-
#240
by
Kabloona
on 13 May, 2014 19:27
-
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
Yes, how quickly things change. And there's plenty of blame to go around. Jeff Foust has a good summary of the RD-180 history and it's clear that everyone involved was happy to play along with the Russians as long as times were good, and no one, ULA included, wanted to spend the $$ needed to develop an alternative for just such a scenario:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1"“The bottom line is that the DOD didn’t invest, industry didn’t invest, the Congress didn’t make them, and it never happened,” said Michael Griffin, the former NASA administrator and current chairman and CEO of Schafer Corporation, during a meeting of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) on May 9 in Washington."
-
#241
by
jcm
on 13 May, 2014 20:15
-
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."
- Ed Kyle
I looked at the original Russian transcript at
http://government.ru/vice_news/12361and this sentence leapt out at me.
Does anyone know what role Energomash employees have post delivery of the engines? The implication of this sentence is that
it may not matter that we have a stock of them if we still need the Russians to service them prior to launch.
-
#242
by
AncientU
on 13 May, 2014 20:36
-
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."
- Ed Kyle
I looked at the original Russian transcript at http://government.ru/vice_news/12361
and this sentence leapt out at me.
Does anyone know what role Energomash employees have post delivery of the engines? The implication of this sentence is that
it may not matter that we have a stock of them if we still need the Russians to service them prior to launch.
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
Mods: Please move if this is the wrong thread -- losing track of what is where.
-
#243
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 13 May, 2014 21:52
-
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
It would not surprise me to learn that the answers to all of these questions are suddenly classified above top secret. They are also likely the subject of extremely adversarial meetings at the Pentagon at which blame aplenty is being apportioned out as well as scapegoats identified and earmarked for ruination.
-
#244
by
veblen
on 13 May, 2014 22:00
-
Can someone from ULA state for the record that all two years of warehoused engines are ready to fly without any additional 'spare parts' or 'routine maintenance' or Energomash support whatever? We've heard various (indirect) comments from ULA (impact to planned launches) and now Russia that there are ongoing needs that Energomash is fulfilling.
It would also be good to hear what level of the full 36 core block buy ULA is capable of supporting with the Delta IV (launch rate-wise and financially, since the launches are more costly than Atlas V with Russian engines).
It would not surprise me to learn that the answers to all of these questions are suddenly classified above top secret. They are also likely the subject of extremely adversarial meetings at the Pentagon at which blame aplenty is being apportioned out as well as scapegoats identified and earmarked for ruination.
What about the politicians (on both sides)? They created this whole framework. ULA at one end of the process are like the worker bees keeping the hive running (smoothly).
-
#245
by
meekGee
on 13 May, 2014 22:41
-
Are you seriously, with a straight face, suggesting the politicians will blame themselves?
If there's a problem launching near term Atlases, they'll call up Gass to re-testify, and pretend that they didn't know what he'll have to tell them.
That's how politicians do.
But other than the questions on this forum, we haven't heard any indication that there's a problem with the next two years worth of launches.
-
#246
by
meekGee
on 13 May, 2014 23:20
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
-
#247
by
Halidon
on 13 May, 2014 23:47
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
You knew this was going to happen when SpaceX annexed Crimea.....
-
#248
by
edkyle99
on 13 May, 2014 23:57
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Beyond ridiculous.
- Ed Kyle
-
#249
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 13 May, 2014 23:57
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Extremely poor judgement by ULA. I cannot understand how this works. Between Senator Shelby's mouth and PR like this, they don't need SpaceX to do a single thing more for them to win outright. Unbelievable.
-
#250
by
FinalFrontier
on 14 May, 2014 00:04
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
That is ridiculous. I understand the serious concerns given by ULA regarding the recent legal mess surrounding DOD contracts but it is absolutely repugnant to suggest that Spacex is dictating policy in regards to Russia.
Russia itself is dictating the policy by systematically seeking to return to a cold war format, what is happening now is the sign-affect of that. If Russia was able to harm Spacex in some way policy wise, I have no doubt they would, but Spacex being a domestic company simply is immune to the affects of this.
Therefore the bottom line is this is ridiculous. But I would add that people and ULA itself, should not blame ULA for poor planning if Russian threats are carried out. If anything the poor planning lies with roughly a decade of poor space policy planning by 3 presidential administrations in total. Multiple times the need for backup plans for US Russian space programs were pointed out by multiple experts and select committees and systematically multiple times these calls were ignored. If people want to play the blame game blame the politicians who would rather spend money on ridiculous earmarks or petty national security programs such as prism rather than real national security interests.
But in summation, I am quite sure now that the tone has been set that further negative remarks by both parties is likely to occur. No matter who or what "started" it this has now devolved to an excuse for mudslinging.
-
#251
by
Lar
on 14 May, 2014 00:09
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
Here's a link to the source
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43219
-
#252
by
mmeijeri
on 14 May, 2014 01:07
-
Would it be feasible to adapt Delta IV to use the Aerojet SRBs currently used on Atlas V rather than the ATK GEMs or would that require a massive redesign? There has been quite some talk about common systems, but I haven't heard anything about the solids in this context. If it's possible, it may become more relevant because of the RD-180 situation and the ATK / Orbital merger, though it is early days yet.
-
#253
by
mlindner
on 14 May, 2014 01:14
-
ok, this is daft. From ULA press release:
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station...."
I'm looking forward to ULA execs being dragged before a hearing and bending over for this. This is so many ways backwards that I don't have words to describe how funny I find this to be.
-
#254
by
Jim
on 14 May, 2014 01:25
-
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
-
#255
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 14 May, 2014 01:53
-
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
Huh? Don't get it. Try again.
Is this a team sport kind of thing? I flat out don't get those - my fault.
-
#256
by
mlindner
on 14 May, 2014 01:53
-
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
And mods can delete them if they're off topic.
-
#257
by
friendly3
on 14 May, 2014 01:54
-
Posts like the above would be no different that somebody posting on a Spacex thread:
"I am so glad that the F9 blew a gasket. Its so funny to throw in the face of the amazing people that their rocket still doesn't rate"
Well, this is not a ULA thread but a Russia/RD-180 thread. And I guess blowing a gasket is far less worse than having no engine to put at the bottom of your rocket...
-
#258
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 May, 2014 02:06
-
I don't have time to read this thread, but I will say that you all need to make sure your posts are USEFUL. Any sign of "huh" "OMG" and "WTF" will result in me getting on a plane, coming to your house, knocking on your front door and asking to speak to your parents about you..........
-
#259
by
Lar
on 14 May, 2014 02:07
-
Let's stick to RD-180 and not to how ULA or SpaceX spin this unfortunate turn of events. That stuff belongs in other threads (marginally) or other places entirely.
I do not think that anyone meant to imply that anyone would be exulting over misfortune such as launch hardware failure. Right?
Oh never mind, Chris said it better...
