This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Acting Surprised When Russia Does What It Says It Will Do.

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 20, 2014
Filed under , ,

Amid Attacks, ULA Outlines Some EELV Pricing, Aviation Week
“ULA is battling to keep its Atlas V alive amid multiple attacks. Due to tensions over the Crimean annexation, Russia has said it will halt deliveries of the RD-180 first-stage engine for Atlas V to the U.S.; this would leave ULA with a current stockpile of 16 already in the U.S. Political pressure from the SpaceX lawsuit is also prompting some to question whether the Atlas V can be replaced by the Falcon 9v1.1. Gass said neither Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash or ULA have been formally notified of a halt in deliveries; five RD-180s have been ordered for delivery in 2014. Gass said the move announced by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was a hypothetical what-if, but not yet enacted.”
Keith’s note: “a hypothetical what-if, but not yet enacted”? Yea, that is how Putin does things before he sends in the troops. The majority owner of NPO Energomash is the Russian government. Rogozin works for Putin. Sounds like a plan.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

42 responses to “Acting Surprised When Russia Does What It Says It Will Do.”

  1. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    And why would we ever want to be involved in the future with people who would threaten these “hypotheticals” in the first place? What kind of fools does Mike Gass take us for?

    By the way, this is something for the crowd pushing us to cooperate with China in Space to think about… after all, look at all the wonderful things they’re doing in the West Pacific these days. You think the situation with Russia is bad? It would be a side show compared to a confrontation between Japan+US and China.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Given the Russian experience, and the current dustup with China over industrial and military cyber-espionage, the “let’s cooperate with China in space” crowd should put on their beanie hats, go to the corner and shut up.

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        Agreed

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Utter nonsense. The principal current geopolitical value of human spaceflight is to act as a catalyst for cooperation between the superpowers. China is one of our largest trading partners and will pass the US in GDP sometime in the next twenty years. We simply cannot afford an adversarial relationship with China. Cooperation in space can help to ensure we do not have to. This is irrelevant to the question of whether the US should be able to produce rocket engines. It should, and in fact it already can.

        • Terry Stetler says:
          0
          0

          ISTM that it’s China and Russia that are assuming an adversarial posture, examples being China’s cyberespionage & claiming most of the South China Sea, and Russia’s aggressive moves in Eastern Europe. As with all bullies, not responding vigorously just invites more of the same. Ditto for pretending it isn’t happening.

        • duheagle says:
          0
          0

          Maybe we can’t afford an adversarial relationship with China, but we’ve got one anyway. It’s not of our making, but it’s there and we need to deal with it and not imagine it can be wished away with happy thoughts and feckless efforts at “making nice.”

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Or we could take the longer view, and behave like adults when dealing with a problematic schoolyard bully?

      • ProfSWhiplash says:
        0
        0

        It was only a few decades ago, that the concept of behaving like adults when dealing with schoolyard bullies meant dragging the little monsters over to the Vice Principal’s office, where’d he go Teddy Roosevelt on their pale arse: Speak softly about what they did wrong, and then reach for that big wooden paddle!

  2. Henry Vanderbilt says:
    0
    0

    To be fair, the Russians do bluff – and bully, and bluster – regularly. It’s not totally unreasonable to treat Rogozin’s statement as a threat of policy change but not the change itself until it results in concrete action.

    And calling the threat “a threat” is just so much less diplomatic than “a hypothetical what-if”…

    Which still doesn’t make it a good situation to have gotten ourselves into.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      If it is just a bluff, then it should be regarded as a warning shot and an early warning of future problems. Work should start immediately to mitigate the damage that such an action would cause. Even if it doesn’t happen, it is neutralising one of the economic weapons that Russia could otherwise aim at the US.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      They’ve done things like this before relating to ISS. Remember when they weren’t going to let Dragon dock to the station?

      To my knowledge they haven’t done anything yet other than leak threats.

  3. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Funny how it’s shaping up just like Elon Musk said it should!

    – Atlas V is in serious trouble. Even Orbital Sciences is doing due diligence to find a replacement for it’s first stage too, years ahead of what they planned.

    – Delta IV production will be sped up so that it can act as replacement for Atlas V if or when necessary.

    – Looks like there’s enough political momentum to get Falcon 9 certified for the Air Force and NRO launches.

    The real loser in this game will be Lockheed Martin. With SLS and Orion coming under closer scrutiny, they could be locked out of launch vehicle and spacecraft production for the first time in decades.

    tinker

    • RocketScientist327 says:
      0
      0

      Delta IV cannot replace Atlas V. Delta IV/H cannot fly nuclear payloads and Atlas V can. Delta IV/H cannot fly humans and Atlas V has the capability and is close to certification.

      To Nuke/man rate Delta IV will cost well over $1 billion. The RS-68, while dependable, does not have the EDS. Lots of work to do as well on the Delta IV core(s) as well.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Huh? The Air Force has directed the Delta IV team to look at ramping up production to be able to take some flights from the Atlas V. The main problem with Delta is it costs siginificantly more than Atlas.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Where did you see that? I just read that Gass of ULA said they did it on their own with no suggestion from their clients.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Agree with you, but is it likely that ULA could make an audacious bid for SpaceX – or even a foreign billionaire (Chinese or Russian)?

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        If by “audacious bid” you mean an attempt to buy control of SpaceX, that won’t happen because SpaceX isn’t publicly traded. Such an audacious bid would have to satisfy Musk, and he doesn’t seem the sort that is easily bought out.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          I just get the feeling Musk has bitten off more than he can chew. Taking on the U.S. military-industrial complex is one thing while commercial crew and ISS are now at the mercy of current events elsewhere. Boeing and L-M might be sizing up the opposition in light of Air Force General Shelton’s remarks about SpaceX.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Your feelings are mistaken. Take a look at Musk’s history. He’s been broke, started companies, sold companies, been broke again, married and divorced and remarried, and now heads up 2 high tech. companies. He’s worth several billion dollars and seems to have time to dream up things like the hyperloop.
            There are few individuals in this world who would compare and non in government, military or ULA.
            Shelton is clueless as to SpaceX and Musk in particular.
            Cheers.

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            Your analysis is defective. Musk is not “taking on the U.S. military-industrial complex”, just the part of the USAF procurement command that connived with ULA to assemble that anti-competitive block buy deal.

            The guy who signed that one for the USAF has apparently already retired and gotten his cushy civilian reward job with Aerojet. Shelton is likely next out the door and into a lucrative post-service career as a would-be influence peddler – what I like to call “Executive Vice President in Charge of Playing Golf with Congressmen”. In considering Shelton’s recent remarks about SpaceX, you might also consider those of DNI James Clapper whose agencies constitute a lot of the clientele for national security launch services. He likes SpaceX just fine and looks forward to doing business with them ASAP.

            Then there are those pesky Russians who have come along in the meantime and queered the whole business-as-usual pitch. The lack of further RD-180’s makes that ULA block buy into roadkill. It’ll be gutted and filleted. A year from now, SpaceX will be bidding on its individual giblets.

            Commercial crew and ISS, meanwhile, get stronger. CRS is a working success and commercial crew will, if anything, be acelerated and strengthened by recent Russian obstreperousness. Also, ISS-centric Orbital now owns formerly SLS-centric ATK. If the NASA/Congessional pork caucus tries further moves on ISS, Orbital might just start having second thoughts about the increasingly lean prospects of its problematical SRB business. No SRB’s, no SLS.

            ULA, though, will be fighting to avoid dissolution as Boeing gets restive being shackled to a bootless and unhorsed LockMart-Atlas V half of the combine. ULA isn’t going to be in any position to be “sizing up” anyone. More like the other way around.

            I wouldn’t be worrying myself about Elon Musk’s ability to masticate. He can chew up and swallow anything he bites off. As Joe Piscopo used to say, when playiing Frank Sinatra on Saturday Night Live, “I got chunks of guys like you in my stool!”

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        An “audacious bid” would be for Lockheed to take some of their $3 billion per year profit, and Boeing to take some of their $4.5 billion per year profits, and invest in new low cost launchers off their own back.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      The Falcon 9 will not support a lot of the AF and NRO launches. It doesn’t have the lift capacity. Falcon Heavy could, but it’s maiden launch has been delayed 2 years so far and the launch site moved from Calif to Fla and it would need to be certified.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        I can’t see how that applies to the comment you replied to. Anyway, it’s been discussed in other threads that Falcon 9 could lift pretty much everything that Atlas V has so far. Atlas V couldn’t support all the launches either. Look for another reason why they shouldn’t have been considered. Remember that certification, that Falcon 9 doesn’t quite have yet, wasn’t required for being considered.

  4. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Hmm.. 16 engines. Ok, but will they even be able to use the ones they have? Previous reports said that Russia was pulling the people that did the upkeep/maintenance for all military launches. So, 16 engines for non-military (unless further escalation happens) launches. Still sounds like some of these will become very expensive paperweights.

    Still waiting to hear if the upcoming NRO launch will be canned or delayed.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I don’t’ think I realized that Russian support was on the ground in the US; I pictured crated engines sitting in a room somewhere…lights off, waiting to go…

      And learning that the Russians supported US military launches is stunning.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        The Russians have their own control/monitoring room in the Atlas control center. Separate from the main area. It’s a very nice room too.

      • John Campbell says:
        0
        0

        Spy satellites have reduced the number of surprises we faced during the Cold War. As much as USA surveillance is something of a threat, it is far less threatening than the missiles asleep in their silos.

        When there are fingers hovering over big red buttons, surprises are the last thing anyone wants. We’re a lot more relaxed these days because, despite the tensions, everybody who cares to has spy satellites… or buys them from someone else.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      Have any links to these “previous reports”? I keep seeing this in comments but never read any article that said that some kind of on-site Russian support was needed for RD-180 engines. I think I’ll have to see something more to believe that.

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        From a previous thread — note last sentence:

        http://rt.com/news/158680-r

        Dmitry Rogozin also said that Moscow is banning Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit.

        “We proceed from the fact that without guarantees that our engines are used for non-military spacecraft launches only, we won’t be able to supply them to the US,”Rogozin is cited as saying by Interfax news agency.

        If such guarantees aren’t provided the Russian side will also be unable to perform routine maintenance for the engines, which have been previously delivered to the US, he added.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Hmm ok, so we still don’t know what exactly that means. I might have misread you above when you said they could be pulling the people that do maintenance for all military launches. We don’t know if they actually do required work on all military launches. They were just pulling people related to any military launches .

          • Jeff Havens says:
            0
            0

            No, we don’t know.. trying to interpret Russian bluster is like reading tea leaves. it wouldn’t surprise me though if the sales contract for these engines included service that cannot be provided by ULA personnel. How else could they “forbid” military usage on goods already bought, paid for, and delivered?

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Is that what they are trying to do? I didn’t read that at all. In the blurb above, it says “halt deliveries”.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            The Russians are probably doing both.

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Looks like the NROL launch went as planned yesterday.

  5. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    Putin loves to stick it to the US. If anyone thinks that he will not stick it to ULA, they are seriously delusional.

  6. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    I may have mentioned this in another post…but what will be interesting is how this RD-180 supply cut-off will affect Boeing and SNC in their CCiCap programs. It is my understanding that Boeing’s CST-100 and SNC’s Dream Chaser are both based around the Atlas V as their launch vehicle. I am not certain if this throws a monkey wrench in their plans, or if it is “relatively” easy to switch over / reconfigure their crewed vehicle to launch on a Delta IV vehicle.

    Although, I am sure Elon Musk would be tickled pink to offer Boeing and SNC their Falcon 9 launch solution. LOL.

  7. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    For Pete’s sake Aerojet Rocketdyne, just finish up development of the F-1A engine!!!

    I cannot believe that in this day and age of advanced;

    — metallurgy

    — casting technology

    — welding processes

    — composite materials

    — specialized CFD and combustion dynamics simulations

    — bleeding edge SLM or EBM additive manufacturing

    …that a stream-lined F-1 engine cannot be produced at greatly reduced cost with significantly fewer parts (and welds)…while maintaining or improving reliability and performance.

    For Heaven’s sake, you have the complete engineering design / drawings and BOM for the F-1, and you have already spent significant resources and time in developing the F-1(A). It is a no-friggin’ brainer.

    Just one of those F-1A engines would form the basis for a very powerful single common core launch vehicle, that would outperform the standard Atlas V (with no solids).

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      It’s not that simple. The engine needs to be designed from the cost, efficiency perspective as well as the performance one. My understanding is that F-1 never took those other parameters into account.
      This wholism perspective is what permiates SpaceX and all their development. That’s how they got to Merlin 1D and how they’ll do Raptor.

      • Tritium3H says:
        0
        0

        Beany, did you read my post?

        Of course the ORIGINAL F-1 engine was not designed with cost efficiency in mind. I was specifically talking about the recent work that Aerojet has made in “re-engineering” the F-1(A), based upon modern, state-of-the-art design and manufacturing methods.

        The project was cancelled (or placed on indefinite hold)…however, the purpose was to re-engineer and re-design the F-1A in order to produce a cost-effective engine that is viable and attractive in the competitive launch market, while maintaining or improving upon the original F-1’s reliability and performance.

        And re-starting this F-1 update/upgrade program does not contradict, negate, nor diminish the impressive accomplishments of the SpaceX team, nor it’s future success. A new F-1(A) would simply be an alternative high performance rocket engine that would ADD to the flexibility and choices available to both military/national security as well as commercial customers, in need of space launch services. SpaceX’s current Falcon 9 and future Falcon Heavy remain an integral part of this ecosystem, ensuring America’s continued and assured access to space.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Ah sorry. Jumped in early and, as you point out, didn’t fully read and digest your post.
          Cheers

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          F-1A?
          Should this be paid for by government or should it be picked up by private industry???

          Is this the best engine/rocket to go head to head with Spacex’s methane merlin MCT? Shouldn’t there be at least two BFR recoverables in our future (just like there were airlines) or is Spacex just going to own the inner solar system railroad??

  8. objose says:
    0
    0

    Keith, can you please put a copy of your notes in the comment section as well. Several times I have nothing salient to say on what you wrote but would just want to up or down arrow your note. The one today left me busting out laughing and I would love to be able to check off a big ^ on that one!