Rumors that Russia may block the export of RD-180 to the US

• #380 by sdsds on 19 May, 2014 04:19
• Quote from: baldusi on 19 May, 2014 01:04

  Delta IV M+(4,4) is available in 36 month, if necessary, according to ULA.

  
  This needs to be seen within the context of sudden unavailability of RD-180.
  
  I know the June 2013 Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide says "within 36 months of order" but my analysis indicates a full 36 months would not be required if the USG expressed a national security need for availability quicker than that. The Delta Fleet Standardization Program provides, "full commonality between all of the Medium and Medium-Plus configurations until reaching the final Integration, Assembly, and Check-Out area of the Decatur Production facility."
  
  That means any Medium core in the production pipeline can be configured at the last production stage for 4 GEM-60s. And there's very little chance a standardized core that meets the structural requirements of the M+(5,4) configuration would be structurally insufficient for the M+(4,4). Ergo the only thing they would need to develop and flight-qualify would be the modified software for the (4,4). Although software development is difficult ... it's not so difficult that it takes 36 months to validate a minor modification like this....
• #381 by baldusi on 19 May, 2014 04:44
• 
  

  Quote from: Jim on 19 May, 2014 01:07

  Quote from: baldusi on 19 May, 2014 01:04

  (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
  

  
  And some pad mods and longer processing times
  

  Yes, I just meant that the 431 payload problem could be solved relatively quickly and cheaply with the (4,4). But obviously a single pad at CCFS couldn't support DoDs needs and (5,6) and (5,8 ) would take too long and require different cores. Pad mods could be built in LC-37A, if needed. Thus, 5(3/4/5)1 would me more impacted by switching to DIV than 431.
• #382 by DGH on 19 May, 2014 10:25
• Quote from: baldusi on 19 May, 2014 01:04

  
  

  Quote from: Jim on 18 May, 2014 20:27

  Quote from: DGH on 18 May, 2014 17:22

  Not sure if anyone has tried this or if this is the right thread to do this on.
  What launches are most affected if this happens?
  
  Here is what I have so far.
  Launches in 2016 and later but before 2020.
  Launches on an Atlas 531, 541 or 551.
  Launches that need to be man rated.
  Launches that carry nuclear fuel.
  MUOS and GOES are major losers.
  AEHF can probably launch on a Delta 5,4 because of it’s Hall thrusters and margin.
  Delta IV Heavy flights in 2017 or so may be impacted to free up engines.
  
  

  
  431 too
  

  Delta IV M+(4,4) is available in 36 month, if necessary, according to ULA. (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
  

  
  There are no 431 launches listed on the launch thread so I left it off.
  The 48 months for 5,6 and 5,8 is why I said before 2020 48 months and a margin.
  I would not be surprised assuming no more RD-180 engines to see the 5,8 become the new standard instead of the current 5,4 depending on ACES development.
  
• #383 by DGH on 19 May, 2014 10:28
• Quote from: Jim on 19 May, 2014 01:07

  Quote from: baldusi on 19 May, 2014 01:04

  (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 and would need modified cores.
  

  
  And some pad mods and longer processing times
  

  
  Then fix it.
  If ULA cannot do that then the SpaceX fans are right.
  The Delta IV was after all originally supposed to launch 40 cores a year not 5.
  
• #384 by Prober on 19 May, 2014 12:47
• Quote from: friendly3 on 14 May, 2014 21:44

  Quote from: RyanC on 14 May, 2014 21:20

  I was going to post this over in the commercial crew section -- but decided to post it here instead.
  
  Since we only have about 16~ RD-180s on US Soil currently, what would the effect be on Commercial Crew operators who have been planning on using Atlas V (SNC Dreamchaser, Boeing CST) for their efforts, if the remaining store of RD-180s is prioritized for national security launches?
  

  
  Another related question : when you take a look at the Atlas V launch manifest : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010-2019) it seems that ULA will need 15 RD-180s before the end of 2015.
  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.
  And how on Earth can they say that "we believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have"?
  

  
  The real question is far different then what I've been reading.
  
  A short term problem:  Possible loss of RD-180 supply due to external forces.
  Fix: pull out the materials from the early program enhance with advanced manufacturing technology and produce the engine state side.   Note:  this should be more of a manufacturing exercise and not an engineering exercise.
  
  A long term problem: Use Block 1.0 US produced RD-180 as is or improve it.   Other option replace the engine.
  
• #385 by Ronsmytheiii on 20 May, 2014 22:48
• Aerojet rocketdyne claim that they would take at least four years to develop a replacement for the RD-180/ AJ-26 if there was enough money
  
  http://aviationweek.com/space/replacing-russian-made-atlas-antares-engines-would-take-four-years
• #386 by woods170 on 21 May, 2014 18:30
• Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
  
  http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
  
  

  Quote

  The committee found that losing the RD-180, and thus at least temporarily grounding Atlas 5, would delay as many as 31 missions, costing the United States as much as $5 billion. It would also have a major effect on a long-planned Air Force competition for national security launch contracts.

  
  
• #387 by savuporo on 21 May, 2014 18:47
• Quote

  Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine.

  
  Yet another program office ? I thought AFRL had one already
• #388 by PahTo on 21 May, 2014 19:42
• Quote from: woods170 on 21 May, 2014 18:30

  Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
  
  http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
  
  “Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
  Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
  

  
  Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years.  Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
  
  Furthermore:
  

  Quote

  The report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
  

  
  I fail to see the logic here.  Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines?  I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
  
  
• #389 by AncientU on 21 May, 2014 22:21
• Quote from: PahTo on 21 May, 2014 19:42

  Quote from: woods170 on 21 May, 2014 18:30

  Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
  
  http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
  
  “Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
  Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
  

  
  Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years.  Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
  
  Furthermore:
  

  Quote

  The report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
  

  
  I fail to see the logic here.  Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines?  I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
  

  Double the time to delivery of the engines loosly translated means quite a bit higher cost -- 8 years = $2B plus?
  Mr. Gass stated in his Hill testimony:
  

  Quote

  We can make them in-house.

  Sounded so easy then...
  
  The report also says:
  

  Quote

  ULA cannot ramp up the production of its Delta 4 rocket to avoid delays

  versus
  

  Quote

  “What we have done to protect against that concern is that we have over two years of safety stock inventory in the US. We also have another product (Delta IV) that is fully compliant and ready to support any of the missions,” noted Mr. Gass.

  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-and-ula-eelv-contracts/
• #390 by Prober on 21 May, 2014 23:28
• Quote from: PahTo on 21 May, 2014 19:42

  Quote from: woods170 on 21 May, 2014 18:30

  Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
  
  http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
  
  “Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
  Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
  

  
  Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years.  Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
  
  Furthermore:
  

  Quote

  The report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
  

  
  I fail to see the logic here.  Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines?  I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
  

  
  way too much conflicting data. 
  
• #391 by rcoppola on 22 May, 2014 00:54
• Ok, I'm really confused.
  
  As early as May 13th ULA said they had enough RD-180s to fulfill Atlas Vs part of the Block-buy. As of late it is being reported there are only 15 currently available to use against the Block-buy. And then it's reported that numerous launches may need to be pushed off for 2-2.5 years costing billions worth of delays? And, sorry, the Delta can't be ramped up soon enough if at all to accommodate Altas V payload transfers?
  
  This conflicting data is coming from all over the place including from ULA and the AF themselves. I didn't put in exact quotes, dates etc, as at this point I wouldn't know where to begin. Does anybody actually know what's going on? And IF they actually do not or "may" not have enough engines to fulfill their manifest, especially for the Block-buy and Commercial Crew (i.e. SNC and CST-100 Orbital test flights) do you suppose someone better tell the 100 or so people looking over Falcon 9v1.1 data for certification that they may want to get a move on...?
  
  It would be incredibly ironic if the protest is denied, Atlas winds up not being able to fulfill the order anyways, they can't move payloads to Delta IV, SpaceX becomes certified but can't help in many instances because they don't have the vertical integration infrastructure to accommodate...etc..etc..etc.. I'd cry if this wasn't becoming such a carnival of insanity. (ok, some dramatic license there)
  
  And on top of all of this, which damn thread should I be posting this in? (that's kind of a joke but not really)
• #392 by Ben the Space Brit on 22 May, 2014 12:04
• @rcoppola,
  
  I suspect that there may be a certain degree of CYA going on. However, I also suspect that there is possibly an issue of some departments and divisions having sent misleadingly over-optimistic analyses (scrubbed of figures for extra deniability) both up the chain and also to partners and other departments. This is fairly common corporate practice and likely would have amounted to nothing if the Russians hadn't made this threat, suddenly making the conclusions of these reports appear outside the company.
• #393 by jongoff on 22 May, 2014 21:14
• Quote from: jongoff on 14 May, 2014 19:04

  Quote from: woods170 on 14 May, 2014 09:45

  Quote from: 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
  

  Did anyone bother to notice this post? It's hidden in between all the RD-180 felgercarb that's going on right now and is very interesting. Anyone going?
  

  
  I'll be there on Wed the 21st, and will hopefully have time to stop by for a visit.
  
  ~Jon
  

  
  I'm glad LOXRP1 made this offer. It was a fun and enlightening conversation, and helped dispel a lot of rumors. Methinks the CO Springs weather gods didn't want us to have that conversation though--all "hail" broke loose about half way in...
  
  ~Jon
• #394 by baldusi on 22 May, 2014 21:27
• Any disclosable info on said chat?
• #395 by jongoff on 22 May, 2014 22:00
• Quote from: baldusi on 22 May, 2014 21:27

  Any disclosable info on said chat?
  

  
  I think so. Key takeaways:
  
  1- It sounds like once the Russians deliver the engines to RD-AMROSS, their only involvement is as observers during some tests and the launch. US personnel perform all of the actual touch labor post-delivery.
  
  2- It doesn't sound like RD-AMROSS has heard anything indicating that Russia is going to stop selling RD-180s, Rogozin's statements aside.
  
  3- There was a nice paper they gave on the work they did to make sure the RD-180 was produceable in the US, including getting the various Russia-unique nickel, stainless, and copper alloys made. They had samples of the various materials and pictures of more they had made. Their only challenge wasn't getting the materials made in the US or getting the properties they wanted, but getting them in small quantities.
  
  4- They took two of the hardest pieces in the RD-180 (some part of the turbine and the preburner) and demonstrated the ability to make them including forgings, machining, and coatings, and did all sorts of tests including tests with hot oxygen and debris.
  
  5- The RD-180 was designed for the most part to be assembled without requiring tight-tolerances, using relatively low-tech tools. They incorporate a lot of design concepts that allow for pretty ridiculous misalignments easily. Very different mentality than US rocket designs.
  
  Overall, very interesting.
  
  ~Jon
• #396 by Targeteer on 22 May, 2014 23:03
• Quote from: Prober on 21 May, 2014 23:28

  Quote from: PahTo on 21 May, 2014 19:42

  Quote from: woods170 on 21 May, 2014 18:30

  Losing Access to RD-180 Engine Would Prove Costly, Pentagon Panel Warns
  
  http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40645losing-access-to-rd-180-engine-would-prove-costly-pentagon-panel-warns
  
  “Regardless of RD-180 viability, U.S. needs to develop a domestic engine,” the report said.
  Specifically, the report suggest the Air Force and NASA set up a program office to manage risk for a new liquid oxygen/hyrdrocarbon engine. The committee calls for full funding of the program in 2016 for a next-generation launch vehicle that minimizes dependence on foreign components. That engine could be available by 2022.
  

  
  Per ronsmytheiii/AvWeek quote and the above, Aerojet says four years, the above indicates eight years.  Would it really take eight years to develop the TR-107 or even a new, clean sheet design (centered around the current AtlasV core)?
  
  Furthermore:
  

  Quote

  The report recommends accelerating the current schedule of RD-180 purchases
  

  
  I fail to see the logic here.  Send more money to Russia with no guarantee AmRoss/ULA will ever see the engines?  I mean it is one thing to contract purchases, but I can't imagine there are dozens of RD-180s laying around Energomash right now ready for delivery...
  

  
  way too much conflicting data. 
  
  

  
  Here is the Av Week story referenced http://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-commission-urges-new-engine-mitigate-atlas-v-gap and the briefing they acquired referenced in the story.
  
  

  ---

  RD-180 Study Outbrief.pdf
• #397 by savuporo on 23 May, 2014 00:08
• Quote from: jongoff on 22 May, 2014 22:00

  Overall, very interesting.
  

  This is very much in line with what the engineering side has been claiming about RD-180 domestic status for a while now.
  
  See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
  
  Page 13 or so - they have pics of the fabricated details as well.
  
  The real question is, why are the independent cost estimates of setting up domestic production so much different from the engineering side exuberance.
  
• #398 by jongoff on 23 May, 2014 00:12
• Quote from: savuporo on 23 May, 2014 00:08

  Quote from: jongoff on 22 May, 2014 22:00

  Overall, very interesting.
  

  This is very much in line with what the engineering side has been claiming about RD-180 domestic status for a while now.
  
  See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DEPS_068001&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
  
  Page 13 or so - they have pics of the fabricated details as well.
  
  The real question is, why are the independent cost estimates of setting up domestic production so much different from the engineering side exuberance.

  
  Not sure. Also, which is closer to the mark, the engineers who've been working the problem or independent evaluators?
  
  Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?
  
  ~Jon
• #399 by savuporo on 23 May, 2014 00:32
• Quote from: jongoff on 23 May, 2014 00:12

  Also of the $1B to setup local production, how much of that is in building and testing the crap out of a bunch of engines? Are any demo flights factored into that? What fraction of that cost is actually due to manufacturing, and how much do to other things?
  

  J2-X program costs were $1.2B without test flights, with the same organization going through the same process, i dont think $1B would be far off the mark.