ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
And that is, ironically, the more dangerous possibility for ULA. Who will they blame then? President Obama?
(Rhetorical question, of course)
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
And that is, ironically, the more dangerous possibility for ULA. Who will they blame then? President Obama?
(Rhetorical question, of course)
enough blame for this mess to go around.....sum it up well.
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
ULA acts like D4 is a POS. Might cost more
If someone can illuminate where exactly the $1 billion per year IS spent, I would love to see it.
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA? The only vehicle that uses the RD-180 is the Atlas V. Refusing to sell the RD-180 to ULA is the same as shutting down the production line. With the demise of the RUS-M there is no other customer for the RD-180. The RD-170 is in much the same boat, shut down Sea Launch, which is based in the US and there's not much of a customer base for the Ukrainian built Zenit Rocket and the RD-170. NPO Energomash is far more reliant on the US government than the other way around. The US government would be fine relying the D4 and Falcon 9 for their payloads. Energomash just has the Angara for its family RD-191 engines without US government support.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA?
If Russia refuses to sell RD-180, they lose one factory. The U.S. loses the launch vehicle that is currently used to launch most national security payloads. If ULA can even ramp up Delta IV in time, the additional cost to the U.S. government for Delta IV over Atlas V will be far more than the revenue from engines Russia will be forgoing. And production limitations may mean Delta IV can't even ramp up in time, leaving some heavy payloads having to be delayed unless the Falcon Heavy can be brought up in time and the government decides it can accept the risk.
The effect seems to me to be much greater on the U.S. than on Russia. If the U.S. extends sanctions and Russia hits back, I would think this one be one of the first things Russia would do.
On the other hand, in the long run this might actually help the U.S. by bringing forward the switch to Falcon Heavy, but I doubt Russia will see it that way.
In the unlikely event that the Russians do decide to stop delivering the RD-180 and Delta IV / Falcon Heavy can't make up for the slack. What are the chances that some of the payloads would be contracted to Arianespace?
Would the DoD rather face significant delays than relying on an ally?
United Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.
And let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for the decision to out source a critical national defense industrial capacity to Russia costing Americans their jobs, their country its security and making "assured access"™ a hollow marketing term. Rest assured that the corporate suit types will sell their country out if it increases their quarterly bonus at least a little bit.
And let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for the decision to out source a critical national defense industrial capacity to Russia costing Americans their jobs, their country its security and making "assured access"™ a hollow marketing term. Rest assured that the corporate suit types will sell their country out if it increases their quarterly bonus at least a little bit.
The military OKed it
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number). If ULA is using FIFO, and the next engine in the door is slated to gather dust until 2017, why the urgency? On the other hand, if using LIFO, these serial numbers could be assigned to 2015 vehicles... A check of the serial numbers/ship dates of the just-flown pair of RD-180s would illuminate this question.