-
#220
by
Kabloona
on 13 May, 2014 15:22
-
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
Not when the US is the biggest loser from intellectual property theft around the globe and is trying to maintain legal protections for US intellectual property. Violating the RD-180 license would win a battle but lose a war.
-
#221
by
woods170
on 13 May, 2014 15:25
-
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.
Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
-
#222
by
woods170
on 13 May, 2014 15:26
-
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
Not when the US is the biggest loser from intellectual property theft around the globe and is trying to maintain legal protections for US intellectual property. Violating the RD-180 license would win a battle but lose a war.
This exactly.
-
#223
by
BrightLight
on 13 May, 2014 15:31
-
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.
Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?
-
#224
by
Kabloona
on 13 May, 2014 15:33
-
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.
Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?
It has the license until 2022, at which time renewal is not guaranteed, obviously.
And it would take the US probably 5-6 years just to develop the capacity to produce the RD-180, meaning there would be only maybe a year or two of production before the license expires...if we were lucky.
So the real issue is what happens after 2022.
-
#225
by
AncientU
on 13 May, 2014 15:40
-
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.
Not so fast gentlemen. Suddenly cutting off supply of RD-180's (by Russia) would probably translate into a breach of contract. Tearing up a license and producing unlicensed copies of hardware is piracy. Both are illegal within the bound of national and international law. Let's see how this plays out over the days to come.
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?
It has the license until 2022, at which time renewal is not guaranteed, obviously.
And it would take the US probably 5-6 years just to develop the capacity to produce the RD-180, meaning there would be only maybe a year or two of production before the license expires...if we were lucky.
So the real issue is what happens after 2022.
I think the real question is what happens in 2014.
-
#226
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 13 May, 2014 15:47
-
Let's put it this way: ULA has enough RD-180s for normal usage up to 2016 (say, about 20 engines). RD-180 has been very reliable so far so I'm confident in saying they should all work okay. After that...? Well, the last time there was a serious break-down between the US and Russia, it lasted nearly a half-century.
We certainly aren't there yet but there might be a cold couple of years whilst all sides nurse grievances and hurt egos. Worst case, IMO at the moment, is that Atlas-V might see some of its more distant in the future payloads sent to Delta-IV and there may be a partial stand-down of the type.
Oddly enough, I could see this forcing ULA to use Atlas-V only in the civil commercial market, which could have some interesting consequences.
-
#227
by
Hauerg
on 13 May, 2014 15:48
-
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
...
RD-180 money is peanuts compared to the money that needs to be moved to (partieally re-)integrate those Urkrainian parts.
They can easily get this back by minimally adjusting the price for CNG.
-
#228
by
rst
on 13 May, 2014 16:03
-
As usual i am confused, i thought the US has the license to build the RD-180 and I am assuming all of its parts - is this not the case?
Having a license is one thing. Having a demonstrated capability is another. The American licensees have built significant components, but not nearly all of them. (BTW, to the extent that the US treats this as a legal matter at all, it may be relevant what language there is -- either in the license agreements, or outside them, in the laws of relevant jurisdictions -- which might allow Energomash, or the Russian government, to revoke the license.)
-
#229
by
butters
on 13 May, 2014 16:22
-
I wouldn't worry too much about the license. Once we resort to sanctions, we are committed to disregarding private contracts in the furtherance of public policy objectives. The only practical concern would be the blockage of importing the physical engines.
If we can't get our hands on the engines, then we'll have to field an alternative, and while the design details of the RD-180 might discourage a close copy, I can't imagine Russian-held intellectual property rights getting in the way of whatever the Pentagon wants to do. Russia could complain to the UN if they want, but that won't accomplish anything.
-
#230
by
Hauerg
on 13 May, 2014 16:31
-
So billions of people are forced to copy music illegally because they cannot afford to buy it? You are ok with that?
The USA simply cannot ignore the IP. Ask the pharma industry what their thoughts are on this.
-
#231
by
Lars_J
on 13 May, 2014 16:35
-
Exactly... Ignoring IP is going to open the gates for everyone to do it. A decision that cannot be taken lightly.
-
#232
by
DMeader
on 13 May, 2014 16:38
-
I can't imagine Russian-held intellectual property rights getting in the way of whatever the Pentagon wants to do. Russia could complain to the UN if they want, but that won't accomplish anything.
Is that how we do business? Frak it, just thumb our nose at international law and prior agreements? I certainly hope not.
I think getting into this deal was a bad idea from the start, but since we ARE in it, we stand up, abide by the deal and do the right thing.
-
#233
by
edkyle99
on 13 May, 2014 16:49
-
This Russia Today article is longer and more assertive about Russia actually banning RD-180 use for certain launches, pulling out of ISS, etc..
http://rt.com/news/158680-russia-usa-rocket-gps/It includes the following statement regarding existing engines already shipped.
"“We proceed from the fact that without guarantees that our engines are used for non-military spacecraft launches only, we won’t be able to supply them to the US,” Rogozin is cited as saying by Interfax news agency.
If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added."
A key question here is, what is Rogozin's definition of a "military spacecraft"?
This Bloomberg article includes a response to this news today from the Pentagon. It says that ULA is working on its own response.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/russia-bans-rocket-engine-sales-to-u-s-military.htmlI think that today's news may deserve its own new thread. Either that or we can go ahead and remove the "rumor" from this thread title.
- Ed Kyle
-
#234
by
meekGee
on 13 May, 2014 18:16
-
All talk. They need the money as much as we need the engines.
You know, when an engineer sees a failure mechanism, it doesn't matter to him whether the accident has been demonstrated yet.
Why does it matter if the Russians are still just talking, or have actually pulled the the trigger?
The mechanism was clear for many years. Now we had the luxury of having warning shots demonstrated to us, which really is very nice of the Russians. ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.")
And still we go "meh, they're just warning shots".
You can't responsibly rely on an argument like "they need the money more than we need the engines". Make your own engines, and then you don't need the argument. And you have more money.
-
#235
by
LOXRP1
on 13 May, 2014 18:30
-
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
-
#236
by
ncb1397
on 13 May, 2014 18:38
-
Rogazin - "Russia is ready to continue deliveries of RD-180 engines to the US only under the guarantee that they won't be used in the interests of the Pentagon."
Isn't it obvious? Don't buy your engines from Russian gangsters*. And that's exactly what anyone with decision making power is in the Putin regime. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend that's not the reality.
Can you imagine Bolden going on his twitter account threatening Russian space projects? Or joking about abandoning Russian cosmonauts on the space station? It's inconceivable for so many reasons. These guys are thugs.
*I'm sure most of the Roscosmos engineers are genuinely good people and are not thugs, but clearly the people in charge are.
It shouldn't take a twitter posting to figure out an ex-KGB agent and his associates are thugs. As for Russia breaching contract, if there is one, on RD-180 delivery:
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_AssurancesPieces of paper won't insure the supply of engines.
-
#237
by
PahTo
on 13 May, 2014 18:57
-
For any NSF'ers who may be attending the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs next week, I'll issue an invitation to stop by the RD AMROSS booth (#1304 - in the pavillion) for face to face discussions related to the RD-180. Also joining me will be the RD AMROSS president and P&W RD-180 program manager. We'd be happy to talk to any and all comers.
Robert vanGiessen
P&W Chief Engineer, RD-180 Programs
Good stuff--thanks for stating your availability, Mr. vanGiessen. While I won't be able to attend, I would hope that some NSF'ers will, and post summaries of conversations here...
-
#238
by
edkyle99
on 13 May, 2014 19:17
-
When the SpaceX lawsuit resulted in a temporary injunction against RD-180, United Launch Alliance issued multiple press releases and its officials made statements about how dangerous this SpaceX threat was to U.S. national security - about how reckless SpaceX actions were. ULA all but called Elon Musk a traitor to the United States.
Now, when Russia itself directly threatens to halt RD-180 shipments, not a word, so far.
- Ed Kyle
-
#239
by
PahTo
on 13 May, 2014 19:24
-
I suppose the operative question here is does Rogozin = "Russia". I see Reuters stating "Russia" has taken this position (and the ISS stuff) and he is a govt official. Is it safe to assume that he is stating official Russian policy now?
(edit: corrected typo)