-
#180 by Robotbeat on 20 Sep, 2013 20:32
-
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.
-
#181 by edkyle99 on 20 Sep, 2013 21:07
-
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 -
#182 by a_langwich on 20 Sep, 2013 21:15
-
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.
-
#183 by a_langwich on 20 Sep, 2013 22:48
-
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.
-
#184 by Prober on 20 Sep, 2013 23:10
-
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 -
#185 by woods170 on 18 Oct, 2013 06:16
-
New development. Apparently there is some truth in the rumour:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/37737atlas-5-engine-maker-stays-with-utc-for-nowQuote“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.
-
#186 by Prober on 18 Oct, 2013 23:30
-
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-nowQuote“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.
-
#187 by LOXRP1 on 01 Nov, 2013 12:09
-
#188 by Lobo on 06 Dec, 2013 15:41
-
Four more RD-180 engines delivered to the US.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/156/
Time to stockpile! -
#189 by Lurker Steve on 06 Dec, 2013 16:54
-
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 ?
-
#190 by Lars_J on 06 Dec, 2013 16:58
-
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. -
#191 by sdsds on 03 Apr, 2014 06:09
-
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? -
#192 by DGH on 03 Apr, 2014 09:29
-
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
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. -
#193 by The_Ronin on 03 Apr, 2014 18:47
-
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN
Shelton, Sapp, Loverro and Klinger all back idea of US built competitor to RD-180. Rep. Rogers says finding the $$$ is Congress' problem.
Why is finding the money Congress's problem? I would think that P&W and ULA would pony up out of pocket if they wanted to keep Atlas flying. Let me rephrase that... they SHOULD pony up out of pocket. -
#194 by russianhalo117 on 03 Apr, 2014 18:49
-
That is not how ULA is designed to work.
-
#195 by The_Ronin on 03 Apr, 2014 18:56
-
That is not how ULA is designed to work.
Entirely too sad and true. -
#196 by Lurker Steve on 03 Apr, 2014 19:20
-
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN
Shelton, Sapp, Loverro and Klinger all back idea of US built competitor to RD-180. Rep. Rogers says finding the $$$ 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. -
#197 by peter-b on 03 Apr, 2014 19:50
-
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.
-
#198 by Kasponaut on 03 Apr, 2014 20:03
-
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! -
#199 by BrightLight on 03 Apr, 2014 20:18
-
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?
