Is Russia Planning To Ban RD-180 Sales to the U.S.?
Russian rocket engine export ban could halt US space program, Russia Today
“Russia’s Security Council is reportedly considering a ban on supplying the US with powerful RD-180 rocket engines for military communications satellites as Russia focuses on building its own new space launch center, Vostochny, in the Far East. A ban on the rockets supply to the US heavy booster, Atlas V, which delivers weighty military communications satellites and deep space exploration vehicles into orbit, could put a stop to NASA’s space programs – not just military satellites.”
Keith’s note: The RD-180 powers the Atlas V. This report is posted on Russia Today – an organization that loves to post conspiracy theories as “news” and often serves as a de facto propaganda arm of the Russian government. The link to this story seems to work intermittently.
That’s funny, in a stupid way.
Wasn’t P&W originally supposed to develop a license production capability for the RD-180 when the AF agreed to let LM use it, for exactly this kind of reason?
Too bad NASA & the AF never followed through on developing a new large hydrocarbon engine.
And fortunate that SpaceX has been doing just that, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale.
Yes, it seems strange that they went to all the trouble to merge Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s launch businesses into ULA for the good of national security interests but never bothered to do something about the Russian sourced RD-180 this whole time. Were they prepared to just go with Delta IV worst case? Why pick one over the other? Would we have saved money by now with having developed a new engine for Atlas V?
At the time that some of these decisions were made (or abandoned), the writing was already on the wall for significantly reduced government spending on space, so maybe it was simply market size uncertainties that canceled or deferred some of theearlier plans and proposals.
#madeinamerica
As Keith pointed out, “Russia Today” posts some of the looniest and sleaziest trash on the web. For the Russians to seriously consider this would be an act of mind boggling stupidity.
I bet the folks from NPO Energomash + Kuznetsov (NK-33 manufacturer) are now calling LockMart and Orbital, respectively, reassuring them that this is bureaucratic buffoonery.
Just noticed: New lease of life for NK-33
I have been on Russia Today several times. The studio always felt a little creepy.
This smells more like a renegotiation of the price than a real thread to stop sales.
Yes, this is likely the opening shot in a negotiation for a higher price.
Just look back at how Russia systematically hiked Soyuz prices … there is a pattern.
You mean, when they know they have control of the market, they raise the price? You’re right, that’s a pattern – it’s called “capitalism.”
The first thing I said when I read the VSE and saw that the President ordered the retirement of the space shuttle was .. watch the soyuz prices start rising and if NASA doesn’t have a replacement ready by 2010 .. the prices would go through the roof…
Agreed. But in all fairness, in today’s economic world I can’t imagine any other country doing any different. All that changes is the extent to which a player does or doesn’t try to hide the obvious. I don’t think it’s overly political or nationalistic. Money is the root of all price hikes.
“Russia Today” is a sleaze sheet and puts out some of the dumbest statements on the web.
I have no doubt that folks from Kuznetsov (manufacturers of the NK-33) +
Energomash (manufacturers of the RD-180) are calling folks in the US re-assuring them that this is nothing but the idle chatter of bureaucratic buffoons.
Just noticed: New lease of life for NK-33
“New lease of life for NK-33” (Korolev lives!) and all the chatter about the SLS on another thread… and then I found this, Bride of Rocketdyne at http://acuriousguy.blogspot…
Two words: Reverse Engineering.
What reverse? ULA is already licensed to manufacture RD-180s domestically. They just haven’t because the DoD hasn’t paid them extra to do it.
Paul- I had never heard that Pratt Rocketdyne was ever licensed to build any modified RD-180’s from scratch.
But obviously the reporter had not heard that crucial point , either.
Turns out it is quite true. PWR was licensed by RD-AMROSS in 2008 to begin building the RD-180 domestically for a first flight by 2012. but it never happened. You say that was because of DoD funding issues. THAT would be the story worth reporting here.
Which means this entire article is off on a siderail somewhere. The reporting from Russia has so many holes , presumptions, and misinformation in it there is little to cite of value.
Not “funding issues”. I meant that the DoD hasn’t agreed to fork out more money on top of the existing contracts which carried the implicit understanding that PWR would develop a domestic version of the RD-180. Since they never intended to do that, nor did ULA intend to pay them to do it, ULA and DoD are basically now in a staring match, whoever blinks first pays the bill.
[aside: this is all based on gossip. I claim no insider knowledge.]
Also, we can’t ignore the possibility that PWR has already spent some time looking into this and has concluded that, from a technical standpoint, it’s not as simple, or as cost effective, as it sounds.
Why use American aerospace workers labor costs.. when you can use russian aerospace workers at a cheaper rate? There was a reason they didn’t build it…
It may be time for someone to produce a methane engine able to burn for 240 seconds, ground Isp 311+ and vacuum thrust of 1,000,000 lbf.
Two page proposal on your manager’s desk by Monday morning.
is this something that can be done in 1959 but more difficult to do these days?
I suspect mostly a matter of will and money.
Several small rocket engines were produced for the Centennial Challenge lunar landers, including ones that used methane/LOX. They produced up to 5000 lbf, much bigger ones are needed.
I seem to recall that this approach was dropped way back when, because the amount of chemical energy available from methane, even with LOX, gave a maximum thrust that was well below what was felt necessary for a first stage. I don’t have the numbers handy for that, but the only argument for methane that I recall from that time was lower cost than the alternatives. The negative effects on the atmosphere from using methane were, at that time, not seen to be radically different from other fuels.
Going way out in left field for a moment, if methane can somehow be made sufficiently effective, and if sea launch systems continue to be used, there is more methane in the oceans than anywhere else on Earth.
Isn’t the Delta IV just as capable?
Speaking of EELV, nothing on the Delta IV heavy launch from VAFB?
Seems like a Delta IV/Heavy/CST-100 architecture would be simple, straightforward, and very low risk, compared with some of the projects NASA is spending our budget on.
Restablish a an all US LEO capability and ISS transport system and go on from there; put the funding made available from SLS, CEV, COTS, etc. into in-orbit refuelling, a BEO mission module, an EDS, a LLC…all sorts of possibilities.
Ad astra per ardua
The RS-68 engine, used by Delta IV, is not yet rated for human launch but I suppose it could be. There is also the J2-X under current development. The SSME is also supposed to be undergoing development to a cheaper and lighter version for the SLS. Really, the export ban of RD-168 would just be a pivot for the US but somewhat devasting for the Atlas V product line.
sure, and more expensive
I hope this is just crazy rumor mongering… but I can’t help noting that the FY2011 NASA Budget proposal included over $3 billion over five years for hydrocarbon engine development… but this was shot down by the Shuttle industrial base and their Congressional representatives as “wasteful technology for technology’s sake”. Now we are spending only 10-15% of that on new kerosene engine development, and most of that is just attempting to re-engineer (at lower cost) the Apollo F-1.
Seems like it would have been wiser to spend more money in Alabama and California on actual propulsion research, rather than send it to Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida to keep 50-75% of everyone’s standing army in place…
Given the well-known fact that Russia Today publishes fiction, not fact, isn’t this whole conversation a little silly?
Boeing has been saying they can use F9 instead of Atlas. Maybe they should put down a deposit.
will SpaceX sell to Boeing?
I have not heard that they would. However I saw a news conference with SpaceX and Boeing side by side and Boeing side they might use F9. SpaceX said nothing. Atlas is L-M not Boeing. SpaceX would make money, but might help Boeing get the contract. Also Congress wants them to combine. They might say SpaceX gets the launcher and Boeing gets the Capsule. They might think that is fair and save money. At least it would be all domestic and SpaceX would continue with DragonRider anyway.
Splitting the contract between two companies would be a typically Congressional thing to do: Bad operational policy, good political manuever. It would raise costs, not save money. Now you’ve got two companies with redundant teams on both ends coordinating everything (launcher/capsule integration, project management, communication with NASA, mission control…) and lose all the cost savings that SpaceX has the potential to provide from having its whole stack literally built under one roof.
Worth a re-link (June 24, 2013): “Orbital Sciences Corp., which wants to buy Russian-made RD-180 engines for its medium-lift Antares rocket, is suing rocket maker United Launch Alliance (ULA) for blocking any such sale”
…
“Orbital’s interest in the RD-180 stems from concerns about the long-term supply of the AJ-26, which is based on the NK-33 engine designed for the Soviet Union’s failed lunar exploration program, and produced during the 1960s and 1970s.”
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
And the always colorful Elon Musk’s comment on the situation:
“One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the ’60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.”
http://www.wired.com/wireds…
Learn more about the achievements in rocket engines technology that were considered as “impossible” in the West, the Channel-4 documentary, “The Engines That Came In From The Cold”, at YouTube /watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E