Running Out Of Rockets
Before decade is out all US military satellites may be grounded, The Hill
“Today, the launch infrastructure of the United States National Security Space (NSS) — comprised of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Services and the Intelligence Community (IC) — is teetering on the edge of a gap in capability which, in less than five years, could mean no capacity to launch the bulk of critical national security missions for as long as ten years. We are close to retiring our existing fleet of launch vehicles without new ones to assure our access to space.”
Russia Threatens U.S. Space Program, CNN
“The short-term goal should be to transition to existing American-manufactured launch vehicles, as opposed to phasing out systems such as the Delta IV, which continue to provide critical capability. In the long term, next-generation development programs should not involve major Russian subsystems and components.”
What a load of horse manure.
First of all, the law restricting the Russian engines has a waiver built in that the Sec of Def may exercise as needed.
(b) Waiver.–The Secretary may waive the prohibition under
subsection (a) with respect to a contract for the procurement of
property or services for space launch activities if the Secretary
determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days before the waiver takes effect, that–
(1) the waiver is necessary for the national security interests
of the United States; and
(2) the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price
without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the
Russian Federation.
Clause 2 is what this is all about. With SpaceX certified, then ULA can’t cry that there won’t be any launchers available.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 is due to be certified in 1 month. It replaces most Atlas V and Delta IV launches.
The Delta IV Heavy is not slated for shutdown and can handle any launches that F9 cannot.
“the critical new ‘heavy’ version doesn’t even exist yet.”
Bull. It is ready. The launch site in Florida is being upgraded to handle it and is scheduled for completion in the Fall, with the launch soon after.
The Falcon Heavy should be certified by 2017, obsoleting the Delta IV heavy
It has twice the payload capacity at 1/3 the cost, and is reusable and human flight rated.
We can’t say that Falcon Heavy is ready until it flies and demonstrates it’s ready. Don’t put the cart ahead of the horse.
let me provide a more nuanced statement..
“the critical new ‘heavy’ version doesn’t even exist yet.”
Bull. “doesn’t even exist yet.”? Well you could walk right into the SpaceX factory and rap you knuckles on the very hardware waiting to be launched. This is not vaporware like the ULA Vulcan.
The launch site in Florida is being upgraded to handle it and is scheduled for completion in the Fall, with the launch soon after.
The Falcon Heavy should be certified by 2017-18, providing an all-American alternative the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V X3X+ (and the Vulcan)
The Falcon 9 can’t launch all payloads that the Atlas V can. Still, a waiver could still be submitted.
Exactly,
but in any case, if all goes well, the Falcon Heavy will be certified also by the drop dead date and between the two (or an FH alone – it still cheaper than the Atlas) all DoD payloads are covered.
So, with the pricy Delta, or the Falcons, or the waiver, conserving RD-180 to needed launches only, or some combo, there is no justification for the scare-mongering in that “article”.
Seems our cronies in power, Congress, Senate, Air force, ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martian would rather send more money to Putin and his cronies than to SpaceX.
Mr. Putin, Please please give us more engines, we’ll send you more money for your little cottages.
And the fear is what? We’ll become dependent on SpaceX instead of the Russkis? Strange fear.
Hard to recall an op-ed containing more misinformation, by commission and omission, than this one. A quick fact-check would have caused this item to be spiked; obviously it wasn’t fact-checked. The Hill must be desperate to fill space if it’s printing trash like this.
Why would you think that the former: “…president of Lockheed Martin’s International Launch Services company.” isn’t a totally unbiased source??
Gee, that’s a tough one, Yale. 🙂
Either that or its editorial staff don’t have the minimal knowledge required to fact-check a space policy article. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.
This is a silly story, devoid of facts and doubtless intended for Fox News.
Um… there is Falcon-9, which doesn’t use Russian engines. Then there’s Vulcan, which is planned to use all US engines too and should be flying by the end of the decade.
The Falcon 9 can’t launch all of the payloads that the Atlas V can. Falcon heavy and Vulcan are primarily paper designs.
Falcon Heavy is not a paper design. The parts of the rocket exist now. They are in the factory. The sections have flown separately. There are hours of flight experience with the engines. One launch site is already prepared (Vandy) another is well on its way to completion (39A). What is ‘primarily paper’ about that?
The F9 can handle the majority of payloads for the Atlas V.
The FH is not a paper design. It is actual rocket hardware waiting in the factory for pad 39a to finish renovations in the Fall so it can fly.
It hasn’t flown one flight yet.
That is correct. But recall your comment:
“Falcon heavy and Vulcan are primarily paper designs.“
While only partially true for the Vulcan (actual hardware for the 1st stage engine is being tested and the upper stage Centaur is in production), it is totally untru for the FH. It is not paper. It is hardware being prepped for launch.
View of various Falcon cores under assembly:
http://www.spacex.com/sites…
Falcon Heavy is clearly much closer to first flight than Vulcan. If the hardware for the first Falcon Heavy hasn’t been built yet, it soon will be.
Vulcan, on the other hand, has yet to be developed. While some pieces exist and have flown in the past (like the Centaur upper stage), other parts clearly do not exist and have yet to be designed, let alone built and flown. The BE-4 engines for the first stage, for example, aren’t fully developed yet (ULA anticipates it will be ready for flight in 2017, according to a PDF on their website).
The hardware for FH Demo mission is on the factory floor.
I’d say Vulcan should fly by the end of ‘a’ decade, rather than ‘this’ decade. Five years is a very aggressive timeline, especially with the engine coming from a manufacturer (BO) that has never flown anything into space.
I have not seen the first stage separate into 3 parts yet so I would put the Falcon Heavy at TRL 5.
Now that we have a treaty maybe the military could buy some Iranian rocket engines. If we finally make peace with North Korea, there’s another source of launch services. /sarcasm
Why you typed sarcasm. If they believe you more the fun, their problem 🙂