Rogozin is cutting off sales of RD-180s, and threatening to end ISS participation in 2020.
The former is much more concerning than the latter. 2020 is a long way off, and we have time to resolve that one way or the other. But Atlas V is out of business in a couple years if they don’t come up with a solution. Which is bad news for Boeing and Sierra Nevada in terms of commercial crew.
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.
What is the purpose of that clause then considering both countries signed the Outer Space Treaty?
That makes no sense. “Military purposes” must include spy-sats and possibly GPS. Otherwise, what launches are there???
EELVs are also used to launch NASA science satellites and interplanetary vehicles. Unless Curiosity is a secret prototype for a nuclear powered dune buggy for Special Ops forces, it wouldn’t be considered military.
I know that. You missed my point – if Gary’s definition of “military launches” is used, Atlas has NEVER been used for a military launch.
given some incentive, diplomats and lawyers can define a Cat to be a Dog with superior leaping ability.
In environmental law, pollutants always define out as a pollutant agricultaral waste.
Spill a gallon of turpentine in the wrong creek, you can be talking to the EPA for years.
pump a million gallons of pesticides into a river and as long as you are a farm, you are free and clear.
Really? I think we need an expert opinion here. Let’s ask Cliven Bundy.
I’d be interested to hear how NRO assures Rogozin that things like NROL-39 were not in any way “military weapons or systems”. Its widely observed that it does more than just go “beep beep beep .. “
When I was in the Air Force, comsats were considered weapons systems, in part because if it wasn’t a weapons system, it wasn’t likely to get funded.
It may not be in Russia’s self-interest to sell us engines but it certainly is in their best interests to support the ISS unless they want to write a big check and really pony-up on their lunar colony.
The could also try to team up with the Chinese in making a new space station. They are going to launch their own once Long March 5 becomes operational and a lot of the equipment is common to begin with.
Hmm. The Russians, build another station with the Chinese? There’s an easier way. Once they cut off Soyuz rides for the US and we can’t get there anymore, why can’t they just claim the existing Station as salvage?
Or hold a referendum on annexation by Russia. Whatever. Possession is nine points of the law, and if only the Russians can get there…
I’m not sure that salvage rights apply in space.
But no matter. There are native Russian speakers on board the station, and Russia has the obligation to protect them from harassment.
I’m not sure that salvage rights apply in space.
They don’t.
Not sure? That’s what good lawyers are for, to drive metaphorical trucks through tiny gaps of “not sure”.
Regardless, the point is not to argue whether salvage rights of flotsam or jetsam apply (which would Station be in the event? you could argue either way) but to point out that if the party with a monopoly on physical access decides to make up the rules as they go, there are all sorts of PR/legal fig leaves they could gin up. At which point, it’d help to have a plan ready.
Salvage rights don’t apply according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (US and Russia are signatories, although they were the Soviet Union then).:
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
This technically prohibits removing the space junk from another nation unless they give permission, I suppose. Of course, a lawyer might say that since the object is no longer under the control of the launching nation, the clause might not apply.
Although, there is this:
Article XVI
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.
Russia could withdraw from the treaty just as the US did from the ABM treaty.
It’s hard to run the station without the software.
I’d say both sides need to be careful here, both can break ISS, both are needed to run it.
The 2020 cutoff decision is actually the more concerning. There may be wiggle room re the RD-180’s, as Gary points out.
The key question is whether the ISS would be extended on US/Europe bucks alone, because people already made decisions to use it for research when they heard of the NASA decision on extension to 2024 – and not before. Jeff Manber of Nanoracks I believe said that several customers of his were hesitating until that decision.
Will Congress now support ISS through 2024, or decide to cut it off at 2020 for the sake of the SLS pork? I’m dubious about this at best.
The point is that the uncertainty alone could severely reduce the development of research and development use of the ISS. With that strangled, so will be demand for a raft of US commercial opportunities directly or indirectly dependent on it.
Now for a wild prediction: Russia would support ISS extension if they are guaranteed as the only crew transport avenue to the end of its life. Just a possibility, and one which the nut cases on the Hill who’ve hated funding commercial crew might be happy with at this point.
I’m more worried about the SLS faction on the Hill pushing for us to ditch ISS and build ourselves a new station based on SLS. It’d turn NASA HSF back into the perfect self-licking ice cream cone – endless funding in, an endlessly deferred station out.
ISS management, whatever its faults, is at least trying to support some commercial development for the future.
So did the Shuttle try to support commercial activities, but it didn’t save it from being trashed by those seeking NASA subsidizes for New Space. Funny how those same folks are now defending the ISS. I wonder if they would be so vocal if NASA hadn’t bought off New Space advocates with COTS and CCP. But what they need to understand is firms like SpaceX will still be needed to provide cargo/crew to the BA330s NASA leases, and likely in larger quantities.
BTW there were folks back then who did make the point that scrapping the Shuttle before a replacement was ready would put us at the mercy of the Russians. But they were ignored because the Russians were such “good friends” then and the “evil” communists were “gone”. I think its time for a hearty, “I told you so!” from the Shuttle supporters.
Of course, NASA never asked Russia about the ISS extension, before the announced it publicly. (Otherwise known as “throwing away all your negotiating leverage.)
Boeing may be less impacted by this than Sierra Nevada. From some Boeing documentation that I picked up at the National Space Symposium a few years ago, the CST-100 was designed to be used by the Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9. I don’t know if that’s still the case because design changes may have rendered that obsolete but this article says they can still use all three boosters. That is a smart move, IMO.
Sierra Nevada, on the other hand, may be screwed.
I’m not sure sure that DC is screwed… It may be the CST-100.
According to images from the most recent wind tunnel tests, the DC is going to launch on an Atlas V with 1 SRB – this would be within F9v1.1 capability (even in reusable mode)
But the CST-100 appears to have gained enough mass to need 2 SRBs, and might thus be too heavy for the F9. (not sure on that)
SpaceX wants to sell Dragon not fly CST-100.
As an integrated supplier, SpaceX wants to sell the service.
SpaceX is also a launch service provider. While they’d prefer to sell both the Falcon and Dragon, I doubt they’d turn down business from someone wanting to fly a CST-100. Boeing designed the CST-100 to fly on Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9. They needed technical information from SpaceX to design in that compatibility. That suggests SpaceX isn’t opposed to selling them rockets. It also suggests that Delta IV can be fitted to carry humans if need be and that the statements to the contrary were perhaps overstated.
That suggests SpaceX isn’t opposed to selling them rockets.
It only suggests that they aren’t foreclosing the option…
NPO Energomash is going to throw an hissy fit at this. RD-180 was a big ticket item for them.
Can someone explain why we can’t build a rocket engine to replace the RD-180 in the USA? And I don’t mean an RD-180 clone. I mean a new design that meets or exceeds the performance of the RD-180. And do it for less money.
If RD-180 becomes unavailable there is no justification for sticking with Atlas as one of two redundant launch systems to assure US access to space without recompeting the ELC. After all, the LC stands for launch capability, which is now in doubt for Atlas. Atlas with RD-180 replacement should then compete against FH and whatever anyone else came up with for part (half?) of the ELC money. The bad guys will undoubtedly try to propose SLS, but since assured access to space is actually important they won’t get away with that this time.
Fear of bad PR during development testing.
We can, certainly, but the big question is who is going to do it? The main contender at the moment, for providing to ULA at least, is Aerojet-Rocketdyne. The problem is, they don’t have the experience with engines of that type (staged combustion LOX/Kero), and nobody outside of Russia knows the materials science secret to making parts for such an engine. To improve LOX/Kero Isp you go heavy on the oxidizer, which reduces the molecular weight of the output (instead of H2O you get HO in the exhaust sometimes, for example), but in a staged combustion design, also necessary for high Isp, you end up with partially combusted Oxygen species (like HO, like atomic Oxygen) at screaming hot temperatures roaring through your precious tubing. This is a nightmare to work with and something that has generally been avoided in the west, which has concentrated on Hydrogen as a fuel for staged combustion engines.
Besides which, the best case scenario for ULA is that they manage to dump some quantity of millions of dollars into Aerojet-Rocketdyne or whomever in order to get back to square 1, which is a vehicle that’s still not competitive with the SpaceX lineup.
I’ll try again… Good point that the main contenders for a new-design RD-180 replacement would be AerojetPWR and SpaceX, and that neither has produced a staged-combustion engine. At least not since SSME. There’ve been recent staged-combustion research projects (and I’m pretty sure AerojetPWR has been involved) but no engines reached production.
A good reason to go for a clone rather than a new engine is that time is of the essence, I’d say.
Another reason to go for an RD-180 clone is to open up the field of bidders, by changing the primary challenge to manufacturing engineering. I expect there are US engineering companies who can handle the manufacturing tech who could hire on the engine-test talent they’d need for a bid. Otherwise, you may end up with AerojetPWR as the sole bidder (SpaceX not likely being interested in the clone biz) and AerojetPWR, alas, is by long habit an old-fashioned dinospace cost-plus moneyburner.
A quibble: Ox-rich staged combustion burns ox-rich in the preburner and pump power turbine, but the main combustion chamber still burns fuel-rich for Isp.
Right, good points all. Although as far as I know Aerojet-Rocketdyne is the only company privy to the “secret” RD-180 details. In any event I’d say an RD-180 clone is a wild goose chase. Best case scenario it revives the Atlas V. Which is a solid launcher, but not a good enough launcher for the modern era.
I think the smarter move would be for ULA to acquire rocket engine capability on its own (perhaps through an acquisition) and then drive development of a true Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy competitor capable of reusability and so on. And specifically avoiding things like crazy materials science problems with LOX/Kero staged combustion engines or the silliness of LOX/LH2. I’m not sure ULA is capable of doing that but if they double down on the status quo they just hasten their own death.
There are stages of grief here, and the grief is not related to the RD-180, it’s related to the Falcon 9. The Atlas V is a doomed vehicle. The loss of the Russian RD-180 supply is just another bullet hole through the guts, just another distraction. The smart move is for ULA to accept that, move on, and dedicate their rocket development resources elsewhere, not go through stages of denial and bargaining to try to revive a zombie launcher.
“The problem is, they don’t have the experience with engines of that type (staged combustion LOX/Kero), and nobody outside of Russia knows the materials science secret to making parts for such an engine. ”
Dick Eagleson asked about this eleven days ago, and I didn’t see any really convincing answer in the thread. At least one of these engines should have been sent to the US Naval Ordnance Labs for dissection, sampling, and analysis at a metallurgical level.
How should Americans build a new engine based on a Russian design with exotic metallurgical properties? Einstein said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Obviously building the new engine the same way the Russians built the old one is going to cost more just based on labor cost differential and require tooling specific to that engine. The only way to make it for equal or lesser cost is to do it differently from the Russians: use less labor and to avoid specificity in tooling, going instead for a reconfigurable option like 3d printing.
SpaceX is 3D printing titanium engine parts for far less cost (and waste) than machining.
So, have NOL dissect the RD180’s magical coating that keeps the Oxygen from eating the preburner and turbine, make a powder of the alloy (or various powders of the constituent metals to be mixed n the correct ratios at the moment they are applied and lazed), and 3d print the sucker. 3d print the engine bell with cooling channels for the LOX to pass through before hitting the preburner.
Once you’ve got the alloys and CAM files worked out, you can farm out the parts to anyone with suitable 3D laser printing gear.
According to a recent article in Aviation Week, it’ll cost a billion dollars and take several years to establish RD-180 production in the US. Given history, both of those numbers are likely under estimates. The only US rocket that uses the engine is the Atlas V. Why should the taxpayers pay all that money to benefit one rocket by one company? If, as reported, the Delta IV is more expensive than the Atlas V, what is the price difference? Divide a billion dollars by the price difference and how many Deltas can you launch before you spend that billion? If you convert all EELV launches to Delta, can you lower the cost of buying Deltas? If you are concerned with Falcon 9 reliability, reserve the expensive ULA launches for the really expensive NRO and military payloads like SBIRS, AEHF and MUOS. There’s no reason to launch GPS satellites on rockets that cost more than the payload.
How far could that 1BN get them toward an Atlas Phase II to consolidate Atlas and Delta? They could emulate SpaceX and develop a new smaller engine to cluster of partner with Dyanetics and restart the F-1B.
I don’t know. Given that we’re likely dealing with traditional cost-plus legacy contractors, about the only assurance you’re likely to get is “Give us the money and we will spend it.”
At 1.8 million pounds of thrust, the F-1B would likely be overkill for an EELV. Dynetics (not Dyanetics, they aren’t associated with Scientology) would love to do the job, though.
Atlas PII would use the Delta 5m tooling. It could easily make use of every erg of that thrust.
Some numbers – The 2015 NASA budget shows the ISS is costing NASA $3.050 billion dollars a year. That is around $18 billion through 2020 and $30 billion through 2024. By contrast Bigelow Aerospace will lease an entire BA330 for only $450 million a year. That means for the current $3 billion NASA could lease 6 BA330 habitats for a year.
So the big question is why getting rid of the great commune in orbit is so bad? COTS and CCP subsidies? NASA will still need both for a Bigelow habitat in the same amount currently needed for supporting the ISS. And if NASA decides to lease more than one BA330 the demand for both COTS and CCP will go up by the multiple of the number of habitats. And unlike the ISS, the demand won’t be for a few years, but would be into the indefinite future. And with the capability to support a NASA BA330 demonstrated there will also be less risk for a commercial BA330, resulting in additional demand for servicing purely commercial BA space habitats. Really, is CCP going to be viable and economical with only two flights a year to the ISS? Perhaps one a year for each of the two “winners”?
And unlike the great pork barrel in orbit, the additional BA330 habitats, NASA and commercial, could be in much more interesting places, like the EM L1, EM L2, lunar orbit, or even next to the asteroid NASA wants to bring into Earth orbit.
As for the commitment to the non-Russian ISS partners – with the $2.5 billion NASA saves they could be very generous is providing buying them off or providing them with access to the new station(s).
Really, its a puzzle to me why all the folks who were screaming for NASA to get ride of the Shuttle, and by doing so placing the USA at Russia’s mercy aren’t arguing for getting rid of the ISS. The same arguments, lower cost, newer, safer technology, promoting space commerce apply even more than for the Space Shuttle. Why are space advocates so stuck on the ISS?
As for Russia, what better way to punish them for the Ukraine than “sticking” them with the great orbiting money pit. Russia wouldn’t deorbit it for years, Mr. Putin’s pride would demand the great Russian space program show the world they don’t need NASA to run it, so they will not only be stuck with the costs of supporting it, but without the huge fees they have been exhorting from the U.S. to do so. Talk about a drain on their bank account.
Really not only is it a loud statement that Russian aggressive will not be tolerated and the friendship that was created after the Cold War ended is over. its also a win for the USA, a win for Europe, a win for space commerce and a huge win for moving humanity out of Earth orbit.
Getting rid of ISS would be great, as long as there was continued presence in LEO together with commercial crew. Dumping ISS would free up more than enough money for that, only it doesn’t work that way. And even LEO and commercial crew would not be necessary if there was competitive propellant procurement in orbit in support of a NASA exploration program, but that’s only a very theoretical possibility at this point.
My own ISS stance is based on a few precepts.
The first is that the current operate circumstances have more to do with forign policy than space exploration and science. While, in other circumstances, I’d probably favor your approach, I do not in the current reality, for abandoning ISS at this juncture would be perceived as a massive Russian victory: kicking the US out of space, and costing us a space station we largely paid for. That may or may not be the reality, but that’s a moot point, because perception trumps reality in this case (as, sadly, it does in most).
Unfortunately, the above political dynamic behooves the US to keep the station operating, even if that means spending billions to do so without the Russians. The reason is that if we don’t and thus allow a humiliating debacle, the perception of weakness, incompetence, and impotence my prove far more costly to us later on.
The second, lesser, precept I have is that we’re faced with an enormous sunk cost; over a hundred billion. The station was built to do research, so is it worth it to pay the current operating costs for a few years in order to at least get something for that money? It might be, and if so, ISS is worth keeping, for a few years anyway.
I’d also like to see an accounting of how NASA is spending 3 billion a year on ISS. My hunch is that they may well be padding that a lot, so it could be, and should be, cut down.
In the business world you don’t consider sunk costs, but costs going forward. In this case it would be preventing a $100 billion mistake from becoming a $130 billion mistake.
As for the political fallout, it would be very easy for Mr. Obama to point the finger towards the Bush Administration’s decision to retire the Space Shuttle putting the U.S.A. at the mercy of the Russians. With some good spin it could even be used in the next election if Jeb Bush runs as many expect he will.
The crux of the problem is that we aren’t dealing with the business world here. We’re in the political realm, where the normal rules of common sense don’t apply. Thus, sunk costs are an issue, a big one, because they don’t think in dollars, they think in public relations, and the public perception of writing of the most expensive object man has ever made would be quite real.
As for the political fallout, I don’t see it quite the same way. Yes, Obama could blame Bush (he’s certainly done so often enough, and in this case he’d have a bit of a point) but he’s well into his second term, so he’d get some blame as well (He’s also played the “Blame Bush” card far too often to get much mileage out of it) . He’d also be bearing a message of defeat, which is never good politically. There’s also the issue that the partnership with Russia was decided upon by Clinton, not Bush.
My guess is that what people would expect the country to do is save ISS; build and launch what’s needed to replace the Russian segment functions, and also, build our own means of access. That’s what they’d expect, and whether or not it’s worthwhile, or even possible, won’;t enter into it.
Good point on ISS also being a bit of an old-NASA moneyburner, but politics is the art of the possible. It never hurts to state the ideal, but any plan to replace ISS has to account for the Congressional Station coalition to have a chance of being adopted. IE, you won’t save as much as you hoped. (You’re also leaving out a few incidentals in your plan, like transportation.)
ISS management has had the smarts to start fostering some commercial partners, to increase the size of their political coalition. But if you extrapolate this trend far enough, things get interesting in a good way. And yes, that could happen a lot sooner, given the Russian situation.
Interesting times – not just a Chinese curse, sometimes an American blessing!
The transportation situation is actually better for the BA330 than the ISS, as it would be able to wait until SpaceX has its crewed Dragon flying. And the money saved could well accelerate the work on the crewed Dragon and which ever system is selected as the competitor for commercial crew funding.
Yes, you do have the same “good old Congress Critter” network protecting the ISS as the Shuttle. But just as the Columbia accident allowed the Bush Administration to retire the shuttle, the situation with Russia and the Ukraine gives the Obama Administration a strong argument to over rule them. making them look soft on the Russians if the oppose it. Really, this is probably the best chance to rid NASA of the ISS outside of having the good luck for a systems failure that would require it to be abandoned while allowing it to safely dumped in the ocean.
As for NASA funding a replacement, it might be even better for Mr. Bigelow if they don’t as it would free him to approach the former ISS partners, and commercial firms, to lease space on his BA330. It would also force SpaceX to start focusing on commercial customers for their crewed Dragon as was Mr. Musk’s original plan before being tempted by NASA to forget the needs of folks like Mr. Bigelow. And without the need to pace his work to NASA funding I expect you would see a crewed Dragon in a far shorter time, perhaps under a year. Unlike NASA, Mr. Bigelow won’t be paying him until he launches the BA330 and is flying astronauts for Mr. Bigelow. That would be a good incentive to get the work finished now.
Having worked with some people that were at Bigelow and heard some stories from them, I’d be very, very wary of hanging my hat on his company until he has hardware working on orbit.
Bigelow has had two Genesis habitats on orbit since 2006 and 2007, respectively. The older of the two has suffered a failure of its internal camera system, but the second is still okay, so far as I know. Both are still apparently holding pressure.
Well this must be more of that Smart Diplomacy ™ we hear so much about.
Not that it was Obama’s goal but in the end we’ll be better of:
Forcing us off of Rooshian engines is a good thing. Automony is a good thing. I view ISS and the use of RD-180’s as more of a political notion rather than an engineering or scientific one.
The problem here is that it doesn’t really matter what the definition of “military purposes” was when we were negotiating; the Russians can simply define it as it suits them. They’ve made noises in the past about the RD-180 being used for US military sats, and now it looks like they might be acting on it.
The interesting thing is that while a DOD or NRO payload could well fit in “military” category due to both ownership and purpose, Dreamchaser, and CST-100, and NASA payloads probably wouldn’t, and GPS might not. Therefor, the Russians, if they want to really embarrass the US, could stipulate that they’ll continue selling RD-180s to the US, if the US agrees to no further use of any RD-180s for “military” payloads. This would, by the way, apply to any RD-180s already in the US, and have to be verified by Russian inspection of the payloads. That’d hand the US a nice conundrum. I see zero chance of the US agreeing to such terms, but that isn’t the real issue here; it’s all about posturing, so the Russians might well try it (they’d have nothing to lose if they’re cutting off the engines anyway, and no matter how it turns out it’s a political win for them).
As for that “2 year stockpile” of RD-180’s ULA claims it has… I wonder if that “2 years” is as accurate as their past declarations of having a US production capability of the RD-180? Is it based on current flight rates for Atlas (8 in 2013), or past lower rates, such as 4 in 2010? I’ve yet to find an actual number for the stockpile, which makes me a bit suspicious. After all, who is it being kept secret from? The Russians surely know how many engines they’ve shipped, minus the number of Atlas 5 launches, which would give them a hard number for the stockpile.
I hate this software, it just ate a lengthy reply…
I’ve had that happen several times. Very annoying. I try to remember to copy my text to the clipboard before hitting the post button. That way, when the system trashes my comment, I don’t have to retype it. I simply paste the text and try again.
So I’m not the only one having that problem. I’ve taken to copying my comments to an instance of Notepad before I try posting them, just in case I have to abandon my browser instance and put up a fresh one. That usually seems to work.
Sometimes when a comment disappears when I hit the post button, I hit back and then click reply and the text magically appears. Then you have to copy your post, close the page, and open it again from the blog’s main page in order to post your comment. This works when the error message pops up that you don’t have cookies turned on when you actually do.
The recent ULA block buy was for 27 launches, including 4 Delta IV Heavy launches. Does the ULA have 23 RD-180s on hand?
I’m pretty sure that Elon Musk might have a few ideas on how to make that “2 year stockpile” of RD-180’s last at least 4, maybe 6 years.
LOL Yes, I think Elon is working on them having an infinite supply!
However many engines it takes to have a “2 year stockpile”….how many of those engines will actually work/be flyable as the 2 years rolls on?
Icepilot wrote:
“I’m pretty sure that Elon Musk might have a few ideas on how to make that “2 year stockpile” of RD-180′s last at least 4, maybe 6 years.”
In chaos there is opportunity. The more I think about it the better off we are if the Rooshians do actually cut us off from their engines and the ISS.
Just imagine the exquisite brouhaha if there are no US astros on ISS for, oh, say a year and then all of a sudden we obtain a manned capability and show up at ISS one day…….
…..and the Rooshians don’t open the airlock.
Russians are mercurial creatures. No way to tell this early how all this is going to play out over the long haul. One certainty I can descry is that, however, the current unpleasantness with Russia plays out, SpaceX is going to benefit from it. Different scenarios have them winning in different ways over differing time scales, but I don’t see any outcome in which SpaceX loses. I suspect the lights burn brightly in Hawthorne this night.
Any thoughts on the ULA comment on the Russian cutoff of the RD-180?
“ULA and our NPO Energomash supplier in Russia are not aware of any restrictions. However, if recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station.”
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43219
Yep, ULA is blaming SpaceX for the Russians cutting off the RD-180.
If they lose a mission due to a solar flare, they’ll probably blame SpaceX for that, too.
That’s just cheap posturing. Lockheed-Martin claimed they had the ability to produce the RD-180. It’s time for them to put up or shut up. We already subsidize ULA to the tune of a billion dollars a year even if they launch nothing. That buys us the ability to use overpriced rockets. Such a deal for the taxpayers! Either ULA can produce the RD-180 or they can’t. I don’t see any economic justification for spending (at least) a billion dollars of tax money to replace an engine that’s only used on one already expensive rocket. If they want to produce the RD-180 domestically, ULA should bear that expense. Either that, or stop using the Atlas V when the supply runs out and use the Delta IV exclusively.
Reportedly, the Delta IV costs even more than the Atlas V but I can’t find any definitive numbers. Odds are you could buy a bunch of Delta IVs for the offset margin before burning through a billion dollars and with higher production rates, the price may even come down a bit (wishful thinking – this is a government program after all). Using completely made up numbers, suppose a Delta IV costs $20 million more than the equivalent Atlas V. You’d have to launch 50 Delta IVs before the higher prices would equal that $1 billion RD-180 subsidizy. If the cost of the Delta IV dropped by $5 million due to higher production rates, the number of Delta IVs would increase to 66. On the other hand, if we spend the billion dollars to develop RD-180 domestic production, we’ll also have to pay higher prices for the engine which will drive up the cost of an Atlas V, perhaps to a point higher than the Delta IV even before you factor in amortization for the engine R&D. It makes no economic sense to produce the engine here just to keep the Atlas V flying. If they can find additional customers for the engine such as Orbital Sciences, that would help. However, Orbital just did a deal to merge with ATK. Odds are future versions of the Antares will have a solid-fueled first stage.
“if they want to produce the RD-180 domestically, ULA should bear that expense.”
That depends on whether or not ULA is in the launch business or the government contracts business. Most of the commenters here probably wish they were in the launch business but…
According to SFN, there are currently 16 RD-180s in the US. If we take Rogozin at his word (“…in the interests of the Pentagon.”) & subtract out all DOD/NRO (including GPS) launches from consideration for Atlas V, that leaves 3-4 launches per year. Voila! A 4-5 year supply all of a sudden.
Of course, this assumes Delta 4 & Falcon 9 can surge into the space created…
A note on RD-180 replacement.
Larger hydrocarbon engine with post 1970 performance has been on the U.S. rocketry shopping list since pretty much the moment we stopped producing F-1 engines. There were serious factions who thought hydrogen first stages were the future — then we built some, and pretty much nobody’s thought so since.
The challenge, as always in the rocket business, has been market — the launcher market was too fragmented.
Now, SpaceX, ULA, and OSC have pretty much settled on hydrocarbon first stages, and Aerojet-Pratt-Whitney-Rocketdyne, SpaceX, and probably Blue Origin all have the ability to make, and interest in making, a large hydrocarbon engine in the class of NK-33 or better, 500,000+ lbf.
RD-180 coproduction in the U.S. is not an obviously good idea — there’s a reason why, while we clearly could do it, we haven’t done it. It is an extremely complex engine that is very labor intensive to produce, so it would be a very expensive engine in the U.S, which would result in very few customers, which would drive the price up higher still. And because plans to do so have been very much on the back burner for quite a while, for those reasons, it wouldn’t be something done overnight.
I would suggest that what we need is not just a bigger, modern performance U.S. hydrocarbon engine, but one that can be used on a variety of launch vehicles, and one which has a reasonable chance of being a cost-effective alternative to RD-180 imports. I think the U.S. could make that engine (though of course we could also screw it up with terrible acquisition strategy), and I think it could be done by at least three companies (none of which are XCOR) on a cost and schedule comparable to putting the RD-180 in to U.S. coproduction. So I think that’s a potentially superior policy.
Good point that Blue Origin also has recent engine development experience within an order of magnitude of the needed size range. My take on both Blue Origin and SpaceX in this regard, though, is that like XCOR, they’re not primarily in the engine business – they’re primarily in the transportation business, with their engine development capabilities mainly intended to support their own vehicles.
Which is not to say you couldn’t throw enough government money at them to get them to do such an engine for outside customers. But like any company, they have to make decisions about where best to focus their available resources. Their hearts wouldn’t be in the competition to get that government money; it’d be some degree of distraction from their primary goals.
Whereas that’s what AerojetPWR *does*. I think the result of any such competition would be a foregone conclusion. (See also Mike Griffin’s recent maneuverings, mentioned in the comments to http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/05/13/deciding-whether-and-how-to-reproduce-or-replace-the-rd-180/ – they’re already putting the fix in on this.)
At which point I would have grave doubts about the outcome being a cost-effective RD-180 alternative, or about it arriving in any timely manner.
Cloning RD-180 I see as the second least-bad government option at this point, and yes, the result also wouldn’t likely end up cost-effective. It could probably be done faster than AerojetPWR would likely do a new engine, however, which would meet the government’s basic policy objective: Assuring redundant trusted launchers for national security payloads.
Mind, IMHO the least bad government option would be to accept that F9 and F9H will both likely be online and trustworthy by the time the RD-180’s run out, and shift to depending on F9 and D4 for their natsec launch redundancy. At that point, I’d expect the current commercial competitors will only have given them more options, and life will be good.
The government, however, shows every sign of not being at all ready to hear such advice yet, to the point of metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears and humming REAL loud. Oh well! Politics is the art of the possible, and if they insist on Doing Something about RD-180, cloning it I see as the least harmful option.
I will say only that I’m sorry to see Jeff leaving XCOR out of the mix of possible suppliers of a next-gen LOX-hydrocarbon booster engine to replace the RD-180. A million lbf piston pump engine would be a very sexy beast indeed.
Why not just license the 1,000,000 lbf Raptor when it’s available? If not, I’m sure Elon would be happy to sell some?
Mr. Greason, you settlement talk was one of the most inspirational I’ve ever heard. Thank you.
Because it’s not the right engine for that vehicle.
Aircraft are designed around engines and to a large extent, so are rockets. If you have a working engine, changing the design of the first stage tanks and structure might be an easier proposition than forcing the development of a new engine (or US production of the RD-180) to fit the existig first stage design.
I think ULA would swallow acid before they would use a SpaceX engine. There is no love lost between the two parties.
Let’s not forget SpaceX has no incentive in delivering good engines to ULA.
Even with fairly substantial checks, SpaceX would have a great incentive to mix just a few grains of sand into the gear oil or under harden an engine duct or microwave a controller board.
I’ve read about during the British de-colonization period India was supposed to turn over to Pakistan, money and military supplies, instead they send old newspapers and condoms for months
until the British got in and leaned on them.
ULA might be willing to buy an engine from SpaceX (if they had no choice) but, SpaceX would
have very little incentive to be a good vendor.
That is absurd. As a business, SpaceX has a legal obligation to deliver the best product they can to every customer. Failure to do so, if it led to a catastrophic failure, would result in a finding of negligence at the very least, to serious jail time for all involved (right up to Shotwell and Musk) for sabotage. Try harder.
SpaceX has no incentive in delivering good engines to ULA
Wow. Absurd indeed. The incentive is the primary incentive… profit. Secondary is control. If there’s no love lost between them, control becomes even more of an incentive.
Once again the Manichean worldview of the lifelong leftist asserts itself. Businessmen are not really human beings, but creatures of magical evil, willing to do anything to destroy their enemies, up to and including sabotage that would take down their own reputations and subject them to huge civil and criminal penalties. Reading these goofy fantasies is a bit like rewatching ‘Bulworth’ – black gang-bangers are really just cuddly moppets, but suit-wearing, fat, middle-aged insurance company executives, hoo boy, they’ll cap your ass in a New York minute! To paraphrase the late Mr. Rogers, “Can you say ‘projection’? I knew you could.”
If I ran SpaceX I’d worry more about ULA blowing up the engines I’d sold them, on the test stand. Kind of like what NASA did to the DCX-2 after they took it over.