-
#260 by butters on 14 May, 2014 03:06
-
<chanting>Space Race! Space Race! Space Race!</chanting>
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson. -
#261 by WHAP on 14 May, 2014 03:09
-
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.
How exactly do you have more money? -
#262 by Lee Jay on 14 May, 2014 03:14
-
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..........
Frankly, you coming to my front door sounds more like an opportunity than a threat! -
#263 by sdsds on 14 May, 2014 03:22
-
An Atlas carrying NROL-33 is scheduled for launch May 22. (We are at L - 9 days.) Others have indicated that for each launch, "a contingent of Energomash engineers is present in a room next to the Atlas LCC monitoring the engine health and status." Are these individuals in the country now? Are they expected to be at their stations adjacent to the launch control center on May 22?
-
#264 by Lar on 14 May, 2014 03:30
-
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..........
Frankly, you coming to my front door sounds more like an opportunity than a threat!
I was thinking that too. Well, I would have to block export of my MISB 7470 "Space Shuttle Discovery" set to the UK if he turned up.
http://brickset.com/sets/7470-1 ... isn't it a beaut?
Aww, I'd probably give it to him anyway. Sorry for the off topic digression but we need some smiles.
-
#265 by friendly3 on 14 May, 2014 03:33
-
<chanting>Space Race! Space Race! Space Race!</chanting>
I for one am optimistic that the deepening political standoff between the U.S. and Russia will once again inspire international rivalry in spaceflight. If the RD-180 embargo is a Sputnik Moment, then bring it on. Maybe there's not as much potential upside for Russia, but in the U.S., when the tide of defense spending rolls in, some pretty amazing hardware can come to life.
With this escalation, it is now clear that the U.S. will NOT produce RD-180 under license. It has to be a different engine. I can't imagine Congress voting to copy a Soviet Russian design in the midst of this kind of petty diplomatic theater. Whatever replaces the Russian RD-180 will have to be as conspicuously American as a Harley-Davidson.
I agree 100% with you.
I just learned that "Rogozin told reporters the Russian government has instructed Roscosmos to work with partners in the Asia-Pacific. Later Tuesday, Rogozin said on Twitter that Russian space officials will discuss bilateral cooperation on space projects with China on May 19, the eve of President Vladimir Putin's visit there".
So a future with Russia/China vs US/rising private companies seems far more exciting than the actual "boring" status quo. -
#266 by tigerade on 14 May, 2014 04:00
-
This is really troubling that Russia is pulling the rug from under us, and even more troubling that we've put ourselves in a situation where a foreign government can effectively shut down our access to space.
If all of this news really is true, how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales? -
#267 by Thorny on 14 May, 2014 04:14
-
This is really troubling that Russia is pulling the rug from under us, and even more troubling that we've put ourselves in a situation where a foreign government can effectively shut down our access to space.
If all of this news really is true, how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales?
Thursday, when Delta IV launches? -
#268 by meekGee on 14 May, 2014 04:17
-
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.
How exactly do you have more money?
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
-
#269 by QuantumG on 14 May, 2014 04:32
-
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
-
#270 by sdsds on 14 May, 2014 04:33
-
how soon can the U.S. regain independence from Russian rocket engine sales?
Thursday, when Delta IV launches?
What's the lead time on a Delta IV M+ (4,4)? Now that there's a somewhat more "common" CBC, is there anything to it other than calculating a few new ascent trajectories? Wikipedia
is currently claiming, "This would theoretically provide a GTO payload of 7,500 kg (16,600 lb) and an LEO payload of 14,800 kg (32,700 lb). This is the simplest variant to implement and is available within 36 months of the first order." But since it doesn't cite a reference it's unclear whether it takes into account the new M+ core.
If NROL-33 doesn't fly on Atlas come May 22, would it even take a Delta (4,4) to launch it? Would (4,2) have the performance? -
#271 by rcoppola on 14 May, 2014 04:51
-
You're both right but for different reasons. Although if you're looking for a perfect example of what meekGee means by pushing risk onto someone else, look no further then what Boeing did on the 787 program.Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been. -
#272 by meekGee on 14 May, 2014 04:53
-
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
No, all too often this is only the stated reason. It's a reason that doesn't apply nearly as often as it is practiced.
Very often, the execs of a company, who have lost touch with the actual competencies, prefer to keep only the "brand", and the "business development abilities" of the company, and outsource pretty much everything else. Because engineering is messy, uncertain, capricious, and when it fails, you have to explain why... Whereas when you outsource, you put a wall around it, and you can always say "I gave it to the experts".
Rinse, lather repeat - and you have multiple levels of outsourcing. The theoretical rationale that you quote is nowhere to be seen.
Take the rocket at hand here. Did outsourcing make it cheaper compared to a company that builds engines in house? of course not. Could it not have been Lockheed's or Boeing's (or ULA's) business to make rocket engines? of course it could have. They just chose not go there.
Outsourcing became a battle cry taught in business schools. "What is YOUR outsourcing strategy"?
One of my the companies I had the most fortune to work with is TRUMPF. They make sheet metal cutting/bending/welding tools. Because they wanted to be in control, they learned how to make the lasers (CO2, then solid state) that power the tools. And the diodes that pump the lasers. And by virtue of that, they are one of the largest laser makers in the world. So they can cut metal.
It wasn't "their business" to make lasers. They made it their business, since it was the core of their machine.
Their factory tour is really fun, btw, since you can see TRUMPF machines making TRUMPF machines... -
#273 by QuantumG on 14 May, 2014 05:00
-
It really does seem like you're trying to suggest that the mistakes of aerospace are the norm. They're not.
-
#274 by CJ on 14 May, 2014 05:24
-
I'm flabbergasted *if* it's true that ULA needs Russian techs for engines already in the US. If that's true, I can't see how that meshes with their past and current claims of an assured stockpile and assure launch capability.
I wouldn't blame ULA alone for this, but the government as well; those Russian techs aren't coming and going from US Air Force bases without being noticed. At least, I would hope not. Therefor, the government must have been aware of the role of said Russian techs.
What I don't think we know yet is whether this is actual Russian policy, or just Rogazin partaking in his well-known penchant for shooting his mouth off. However, even if the latter, perhaps this will serve to alert those who don't yet believe it that US access to Russian engines is indeed something we can't count on.
As for ULA's attempt to blame SpaceX for the Russians cutting off RD-180... why don't they just get to the point and blame SpaceX for the Ukraine crisis, and while they're at it, the recent series of X-class solar flares?
IMHO, the next question ought to be, if the RD-180, including the current stockpile (if the Russian claims are true) is, or soon will be, no longer available, what's the best way of remedying the situation? Attempt a US version (which reportedly make take over half a decade) while Atlas production sits idle, or say goodby to Atlas 5?
-
#275 by su27k on 14 May, 2014 05:30
-
That's complete nonsense.
No it's not, your argument would only work in an ideal market economy which has no political boundaries and irrational behaviors.QuoteYou outsource because making components isn't your business.
It could become your business if the component is a vital part of your product, an engine certainly qualifies and it has plenty of precedents in the car industry.QuotePeople who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you.
So? If it's a vital part of your business, you'd better learn to do it better and cheaper than them, it's called competition.QuoteIt's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor.
Or you could just buy a tax software to do it yourself instead of hiring an accountant. The difference between tax accountant and rocket engines are, if you don't like your accountant you can get a replacement easily, if you don't like your outsourced rocket engine you're in some serious trouble.QuoteThe problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels.
Well that's the real world for you, it doesn't work like ideal market equations.QuoteI actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
They're not the one desperately looking for engine replacement, so I think everyone else should be learning from them. -
#276 by jongoff on 14 May, 2014 05:34
-
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:Quote
As usual, the news stores have been all over the map with respect to details. But a key phase in accurate stories is “for use in military launches” or words to that effect.
In fact, the Russians have always banned use of the NK33 and RD180 for “military purposes” but when we were negotiating for their use we were told that “military purposes” is very narrowly defined to weapon systems. GPS, “spy” satellites, and even military comsats are not treated as weapons – unless they want to. In other words, this is a battle of definitions and is all part of the negotiation process. -
#277 by ChrisWilson68 on 14 May, 2014 06:00
-
Well, if you outsourced to a US company, the US has more money. If you actually make it yourself, then of course you get to keep more, since you only pay for components.
Of course it's more complicated than that, but the basic principle is simple. The reason to outsource is often stated as "to reduce cost", but actually it is to push the risk and complexity onto someone else... but you can't get rid of them, so you end up paying for them - it's just not as easily apparent.
That's complete nonsense. You outsource because making components isn't your business. People who have been doing it for decades almost certainly do it better (and cheaper) than you. It's the same reason why you hire an accountant to do your taxes instead of doing it yourself, or any of the other millions of examples of specialization of labor. The problem with aerospace is that horrible incentives have messed with sensible economics like this for years, giving ample opportunity for suppliers to rest on the laurels. I actually wonder if SpaceX have learnt the wrong lessons with their vertical integration and started in-housing some things that never should have been.
meekGee, do you realize your opinion about outsourcing is a fringe theory that is very far outside the norm of both U.S. business practice and academic business and economic study? QuantumG's opinion is very widely accepted in both business practice and theory.
-
#278 by meekGee on 14 May, 2014 06:22
-
meekGee, do you realize your opinion about outsourcing is a fringe theory that is very far outside the norm of both U.S. business practice and academic business and economic study? QuantumG's opinion is very widely accepted in both business practice and theory.
I think I even presented it as being "fringe", in that I think over-outsourcing is prevalent and very often not for the purpose of specialization. So by definition of my grievance, I am in the minority...
I understand the concept of specialization very well. I have an accountant, a lawyer, I eat at restaurants, and I don't make my own car.
But taking the concept and applying it everywhere is just like those endless discussions about free markets or socialism. Life is a lot more complicated than single-line economic theories.
What I'm saying is that under the banner of specialization, a whole lot more outsourcing is occurring than is really justified. It is often done, plain and simple, because it's the easy and safe option for the decision makers. From their point of view, it is a very rationale though selfish, decision.
Let's keep it to the RD-180 though. ULA had every reason to control the production of the engine, all the time in the world, and plenty of money supposedly dedicated to this. They chose not to do it. It was easier that way. There's no other explanation.
"Cheaper" doesn't even factor into it, since they're already charging whatever they want for it because it has to be "assured". So they can say "we have to make the engine in-house, so launches are now +100M", and the AF would have to say "thank you".
As it turns out, actually making it in house, for a different company, was in fact cheaper - but that's a whole new story.
-
#279 by Jakusb on 14 May, 2014 06:30
-
Just wondering: Is no one of you realizing that what is happening is serieus getting us closer to a potential new Cold War?! Did most of you forgot that worldwide cooperation in space likely brought more peace to the world then anything else?
Let me be clear: I suppose that mainly Putin is responsible for all this, but being happy to stop working with Russia is very naive and even dangerous.
I can only hope that diplomacy will resolve issues like Crimea soon and further deterioration to the relations between Russia and US can be prevented.
This does not mean I understand how the US got in a situation where they are at such a level depended on Russia for launching spy satellites. Even more flabbergasted with the fact that Russia directly helps the US the launch them.
ULA's latest comments seem to proof the worst ideas some of us seem to have about them: only in it for the money and a wealthy retirement...
How is their latest comment not a threat to national security?! They undermine the only US effort that is close to being able to become totally independent of Russia for launching both astronauts and spy satellites! If they are the patriots they claim to be, they should salute the efforts SpaceX put into the advance of space technology.
I really hope that wise men and women behind the scenes will get us back on track with international cooperation.
is currently claiming, "This would theoretically provide a GTO payload of 7,500 kg (16,600 lb) and an LEO payload of 14,800 kg (32,700 lb). This is the simplest variant to implement and is available within 36 months of the first order." But since it doesn't cite a reference it's unclear whether it takes into account the new M+ core.