Jim - 3/6/2007 12:05 AMQuoteDexter - 3/6/2007 11:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?
This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.
Expect the same thing from ULA.
May be your beef but LM was't doing anything in a vacuum. It had full USAF concurrence (more so the NRO) on every move it made and it didn't/hasn't "blackmailed" anyone
WHAP - 4/6/2007 5:36 PM
An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.
Dexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
Jim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PMQuoteDexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
WHAP - 4/6/2007 5:36 PMQuoteDexter - 3/6/2007 9:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board
Yes, and yes. If the Air Force wanted to have multiple providers, what other choice did they have? I think the Atlas III had already flown at the time of the downselect, so there was some confidence in the RD-180, regardless of the production location. An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.
Also, I don't think LM dragged its feet hoping Delta 4 would fail. I won't speculate as to whether they dragged their feet or not, but they probably wanted more assistance than the government wanted to provide.
If the RD-180 were an American engine, would Delta 4 exist?
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:13 AM
Downselect -1998
First Atlas 3 launch 2000
If RD-180 were American, how much more would it cost? Cost compared to D4?
Dexter - 5/4/2007 10:42 PM
RD-180 co-production in 1995
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/rd-180-pres-100101.pdf page 2
WHAP - 5/6/2007 7:56 AM
By your last statement, are you implying that an American RD-180 would cost more than an RS-68? (hopefully you didn't mean that it would cost more than an entire D4). If that's the case, isn't LM saving the government money by NOT pursuing co-production?
Jim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:10 AMQuoteJim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PMQuoteDexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
Why?
Propforce - 5/6/2007 2:14 PMQuoteJim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Huh? IIRC, LM picked the RD-180 long before even McDonnell Douglas has down-selected to the RS-68.
Rocketdyne was, and always will be, an engine "merchant supplier"; which means they don't pick sides between LM & McDD. It'a purely a business for them and the more the better. But as I posted above, at the time, Rocketdyne did not understand the Russian engine technology much and would be a very high risk to under-take this venture, way beyond what LM was willing to pay for Rocketdyne to "try".
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
WHAP - 5/6/2007 9:56 AMQuoteDexter - 5/6/2007 8:13 AM
Downselect -1998
First Atlas 3 launch 2000
If RD-180 were American, how much more would it cost? Cost compared to D4?Actually, I found some earlier posts that had the 4-2 downselect in 1996, with the decision to not perform the 4-2 downselect in late 1997. I guess the question is what did the government really expect from co-production, and when? One of your earlier posts:QuoteDexter - 5/4/2007 10:42 PM
RD-180 co-production in 1995
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/rd-180-pres-100101.pdf page 2doesn't really back up some of your assertions. Co-production is actually never mentioned on page 2 of that document. It is mentioned on the timeline on page 14, but nothing on that chart shows any actual co-production of engines.
However, I did find this link that says a co-production facility was supposed to be up and running by 2002 (the same year Atlas V was supposed to begin launching military payloads according to the article - I guess that milestone came and went, too). But it also appears that the government was involved in this decision as well.
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/archive00/sn2000.fff38.html
Lockheed said in 1995 that the RD-180 would be American made for US government missions.
With the 4 to 2 downselect in 1996, if Lockheed said that it might still be Russian because we don't understand the metallurgy or we think that our cost estimate might be overly optimistic, don't you think that the USAF may have ruled out Atlas V and gone with Alliant Tech or the Boeing proposal along with the Mac Dac's Delta 4???
Promise something, get a favorable decision, never deliver and then spin it.
bombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PMQuotequark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PMQuoteDexter - 5/6/2007 8:10 AMQuoteJim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PMQuoteDexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
Why?
The original LM plan for US RD-180 was tied to the original AF plan of a single EELV provider (winner take all). When the AF strategy changed to two providers, so did LM's plan. Everything was done above board and in compliance with policy and contracts.
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
Talk about spin!
Here is one for you backing up what edkyle stated:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5512599_ITM
GD signed the contract with NPO Energomash in 1994 to develop an engine for Atlas.
So now, let me get this logic straight.
In 1998 the Air Force decides to downselect the two finalists with the hope that competition between the two will result in lower prices.
The National Space Transportation Policy dictates that critical components will be domestically produced. Boeing complies with this requirement. Lockheed promises to.
If Russian engines are cheaper, allowing Lockheed to stay with the Russian made engine provides an advantage to Lockheed.
So much for competition.
edkyle99 - 5/6/2007 5:38 PMQuotePropforce - 5/6/2007 2:14 PMQuoteJim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Huh? IIRC, LM picked the RD-180 long before even McDonnell Douglas has down-selected to the RS-68.
Rocketdyne was, and always will be, an engine "merchant supplier"; which means they don't pick sides between LM & McDD. It'a purely a business for them and the more the better. But as I posted above, at the time, Rocketdyne did not understand the Russian engine technology much and would be a very high risk to under-take this venture, way beyond what LM was willing to pay for Rocketdyne to "try".
The original decision to buy RD-180 was to power an upgraded version of Atlas IIA (I think it was then named "Atlas IIAR"), which was ultimately named Atlas III. Rocketdyne was initially one of the bidders - it bid a two-chambered (or dual) engine that would have to have been developed largely from scratch. It was going against RD-180 and NK-33. Rocketdyne withdrew its bid before the award was made, eliminating itself from the competition.
- Ed Kyle
Nick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PMQuotebombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PMQuotequark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
In fact the assured access principle is in full force today. As Delta IV is down for pad repairs, launches can continue of other satellites on Atlas. An Atlas is going to launch a NRO sat within the next few weeks. If it were only Delta IV we'd be stuck waiting for the launch table to be fixed before we could launch anything at all. If something were to go wrong with Atlas and it was the only launch system we had we'd be in a tight spot.
One payload or so that can't be switched between the two doesn't invalidate the concept.
Propforce - 6/6/2007 5:22 AM
Oh yeah, I remember now. Rocketdyne offered a "MA-5D" version, an upgrade from its heritage MA-5A Atlas II booster/ sustainer engine as option. But as I said, the MA-5 GG cycle is really no competition against the RD-180's staged combustion cycle (imagine a turbo-charged equivalent). It's no suprise that they withdrew their offer before the decision was made. They knew they can not compete against the cheap Russian currency and existing technology.
BTW, you know that Atlas II "AR" stands for American/ Russian (hence the "AR")? :wink:
Jim - 6/6/2007 12:32 AM
Quit whining and live with it. There are much worse issues, like alternative energy