-
Rumors that Russia may block the export of RD-180 to the US
by
QuantumG
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:08
-
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.
--
Presumably this is about Syria.
-
#1
by
asmi
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:39
-
I'm fairly certain that this is about nothing because it doesn't make any sence. And because all kinds of rumors regrading RD-180 appeared regularely and all ended up being just that - unfounded wild speculations.
-
#2
by
Khadgars
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:40
-
Massive fluff piece.
-
#3
by
QuantumG
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:40
-
Yeah, because the Russia government is well known for only doing things that make sense.
-
#4
by
RocketmanUS
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:44
-
There has always been a possibility that there could be a supply problem for one reason or another.
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
.
-
#5
by
sdsds
on 28 Aug, 2013 00:58
-
Sure, the RT article includes a lot of smoke. But they're pretty careful about the actual reporting.
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?
-
#6
by
manboy
on 28 Aug, 2013 01:02
-
I hope they do, I'd prefer the RD-180 to be manufactured in the USA.
-
#7
by
fregate
on 28 Aug, 2013 01:11
-
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 (!)
-
#8
by
yg1968
on 28 Aug, 2013 01:13
-
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.
-
#9
by
GraniteHound92
on 28 Aug, 2013 01:55
-
Let's say, in a worst case scenario, the US can't import RD-180s nor can they build them domestically. What would the best option be? Can ULA ramp up production of the Delta IV to pick up the slack? Or would it make more sense to design an entire new engine for the Atlas V?
-
#10
by
Antares
on 28 Aug, 2013 02:09
-
Fly out the remaining 180s and domestically develop a replacement. SpaceX might have something to say about that; but until the F9 stops changing and has the reliability of Atlas V, any assessment that puts F9 ahead of A-V is highly skewed toward cost or politics.
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.
-
#11
by
QuantumG
on 28 Aug, 2013 02:13
-
SpaceX might have something to say about that
10 posts
-
#12
by
jongoff
on 28 Aug, 2013 04:45
-
It's kind of sad that the LOX/RP-1 engine development Obama wanted to fund in his original FY-11 plan got torpedoed because of pork politics. I hope this article is just fluff, but if Russia decided to stick it to the US over Syria for instance, we've made sure to make it as easy as possible. The thing that cracks me up the most was that one of the justifications some in Congress used for SLS was that it promoted national security!
Oh well. At least we can wow those Ruskies with our big moon rocket we can barely afford to launch...
~Jon
-
#13
by
Lars_J
on 28 Aug, 2013 05:31
-
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.
-
#14
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Aug, 2013 05:52
-
First of all, it's not clear if anyone in Russia really has any intent of blocking RD-180 exports or whether it's posturing, either for a domestic or foreign audience.
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.
-
#15
by
Downix
on 28 Aug, 2013 06:51
-
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.
-
#16
by
tj
on 28 Aug, 2013 07:24
-
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.
-
#17
by
john smith 19
on 28 Aug, 2013 07:32
-
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).
-
#18
by
woods170
on 28 Aug, 2013 07:47
-
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).
Agreed. This is just posturing by Russia to force a re-negotiation of the price paid for RD-180 deliveries.
In the end Russia is not gonna stop RD-180 deliveries because it will hurt them more than it wil hurt the USA.
-
#19
by
a_langwich
on 28 Aug, 2013 08:27
-
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.
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.
.
