-
#340
by
CJ
on 15 May, 2014 05:30
-
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother?
I thought someone *might* have seen a new report and have a link. I certainly don't want to ask anyone to post anything that could get them in trouble, that's why I asked for any info "they can share". I guess I should have said "they can safely share".
To be quite honest, I'm very perplexed; if this is true and those reporting it aren't mistaken, then the RD-180 stockpile might as well not exist, which would cause utter chaos on many levels (Scrapping many upcoming DOD and NRO launches due to Delta IV lead time, grounding two of the three commercial crew contenders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) I guess we'll know in about a week... or at least by July 31st, when the Atlas 5 launch after that is scheduled.
-
#341
by
WHAP
on 15 May, 2014 05:36
-
This is the third time I've seen mention of "Russian support" for engines already in the US. The coming Atlas 5 launch in 8 days sounds like one they'd sanction, so my main question is, do we actually need Russian help at this point, or for that matter is Russian help actually required for engines already in the US?
In other words, without Russian support, will that Atlas be able to launch? If not, it basically renders the "stockpile" moot, and Atlas 5 is already gone.
Does anyone have more info on this issue that they can share?
I know that I'll be apprehensively awaiting this Atlas 5 launch.
Now you've seen it four times. Do you think someone is actually going to provide an answer? Whatever the answer is, 25% of the forum will believe it, 25% will say it's a lie, and the other 50% will say it's some conspiracy against SpaceX. The poster would be putting his or her career at risk to get publicly harassed. Why bother?
I thought someone *might* have seen a new report and have a link. I certainly don't want to ask anyone to post anything that could get them in trouble, that's why I asked for any info "they can share". I guess I should have said "they can safely share".
To be quite honest, I'm very perplexed; if this is true and those reporting it aren't mistaken, then the RD-180 stockpile might as well not exist, which would cause utter chaos on many levels (Scrapping many upcoming DOD and NRO launches due to Delta IV lead time, grounding two of the three commercial crew contenders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) I guess we'll know in about a week... or at least by July 31st, when the Atlas 5 launch after that is scheduled.
If what is true? Are people actually reporting something, or are they just speculating?
-
#342
by
Hauerg
on 15 May, 2014 07:26
-
I was talking about the topic of sanctions and countermoves. NOT the political situation situation that led to this.
(About being taken in so easily, naive etc.: I am not. For the majority of my life I have live 30 kms away from the iron curtain, for decades my hometown has been a preset target for an American ICBM (the railway might have been useful for the Russian invades) and for more than a decade a cousin of mine has been living in the ukraine where she works as a teacher. I don't think that my view is too simplistic.)
And Russia does not have a monopoly on propaganda.
Nevertheless: regarding the space related sanctions I still think that the US makes a lot of noise when it is in a very weak position. And the evil Russians reponded quite sensible so far. And no, twitter wording does not count.
So i hope this will not be escalated into a complete breakdown in space programs.
-
#343
by
woods170
on 15 May, 2014 07:51
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.
Incorrect. Very real US national security considerations, that are way beyond paperwork and (US national) pride, are preventing this option .
The vehicle with Russian engines is launched from US soil (so the national security payloads don't leave the country until launch), is certified for US national security launches and is supplied by a US company. The fact that it has Russian engines is actually not important within this frame of reference.
-
#344
by
Proponent
on 15 May, 2014 11:18
-
Does NASA let Russia ipso facto make the commercial crew downselect decision?
Wouldn't be the first time the US had effectively delegated space-policy decisions to the Kremlin....
-
#345
by
Proponent
on 15 May, 2014 11:42
-
Interesting comment from HMXHMX on another blog regarding what Russian means by "military uses" for RD-180:
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.
The statement on
Rogozin's Twitter feed is
РФ готова продолжить поставки в США ракетных двигателей РД-180 только при гарантии, что они не будут использоваться в интересах Пентагона,which translates as
The Russian Federation is prepared to continue deliveries of RD-180 rocket engines to the USA only with a guarantee that they will not be used in the Pentagon's interests.The term "Pentagon's interests" seems pretty broad to me. I'm not sure it leaves much room for a debate over whether payloads that aren't actually weapons can still be launched. On the other hand, this just a tweet; it's not a formal policy announcement by Putin. This begs the question of whether a more formal statement has appeared anywhere. We do have
ULA's statement that it is "not aware of any restrictions."
My guess is that RD-180 shipments will ultimately continue, possibly after some face-saving measure has been offered to Russia. In the short term it's a victory Russia and likely plays very well domestically. In the long term, it's a loss, because the days of RD-180 sales to the US are now certainly numbered.
-
#346
by
LouScheffer
on 15 May, 2014 12:02
-
If someone pulls the plug on Atlas V, could an arrangement be made to launch some of the larger payloads on Ariane 5 from Guiana?
Not gonna happen. US national security payloads don't physically leave the country (until they are launched into orbit that is...) and Ariane 5 is not certified for US national security launches, and never will be because it is supplied by a non-US company.
25 years ago, I would have said the exact same thing about the odds of launching national security payloads using Russian engines. There is nothing except paperwork and pride preventing this option.
Incorrect. Very real US national security considerations, that are way beyond paperwork and (US national) pride, are preventing this option .
The vehicle with Russian engines is launched from US soil (so the national security payloads don't leave the country until launch), is certified for US national security launches and is supplied by a US company. The fact that it has Russian engines is actually not important within this frame of reference.
This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9:
http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
-
#347
by
Proponent
on 15 May, 2014 12:31
-
I like the TR-107 better, but there's more specifics on the RS-84 that I could find
What is it that you prefer about the TR-107?
-
#348
by
Jim
on 15 May, 2014 12:39
-
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
-
#349
by
Kabloona
on 15 May, 2014 12:54
-
-
#350
by
AncientU
on 15 May, 2014 13:18
-
So with those 16 RD-180s in the US soil do they really have a 2-2.5 years stock? It seems more like 1.5 year.
Isn't this about the number needed to get ULA to the
start of the block buy?
-
#351
by
Lee Jay
on 15 May, 2014 13:26
-
Is it possible/likely for ULA to switch some of the next few years of payloads to Delta thereby stretching out the available RD-180s?
-
#352
by
Kabloona
on 15 May, 2014 13:35
-
Is it possible/likely for ULA to switch some of the next few years of payloads to Delta thereby stretching out the available RD-180s?
Mike Griffin apparently thinks so:
"Griffin said there would be an “enormous food fight” for access to the rocket among the various government programs should imports be cut off, with some programs forced to shift to the Delta IV and perhaps be significantly delayed."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
-
#353
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 15 May, 2014 14:02
-
The term "Pentagon's interests" seems pretty broad to me. I'm not sure it leaves much room for a debate over whether payloads that aren't actually weapons can still be launched.
Yeah, I get the feeling that this is intentional. My gut says that there will be a lot of horse trading between ULA and Energomash about what falls into the Russian government's definition of a 'military payload'. The main objective would likely be to delay ULA's (and, by extension DoD's) Atlas-V launches but not actually cause enough trouble as to cause them to mothball it and focus on Delta-IV.
Sanctions are
always a game of inconveniencing and discomforting your foe rather than necessarily causing them irreversible harm. You want them to change their ways and come back to you cap in hand. That won't happen if you just force them to break ties and go somewhere else. That scenario would most certainly not be in Russia's interests, economically or geopolitically.
-
#354
by
Proponent
on 15 May, 2014 14:16
-
"Griffin said there would be an “enormous food fight” for access to the rocket among the various government programs should imports be cut off, with some programs forced to shift to the Delta IV and perhaps be significantly delayed."
I'm surprised neither he nor Congress has proposed shifting Atlas V payloads to SLS.
-
#355
by
Joel
on 15 May, 2014 14:27
-
I remember old Boeing images of CST on DIV with two solids.
How long would it take to human-rate Delta IV when the decision has been made?
-
#356
by
veblen
on 15 May, 2014 14:36
-
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
No wonder ESA seeks more independence. Especially after NASA left them high & dry over ExoMars.
ESA ExoMars development was exceedingly slow and NASA decided it couldn't afford to wait around. ESA then partnered with RSA for their Mars EDL demo and Mars rover, which is fine but I wouldn't necessarily describe that as "independence".
-
#357
by
LouScheffer
on 15 May, 2014 15:40
-
1.This seems very odd. You could certain ship it in a sealed box, then have only cleared personnel present from the time the box was opened until the time the fairing is shut. This is *precisely* what is done today with satellites. Here is a picture from the NRO of shipping a KH-9: http://www.alamopulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sky_Spies_4.jpg Once it's in the fairing the launches are already webcast. You would need to train some technicians (with US clearances) on the Ariane equipment. How is this different in any practical way if this step occurs on US soil, or not?
On top of that, how much damage would really be done if a French technician got a look at the outside of one of our spy satellites? Presumably even French security clearances are good enough that he/she can't discuss it publically, or take a picture and post it on Twitter. And what do you think the odds are that the French do not already know the details of our spy satellites?
Nonsense.
a. Foreigners can not get US clearances
b. Some launch vehicle personnel have to be involved. The spacecraft personnel can not work independently.
c. French clearances mean squat. They are not applicable
d. The french do not know the details of our spacecraft
e. A lot of knowledge can be gain from a view of a spacecraft
I think we are in complete agreement. You are correct that this won't happen, for the reasons you mention. But I'm correct when I said the only obstacles were paperwork, (a) and (b), and pride, (c), (d), and (e). Here the pride is the belief that what you are doing is so spiffy that our security would be compromised if even an ally got a glimpse of it. But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
-
#358
by
kevin-rf
on 15 May, 2014 17:44
-
I think we are in complete agreement. You are correct that this won't happen, for the reasons you mention. But I'm correct when I said the only obstacles were paperwork, (a) and (b), and pride, (c), (d), and (e). Here the pride is the belief that what you are doing is so spiffy that our security would be compromised if even an ally got a glimpse of it. But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
Let me remind you of a little history concerning corona and hexagon. Back in the 70's and 80's before Al Gore declassified everything most contemporary writers assumed the "Corona" style vehicles (KH-1 - KH-8) where all low resolution search systems and the high resolution could read license plates where the KH-9 "Big Bird" systems. Well, when the programs where declassified it turned out yeah, some of the early Agena based systems (KH-1 - Kh-4a) where search, KH-7 and KH-8 where high res. could see a license plate systems, while the big bird KH-9 was actually the new search system.
So why does that matter, small details like that can give away the whole game. Many of the declassified histories show that the then Soviet did not take precautions against the Gambit satellites. A peak inside may have given the game away...
-
#359
by
Jim
on 15 May, 2014 17:47
-
But I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) that the intelligence departments of France, Israel, China, etc. are already well aware of what our reconnaissance satellite can do, and refusing to do something because they *might* find out is probably more of a detriment to us rather than to them.
No basis for such a suspicion. They don't know the existence of some programs much less capabilities.
