ULA is getting green light

#340 by Propforce on 13 Nov, 2006 18:36
Quote
Gov't Seagull - 11/11/2006 7:59 PM

ITAR is a two-way street - it controls imports as well as exports. For example, a few years back, the government prevented the import of certain Russian firearms and ammunition (by a private business) on the grounds that it was detrimental to public safety. I think the reasoning in the case of big-ticket military technologies is, more or less, that the gov't doesn't want foreign companies getting fat off the American market and then going off and building missiles for North Korea. Why can they sell us the engines but not the production technology? I do not know.

ITAR *is* a two-way street, however; I don't think "re-engineering" Russian rockets is limited by the U.S. ITAR. Afterall, various intelligence agencies often "re-engineer" foreign military technologies for various reasons and they often asked for us, the industry's, assistances. I think it's more probable that Glushko, the Russian manufacturer, does NOT want to disclose the design and manufacturing information in order to protect its self interest. As such, it also maybe limited under the Russian equivalent version of ITAR for not releasing the information.

On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.

Quote
Even if you interpret ITAR as only being an export restriction, this also creates difficulties in a technical discussion.

Keep in mind there's more than just ITAR at play here. ITAR is adminstered under the Department of State. "...Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles, and Related Equipment..." is also restricted under EXPORT CONTROLLED, adminstered under the Department of Commerce. They are two DIFFERENT regulations and licenses. One can not just satisfy ITAR and ignore the EXPORT CONTROLLED issues.
#341 by Jim on 13 Nov, 2006 19:06
Quote
Propforce - 13/11/2006 2:19 PM
On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.

Not the same. Aerojet bought an existing stock of engines and all the drawings. The Russian company that built the engines is no longer in the rocket engine business and is not maintaining the sustaining engineering

Also RPK bought some engines
#342 by Propforce on 13 Nov, 2006 19:26
Quote
bombay - 12/11/2006 5:04 PM
It's a known fact that the Russian metallurgical system is completely different than what the Americans and Europeans follow. Understanding a blue print as far as how something is put together is one thing, but translating a foreign and basically stand alone metallurgical system to determine a comparable metal to use to build the hardware presents a whole new challenge. This would I think require virtually every component of the new system to be thoroughly tested at a very high cost versus just a relatively small collection of critical components.

You've just pointed out something that a very few people is aware of, especially those who are not working with hardware. For example, it took the U.S. approx. 10 years before we fully understand the Russian's "oxidizer-rich" combustion technology for rocket engines. Russians design their hardware based on their strength as well as weakinesses, the U.S. does likewise. So we both have different approaches and the word "steel" means different metals in each country.

Does anyone know if the Atlas V uses the *American* RP-1 or do they import its own *Russian* kerosene fuel? If it is the *American RP-1* then they've replaced the seals from the original RD-170 engine to accommodate the RP-1 characteristics.
#343 by Propforce on 13 Nov, 2006 19:29
Quote
Jim - 13/11/2006 11:49 AM

Quote
Propforce - 13/11/2006 2:19 PM
On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.

Not the same. Aerojet bought an existing stock of engines and all the drawings. The Russian company that built the engines is no longer in the rocket engine business and is not maintaining the sustaining engineering

Also RPK bought some engines

You missed my point, Jim.

What I am saying is that "re-engineering" russian engines is not limited by the U.S. ITAR, as evidenced by the Aerojet example. In Aerojet's case, CADB was more than happy to help Aerojet because they would have NO customers otherwise.
#344 by Dexter on 14 Nov, 2006 05:37
Quote
yinzer - 13/11/2006 11:09 AM

Quote
bombay - 12/11/2006 5:04 PM
So who will fund this? Is or will the U.S. gov't fund it under the guise of ULA? It sure wouldn't seem fair to Boeing who fully funded the RS-68. Why should Lockheed get off the hook for engine development costs? If this is in the plan, then Boeing should be reimbursed through the Buy 3 award for their development costs. If this were to happen, then what does come of the 50-50 joint venture if the payback by the gov't to Boeing is amortized into Buy 3 Delta IV launches?

Well, Lockheed was pursuing a claim against Boeing for Boeing's industrial espionage, which they were clearly going to win, and win big. This claim is being dropped with the formation of the ULA, and it could be that getting more money to Americanize the RD-180 is what they want in return. Sucks for the taxpayer, but Boeing doesn't really have any grounds for complaint.

I agree that the industrial espionage has provided an opportunity for Lockheed but has also served as a distraction. Lets look at this form a historical/timeline perspective.

1995 - "Key to the Lockheed Martin system is a liquid oxygen/kerosene (LO 2 -RP-1) common core booster that yields significant cost savings. The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_l.htm

1997 - "Yeltsin approves U.S. production of RD-180 engine foe EELV."
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5556764_ITM

1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business." (Notice no mention of assured access to space)
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124.html

2003 - On July 24, 2003, the Air Force concluded that Boeing was in possession of proprietary Lockheed documents during the 1998 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) source selection.
www.mcaleese.com/10282004Presentation.ppt

Lockheed has been advertising co-production since 1995. They were awarded a contract in 1997. The official announcement came out about the espionage in 2003.

What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?

What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?

What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?

I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.

This empty promise of co-production is like the promised savings on ULA at $100-150 Million per year.

There is no credibility!
#345 by Propforce on 15 Nov, 2006 22:15
Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today.

So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.
#346 by bombay on 15 Nov, 2006 23:43
Alas, the last bastion of hope against the formation of ULA has been extinguished.

I think I'll go out back and kick my dog.
#347 by Orbiter Obvious on 16 Nov, 2006 00:15
Sorry, I'm a young Shuttle fan and only started to get interested in Delta and Atlas after finding this site. Stupid question, but why is ULA a bad thing?
#348 by spacedreams on 16 Nov, 2006 00:58
Quote
Propforce - 15/11/2006 2:58 PM Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today. So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.

Where did you hear this? Are you one of the "inside guys"
#349 by edkyle99 on 16 Nov, 2006 04:43
Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?

- Ed Kyle
#350 by Dexter on 16 Nov, 2006 05:00
Quote
edkyle99 - 15/11/2006 11:26 PM

Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?

- Ed Kyle

Rolls right off the tongue.

What is the proper pronunciation, YOOLA or U.L.A.
#351 by Dexter on 16 Nov, 2006 05:02
Quote
Orbiter Obvious - 15/11/2006 6:58 PM

Sorry, I'm a young Shuttle fan and only started to get interested in Delta and Atlas after finding this site. Stupid question, but why is ULA a bad thing?

I think you should go over all 24 pages of this thread. The negatives have been discussed at length.

Edit - See Space X's comments below for a quicker read.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
#352 by Dexter on 16 Nov, 2006 05:04
Quote
bombay - 15/11/2006 6:26 PM

Alas, the last bastion of hope against the formation of ULA has been extinguished.

I think I'll go out back and kick my dog.

Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment.

Here are Space X's comments.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
#353 by Propforce on 16 Nov, 2006 05:55
Quote
spacedreams - 15/11/2006 5:41 PM

Quote
Propforce - 15/11/2006 2:58 PM Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today. So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.

Where did you hear this? Are you one of the "inside guys"

Why? Because I know this before you did? LOL...
#354 by spacedreams on 16 Nov, 2006 06:18
No, just an honest question. You scooped everyone and just wondered how you found out so quick. I'm sure it will be everywhere tomorrow morning. I was also wondering if it is solid enough so I can "spread the word" or if it is just another rumor.
#355 by Propforce on 16 Nov, 2006 06:37
Quote
spacedreams - 15/11/2006 11:01 PM

No, just an honest question. You scooped everyone and just wondered how you found out so quick. I'm sure it will be everywhere tomorrow morning. I was also wondering if it is solid enough so I can "spread the word" or if it is just another rumor.

Oh I see... yes I am one of the "inside guys"
#356 by spacedreams on 16 Nov, 2006 06:43
Very cool, thanks for the info. I have friends that will be excited to hear about that.
#357 by edkyle99 on 16 Nov, 2006 15:15
Quote
Dexter - 15/11/2006 11:43 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 15/11/2006 11:26 PM

Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?

- Ed Kyle

Rolls right off the tongue.

What is the proper pronunciation, YOOLA or U.L.A.

How about "EEEEEEW-LA"?

- Ed Kyle
#358 by bombay on 17 Nov, 2006 00:21
"Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment."

"Here are Space X's comments."

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf

[/QUOTE]Reading this makes my blood boil!!!
This letter written to the FTC in response to their approval of ULA highlights everything wrong with the ULA and the gov't regulatory process. It clearly and accurately cites (through documented references) the rebuttal to the false claims that the that the pro-ULA-back-room wheelers and dealers (i.e. LM, Boeing, USAF, DoD, and FTC) are making.

This is not just a bunch of Space X sour grapes; their complaints and concerns are legitimate. Read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
#359 by R&R on 17 Nov, 2006 00:36
I have read it more than once and it is sour grapes.

Many of the things SpaceX says (as well as the FTC) regarding competition are crap because without ULA one of the companies WILL get out of the buisness and then the government is worse off than they will be with ULA because the one left over doesn't have a Heavy and that will cost big bucks to get capability on both coasts.

They say how it's not fair that ULA should be able to offer better prices commercially due to government subsidies. Problem is the Air Force is paying for launch capability no matter what so the tax payer really doesn't lose. They don't lose because if the Air Force only has a few launches then the launch teams get stagnant and skills diminish thus reliability goes down. More launches even if "subsidized" by the governement is a return on investment.

Throughout this rant (SpaceX's not mine) there are subtle and not so subtle references to SpaceX geting pushed out of EELV competition. That's the biggest load of crap of all. Maybe when they get a working rocket and then if they ever get one in the same class as Atlas and Delta and it proves to be as reliable then he can start to complain. For now he should shut up and concentrate on doing what he says he will because if he does succeed in that ULA won't matter and the Air Force will give him all the buisness he can handle.