-
#640
by
Kabloona
on 05 Dec, 2014 02:07
-
No, messing with the issue will create problems. Remember this is Congress making this call. The US state Dept might wish to go another way. Cash in the end might still be the driver.
What problems? ULA has already committed to the BE-4 and a major redesign of their entire architecture. I don't see how this changes anything. ULA was already on course to abandon the RD-180 ASAP. This is just Congress feebly threatening to close the barn door after the horse has already bolted. And if the Air Force asks nicely (waiver request), they won't even try to close the door.
-
#641
by
Jim
on 05 Dec, 2014 11:52
-
No, messing with the issue will create problems. Remember this is Congress making this call. The US state Dept might wish to go another way. Cash in the end might still be the driver.
Wrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.
-
#642
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 06 Dec, 2014 17:24
-
Wrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.
I did get the pretty strong sense that stakeholders in these launches wouldn't regard going cold turkey on RD-180 as the preferred option.
-
#643
by
Brovane
on 13 Dec, 2014 17:58
-
Wrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.
I did get the pretty strong sense that stakeholders in these launches wouldn't regard going cold turkey on RD-180 as the preferred option.
Doesn't ULA have a stockpile of RD-180 engines? So even if future purchases are canceled they could still bridge the gap until the new engine is online by using the RD-180 engines in storage?
-
#644
by
arachnitect
on 13 Dec, 2014 18:02
-
Wrong, it is business usual. ULA will use RD-180 until the BE-4 transition. There won't be any missions delayed or moved to other vehicles.
I did get the pretty strong sense that stakeholders in these launches wouldn't regard going cold turkey on RD-180 as the preferred option.
Doesn't ULA have a stockpile of RD-180 engines? So even if future purchases are canceled they could still bridge the gap until the new engine is online by using the RD-180 engines in storage?
Stockpile? Yes. 4-5 year stockpile? Not really.
-
#645
by
ngilmore
on 13 Dec, 2014 18:07
-
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.htmlDespite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.
...
United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years.
...
The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?
Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon"
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
-
#646
by
Hauerg
on 13 Dec, 2014 18:21
-
So what if Mr. Putin reacts to this unfriendly language and orders a stop on RD-180 shipments?
For sure this will mean loss of many millions of $ but the sanctions against Russia caused multibillion damages to them already. So why should he care?
-
#647
by
ChrisWilson68
on 13 Dec, 2014 18:38
-
So what if Mr. Putin reacts to this unfriendly language and orders a stop on RD-180 shipments?
For sure this will mean loss of many millions of $ but the sanctions against Russia caused multibillion damages to them already. So why should he care?
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
-
#648
by
baldusi
on 14 Dec, 2014 00:42
-
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.
...
United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years.
...
The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?
Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon"
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
It was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.
On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.
-
#649
by
Razvan
on 14 Dec, 2014 01:46
-
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.
...
United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years.
...
The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?
Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon"
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
It was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.
On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.
5 years?! Then, what is this circus about Bezos engines? Do they need 5 yrs, too?
-
#650
by
baldusi
on 14 Dec, 2014 03:08
-
I was speculating. Those are just educated guesses. The critical item is if they can get commercial engines orders outside of the 100 engine limit. But in any case, new core could be delayed. And if you look at normal timelines, you can only hit a good stride of launches three to five years after initial launch. The first sic launches will have a lot of anomalies that will have to be ironed out. And then you have to reach the correct certification levels. Atlas V is the most certified LV in the US. It's Category 3 rated for NASA, DoD, nuclear rated and is being human rated as of right now. That takes time and missions (at least six months after the 3rd launch). I know, DoD has insight in all ULA processes and might get away with just 1 demo mission (if at all). But you can't close down Atlas V one year and start launching 8 NGLV in the next. You need a reasonable overlap. Besides, some missions might take six or more years from initial integration to actual launch.
-
#651
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 Dec, 2014 02:14
-
American industry can produce a replacement engine in less than 5 years. I don't see that being an issue.
Shift some payloads to Delta 4, F9 gets certified and Atlas V has 40+ missions available. Not a problem.
-
#652
by
lesxiarxis
on 16 Dec, 2014 06:11
-
The original contact was for 101 engines. However, if I recall correctly in December 2012 there was an announcement for the signing of a second contract for an additional 31 engines. Anyone else remembers this?
So the total contracted engines could be either 101 or 132. Of course it does not mean that all have been “ordered” for delivery. All would depend on the exact wording of the final bill.
Back to lurking and learning.
-
#653
by
Prober
on 16 Dec, 2014 12:15
-
The original contact was for 101 engines. However, if I recall correctly in December 2012 there was an announcement for the signing of a second contract for an additional 31 engines. Anyone else remembers this?
So the total contracted engines could be either 101 or 132. Of course it does not mean that all have been “ordered” for delivery. All would depend on the exact wording of the final bill.
Back to lurking and learning.
Jim talked about a 2nd contract, but this the first time I've heard a number of engines.
Does a new contract = an order?
-
#654
by
Kabloona
on 16 Dec, 2014 15:47
-
-
#655
by
Hauerg
on 16 Dec, 2014 15:56
-
So what if Mr. Putin reacts to this unfriendly language and orders a stop on RD-180 shipments?
For sure this will mean loss of many millions of $ but the sanctions against Russia caused multibillion damages to them already. So why should he care?
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
I am not sure, unfriendly language would be enough motivation in the current economic environment.
-
#656
by
Mader Levap
on 17 Dec, 2014 09:48
-
Unfriendly language from the United States? That ship sailed some time ago.
I am not sure, unfriendly language would be enough motivation in the current economic environment.
You did not understood. He meant that USA already uses "unfriendly language" for months about Russia over their anschluss of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine.
If there will be reaction, it will be directly caused by actions of USA, not language. Talk is cheap, after all.
-
#657
by
Prober
on 17 Dec, 2014 18:49
-
Reuters has done some digging and comes up with cost and profit numbers from AMROSS on the RD-180:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-russia-capitalism-rockets-special-rep-idUSKCN0J22BQ20141119
RD Amross buys the engines from Energomash for $20.2 million each on average, according to Amross’s current contract with Energomash, dated June 5, 2014.
Amross adds $3.2 million to each engine, a 15 percent markup. It then sells them to ULA for $23.4 million, according to an amendment to Amross’s contract with ULA, dated Oct. 2, 2014.
In all, Amross will reap $93 million in mark-ups over the course of the deal. The $680 million contract calls for 29 engines to be delivered from this year through 2017.
The current arrangement follows an earlier, $303 million contract proposal that called for Amross to deliver 12 engines to ULA from 2011 to 2013.
In an August 2011 report, the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency detailed the deal. It said that middleman Amross would pay $17.9 million per engine on average. Amross then planned to add on average $5.5 million in “profit” to the price of each engine – an extra 31 percent - before reselling them to ULA. The profit mark-ups totalled more than $66 million.
In a 67-page report, Pentagon auditors called the proposal “not acceptable for the negotiation of a fair and reasonable price.” They contested the $66 million profit “in its entirety, as unallowable excessive pass-through charges” under federal contracting law. The services Amross cited to justify the profit “constituted ‘no or negligible value,’” they concluded. The auditors also contested $14.4 million in overhead expenses.
The findings were extraordinarily blunt, said Charles Tiefer, a military contracting specialist and professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, who reviewed the document for Reuters.
“The bottom line is that the joint venture between the Russians and Americans is taking us to the cleaners,” Tiefer said. He said he had reviewed Pentagon audits critical of Iraq War contracts, but those “didn't come anywhere near to how strongly negative” the Amross audit was.
In June, Energomash and Amross finished up a new agreement to supply RD-180 engines to the Air Force program.ULA is paying $23.4 million per engine – the same price originally called for in the prior contract that caused all the wrangling.
Thought I'd input this info from the GenCorp Form 10K deals with the Aerojet Rocketdyne merger.
Deals directly
http://investor.gencorp.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-14-40681"The aggregate consideration to UTC was $411 million, paid in cash, which represents the initial purchase price of $550 million
reduced by $55 million relating to the pending future acquisition of UTC’s 50% ownership interest of RD Amross, LLC (“RD Amross” a joint venture with NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia which sells RD-180 engines to RD Amross), and the portion of the UTC business that markets and supports the sale of RD-180 engines (the “RDA Acquisition”). The acquisition of UTC’s 50% ownership interest of RD Amross and UTC’s related business is contingent upon certain conditions including receipt of certain Russian governmental regulatory approvals, which may not be obtained. "
The $55mil is the value given to that partnership.
-
#658
by
Stan Black
on 11 Jan, 2015 09:07
-
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.
...
United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years.
...
The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?
Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon"
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
It was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.
On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.
Atlas V started with engine number 9? What happened to number 8?
-
#659
by
russianhalo117
on 11 Jan, 2015 16:38
-
"Congress OKs bill banning purchases of Russian-made rocket engines"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html
Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.
...
United Launch Alliance succeeded at weakening the bill so that it is allowed to use the Russian engines already in its inventory, which it says is enough for military launches over the next two years.
...
The bill also allows the joint venture to use the Russian engines — known as the RD-180 — it previously ordered from its Russian supplier. The company said Friday that it had 29 engines on order, including five that have already been delivered.
29 engines on order plus ULA existing stockpile is about a 5 year supply?
Maybe time to invert thread title to "Rumors that US Congress may block import of RD-180 to Pentagon"
edit: change guesstimate to 5 years
It was said that ULA had 100 engines on order, total. Atlas III took 6 of those so there were 94 engines for Atlas V. I believe that by the middle of the year, when the congressional issues were raised, ULA stated they had 17 engine on stockpile. Then you add the 29 on order, you get 48 engines, which is about the missions they had launched by then. If this was so, there could only be an additional 43 Atlas V launches. Which is frightening since there are 9 launches just planned for 2015. Or roughly four extra years of launches. If they don't keep selling even more for things like Commercial Crew.
On the other hand, if the law only blocks further orders for DoD, they might have left the door open to order engines for the commercial launches, and let them "borrow" engines to be later returned and thus have 43 missions left just for DoD, which, incidentally, is about five to six years worth of missions.
Atlas V started with engine number 9? What happened to number 8?
I believe it was used in the original AV CCB ground tests and was later refired a few years ago in Russia to test, refine and certify the engines EDS commanding as part of the ongoing AV man rating programme for NASA Commercial Crew. It was one of the milestones in the ULA SAA.
