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

Russian Engine Drama Continues

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 7, 2014
Filed under ,

U.S. Government Files for Dissolution of Injunction Against Payments to Russia, SpacePolicyOnline
“The United States Government filed a request with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims late yesterday asking the court to dissolve its injunction against the government or United Launch Alliance (ULA) from making payments to Russia because it might violate sanctions imposed by President Obama against Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin. The court enjoined the Air Force and ULA from making payments to the Russian entity NPO Energomash for RD-180 engines, used for ULA’s Atlas V rocket, on April 30.”
SpaceX Gets Injunction Against Russian Rocket Engines, earlier post
Congressional Concerns Over Use of Russian Engines, earlier post
Earlier posts

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

23 responses to “Russian Engine Drama Continues”

  1. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    It’s little ole SpaceX versus the might of the U.S. military-industrial complex. The bases are loaded in favor of the latter, it sadly seems

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Yes they may seem that way but the weight of evidence will soon become overwhelming and what we are actually seeing is the demise of the old space-industrial complex. It’ll take a while for the politicians to realise that but hey, most of them don’t exist in the real world with us now do they?

  2. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    A hilarious video about the ULA drama

    https://www.youtube.com/wat

    • KeCo says:
      0
      0

      Eh. A weak attempt at humor i think. True the rocket industry does have some strange/wasteful practices thanks to politics, but really this is comparing apples to oranges.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        I agree. Not funny. I am a fan of what they are doing, but SpaceX needs to focus on the work. They have sooo much to do, they can’t afford sideshows like this. Let your actions and accomplishments speak for themselves.

        • KeCo says:
          0
          0

          To be fair – the video was not produced by Space-X. Not familiar with the group credited though.

        • Chris Clardy says:
          0
          0

          Not a SpaceX video. The video clearly shows a disclaimer stating that the producer is no way affiliated with SpaceX.

          • Skinny_Lu says:
            0
            0

            My bad. I jumped the gun. Again, I am the biggest fan of SpaceX so I am glad I was wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. I will be watching the launch next Saturday. Go Falcon 9!

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Why don’t you think they are doing that? Their next launch is this Saturday and currently on schedule. Do you really think that they’re concerned with a YouTube video? Get real. And their legal eagles are dealing with the Fed. court case.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        You know you’re right. I didn’t think of it that way however now that you mention it, SpaceX is well ahead of ULA in pretty much every aspect of their business with the exception of political encouragement 🙂

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        For once I agree with you Keith.
        ULA is only trying to apply the same principles that SpaceX has taken to extremes. COTS engines, COTS electronics, COTS …. .
        I also noticed that nowhere in the video can you see any of the manufacturing machine brands.

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      Knocking copy is a very risky form of advertising because it tends to bounce back at you.

  3. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    It’s a great video IMO. It has some humour (ok that’s not fantastic) but it does get the central message across regarding:
    1. Made in the U.S.
    2. Advanced manufacturing pracitces
    3. Wasteful business practices
    4. Pork politics
    5. Reusability as a reliability driver
    6. Reliability as a design driver
    SpaceX doesn’t have far to go before they will be returning a stage to land. Once they do that, the world’s their oyster.
    Why do you think that ESA is desperately trying to reduce the cost of their existing and next gen. boosters, ULA fighting tooth and nail via politics to preserve their monopoly position.
    We are witness to the most exciting developments in spaceflight since the shuttle and ISS.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      We are witnessing most exciting times ever save for setting the first human feet on the moon. Some of you a little younger than me will read on your cells that the first baby was born on another planet. That will happen in less than 58 years.

      • james w barnard says:
        0
        0

        Boeing and Ford had these trimotor passenger planes. IIRC, American Airlines asked Donald W. Douglas to design one like those. Instead Douglas came up with a twin-engine that was better than the competition. With some modifications the DC-3 made true commercial aviation feasible. SpaceX may do the same thing for space. Go SpaceX!

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        I remember that sitting in my primary school class watching it on black and white tv. God the memories. What happened or rather didn’t happen in the intervening decades?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        What happened?

        That’s why this non scientist started reading NASA Watch

        To try to find out why nothing happened.

        Only to find bright minds/lives being wasted on dead end programs like SLS/Orion.

  4. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Doug

    In the other Spacex thread you asked what a big mars lander would use as a heat shield.
    Have you ever Read Robert Zubrins case for Mars??

    Way back then there are diagrams of foldout shields

    Say Spacex was sending a lander/hab/return vehicle with the diameter of falcon 9 1.1.
    Just as F9r uses legs to help with spin control on mars it may fold out shields to increase surface area. The engines would be firing at the same time which shields the engines.

    Humm if your landing on mars maybe you want the diameter of your lander be very big.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      NASA’s own research suggests that a horizontal EDL vehicle would get more braking out of the atmospheric descent than a vertical one. However, that is assuming a single, fixed heat shield rather than the fold-out ‘umbrella’ that Dr Zubrin visualised.

      Recent work on inflatable TPS shields may change this equation somewhat in a few years time but, right now, that technology is in its infancy.

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Probably went the same way as ARMOR / Metallic TPS… I’ve been watching to see if anyone is gonna resurrect that idea from the VentureStar program.. glad I’m not holding my breath.