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

DoD Denies RD-180 Waiver For ULA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 10, 2015
Filed under , ,
DoD Denies RD-180 Waiver For ULA

Pentagon denies ULA waiver on Russian engines, Washington Post
“The Pentagon announced Friday that it would not grant the United Launch Alliance a waiver allowing it to bypass a congressional ban on Russian-made engines that the company has said it desperately needs to compete in the multibillion-dollar national security launch market. ULA, the joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing that had a monopoly on national security satellite launches for a decade, had pleaded with the Pentagon for a waiver that would allow it to use more RD-180 engines to power its Atlas V rocket. The company has four of the engines in its inventory that it could use for national security launches, ULA chief executive Tory Bruno recently told reporters. But he said ULA needs at least 14 to compete to launch national security payloads, such as spy and communications satellites, before it is able to use a new, American-made engine it is developing with Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)”
SpaceX raps ULA bid to get U.S. waiver for Russian engines, Reuters
“Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, has slammed a bid by United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co, to get a waiver from a U.S. ban on Russian rocket engines for military use. Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of Tesla Motors and chief executive of SpaceX, told Defense Secretary Ash Carter that federal law already allowed ULA to use “a substantial number” of engines. ULA’s threat to skip an upcoming Air Force competition to launch a GSP satellite unless it got a waiver was “nothing less than deceptive brinkmanship for the sole purpose of thwarting the will of Congress,” he wrote in a letter dated Oct. 5. A copy was obtained by Reuters on Thursday.”

Previous RD-180 posts

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

41 responses to “DoD Denies RD-180 Waiver For ULA”

  1. lookingup says:
    0
    0

    Why would Space X again take this path? If their business model is that good, reliability and performance as stated, and launch services cost so much less, what is to be gained? One might say it’s the ethical thing to do, those bad Russians; but I think now that dog doesn’t hunt anymore. I would venture to say a year later now that the Atlas engine is nothing more than a political pawn for a few specific senators. I suspect ULA is rapidly getting their house in order and if they can continue to use that virtually flawless engine the Falcon IX will be in for some competition; heaven forbid Space X gets exactly what they wanted in the first place..

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX reliability and performance are as observed : perfomance OKay~ish, minus a durable and well performing upper stage, and demonstrated reliability is down there with other struggling rocketeers of the world – i.e. Proton. Better than norks, anyway.

      So if ULA wants to fight them, the way to fight is with their strengths, not with their weaknesses. Until they cover their weaknesses.

  2. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    This is the key point in this entire fiasco:

    > A waiver is allowed for national security reasons, but only if
    > “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.”

    In other words, ULA continuing to ask for a waiver without the above restrictions is akin to them asking to shut out competition (from within from Delta IV, which they want to kill because it’s too expensive, and from without from SpaceX).

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      A bureaucrat in procurement with a creative go from legal could read the section about “reasonable price” to exclude Delta IV, if ULA did bid using that vehicle, and excluding Falcon 9 as not being the “same” service, as not being certified to the same level. Being GPS, the later exclusion would only require a slight of hand about definition on how critical the specific GPS payload is (again, call the lawyer, tell them what the answer is, and to work up the needed language).

      Never under estimate the degree to which Air Force would help ULA with the paperwork and want that answer.

      Things are not rational or predictable.

      • Jeff Smith says:
        0
        0

        You’re right on the money with that comment about the interpretation of a single bureaucrat! You have better odds of winning the lottery than getting a mid-level paper pusher to change his/her mind.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Dealing with ‘mid-level paper ushers’ is in my job description, albeit in an entirely different field. They fear one thing: reprimand and job loss. Therefore, one finds a justification for what is wanted and provides it to them. It’s not complicated. In this case there’s just nothing in law (or admin code I guess) in ULA’s favor.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That is exactly my experience with NASA contracts (admittedly much smaller ones than a launch on a Delta.) A colleague complains about problems getting permission to bill something to his contracts. Dealing with the same people, I have no problem. The difference is that he says, “I know this is against the rules, but here is why we should do it anyway…” I say, “It may seem against the rules, but if you look at section IX, clause 6.a, and compare it to paragraph 3, page 2 of my statement of work, it is not only legal but also something we are required to do.” And I’m very careful about how I draft my statement of work.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Yep. The trick is doing the work for them without them figuring you are doing their work.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      They just ASKED! “There are no bad questions :).” Satisfied their stock holders etc. They got a “no” answer.
      “I can’t believe they asked. . . .” is not a reasonable position. They should be turned down. BUT, let’s be wise enough to appreciate the thought process.

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    What is it about Delta IV that makes it so much more pricey than Atlas V?

    • Brian Thorn says:
      0
      0

      More expensive main engine.
      More expensive version of upper stage engine.
      Handling hydrogen is more complex and costly than handling RP1.
      Larger tank diameter, larger tank height.
      Older, less flexible avionics (although common avionics are on their way.)
      It just all adds up.
      Now whether that is too expensive for them to make a profit on it, that’s another question.

    • Thomas says:
      0
      0

      The cost of hydrogen. With shuttle retired, it has only gotten more expensive. Rumor is that is costs upwards of 40M of hydrogen to fuel it (not confirmed). Not a big cost driver for an upper stage, but for a first stage due to the volume, its huge.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        The first Google hit I got said the lowest performing Delta costs $164 million. I find it very difficult to believe that fuel is *25%* the cost of that rocket.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Liquid hydrogen, delivered to LC-39 for the Shuttle, cost 98 cents a gallon. It is an insignificant part of the total launch cost. The small amount of helium used on the Shuttle actually cost more than the huge tank of hydrogen.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      The designers had a completely clean sheet but, as with the shuttle, they encountered unanticipated costs. They chose horizontal integration in a low hangar-type building and rotating the assembled rocket to the vertical position with an erector arm, modeled after the Soyuz approach, to reduce the need for crane operations. Had the DOD simply required its payload suppliers to allow horizontal integration of payloads before erection, both Boeing and later SpaceX would have saved considerable time and money. However installation of the SRBs and the payload had to take place on the pad with the rocket vertical. The processing time on the pad was considerably longer than anticipated, reducing the maximum launch rate.

      A second problem was the use of hydrogen, which has less mass than kerosene but takes up a larger volume, as a booster fuel. The lower mass of hydrogen, which can be very valuable in an upper stage, does not provide much of an advantage over kerosene in a booster stage where a lot more thrust is needed but the mass does not have to undergo as much acceleration. The larger engines, fuel tanks and booster stages required for hydrogen because of its larger volume, and the need for extensive block-type insulation for the tanks, all add cost.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Thanks.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I think the second problem is the key. LH2 is great for upper stages where ISP really is important. But it’s lousy for lower stages.

        As for the vertical payload integration issue, it would be interesting to see what that adds to Falcon 9 launch prices, since Falcon 9 is horizontally assembled and then placed in a vertical position on the launch pad.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          How good is methane for a second stage?
          Do you ever think space might fly FALCON HEAVY with a raptor for the second stage?
          How low can a raptor throttle? Would a raptor be to big? Or is it possible???

          And with all that extra payload is one Merlin D big enough?

          Seems with triple the payload on a falcon heavy and the same size second stage as FALCON 9 your second stage becomes a real low performer?

          Is methane a more efficient fuel? More thrust per gallon?

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Methane is close to an ideal fuel, with a higher ISP than kerosene and a higher density and easier handling than hydrogen. It is said to avoid the significant problem of carbon deposition in hot cooling passages when kerosene is used for cooling. It would not provide much benefit over kerosene for LEO, but would increase GTO and planetary payloads.

            That said, the current FH can send 21 metric tons into geosynchronous transfer orbit, much larger than any current comsat. IMO a more powerful upper stage will only be feasible if a market develops for very large payloads. Perhaps as a replacement for SLS?

      • Patrick Bane says:
        0
        0

        With hydrogen, it kind of depends on the engine cycle & the configuration. Hydrogen engines have high ISP, so it starts to make up for the propellant loads. Hence why the SSME was designed around hydrogen, coupled with an extremely efficient staged combustion cycle.

        That said, kerosene is the work horse for 1st stage applications in most cases.

        For most readers, you can associate the following (generally):

        Kerosene = diesel (lots of HP/torque, lower mpg)
        Hydrogen = gas / electric (great mpg, great HP, lower torque)

  4. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Umm…anyone seen the math on the remaining RD’s for ULA, assuming used for DoD payloads only, versus the typical launch rate, meaning a date – versus a possible number of SpaceX launches for DoD, by the same date?

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Very difficult to answer. On the one hand, I have a hard time figuring out just how many DoD-acceptable engines ULA actually has access to. On the other, a number of the Atlas – launchable DoD payloads might require Falcon heavies, but good luck figuring out how many. And then there is the question of how SpaceX would prioritize new DoD contracts vs. their already-filled schedule…

      • EtOH says:
        0
        0

        Okay, part of this was actually easier than I thought, based on the LEO and GTO payload capacities and the Atlas V launch manifest, the F9 V1.1 (pre full-thrust) would be able to replace 67% of the historical Atlas V DoD launches.

  5. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    I am glad Pentagon obeying the law US Congress pass NDAA 2015 denies ULA wavier on RD-180 rockets. It would give ULA unfair advantage over SpaceX compete in GPS III contracts in 2018. ULA better get used this start speeding up Vulcan rocket day view like 2018. Also they could swap RD-180 rocket from NASA and other commercial launchs to use for DOD launches later promise replace them by ordering new RD-180 rocket from NPO Energomash problem solved.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Is there any chance ULA would hire SpaceX to fly some of their current contracts to save the engines for their most profitable DOD missions???

      • buzzlighting says:
        0
        0

        ULA kiss SpaceX foot beg them take some of their current launch contracts relieve there burden. I do not think so ULA has too much pride in there company ask to SpaceX for such a favor and O them a big favor in the future. Also SpaceX currently book solid 2015,2016,2017, and some few openings 2018 date and really can’t take on ULA current contracts. I made comment 2 day ago ULA could swap RD-180 Rocket from NASA , nonmilitary and Commercial launch contacts could be used for future DOD launch contacts. Later promise to purchase RD-180 Rocket from NPO Energomash to replace them problem solved.

  6. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    So will this make it a sole source competition? Will SpaceX increase their price?

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Depends how hard up for cash they are, but if they have the option, probably not. Not raising the price in that case weakens ULA’s bargaining position with the government.

  7. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    Repeat suggestion ; ULA leveraged ESOP borrows $2.5 Billion purchases ULA. ULA retains control. ULA uses the cash to develop ACE’s and Vulcan in parallel

    So ULA go and do a ESOP evaluation to see what there is to be discovered

    https://www.nceo.org/

  8. Steve Harrington says:
    0
    0

    ULA must have decided it is less expensive and less risky to pay lobbyists to maintain their supply of Russian engines than it is to pay engineers design a new engine and/or stage. oops.

    Steve Harrington

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      To be fair, currently they are doing both, although it seems ULA has not fully committed to the Vulcan development. They argue the they need more time, which is undoubtedly true. The question is, what other options do they have, and how sympathetic should we be for their current position?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        All together now!

        Ready?

        Booooo Hooooooooo!

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        I find it hard to having any sympathy for ULA after of their block deal with DoD and all the history of their parent companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Not only have they been delaying Space development with cushy cost plus programs like SLS and Orion but they have been using their money might to stiff the taxpayer in other ways too.

        They made Bernie Sanders top 18 tax avoider list

        https://youtu.be/pIRVWK16EkQ

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      This is a remarkably uniformed post. I expect better from you, Dr. Harrington.

  9. Arthur Hamilton says:
    0
    0

    I don’t have any sympathy for ULA or their Boeing/Lockheed masters in this case. They concluded a shady $11 billion block buy deal with the AF to keep out a potential competitor. Now they are complaining about not being able to compete. They need to shut up and compete with the Delta IV by listing it’s advantages, which will include it’s launch history, in this deal. There is no way that any rocket that they bid will beat SpaceX on price. Bruno sounds like a whining baby. Shut up and bid what you have to the best of your advantage. Gee whiz!!!!!

  10. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    Many reports keep referring to ULA contracting with Blue Origin for a replacement for the RD180. The problem is that the BE-4 is a LNG (methane)/LO2 engine for the Vulcan, which cannot be “plugged in” to the Atlas V. The Vulcan, if Lockheed-Martin and Boeing continue to fund the beast, is a few years away. A more obvious choice would be Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1, using JP-1/LO2. But ULA refuses to furnish AJ-R with the Interface Control Documentation that would allow the AR-1 to be fitted to Atlas V. Since no waiver will be granted and Congress is not likely to change its mind about the use of the RD180 for national security launches, ULA is going to have to make some choices if it wants to stay in the game!

  11. Steve says:
    0
    0

    It’s pretty easy to find those launches. How about 2 launches for Orbital to take Cygnus to the ISS ? How about launches of the CST-100 in 2016/2017, and SNC still has a DreamChaser flight reserved ? Does Musk want to slow / halt the rest of his commercial space flight competition ?