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

Rep. Rogers Hates Everything Russian – Except Russian Rocket Engines

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 22, 2015
Filed under , , ,
Rep. Rogers Hates Everything Russian – Except Russian Rocket Engines

There is a markup session tomorrow at 12:00 pm EDT with the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Markup. It certainly looks like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is trying to slip in language that would allow more Russian-built RD-180 engines to be purchased using tax dollars at the same time when Rogers is (otherwise) actively promoting policies that would punish the exact same sector of Russia’s economy for actions in Ukraine and Iran, treaty violations, and other bad behavior.

Let’s examine Rep. Rogers and his stance on all things Russian. In a joint 23 October 2013 letter with Rep. Lehtinen, Rep. Rogers notes: “The (Obama) administration can’t let Russia continue playing both sides against the U.S. and its allies. Selling Iran these weapons only increases Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapons capability and complicates efforts by the U.S. and its allies to prevent the world’s most dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of the fanatics in charge of the world’s most active terrorist state.” That’s pretty blunt and to the point.
In 2014 Rogers said “Mr. Chairman, when will we learn that we cannot respond to Russian aggression with concession? Putin responded, as he always does, by taking our concession and having his shock troops in Ukraine shoot down this airplane. We cannot continue like this. We cannot continue to ignore Russian cheating when it comes to our treaties. We cannot continue to allow Russia to misuse arms control treaties, like the Open Skies treaty. We cannot continue to allow Russia to foment violence on NATO’s borders. We cannot continue to ignore the concerns of our military and other national security agencies just to make Russia feel good.” No mincing of words here either.
Then there’s Rogers’ take on on Putin himself in an official press release in January 2015: “You don’t deal with a thug like Vladimir Putin by asking nicely. He breaks treaties, he invades countries and then stations his nuclear forces on their soil, and he cozies up to terrorist regimes like Assad’s, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and the mullahs in Tehran. What’s next? Who’s next? Concessions on missile defense and arms control only emboldened the former KGB officer.” Got it. Rogers doesn’t like Putin’s Russia.
As such, you’d think that Rep. Rogers would do anything within his means to keep money from flowing to Russia i.e. Putin – for any reason. Indeed Rogers has done that – but not when it comes to Russia’s RD-180 rocket engine. Russia, of course, enjoys selling its engines to the U.S. since the funds go right back to the Russian government.
But back to punishing Russia: things change for Rep. Rogers when it comes to Russian rocket engines – even as Russia ignores one missile treaty stipulation after another. If you read this proposed HR 1735 (“FY 16 National Defense Authorization Bill”) language for tomorrow’s mark-up session (See section 16xx) you’ll see language that Rogers inserted that proposes changes to the RD-180 legislation that would effectively eliminate the existing national security waiver and allow purchase of all Russian engines “under contract”.
The total value of ULA’s contract with RD-Amross (the mysterious intermediary brokering company who takes bags of money for Russian the engines on behalf of state-owned NPO Energomash) is valued at $680 million. This contract value was reduced by the earlier limitation on using Russian engines passed last year. Rogers’ new legislative wording would permit over $200 million in tax dollars to continue to finance the Russian missile industrial sector run by the same Putin that Rogers otherwise hates so much. Moreover, instead of prompting domestic alternatives to the RD-180, Rogers seeks to perpetuate our dependence on Russia for an even greater period of time – all while supporting the exact same portion of Russia’s economy that Rogers has been so vehemently gone on the record as being against.
Confused yet?

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

33 responses to “Rep. Rogers Hates Everything Russian – Except Russian Rocket Engines”

  1. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    I think he is against things that threaten the US. I would think that purchasing the Russian engines which not doing so would put the US military at a disadvantage. Russia selling Iran missiles (in addition to a nuclear reactor) has the potential to increase the threat against the US and its allies. Russia taking over land from an ally (Ukraine) would seem to be a threat.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      How is pumping tens of millions of dollars into the Russian government-controlled aerospace sector NOT a threat to the United States?

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        I would consider having defense and intelligence missions dependent on Russian engines a threat, especially given the current Russian leadership.

  2. pipersupercub says:
    0
    0

    This is probably in the best interest of our military strength. The whole RD-180 ban isn’t going to do anyone any good until ULA’s new launcher comes online or when SpaceX gets certified…both of which are taking forever.

  3. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    With all respect to pipersupercub and John Thomas, I can see the other side of this issue. By NOT giving the DOD and ULA relief, and disallowing the purchase of more RD180s, it puts enormous incentive, focus and priority upon all aspects of a USA-made replacement (including ULA’s engine partners as well as SpaceX). Now, it is not enough to just through money at a problem. However, there is nothing like lighting a fire under the collective asses of both the DOD and it’s industrial/commercial partners.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      There’s a difference between lighting a fire and pushing the unrealistic causing more money to be spent designing and building a non-Russian engine. The reason given for Roger’s modification is that the current bill would possibly allow only 5 engines over the next 3 years. A new engine would likely not be flight ready by then, potentially causing delays in national security payloads. Falcon Heavy could fill the void, but it has yet to fly and would need to be certified, likely a multi year process that could very well not be ready to fly at the proposed Atlas V flight rate for maybe 5 or more years. It’s not like Roger wants to keep a new engine from being designed and to buy Russian engines forever.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Assuming no bad events, the FH cert should be much quicker. More than the required 3 certifiable flights are already contracted. The current F9 cert only began in earnest 13 months ago and it should complete in a month. And since the DoD was roundly chastised by its own review for the slow-walk F9 cert process, the FH certification process should be much streamlined (which will benefit ULA when they have needs).
        In addition, 1/2 of the cert process was judging SpaceX’s design, production, and operational processes, not the tin.
        That is now in the record and will not need to be repeated. Lastly, the FH is composed of a cluster of mature, and soon to be certified, F9 hardware, making cert much easier.
        there is little reason to doubt that the FH will be DoD certified 2017 or 18 at the very latest.

        • Alex Grutter says:
          0
          0

          I have a lot of faith in SpaceX and the certification process but im also aware of the pace government officials are used to, and it is smart for them to assume they will need the delta line for as long as possible. Another interesting observation is that no one is complaining that the US and Russia are still working together on the space station. I believe space should be left out of international disputes. We need to focus on holding the current structure together while getting this commercial space industry off its feet.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “Space should be left out”
            Indeed. We screwed this up, in my view. As an Obama supporter I’ve criticized these bone-headed moves (among others in space policy).

            Space:peace::pingpong:peace so many years ago.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          As many like to point out, it was about 5 years after the first Atlas V flight before the first military flight, even though the Atlas II was already flying.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think the atlas V and II are a good analogy. Other than the Centaur upper stage the two rockets share almost nothing in design, material, or components. I don’t think the V is in any way an “Atlas” (not that I am dissing a super-capable, but pricey launcher). It should have been a “Cronos 1” or something. It is a totally different rocket.
            Another diference. It took the Atlas V 5 years to reach 9 flights (the 1st DoD mission). F9 v1.1 did that in less than a year and a half, (actually 12 flights and another next week). And this included LEO, GTO, and cis-lunar launches, including a USAF purchased launch).
            The FH (like the Delta Heavy) clusters F9s and will have at least 5 missions (including a DoD EELV launch next April) before the new law kicks in.

            Lastly, the Delta IV Heavy flew a DoD payload on its second flight, even though the 1st flight was bad.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        I for one, am willing to allow the RD-180 to continue to be imported as long as there is completely open and unsubsidized competition for every launch. This would push the RD-180 into only higher-end Atlases, greatly limiting demand (maybe to the available stockpile?), and dropping to zero when FH is certified. The problem would heal itself.
        Altho it makes me gag to give Russia 1 penny.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          I agree. I would make any extension contingent on funding for an alternate US engine. While FH is a viable alternative, you still need a second source to reduce risk should FH encounter problems.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          The RD-180 is less expensive than a US equivalent, which was the original motivation for using it. If ULA purchased them directly from Energomash rather than using RD-Amross as a middleman, further money could be saved. The original EELV proposal included a US second source, although this was never implemented. AFAIK importation of the RD-180 for non-DOD missions can legally continue as long as Russia is willing to sell them.

          I am not sure funding for a US replacement is required from Congress. It appears ULA can self-finance development of the BE-4 and the new methane-fueled Atlas. For Congress to enter the game with requirements influenced by lobbyists seems an unneeded complication. Congress should require DOD/ETR to accelerate the certification process and/or accept FAA certification.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I have noted that the USAF has politely asked to be left out of this.
            As you point out Vulcan/BE-4 and Falcon/Merlin and Delta/RS-68, along with conserving Atlas/RD-180s for launches that need them, should suffice.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Both Falcon and Vulcan have heavy-lift variants that can replace the Delta Heavy. I think the ULA assessment of the cost of Delta IV is accurate; it is no longer cost competitive. No one can afford to build or maintain an LV that cannot compete for customers.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        The whole point of having two EELVs was supposed to be for redundancy. ULA planning on shutting down Delta in favor of Atlas seems… misguided. Is this because of money (fixed price core contracts wouldn’t pay more for a Delta core being substituted for an Atlas core?) or what? Because the logical choice would seem to be to shut down Atlas (no more engines) and keep flying Delta until Vulcan is flying.

  4. Alex Grutter says:
    0
    0

    I watched the last armed services committee on “assured access to space” and the problem is they have to keep the rd180s to assure access because the delta4 heavy would have its price soar because of incoming competition from SpaceX. ULA is a joint company of the two companies, Lockheed and Boeing, which receive 70-80% of contractor appropriated funds from the US budget. They have deep roots within the government, and I assume many friends. I was impressed by Rep. Rogers’ excitement towards SpaceX’s entry into the competition, as he is well aware of the money that has been wasted by the lack of competition. On the bright side, ULA has stepped up their game and tightened their belt straps and put on their game face for competition. Rep. Rogers asked both the representatives from ULA and SpaceX, “Are you able to compete?” Both answered with an excited passion.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      ULA has said that when the Delta family drop to just the D4 Heavy, its price will soar from $400-600 million to 800-1billion per launch.

  5. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I may be missing something, but last may, the Russian deputy prime minister said RD-180s purchased from Russian could.no longer be used for US military/national security launches. Admittedly, he’s low on my list of reliable sources of information, based on his past economy with the truth. But this seems to make US willingness to buy those engines a moot point.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Russia has never actually refused to supply RD-180s for any mission, and it’s tough to see how they can afford to cut off the supply of any export that brings in cash. Russia is still selling gas to Ukraine even though the two countries are at war.