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

Russia Shuts Off RD-180 & GPS Stations; Cancels ISS post-2020

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 13, 2014
Filed under


Russia to Halt Export of RD-180 Engines for MilSat Launches and Questions ISS Future, SpaceRef Business
“The escalating war of words between Russia and U.S. just hit home hard for the Air Force and United Launch Alliance (ULA) with the news today that Russia would no longer supply RD-180 engines for export to the U.S. if used by the Pentagon.”
Moscow to ban US from using Russian rocket engines for military launches, Russia Today
“Moscow is banning Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit, said Russia’s Deputy PM, Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of space and defense industries. According to Rogozin, Russia is also halting the operation of all American GPS stations on its territory from June 1. Russia currently hosts 11 ground-based GPS stations, the Deputy PM said.”
United Launch Alliance Statement on Russian Statements
“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.”
NASA Statement on News Reports Regarding Russian Space Statements
“Space cooperation has been a hallmark of US-Russia relations, including during the height of the Cold War, and most notably, in the past 13 consecutive years of continuous human presence on board the International Space Station. Ongoing operations on the ISS continue on a normal basis with a planned return of crew tonight (at 9:58 p.m. EDT) and expected launch of a new crew in two weeks. We have not received any official notification from the Government of Russia on any changes in our space cooperation at this point.”

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

123 responses to “Russia Shuts Off RD-180 & GPS Stations; Cancels ISS post-2020”

  1. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    There is talk (currently unsourced) of pulling the plug on ISS in 2020 too. This is potentially very, very big and could sent NASA’s current strategy crashing headlong.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Someone should remind this pompous Russian politician that the International Space Station is among the few bonafide symbols of peaceful human cooperation anywhere today. Similarly, while I hope to see commercial crew is expedited, Americans should remember that Soyuz has proven to be an invaluable low earth orbit crew transport. ISS would probably have been abandoned in the wake of Columbia in 2003 but for the program’s Russian partner (since the Chinese were prohibited from participating by the USA). Less bombastic and nationalistic talk and more common sense and rationality, since space belongs to no-one. United we stand, divided we fall.

      • Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think this pompous Russian politican really cares about bonafide symbols of peaceful human cooperation. Russia in May 2014 is not Russia of 1994 or even 2004. The Russians are fully embracing bombast and nationalist fervour and the ‘bad old days’ are well and truly back. We need to realise that and respond, rather than wishing for more peaceful days.

  2. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    You knew this was coming…..

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      I didn’t want to believe it but, yes, I knew that this was a serious possibility. The problem is that, if they’re willing to cut off this finger just to spite their foes, who knows what else they may do? Refuse to carry any more US and ESA astronauts on Soyuz after the current expedition have returned?

      • Chuang K. says:
        0
        0

        I’m not certain not giving the US rocket engines OVERWHELMINGLY used for military launches (as the Atlas V is) in the middle of sanctions is really “cutting off your nose to spite your face. Consider how congress would respond if it turned out every Proton-M launch was dependent on a bunch of American engines? Heads would figuratively explode. This seems more like, “Refusing to bow your head to the angry guy with the baseball bat.”

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Dennis:

      Maybe you knew this was coming, but it blind-sided me!

      Here’s my thinking: If the Russians wanted to slow the pace of America’s research into propulsion systems, would they ban the very engine (RD-180) that’s keeping such research and expenditures in check?

      I can see the tit for tat decision on blocking the GPS stations (America’s just being a dick on that one), but it’s a lose, lose deal for Russia on the engine ban.

      tinker

      • Spacetech says:
        0
        0

        How could you not see this one coming?
        It’s not tit for tat–it’s called hitting them where it hurts–just wait until Russia decides to stop I.S.S. flights.
        Then it’s called “having them over a barrel”

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        I said this on Jeff Foust’s blog: Never underestimate a politician’s ability to cut off his or her own nose to spite their face. Hurt pride has caused a lot of trouble in the past and it will again.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        Not really. Our leadership and decision making in this area is so paralyzed that it will be 2048 before an American LOX/RP engine that does not get built by SpaceX is ready for flight. Instead of doing something smart like restarting the production of the F1A engines we will go the pork route of starting over from the beginning and changing the specs so that we get 1.3758 seconds of extra ISP out of the engine. Of course at a cost of about $5 billion.

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          It is a very interesting strategy. Two LVs are required by DOD and NASA (more risk with 1).

          -Atlas is retained for NASA: With 2020 ISS pullout and no russian backup, ‘several’ Atlas based LVs for COTS, and peaceful means availability. Russia and SpaceX fill the role otherwise.
          -Delta is retained for DOD: no RD-180s.
          -New liquid engine LV: current Delta/Atlas not cost competitive and takes the ‘same’ time to rebuild versus build a new engine, so new LV meets the future critical and economic needs.

          Shortage of cash? No problem. SpaceX can survive on 7 or less of 52 launches and downselect COTS early on to meet this critical 2020 date, delay SLS. After a few years, stretch the schedule, ask Russia if they will reconsider ISS support and provide backup for BEO HLV. WTH, throw in a F1 too even though NASA does not need a LV greater than ~20mT for BEO with LEO depot. Hope for a domestic RD180 too, but now that’s dreaming.

          One LV and a two year supply for the other was the strategy, and with this new plan, all the same decades old hardware lives on, while the USG pays for the new engine/LV certification –what is not to like?

        • LPHartswick says:
          0
          0

          I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with the F1A.

        • objose says:
          0
          0

          Don’t minimize the benefits of the pork route tinker, for your $5 billion you will get less green house gas. . . . .

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        Dennis,
        “but it blind-sided me!”
        Really? This forum spends endless computer bits outlining the shortsightedness of US bureaucrats. All of you rant about how dumb decisions made daily impact negatively all the programs that NASA is supposed to be implementing. You think that Russian bureaucrats have any better gift of “vision” than ours? This guy may not even have the authority to implement this ban but may be just popping off to look good in front of his peers (similar to what happens here). If the Russians have “vision” they would keep reducing the price of sending astronauts to the space station. That way, the US would look silly inventing capsules and rockets to do the same thing “when it is so cheap to do it in Russia.” Instead they hose us for crazy charges and help energize the american public behind the “our astronauts our space ship” battle cry. Nope I COUNT ON dumb bureaucratic decisions where I work and make accommodations. This is GREAT news for NASA. For the taxpayer, not so much.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        You assume humans act smarter than they do Tinker.

  3. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    I would think this would have been called out in a contract. If they are violating the contract, then you could sue for damages.

  4. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    I have always felt not fully subsidizing Space X was foolish in the long run and this seems to support my belief. Question: Will this help Space X or will our government find more reasons to procrastinate developing a real manned capability for this country? Like many, I do not think Orion will ever see the light of day but is just a can to be kicked down the road as we have been doing for decades.

    • KeCo says:
      0
      0

      Hindsight is always 20/20…of the original 20 companies/organizations that were involved in the COTS program back in 2006/2007 how many are left? 2? How would you have known which one to subsidize 6 or 7 years ago?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Republicans in the house and senate do not want this President to have successes. They would let the ISS burn down if it mean’t denying him a success. Do not look to them to jump on any bandwagon.

      • ed2291 says:
        0
        0

        From Nixon on both republicans and democrats have shortchanged NASA. Everything does not revolve around Obama as either a savior or a villain. Just follow Keith’s posts.

  5. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    This might turn up in another thread, but the Russian’s are also saying that they’ll only support the ISS til 2020.

    Why?

    Do they intend to have a ‘conscious separation’ from the rest of the ISS, severed at Zarya and Unity? Are they planning on giving the Chinese a step up by helping them build a new staion? Have the Chinese made ‘an offer Russian couldn’t refuse’ for using the Russian segment of the ISS as the core for their new space station?

    Do we care?

    Aside from the geopolitical ramifications, probably not a heck of a lot. The only real resource the Russians would be removing is on-board propulsion for raising the ISS’s altitude and collision avoidance. We’d lose a bathroom and a dining table too. Big deal!

    So, let’s make a shopping list:

    Propulsion: Use Dragon capsules modified into dedicated propulsion units. They can be replaced when needed and even reused.

    Habitation module: Their are two choices here. First, the Permanent Logistics Module could be re-purposed into a pretty nice wardroom. The other choice would be to stick a large Bigelow habitat on the ISS where the Russian segment used to be. Lots of clearance between the ISS main radiators, it’s at the rear of the station’s direction of travel so is shielded better from debris and could probably house a dozen or more folks.

    Anything else? The ‘show stopper’ of having to rely on the Russians for the bathroom is behind us, so we’re good there…

    tinker

    • Captain Kortaffel says:
      0
      0

      @fka_roscosmos doesn’t plan to continue cooperation with the US on the ISS after 2020

      — Dmitry Rogozin (@DRogozin) 13. Mai 2014

      <script async=”” src=”//platform.twitter.com/widget…” charset=”utf-8″></script>

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      AIUI the Russians have indefinitely postponed launching several new ISS modules for use on a new, Russia only, station.

      The US Congress should now fully fund what NASA said was their post-ISS plan – use commercial stations. Get at least 2 CC spacecraft flying ASAP and get Bigelow going on the first BA-330 and its docking node & prop bus. BA-2100 as soon as the SpaceX BFR or SLS are ready.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Can falcon heavy fly a BA-330???? If not Bigelow should size to Falcon heavy’s max.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Yes it can.

        • Terry Stetler says:
          0
          0

          Yes, and SpaceX is rumored to be making a longer FH cargo fairing for 2017. Instead of the 5.2×13 meter current fairing the scuttlebitt is it’s a 5.2x~19 meter unit. Sounds about right for BA-330. BA-330’s mass isn’t a problem.

    • Brian says:
      0
      0

      Not at Zarya/Unity, but at Zvezda/Zarya. Zarya belongs to the United States.

      Start work on Interim Control Module, Mk.II?

      • Oscar_Femur says:
        0
        0

        We paid for it and “own” it but I don’t think we command & control it. That’s all done from the TsUP AFAIK.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Mr. Gardi
      For Spacex to lift dream chaser, is it possible for Spacex to fly a falcon heavy lite?? Two boosters 18 engines not three boosters 27 engines?? Don’t they just leave one booster off and change the flight software a little bit???

    • david says:
      0
      0

      Really, that’s it? If thats all there is to it, we should have built it ourselves. We could have called it “Freedom”

  6. dbooker says:
    0
    0

    This is great news for NASA. They can sell the DOD their Falcon 9 booster reservations at the cost of the Atlas V around 400-500 million. Then buy more launches from SpaceX for only 90 million. What a way to balance the JWST books!!!

  7. FallingWithStyle says:
    0
    0

    Now Congress will immediately fund all three commercial crew competitors for the last phase of CCiCAP, Bigelow will be asked to provide replacement accommodation for the ISS and NASA will be free to concentrate on building Nautilus-X, maturing essential space faring technology and promoting new markets for commercial space.

    Oh well. You can dream ….

    • Tombomb123 says:
      0
      0

      What rocket is CST-100 and Dream-chaser going to use? maybe falcon-9 can lift CST-100 but i’m not sure it can lift Dreamchaser.

      • dbooker says:
        0
        0

        Uh, those would be NASA launches or totally commercial if and when flying to Bigelow space station. Hence, not blocked since they are not DOD.

      • mlaboy says:
        0
        0

        Dreamchaser can use the Falcon Heavy for less the cost of an Atlas…

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Falcon Heavy??

        Is it possible for Space to flight a falcon Heavy light??? Two boosters 18 engines’s not 3 boosters 27 engines. Don’t you just leave one booster off and change the flight software some??? Gimbal engines and junk???

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Yes,,, If you do not use the cross feed it will lift around 40-43 tons.. 53 tons with the cross feed from the strap on boosters to the core booster.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            DTARS means a two-core version in place of three-core. (I can’t even find an “artist’s impression” image of a twin-core rocket to illustrate this. Even KSP enthusiasts don’t do it.)

            So the answer to his question is “Not really…” then the rest of your comment.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Paul

            I have not see a picture of it either but I have heard some people talk of it. And my question is why not??? Shuttle flew with the engines to one side. And it seems to me that a falcon with just two boosters would fly with the engines gimbled on an angle some. If that is so, that it could? Then Spacex could offer slightly larger payloads at cheaper prices. Isn’t that the advantage ULA is claiming when they bolt on their little solid boosters to the atlas V.
            Spacex should never offer customers service that dumps a first booster in the sea.

            Like Henry Ford saying with the color of the model T, I offer any color as long as its black, Elon should only offer Falcon __R service.

            A customer shound not be aloud to dump a 30 million dollar booster in the ocean.

            They don’t do that with airplanes??????

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Paul
            Even if Spacex had to make a different interstage that centered the payload over the two boosters that’s got to be cheaper than dumping first stages in the ocean.

            How many times as Spacex not attempted first stage return for that little extra fuel for its GEO flights?

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        It can do both.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          ??????

          So Spaces will fly falcon 9R and falcon 18 R and falcon 27 R and never have to fly just falcon 9

          Because a falcon 18 R that recovers both first stage boosters should be cheaper than dumping a falcon 9 booster in the ocean Right????????

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, my bad. I was replying to Tombomb123 regarding the F9’s capability to fly both CST-100 and DC.
            Wrt to your comment, I imagine it would be possible but the question is why would they want to do it? They must have a good reason for going from F9 to FH. Just ’cause we don’t know it doesn’t invalidate their approach.
            Cheers.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        Last year Boeing said that after their contracted Atlas V flights they would explpre Falcon 9 to better CST-100’s business case. Dream Chaser is also supposed to be launcher agnostic, and flyable on Falcon 9

        Remember that the 13.15 tonne to LEO on SpaceX’s website figures in reusability. If you fly F9 as an expendable with full tanks and minimum engine out margins, per the NADS NLS II mission calculator, it can launch about 16.6 tonnes to LEO.

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        I’m sure ULA is gonna try to sell Delta IV-Heavy for this, and point to the planned launch latter this year of the Orion Test Vehicle as a “we can do this, don’t cancel the contract!”. at least D-IV-H is American…

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Laugh out loud. It took NO TIME for ULA to blame this on SpaceX.

      Really, this has nothing to do with Ukraine, sanctions, countersanctions, complacency on US space industry part to rely on Russia for critical national security assets etc.

      Its all SpaceX fault.

      • Bernardo de la Paz says:
        0
        0

        Well, it certainly couldn’t have had anything to do with the court granting an injunction against importing RD-180’s, could it…

        Of course it’s not all SpaceX’s fault, but they certainly had a part in it. I expect this is what posters in previous threads meant by getting more than they bargained for – their requested injunction has now helped to trigger a scenario that may go so far as to wipe out their primary market.

      • moon_bucket says:
        0
        0

        We pay them $1 billion a year to have top men prepare blame for SpaceX. Assured access to whining.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Falcon Heavy

  8. evilsandmich says:
    0
    0

    …using Russian-made rocket engines, which the US has used to deliver its military satellites into orbit
    —-
    Boy that’s some brilliant strategic thinking there. Do they use Chinese rocket components as well?

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      Err. Have you seen where the modern silicon chip foundries are being built?

  9. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Maybe the DOD has been paying the wrong party that 1 billion dollars a year for assured access.

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      ULA has 2 years supply of RD-180s. That assures access to space for 2 years.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        really? gosh I must have missed that in 20 articles I have read on it.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          Obviously did not understand it then. Contractual requirement kept because access has been successfully assured.

          Now we need to deal with the third year.

  10. Tombomb123 says:
    0
    0

    “Russians may be doing us a favor, and cutting off their nose to spite their face” NO the us government did by imposing these silly sanctions and the us government’s involvement in Ukrainian elections directly cause what’s now happening in Ukraine.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      And the Russians taking over eastern Ukraine and their phony elections there don’t have anything to do with it?

      • korichneveygigant says:
        0
        0

        I have posted this before, but here we go. Putin took Crimea in order to keep its Military assets (read Sevastopol) from an unknown entity, possibly puppet government installed by a coup. The rest of the pro-Russian part of Ukraine understands that if they were also in Russia they could be getting better benefits and wages. If I remember right, the retirement pensions in Russia are many times higher than in Ukraine.

        This is not to even mention that a president that was legally elected was chased out of the country and never legally removed.

        Lets say the same thing happened to the US, I’m willing to bet there would be plenty of angry people here clamoring for leaving the US. Its not a black and white world, certainly not a bad guys versus good guys. The cold war view of the evil Russians has grown old and really doesnt apply.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          chased out of the country and never legally removed

          I’ve been wondering this for a while now. I found:

          “A majority of 328 lawmakers of the 450-seat parliament voted on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from power”

          “However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada — i.e., 338 lawmakers.”

          http://www.rferl.org/conten

      • Tombomb123 says:
        0
        0

        john I didn’t say that the Russian’s didn’t meddle but the us government definitively did. https://www.youtube.com/wat

        http://www.informationclear

  11. dbooker says:
    0
    0

    Since Aerojet has a 2 year supply of engines there is no immediate impact. At least I assume so. Anyone down in Florida see any Migs flying toward Launch pad SLC-41?

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      There were pointed comments made about ‘maintenance’. It’s possible that the stockpiled engines are not in flyable condition and need Russian technicians to get them into that state. If so, then they are worthless.

  12. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Not surprising at all. Interesting point I didn’t know — we are not only dependent on Russia for future engines, but apparently also dependent on them for “routine maintenance” of stockpiled engines. Hmph. This keeps up and there’s gonna be a large stockpile of recyclable metal soon, paid for in dearest tax dollars.

    What intrigues me the most is how this will affect any future cooperative endeavors.. we may be going it alone again, folks — just like the 60/70’s. Whether that’s a bad thing or good thing, time and budget will tell. All those satellites up there giving us Cable, GPS, Phone, Internet Services are not gonna last forever.

    Hope someone(s) in DC starts realizing this.

  13. OpenTrackRacer says:
    0
    0

    This is not official policy. This is bluster from “Mr. Trampoline” Rogozin. The facts are that Russia needs the cash they get from RD-180 sales and Soyuz seats. Because of that, don’t expect the status quo to change.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      No the cash is small change. Russia can simply add a few roubles to the gas supply to Eastern Europe and make up the difference. It’s all about politics.
      Cheers.

      • OpenTrackRacer says:
        0
        0

        That’s not true. Hard cash is king in Russia. Most of their budget is based on oil and gas exports. Those are going to get squeezed with Europe seeking to develop new supplies and sources. Russia’s economy is a one trick pony right now and that makes them very vulnerable.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          I agree, hard cash is king however NPO Energomash have previously stated that they are selling below cost (don’t know the reason) and you should check the relative revenue streams provided by the engine sales vis a vis gas sales to Europe. I was discussing relativities and even if you want to compare absolute amounts, the engine sales hardly make a dent which is why the Russians don’t really care if they sell engines or not.

  14. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    The manure has impacted the ventilator…

  15. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    Now where is that “rockofritters” poster at? ULA executives must be popping Xanax right now, like it is going out of style. Meanwhile, Elon Musk and SpaceX should be entitled to a nice slice of schadenfreude…but I don’t think that is their style. Besides, they are too busy testing and flying, and finishing development on the Falcon Heavy.

    Even if it turns out that this reported ban and supply cut-off is not actually enforced or maintained by Russia, it should serve as a much needed wake-up-call to Congress, US Govt. officials and policy makers.

    I agree with the previous comments by Dave Huntsman, Dennis Wingo and others. This latest move by Putin could very well back-fire. In a perfect world, this should spur the US Govt / DOD / NASA to initiate a crash program to develop, certify and produce an alternative engine AS WELL AS a re-focused, re-energized commitment (and funding) for commercial space launch systems. In the short term, CCiCap needs special attention and TLC. Alas, this is far from a perfect world, and we are talking about the US Congress, here.

    Also, as already mentioned, design/development doesn’t need to start from scratch. We have the F-1(A). I refuse to believe, in this day an age of advanced computer modeling and optimization, casting and material fabrication, and break-through additive manufacturing techniques, that a re-purposed F-1(A) could not be streamlined and optimized to greatly reduce manufacturing cost, without sacrificing reliability and performance.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Wrt your last paragraph, it Congress decide to fast-track an RD-180 replacement then cost is going to be, as usual, way down on the requirements list. What will be important will be maximising the cost of each unit therefore maximising the number of parts and jobs required. Of course irrespective of the urgency, we’ll need to ensure that this takes as long as possible as well.
      Cheers.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        If only someone could turn it into a COTS-style multi-vendor challenge to build RD-180-class engines, rather than pay ULA/Aerojet to copy the actual RD-180.

        Two or three entirely new engine families all for the cost of developing RD-180-USA. Snatching competence from the jaws of stupidity.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Meanwhile, Elon Musk and SpaceX should be entitled to a nice slice of schadenfreude…

      I suspect they’ll be worried about Congress/et al using this to double-down on stupid, killing Commercial Crew/etc to “free up funding” and “end distractions” for SLS/Orion. Throwing even more money at ULA, and banning lawsuits against USAF/ULA purchases on National Security grounds. Perhaps even restricting SpaceX access to the Cape for commercial launches (to “assure access” for ULA/USAF payloads.)

      Everyone crowing on behalf of SpaceX is assuming that TPTB will react sensibly to this threat, but that assumes that these are people who put the US national interest ahead of their own narrow agendas. And if they were capable of that, you wouldn’t be in this mess.

  16. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    From May 9th: “Injunction Barring Russian Engine Payments Lifted”
    — Joint ULA & USAF response: Whew! We sure dodged THAT bullet!

    Now – May 13th: “Russia Shuts Off Rocket Engine Supply, . . . ”
    — ULA & USAF: Whaa?? Hey, where’d that AK-47 bullet come from?

    This is an even more substantial migraine to ULA & AF, over that injunction one; because there is no way in Stalin’s Sweet Siberia that, of all groups, a giga-buck capitalist corporation plus an arm of the US Military, is going to be able to legally or lobby-wise kow-tow a Russian Fuhrer and his USSR-nostalgic fan-base from doing whatever they want.

    Russia had Hitler’s Nazi dance-troupe goose-stomp over a quarter of the country; don’t you think they’ll use that as a measuring stick, to show how ridiculous our little econo-sanction gnat-bites are (let alone any corporate lawyers trying to file protests or litigations)?

  17. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX is not the only organisation with experience in designing new engines. The Lunar Lander Centennial Challenge entrants had to design their own engines.

    One of these companies may be willing to accept say a 4 year contract at $40 million a year to design a replacement for the 860,568 lbf (3.83 MN) surface force RD-180 rocket engine.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      The scalar difference between a small lander MPS and a near-Mlbf main engine is so great as to require a lot more than four years for these organisations.

      No, it’s just SpaceX and Aerojet/PWR at the moment.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        It’s kind of a shame then that Aerojet and PWR are the same company now.

        • Ben Russell-Gough says:
          0
          0

          Yeah, I was trying to communicate that by writing “Aerojet/PWR”, mostly because I don’t know what the combined company is called.

          Additionally, a correction to my previous post. Apparently TWR have a hydrolox core engine in the 650klbf range called the TW-106 that got as far as ground tests; TWR, if they’re still extant, might have the equipment and know-how to build something in the RD-180s performance bracket.

  18. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    BTW.. does Russia consider the NRO to be military? There is a scheduled Atlas V flight in the next week or so…

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      Oh yes, there is no question that Russia (and everyone else) would consider the NRO to be “military”…in the sense that it is a critical National Security agency that is overseen by the Dept. of Defense.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      Obama could do what Putin has done regarding not invading the Ukraine and just say the engines won’t be used for military launches.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, the military payloads are just there to provide “security” for the rocket engines.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Escalating BS, nice. I think Putin has the upper hand there, geez. What a BS machine.

  19. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    ULA executives are popping Xanax like it is going out of style.

    …meanwhile, Elon Musk and SpaceX should be helping themselves to a tasty slice of schadenfreude pie. Nahhh…that is not their style. Besides, they are too busy testing and flying, and completing development of their Falcon Heavy.

    Even if this threatened embargo/supply cut-off is not enforced or maintained by Russia, this should be a much deserved wake-up-call to Congress, DOD and US govt. space policy-makers.

    Hopefully Congress recognizes the critical importance of supporting a robust private (commercial) sector-based space launch capability. As far as CCiCAP goes…I am curious as to how this RD-180 situation will affect Boeing and SNC. I believe their crewed vehicle solutions currently are based around the Atlas V launcher. SpaceX is obviously in an ideal position…and they deserve it, IMHO.

    I agree with Dennis Wingo’s comments regarding the perplexing non-interest in developing the F-1(A). I find it hard to believe that in this age of advanced computational design and optimization software, advanced metallurgical casting and composite materials fabrication technology, and cutting-edge additive manufacturing techniques…that a simplified, streamlined F-1 engine cannot be designed and produced which dramatically reduces manufacturing costs, without sacrificing reliability and performance.

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      The above post that I am replying to is a “first draft” and accidental duplication of my earlier post (below). I tried deleting this, but it has since reappeared here under “Guest”. Keith or site mod, please delete at your convenience. Thanks.

  20. Lowell James says:
    0
    0

    Seems to serve the US right.

    For the last many years, DOD, NASA, and the contractors have been trying to cut corners, shut down US manufacturing and R&D, and they have caused a lot of damage. You really have to wonder where our CIA and other agencies are to tell the government that they are being stupid by letting our “recent friends”, like the Russians and Chinese, and our “traditional friends”, like the Japanese, Germans and Italians, build our hardware for us. By the time they are done we have no indigenous capability remaining.

    Maybe the rocket engine situation and the ISS situation will be eye openers?

  21. moon_bucket says:
    0
    0

    ULA is blaming SpaceX for ULA’s own bad planning coupled with geopolitical problems? Way for the suits to dodge their own responsibility I suppose

  22. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    ULA is blaming Elon and SpaceX for the ugliness in Ukraine ? That’s a stretch…

    Doesn’t matter much . We have two years’ worth of RD-180’s in the warehouse for all launches, inlcuding mlitary . That’s just about enough time to cancel a few F35’s or an aircraft carrier and use the money to tool up our own RD-180 factory and build the engine domestically. Take your license and shove it, AMROSS….we have the blueprints you gave us. And while we’re at it, maybe jig up for a rejuvenated RS-84 , our American kerosene big block engine, which is not all that different from an RD-180, except it’s more powerful.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Hah! There’s a lot of daylight between paper and flying hardware and certainly more than 2 years. Not only do you have to design and build the engine but you have to design and build the equipment that’s going to build the engine and train a workforce.

      • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
        0
        0

        Engine already designed. Blueprints in hand. Engine already reverse engineered. The RD-180 has been licensed to be built in US. since 2008, We can do this, we just haven’t. Tooling up an assembly line is straightforward. ELon built his engine line froms cratch using a retired Toyota car plant. Aerojey-Rocketdyne-pratt & Whitney are all one company now…surely they have some heavy industrial equipment between them , surplus even . After all, when Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing, they were tooling up to build the RS-84 engine for Constellation , which is based on the very same Russian tech used in the RD-180 but scaled up to 1 .1 million pounds thrust. Of course we can build the RD-180 here or something better, and two years is just about right to tool up. It’s really not NASA or the Air Force that’s holding us back…it’s the contractors love of money and those cheap Russian engines. Those days are now gone. Time to step up.

        • OpenTrackRacer says:
          0
          0

          Pratt and Whitney does not have any stake in Aerojet-Rocketdyne.

          The RD-180 is far more complex than the Merlin and tooling up a factory and producing reliable engines will be far from simple or quick (or cheap for that matter).

          If a new engine needs to be build, ULA should be the one funding it, not the government.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Pardon me but I stand by my previous comment having been involved in trying to copy someone else’s high tech’ product. It’ll be 4-5 years minimum.
          John Snow, you know nothing!

  23. Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
    0
    0

    We should have seen this coming back when the Russians invaded and annexed Crimea. I don’t think that NASA can do business as usual with Moscow anymore – and I don’t think the current crisis in Ukraine has reached its climax yet. I look at Russian military affairs as part of my job as a university lecturer in international relations and strategic studies, and my assessment is that if the Russians do annexe more Ukrainian territory – either by recognising the recent stage-managed ‘separatist referendums’ in Donetsk and Luhansk, and sending in ‘peacekeepers’, or simply by invading and occupying swaths of Ukrainian territory – then I think the crisis between Russia and West will get far worse. Even if they don’t, the damage is already done, and is long-lasting, and the peaceful post-Cold War interregnum is over. We should not kid ourselves that somehow, things will get back to the status-quo ante – they simply wont. This is going to take years, or maybe decades, before US-Russian relations recover, and honestly, I don’t think Ukraine is last on the list of what Putin is looking at (threats by Moscow to Moldova last week I think are more than idle, and the Baltic states have good reason to be worried), and I don’t think Putin really cares about reparing relations with the West. He has an entirely different agenda and a different world-view to Obama, or other Western leaders. So we are looking at the end of post-Cold War strategic cooperation with Russia, and the potential for an extended period of confrontation and competition – call it a new Cold War, or something else – but that’s it. That’s the future.

    What it means for US Space and NASA is that it could actually be a blessing in disguise. Firstly the US now has an opportunity and a real justification to end its dependence on Russian space technology – something that should not have gone on as long as it has in any case – and start rebuilding its own sovereign space launch capabilities. There is ample discussion and debate on the technical and commercial aspects of that on this site, and on other space-related sites, so I won’t repeat all that. You all know it backwards. My interest is in the higher-level policy dimension for the US and its partners in Space.

    The high-level policy goal now of the US Government should be to end further dependence on Russia to gain access to Space in every respect, and accordingly, fully fund commercial space access programs to make US independence in Space access happen as soon as is safe and practicable. Achieving that policy goal will demand an effective strategy for US Space Policy – something completely lacking at the moment because of a lack of leadership and interest at the top, and lack of funding. Both of those mistakes need to be corrected urgently, whether by Obama’s Administration, or whichever Administration follows in 2016.That demands money, achievable and practical objectives, and the means to make it happen. It may mean killing some sacred cows (‘SLS’) to make more agile, flexible and responsive space access for manned space-flight, as well as satellite launch, and greater investment in new space technology to make space more cost effective. Greater dependence on commercial launch providers is essential – but they have to be 100% US and able to produce all the hardware to launch locally. The ISS should be sustained beyond 2020 but primarily as a stepping stone for deeper space-exploration. The US should certainly not permit Russia (or any other space power working with Russia) to challenge US access to the ISS. Its time to urgently fund both commerical human-rated launchers, and commercially provided space-station module providers, such as Bigelow, so that a post Russian ISS future can be developed, and the station – in one form or another – can be sustained beyond 2024.

    There also needs to be a solid policy justification for seizing the current crisis and fundamentally changing policy direction on Space to end dependence on Russia, and go back to a US-sourced space capability. That justification should also include a proper debate on just what it is the US is going to do with human space exploration beyond the ISS – a debate that is not happening very effectively at the moment. Why are we in Space in the first place? We’ll always be doing satellite launching, for commercial, scientific or national security purposes – that’s a given. But human spaceflight needs greater justification and purpose.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m a strong supporter of human spaceflight and space exploration. I want to see humans back on the Moon and on Mars, and eventually beyond, as soon as possible. But in the current climate of fiscal austerity and now international crisis, there needs to be a firm justification built on an achievable policy goal via a credible strategy for retaining US space leadership.

    One final point that goes back to my ‘blessing in disguise’ argument. If indeed we are headed into the ‘bad old days’ of tensions with the Russians – and add to that an assertive and rising China – then the 21st Century could see a second ‘Space Race’ that makes the first of the 1960s and 1970s seem small scale by comparison. If national security, and national interest, are under challenge on the highest ground by our future adversaries – the money will be there. Plan for that!

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      We should have seen this coming back when the Russians invaded and annexed Crimea.

      No, we should have seen this coming when the Russians invaded and annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Or even when the Russians poisoned Yushchenko.

      The US, and USAF/NASA, has had at least six years, and possible a full decade to prepare for this.

      • Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
        0
        0

        Yes – I’d go along with that. But people were all starry eyed about the supposed peaceful post-Cold War era in the 1990s and early 2000s, and refused even consider that Russia could return as a threat to Western security. More fundamentally, many decision-makers in the West made the erroneous assumption that use of military force to aggressively challenge a ‘rules-based international order’ would never happen – at least not in Europe. The mindless refrain of ‘…the Cold War is over’ as a retort to anyone who challenged this comfortable and rosy view of the international security environment ignored Russian strategic culture and strategic perceptions. Now the international community is scrambling to respond when their assumptions about how the world really works are shattered. Our reliance on Russia to ensure US access to Space is part of a fundamental mistake of failing to understand or recognise changing security dynamics until its too late.

    • OpenTrackRacer says:
      0
      0

      Some very good points. Relations between the west and Russia will certainly be different from now on. However, don’t expect a Cold War Part 2. Russia is not the Soviet Union. They cannot effectively project power and can really only hassle and influence their immediate (and weaker) neighbors. Putin may long for the glory days when Russia was powerful and “Respected” but he’s a fool if he thinks those days will come again.

  24. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    Official ULA Company statement —

    “If recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that [Space Exploration Technology’s] SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station.”

    I don’t know what is more pathetic…ULA’s school-yard finger pointing, or the fact that the Federal Govt. allowed this situation to exist in the first place. So much for the 10 U.S. Code § 2273 – “Policy regarding assured access to space: national security payloads”:

    ———————–

    (a) POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States for the President to undertake actions appropriate to ensure, to the maximum extent
    practicable, that the United States has the capabilities necessary to launch and insert United States national security payloads into space
    whenever such payloads are needed in space.

    (b) INCLUDED ACTIONS.—The appropriate actions referred to in subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, providing resources and policy guidance to sustain—
    (1) the availability of at least two space launch vehicles (or families of space launch vehicles) capable of delivering into space any payload designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence as a national security payload; and
    (2) a robust space launch infrastructure and industrial base.

    ———————–

    I believe this situation calls for a Double Face-Palm,

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Um… How is this supposed to be SpaceX’s fault? ULA are either in denial or the mid-levels are frightened to tell the top-levels what is happening.

  25. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    No more ISS? Good. Very good. Very, very good. Now the SLS can afford it’s cargo, considering NASA won’t have a $3 billion a year anchor tied to it. So much for that argument against it.

    I’m exceedingly happy about this news. The sooner the ISS can be deorbited and the manned space program oriented around the SLS and Falcon with an eye towards Mars, the better. The ISS is yesterdays destination and we need to start treating it like that. It doesn’t have any practical value in a world with the SLS or Faclon anymore than the the Atlas V has any purpose in a world with a resuable Faclon.

    2020 can’t come soon enough.

    • Oscar_Femur says:
      0
      0

      Why do you assume the ISS ops budget would be diverted to other NASA programs instead of social spending?

      • Jonna31 says:
        0
        0

        I assume that Congressmen and Senators will protect the money going to their districts in some form, and judging by how the SLS is their creation, I see the two going hand in hand quite well.

        But even if it didn’t happen and was directed to social spending, I’d be fine with it. The ISS is not a space program worth supporting. What are we doing in orbit. Spending $3 billion on 3rd and 4th rate science? It never should have been extended past 2018. Now it ends in 2020. Close enough.

        Sorry, my tax dollars aren’t worth keeping Americans in orbit to do marginally important rack-based science. BEO or nothing. No more compromise.

        You know what compromise got us? 20 years of really slick people people telling us how the Russians are our friends, how our partnership in space is in our mutual interests and represents a new age for peaceful international cooperation… etc. etc. etc. In the end, a lot of worthless platitudes, empty promises and broken dreams.

        So no. No deals. No middle ground. The ISS is deorbited and we go beyond it’s many limitations. Or we do nothing. I’m fine with either. But the folks who wanted to keep cooperating with Vladmir Putin’s Russia should not have much say in whatever we do going forward. Clearly, they don’t have much in the way of good judgement.

  26. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    I have said this before…this is what happens when you put all of your eggs into one basket.

  27. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    ARM chips are used in mobile phones.

  28. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Another aspect of all this is how the timetable for Commercial Crew will need to be accelerated. If we (USA) are going to be without the RD-180 services, escalation of tensions can also see us soon being w/o Soyuz services — not just for getting there and back, but potentially for lifeboat services. This puts NASA in a position not seen before — putting an *untested* lifeboat into use at the ISS before testing is complete to make sure it can stay without degrading.

    Although Dragon, CST-100, and Dream Chaser are being designed to stay at the station for long periods of time to serve as lifeboats, the loss of Soyuz services means we need to get these craft up sooner than probably possible to test and verify that they can stay, or take the risk. Taking risks like that has not been NASA’s flavor as of late.

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      The fastest way of getting the Commercial Crew craft flying is to stick to the planned program. Do not let anyone add anything to it to ‘speed it up’ because they will slow it down.

      Extra meetings take time so they slow things down. Replanning takes time so it slows things down. No extra documents reporting what is going on because they take time to write, slowing things down.

      What the politicians can do is ensure the money arrives on the appointed day. Anything that needs checking and agreeing is checked and agreed that week, not 6 months later. This applies to the whole bureaucracy.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        No, replanning won’t slow it down. You can do that concurrently with the existing program. In fact that’s exactly how the whole program is being delivered – stages.
        AAMOF urgent meetings with the CC companies were held when this issue first raised it’s ugly head.
        Don’t know the outcome but a guess would be ‘ how do we get flying faster’.
        Of course, that’s just one issue. There’s also the reliance on Progress for providing propulsion for altitude adjustments on the station. That’s probably a bigger issue. Dragon doesn’t have the capability and nothing else does either at this point.
        Cheers.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          The managers have to stop managing to replan. This will involve them flying to Washington D.C. to get authorisation from Members of Congress for the new plan.

          It is almost certainly possible to speed up the testing but not with all those politicians in the approval loop.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Members of Congress don’t authorise the CCiCap Program internal plans. Where did you get that notion from and if you have evidence please provide since it’s something I’ve never seen or heard of before.
            Cheers.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            What do think Senator Shelby is going to do with the extra information about Commercial Crew and Cargo he wants?

            http://www.appropriations.s

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      I agree with you, Jeff. However, I wonder if this RD-180 supply cut-off might throw a monkey wrench on Boeing and SNC’s plans for their CST-100 and Dream Chaser, respectively. Unless I am mistaken, they both are currently designed around using the Atlas V as their launch vehicle. Maybe someone here could chime in, and explain if this is a potential problem…or if it wouldn’t be a big deal for them to re-configure their crewed vehicles to launch on a Delta IV.

  29. KeCo says:
    0
    0

    I thought private companies were the future – are you saying they can’t stand on their own without being propped up by gov’t funding?

    What about Blue Origin? Didn’t they just lose launch pad 39A to Space-X?

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      There are more than just 2, that’s the point he had bringing up Blue Origin. I count 4 – SpaceX, Orbital, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada.

      • KeCo says:
        0
        0

        My point is that Blue Origins hasn’t really done much lately. There were brashly predicting weekly flights by 2010 but somehow can’t even keep their website up to date (last update was 2 years ago)

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Ok. I haven’t looked in a while but they don’t really put much on their website or announce much publicly from what I’ve seen. I wouldn’t say they’re not doing much unless you know something else.

  30. Chuang K. says:
    0
    0

    In the case of the RD-180, how is stopping sales of an overwhelmingly military-use engine cutting off your nose? I’m surprised Roskosmos didn’t consider this earlier. They’ll learn not to be so dependent on American cash and we’ll learn to be less dependent on their engines.

  31. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Yeah I was curious enough myself to look.