-
#200 by butters on 03 Apr, 2014 20:30
-
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. -
#201 by BrightLight on 03 Apr, 2014 20:35
-
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. -
#202 by TrevorMonty on 03 Apr, 2014 20:49
-
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.
On paper the TRW TR107 seems like one option for replacement engine. I don't know what stage it's developed was taken to.
-
#203 by Kasponaut on 03 Apr, 2014 21:04
-
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. -
#204 by a_langwich on 03 Apr, 2014 22:33
-
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.
-
#205 by Antares on 04 Apr, 2014 18:49
-
When the taxpayers are basically the only source of revenue for ULA and AR, what difference does it make (at this point, ahem) whether the development is directly funded or done internally? The money path is the same. Follow money like an engineer follows current or flow. The approach must be the same. It all comes from somewhere and all goes somewhere, and there's a motive force.
-
#206 by pippin on 04 Apr, 2014 18:52
-
Well, they are not without competition so they can't charge everything...
Edit: everything, not anything. -
#207 by BrightLight on 04 Apr, 2014 18:58
-
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?
-
#208 by pippin on 04 Apr, 2014 19:00
-
Corrected error....
-
#209 by Lobo on 28 Apr, 2014 21:46
-
A rebuilt engine is a new configuration.....it would not be certified to fly payloads per the new NASA/NRO/Air Force certification standard....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?
-
#210 by DragonRider on 13 May, 2014 14:18
-
Of interest:
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/ -
#211 by edkyle99 on 13 May, 2014 14:26
-
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 -
#212 by Ben the Space Brit on 13 May, 2014 14:38
-
If these stories are borne out, it kicks over the table and sends NASA's strategy and a lot of commercial options crashing.
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. -
#213 by Kabloona on 13 May, 2014 14:58
-
Jeff Foust had a good article yesterday about the RD-180 flap and how it could play out:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1 -
#214 by Galactic Penguin SST on 13 May, 2014 15:00
-
I would not rely on these reports very much - Rogozin was known to be a "big mouth" for quite some years before making the famous comments recently. Especially with the ISS and RD-180/NK-33 statements.
-
#215 by newpylong on 13 May, 2014 15:00
-
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
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? -
#216 by rst on 13 May, 2014 15:02
-
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? -
#217 by Kabloona on 13 May, 2014 15:04
-
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. -
#218 by edkyle99 on 13 May, 2014 15:06
-
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 -
#219 by Ben the Space Brit on 13 May, 2014 15:16
-
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.
) 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.