'cost too much' to be slapped down.Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
It has the license until 2022, at which time renewal is not guaranteed, obviously.
And it would take the US probably 5-6 years just to develop the capacity to produce the RD-180, meaning there would be only maybe a year or two of production before the license expires...if we were lucky.
So the real issue is what happens after 2022.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/13/2014 03:47 pm
We certainly aren't there yet but there might be a cold couple of years whilst all sides nurse grievances and hurt egos. Worst case, IMO at the moment, is that Atlas-V might see some of its more distant in the future payloads sent to Delta-IV and there may be a partial stand-down of the type.
Oddly enough, I could see this forcing ULA to use Atlas-V only in the civil commercial market, which could have some interesting consequences.
Post by: Hauerg on 05/13/2014 03:48 pm
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
...
RD-180 money is peanuts compared to the money that needs to be moved to (partieally re-)integrate those Urkrainian parts.
They can easily get this back by minimally adjusting the price for CNG.
Post by: rst on 05/13/2014 04:03 pm
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?
Having a license is one thing. Having a demonstrated capability is another. The American licensees have built significant components, but not nearly all of them. (BTW, to the extent that the US treats this as a legal matter at all, it may be relevant what language there is -- either in the license agreements, or outside them, in the laws of relevant jurisdictions -- which might allow Energomash, or the Russian government, to revoke the license.)
Post by: butters on 05/13/2014 04:22 pm
If we can't get our hands on the engines, then we'll have to field an alternative, and while the design details of the RD-180 might discourage a close copy, I can't imagine Russian-held intellectual property rights getting in the way of whatever the Pentagon wants to do. Russia could complain to the UN if they want, but that won't accomplish anything.
Post by: Hauerg on 05/13/2014 04:31 pm
The USA simply cannot ignore the IP. Ask the pharma industry what their thoughts are on this.
Post by: Lars_J on 05/13/2014 04:35 pm
Post by: DMeader on 05/13/2014 04:38 pm
I can't imagine Russian-held intellectual property rights getting in the way of whatever the Pentagon wants to do. Russia could complain to the UN if they want, but that won't accomplish anything.
Is that how we do business? Frak it, just thumb our nose at international law and prior agreements? I certainly hope not.
I think getting into this deal was a bad idea from the start, but since we ARE in it, we stand up, abide by the deal and do the right thing.
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2014 04:49 pm
http://rt.com/news/158680-russia-usa-rocket-gps/
It includes the following statement regarding existing engines already shipped.
"“We proceed from the fact that without guarantees that our engines are used for non-military spacecraft launches only, we won’t be able to supply them to the US,” Rogozin is cited as saying by Interfax news agency.
If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added."
A key question here is, what is Rogozin's definition of a "military spacecraft"?
This Bloomberg article includes a response to this news today from the Pentagon. It says that ULA is working on its own response.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/russia-bans-rocket-engine-sales-to-u-s-military.html
I think that today's news may deserve its own new thread. Either that or we can go ahead and remove the "rumor" from this thread title.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: meekGee on 05/13/2014 06:16 pm
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
You know, when an engineer sees a failure mechanism, it doesn't matter to him whether the accident has been demonstrated yet.
Why does it matter if the Russians are still just talking, or have actually pulled the the trigger?
The mechanism was clear for many years. Now we had the luxury of having warning shots demonstrated to us, which really is very nice of the Russians. ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.")
And still we go "meh, they're just warning shots".
You can't responsibly rely on an argument like "they need the money more than we need the engines". Make your own engines, and then you don't need the argument. And you have more money.
Post by: LOXRP1 on 05/13/2014 06:30 pm
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/13/2014 06:38 pm
Rogazin - "Russia is ready to continue deliveries of RD-180 engines to the US only under the guarantee that they won't be used in the interests of the Pentagon."
Isn't it obvious? Don't buy your engines from Russian gangsters*. And that's exactly what anyone with decision making power is in the Putin regime. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend that's not the reality.
Can you imagine Bolden going on his twitter account threatening Russian space projects? Or joking about abandoning Russian cosmonauts on the space station? It's inconceivable for so many reasons. These guys are thugs.
*I'm sure most of the Roscosmos engineers are genuinely good people and are not thugs, but clearly the people in charge are.
It shouldn't take a twitter posting to figure out an ex-KGB agent and his associates are thugs. As for Russia breaching contract, if there is one, on RD-180 delivery:
Quote
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.[2][3]
Pieces of paper won't insure the supply of engines.
Post by: PahTo on 05/13/2014 06:57 pm
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Good stuff--thanks for stating your availability, Mr. vanGiessen. While I won't be able to attend, I would hope that some NSF'ers will, and post summaries of conversations here...
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2014 07:17 pm
Now, when Russia itself directly threatens to halt RD-180 shipments, not a word, so far.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: PahTo on 05/13/2014 07:24 pm
(edit: corrected typo)
Post by: Kabloona on 05/13/2014 07:27 pm
When the SpaceX lawsuit resulted in a temporary injunction against RD-180, United Launch Alliance issued multiple press releases and its officials made statements about how dangerous this SpaceX threat was to U.S. national security - about how reckless SpaceX actions were. ULA all but called Elon Musk a traitor to the United States.
Now, when Russia itself directly threatens to halt RD-180 shipments, not a word, so far.
- Ed Kyle
Yes, how quickly things change. And there's plenty of blame to go around. Jeff Foust has a good summary of the RD-180 history and it's clear that everyone involved was happy to play along with the Russians as long as times were good, and no one, ULA included, wanted to spend the $$ needed to develop an alternative for just such a scenario:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
"“The bottom line is that the DOD didn’t invest, industry didn’t invest, the Congress didn’t make them, and it never happened,” said Michael Griffin, the former NASA administrator and current chairman and CEO of Schafer Corporation, during a meeting of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) on May 9 in Washington."
Post by: jcm on 05/13/2014 08:15 pm
If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added."
- Ed Kyle
I looked at the original Russian transcript at http://government.ru/vice_news/12361
and this sentence leapt out at me.
Does anyone know what role Energomash employees have post delivery of the engines? The implication of this sentence is that
it may not matter that we have a stock of them if we still need the Russians to service them prior to launch.
Post by: AncientU on 05/13/2014 08:36 pm
If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added."
- Ed Kyle
I looked at the original Russian transcript at http://government.ru/vice_news/12361
and this sentence leapt out at me.
Does anyone know what role Energomash employees have post delivery of the engines? The implication of this sentence is that
it may not matter that we have a stock of them if we still need the Russians to service them prior to launch.
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
Mods: Please move if this is the wrong thread -- losing track of what is where.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/13/2014 09:52 pm
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
It would not surprise me to learn that the answers to all of these questions are suddenly classified above top secret. They are also likely the subject of extremely adversarial meetings at the Pentagon at which blame aplenty is being apportioned out as well as scapegoats identified and earmarked for ruination.
Post by: veblen on 05/13/2014 10:00 pm
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
It would not surprise me to learn that the answers to all of these questions are suddenly classified above top secret. They are also likely the subject of extremely adversarial meetings at the Pentagon at which blame aplenty is being apportioned out as well as scapegoats identified and earmarked for ruination.
What about the politicians (on both sides)? They created this whole framework. ULA at one end of the process are like the worker bees keeping the hive running (smoothly).
Post by: meekGee on 05/13/2014 10:41 pm
If there's a problem launching near term Atlases, they'll call up Gass to re-testify, and pretend that they didn't know what he'll have to tell them.
That's how politicians do.
But other than the questions on this forum, we haven't heard any indication that there's a problem with the next two years worth of launches.
Post by: meekGee on 05/13/2014 11:20 pm
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Post by: Halidon on 05/13/2014 11:47 pm
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:You knew this was going to happen when SpaceX annexed Crimea.....
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2014 11:57 pm
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Beyond ridiculous.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/13/2014 11:57 pm
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:Extremely poor judgement by ULA. I cannot understand how this works. Between Senator Shelby's mouth and PR like this, they don't need SpaceX to do a single thing more for them to win outright. Unbelievable.
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2014 12:04 am
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
That is ridiculous. I understand the serious concerns given by ULA regarding the recent legal mess surrounding DOD contracts but it is absolutely repugnant to suggest that Spacex is dictating policy in regards to Russia.
Russia itself is dictating the policy by systematically seeking to return to a cold war format, what is happening now is the sign-affect of that. If Russia was able to harm Spacex in some way policy wise, I have no doubt they would, but Spacex being a domestic company simply is immune to the affects of this.
Therefore the bottom line is this is ridiculous. But I would add that people and ULA itself, should not blame ULA for poor planning if Russian threats are carried out. If anything the poor planning lies with roughly a decade of poor space policy planning by 3 presidential administrations in total. Multiple times the need for backup plans for US Russian space programs were pointed out by multiple experts and select committees and systematically multiple times these calls were ignored. If people want to play the blame game blame the politicians who would rather spend money on ridiculous earmarks or petty national security programs such as prism rather than real national security interests.
But in summation, I am quite sure now that the tone has been set that further negative remarks by both parties is likely to occur. No matter who or what "started" it this has now devolved to an excuse for mudslinging.
Post by: Lar on 05/14/2014 12:09 am
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Here's a link to the source
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43219
Post by: mmeijeri on 05/14/2014 01:07 am
Post by: mlindner on 05/14/2014 01:14 am
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
I'm looking forward to ULA execs being dragged before a hearing and bending over for this. This is so many ways backwards that I don't have words to describe how funny I find this to be.
Post by: Jim on 05/14/2014 01:25 am
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/14/2014 01:53 am
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:Huh? Don't get it. Try again.
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
Is this a team sport kind of thing? I flat out don't get those - my fault.
Post by: mlindner on 05/14/2014 01:53 am
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
And mods can delete them if they're off topic.
Post by: friendly3 on 05/14/2014 01:54 am
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
Well, this is not a ULA thread but a Russia/RD-180 thread. And I guess blowing a gasket is far less worse than having no engine to put at the bottom of your rocket...
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/14/2014 02:06 am
;D
Post by: Lar on 05/14/2014 02:07 am
I do not think that anyone meant to imply that anyone would be exulting over misfortune such as launch hardware failure. Right?
Oh never mind, Chris said it better...
Post by: butters on 05/14/2014 03:06 am
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson.
Post by: WHAP on 05/14/2014 03:09 am
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
You know, when an engineer sees a failure mechanism, it doesn't matter to him whether the accident has been demonstrated yet.
Why does it matter if the Russians are still just talking, or have actually pulled the the trigger?
The mechanism was clear for many years. Now we had the luxury of having warning shots demonstrated to us, which really is very nice of the Russians. ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.")
And still we go "meh, they're just warning shots".
You can't responsibly rely on an argument like "they need the money more than we need the engines". Make your own engines, and then you don't need the argument. And you have more money.
How exactly do you have more money?
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/14/2014 03:14 am
I don't have time to read this thread, but I will say that you all need to make sure your posts are USEFUL. Any sign of "huh" "OMG" and "WTF" will result in me getting on a plane, coming to your house, knocking on your front door and asking to speak to your parents about you..........
;D
Frankly, you coming to my front door sounds more like an opportunity than a threat!
Post by: sdsds on 05/14/2014 03:22 am
Post by: Lar on 05/14/2014 03:30 am
I don't have time to read this thread, but I will say that you all need to make sure your posts are USEFUL. Any sign of "huh" "OMG" and "WTF" will result in me getting on a plane, coming to your house, knocking on your front door and asking to speak to your parents about you..........
;D
Frankly, you coming to my front door sounds more like an opportunity than a threat!
I was thinking that too. Well, I would have to block export of my MISB 7470 "Space Shuttle Discovery" set to the UK if he turned up.
http://brickset.com/sets/7470-1 ... isn't it a beaut?
Aww, I'd probably give it to him anyway. Sorry for the off topic digression but we need some smiles.
Post by: friendly3 on 05/14/2014 03:33 am
<chanting>Space Race! Space Race! Space Race!</chanting>
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson.
I agree 100% with you.
I just learned that "Rogozin told reporters the Russian government has instructed Roscosmos to work with partners in the Asia-Pacific. Later Tuesday, Rogozin said on Twitter that Russian space officials will discuss bilateral cooperation on space projects with China on May 19, the eve of President Vladimir Putin's visit there".
So a future with Russia/China vs US/rising private companies seems far more exciting than the actual "boring" status quo.
Post by: tigerade on 05/14/2014 04:00 am
If all of this news really is true, how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales?
Post by: Thorny on 05/14/2014 04:14 am
This is really troubling that Russia is pulling the rug from under us, and even more troubling that we've put ourselves in a situation where a foreign government can effectively shut down our access to space.
If all of this news really is true, how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales?
Thursday, when Delta IV launches?
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2014 04:17 am
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
You know, when an engineer sees a failure mechanism, it doesn't matter to him whether the accident has been demonstrated yet.
Why does it matter if the Russians are still just talking, or have actually pulled the the trigger?
The mechanism was clear for many years. Now we had the luxury of having warning shots demonstrated to us, which really is very nice of the Russians. ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.")
And still we go "meh, they're just warning shots".
You can't responsibly rely on an argument like "they need the money more than we need the engines". Make your own engines, and then you don't need the argument. And you have more money.
How exactly do you have more money?
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
Post by: QuantumG on 05/14/2014 04:32 am
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
Post by: sdsds on 05/14/2014 04:33 am
how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales?
Thursday, when Delta IV launches?
What's the lead time on a Delta IV M+ (4,4)? Now that there's a somewhat more "common" CBC, is there anything to it other than calculating a few new ascent trajectories? Wikipedia ;) is currently claiming, "This would theoretically provide a GTO payload of 7,500 kg (16,600 lb) and an LEO payload of 14,800 kg (32,700 lb). This is the simplest variant to implement and is available within 36 months of the first order." But since it doesn't cite a reference it's unclear whether it takes into account the new M+ core.
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance?
Post by: rcoppola on 05/14/2014 04:51 am
You're both right but for different reasons. Although if you're looking for a perfect example of what meekGee means by pushing risk onto someone else, look no further then what Boeing did on the 787 program.Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2014 04:53 am
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
No, all too often this is only the stated reason. It's a reason that doesn't apply nearly as often as it is practiced.
Very often, the execs of a company, who have lost touch with the actual competencies, prefer to keep only the "brand", and the "business development abilities" of the company, and outsource pretty much everything else. Because engineering is messy, uncertain, capricious, and when it fails, you have to explain why... Whereas when you outsource, you put a wall around it, and you can always say "I gave it to the experts".
Rinse, lather repeat - and you have multiple levels of outsourcing. The theoretical rationale that you quote is nowhere to be seen.
Take the rocket at hand here. Did outsourcing make it cheaper compared to a company that builds engines in house? of course not. Could it not have been Lockheed's or Boeing's (or ULA's) business to make rocket engines? of course it could have. They just chose not go there.
Outsourcing became a battle cry taught in business schools. "What is YOUR outsourcing strategy"?
One of my the companies I had the most fortune to work with is TRUMPF. They make sheet metal cutting/bending/welding tools. Because they wanted to be in control, they learned how to make the lasers (CO2, then solid state) that power the tools. And the diodes that pump the lasers. And by virtue of that, they are one of the largest laser makers in the world. So they can cut metal.
It wasn't "their business" to make lasers. They made it their business, since it was the core of their machine.
Their factory tour is really fun, btw, since you can see TRUMPF machines making TRUMPF machines...
Post by: QuantumG on 05/14/2014 05:00 am
Post by: CJ on 05/14/2014 05:24 am
I wouldn't blame ULA alone for this, but the government as well; those Russian techs aren't coming and going from US Air Force bases without being noticed. At least, I would hope not. Therefor, the government must have been aware of the role of said Russian techs.
What I don't think we know yet is whether this is actual Russian policy, or just Rogazin partaking in his well-known penchant for shooting his mouth off. However, even if the latter, perhaps this will serve to alert those who don't yet believe it that US access to Russian engines is indeed something we can't count on.
As for ULA's attempt to blame SpaceX for the Russians cutting off RD-180... why don't they just get to the point and blame SpaceX for the Ukraine crisis, and while they're at it, the recent series of X-class solar flares?
IMHO, the next question ought to be, if the RD-180, including the current stockpile (if the Russian claims are true) is, or soon will be, no longer available, what's the best way of remedying the situation? Attempt a US version (which reportedly make take over half a decade) while Atlas production sits idle, or say goodby to Atlas 5?
Post by: su27k on 05/14/2014 05:30 am
That's complete nonsense.
No it's not, your argument would only work in an ideal market economy which has no political boundaries and irrational behaviors.
Quote
You outsource because making components isn't your business.
It could become your business if the component is a vital part of your product, an engine certainly qualifies and it has plenty of precedents in the car industry.
Quote
People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you.
So? If it's a vital part of your business, you'd better learn to do it better and cheaper than them, it's called competition.
Quote
It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor.
Or you could just buy a tax software to do it yourself instead of hiring an accountant. The difference between tax accountant and rocket engines are, if you don't like your accountant you can get a replacement easily, if you don't like your outsourced rocket engine you're in some serious trouble.
Quote
The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels.
Well that's the real world for you, it doesn't work like ideal market equations.
Quote
I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
They're not the one desperately looking for engine replacement, so I think everyone else should be learning from them.
Post by: jongoff on 05/14/2014 05:34 am
Quote
As usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2014 06:00 am
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
meekGee, do you realize your opinion about outsourcing is a fringe theory that is very far outside the norm of both U.S. business practice and academic business and economic study? QuantumG's opinion is very widely accepted in both business practice and theory.
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2014 06:22 am
meekGee, do you realize your opinion about outsourcing is a fringe theory that is very far outside the norm of both U.S. business practice and academic business and economic study? QuantumG's opinion is very widely accepted in both business practice and theory.
I think I even presented it as being "fringe", in that I think over-outsourcing is prevalent and very often not for the purpose of specialization. So by definition of my grievance, I am in the minority...
I understand the concept of specialization very well. I have an accountant, a lawyer, I eat at restaurants, and I don't make my own car.
But taking the concept and applying it everywhere is just like those endless discussions about free markets or socialism. Life is a lot more complicated than single-line economic theories.
What I'm saying is that under the banner of specialization, a whole lot more outsourcing is occurring than is really justified. It is often done, plain and simple, because it's the easy and safe option for the decision makers. From their point of view, it is a very rationale though selfish, decision.
Let's keep it to the RD-180 though. ULA had every reason to control the production of the engine, all the time in the world, and plenty of money supposedly dedicated to this. They chose not to do it. It was easier that way. There's no other explanation.
"Cheaper" doesn't even factor into it, since they're already charging whatever they want for it because it has to be "assured". So they can say "we have to make the engine in-house, so launches are now +100M", and the AF would have to say "thank you".
As it turns out, actually making it in house, for a different company, was in fact cheaper - but that's a whole new story.
Post by: Jakusb on 05/14/2014 06:30 am
Let me be clear: I suppose that mainly Putin is responsible for all this, but being happy to stop working with Russia is very naive and even dangerous.
I can only hope that diplomacy will resolve issues like Crimea soon and further deterioration to the relations between Russia and US can be prevented.
This does not mean I understand how the US got in a situation where they are at such a level depended on Russia for launching spy satellites. Even more flabbergasted with the fact that Russia directly helps the US the launch them.
ULA's latest comments seem to proof the worst ideas some of us seem to have about them: only in it for the money and a wealthy retirement...
How is their latest comment not a threat to national security?! They undermine the only US effort that is close to being able to become totally independent of Russia for launching both astronauts and spy satellites! If they are the patriots they claim to be, they should salute the efforts SpaceX put into the advance of space technology.
I really hope that wise men and women behind the scenes will get us back on track with international cooperation.
Post by: Star One on 05/14/2014 06:43 am
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
That's very interesting. So really it all comes down to words & their definitions.
Post by: woods170 on 05/14/2014 09:45 am
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/14/2014 09:59 am
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance?
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
That aside, about two years ago I suggested that ULA specialise with Delta-IV doing USAF/NRO launches and Atlas-V on civil/NASA launches. This was shot down by other posters at the time because there were few advantages and many disadvantages to doing so. I could never have guessed (and find no pleasure in learning) that this concept may yet be forced upon ULA by geopolitics.
Post by: fregate on 05/14/2014 10:54 am
<chanting>Space Race! Space Race! Space Race!</chanting>Unfortunately I could not share your optimism about "Space Race 2.0". History fact - it took whole 20 (!) years from ASTP flight in 1975 to Shuttle-Mir program (from 1995). Therefore, we could expect next joint venture only after 2034 :(
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson.
Post by: Jim on 05/14/2014 10:55 am
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
EELV interfaces are the same
Post by: Jim on 05/14/2014 11:00 am
Take the rocket at hand here. Did outsourcing make it cheaper compared to a company that builds engines in house? of course not. Could it not have been Lockheed's or Boeing's (or ULA's) business to make rocket engines? of course it could have.
Because airframe manufacturer's buy engines from engine manufacture's.
Boeing, Lockheed, MCD, Airbus all bought engines from GE, P&W and RR.
Legacy rockets were GD, Martin, Douglas, buying from Rocketdyne, Aerojet and P&W.
Post by: fregate on 05/14/2014 11:14 am
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Rocket Propulsion Systems for Access to Space (available for FREE download from NAP web site (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11780))
(http://images.nap.edu/images/cover.php?id=11780&type=covers450)
Page 259-260
Quote
RD-180 BOOSTER ENGINE FOR THE ATLAS V FIRST STAGE
The engine that powers the first stage of the Atlas V EELV is the RD-180. The RD-180 is a two-thrust chamber version of the original Russian RD-170 (four chambers), which is used to power the first stage of the Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash Ukrainian manufactured Zenit launch vehicle. This engine provides the required performance, operability, and reliability of the RD-170 in a size (933,400 lbf of vacuum thrust) that meets the booster needs of the Atlas V version of the EELV (first used in the United States to successfully power all the Atlas III launches).
The RD-180 is a total propulsion unit/engine system with hydraulics for control valve actuation and thrust vector gimbaling, pneumatics for valve actuation and system purging, and a thrust frame to distribute loads, all self contained as part of the engine. The engine, which employs a LOx lead start, a staged combustion cycle, and a LOx-rich turbine drive, delivers 10 percent better performance than kerosene (RP-1)-fueled operational U.S. booster engines and can provide relatively clean, reusable operation (beyond one mission duty cycle).
After a highly competitive procurement process, Lockheed Martin selected the RD-180 engine to provide the booster propulsion for its Atlas III launch vehicle and the Atlas V for the Air Force's EELV.
The RD-180 is a staged-combustion cycle engine. The two thrust chambers can gimbal ±8 degrees. The engine has a health monitoring and life prediction system. The fewest possible interfaces are utilized between the launch pad and vehicle (pneumatic and hydraulic systems are self-contained, electrical panels consolidated, and a thrust frame simplifies the mechanical interface).
The engine offers relatively clean operations with a staged-combustion, oxidizer-rich pre-burner and oxidizer start and shutdown modes that eliminate the potential for coking and unburned kerosene pollution. Between 40 and 100 percent continuous throttling allows real-time trajectory matching and engine checkout on the pad before launch commit. The RD-180 was developed and qualified in 42 months at a much lower cost than past U.S. booster engine developments because of the strong flight-proven RD-170 heritage.
Page 113
Quote
Finding 4-2. The current family of U.S. EELV boosters does not need to be replaced for the next 15 to 20 years, nor are there plans to do so. Nevertheless several candidate designs were started under NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001.
Recommendation 4-2. DoD should begin work relatively slowly, investing about $5 million per year in the committee’s judgment on technology development for an advanced-cycle booster engine that could provide the basis for a new far-term access-to-space vehicle.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/14/2014 11:48 am
RD-180 seems to have also benefited from this tendency of the status quo to just ossify in place when there is no pressing demand to force change and there are obvious short-term financial benefits to keep things as they are. This current situation seems to be proof that this passive course ultimately is a false economy.
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 05/14/2014 12:18 pm
Post by: Joel on 05/14/2014 12:50 pm
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/14/2014 01:02 pm
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
I'm pretty sure that there will be national security implications from that which makes it less likely.
Post by: AncientU on 05/14/2014 01:07 pm
I just learned that "Rogozin told reporters the Russian government has instructed Roscosmos to work with partners in the Asia-Pacific. Later Tuesday, Rogozin said on Twitter that Russian space officials will discuss bilateral cooperation on space projects with China on May 19, the eve of President Vladimir Putin's visit there".
So a future with Russia/China vs US/rising private companies seems far more exciting than the actual "boring" status quo.
The other shoe just dropped...
Should there be a separate (space policy?) thread on this?
Post by: muomega0 on 05/14/2014 01:17 pm
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
It is a very interesting strategy, initially based on
A) Two LVs are required by DOD and NASA (more risk with 1)
B) Create a short term (2020) critical milestone with commercial crew
-Atlas is retained for NASA
2020 ISS pullout, no russian backup, 'several' Atlas based LVs for COTS and peaceful availability
Russia and SpaceX fill the role otherwise.
-Delta is retained for DOD: no RD-180s for non-peaceful
-New liquid engine/LV:
o current Delta/Atlas not cost competitive
o declare that it takes the 'same' time to rebuild versus build a new engine
o state that LV meets the future critical and economic needs with significant cost reductions
- domestic RD-180 is a bonus
- Shortage of cash? No problem.
o SpaceX can survive on 7 or less of 52 launches
o downselect COTS early on to meet this "critical" 2020 date
o delay SLS
o After a few years:
- stretch the schedule
- ask Russia if they will reconsider ISS support until the new competitive LV is in place
- Ask Russia if they will provide backup for BEO HLV
o WTH, throw in a F1 too even though NASA does not need it as yet another backup
o kill all other technology development like a LEO depot for cash
One LV and a two year supply for the other was the strategy, and with this new plan, all the same decades old hardware lives on (Delta and Falcon for DOD, Atlas and Falcon for COTs), while the USG pays for the new engine/LV certification to phase out Atlas and Delta. Russia continues to shop their services...so keep them in the peaceful loop or else....
Post by: woods170 on 05/14/2014 01:26 pm
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/14/2014 01:28 pm
There's a third reason as well - sometimes customers demand it. Airline customers don't want Boeing or Airbus to make their own engines (though both other reasons apply as well in the case of jet engines). Customers want to pit the airplane makers against each other, and the engine folks against each other, independently. This helps keep all parties technically and financially honest.You're both right but for different reasons. Although if you're looking for a perfect example of what meekGee means by pushing risk onto someone else, look no further then what Boeing did on the 787 program.Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/14/2014 01:32 pm
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
Post by: Star One on 05/14/2014 02:03 pm
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
Precisely. Talking like this about ESA whilst using Russian engines seems a little odd.
Post by: newpylong on 05/14/2014 03:49 pm
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
There is a big difference between physically bringing a payload to another country vs using a foreign component in the US to launch. Find me something as complex as a launch vehicle in the US that doesn't have at least one foreign component - as simple as a bolt or as crucial as an engine.
Post by: bad_astra on 05/14/2014 03:49 pm
Post by: baldusi on 05/14/2014 04:17 pm
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Current ECA can't do restarts, and ES doesn't have the same performance. Plus, it would be awfully expensive for most launches. And those big solids means a different launch environment. Not to mention the different vehicle interfaces. But that's just on top of the political issues.
Post by: bubbagret on 05/14/2014 04:32 pm
"More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
Post by: InfraNut2 on 05/14/2014 04:52 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
Even though, overall, the sanctions seems more reasonable and restrained than feared, this will hit ULA and DOD hard since most of the RD-180s are planned to be used for military payloads.
NASAs Commercial Crew and Science seem to have dodged the bullet when it comes to launches, but no ISS extension beyond 2020 will have some negative impacts for NASA and its partners.
When it comes to consequences for Antares Engine choice, I created a separate thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34719.0) for that. There are also other treads for non-ULA specific discussion on this, like: domestic-alternative (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0), ISS-related (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34709.0), general (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34158.0) so there is no excuse to fill this thread with non-ULA related stuff
GPS/GLONASS and other ISS related issues are described as well
Post by: Lar on 05/14/2014 04:56 pm
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
And a lot less of the overall geopolitical situation, too, please.
Post by: Hauerg on 05/14/2014 05:16 pm
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Post by: Patchouli on 05/14/2014 05:43 pm
As recently as 11/13, Dwayne Day noted in his Burning Thunder article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1 that the F-1 was being potentially looked at by ULA.
"More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
It would require new pad interfaces but it depends which is harder adapting the pad or tooling up for for RD1-80 production vs F-1C.
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
Post by: AncientU on 05/14/2014 06:06 pm
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
Post by: Jakusb on 05/14/2014 06:18 pm
This goes both ways. ;)The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
Like the US is blame free. :)
I totally agree that annexing Crimea is a clear violation of international law and decency.
But thinking only Russia uses propaganda would be naive too.
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2014 06:23 pm
Anyhoo. My impression of Rogozin's text is that it is full of exit ramps. It is very far from being "we're done, good bye". I see the West's reaction as being stronger than the actual statement. It's like when someone says "I don't think that's true" and the other side goes "what? you're calling me a liar now?"
IMO Russia has maximized what it can get from this situation and will now quickly climb down. Or at least it should. Trouble is, politics (and business) are personal, and not always rational.
If sanity prevails, we will have RD180s going forward, plus we've been fairly warned, and so it will have been a good thing. A good scare.
Post by: bubbagret on 05/14/2014 06:29 pm
As recently as 11/13, Dwayne Day noted in his Burning Thunder article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1 that the F-1 was being potentially looked at by ULA.
"More recently, the company evaluated an “F-1C” design for a commercial customer—probably United Launch Alliance—but that project did not go forward and therefore no details have been made public."
Has any further public mention been made of this anywhere else that anyone is aware of?
...and of what possible applications were being looked at?
It would require new pad interfaces but it depends which is harder adapting the pad or tooling up for for RD1-80 production vs F-1C.
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
Much more than pad interfaces would have to change and LEO is for commercial crew as far as NASA is concerned. What interested me was that ULA was apparently looking at the F-1 for "something". I would be very curious what that something would be purposed to do. Were they looking at a new satellite launcher as a replacement for Atlas and Delta both, or possibly an advanced booster concept for SLS?
...or, were they speculating quietly (publicly at least) to get away from RD180 or, even maybe using the speculation as a bargaining lever in respect to the RD180? There could be many possibilities there.
*added speculation
Post by: AncientU on 05/14/2014 06:33 pm
You're totally correct. Playing fast and loose with the truth, spinning it to your ends, etc. are fine art in the USA -- and occasionally, even on the internet. (!) Large bag of salt must remain near at hand.This goes both ways. ;)The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
Like the US is blame free. :)
I totally agree that annexing Crimea is a clear violation of international law and decency.
But thinking only Russia uses propaganda would be naive too.
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/14/2014 06:33 pm
Post by: Lobo on 05/14/2014 06:43 pm
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance?
I'm sure Jim will shoot me down if I'm wrong but I believe that Atlas-V payloads will need to be partially redesigned and rebuilt to fit on Delta-IV's payload interface.
That aside, about two years ago I suggested that ULA specialise with Delta-IV doing USAF/NRO launches and Atlas-V on civil/NASA launches. This was shot down by other posters at the time because there were few advantages and many disadvantages to doing so. I could never have guessed (and find no pleasure in learning) that this concept may yet be forced upon ULA by geopolitics.
This actually seems like a better way to go to me than a US-built RD-180. But Jim is pretty adamant that any down select will involve Delta IV going away. And he'd know far better than I.
Still, seems like a "Plan B" would be to start rationing out the payloads that need to fly on Atlas due to interfaces, and start having future payloads designed for Delta IV, and start moving to that and phasing out the Atlas, unless relations cool. Especially if a US-built RD-180 would be a 5-6 year program, and the license to even make that is due up in 2022. The fact there's even a chance that it might -not- be renewed makes investing in a US-made RD-180 risky, IMHO.
Perhaps it would be time to take another look at the SLI engines that were in development in the early 2000's. As I understand, at least the TR-107 could still have development finished and production started by Northrup/Grumman. I'm assuming the same could be done for RS-84, assuming it's IP went with Rocketdyne to Aerojet after the merger. Not sure how that would compare with AJR's AJ-1E6 development. All three engines are of a similar size and performance to RD-180.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/FS-2002-09-141-MSFC.pdf
Post by: jongoff on 05/14/2014 06:59 pm
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
That's very interesting. So really it all comes down to words & their definitions.
Yeah, potentially. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Rogozin had intentionally used an ambiguous term like that to make it sound more serious while really not stating anything new.
~Jon
Post by: jongoff on 05/14/2014 07:04 pm
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
~Jon
Post by: PahTo on 05/14/2014 08:05 pm
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
~Jon
As evidenced by my post immediately after Mr. vanGiessen's, someone did notice. Thanks for responding, Jon. Hopefully you will share with us some of the highlights of said visit should it take place. (No, this isn't an invitation to build a list of questions, everyone! I suspect jongoff has a few pertinent thoughts/questions on the matter)... :)
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/14/2014 08:09 pm
Should it?
Ed Kyle
Post by: butters on 05/14/2014 08:11 pm
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
Post by: PahTo on 05/14/2014 08:12 pm
Near term I wonder if it would be a good excuse to spend money on man rating the Delta IV.
This would kill two birds with one stone in that man rating the heavy also would allow a LV for LEO Orion missions.
A few problems here, considering "they" just announced they won't be man-rating the SLS iCPS (effectively the DCSS), which goes counter to man-rating it. Furthermore, there is no mission for an LEO Orion (that couldn't be done faster with a commercial solution). Finally, considering a D-IVH can get a light-weight Orion and a near-zero mass SM "only" to about a 3,900 mile elliptical orbit, it remains unclear if a D-IVH (even with RS-68A) can loft a fully functional Orion and SM to a useable orbit since we don't know how massive the vehicle will be. I/we suspect it can, but without knowing the details, we just don't know.
Post by: schaban on 05/14/2014 08:18 pm
I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching... :o The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? ???
moved out, mostly to US (duck) :)
Post by: butters on 05/14/2014 08:56 pm
The disconnect is that the US didn't swing first... ask Ukraine.More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Failure to mention that one itty-bitty fact conveniently shifts the argument to the US being the aggressor/unreasonable/etc. This is the stuff of propaganda... don't be taken in so easily.
Putin promised the newly-elected president of Ukraine a $15B discount on natural gas if he would oppose the U.S. effort to recruit Ukraine into NATO. The president accepted the deal and was promptly overthrown in a coup d'etat by a Western-friendly regime. That's when Russia annexed Crimea. It is disingenuous to claim that the story begins with Putin annexing Crimea.
It would be naive to suggest that the U.S. played no role in sponsoring the coup, and even if they didn't, Russia cannot be blamed for reacting to a coup in an allied nation by asserting sovereignty over longstanding military installations like the naval base in Crimea. If the government of Japan were overthrown by a hostile regime, the United States would seize Okinawa where the U.S. Pacific Fleet is based.
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/14/2014 09:10 pm
I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching... :o The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? ???
moved out, mostly to US (duck) :)
So will they be annexing New York next?
Post by: RyanC on 05/14/2014 09:20 pm
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/14/2014 09:36 pm
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin...I read it as adolescent behavior where they focus on the “consequence” as opposed to their “cause” that initiated it...Now they must seek revenge... Must be all the years of teaching... :o The question is, where are all the adults in Russia? ???
moved out, mostly to US (duck) :)
So will they be annexing New York next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rZ2CPCYBQ
Post by: JosephB on 05/14/2014 09:38 pm
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
Post by: friendly3 on 05/14/2014 09:44 pm
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019)) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
And how on Earth can they say that "we believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have"?
Post by: RyanC on 05/14/2014 09:54 pm
Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019)) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
A key question to ask is:
"Are we counting engines already integrated or in an advanced stage of integration with their launch vehicle in the total engine count, or is the 16~ engine count for "bare" unallocated engines still in their shipping containers only?"
Post by: Lobo on 05/14/2014 09:59 pm
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 4-2. The current family of U.S. EELV boosters does not need to be replaced for the next 15 to 20 years, nor are there plans to do so. Nevertheless several candidate designs were started under NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
Post by: Patchouli on 05/14/2014 10:43 pm
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 4-2. The current family of U.S. EELV boosters does not need to be replaced for the next 15 to 20 years, nor are there plans to do so. Nevertheless several candidate designs were started under NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
Post by: AncientU on 05/14/2014 11:20 pm
I would like to quote a book
A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs ( 2006 ) / Page 113
Finding 4-2. The current family of U.S. EELV boosters does not need to be replaced for the next 15 to 20 years, nor are there plans to do so. Nevertheless several candidate designs were started under NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001.
Ahhh...my point exactly. A lot of US development work was already done on staged combustion RP-1 engines for SLI. Why just disregard all of that?
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
Then, after three successful flights, including two successes in a row, they could submit their data and eventually be certified as an EELV and begin to compete against the incumbent... unless a huge block buy foreclosed that option.
Post by: Lobo on 05/14/2014 11:25 pm
I was thinking the same thing.
I know the thrust structure and pad interfaces will be different with a new engine but Spacex had no serious issues going from their V1.0 to V1.1 F9 configuration.
So it's not an insurmountable problem by any means.
ULA should be able to go with the TR-107 or RS-84 as a replacement engine and change the tank ratios to match the new engine.
Oh, I think it's easier than that. TR-107 and RS-84 are very similar in size, weight, thrust, and ISP to RD-180. (size a bit different because of a single larger nozzle vs two smaller ones.)
The Atlas boat tail would need to be changed to a degree, surely. But as far as thrust and power and tank size/ratio, I believe both TR-107 and RS-84 are throttleable. So while there's some more thrust at lift off (not a bad thing), it can be throttled down to mirror the propellant consumption of RD-180 so the Atlas core tanks don't need to be changed at all. That should make the transition as cheap as possible.
ULA/USAF would be paying them to take up development again specifically for the Atlas V. So they would get to tell them what they want. Might even be able to modify the engine to mount on Atlas with less modification that's it's original design.
For example RS-84 (I like the TR-107 better, but there's more specifics on the RS-84 that I could find).
Thrust (sl): 4,665.000 kN (1,048,733 lbf).
Height: 4.67 m (15.32 ft).
Diameter: 2.74 m (8.98 ft).
Thrust: 5,159.00 kN (1,159,789 lbf).
Specific impulse: 335 s.
Specific impulse sea level: 301 s.
RD-180:
Thrust (SL) 860,568 lbf (3.83 MN)
Height: 3.56 m (11.67 ft).
Diameter: 3.15 m (10.33 ft).
Specific impulse: 339 s.
Specific impulse sea level: 313 s.
So, RD-180 had the edge in seal level impulse, but they are very close in vacuum impulse, which is the more important number.
Post by: JMSC on 05/15/2014 01:45 am
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
Read it and - honestly - the Russian guys make sense. Even the one on the sanctions list.
Well Russia is hardly against sanctions, certainly not when it comes to cutting off natural gas supplies to Ukraine or other nations they have an issue with. The current sanctions are better understood by the term condemn and copy which many people have applied to Putin's policies. E.g. he condemns the Maiden demonstrators but then copies the movement and funds his own demonstrators in Eastern Ukraine. In the case western sanctions, they have been imposed Oligarchs close to Putin with the idea that if the West hits these influential people in the pocket they will in turn try to get Putin to stop his actions in Ukraine to protect their lucrative business connections in the West .
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
Post by: CJ on 05/15/2014 01:54 am
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Post by: Avron on 05/15/2014 01:55 am
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else
Post by: JMSC on 05/15/2014 02:05 am
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else
And trade in Russian space services such as Soyuz flights to the ISS, RD-180 sales, sales of Soyuz to the EU, and in particular US licenses for Russian Satellite launches fattens his bank account quite nicely, he wants to keep it all going and taking ULA as a hostage with the RD-180 is a good way to promote what he wants. In other terms he is letting the US know that if we sanction Russian high tech trade in space technology too much he's going to hurt the hostage.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/15/2014 02:10 am
In this case Rogozin is basically copying Western sanctions in that if he hits ULA in the pocket book hard enough, ULA along with Boeing and Lockheed might then lobby the US government to give him what he wants, which is the current relatively free trade in space technology and services that benefits Russia so much. Pretty diabolical and clever in a way, turn a potential enemy into one of your greatest boosters. Given ULA's attacks on SpaceX for being, "irresponsible" for challenging the use of the RD-180 by ULA in a lot of ways he got what he really wanted without resorting to sanctioning RD-180 exports, especially since once he cuts off ULA's supply for good, he really doesn't have too many chips left.
He just wants money in his bank accounts and protection from the boyz.. its (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)... currently in power ex-KGB.. Are we expecting something new? Similar gangsters in power on the the other side of the pond, but they don't take lives that quick as the competition supported by - FSB or is that FBI.. no thats the good guys.. ?
So right now its looks like the ball got dropped and there is a scramble.. so everyone is at fault .. Note how ITER is helping the cause.. ITER is to protect from competition .. nothing else
That's a lot of claims that are far outside the mainstream, and you've presented no evidence at all to back them up.
Post by: WHAP on 05/15/2014 02:11 am
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
Maybe the discussions here can be slightly less frivolous for a little while now?
edit:
For lazy readers: the most relevant point for this thread in the transcript is that it is confirmed that
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother?
Post by: spacetraveler on 05/15/2014 02:30 am
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
This is the most important short term question in this thread.
Post by: Thorny on 05/15/2014 02:42 am
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
Perhaps that only includes separate engines and not those already mated to launch vehicles?
Post by: WHAP on 05/15/2014 02:49 am
More detailed info:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/14/transcript-briefing-russian-space-sanctions-united-states/
RD-180 export to USA is not sanctioned in general, but it will no longer be allowed to buy RD-180s for military payloads, and support for already bought engines for military launches will cease immediately. Same for other russian engines like NK-33.
So, effective immediately, Energomash personnel will be unavailable to support Atlas V launches for DoD/NRO. Historically, they have been on-site for every RD-180-powered launch. Is this a showstopper, or can ULA go ahead with their scheduled Atlas V launches without Energomash support?
This is the most important short term question in this thread.
And it should be answered, one way or another, in about 8 days.
Post by: sdsds on 05/15/2014 04:48 am
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
But I bet you've never seen an image of Dreamchaser on Delta IV.
So. Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
Post by: CJ on 05/15/2014 05:30 am
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother?
I thought someone *might* have seen a new report and have a link. I certainly don't want to ask anyone to post anything that could get them in trouble, that's why I asked for any info "they can share". I guess I should have said "they can safely share".
To be quite honest, I'm very perplexed; if this is true and those reporting it aren't mistaken, then the RD-180 stockpile might as well not exist, which would cause utter chaos on many levels (Scrapping many upcoming DOD and NRO launches due to Delta IV lead time, grounding two of the three commercial crew contenders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) I guess we'll know in about a week... or at least by July 31st, when the Atlas 5 launch after that is scheduled.
Post by: WHAP on 05/15/2014 05:36 am
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother?
I thought someone *might* have seen a new report and have a link. I certainly don't want to ask anyone to post anything that could get them in trouble, that's why I asked for any info "they can share". I guess I should have said "they can safely share".
To be quite honest, I'm very perplexed; if this is true and those reporting it aren't mistaken, then the RD-180 stockpile might as well not exist, which would cause utter chaos on many levels (Scrapping many upcoming DOD and NRO launches due to Delta IV lead time, grounding two of the three commercial crew contenders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) I guess we'll know in about a week... or at least by July 31st, when the Atlas 5 launch after that is scheduled.
If what is true? Are people actually reporting something, or are they just speculating?
Post by: Hauerg on 05/15/2014 07:26 am
(About being taken in so easily, naive etc.: I am not. For the majority of my life I have live 30 kms away from the iron curtain, for decades my hometown has been a preset target for an American ICBM (the railway might have been useful for the Russian invades) and for more than a decade a cousin of mine has been living in the ukraine where she works as a teacher. I don't think that my view is too simplistic.)
And Russia does not have a monopoly on propaganda.
Nevertheless: regarding the space related sanctions I still think that the US makes a lot of noise when it is in a very weak position. And the evil Russians reponded quite sensible so far. And no, twitter wording does not count.
So i hope this will not be escalated into a complete breakdown in space programs.
Post by: woods170 on 05/15/2014 07:51 am
Incorrect. Very real US national security considerations, that are way beyond paperwork and (US national) pride, are preventing this option .25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
The vehicle with Russian engines is launched from US soil (so the national security payloads don't leave the country until launch), is certified for US national security launches and is supplied by a US company. The fact that it has Russian engines is actually not important within this frame of reference.
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2014 11:18 am
Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
Wouldn't be the first time the US had effectively delegated space-policy decisions to the Kremlin.... :(
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2014 11:42 am
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:QuoteAs usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process.
The statement on Rogozin's Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/Rogozin) is
РФ готова продолжить поставки в США ракетных двигателей РД-180 только при гарантии, что они не будут использоваться в интересах Пентагона,
which translates as
The Russian Federation is prepared to continue deliveries of RD-180 rocket engines to the USA only with a guarantee that they will not be used in the Pentagon's interests.
The term "Pentagon's interests" seems pretty broad to me. I'm not sure it leaves much room for a debate over whether payloads that aren't actually weapons can still be launched. On the other hand, this just a tweet; it's not a formal policy announcement by Putin. This begs the question of whether a more formal statement has appeared anywhere. We do have ULA's statement (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-statement-regarding-reports-of-russian.aspx?title=ULA+Statement+Regarding+Reports+of+Russian+Engine+Restrictions) that it is "not aware of any restrictions."
My guess is that RD-180 shipments will ultimately continue, possibly after some face-saving measure has been offered to Russia. In the short term it's a victory Russia and likely plays very well domestically. In the long term, it's a loss, because the days of RD-180 sales to the US are now certainly numbered.
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/15/2014 12:02 pm
This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?Incorrect. Very real US national security considerations, that are way beyond paperwork and (US national) pride, are preventing this option .25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
The vehicle with Russian engines is launched from US soil (so the national security payloads don't leave the country until launch), is certified for US national security launches and is supplied by a US company. The fact that it has Russian engines is actually not important within this frame of reference.
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2014 12:31 pm
I like the TR-107 better, but there's more specifics on the RS-84 that I could find
What is it that you prefer about the TR-107?
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2014 12:39 pm
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
Post by: Kabloona on 05/15/2014 12:54 pm
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nelson-sasc-will-deal-with-rd-180-issue-next-week
Post by: AncientU on 05/15/2014 01:18 pm
Isn't this about the number needed to get ULA to the start of the block buy?
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/15/2014 01:26 pm
Post by: Kabloona on 05/15/2014 01:35 pm
Is it possible/likely for ULA to switch some of the next few years of payloads to Delta thereby stretching out the available RD-180s?
Mike Griffin apparently thinks so:
"Griffin said there would be an “enormous food fight” for access to the rocket among the various government programs should imports be cut off, with some programs forced to shift to the Delta IV and perhaps be significantly delayed."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/15/2014 02:02 pm
The term "Pentagon's interests" seems pretty broad to me. I'm not sure it leaves much room for a debate over whether payloads that aren't actually weapons can still be launched.
Yeah, I get the feeling that this is intentional. My gut says that there will be a lot of horse trading between ULA and Energomash about what falls into the Russian government's definition of a 'military payload'. The main objective would likely be to delay ULA's (and, by extension DoD's) Atlas-V launches but not actually cause enough trouble as to cause them to mothball it and focus on Delta-IV.
Sanctions are always a game of inconveniencing and discomforting your foe rather than necessarily causing them irreversible harm. You want them to change their ways and come back to you cap in hand. That won't happen if you just force them to break ties and go somewhere else. That scenario would most certainly not be in Russia's interests, economically or geopolitically.
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2014 02:16 pm
"Griffin said there would be an “enormous food fight” for access to the rocket among the various government programs should imports be cut off, with some programs forced to shift to the Delta IV and perhaps be significantly delayed."
I'm surprised neither he nor Congress has proposed shifting Atlas V payloads to SLS. :)
Post by: Joel on 05/15/2014 02:27 pm
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
How long would it take to human-rate Delta IV when the decision has been made?
Post by: veblen on 05/15/2014 02:36 pm
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg (http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg) Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
No wonder ESA seeks more independence. Especially after NASA left them high & dry over ExoMars.
ESA ExoMars development was exceedingly slow and NASA decided it couldn't afford to wait around. ESA then partnered with RSA for their Mars EDL demo and Mars rover, which is fine but I wouldn't necessarily describe that as "independence".
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/15/2014 03:40 pm
I think we are in complete agreement. You are correct that this won't happen, for the reasons you mention. But I'm correct when I said the only obstacles were paperwork, (a) and (b), and pride, (c), (d), and (e). Here the pride is the belief that what you are doing is so spiffy that our security would be compromised if even an ally got a glimpse of it. But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/15/2014 05:44 pm
Quote
I think we are in complete agreement. You are correct that this won't happen, for the reasons you mention. But I'm correct when I said the only obstacles were paperwork, (a) and (b), and pride, (c), (d), and (e). Here the pride is the belief that what you are doing is so spiffy that our security would be compromised if even an ally got a glimpse of it. But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.Let me remind you of a little history concerning corona and hexagon. Back in the 70's and 80's before Al Gore declassified everything most contemporary writers assumed the "Corona" style vehicles (KH-1 - KH-8) where all low resolution search systems and the high resolution could read license plates where the KH-9 "Big Bird" systems. Well, when the programs where declassified it turned out yeah, some of the early Agena based systems (KH-1 - Kh-4a) where search, KH-7 and KH-8 where high res. could see a license plate systems, while the big bird KH-9 was actually the new search system.
So why does that matter, small details like that can give away the whole game. Many of the declassified histories show that the then Soviet did not take precautions against the Gambit satellites. A peak inside may have given the game away...
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2014 05:47 pm
But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
No basis for such a suspicion. They don't know the existence of some programs much less capabilities.
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2014 05:52 pm
I think we are in complete agreement. You are correct that this won't happen, for the reasons you mention. But I'm correct when I said the only obstacles were paperwork, (a) and (b), and pride, (c), (d), and (e).
That is not "paperwork". That goes into the very being of what it means to be a natural citizen and allegiance to a country. Most national secrets are not shared.
And it is not "pride", it is protecting national security
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/16/2014 01:28 am
Unsubstantiated. And totally unsubstantiatable. You (and I) can't possibly know what it is that foreign intelligence services know. And if you did know, you could not say. And how can you possibly know that programs exist they know nothing of?But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
No basis for such a suspicion. They don't know the existence of some programs much less capabilities.
There have been spies who were caught (see Jonathan Pollard). He passed along "the latest version of Radio-Signal Notations (RASIN), a 10-volume manual comprehensively detailing America's global electronic surveillance network". There have been those that got hold of secrets, were not caught (at least in time) and went public (See Snowden). He took about 1.7 million documents. So how can you possibly be sure there are no spies that have not yet been caught? You can't, of course.
Post by: Lar on 05/16/2014 01:44 am
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2014 01:59 am
Unsubstantiated. And totally unsubstantiatable. You (and I) can't possibly know what it is that foreign intelligence services know. And if you did know, you could not say. And how can you possibly know that programs exist they know nothing of?
There have been spies who were caught (see Jonathan Pollard). He passed along "the latest version of Radio-Signal Notations (RASIN), a 10-volume manual comprehensively detailing America's global electronic surveillance network". There have been those that got hold of secrets, were not caught (at least in time) and went public (See Snowden). He took about 1.7 million documents. So how can you possibly be sure there are no spies that have not yet been caught? You can't, of course.
Wrong, I can of course. There are much more secrets kept than revealed or uncovered. That is how it is substantiated. there are deep programs that few people know exist much less foreign agents. What spies have found is only the outer layer of the onion. I know because that is how security works.
Post by: Patchouli on 05/16/2014 03:02 am
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
But I bet you've never seen an image of Dreamchaser on Delta IV.
So. Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
I've seen Dreamchaser on an Ares derived vehicle with two custom upper stages replacing the Ares I-US.
It looks like possibly a 1.5 segment SRB and a Centaur derived stage or Castor 30XL making it a three stage vehicle.
Post by: Lobo on 05/16/2014 05:05 am
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
But I bet you've never seen an image of Dreamchaser on Delta IV.
So. Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
I've seen Dreamchaser on an Ares derived vehicle with two custom upper stages replacing the Ares I-US.
It looks like possibly a 1.5 segment SRB and a Centaur derived stage or Castor 30XL making it a three stage vehicle.
Looks like maybe a Castor 120 on top. Maybe a 2-seg booster under it with a full 5-seg booster 1st stage?
hmmm...wild.
Post by: PahTo on 05/16/2014 05:08 am
I've seen Dreamchaser on an Ares derived vehicle with two custom upper stages replacing the Ares I-US.
It looks like possibly a 1.5 segment SRB and a Centaur derived stage or Castor 30XL making it a three stage vehicle.
Looks like maybe a Castor 120 on top. Maybe a 2-seg booster under it with a full 5-seg booster 1st stage?
hmmm...wild.
Indeed--more of a stick than even The Stick...
Post by: Lobo on 05/16/2014 06:03 am
I've seen Dreamchaser on an Ares derived vehicle with two custom upper stages replacing the Ares I-US.
It looks like possibly a 1.5 segment SRB and a Centaur derived stage or Castor 30XL making it a three stage vehicle.
Looks like maybe a Castor 120 on top. Maybe a 2-seg booster under it with a full 5-seg booster 1st stage?
hmmm...wild.
Indeed--more of a stick than even The Stick...
A corndog without the corn or the dog.
Post by: DGH on 05/16/2014 11:17 am
Why would military/intel payloads for the USA launch on Ariane when we still have Delta IV?
I have decided after reading the threads this last week that the Delta IV rocket and the RS-68A engine are figments of my imagination.
Clearly you suffer from the same delusion.
;)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/16/2014 04:17 pm
Why would military/intel payloads for the USA launch on Ariane when we still have Delta IV?
Stripped of all other concerns, it's the same one that made Atlas-V more successful than Delta-IV in getting launch contracts - per-unit cost.
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 05/16/2014 04:35 pm
Wrong, I can of course. There are much more secrets kept than revealed or uncovered. That is how it is substantiated. there are deep programs that few people know exist much less foreign agents. What spies have found is only the outer layer of the onion. I know because that is how security works.
I doubt it. If you were actually in the know about anything substantive you would be incredibly foolish to be bragging or even hinting about it.
Having gone through level 6 public trust security clearance process (contractor for HHS database work a few years ago) I would not want to be answering an FBI agent about my 21,220 posts on a public website related to my professional work. That is a fairly quick way to fail a security clearance checkup at your next 10 year update.
Post by: BrightLight on 05/16/2014 04:42 pm
my super secret-squirrel antennas tell me this is OT.
Wrong, I can of course. There are much more secrets kept than revealed or uncovered. That is how it is substantiated. there are deep programs that few people know exist much less foreign agents. What spies have found is only the outer layer of the onion. I know because that is how security works.
I doubt it. If you were actually in the know about anything substantive you would be incredibly foolish to be bragging or even hinting about it.
Having gone through level 6 public trust security clearance process (contractor for HHS database work a few years ago) I would not want to be answering an FBI agent about my 21,220 posts on a public website related to my professional work. That is a fairly quick way to fail a security clearance checkup at your next 10 year update.
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 05/17/2014 01:39 pm
It's right in their statement to the press. If they didn't think it was important they wouldn't have mentioned it.
This thread has already mentioned rumors that there is a team of Russian engineers at every launch. If they aren't a part of the launch process why would they be here? If they could just certify an engine as ready to launch remotely, why not do that?
Unless it's just some boondoggle, you'd think that they would just stay in Russia and use the internet if there wasn't a reason to fly halfway across the world. But even having to be involved directly in the launch process remotely would be a problem if that support is cut off.
There are rumors of spare parts and launch cartridges being supplied at launch, which would at least be consistent with a Russian team being on site. Of course we have one rumor supporting another rumor, but that just adds up to a bigger rumor.
Still, if there was a line in Vegas to bet on this issue, my money would be on this being a real problem, even if the next Atlas V launches on schedule.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/17/2014 02:30 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40589estimates-on-time-needed-to-replace-rd-180-vary-widely
Post by: DGH on 05/18/2014 05:22 pm
What launches are most affected if this happens?
Here is what I have so far.
Launches in 2016 and later but before 2020.
Launches on an Atlas 531, 541 or 551.
Launches that need to be man rated.
Launches that carry nuclear fuel.
MUOS and GOES are major losers.
AEHF can probably launch on a Delta 5,4 because of it’s Hall thrusters and margin.
Delta IV Heavy flights in 2017 or so may be impacted to free up engines.
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2014 08:27 pm
Not sure if anyone has tried this or if this is the right thread to do this on.
What launches are most affected if this happens?
Here is what I have so far.
Launches in 2016 and later but before 2020.
Launches on an Atlas 531, 541 or 551.
Launches that need to be man rated.
Launches that carry nuclear fuel.
MUOS and GOES are major losers.
AEHF can probably launch on a Delta 5,4 because of it’s Hall thrusters and margin.
Delta IV Heavy flights in 2017 or so may be impacted to free up engines.
431 too
Post by: baldusi on 05/19/2014 01:04 am
Delta IV M+(4,4) is available in 36 month, if necessary, according to ULA. (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.Not sure if anyone has tried this or if this is the right thread to do this on.
What launches are most affected if this happens?
Here is what I have so far.
Launches in 2016 and later but before 2020.
Launches on an Atlas 531, 541 or 551.
Launches that need to be man rated.
Launches that carry nuclear fuel.
MUOS and GOES are major losers.
AEHF can probably launch on a Delta 5,4 because of it’s Hall thrusters and margin.
Delta IV Heavy flights in 2017 or so may be impacted to free up engines.
431 too
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2014 01:07 am
(5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
And some pad mods and longer processing times
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/19/2014 02:42 am
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2014 03:05 am
Why longer processing times? Do adding 2/4 extra solids really impact the pad flow that much?
The pad was never really design for solids.
Post by: sdsds on 05/19/2014 04:19 am
Delta IV M+(4,4) is available in 36 month, if necessary, according to ULA.
This needs to be seen within the context of sudden unavailability of RD-180.
I know the June 2013 Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide says "within 36 months of order" but my analysis indicates a full 36 months would not be required if the USG expressed a national security need for availability quicker than that. The Delta Fleet Standardization Program provides, "full commonality between all of the Medium and Medium-Plus configurations until reaching the final Integration, Assembly, and Check-Out area of the Decatur Production facility."
That means any Medium core in the production pipeline can be configured at the last production stage for 4 GEM-60s. And there's very little chance a standardized core that meets the structural requirements of the M+(5,4) configuration would be structurally insufficient for the M+(4,4). Ergo the only thing they would need to develop and flight-qualify would be the modified software for the (4,4). Although software development is difficult ... it's not so difficult that it takes 36 months to validate a minor modification like this....
Post by: baldusi on 05/19/2014 04:44 am
Yes, I just meant that the 431 payload problem could be solved relatively quickly and cheaply with the (4,4). But obviously a single pad at CCFS couldn't support DoDs needs and (5,6) and (5,8 ) would take too long and require different cores. Pad mods could be built in LC-37A, if needed. Thus, 5(3/4/5)1 would me more impacted by switching to DIV than 431.(5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
And some pad mods and longer processing times
Post by: DGH on 05/19/2014 10:25 am
Delta IV M+(4,4) is available in 36 month, if necessary, according to ULA. (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.Not sure if anyone has tried this or if this is the right thread to do this on.
What launches are most affected if this happens?
Here is what I have so far.
Launches in 2016 and later but before 2020.
Launches on an Atlas 531, 541 or 551.
Launches that need to be man rated.
Launches that carry nuclear fuel.
MUOS and GOES are major losers.
AEHF can probably launch on a Delta 5,4 because of it’s Hall thrusters and margin.
Delta IV Heavy flights in 2017 or so may be impacted to free up engines.
431 too
There are no 431 launches listed on the launch thread so I left it off.
The 48 months for 5,6 and 5,8 is why I said before 2020 48 months and a margin.
I would not be surprised assuming no more RD-180 engines to see the 5,8 become the new standard instead of the current 5,4 depending on ACES development.
Post by: DGH on 05/19/2014 10:28 am
(5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
And some pad mods and longer processing times
Then fix it.
If ULA cannot do that then the SpaceX fans are right.
The Delta IV was after all originally supposed to launch 40 cores a year not 5.
Post by: Prober on 05/19/2014 12:47 pm
I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019)) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
And how on Earth can they say that "we believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have"?
The real question is far different then what I've been reading.
A short term problem: Possible loss of RD-180 supply due to external forces.
Fix: pull out the materials from the early program enhance with advanced manufacturing technology and produce the engine state side. Note: this should be more of a manufacturing exercise and not an engineering exercise.
A long term problem: Use Block 1.0 US produced RD-180 as is or improve it. Other option replace the engine.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/20/2014 10:48 pm
http://aviationweek.com/space/replacing-russian-made-atlas-antares-engines-would-take-four-years
Post by: woods170 on 05/21/2014 06:30 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
Quote
The committee found that losing the RD-180, and thus at least temporarily grounding Atlas 5, would delay as many as 31 missions, costing the United States as much as $5 billion. It would also have a major effect on a long-planned Air Force competition for national security launch contracts.
Post by: savuporo on 05/21/2014 06:47 pm
Quote
Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine.
Yet another program office ? I thought AFRL had one already
Post by: PahTo on 05/21/2014 07:42 pm
Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
“Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years. Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
Furthermore:
Quote
The report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
I fail to see the logic here. Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines? I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
Post by: AncientU on 05/21/2014 10:21 pm
Double the time to delivery of the engines loosly translated means quite a bit higher cost -- 8 years = $2B plus?Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
“Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years. Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
Furthermore:QuoteThe report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
I fail to see the logic here. Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines? I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
Mr. Gass stated in his Hill testimony:
Quote
We can make them in-house.Sounded so easy then...
The report also says:
Quote
ULA cannot ramp up the production of its Delta 4 rocket to avoid delaysversus
Quote
“What we have done to protect against that concern is that we have over two years of safety stock inventory in the US. We also have another product (Delta IV) that is fully compliant and ready to support any of the missions,” noted Mr. Gass.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-and-ula-eelv-contracts/
Post by: Prober on 05/21/2014 11:28 pm
Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
“Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years. Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
Furthermore:QuoteThe report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
I fail to see the logic here. Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines? I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
way too much conflicting data.
Post by: rcoppola on 05/22/2014 12:54 am
As early as May 13th ULA said they had enough RD-180s to fulfill Atlas Vs part of the Block-buy. As of late it is being reported there are only 15 currently available to use against the Block-buy. And then it's reported that numerous launches may need to be pushed off for 2-2.5 years costing billions worth of delays? And, sorry, the Delta can't be ramped up soon enough if at all to accommodate Altas V payload transfers?
This conflicting data is coming from all over the place including from ULA and the AF themselves. I didn't put in exact quotes, dates etc, as at this point I wouldn't know where to begin. Does anybody actually know what's going on? And IF they actually do not or "may" not have enough engines to fulfill their manifest, especially for the Block-buy and Commercial Crew (i.e. SNC and CST-100 Orbital test flights) do you suppose someone better tell the 100 or so people looking over Falcon 9v1.1 data for certification that they may want to get a move on...?
It would be incredibly ironic if the protest is denied, Atlas winds up not being able to fulfill the order anyways, they can't move payloads to Delta IV, SpaceX becomes certified but can't help in many instances because they don't have the vertical integration infrastructure to accommodate...etc..etc..etc.. I'd cry if this wasn't becoming such a carnival of insanity. (ok, some dramatic license there)
And on top of all of this, which damn thread should I be posting this in? (that's kind of a joke but not really)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/22/2014 12:04 pm
I suspect that there may be a certain degree of CYA going on. However, I also suspect that there is possibly an issue of some departments and divisions having sent misleadingly over-optimistic analyses (scrubbed of figures for extra deniability) both up the chain and also to partners and other departments. This is fairly common corporate practice and likely would have amounted to nothing if the Russians hadn't made this threat, suddenly making the conclusions of these reports appear outside the company.
Post by: jongoff on 05/22/2014 09:14 pm
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
~Jon
I'm glad LOXRP1 made this offer. It was a fun and enlightening conversation, and helped dispel a lot of rumors. Methinks the CO Springs weather gods didn't want us to have that conversation though--all "hail" broke loose about half way in...
~Jon
Post by: baldusi on 05/22/2014 09:27 pm
Post by: jongoff on 05/22/2014 10:00 pm
Any disclosable info on said chat?
I think so. Key takeaways:
1- It sounds like once the Russians deliver the engines to RD-AMROSS, their only involvement is as observers during some tests and the launch. US personnel perform all of the actual touch labor post-delivery.
2- It doesn't sound like RD-AMROSS has heard anything indicating that Russia is going to stop selling RD-180s, Rogozin's statements aside.
3- There was a nice paper they gave on the work they did to make sure the RD-180 was produceable in the US, including getting the various Russia-unique nickel, stainless, and copper alloys made. They had samples of the various materials and pictures of more they had made. Their only challenge wasn't getting the materials made in the US or getting the properties they wanted, but getting them in small quantities.
4- They took two of the hardest pieces in the RD-180 (some part of the turbine and the preburner) and demonstrated the ability to make them including forgings, machining, and coatings, and did all sorts of tests including tests with hot oxygen and debris.
5- The RD-180 was designed for the most part to be assembled without requiring tight-tolerances, using relatively low-tech tools. They incorporate a lot of design concepts that allow for pretty ridiculous misalignments easily. Very different mentality than US rocket designs.
Overall, very interesting.
~Jon
Post by: Targeteer on 05/22/2014 11:03 pm
Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
“Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years. Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
Furthermore:QuoteThe report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
I fail to see the logic here. Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines? I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
way too much conflicting data.
Here is the Av Week story referenced http://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-commission-urges-new-engine-mitigate-atlas-v-gap and the briefing they acquired referenced in the story.
Post by: savuporo on 05/23/2014 12:08 am
Overall, very interesting.This is very much in line with what the engineering side has been claiming about RD-180 domestic status for a while now.
See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
Page 13 or so - they have pics of the fabricated details as well.
The real question is, why are the independent cost estimates of setting up domestic production so much different from the engineering side exuberance.
Post by: jongoff on 05/23/2014 12:12 am
Overall, very interesting.This is very much in line with what the engineering side has been claiming about RD-180 domestic status for a while now.
See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
Page 13 or so - they have pics of the fabricated details as well.
The real question is, why are the independent cost estimates of setting up domestic production so much different from the engineering side exuberance.
Not sure. Also, which is closer to the mark, the engineers who've been working the problem or independent evaluators?
Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?
~Jon
Post by: savuporo on 05/23/2014 12:32 am
Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.
Post by: rcoppola on 05/23/2014 12:43 am
But I fear the damage is done and whatever happens, the AF will be directed to start a new completely domestic engine program.
Post by: jongoff on 05/23/2014 04:56 am
Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.
There's a huge difference between J-2X, which was a new engine development based loosely off of an engine that was out of production for decades, and an RD-180 project that would be derived from an existing, in-production engine. It is true the same company is involved, but hopefully being run as a DoD project there's a slightly higher chance of success than a NASA engine project.
~Jon
Post by: jongoff on 05/23/2014 04:59 am
Thanks for the post jongoff, really interesting what we start to learn when we talk to the people who actually know.
But I fear the damage is done and whatever happens, the AF will be directed to start a new completely domestic engine program.
In some ways I wonder how heartbroken exactly Aerojet is that the new conventional wisdom is that an RD-180 domestic production program would be so expensive that we may as well do a whole new clean-sheet engine. I'm kind of skeptical that a domestic RD-180 development would be as expensive and time consuming as all that, but am not surprised that Aerojet isn't working very hard to dispel that rumor. My guess is they'll make more money off of a new clean-sheet engine then they would've from a domestic RD-180.
~Jon
Post by: savuporo on 05/23/2014 05:09 am
My guess is they'll make more money off of a new clean-sheet engine then they would've from a domestic RD-180.Plus they are pretty much free to use everything that they have learned from RD-180 anyway - and i dont mean copying parts. Doing a "new" one is a win in every way for them - assuming traditional contracting and effectively no competitive pressure.
Post by: baldusi on 05/23/2014 01:29 pm
What if making an RD-180 factory requires new tooling and process validation, while the AJ-1E6 can use existing ones and just needs finishing?
BTW, RD AMROSS, still belongs to UTC. And if the RD-180 contract is interrupted, I don't think that they'll ever get the approval of the Russian government to transfer the shares to GenCorp. So if the US government ask, AJR clearly will prefer to design their own, since the alternative is to get a new local competitor.
Post by: Prober on 05/23/2014 01:41 pm
Thanks for the post jongoff, really interesting what we start to learn when we talk to the people who actually know.
But I fear the damage is done and whatever happens, the AF will be directed to start a new completely domestic engine program.
In some ways I wonder how heartbroken exactly Aerojet is that the new conventional wisdom is that an RD-180 domestic production program would be so expensive that we may as well do a whole new clean-sheet engine. I'm kind of skeptical that a domestic RD-180 development would be as expensive and time consuming as all that, but am not surprised that Aerojet isn't working very hard to dispel that rumor. My guess is they'll make more money off of a new clean-sheet engine then they would've from a domestic RD-180.
~Jon
The report comes away differently for me.....Its not about the money. Its where Co production monies might go. Could even be one of those knee jerk reactions.
The waters have be muddied by "the Russian engine"
Post by: PahTo on 05/23/2014 04:03 pm
It sounds as though the mechanics of a US produced RD-180 are better understood/do-able, but what of the license issue? Many have expressed concern that by the time such US production was in place, there'd be "only a few years at best" before the license expires and we're right back at square one. True?
Post by: anonymous on 05/23/2014 04:05 pm
Post by: muomega0 on 05/23/2014 04:13 pm
The RD-180 was developed and qualified in 42 months at a much lower cost than past U.S. booster engine developments because of the strong flight-proven RD-170 heritage. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34753.msg1201653#msg1201653)Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.
There's a huge difference between J-2X, which was a new engine development based loosely off of an engine that was out of production for decades, and an RD-180 project that would be derived from an existing, in-production engine. It is true the same company is involved, but hopefully being run as a DoD project there's a slightly higher chance of success than a NASA engine project.
~Jon
The 2022 completion date make the ~1B price tag unlikely, not even considering the NASA and DOD "wraps".
A few of the key considerations/standards:
- the ability for reuse
- the mT range of the LV suite - 20 to 50 mT (vs NASA's imaginary 70 and 130 mT-end of SLS?)
- domestically available (vs other suppliers not expected)
- 2022 completion
- cost competitive (vs need 2 LVs and no other suppliers expected, reduction of multiple production lines)
- depot capability
Having DOD run the project hopefully provides common product lines brings the fleet down to the 20 mT range rather than the >120mT range. Will have to see how the Congressional Design Teams respond ("food fights")
Post by: savuporo on 05/24/2014 02:04 am
( from http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/TRW_Engines.htm )
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/TR-107.png
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/FS-2002-09-141-MSFC.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a445014.pdf
The illustration is from this book:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11780&page=146
And, a full PDF link of that book:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA471183
Take a look at page 167 for an especially sad table ..
Post by: Patchouli on 05/24/2014 02:18 am
It's a fairly low pressure GG cycle engine so qualifying it should be much easier and faster.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
Post by: TomH on 05/24/2014 03:57 am
I wonder could the F-1B be a good choice for a replacement engine esp considering they have gotten rid of a lot of the parts that made it expensive.
It's a fairly low pressure GG cycle engine so qualifying it should be much easier and faster.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
clongton has suggested F-1B also, but it's fairly close to double the thrust. G loads would be high. Could AV's structure withstand them? In that today's mission specialist astronauts are not required to withstand high G loads (Mercury/Atlas hit 11G at MECO), F-1B on AV might be too powerful for CST-100 and DC. Also is the issue of Max Q with this much acceleration.
Post by: savuporo on 05/24/2014 04:42 am
"AFRL - Hydrocarbon Boost Technology for Future Spacelift , 15 Feb 2012"
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068003&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
"Overview of United States propulsion technology" As of 2006 - ( sorry cannot post a direct PDF link on this )
http://en.calameo.com/read/0024863132af964a9db13?sid=336b7fd464f17c964aa85370256d1659
Post by: AncientU on 05/24/2014 05:59 pm
And, a full PDF link of that book:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA471183
Take a look at page 167 for an especially sad table ..
Sad? Pathetic is closer to the mark.
A few additional quotes from reference:
Quote
In the last three decades, only one new U.S. government-sponsored booster engine, the SSME, has
been developed and gone through flight certification. Some significant upgrades have been incorporated
into the SSME since its original certification for flight in the 1970s. These upgrades increased reliability
and safety and somewhat increased mean time between engine refurbishment. They did not appreciably
advance rocket engine technology.
Quote
Since 1980 only one new first-stage rocket engine has been developed in the United States. [Now two with Merlin] This engine, the RS-68, was funded primarily by Boeing Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power. It was developed as a low-cost expendable booster engine for the Delta IV EELV. Engine performance of the RS-68 is
poorer than that of the 1960s-era Saturn V second- and third-stage J-2 engines, both of which were simple
open-cycle, gas-generator-powered designs. However, important advancements in engineering
methodology and capability were made by the developer through incorporation of comprehensive
modeling, computer-aided design/manufacturing, and advanced manufacturing technologies
Quote
While the United States has developed almost no new booster rocket technology during the last 30
years or more, the new spacefaring nations of Europe, Asia (including India), and the Middle East have
been developing their own new vehicle and propulsion systems to catch up. They, along with the former
Soviet Union, are believed to have developed 40 to 50 new engines using several propellant combinations
in addition to LOx/LH2. Many of these engines can now be considered to be today’s state of the art.
Does the US really have the expertise any more -- to bring a new engine to full flight qualification? Thirty years is a career... individuals who have actually launched a new design are scarce at best. This is a 2006 report; another decade has slipped away...
Post by: savuporo on 05/24/2014 06:05 pm
Does the US really have the expertise any more -- to bring a new engine to full flight qualification?Yes, J2-X, Merlins demonstrate it. What US doesn't have is a healthy competitive environment that would foster more independent innovation. Note that the industry consolidated down to one engine builder, and only new entrants like SpaceX, XCOR, BO have stepped up to diversify things a bit again.
Post by: AncientU on 05/24/2014 06:14 pm
I hope you are right.Does the US really have the expertise any more -- to bring a new engine to full flight qualification?Yes, J2-X, Merlins demonstrate it. What US doesn't have is a healthy competitive environment that would foster more independent innovation. Note that the industry consolidated down to one engine builder, and only new entrants like SpaceX, XCOR, BO have stepped up to diversify things a bit again.
The J2-X is Saturn V technology (not sure how much upgraded).
And basically, isn't it too expensive to fly (will it ever fly?)?
Clean-sheet wise, we're back to Merlins and RS-68 series.
Post by: savuporo on 05/25/2014 03:15 am
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine
All the recent sound bites compiled, plus some interesting verbiage at the very end ..
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 05/25/2014 03:45 am
Deserves a cross-post here too
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine
All the recent sound bites compiled, plus some interesting verbiage at the very end ..
Completely agree. This lines up with what some of us heard last week. Atlas V is in deep trouble.
Asking around, everyone agrees that you build a new rocket to match a new engine. I do not believe the TR-107 is nearly as mature as some claim. Maybe I will be proven wrong and will admit so.
What I am saying is that Atlas V dies with the RD-180. You slap something else underneath it and its an Atlas VI.
Atlas V is fine tuned to support the RD-180 TWR, harmonics, ect. A new engine will cause things to act differently on the vehicle. And if you want to switch to methane... forget about it.
VR
RE327
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/25/2014 12:28 pm
I wonder could the F-1B be a good choice for a replacement engine esp considering they have gotten rid of a lot of the parts that made it expensive.It's a fine engine but a poor substitute. It would require a new launcher.
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2014 02:38 pm
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2007-5487
Very fascinating read. Basically talking about how they were working with the Russians to build the pre-burner/stator section of the RD-180 using US produced materials, parts, coatings, and manufacturing processes. It's not said in the paper, but the reason they picked these two pieces was because out of all the materials and manufacturing processes on RD-180, the preburner/stator assembly had something like 8/10 of the high-risk, Russia-unique manufacturing processes, and a good fraction of the high-risk, Russia-unique materials.
The paper talks you through all the materials science work they did in duplicating Russian alloys, braze alloys, and weld filler materials. It talks about the process they used to build up domestic welding and brazing expertise in the areas that used very non-Western welding/brazing design/practices. They started with geometrically non-representative test coupons, worked up to more geometrically representative coupons, moved on to welds on Russian-produced parts, and finally to welding on US sourced equivalent parts.
Similar discussion about brazing, coatings, and vibration hardening.
Long story short, they were working towards building a full pre-burner/stator segment that was going to be retrofitted into a production RD-180 and test fired on the Russian hot fire stand (after having been fired using all Russian components so they have a way of comparing the two). The paper was written about a year before that point when they were just starting to fabricate the assembly from entirely US-sourced parts, materials, coatings, and using the welding/brazing techniques they had developed. So, I don't know for sure if the test firing ever happened. But if it did, I would agree with them that they retired the key risks for the RD-180 co-production.
For any of you out there who are manufacturing engineers (that was my bachelor's degree), you'll geek out like crazy on this paper. :-)
~Jon
Post by: Lar on 05/26/2014 04:03 pm
Post by: Prober on 05/26/2014 05:25 pm
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2014 05:51 pm
Appears to be behind a paywall but looks pretty awesome from the abstract.
Yeah, I haven't had a chance to look to see if there's a free version somewhere.
~Jon
Post by: savuporo on 05/26/2014 06:03 pm
On chinese websites, yes. I posted a presentation with excerpts somewhere here. I believe posting the full paper would be AIAA copyright violation.Appears to be behind a paywall but looks pretty awesome from the abstract.
Yeah, I haven't had a chance to look to see if there's a free version somewhere.
~Jon
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2014 06:09 pm
On chinese websites, yes. I posted a presentation with excerpts somewhere here. I believe posting the full paper would be AIAA copyright violation.Appears to be behind a paywall but looks pretty awesome from the abstract.
Yeah, I haven't had a chance to look to see if there's a free version somewhere.
~Jon
Yeah, after looking around that seems to be the case. I've seen cases where one of the coauthors was able to post an AIAA paper for free (like many of the papers on the ULA site), but it looks like people will need to pay to read in this case.
~Jon
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2014 06:09 pm
they did test it
Can you provide a citation? I'd like to verify that the test actually happened, and if it was successful.
~Jon
Post by: quanthasaquality on 05/26/2014 06:48 pm
Post by: Prober on 05/26/2014 07:17 pm
they did test it
Can you provide a citation? I'd like to verify that the test actually happened, and if it was successful.
~Jon
uh oh, says tested in USA. wonder if that's a wording error.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34810.msg1203619#msg1203619
Post by: savuporo on 05/26/2014 09:01 pm
There's a huge difference between J-2X, which was a new engine development based loosely off of an engine that was out of production for decades, and an RD-180 project that would be derived from an existing, in-production engine. ..
Interesting tidbit by the way. RS-84 program manager John Vilja at Rocketdyne ( see IAC-03-V.5.03 ) was also a J2-X program manager until 2011
Post by: Lobo on 05/27/2014 07:31 pm
Is staged combustion worth the hassle for a first stage engine? SpaceX upped its sea level Merlin ISP from ~255 to 282 by increasing the chamber pressure to ~100 bar. Maybe just grow the rs-27a some, and increase its chamber pressure from 50 bar, to 120 bar to get a ~200 ton rocket engine? heck, give it some atlas v srbs, and we'll have a real delta iv.
That's a possibility. Keep the Atlas Core the same, develop an RS-27A-like "sustainer" smaller engine that's GG keorlox and would drop in for the RD-180. And then just assume SRB's would be used more often to make up the dV differnet between the RD-180 and the GG-kerolox sustainer engine, as the propellant volume would remain constant as the Atlas core wouldn't change. Atlas 551 would not have the capability it has now, but each lighter config could probably be replicated. An Atlas 531 or 541 would add an SRB to make up the dV.
Atlas V-411 or 421 would fly more often in place of the 401 version. Not sure what the cost per SRB is, but if that GG sustainer engine could be made equivalently more cheaply than the domestics RD-180, the price could be a wash. And development might be faster and cheaper.
However, no such engine exists. There's not even a similar engine ever developed. You'd need something in probably the 600-700klbs of thrust range, augmented by 1-2 Atlas SRB's to replicate the RD-180 I think. That'd be a brand new engine from scratch, where a domestic RD-180 would be based on an exsiting engine. So I don't know that development of this GG engine would gain anything over domestic RD-180.
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/27/2014 08:05 pm
That's a possibility. Keep the Atlas Core the same, develop an RS-27A-like "sustainer" smaller engine that's GG keorlox and would drop in for the RD-180. And then just assume SRB's would be used more often to make up the dV differnet between the RD-180 and the GG-kerolox sustainer engine, as the propellant volume would remain constant as the Atlas core wouldn't change.Propellant volume might remain the same, but substantially less propellant could be loaded because the GG engine would have a smaller LOX to kerosene mixture ratio. The kerosene tank would have to be left partly empty, which is a big performance hit. A fix would be to resize the tanks, but while at it might as well stretch them too to make up the ISP difference, which would require more thrust. You would end up with something roughly like a Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage, though maybe with only seven or eight Merlins.
Or two of these.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lobo on 05/28/2014 12:29 am
That's a possibility. Keep the Atlas Core the same, develop an RS-27A-like "sustainer" smaller engine that's GG keorlox and would drop in for the RD-180. And then just assume SRB's would be used more often to make up the dV differnet between the RD-180 and the GG-kerolox sustainer engine, as the propellant volume would remain constant as the Atlas core wouldn't change.Propellant volume might remain the same, but substantially less propellant could be loaded because the GG engine would have a smaller LOX to kerosene mixture ratio. The kerosene tank would have to be left partly empty, which is a big performance hit. A fix would be to resize the tanks, but while at it might as well stretch them too to make up the ISP difference, which would require more thrust. You would end up with something roughly like a Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage, though maybe with only seven or eight Merlins.
Or two of these.
- Ed Kyle
Ahhh...good point. Thanks for that Ed. Yea, that would pretty much discount any thought of this.
Any replacement for RD-180 would need a similar mixture ratio to avoid needing to change the actual core beyond the MPS itself.
Might as well just put an F-1B on it, use the D4 5m tank tooling and 5m DCSS, put a MARC-60 on it rather than the RL-10B, Call it an "Atlas V Phase 2/B" and be done with it. :-)
(ULA can only operate Atlas V and derivatives, so I don't think they could call something an "Atlas 6" or anything. It would need to be called an "Atlas V (insert derivative designation here) I think)
Post by: savuporo on 05/28/2014 12:37 am
ULA can only operate Atlas V and derivatives...Where does that come from, by the way ? IIRC the deal they signed in 2005 left the door open for future ELV and RLV developments by ULA, and the text of agreement should be available on sec.gov
Post by: Jim on 05/28/2014 12:41 am
Where does that come from, by the way ? IIRC the deal they signed in 2005 left the door open for future ELV and RLV developments by ULA, and the text of agreement should be available on sec.gov
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Post by: savuporo on 05/28/2014 12:46 am
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Nothing in the Master Agreement for ULA says they cannot develop new vehicles though. And FTC amended approval did not say anything about new vehicle developments at all - there were only equal payload treatment provisions and sensitive information safeguard provisions.
Post by: Jim on 05/28/2014 09:06 am
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Nothing in the Master Agreement for ULA says they cannot develop new vehicles though. And FTC amended approval did not say anything about new vehicle developments at all - there were only equal payload treatment provisions and sensitive information safeguard provisions.
Section 5.13 Non-Competition Agreement.
Post by: savuporo on 05/28/2014 03:00 pm
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Nothing in the Master Agreement for ULA says they cannot develop new vehicles though. And FTC amended approval did not say anything about new vehicle developments at all - there were only equal payload treatment provisions and sensitive information safeguard provisions.
Section 5.13 Non-Competition Agreement.
Umm. That section is expired by now - the "design and development" section part valid only for 5 years, and operating part for 7.5. The deal closed in 2006 so we are well past the expiry date.
In addition, i am not a lawyer, but i did NOT read this as an all out ban of launch vehicle development - just the USG market part.
Post by: Jim on 05/28/2014 03:18 pm
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Nothing in the Master Agreement for ULA says they cannot develop new vehicles though. And FTC amended approval did not say anything about new vehicle developments at all - there were only equal payload treatment provisions and sensitive information safeguard provisions.
Section 5.13 Non-Competition Agreement.
Umm. That section is expired by now - the "design and development" section part valid only for 5 years, and operating part for 7.5. The deal closed in 2006 so we are well past the expiry date.
In addition, i am not a lawyer, but i did NOT read this as an all out ban of launch vehicle development - just the USG market part.
Still Boeing and LM are not going to let ULA compete in a market where one or both could do it alone.
Post by: savuporo on 05/28/2014 03:21 pm
That is the deal between Boeing and LM
Nothing in the Master Agreement for ULA says they cannot develop new vehicles though. And FTC amended approval did not say anything about new vehicle developments at all - there were only equal payload treatment provisions and sensitive information safeguard provisions.
Section 5.13 Non-Competition Agreement.
Umm. That section is expired by now - the "design and development" section part valid only for 5 years, and operating part for 7.5. The deal closed in 2006 so we are well past the expiry date.
In addition, i am not a lawyer, but i did NOT read this as an all out ban of launch vehicle development - just the USG market part.
Still Boeing and LM are not going to let ULA compete in a market where one or both could do it alone.
Are you saying that there is a separate agreement from what was approved by FTC? They might be interested to know, because they approved the joint venture based on the provisions in the master apprement, and filed complaints and inputs from DoD ?
Post by: Jim on 05/28/2014 03:44 pm
Are you saying that there is a separate agreement from what was approved by FTC? They might be interested to know, because they approved the joint venture based on the provisions in the master apprement, and filed complaints and inputs from DoD ?
You have Boeing and LM personnel as part of the board of directors, why would they let ULA do something, when they could do alone?
Post by: savuporo on 05/28/2014 04:19 pm
Post by: jongoff on 05/28/2014 07:44 pm
Long story short, they were working towards building a full pre-burner/stator segment that was going to be retrofitted into a production RD-180 and test fired on the Russian hot fire stand (after having been fired using all Russian components so they have a way of comparing the two). The paper was written about a year before that point when they were just starting to fabricate the assembly from entirely US-sourced parts, materials, coatings, and using the welding/brazing techniques they had developed. So, I don't know for sure if the test firing ever happened. But if it did, I would agree with them that they retired the key risks for the RD-180 co-production.
As a follow-up, I got some additional details. Apparently they did complete full fabrication of the stator/preburner assembly (as well as some parts of the hot-section turbine), and did a burst test on the assembly, and then sectioned it up and analyzed it after the test. It apparently passed with flying colors. At that point ULA felt they had retired enough risk, that they wound the project down before doing the actual hot fire testing, but they did do a lot of flow tests on the stator with realistic hot oxidizer rich conditions with aluminum grit mixed in, just like the Russians do...
I think a hot fire testing would've shut up more quibbling engineers than just the burst test and flow testing alone, but this seems like a mature project. Admittedly, taking it the rest of the way to a full US-sourced flight engine would probably still take some Russian cooperation, which is less likely so long as people in Congress keep trying to drag this into their attempts to restart a Cold War (and so long as Elon keeps goading them on to do so to try and legislatively hobble his competition)...
~Jon
Post by: bad_astra on 05/28/2014 08:43 pm
(and so long as Elon keeps goading them on to do so to try and legislatively hobble his competition)...
~Jon
Not a fair comment.
Post by: jongoff on 05/28/2014 09:05 pm
(and so long as Elon keeps goading them on to do so to try and legislatively hobble his competition)...
~Jon
Not a fair comment.
I think it's perfectly fair. He's actively stirring the pot trying to get Congress to legislatively knock out his closest competition. I really love what SpaceX is doing on the technology side, and generally have a ton of respect for Elon, but he's descending to Boeing's level on this one, and I think it's fair to call him on it.
Admittedly, I'm pretty sure that Aerojet is also stirring the pot behind the scenes (and are probably silently cheering on Elon's actions), because they stand to make a lot of money if they can talk Congress into sole-sourcing a LOX/HC engine development to them to replace the RD-180.
But that's a discussion we've already beaten into the ground over on the "SpaceX's Actions are Irresponsible" thread...
~Jon
Post by: bad_astra on 05/28/2014 09:27 pm
I won't get into whether the pot was stirred. I'm not a amazing people of either company. I just like to keep my employment options open, thanks. But the pot was sitting on a shaking table made out of cardboard. It didn't much matter who stirred it.
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 03:32 am
I'll just take some advice from Princess Bride and not get involved in a land war in Asia. Made In Russia was a problem few people wanted to talk about for years including on this forum, sci.space.policy and elsewhere. When ever one of us did mention it, the matter was dealt with patronizingly by the usual suspects.There was a religious-like faith that Russian sourcing held no risks. It was more than just wanting to believe, they had to believe. These recent events must be rocking their world to the core.
I won't get into whether the pot was stirred. I'm not a amazing people of either company. I just like to keep my employment options open, thanks. But the pot was sitting on a shaking table made out of cardboard. It didn't much matter who stirred it.
Some are still living in denial, actually trusting Putin to allow non national security uses. Some even hold that Atlas can survive a many year ban. It's the embodiment of wishful thinking.
Back in the real world, Putin now realizes the power these engines hold. If non NS uses aren't banned outright, those engines are going to suffer from unfortunate shipping delays. It's hard to see how anything leaves mother Russia until the US drops sanctions. With the war just hotting up, sanctions are going to be the new normal.
Post by: USFdon on 05/29/2014 03:34 am
Or two of these.
- Ed Kyle
Looks like they even studied a two engine variant ala the NK-33ed Antares. That would certainly be useful right now...
Post by: Jim on 05/29/2014 07:29 am
There was a religious-like faith that Russian sourcing held no risks. It was more than just wanting to believe, they had to believe. These recent events must be rocking their world to the core.
Some are still living in denial, actually trusting Putin to allow non national security uses. Some even hold that Atlas can survive a many year ban. It's the embodiment of wishful thinking.
Back in the real world, Putin now realizes the power these engines hold. If non NS uses aren't banned outright, those engines are going to suffer from unfortunate shipping delays. It's hard to see how anything leaves mother Russia until the US drops sanctions. With the war just hotting up, sanctions are going to be the new normal.
Reality is quite the opposite. The sky isn't falling. It is not the end of Atlas and the RD-180
Post by: pippin on 05/29/2014 08:23 am
There was a religious-like faith that Russian sourcing held no risks. It was more than just wanting to believe, they had to believe. These recent events must be rocking their world to the core.
Some are still living in denial, actually trusting Putin to allow non national security uses.
Well, let's not forget that it wasn't Putin starting this but that this is a response by the Russians (at least the Russians think it is, a case of "if you are threatening to ban our engines then we are taking them away from you right away, who do you think we are?").
So yes, obviously, whenever you carry a big gun you are in danger of shooting your own foot.
The same is true for the Russians, of course. Let's never forget one thing: If they look at this with a sober mind, as I am sure most actually involved in spaceflight will do, this only harms the Russian side. They were in a solid position of having an almost monopoly on high-performance hydrolox engines, they were the only ones being able to launch humans to ISS (and Congress was likely to continue to underfund maybe even defund commercial crew), they have a foothold in Kourou, there were really solid in the business.
Six, seven years from now, nothing of this will probably still hold so I'm pretty sure if you look behind the scenes it's not the Russians stirring this up, they are not that stupid.
In fact these engines hold no power at all. If the US decides they want to live without them they can easily throw the few bn$ to the table to get a competitive engine and there goes all your power. The same is true for commercial Arianespace launches with Soyuz (except that the Europeans, having much more bureaucracy in the way and more than one opinion on the topic and also more trade with Russia show a much more tempered reaction so far).
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 11:38 am
There was a religious-like faith that Russian sourcing held no risks. It was more than just wanting to believe, they had to believe. These recent events must be rocking their world to the core.
Some are still living in denial, actually trusting Putin to allow non national security uses.
Well, let's not forget that it wasn't Putin starting this but that this is a response by the Russians (at least the Russians think it is, a case of "if you are threatening to ban our engines then we are taking them away from you right away, who do you think we are?").
It's a mistake to believe the embargo is a response to the US injunction of Russian engines. It is not. The embargo is a response to US sanctions.
Of course the engines won't hold power forever, but they do hold power now, quite a lot of power. The Air Force has admitted the embargo could delay launches by 3 or more years. The embargo will continue to hold power for some time yet.
The reason for the embargo is so much larger than the rocket industry. The 80 million these engines bring annually is an almost insignificant amount of revenue for the Russians. Compared to their petro sales, these engines are a rounding error.
Many in the industry want to believe the embargo was spurred by the actions of SpaceX or the injunction. The truth is that these engines are a domino that's fallen due to the Russian invasion of Crimea and subsequent moves into the rest of Ukraine, each of which spurred US sanctions.
The embargo will last as long as US sanctions last. With the fighting only getting hotter, sanctions would seem with us for the long haul. Rockets are small time compared to US - Russian relations. That particular tail's not going to wag the dog, no matter how loud ULA and the Air Force wail.
How long can the Atlas program last without fresh engines? A year is a good guess, 18 months at the outside. More than a few in the industry are writing Atlas' epitaph, and with good reason.
Post by: pippin on 05/29/2014 11:49 am
It's a mistake to believe the embargo is a response to the US injunction of Russian engines. It is not. The embargo is a response to US sanctions.
This is pretty OT, but: what sanctions? The US have no business worth mentioning with Russia except for spaceflight so any sanctions the US impose on Russia are pretty much laughable from the Russian POV. That's why these engines get so much attention, it's pretty much the only thing where there's really some ground to fight over.
All other "sanctions" the US have incurred where blocking the bank accounts of a few dozen people and banning them from visiting the US. Sans RD-180 and ISS impact the US sanctions are not even a mere joke.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/ukraine.aspx
Quote
Many in the industry want to believe the embargo was spurred by the actions of SpaceX or the injunction. The truth is that these engines are a domino that's fallen due to the Russian invasion of Crimea and subsequent moves into the rest of Ukraine, each of which spurred US sanctions.This definitely gets OT. The Ukraine, Crimea,... thing is MUCH too complicated for simplistic finger pointing politics. Let's stick to the space flight impact.
Quote
Rockets are small time compared to US - Russian relations.
No, they are not. If it comes to hard business they are pretty much the only thing that stings. That's why we are seeing all this impact on the space programs everywhere. There is no other leverage - for both sides.
And in the end, whatever outcome it's the Russian space industry that gets hurt, not the US one. The US will recover from this and probably even start to invest more to gain independence - even if this gets sorted in the short term.
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 11:52 am
Reality is quite the opposite. The sky isn't falling. It is not the end of Atlas and the RD-180
Falling? A big chunk's already fallen.
If Putin doesn't stand down, the White House can't drop sanctions. If sanctions don't drop, the engines don't ship. If the engines don't ship, 8 to 12 months from now, lay offs start. 12 to 18 months from now, the program is irretrievable.
I get that folks want to believe Atlas is going to keep flying. It's just not on the cards. Denial is the first stage, next stop is anger.
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 12:27 pm
No, they are not. If it comes to hard business they are pretty much the only thing that stings. That's why we are seeing all this impact on the space programs everywhere. There is no other leverage - for both sides.Russia has almost no leverage points, but the US has tremendous unused leverage. Were the US to pass sweeping financial sanctions against Russia, their economy would collapse. Even though there is little direct trade, the US is the world's reserve currency. This is why the Iranian sanctions are so damaging. Sweeping US financial sanction would do nearly incalculable damage to Russia.
When compared to the larger issue of US - Russian relations, the rocket industry is smaller than small. The engines sales bring in 80, perhaps 100 million dollars in annual revenue. This is a rounding error when viewed alongside Russia's real export earners like petroleum and mining.
Right now, because of some very poor risk mitigation by the US government, these engines are politically important. They are not and never were economically important. They are one of the few levers the Russians have over the US. The US has huge levers yet to use against the Russians. If the invasion of eastern Ukraine continues, the US will pull more of these levers.
And in the end, whatever outcome it's the Russian space industry that gets hurt, not the US one. The US will recover from this and probably even start to invest more to gain independence - even if this gets sorted in the short term.
You're right. In as little as five years, the US will see a net benefit and Russia will be harmed, even if Atlas is cancelled and launches are delayed 3 years. The problem is that Putin doesn't care. The invasion of Crimea cost the Russian economy close to 100 billion dollars. Putin didn't care. 50 billion was spent on an Olympics that should have cost 10 billion. Putin didn't care. The graft alone from the winter games was 40 times the revenue of these rocket engines. Putin doesn't care.
The current sanctions are not mortally damaging, but they're very public and anger Putin. The engines are politically important, not economically. They're only politically important to the US. The trust is already broken, the US will now be forced to peruse a completely domestic path even if engines ship tomorrow. This means that the Russians lose nothing by holding the engines back. They'll ship when the sanctions lift, and not a day before.
Post by: pippin on 05/29/2014 12:41 pm
the US has tremendous unused leverage.Mostly OT, but you said that the Russian ban was a reaction to US sanctions. "Unused" potential is something pretty different than existing sanctions. So are you saying that the RD-180 ban is a reaction to the threat to use that "unused potential" or something. Sorry, this doesn't make sense.
Right now there is close to nothing, the Congress' threat to ban RD-180 was the only thing to make the news so the Russians reacted to it. End of story. A purely spaceflight related story, right now.
Quote
If the invasion of eastern Ukraine continues, the US will pull more of these levers.
There is no such thing as an invasion of eastern Ukraine.
Quote
You're right. In as little as five years, the US will see a net benefit and Russia will be harmed, even if Atlas is cancelled and launches are delayed 3 years. The problem is that Putin doesn't care. The invasion of Crimea cost the Russian economy close to 100 billion dollars. Putin didn't care.
I don't believe this.
Putin did care but in Crimea he had no choice. Let's not forget Putin is an elected president. He might be pretty ruthless but his power lies in his economic success. Take that away - and this whole affair does have quite the potential to do so - and it will be the end for his power.
Putin's not stupid, he knows all that, this is why he's trying to get the Genie back into the bottle but it's not easy. Mood's pretty high in both Ukraine and Russia over this.
The real problem is that on both sides - US and Russia politicians are playing things up for domestic policy reasons, to make a point towards their own voter base.
And it looks like international cooperation in spaceflight is a collateral damage both sides are willing to accept. The big issue at hand is that in most other aspects issues will likely calm down in a few months but the damage done to spaceflight might be more permanent because spaceflight is so much relying on international cooperation wherever it goes beyond straightforward commercial applications.
Everybody should better take a deep breath WRT this issue and not overreact.
Post by: Prober on 05/29/2014 02:11 pm
Reality is quite the opposite. The sky isn't falling. It is not the end of Atlas and the RD-180
Falling? A big chunk's already fallen.
If Putin doesn't stand down, the White House can't drop sanctions.
Not to take this thread off topic but define stand down? What's gotten lost in time is Crimea. :(
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2014 02:38 pm
QuoteIf the invasion of eastern Ukraine continues, the US will pull more of these levers.
There is no such thing as an invasion of eastern Ukraine.
Every map I have seen puts Crimea in eastern Ukraine. Even the Russian ones. As an example, the link with the map below is dated 2009 from Ria Novosti, a news agency operating under the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media.
http://en.ria.ru/infographics/20090609/155206402.html
Clearly visible is the Crimean peninsula with Sevastopol, Simferopol and Kerch.
Post by: pippin on 05/29/2014 02:46 pm
Please let's not discuss here about general politics, this is complex, it's not something we are going to solve here.
Edit: I just realize you weren't Linze I've been responding to, so edited back.
The point of the whole argument was: the "supply risk" for RD-180 is entirely one the US chose to imply on themselves, the US created the RD-180 situation all by themselves, it's not something "unreliable Russians" have started. What interests were involved in this remains to be seen, you probably know more about that then I do, I only see the Congress action and the SpaceX claims/legal action.
There was no outside necessity to "endanger" the Atlas supply, if it's endangered this is the case because obviously some people thought it's a lesser risk than what could be gained from it.
Post by: Targeteer on 05/29/2014 11:08 pm
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 11:08 pm
The point of the whole argument was: the "supply risk" for RD-180 is entirely one the US chose to imply on themselves, the US created the RD-180 situation all by themselves, it's not something "unreliable Russians" have started. What interests were involved in this remains to be seen, you probably know more about that then I do, I only see the Congress action and the SpaceX claims/legal action.
Whether or not it was started by "unreliable Russians", that's where it is now. The moment Russia announced their embargo, the US government could no longer pretend that Russia provided a reliable engine supply. Congress will not believe any Russian engined vehicle can provide assured access to space. Vehicles requiring Russian engines won't get funded.
Even if the Russian relations stabalized tomorrow, it would be too late. The embargo changed everything. The trust has been broken. The US would still be forced to develop completely domestic solutions. Atlas is nearing an end, Orbital's Russian engine buys are almost certainly at an end. No US government agency will soon bet their future on a product with Russian engines.
This is why Putin has no incentive to ship engines before US sanctions lift. Even if he allows engines to ship tomorrow, at best they'll keep shipping for a few years. No matter what Putin does, Russian engine sales to the US are coming to an end.
There is no long-term benefit for Putin to lift sanctions. It won't help his rocket business. Whether he ships the engines or not, the long-term business is gone. He only needs to focus on the short-term gains, like pushing the US to drop sanctions.
Post by: savuporo on 05/29/2014 11:20 pm
The embargo changed everything. The trust has been broken..
And the the amazing thing is .. there is no embargo. There is just a tweet from mr. Rogozin, who self-describes himself as "I'm just a bad character" (http://ru-facts.com/news/view/35643.html) ( in response to Kosmomolskaya Pravda question about his social media presence )
Post by: Linze on 05/29/2014 11:27 pm
It was not just a tweet. There's also a Russian press interview in which he confirms the embargo.The embargo changed everything. The trust has been broken..
And the the amazing thing is .. there is no embargo. There is just a tweet from mr. Rogozin, who self-describes himself as "I'm just a bad character" (http://ru-facts.com/news/view/35643.html) ( in response to Kosmomolskaya Pravda question about his social media presence )
Rogozin may be a bad character, but he's also Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Russia's defense and space industries. If he says there's an embargo, there's an embargo.
If there were no embargo, the Russians would have denied it. They haven't. The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that an embargo is in place.
Post by: baldusi on 05/29/2014 11:32 pm
No it isn't. Part of the agreement of the RD-180, already states that it can't be used for military payloads. Where military is defined as weapons systems, not dual use.It was not just a tweet. There's also a Russian press interview in which he confirms the embargo.The embargo changed everything. The trust has been broken..
And the the amazing thing is .. there is no embargo. There is just a tweet from mr. Rogozin, who self-describes himself as "I'm just a bad character" (http://ru-facts.com/news/view/35643.html) ( in response to Kosmomolskaya Pravda question about his social media presence )
Rogozin may be a bad character, but he's also Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Russia's defense and space industries. If he says there's an embargo, there's an embargo.
If there were no embargo, the Russians would have denied it. They haven't. The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that an embargo is in place.
Post by: Linze on 05/30/2014 12:14 am
No it isn't. Part of the agreement of the RD-180, already states that it can't be used for military payloads. Where military is defined as weapons systems, not dual use.
Rogozin's statements decisively contradict that agreement. That's the problem. That's why there is an embargo.
Post by: Targeteer on 05/30/2014 01:44 am
The story finally made the mainstream press tonight with a story on the CBS Evening news with comments from Bill Harwood.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dispute-with-russia-over-ukraine-threatens-u-s-space-program/
Post by: jongoff on 05/30/2014 02:05 am
No it isn't. Part of the agreement of the RD-180, already states that it can't be used for military payloads. Where military is defined as weapons systems, not dual use.
Rogozin's statements decisively contradict that agreement. That's the problem. That's why there is an embargo.
Somebody should probably tell the RD-AMROSS folks, because they sure haven't been informed of an actual embargo, as opposed to Rogozin shooting off his mouth.
~Jon
Post by: Oli on 05/30/2014 04:33 am
The US have no business worth mentioning with Russia except for spaceflight
Well that's not true. Trade volume between the two countries as a % of gdp is relatively small, but its still around $33bn, a lot bigger than spaceflight.
There is no such thing as an invasion of eastern Ukraine.
Haha, LoL, joke of the century. A great part of the separatists in eastern Ukraine are Russian citizens (or newly Chechens), guided by a Russian Colonel (Mr. Strelkov), supplied by Russia. Crimea was taken over by Russian special forces.
Russia has almost no leverage points, but the US has tremendous unused leverage. Were the US to pass sweeping financial sanctions against Russia, their economy would collapse. Even though there is little direct trade, the US is the world's reserve currency. This is why the Iranian sanctions are so damaging. Sweeping US financial sanction would do nearly incalculable damage to Russia.
How is that supposed to work? The financial linkage between the 2 countries is small (reflecting the relatively low importance of trade). Sanctions against Iran are effective because almost everybody participates. The US cannot force the EU or China (Russia's biggest trading partners) to impose sanctions. The US has little (economic) leverage in all this.
Post by: Linze on 05/30/2014 04:51 am
How is that supposed to work? The financial linkage between the 2 countries is small (reflecting the relatively low importance of trade). Sanctions against Iran are effective because almost everybody participates. The US cannot force the EU or China (Russia's biggest trading partners) to impose sanctions. The US has little (economic) leverage in all this.
Most of the world's trade is performed in dollars. For example, when Russia trades goods with Japan, most of that trade will be done in USD. Japanese sellers have little desire for rubles, Russian sellers have little desire for Yen. The exchange is performed in USD. It is the same with most of Russia's trading partners.
Were the US to pass sweeping financial sanctions against Russian banks and industry, it would be difficult and expensive for Russian banks and industry to trade with other nations Trade would still be possible, but Russian buyers and sellers would effectively have a tax placed on most of their imports and exports.
Non-Russian banks handling Russian trade would have a choice, Russia or the US. For most banks, the question's not even worth asking. The US economy is the largest in the world.
The Russians would want to pay in Rubles, so the Ruble would lose stability. Many vendors would only accept the Russian currency if there were steep discounts attached. The Russians would lose large a percentage on any exports and pay much higher prices for any imports. The combination would be ruinous for the Russian economy.
The US didn't have this power over the old Soviet command economy, but the current Russian economy is thoroughly interconnected with the West. US financial sanctions could send the modern Russian economy into free-fall.
Post by: Oli on 05/31/2014 02:33 am
Most of the world's trade is performed in dollars. For example, when Russia trades goods with Japan, most of that trade will be done in USD. Japanese sellers have little desire for rubles, Russian sellers have little desire for Yen. The exchange is performed in USD. It is the same with most of Russia's trading partners.
I'm pretty sure there is direct ruble/euro, ruble/yen, ruble/renminbi trading. Euro/yen are reserve currencies as well (among others, pound, swiss franc etc.), renminbi is becoming one. I don't see why anyone would not accept trading in them if the dollar is not available.
Post by: Linze on 05/31/2014 04:29 am
Most of the world's trade is performed in dollars. For example, when Russia trades goods with Japan, most of that trade will be done in USD. Japanese sellers have little desire for rubles, Russian sellers have little desire for Yen. The exchange is performed in USD. It is the same with most of Russia's trading partners.
I'm pretty sure there is direct ruble/euro, ruble/yen, ruble/renminbi trading. Euro/yen are reserve currencies as well (among others, pound, swiss franc etc.), renminbi is becoming one. I don't see why anyone would not accept trading in them if the dollar is not available.
There is, but rarely in the quantities needed by major industries. When a shipload of ore is purchased, the currency needs to be exchanged that day. Few currency traders will be able to make massive Yen to Ruble conversions at a moment's notice.
So it's Yen to USD, then USD to Rubles. The currency traders take a small slice, which is why US based businesses have it so easy. They can trade with everyone, everywhere using their own currency.
Post by: baldusi on 05/31/2014 04:55 am
Post by: Linze on 05/31/2014 04:59 am
Actually, that's changing. The Bretton-Woods inertia kept going. But there have been significant bilateral agreements and anything to Euro is direct. And China has arranged for bilateral exchange to Euro, Rubles and. Yens, at least.
Yes, it's slowly changing, but hasn't changed yet. USD is likely to remain the currency of choice for a great many nations.
The US still has tremendous power in this regard.
Post by: anonymous on 05/31/2014 10:56 am
Post by: Oli on 05/31/2014 01:30 pm
There is, but rarely in the quantities needed by major industries. When a shipload of ore is purchased, the currency needs to be exchanged that day. Few currency traders will be able to make massive Yen to Ruble conversions at a moment's notice.
So it's Yen to USD, then USD to Rubles. The currency traders take a small slice, which is why US based businesses have it so easy. They can trade with everyone, everywhere using their own currency.
Again, I don't see why not more Yen/Rubles could be traded when demand is there. The US has traditionally been the most important reserve currency since WW2 (the US won the war and the rest was in ruins), but if there are too many restrictions on trading with dollars, other currencies will be used. I don't see how US businesses having it easier than others btw.
Banks were forced to choose between the US or Iran. They chose the US because it has a far bigger economy and accounts for far more international trade. It would be much the same if the US imposed financial sanctions on Russia.
No it would not be the same. Iran is too unimportant and sanctions were backed by western and other powers. If the US were to sanction European or Chinese companies for doing business with Russia, that would basically result in a trade war with both entities. The US won't do that.
Mods can delete the whole debate if they want.
Post by: Linze on 05/31/2014 10:39 pm
the reason why sanctions against Iran have been so successful is.. because the US sanctioned any bank dealing with Iran. Banks were forced to choose between the US or Iran. They chose the US because it has a far bigger economy and accounts for far more international trade. It would be much the same if the US imposed financial sanctions on Russia.
Absolutely correct.
No it would not be the same. Iran is too unimportant and sanctions were backed by western and other powers. If the US were to sanction European or Chinese companies for doing business with Russia, that would basically result in a trade war with both entities. The US won't do that.If Russia expands its invasion of Ukraine's eastern provinces, banking sanctions are among the next steps. The US and EU won't declare military war, they may declare economic war.
The US has over 8 times the GDP of Russia. The EU's GDP is about the same size as the US. If forced to chose, all the large nations will go with the US and EU. Together, they're 16 times the size of Russia's economy, add the rest of the G7 and it hits a multiple of 20.
China? China's number 1 export market by a large margin is the US. Their 2nd largest export market is the EU. If forced to choose between Russia and the US/EU, there would be no choice. Were China to side with Russia, the Chinese economy would collapse.
The US has massive leverage over the Russians. It's not even up for dispute. It is an unassailable fact.
Post by: Lar on 06/01/2014 01:47 am
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/10/2014 06:14 pm
https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/476056012244660225
When is the next RD-180 delivery? Later this year?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: baldusi on 06/10/2014 07:42 pm
Almost a month now since Dmitry Rogozin threatened an RD-180 cut off, yet ULA officials continue to say that they've received no word whatsoever about any such thing.Somehow I remember October. I believe they generally got each batch in April, but because of all this they've asked to do it twice per year starting this October. But that's what I think I remember, the truth might be quite different.
https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/476056012244660225
When is the next RD-180 delivery? Later this year?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: DGH on 06/11/2014 12:30 am
Almost a month now since Dmitry Rogozin threatened an RD-180 cut off, yet ULA officials continue to say that they've received no word whatsoever about any such thing.
https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/476056012244660225
When is the next RD-180 delivery? Later this year?
- Ed Kyle
August.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/204316-contractor-speeds-up-deliveries-of-russian-engines (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/204316-contractor-speeds-up-deliveries-of-russian-engines)
ULA received one shipment of four engines last November, but this year will receive shipments of two engines in August and three engines in October.
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/11/2014 11:22 am
I found a comment to that effect on spacepolitics (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/05/13/russian-official-announces-ban-on-military-use-of-rd-180-engines/) and recall seeing similar statements here on NSF somewhere- but I can't recall the topic.
I'm curious if Russia has any meaningful control of the use of the engines once in the US.
There is a an issue of being ethically bound to keep procurement agreements we may have made which restrict the use of the RD-180 to non military purposes. If such an agreement was made, how did the RD-180 wind up in a USAF EELV?
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/11/2014 01:12 pm
w/r to military launches using RD-180, has it been confirmed that Russian Engineers are required to prep an RD-180 for launch?
I found a comment to that effect on spacepolitics (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/05/13/russian-official-announces-ban-on-military-use-of-rd-180-engines/) and recall seeing similar statements here on NSF somewhere- but I can't recall the topic.
I'm curious if Russia has any meaningful control of the use of the engines once in the US.
[...]
Jongoff provided an answer to this in the Atlas V and Centaur Q&A (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6479.msg1210912#msg1210912) thread
Among reciprocal Russian sanctions, defined by Rogozin one is not discussed in policy topics, while potentially have serious and nearly immediate consequences.
When he speak about restrictions for Russian engines for military-related launches of American rockets, he add that not only selling could be prohibited, but the technical maintenance by Russian servicemen of any engine already bought (and already on American soil) could be prohibited too.
So my questions are:
* Does RD-180 and/or AJ26/NK-33 have parts that currently should be periodically/before installation in rocket/before start serviced by production plant personnel (NPO Energomash or Kuznetsov DB)?
* If so, could RD Amross / Aerojet do such maintenance independently (both from technological and legal points of view)?
* If not, are ULA / Orbital really have "more than 2 year's reserves of engines" or they have "unserviceable and therefore useless junk" instead?
PS. I am write question here, because policy forum is read only for me.
Prof,
Since nobody answered your question here, I figured I'd answer. I spoke with someone from RD-AMROSS at the Space Symposium last month, and specifically asked him about this. Apparently once the engines are delivered to the US, Russian involvement is only on an observation basis. The RD-AMROSS folks have a few Russians there at a few key points in the process, but all of the work is done by the US personnel. So this isn't really a legit concern.
~Jon
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/11/2014 08:58 pm
Post by: savuporo on 06/12/2014 06:46 pm
FTC inquiry into ULA venture closed; Orbital might access RD-180 engines (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_0a1372ea-f1e5-11e3-b277-0017a43b2370.html)
Quote
“The pattern is clear,” Orbital noted in the lawsuit, pointing out that every time that Orbital threatened to compete with ULA, it extended the “exclusivity agreement” to stop Orbital’s access to the RD-180.
Orbital’s attorney Eugene Norman Hansen with Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson of Washington D.C. did not respond to a request for comment, regarding the parties’ agreement to the lawsuit’s dismissal.
Rye noted that, “if a mutually agreeable resolution is not reached, Orbital will have the option to refile its lawsuit.”
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/12/2014 11:10 pm
Looks like ULA actions may have done Orbital a favour.
Post by: MP99 on 06/13/2014 09:41 am
At least Orbital might now be able to obtain RD-180s if they still want to
FTC inquiry into ULA venture closed; Orbital might access RD-180 engines (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_0a1372ea-f1e5-11e3-b277-0017a43b2370.html)Quote“The pattern is clear,” Orbital noted in the lawsuit, pointing out that every time that Orbital threatened to compete with ULA, it extended the “exclusivity agreement” to stop Orbital’s access to the RD-180.
Orbital’s attorney Eugene Norman Hansen with Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson of Washington D.C. did not respond to a request for comment, regarding the parties’ agreement to the lawsuit’s dismissal.
Rye noted that, “if a mutually agreeable resolution is not reached, Orbital will have the option to refile its lawsuit.”
Wow, this was new to me from the article:-
Quote
Orbital maintained that although RD Amross had been agreeable to selling the engines in the mid to late 1990s, it had reneged after ULA intervened and Orbital did not agree to use ULA’s first stage booster in Antares. “The ULA first-stage booster offering only had value to ULA, as it effectively precluded Orbital from becoming an independent viable competitor in the Medium-Class Space Launch Systems and Services Market,” Orbital’s lawsuit states.
cheers, Martin
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/13/2014 01:23 pm
Wow, this was new to me from the article:-That would have created something like the "EELV Lite" that was in the original plans. I assume this would have been an Atlas 5 CCB. I wonder if Lockheed Martin (or ULA's) idea was to launch it from LC 41.Orbital maintained that although RD Amross had been agreeable to selling the engines in the mid to late 1990s, it had reneged after ULA intervened and Orbital did not agree to use ULA’s first stage booster in Antares. “The ULA first-stage booster offering only had value to ULA, as it effectively precluded Orbital from becoming an independent viable competitor in the Medium-Class Space Launch Systems and Services Market,” Orbital’s lawsuit states.
cheers, Martin
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Linze on 06/13/2014 11:50 pm
If ULA hadn't blocked Orbitals access to RD180, Orbital would have now started designing a new LV based on RD180. With recent events Orbital would now have been considering whether to proceed with this new LV.
Looks like ULA actions may have done Orbital a favour.
Fully agree, with ULA's help, Orbital has dodged a bullet. Now that Russia's sending tanks into Ukraine proper, any chances of RD-180 shipments would seem to be further diminished.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-tanks-war-putin-obama-2014-6
Post by: Jim on 06/14/2014 02:47 am
Now that Russia's sending tanks into Ukraine proper, any chances of RD-180 shipments would seem to be further diminished.
Still pushing your unsubstantiated agenda. The chances have not "diminished", much less "further".
Post by: Linze on 06/14/2014 06:32 am
Now that Russia's sending tanks into Ukraine proper, any chances of RD-180 shipments would seem to be further diminished.
Still pushing your unsubstantiated agenda. The chances have not "diminished", much less "further".
Not an agenda. It's facts on the ground that have already had direct effects on this issue. Facts that have significantly escalated in the past two days.
When I look out the window and see a storm raging, I tend to wonder about the motivation of those who deny the storm could ever do any damage. Storms don't do less damage when they're ignored.
Oh, and the Russians just shot down a IL-76. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27845313
Post by: sdsds on 06/14/2014 10:08 pm
Quote
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, said the Pentagon had taken some initial steps to reduce the risks linked with use of the Russian engines, but had not made any final decisions about how to proceed.http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-says-mulling-options-replace-russian-rocket-motors-215448023--finance.html
"We are motivated, if we can do it, to remove the dependency that we have. We would ... like to do that," he said. "We haven't figured out exactly how to get there yet."
Post by: newpylong on 06/16/2014 01:14 pm
Now that Russia's sending tanks into Ukraine proper, any chances of RD-180 shipments would seem to be further diminished.
Still pushing your unsubstantiated agenda. The chances have not "diminished", much less "further".
Not an agenda. It's facts on the ground that have already had direct effects on this issue. Facts that have significantly escalated in the past two days.
When I look out the window and see a storm raging, I tend to wonder about the motivation of those who deny the storm could ever do any damage. Storms don't do less damage when they're ignored.
Oh, and the Russians just shot down a IL-76. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27845313
What does any of this have to do with the RD-180?
Post by: Skyrocket on 06/16/2014 01:31 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/16/2014 07:00 pm
How many engines are to be in the next delivery?This report
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/204316-contractor-speeds-up-deliveries-of-russian-engines
said:
"United Launch Alliance said Thursday it is speeding up its schedule for receiving Russian-made engines, from once a year to twice per year.
ULA received one shipment of four engines last November, but this year will receive shipments of two engines in August and three engines in October. "
August will be interesting.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/16/2014 07:32 pm
...reminds me of a book title
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/16/2014 08:40 pm
Under the existing EELV block buy contract who eats the additional cost for substituting Delta IVs for Atlas Vs and how much would that amount to?
kevin-rf; "The Engines of August" followed by "The Hunt for Red November"
Post by: WHAP on 06/16/2014 09:52 pm
How many engines are to be in the next delivery?This report
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/204316-contractor-speeds-up-deliveries-of-russian-engines
said:
"United Launch Alliance said Thursday it is speeding up its schedule for receiving Russian-made engines, from once a year to twice per year.
ULA received one shipment of four engines last November, but this year will receive shipments of two engines in August and three engines in October. "
August will be interesting.
- Ed Kyle
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.
Post by: baldusi on 06/16/2014 10:01 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/17/2014 12:24 am
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.I fully expect that what you describe will happen. The interesting part will be how the media and others who've been highlighting the RD-180 "boycott" will present the story. I hope that the result will be clarification for everyone.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: WHAP on 06/17/2014 04:10 am
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.I fully expect that what you describe will happen. The interesting part will be how the media and others who've been highlighting the RD-180 "boycott" will present the story. I hope that the result will be clarification for everyone.
- Ed Kyle
The "media" will present whatever attracts attention. If the situation remains stable (i.e., no additional escalation of non-rocket related events), I doubt this will make it to the media's radar. There was a lot of discussion on this forum about the potential issues for the last Atlas launch, none of which showed up in the mainstream media, and even faded fast as launch approached.
Post by: Linze on 06/17/2014 08:27 pm
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.I fully expect that what you describe will happen. The interesting part will be how the media and others who've been highlighting the RD-180 "boycott" will present the story. I hope that the result will be clarification for everyone.
- Ed Kyle
And if it doesn't happen as you describe? If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited? What then?
Post by: sdsds on 06/17/2014 08:51 pm
A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines.
Huntsville? Is that really the point of delivery for the engines? Any idea why?
Post by: jg on 06/17/2014 08:57 pm
?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/17/2014 09:06 pm
Decatur, just west of Huntsville, is where RD-180 is mated to Atlas 5 CCBs in the ULA factory. The engines are flown into Huntsville International, which is about 20 miles from the factory.A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines.
Huntsville? Is that really the point of delivery for the engines? Any idea why?
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-receives-2013-delivery-of-atlas-v.aspx
- Ed Kyle
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/17/2014 09:11 pm
And if it doesn't happen as you describe? If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited? What then?There is no embargo, to the knowledge of ULA, Energomash, RD-AMROSS, etc.. But if RD-180 is not delivered, then RD-AMROSS/Energomash will have failed to meet the requirements of the contract.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2014 10:01 pm
If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited?
What embargo? There is no embargo.
Post by: PahTo on 06/17/2014 10:14 pm
What type of acceptance testing or process is currently in place for RD-180s that arrive? Simple inspection? Borescope inspection? Test firing? Is there a likelihood the acceptance protocol might be "enhanced" given the current political situation?
Post by: arachnitect on 06/17/2014 10:26 pm
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.I fully expect that what you describe will happen. The interesting part will be how the media and others who've been highlighting the RD-180 "boycott" will present the story. I hope that the result will be clarification for everyone.
- Ed Kyle
And if it doesn't happen as you describe? If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited? What then?
Unless you have specific knowledge that any such thing will happen you're just pitching hypothetical disasters. You might as well ask what would happen if the Hawthorne factory burned to the ground.
Your continued persistence in asking this question is strange because the question has basically been answered: ULA would start moving payloads over to Delta IV as they use up the stockpile of RD-180. Predictions beyond that are difficult because they depend heavily on the nature of the hypothetical supply interruption and US gov't response. As Ed has pointed out multiple times, there is currently no disruption.
If you want people to be accountable for their predictions then so be it. Make your clearly defined prediction and we'll talk in a few months. If you want to advocate a course of action you find personally preferable, you can do that in the space policy section.
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2014 12:35 am
What type of acceptance testing or process is currently in place for RD-180s that arrive? Simple inspection? Borescope inspection? Test firing? Is there a likelihood the acceptance protocol might be "enhanced" given the current political situation?
Simple inspection
Post by: EE Scott on 06/18/2014 01:02 am
Post by: Linze on 06/18/2014 02:40 am
Why? A plane will fly from Moscow to Hunstville and deliver two engines. I can't imagine that it will be that interesting. Certainly no more interesting than the forum speculation about whether or not there would be Russians supporting the last Atlas launch, or whether that launch would be allowed to proceed, etc., etc. Turned out to be pretty boring, if you ask me.I fully expect that what you describe will happen. The interesting part will be how the media and others who've been highlighting the RD-180 "boycott" will present the story. I hope that the result will be clarification for everyone.
- Ed Kyle
And if it doesn't happen as you describe? If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited? What then?
Unless you have specific knowledge that any such thing will happen you're just pitching hypothetical disasters. You might as well ask what would happen if the Hawthorne factory burned to the ground.
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has said he will stop shipping engines. Not just in tweets, in a press conference and in interviews with the Russian media.
This qualifies as both "specific knowledge" and general knowledge. It is not hypothetical. Nor is it remotely the same as speculating about a random disaster that might impact any business. No one is threatening to burn down the Hawthorne factory, someone is threaten to stop shipping the RD-180.
Rogozin made a specific and direct challenge to ULA's use of the RD-180. He certainly has the power to make real those threats. The actions may or may not be carried out, but it is a blatant falsehood to classify Rogozin's threat as hypothetical.
There are thousands and thousands of Americans who would be terribly impacted by an engine stoppage. It's easy to understand why some might choose to ignore this news or state with authority that a stoppage will never occur. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. Repeatedly denying a possibility does not make it less likely to happen.
Post by: GClark on 06/18/2014 02:53 am
Do you have definitive knowledge that no further RD-180s will be shipped? If not, is it your position that personnel (high, middle, and low) at Energomash are being...less than forthcoming?
Edited by PoliteEdit 2014v0 (TM applied for)
Post by: Blackjax on 06/18/2014 02:54 am
If the embargo lasts past the August shipment date that's been posited?
What embargo? There is no embargo.
Of course there is an embargo, I'm watching it on television...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh-Samvut-E
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 06/18/2014 03:43 am
Post by: Linze on 06/18/2014 03:43 am
Then, pray, explain how no one at Energomash seems to know what Rogozin is talking about. They have, both publically and privately, maintained that they (Energomash) have received no orders to stop shipping motors.
Do you have definitive knowledge that no further RD-180s will be shipped? If not, is it your position that personnel (high, middle, and low) at Energomash are being...less than forthcoming?
Edited by PoliteEdit 2014v0 (TM applied for)
Do you have definitive knowledge that further RD-180s will actually be shipped?
Yes, there is conflicting information. That doesn't mean that Rogozin's threats are empty. It only means there is conflicting information. The Energomash statements do not the nullify threats from Rogazin, or the opposite. If we only put stock in the statements from one side or the other, we're choosing the news we want to believe and ignoring that we don't.
Who has more power in the Russian bureaucracy, the head of Energomash, or Dmitry Rogozin? By most accounts, it's Rogozin. I give Rogozin's statements quite a bit more weight, but it's Putin's decision to make.
I don't pretend to know what is going to happen, but I'd never be so arrogant to say with surety that Putin will or will not halt sales. The embargo threat has been made, those that deny this are being willfully ignorant. None of us know what Putin will do. We do know that Putin often takes actions that seem to defy logic and Russia's best interests.
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 04:11 am
Post by: QuantumG on 06/18/2014 04:13 am
Post by: savuporo on 06/18/2014 04:27 am
It's already had an actual consequence.
Probably will be a candidate for most expensive tweet of the year, if they are giving these out ..
Post by: Linze on 06/18/2014 04:33 am
The only truth are actual, written court or state orders. Twitter and TV are just posturing. When and if NPO Energomash receives an actual order from the corresponding minister canceling or suspending their export license, then this will have an actual consequence.
If the head of NASA announced a program cancellation in a press conference, on Twitter, and in media interviews, would you demand an official, written court order before you believed it? Why do you require the head of Russia's space industry to meet this manufactured standard?
As others have said, Rogozin's proclamation has already has actual consequences. Some media analysts have written that the lack of confidence has already damaged Atlas within the government.
Whether or not the engines ship is an open question. The embargo threat is not an open question, it's a fact.
Post by: sdsds on 06/18/2014 06:51 am
The engines are flown into Huntsville International, which is about 20 miles from the factory [in Decatur].
Oops, I should have known that! Thanks for the clue. While I'm asking dumb questions ;) is it correct that all RD-180 engines have been delivered by An-124? Is four RD-180 the max that have ever flown at once? Is four the limit of the An-124?
Post by: DGH on 06/18/2014 10:40 am
Atlas V is flying more missions per year than the engines they are buying?
This correct.
The last year they were in balance was 2010.
Since then the engine reserve has shrunk by more than half.
In 2013 4 were delivered and 8 launched.
This year 5 engines will be delivered and 9 launched.
Even if there is no stoppage the number of engines in the United States will on average fall over the next several years.
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 02:03 pm
So they have actually lowered their reserve and increased the expenditure. Might be financially sound... until things like this happen. I guess they'll try to increase the stock in the next few years. NPO Energomash does has the capacity now that are tooled for Angara propulsion and Zenit is basically in hibernation mode.Atlas V is flying more missions per year than the engines they are buying?
This correct.
The last year they were in balance was 2010.
Since then the engine reserve has shrunk by more than half.
In 2013 4 were delivered and 8 launched.
This year 5 engines will be delivered and 9 launched.
Even if there is no stoppage the number of engines in the United States will on average fall over the next several years.
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 02:07 pm
It's already had an actual consequence.Those being?
My take is that now they are gonna ask quotes for new engine development. Then they'll get sticker shock, pay only a few 100M for a couple of years. The Ukraine crisis will have passed, they'll find an easy way to get a budget reduction by cancelling the project and they'll keep buying RD-180 until Atlas V retirement probably by 2028.
Post by: Linze on 06/19/2014 04:05 pm
It's already had an actual consequence.Those being?
My take is that now they are gonna ask quotes for new engine development. Then they'll get sticker shock, pay only a few 100M for a couple of years. The Ukraine crisis will have passed, they'll find an easy way to get a budget reduction by cancelling the project and they'll keep buying RD-180 until Atlas V retirement probably by 2028.
That's a realistic possibility, especially the first part. It's equally possible that Putin decides he'd rather screw the DOD than make a piddly amount of money from engine sales. The DOD has said that a lack of engines would cause 3 year delays in launching essential national security payloads. Putin had to like hearing that.
The stark reality is that these engines don't bring the Russians much money. They make more in few hours of natural resources exports than in a whole year of engine sales. The engine's political value could be much larger than their financial return.
The big question is what Boeing and Lockheed do if Rogozin makes good on his embargo threat. Do they keep the staffers on or do they release them? Does Atlas limp along or does it die?
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 04:29 pm
The big question is what Boeing and Lockheed do if Rogozin makes good on his embargo threat. Do they keep the staffers on or do they release them? Does Atlas limp along or does it die?
Atlas isn't going to limp along, it has a full manifest and missions on contract to 2018. The threat was only on military missions; NASA, civil and commercial missions are not affected.
The stark reality is that these engines don't bring the Russians much money. They make more in few hours of natural resources exports than in a whole year of engine sales. The engine's political value could be much larger than their financial return.
It isnt Russia that matters, it is money to Energomash that matters.
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/19/2014 04:35 pm
The threat was only on military missions; NASA, civil and commercial missions are not affected.
Forgive me for not keeping up, but wasn't there a question about the definition of a "military mission"? Like, it could still be used for DOD payloads, just not weapons or something?
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 04:39 pm
The threat was only on military missions; NASA, civil and commercial missions are not affected.
Forgive me for not keeping up, but wasn't there a question about the definition of a "military mission"? Like, it could still be used for DOD payloads, just not weapons or something?
that was the original interpretation.
Post by: baldusi on 06/19/2014 04:57 pm
It's equally possible that Putin decides he'd rather screw the DOD than make a piddly amount of money from engine sales.First, he would not think that way. second, he would be screwing NPO Energomash a lot more than DOD. Second, he would not really screw them, and would in fact make a mess to the Russian space industry. Remember that the ITAR and non reciprocity on satellite parts allow the Russian state to heavily subsidize its military Proton-M launches with the commercial ones. And third, you don't want to be in breach of contract under American law, as my idiotic leaders are starting to realize. And fourth and much more important, an American bar on satellite parts for Russia, would hurt their military incredibly hard. They would be going back to 3 year life for GLONASS satellites, communications and anything in a Molnyia orbit, for example.
The DOD has said that a lack of engines would cause 3 year delays in launching essential national security payloads. Putin had to like hearing that.That was FUD, that was the case where the 16 RD-180 on stock couldn't be used. If they did break the supply, then those could be used on the critical DOD payloads and the science and commercial part would suffer. Only to have SpaceX and Delta IV win scale economies. Very stupid thing to do. They could try to re interpret the military clause, but it very dubious legally. And again, by year's end DoD might have a realistic replacement schedule (with the extra engines shipped in August and October).
Post by: Linze on 06/19/2014 09:16 pm
The threat was only on military missions; NASA, civil and commercial missions are not affected.
Forgive me for not keeping up, but wasn't there a question about the definition of a "military mission"? Like, it could still be used for DOD payloads, just not weapons or something?
It's hard to put any stock into the non-DOD exception. A majority of Atlas launches could be classified as DoD. Russia wouldn't make much money by only shipping non-DoD launches, it's hard to see why they'd bother.
As for the rules, the Russians pulled them out of thin air. The interpretation of the rules is as clear as mud. They can make any interpretation they like or change them whenever they want. They can allow no engines, some of them, or all of them. Only time will tell which route they've chosen.
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 09:26 pm
It's hard to put any stock into the non-DOD exception. A majority of Atlas launches could be classified as DoD. Russia wouldn't make much money by only shipping non-DoD launches, it's hard to see why they'd bother.
Because you ignore the fact that it would do more damage to Energomash than ULA
Post by: Kim Keller on 07/01/2014 09:08 pm
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140630/190762206/US-Rethinks-Reduction-of-Russian-Rocket-Engine-Deliveries--.html
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/01/2014 09:17 pm
US Rethinks Reduction of Russian Rocket Engine Deliveries - Russian Deputy Prime MinisterCan't believe this myself.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140630/190762206/US-Rethinks-Reduction-of-Russian-Rocket-Engine-Deliveries--.html
Once burnt twice shy.
The US will phase out or stop it's use of Russian engines for DoD missions and possibly any other usage too.
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/01/2014 11:25 pm
US Rethinks Reduction of Russian Rocket Engine Deliveries - Russian Deputy Prime MinisterRogozin again.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140630/190762206/US-Rethinks-Reduction-of-Russian-Rocket-Engine-Deliveries--.html
http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/151.htm
- Ed Kyle
Post by: sdsds on 07/07/2014 04:22 am
Quote
Meanwhile, Gass says ULA has accelerated deliveries of five engines slated to arrive from Russia in November. Two are now expected in August and three in October. Next year’s planned delivery of six engines is being boosted to eight, which is slated to hold until all 29 on order are transferred to the U.S.
"I am not concerned that the RD-180 shipment" will not arrive as planned, Gass says. "They have always met all their commitments" at Energomash.
http://ula.lonebuffalo.com/story.cfm?story_id=7426059
Post by: Sean Lynch on 07/07/2014 05:15 am
Aerojet Rocketdyne's proposed RD-180 replacement - the AR-1 (aka AJ-1E6) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34944.msg1223334#msg1223334)
One of the links is to a ULA paper on a resuable engine module.
Post by: sdsds on 07/17/2014 04:58 am
At the 1h06m point:
https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=r1xvlUwPDCE#t=3960
Post by: Shaledc on 07/17/2014 09:14 pm
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2014 10:00 pm
With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
wrong and unsubstantiated
Post by: cartman on 07/17/2014 10:27 pm
Well if the RD-180 manages to survive this episode, I think its supply will be all but assured for the foreseeable future.With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
wrong and unsubstantiated
Post by: Linze on 07/17/2014 11:36 pm
With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/17/2014 11:41 pm
In your opinion.With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
Let's wait for the facts, shall we?
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2014 11:45 pm
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
Post by: Prober on 07/18/2014 02:18 am
With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
better read all the news before jumping into this......if anything Cash is going to be king now.
US Congress might look at things and push funds for US engine production faster. This kind of event motivates congress.
Post by: Linze on 07/18/2014 02:55 am
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
Post by: Burninate on 07/18/2014 03:01 am
While I respect the pessimism up to this point... Short of an overt, official Russian military invasion, the separatists downing an international flight with Americans onboard using a specialized crew-served SAM system imported from Russia, a day after pronouncements from the US about this precise danger with additional precautionary sanctions, is about as extreme an event as might have been expected to occur. It severely strengthens a public narrative that ends in crippling sanctions on Russian exports, with the possible exception of natural gas and oil. Whatever the probability was two days ago of the RD-180 supplychain remaining intact, today's events halved that probability or more.
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
edit:
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.Perfect storm. That is the phrase I was looking for.
Post by: Shaledc on 07/18/2014 03:07 am
With yesterday's new sanctions and the downing of the 777 today, pretty much forgone conclusion we won't be getting any more rd180s. Atlas V as we know it is over once the supply runs out.
better read all the news before jumping into this......if anything Cash is going to be king now.
No, in crisis between Putin & USA, pride is king. The RD180 exports are profitable, but still chump change compared to big picture like gas exports.
US Congress might look at things and push funds for US engine production faster. This kind of event motivates congress.
If you read my post more carefully, you might note I said "Atlas V as we know it", in other words with Russian made engines. Sure congress may indeed fund US engine production, but that would take years and likely be somewhat different when all is said/ done.
Post by: sdsds on 07/18/2014 03:35 am
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
There's another thread for that. Assuming your house is made of beer, that is. :D
Since we're stating beliefs, mine is that the engines are not that important; Russia won't bother to block their export.
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/18/2014 03:43 am
- Ed Kyle
Post by: baldusi on 07/18/2014 04:33 am
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 01:08 pm
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence.
You have not provided any "evidence" much less copious. You have only provided opinion back by opinion.
Post by: grythumn on 07/18/2014 03:10 pm
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence.
You have not provided any "evidence" much less copious. You have only provided opinion back by opinion.
He's shown evidence of worsening diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia. Whether that will lead to an interruption in supply of RD-180s is yet to be seen and until then all we have is opinion, informed or otherwise. Neither side of this argument seems to be adding anything new lately; can we let it drop until new facts surface?
-Bob
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 03:49 pm
He's shown evidence of worsening diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia.
That isn't evidence. He hasn't provided any connection between that and the RD-180. It is his opinion that changes in the diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia will have an effect on the RD-180.
Post by: grythumn on 07/18/2014 04:14 pm
He's shown evidence of worsening diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia. Whether that will lead to an interruption in supply of RD-180s is yet to be seen and until then all we have is opinion, informed or otherwise.
That isn't evidence. He hasn't provided any connection between that and the RD-180. It is his opinion that changes in the diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia will have an effect on the RD-180.
Did you read the second sentence of my post? That's exactly what I said. It's his opinion it will interrupt supply, yours that it won't. Neither of you are going to convince each other, so why not let it drop until more facts surface?
-Bob
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/18/2014 04:25 pm
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
People in Ukraine are dying daily due to Russian disruption of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. There is no doubt that the sky is falling, only whether some obscure contract for Russian supplied rocket components will be one of the many casualties.
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 04:38 pm
People in Ukraine are dying daily due to Russian disruption of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. There is no doubt that the sky is falling, only whether some obscure contract for Russian supplied rocket components will be one of the many casualties.
Just another case where you are wrong again. The sky is not falling was in reference to the contract for Russian supplied rocket components and not the whole situation. Try looking at the world without your Spacex glasses on.
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/18/2014 05:06 pm
People in Ukraine are dying daily due to Russian disruption of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. There is no doubt that the sky is falling, only whether some obscure contract for Russian supplied rocket components will be one of the many casualties.
Just another case where you are wrong again. The sky is not falling was in reference to the contract for Russian supplied rocket components and not the whole situation. Try looking at the world without your Spacex glasses on.
Why are you bringing up SpaceX? If anything, apparently you view everything through a SpaceX glasses. I didn't even mention them.
I'm simply viewing this situation without the space glasses on that both Obama and Putin will be looking at it from. Ultimately, we don't need the Russian engines as we have Antares, Delta II, Delta IV, Atlas re-engine, a RD-180 stockpile, Falcon 9, FH, SLS, Pegasus, etc and a robust space capability already in orbit. Also, ultimately, Russia doesn't need the revenue. Either side could shut off supply as punishment for one thing or another. Russia especially could do it without losing any sleep over it. It would only be a footnote in the history books or omitted altogether. It certainly wouldn't be a "the sky is falling situation". Boeing or Lockheed Martin stock would dip a few percent.
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 05:54 pm
Antares, Delta II,….., SLS, Pegasus, etc "
They don't provide the capabilities of an Atlas V or the ability to launch operational DOD spacecraft.
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 05:56 pm
It would only be a footnote in the history books or omitted altogether.
Correct, the plane incident will fade as time passes.
Post by: newpylong on 07/18/2014 06:04 pm
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
What happens when the date passes and the engines show up? How many square feet is your house and where is it? :)
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/18/2014 06:13 pm
It would only be a footnote in the history books or omitted altogether.
Correct, the plane incident will fade as time passes.
"It" refers to what I was referencing right before, which was a possible russian engine supply shut-off. I wasn't saying the plane would be a footnote or omitted. They are actually relatively rare and well known including Iranian Air flight 655 which was shot down by the US during the Iran Iraq war and Korean Air lines flight 007 which was shot down by the Soviet Union. There have been numerous smaller planes shot down but very few with nearly 300 passengers on board. The news is being dominated by this incident. If you mention RD-180 to a well informed individual, you will most likely get a blank stare.
Post by: Lars_J on 07/18/2014 06:28 pm
He's shown evidence of worsening diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia.
That isn't evidence. He hasn't provided any connection between that and the RD-180. It is his opinion that changes in the diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia will have an effect on the RD-180.
Wow, Jim. So you are really staking your ground here by saying that no change in diplomatic conditions could alter the RD-180 availability? I know you are a reactionary poster, but this seems to be a leap even for you. I'm bookmarking this for sure.
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 06:47 pm
"It" refers to what I was referencing right before, which was a possible russian engine supply shut-off. I wasn't saying the plane would be a footnote or omitted. They are actually relatively rare and well known including Iranian Air flight 655 which was shot down by the US during the Iran Iraq war and Korean Air lines flight 007 which was shot down by the Soviet Union. There have been numerous smaller planes shot down but very few with nearly 300 passengers on board. The news is being dominated by this incident. If you mention RD-180 to a well informed individual, you will most likely get a blank stare.
Just like the other two, this will fade until the next incident. 655 has been almost forgotten.
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2014 06:50 pm
Wow, Jim. So you are really staking your ground here by saying that no change in diplomatic conditions could alter the RD-180 availability? I know you are a reactionary poster, but this seems to be a leap even for you. I'm bookmarking this for sure.
I guess I am saying that short of a war, the RD-180 will still be available. Much like trips to the ISS and Progress resupply.
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/18/2014 07:23 pm
Wow, Jim. So you are really staking your ground here by saying that no change in diplomatic conditions could alter the RD-180 availability? I know you are a reactionary poster, but this seems to be a leap even for you. I'm bookmarking this for sure.
I guess I am saying that short of a war, the RD-180 will still be available. Much like trips to the ISS and Progress resupply.
There is a vast gulf between Business As Usual and a shooting war. It isn't binary.
"It" refers to what I was referencing right before, which was a possible russian engine supply shut-off. I wasn't saying the plane would be a footnote or omitted. They are actually relatively rare and well known including Iranian Air flight 655 which was shot down by the US during the Iran Iraq war and Korean Air lines flight 007 which was shot down by the Soviet Union. There have been numerous smaller planes shot down but very few with nearly 300 passengers on board. The news is being dominated by this incident. If you mention RD-180 to a well informed individual, you will most likely get a blank stare.
Just like the other two, this will fade until the next incident. 655 has been almost forgotten.
25 years later. We are hardly at that point with MH17. 655 is also simply convenient for Americans to forget. I'm sure the Iranians see it differently and I'm sure it has at least something to do with the "death to america" protests that go on there continually especially in the larger context of the U.S. support for Iraq's attack on Iran that claimed over 150,000 Iranians. If you are Iranian, you likely know of relatives or knew people that were killed or injured. That sort of collective experiance takes generations to wipe from the cultural memory.
Post by: veblen on 07/18/2014 07:40 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/18/2014 07:49 pm
If you can do ASTP in 1975, you can buy/sell rocket motors in 2014.Anything short of war, really. Even after World War 2 began, the U.S. did not stop trade with Nazi Germany until Germany declared war on the U.S., two years after Germany invaded Poland. Of course the Royal Navy made that trade all but impossible by blockading German ports, but some trade apparently did occur through other routes. Several big U.S. companies had longstanding contracts with the German government, for example.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/18/2014 08:00 pm
If you can do ASTP in 1975, you can buy/sell rocket motors in 2014.Anything short of war, really. Even after World War 2 began, the U.S. did not stop trade with Nazi Germany until Germany declared war on the U.S., two years after Germany invaded Poland. Of course the Royal Navy made that trade all but impossible by blockading German ports, but some trade apparently did occur through other routes. Several big U.S. companies had longstanding contracts with the German government, for example.
- Ed Kyle
Certainly IBM's supply of tabulation and census accounting machinary that aided Germany in the identification of Jews in Germany and their territorries shouldn't be used as some sort of example of jurisprudence going forward.
Post by: Shaledc on 07/18/2014 08:01 pm
655 has been almost forgotten.
Not by Iranians...
My point is simply this--there is going to be a cascade of sanctions and public criticism heaped on Putin. Cutting off the RD180 supply is an easy and largely painless way to retaliate and show the world that despite America's economic might, we still depend on Russia for space tech. he doesn't give a sh*t about a few tens of millions USD per year lost.
Btw- I am not happy about this- Atlas V is the most capable launcher we have or are likely to have for years. this is a dissaster.
Post by: Linze on 07/18/2014 09:26 pm
It's easy to understand why so many here want to avoid this outcome. An embargo will destroy careers, contracts, even entire programs. It's less easy to understand why they're denying such obvious facts on the ground.He's shown evidence of worsening diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia.
That isn't evidence. He hasn't provided any connection between that and the RD-180. It is his opinion that changes in the diplomatic conditions between the US and Russia will have an effect on the RD-180.
Wow, Jim. So you are really staking your ground here by saying that no change in diplomatic conditions could alter the RD-180 availability? I know you are a reactionary poster, but this seems to be a leap even for you. I'm bookmarking this for sure.
Some may be in denial, the personal consequences too dire to consider. Some may know the truth, but refuse to admit it publicly, lest it comes to pass. For some, not conceding this near certain outcome may remove any personal feelings of guilt.
Undoubtedly, some are blaming us for giving the Russian ideas and wish we'd shut the hell up about embargoes. The truth is that no message forum is giving ideas to the Russians. The Russians know politics better than they know rockets, and the Russians know rockets.
The Air Force delivered Putin all the rationale he needs to stop shipment. They foolishly admitted an engine embargo would cause a 36 month delay in DoD launches. As so many others have illustrated, the Russians make no meaningful revenue from these sales. Compared to their natural resource exports, the engines are a rounding error.
As done deals go, the engine embargo is about as done as they get.
Post by: su27k on 07/19/2014 03:49 am
If you can do ASTP in 1975, you can buy/sell rocket motors in 2014.
ASTP is political gesture made by equals, the parties in this rocket motor business are not equals, Russia can live without the dollars, the US do need the motors.
PS: I have no opinion on RD-180 one way or another, just want to point out ASTP is the wrong way to think about this.
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/19/2014 03:50 am
It's easy to understand why so many here want to avoid this outcome. An embargo will destroy careers, contracts, even entire programs. It's less easy to understand why they're denying such obvious facts on the ground.The "facts" are that ULA has a contract with Energomash, and Energomash has told ULA that it will deliver the engines. Those facts did not change after Crimea, or after Rogozin's embargo threat, or after the West added sanctions. The facts may change in the future, but right now they unambiguously show that there is no RD-180 embargo.
.....
As done deals go, the engine embargo is about as done as they get.
If an embargo does happen, as has been discussed in this and other threads, ULA will launch more Delta 4 rockets while it has a replacement engine developed for Atlas 5. The company has already taken steps to do both. Those "careers" you mention have been spent preparing for such eventualities.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lar on 07/19/2014 06:09 am
... until then all we have is opinion, informed or otherwise. Neither side of this argument seems to be adding anything new lately; can we let it drop until new facts surface?
We can and we will. Pages and pages of round and round are not a good use of folks time.
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2014 01:17 pm
It's easy to understand why so many here want to avoid this outcome. An embargo will destroy careers, contracts, even entire programs. It's less easy to understand why they're denying such obvious facts on the ground.
Some may be in denial, the personal consequences too dire to consider. Some may know the truth, but refuse to admit it publicly, lest it comes to pass. For some, not conceding this near certain outcome may remove any personal feelings of guilt.
Wrong. I have no stake in this either way. As I have said many times, my job is launch vehicle and launch vehicle contractor agnostic.
It is easy to make claims that the sky is falling when you have no insight on the matter, have blatant disregard for the facts and get your information from the internet.
You have yet to provide one iota of hard data to prove your case. You have been posting nothing but unfounded opinion.
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2014 01:18 pm
As done deals go, the engine embargo is about as done as they get.
I am not sure I agree with any part of that.
Edit/Lar: oh, you know what I did.
Post by: JazzFan on 07/20/2014 01:00 am
On a cursory view it now appears that he is not in 100% control of the Ukraine situation but who actually knows if is instigating or is not in control of the situation. We are talking about individual people and IMHO connecting dots of the current geopolitical situation to meeting contractual obligations is just a guess or hope similar to predicting outcomes of a football game or soccer match.
I do not see enough data at this time to guarantee either outcome but will be waiting to see the outcome. I was a government analyst for a long time and not a gambling man, but I will not bet on this situation. The risk of the engine selection has been known since day one. However, I hope that they deliver on time and also meet the overall terms of the contract since Atlas is really a great vehicle.
Post by: QuantumG on 07/21/2014 11:20 pm
Deliveries will continue for now.
Post by: Prober on 07/22/2014 02:12 am
Latest: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140721/191083393/Russia-to-Continue-Space-Rocket-Engines-Deliveries-to-US.html
Deliveries will continue for now.
yes. a WSJ article floating around as well
Russia to continue to supply rocket engines to US despite sanctions
but this says it http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741686
“We are not going to shoot ourselves in the leg. They are organising sanctions in such a way that they will boomerang on their head. But we will continue to do (with the US) what benefits us and we will suspend what does not. Presently, the sale of engines benefits our engine-making enterprises in that they use the money for their own modernisation,” Rogozin said.
“We need the most modern engines that produce more thrust. In order to design them, we need free money. This is why we are prepared to sell them …taking the sanctions very pragmatically,” he said.
pic from the article....
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 02:18 am
Thank you.
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2014 02:22 am
I'd bet the house on it.
Its funny when people bet with assets that have no worth.
So, when should we set up the house inspection and when can we expect a move out date?
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 02:25 am
Rather than picking on something from 3-4 days ago, how about answering my preposition?I'd bet the house on it.
What move out date can we expect from you?
Post by: Prober on 07/22/2014 02:28 am
... and hence the USA will not buy anymore.
Thank you.
you should never gamble unless you can afford to loose it ::)
Post by: woods170 on 07/23/2014 09:20 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41364us-air-force-ponders-accelerating-delta-4-rocket-production
Quote
Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, told reporters here July 22 that he asked the service’s acquisition arm, the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, to look at what type of contract modifications are necessary to ramp up production of Delta 4 rockets.
Post by: PahTo on 07/23/2014 10:25 pm
Thanks woods170.
General Shelton goes on to explicitly express his own doubts about the reliability of deliveries of the RD-180 going forward. Beyond that, and given United Technologies and ULA have very little inspection of the engines once they arrive, I wonder if we shouldn't all be concerned about the reliability of RD-180s in manufacturing/manufactured since June of this year...
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/24/2014 12:08 am
I wonder if we shouldn't all be concerned about the reliability of RD-180s in manufacturing/manufactured since June of this year...Why?
Post by: Prober on 07/24/2014 01:30 am
Thanks woods170.
General Shelton goes on to explicitly express his own doubts about the reliability of deliveries of the RD-180 going forward. Beyond that, and given United Technologies and ULA have very little inspection of the engines once they arrive, I wonder if we shouldn't all be concerned about the reliability of RD-180s in manufacturing/manufactured since June of this year...
you can take that article and spin it a lot of ways.
Frankly, General Shelton looks like he is doing his job.
Post by: PahTo on 07/24/2014 02:52 pm
I wonder if we shouldn't all be concerned about the reliability of RD-180s in manufacturing/manufactured since June of this year...Why?
Because there are significant tensions between the US and Russia now, and the engine components are fabricated in Russia and assembled in Russia. Foul play is not out of the question, even if not officially sanctioned by the chiefs.
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/24/2014 08:44 pm
Foul play is not out of the question, even if not officially sanctioned by the chiefs.Boy, I hope our astronauts are locking the door on the US side of the ISS each night...
Post by: PahTo on 07/24/2014 11:44 pm
Foul play is not out of the question, even if not officially sanctioned by the chiefs.Boy, I hope our astronauts are locking the door on the US side of the ISS each night...
I'm usually not given to responding to blatantly conflationary posts, so I'll keep this brief.
There is no connection between RD-180/Atlas V and the ISS. Perhaps in 2017 IF CST-100 or DC fly on an Atlas V, but until then, no connection.
Post by: Kryten on 07/25/2014 12:02 am
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/25/2014 12:30 am
Because both get something out of it.
Upping Delta IV rate is neither cheap nor quick. Far from me to critique an AF General, but if this is pragmatism it is long ranged.
It would be out of national embarrassment that this would stop in the near time frame. We've been more embarrassed as a nation before in other circumstances and still dealt same. Need a bigger calamity for that to happen hate to say. But you don't feel any comfort with that, or the continuing escalation. They are guaranteed to go nuts 3 months into financial services sanctions. All bets are off then.
What doesn't close for me is the long term. Don't see the exit strategy, just convulsions. Nor do I like what all of this does for American launch services as a whole, and the nature of industry support becoming less stable - everyone is playing the cards close to the chest, tightening purse strings, and trying not to step out of line. Trip, and you could fall hard.
Post by: rcoppola on 07/25/2014 01:05 am
Why spend billions just developing a new engine, let alone producing it in quantity and modifying, re-qualifying the rocket it's going to be attached to? When you can just spend millions certifying a new and cost efficient launch vehicle?
Keep flying the Altas V and RD-180 as long as we can. It's proven, it works. They want the money, we want the engines. Buy as much time as we can. F9 will be certified well before Atlas V runs out of inventory. And the FH could be certified by then as well.
When the time comes and the USAF is comfortable enough and both vehicles have more than proven themselves, they can be added into the mix and we can slowly lessen dependence on Atlas V. (DIV production increase may not be needed in this scenario but could be increased to pick up any slack especially if FH is delayed.)
This kind of plan can be done orderly, efficiently, minimizing risks to launch assurance and save many Billions in both launch costs and by not starting a new engine program and all that implies.
Funny thing is, this already is the plan. By default. Since SpaceX isn't stopping and nobody seems to be able to make a concrete decision on the path forward. If ULA wants to re-engine Atlas V and compete it, then absolutely, please do. But I see no reason at all why the USG needs to pay for that. Maybe 5 years ago, but not now. Just keep her flying until we can't or won't. Either way, we will have options much better then cutting off RD-180s and starting a new USG funded engine program.
Cheat sheet:
Single New Engine Program - Billions - 5 to 8 years (not including GSE & Rocket Mods or Per Unit Engine Production costs)
Certification - $200 Million (+ or -) - 1 to 2.5 years (this includes both F9, FH)
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/25/2014 02:00 am
The working theory is that the only way to assure access is for the government to own the engine, then it can have anyone produce it. There are of course still flaws to this and a lot of it is based on government R&D tradition and heritage.
Post by: sdsds on 07/25/2014 04:34 am
As regards how this "closes" long term, I think that's out of scope for a spaceflight-related discussion. General Shelton can tolerate many-month delays in launching some of his payloads if he must; obviously he would rather not. Secretary Kerry is otherwise occupied for the near future; no diplomatic action regarding these engines implies delivery on schedule....
Post by: newpylong on 08/05/2014 10:21 pm
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
More RD-180s coming...
Check out @Leone_SN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/496718796586221568
Do you people feel silly now?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/05/2014 10:28 pm
Nah, only becuse I got this...
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
More RD-180s coming...
https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/4967187965862
Do you people feel silly now?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/05/2014 10:54 pm
More RD-180s coming...Nah, only becuse I got this...
https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/4967187965862
Do you people feel silly now?
That link works for me... try a different browser? And Charles Lurio was stating the same thing on his Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport
That references this article:
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140721/191083393/Russia-to-Continue-Space-Rocket-Engines-Deliveries-to-US.html
Key quote from the article:
“We will continue working with the US on projects that are lucrative for us, but we will suspend those that are not,” Rogozin told reporters during a working trip to the Volga region.
“At present, the sales of engines for Atlas and Antares rockets in the United States favor Russia as the profits go directly for technological modernization of [Russian] enterprises [producing the engines],” he said.
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/05/2014 10:59 pm
Thanks Ron, the Lurio link worked and for the other as well.More RD-180s coming...Nah, only becuse I got this...
https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/4967187965862
Do you people feel silly now?
That link works for me... try a different browser? And Charles Lurio was stating the same thing on his Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport
That references this article:
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140721/191083393/Russia-to-Continue-Space-Rocket-Engines-Deliveries-to-US.html
Key quote from the article:
“We will continue working with the US on projects that are lucrative for us, but we will suspend those that are not,” Rogozin told reporters during a working trip to the Volga region.
“At present, the sales of engines for Atlas and Antares rockets in the United States favor Russia as the profits go directly for technological modernization of [Russian] enterprises [producing the engines],” he said.
Post by: veblen on 08/05/2014 11:16 pm
More RD-180s coming...Nah, only becuse I got this...
https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/4967187965862 (https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/4967187965862)
Do you people feel silly now?
That link works for me... try a different browser? And Charles Lurio was stating the same thing on his Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport)
That references this article:
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140721/191083393/Russia-to-Continue-Space-Rocket-Engines-Deliveries-to-US.html (http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140721/191083393/Russia-to-Continue-Space-Rocket-Engines-Deliveries-to-US.html)
Key quote from the article:
“We will continue working with the US on projects that are lucrative for us, but we will suspend those that are not,” Rogozin told reporters during a working trip to the Volga region.
“At present, the sales of engines for Atlas and Antares rockets in the United States favor Russia as the profits go directly for technological modernization of [Russian] enterprises [producing the engines],” he said.
haha, Rogozin, playing to his base. Can we expect another photoshopped tweet? whaddaguy
Post by: Lars_J on 08/06/2014 02:45 am
More RD-180s coming...
Check out @Leone_SN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/496718796586221568
Do you people feel silly now?
By golly, two more engines delivered!?! That must mean that the RD-180 supply is guaranteed for ALL TIME. ::)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/06/2014 03:36 am
At the moment, it appears that the rules of engagement are about keeping favorable deals. However, with a RC-135 Rivet Joint being harried out of Baltic airspace by a Russian fighter jet and a radar lock, the old "cold war" relations seem close to the surface.
Two engines in - that buys back about 1.5 months of Atlas operations. The more significant item is the scope of the total contract purchases against a minimum flight rate, where inventories never climb.
Think that the costs of favorable deals will be assessed if borders are significantly breached, since the defensibility of such propulsion acquisition might be challenged politically if the appearance of outright war develops. Which might happen if rebels were to lose two surrounded cities, and an embarrassed leader were to fear the loss of a strategic asset to follow. Easy to overreach, hard to back down after selling fear.
I'm glad we saw recent event less flights of Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9. No need for concern.
If there were to be concerns, probably the wisest course would be to fly on whatever LV suited at the moment, and consider long term economic propulsion options that worked best in lowest labor cost American manufacturing technologies, hedging with a few options concurrent, such that future acquisition need be driven by invested-in technologies instead of indirectly relying on lower cost labor alone. Where the potentially phantom price might not have non-transparent costs ... like war.
Of course this also means engine/technology consumption that supports such ... which means rational economics, where supply and demand support such low costs at sustainable flight rates. Which would be a first for any country on the planet.
Post by: MP99 on 08/06/2014 09:32 am
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
More RD-180s coming...
Check out @Leone_SN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/496718796586221568
Do you people feel silly now?
" Dan Leone (Leone_SN):
Peller, @ulalaunch: biz as usual w/Russia. Got contact for 29 more RD-180s. Taking delivery of 2 in 2 weeks, despite sanctions. #aiaaSpace
http://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/496718796586221568"
I presume those 29 engines (plus what's already on hand) are sufficient to satisfy the full 36 core block buy?
Cheers, Martin
Post by: Mader Levap on 08/06/2014 09:49 am
Even in Russia laws must pass by, you know, goverment. Yes, Assembly/Council just rubber-stamps wishes of el presidento Putin. But still, it is not Twitter tweets.
Post by: newpylong on 08/06/2014 12:52 pm
More RD-180s coming...
Check out @Leone_SN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/496718796586221568
Do you people feel silly now?
By golly, two more engines delivered!?! That must mean that the RD-180 supply is guaranteed for ALL TIME. ::)
Was just posting some news regarding engines still being delivered because some people bet their house that it wouldn't happen. Take it or leave it.
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/07/2014 03:05 am
Post by: AdAstraInc on 08/20/2014 05:48 pm
Either of those factors would have been nails in the coffin. Combined, only the most desperate could still believe the engines will ship.
Yesterday's massive sanctions clearly angered Putin. The downing of the jet will drive an even larger nail. It means substantial western military aid will be sent to Ukraine. Putin is likely to see that aid as an even bigger snub than the sanctions.
This will play out soon enough. ULA has said they've accelerated deliveries to receive the engines next month. When August passes and ULA stays quite as a church mouse, everyone will know what hasn't shipped. The denial brigade will still refuse to accept it, they'll move the goal posts again and again. The truth is that a hot cold war kills Atlas.
And that does not exist. Your opinion does not make true. Just more nonsense again.
Only the desperate are flailing at making the sky is falling predictions.
I stand by my belief that the engines won't ship. I'd bet the house on it.
I've backed my opinion with copious evidence. You've backed yours with derision and what can only be described as a religious like belief that the world events causing the engine embargo aren't really happening.
If you have some logical backing for your opinion, it would be nice to hear it for a change. Quite frankly, you've brought nothing to this discussion but arrogant contempt.
Short of outright war between the US and Russia, there could hardly be a more perfect storm for an engine embargo.
Since an Antonov AN-124 from Russia landed in Huntsville Alabama this morning, I hope for your wallet's sake you refrain from "betting the house" based on silly rumors.
flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA4234 (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA4234)
Maybe this would also be a good time to reevaluate your foreign policy expertise, given that you were 100% wrong in every prediction and conclusion you drew.
Post by: strangequark on 08/20/2014 07:09 pm
Post by: Scylla on 08/20/2014 10:23 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41622ula-takes-delivery-of-two-rd-180-rocket-engines-from-russia
WASHINGTON — United Launch Alliance took delivery of a pair of Russian-built RD-180 rocket engines Aug. 20, boosting the inventory at the company’s Decatur, Alabama, assembly facility to 15, the company said in a statement.
Post by: robertross on 08/21/2014 12:50 am
ULA Takes Delivery of Two RD-180 Rocket Engines from Russia
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41622ula-takes-delivery-of-two-rd-180-rocket-engines-from-russia
WASHINGTON — United Launch Alliance took delivery of a pair of Russian-built RD-180 rocket engines Aug. 20, boosting the inventory at the company’s Decatur, Alabama, assembly facility to 15, the company said in a statement.
I'm very relieved. It still is a sketchy situation, but every engine in the inventory is the chance of another launch on schedule.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/21/2014 08:49 pm
I'm very relieved. It still is a sketchy situation, but every engine in the inventory is the chance of another launch on schedule.
More recently, however, the company has emphasized that RD-180 engine deliveries are continuing unabated despite heightened tensions between Wasington and Moscow. (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41622ula-takes-delivery-of-two-rd-180-rocket-engines-from-russia)
It is still a sketchy situation on the geo-political scene. At the same time, both sides have a lot at stake and a lot to gain financially from continued cooperation.
It seems to me that things in the Ukraine are cooling down somewhat.
This has been a fascinating sequence of events to follow.
Post by: PahTo on 08/21/2014 09:12 pm
Good words, though very troubling. So much pain, suffering, misery and death, yet we find a way to get along when it comes to MONEY. I still hold spaceflight in general, and ISS in particular, to be a sign of hope for all human-kind. Though that's more than a bit ironic, since spaceflight evolved as a result of trying to get the high ground for military purposes.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/21/2014 11:07 pm
But RD-180 was/is not in danger itself for ULA.
ULA is its own worst danger and salvation. No surprise. Just got noticed more.
Post by: Proponent on 08/22/2014 06:27 am
Note that the Russians' economic actions lately have been blockages of imports, not exports: there are restrictions on imports of food and some McDonald's restaurants (I use the term loosely) in Moscow have been shut down on "health" grounds (a bit of an oxymoron in connection with McDonald's :) ). They don't seem to be screwing around with exports, like the RD-180.
Post by: woods170 on 08/22/2014 07:38 am
[Not in response to any particular post]Russia needs the money. Not just from RD-180 exports, but from nearly all exports. That's why Putin won't shut down the supply of gas to Europe for too long if he chose that as an economic sanction. The resulting screeching halt of Euros flowing to Russia would start seriously hurting the Russian economy within just a few weeks.
Note that the Russians' economic actions lately have been blockages of imports, not exports: there are restrictions on imports of food and some McDonald's restaurants (I use the term loosely) in Moscow have been shut down on "health" grounds (a bit of an oxymoron in connection with McDonald's :) ). They don't seem to be screwing around with exports, like the RD-180.
Post by: DGH on 11/19/2014 10:35 am
I can find nothing.
I used this thread to keep any nastiness from damaging another thread.
Post by: Kabloona on 11/19/2014 12:30 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-russia-capitalism-rockets-special-rep-idUSKCN0J22BQ20141119
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: MP99 on 11/19/2014 01:32 pm
Wow.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: Prober on 11/19/2014 01:38 pm
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
Check out the prices of the RL-10 & RS-68 and compare.
Post by: Kabloona on 11/19/2014 01:59 pm
Still the political winds blowing in this article.
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
The price would be even more reasonable if AMROSS was not making 15-30% profit plus an apparently inflated overhead rate.
So the real issue isn't the price, it's whether AMROSS's profit and overhead structure are legal. The Pentagon's own 2011 audit found they weren't.
Post by: woods170 on 11/19/2014 02:01 pm
Still the political winds blowing in this article.Seems like the Pentagon auditors do not agree with you. And that holds considerable more weight than your opinion.
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
Post by: gospacex on 11/19/2014 02:33 pm
That piece says RD AMROSS is a five person company.
Wow.
Cheers, Martin
This is actually a typical practice in Russia.
When you hear "Putin's cronies stole billions from Russian budget", this doesn't mean they drove away with several truckloads of bills from the Treasury.
It means that, for example, Gazprom buys drilling and pumping equipment through several layers of such empty intermediaries owned by "Putin's cronies". The resulting price is not 15% higher as in AMROSS case - in Russia, it can easily become 3-5 times higher.
Post by: notsorandom on 11/19/2014 04:38 pm
Post by: Prober on 11/19/2014 05:05 pm
Still the political winds blowing in this article.Seems like the Pentagon auditors do not agree with you. And that holds considerable more weight than your opinion.
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
Better reread the article :)
2011 is what they are talking about; had the info at hand in 2007-08 been addressed, this deal would have been altered. Everyone signed off on the deal, and its unfortunate that someone started second guessing "policy".
Post by: WHAP on 11/19/2014 10:03 pm
Still the political winds blowing in this article.
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
Check out the prices of the RL-10 & RS-68 and compare.
Where are those prices listed?
Post by: Kabloona on 11/19/2014 10:18 pm
Still the political winds blowing in this article.Seems like the Pentagon auditors do not agree with you. And that holds considerable more weight than your opinion.
The price of the RD-180 is reasonable, even with the games.
Better reread the article :)
2011 is what they are talking about; had the info at hand in 2007-08 been addressed, this deal would have been altered. Everyone signed off on the deal, and its unfortunate that someone started second guessing "policy".
Yes, the audit was in 2011 for the previous contract, but the new contract apparently has the same price per engine, so where are the "savings" that ULA promised after the audit? Maybe AMROSS has reduced their inflated overhead rate or made some other concessions, but if they did, it's not mentioned in the article.
Quote
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.
Post by: Proponent on 11/25/2014 09:18 am
That piece says RD AMROSS is a five person company.
Wow.
Cheers, Martin
This is actually a typical practice in Russia.
When you hear "Putin's cronies stole billions from Russian budget", this doesn't mean they drove away with several truckloads of bills from the Treasury.
It means that, for example, Gazprom buys drilling and pumping equipment through several layers of such empty intermediaries owned by "Putin's cronies". The resulting price is not 15% higher as in AMROSS case - in Russia, it can easily become 3-5 times higher.
Regardless of whether RD AMROSS is doing anything iffy, why should it have a lot of employees? Probably just about all it does is contract out for services to NPO Energomash and sell a few RD-180s per year from a single supplier to a single customer. There are zillions of limited-purpose companies that have fewer employees. For example, it's routine in the world of structured finance (and if you have a credit card or a mortgage, it's quite possible that your repayments actually go to one of these companies, albeit via a larger company).
Post by: Borklund on 11/25/2014 01:35 pm
Post by: Remes on 11/25/2014 04:02 pm
This is actually a typical practice in Russia.This is actually a typical practice in
When you hear "Putin's cronies stole billions from Russian budget", this doesn't mean they drove away with several truckloads of bills from the Treasury.
It means that, for example, Gazprom buys drilling and pumping equipment through several layers of such empty intermediaries owned by "Putin's cronies". The resulting price is not 15% higher as in AMROSS case - in Russia, it can easily become 3-5 times higher.
Quote
According to the EELV Should Cost Review, ULA charges up to an 18
percent profit on top of engine prices and to act as a broker for the
program office on commodities like propellants bought from other
government agencies, like NASA and the Defense Logistics Agency—
costs the program could avoid if it were to coordinate purchases directly
from other agencies. The review also recommends that the EELV
program office develop stronger relationships with other Air Force launch
operations organizations so it can buy launch and range support directly
from them and avoid the pass-through fees associated with buying
through ULA.
GAO-11-641
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11641.pdf
Document page 21 (in pdf reader shown as page 24).
Post by: Prober on 11/25/2014 04:19 pm
This is actually a typical practice in Russia.This is actually a typical practice in
When you hear "Putin's cronies stole billions from Russian budget", this doesn't mean they drove away with several truckloads of bills from the Treasury.
It means that, for example, Gazprom buys drilling and pumping equipment through several layers of such empty intermediaries owned by "Putin's cronies". The resulting price is not 15% higher as in AMROSS case - in Russia, it can easily become 3-5 times higher.Russiaeverywhere.
no, not everywhere (too broad a claim). SpaceX for example is a new company and has fresh agreement with parts suppliers.
We also need to watch Orbital to see if they get into this mess. They should know better, we will just watch and see.
Post by: baldusi on 11/25/2014 04:20 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/25/2014 07:38 pm
Actually, I work in the biotech instrumentation sector and it is not unusual to see such bundling with US government labs.This is actually a typical practice inno, not everywhere (too broad a claim).Russiaeverywhere.
The lab has contracts with a company that is in charge of procuring and setting up instrumentation. They don't make anything, they just act as middle men. We can not sell directly to the lab, but these third parties (there self censured) can buy from us, then sell it to the lab. Of course they always want to be treated like an OEM and get OEM pricing from us then tun around and sell it to the lab at full price. I won't say how that goes over, but lets just say it is usually our sales people who do the demo for the PI, convince the PI to submit an order to purchasing, then purchasing subs it to these bundlers after our staff did all the work.
The reason the labs do this is to minimize the number of vendors that purchasing has to deal with. They feel they get a benefit, and they are the ones with the money. So when in Rome...
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/02/2014 10:45 pm
https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/539888950950002688
Quote
Mike Gruss
#NDAA15 prohibits use of Russian-made RD-180 engines after current block buy, which ends around 2019.
Also includes money for a replacement.
https://twitter.com/Gruss_SN/status/539924680329547777
Quote
#NDAA15 authorizes $220M on new American-made engine program to replace RD-180, significantly higher than the recent conventional wisdom.
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/02/2014 10:51 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/03/2014 03:10 am
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/03/2014 02:47 pm
It is worrying that it includes money for a new US built rocket engine to replace the RD-180. Something ULA has indicated they are not interested in. SpaceX already has an engine. Orbital needs a new engine sooner than 2019. Will this be an engine without a rocket? Who is going to use it? Who is getting the money to build it?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/03/2014 03:10 pm
It is worrying that it includes money for a new US built rocket engine to replace the RD-180. Something ULA has indicated they are not interested in.
I'm thinking that the BE-4 program could bid for the contract/grant to develop the new engine and will likely win the competition which would make the effort cheaper for ULA/Blue.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/03/2014 04:36 pm
If they take the development money the engine will be available to any domestic LV provider. I doubt ULA would want Orbital to have access to it.It is worrying that it includes money for a new US built rocket engine to replace the RD-180. Something ULA has indicated they are not interested in.
I'm thinking that the BE-4 program could bid for the contract/grant to develop the new engine and will likely win the competition which would make the effort cheaper for ULA/Blue.
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/03/2014 04:42 pm
If they take the development money the engine will be available to any domestic LV provider. I doubt ULA would want Orbital to have access to it.Why not? More buyers equals higher production. Higher production equals lower unit cost.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Prober on 12/03/2014 06:23 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-cap-russian-engines-u-satellite-launches-044430535--finance.html
"The bill would bar United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture of Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp, from using Russian RD-180 engines to send U.S. military and intelligence satellites into space unless they were bought before Moscow's invasion of the Crimean peninsula this year."
"Even if a new entrant is certified, they will only have the technical ability to compete for 60 percent of the missions," she said.
This is no longer about saving launch cost monies, or competition, or even getting the job done. Maybe someone else can address this.
Post by: Kabloona on 12/03/2014 08:34 pm
Looks like political winds are calling the show if this article is real.
[snip]
This is no longer about saving launch cost monies, or competition, or even getting the job done. Maybe someone else can address this.
Why is this a surprise? Senator McCain and others in Congress have been anti-RD-180 for years. No, it's not about cost or competition. It's about not relying on an unfriendly foreign country for a national security asset.
And if the supply of RD-180s suddenly dried up, ULA would not be getting any "job done," at least not with an Atlas V.
Quote
The conference measure also retains the framework of language, inserted into the Senate version of the bill by Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.), that bars the Pentagon from signing new contracts or renewing existing contracts with launch companies that rely on Russian suppliers.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2014 07:08 am
Looks like political winds are calling the show if this article is real.
[snip]
This is no longer about saving launch cost monies, or competition, or even getting the job done. Maybe someone else can address this.
Why is this a surprise? Senator McCain and others in Congress have been anti-RD-180 for years. No, it's not about cost or competition. It's about not relying on an unfriendly foreign country for a national security asset.
And if the supply of RD-180s suddenly dried up, ULA would not be getting any "job done," at least not with an Atlas V.QuoteThe conference measure also retains the framework of language, inserted into the Senate version of the bill by Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.), that bars the Pentagon from signing new contracts or renewing existing contracts with launch companies that rely on Russian suppliers.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180 (http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180)
Get out of jail card:
Quote from: SpaceNews / Mike Gruss
The compromise legislation does, however, allow for a waiver process for national security missions “if space launch services cannot be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of the Russian RD-180 engines,” the summary said.
So, business as usual. Nothing will really change. Not for years to come, barring Putin staging something really crazy, like an invasion of CONUS.
Post by: Prober on 12/05/2014 01:27 am
Looks like political winds are calling the show if this article is real.
[snip]
This is no longer about saving launch cost monies, or competition, or even getting the job done. Maybe someone else can address this.
Why is this a surprise? Senator McCain and others in Congress have been anti-RD-180 for years. No, it's not about cost or competition. It's about not relying on an unfriendly foreign country for a national security asset.
And if the supply of RD-180s suddenly dried up, ULA would not be getting any "job done," at least not with an Atlas V.QuoteThe conference measure also retains the framework of language, inserted into the Senate version of the bill by Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.), that bars the Pentagon from signing new contracts or renewing existing contracts with launch companies that rely on Russian suppliers.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180 (http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/42701house-senate-conference-measure-to-end-pentagon-use-of-rd-180)
Get out of jail card:Quote from: SpaceNews / Mike GrussThe compromise legislation does, however, allow for a waiver process for national security missions “if space launch services cannot be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of the Russian RD-180 engines,” the summary said.
So, business as usual. Nothing will really change. Not for years to come, barring Putin staging something really crazy, like an invasion of CONUS.
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.
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/05/2014 01:33 am
So, business as usual. Nothing will really change. Not for years to come, barring Putin staging something really crazy, like an invasion of CONUS.
So, he can have Hawaii and Alaska, but we draw a line at CONUS. Like Crimea, Alaska is actually a historical part of Russia.
Post by: Kabloona on 12/05/2014 02:07 am
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.
What problems? ULA has already committed to the BE-4 and a major redesign of their entire architecture. I don't see how this changes anything. ULA was already on course to abandon the RD-180 ASAP. This is just Congress feebly threatening to close the barn door after the horse has already bolted. And if the Air Force asks nicely (waiver request), they won't even try to close the door.
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2014 11:52 am
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.
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 12/06/2014 05:24 pm
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.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.
Post by: Brovane on 12/13/2014 05:58 pm
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.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?
Post by: arachnitect on 12/13/2014 06:02 pm
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.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?
Stockpile? Yes. 4-5 year stockpile? Not really.
Post by: ngilmore on 12/13/2014 06:07 pm
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Quote
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.
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"
;D
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
Post by: Hauerg on 12/13/2014 06:21 pm
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?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/13/2014 06:38 pm
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?
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
Post by: baldusi on 12/14/2014 12:42 am
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"It 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.
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"
;D
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
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.
Post by: Razvan on 12/14/2014 01:46 am
5 years?! Then, what is this circus about Bezos engines? Do they need 5 yrs, too?"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"It 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.
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"
;D
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
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.
Post by: baldusi on 12/14/2014 03:08 am
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2014 02:14 am
Shift some payloads to Delta 4, F9 gets certified and Atlas V has 40+ missions available. Not a problem.
Post by: lesxiarxis on 12/16/2014 06:11 am
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. :)
Post by: Prober on 12/16/2014 12:15 pm
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. :)
Jim talked about a 2nd contract, but this the first time I've heard a number of engines.
Does a new contract = an order?
Post by: Kabloona on 12/16/2014 03:47 pm
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Presumably that is the "second contract."
Post by: Hauerg on 12/16/2014 03:56 pm
I am not sure, unfriendly language would be enough motivation in the current economic environment.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?
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
Post by: Mader Levap on 12/17/2014 09:48 am
You did not understood. He meant that USA already uses "unfriendly language" for months about Russia over their anschluss of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine.Unfriendly 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.
If there will be reaction, it will be directly caused by actions of USA, not language. Talk is cheap, after all.
Post by: Prober on 12/17/2014 06:49 pm
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.
Thought I'd input this info from the GenCorp Form 10K deals with the Aerojet Rocketdyne merger.
Deals directly http://investor.gencorp.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-14-40681
"The aggregate consideration to UTC was $411 million, paid in cash, which represents the initial purchase price of $550 million reduced by $55 million relating to the pending future acquisition of UTC’s 50% ownership interest of RD Amross, LLC (“RD Amross” a joint venture with NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia which sells RD-180 engines to RD Amross), and the portion of the UTC business that markets and supports the sale of RD-180 engines (the “RDA Acquisition”). The acquisition of UTC’s 50% ownership interest of RD Amross and UTC’s related business is contingent upon certain conditions including receipt of certain Russian governmental regulatory approvals, which may not be obtained. "
The $55mil is the value given to that partnership.
Post by: Stan Black on 01/11/2015 09:07 am
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"It 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.
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"
;D
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
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?
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/11/2015 04:38 pm
I believe it was used in the original AV CCB ground tests and was later refired a few years ago in Russia to test, refine and certify the engines EDS commanding as part of the ongoing AV man rating programme for NASA Commercial Crew. It was one of the milestones in the ULA SAA."Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"It 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.
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"
;D
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
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?