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

ULA's RD-180 Problems Mount

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 2, 2015
Filed under , , , ,
ULA's RD-180 Problems Mount

ULA needs relief on Russian engines before GPS launch bid -CEO, Reuters
“United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, on Friday said it cannot bid in a U.S. Air Force competition to launch a GPS satellite unless it gets some relief from a ban on use of Russian rocket engines. ULA Chief Executive Officer Tory Bruno told reporters in Cape Canaveral, Florida, that the company was seeking a partial waiver on trade sanctions enacted last year that ban U.S. military use of the Russian RD-180 engine that powers ULA’s primary workhorse Atlas 5 rocket. The issue is now in the hands of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Bruno said. Without the waiver, he said, ULA could not compete for that launch or any other new national security launches until a new American-built engine is ready in 2019.”That’s not a viable business model,” he told reporters.”
United Launch Alliance under pressure from Elon Musk’s SpaceX upstart and Congress, Washington Post
“ULA is facing a challenge from SpaceX, the hard-charging upstart founded by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, which just won certification by the Air Force that would allow it to compete against ULA for the next Pentagon launch contract. And ULA faces an even bigger problem: the Russian-made rocket engine it relies on has been entangled in a messy political fight that could threaten its ability to compete at all.”

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

22 responses to “ULA's RD-180 Problems Mount”

  1. Patrick Bane says:
    0
    0

    Funny. The thing is we still have the skills, we still have the capabilities; many people who helped design Appollo are still in the industry – designing, mentoring and pursuing their passion. The problem resides with a lack of cohesive vision & more importantly federal budget appropriations for NASA that help support development, innovation and progress.

    On the other hand, NASA has clearly mismanaged their budgets over the past decade, but in part, much of that is due to changing administrations, changing visions and an overall lack of strategy. Congress meddles far too much with what NASA should be doing, when they should be listening to what the agency proposes to do & fund accordingly – but, that takes leadership vision, which as I mentioned, doesn’t exist.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      NASA has nothing to do with the failure of ULA to find a solution to the Russian supplied engine problem. NASA also has nothing to do with Aerojet Rocketdyne’s lack of investment in new engine designs.

      But, no one would ever have noticed without companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin directly challenging the notion that US rocket engine development must be completely, directly, taxpayer funded.

      “New Space” isn’t really about technology (where do you think “New Space” hired its engineers?). “New Space” is about new business practices from the top on down.

  2. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    ?Poor Poor Pitiful Me?

    I mean, seriously? Pathetic.

  3. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Help! Help! My profit margin’s being oppressed!

  4. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    Recall that in 2008 AMROSS granted the license for manufacturing RD-180’s entirely in the USA rather than obtaining them by export from Russia. The paperwork was in hand, yet the US defense-aerospace industrial tycoons decided it would not be cost effective ( Read: not sufficiently mega-profitable in the short term to satisfy shareholders ) .

    Fast forward to today . How does that decision look now ?

    • Brian Thorn says:
      0
      0

      US production of RD-180 was predicated on Atlas 5 winning the EELV contract in its entirety. It didn’t (Delta IV actually got the 60% share) therefore Lockheed was not obligated to establish US production.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        However the lion’s share soon was transferred to LM as Boeing was cited for industrial espionage. Local manufacture was an option that LM chose to decline.

        • cranky_innkeeper says:
          0
          0

          http://www.spacefoundation….

          ULA’s problems are 100% artificial. LM was “encouraged” to choose a Russian engine to help keep Russian engineers busy. Imagine a program to streamline Atlas V production, finish Atlas Heavy, and turn the engine module into something recoverable, instead of starting from scratch half a decade behind the competition.

          The US government needs to stop playing politics with its launch providers.

  5. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Stagnation in US propulsion industry has been ongoing for a long time, caused by wave of consolidation, lack of real competition and competitiveness of US launchers on global market, and lacking serious government support strategy too, as NASA chooses not to act as a customer but a competitor.
    There have been books and whitepapers written about this over the last decade.
    Merlin was the first long break in this, and we need more, faster.

  6. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    ULA should take take the revised NDAA fiscal 2016 +5 RD-180 engines deal total of 9 learn live with it. Stop wasting time lobby to change NDAA law not going to happen with Sen. John McCain around. Also find a way speed-up Vulcan rocket day view instead of 2020 should be 2018 to close the gap compete better against SpaceX. One More thing ULA should do much better job of selling importance of Vulcan rocket and new innovations to cut cost to Boeing+ Lockheed Martin to insure ULA future. They have compete for more commercial launch business because DOD contract 2019 drying-up. Only way ULA can survive in the rocket launch business increase commercial launches thus increase volume rocket launch decrease unit cost of rocket.

  7. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I bet ULA will get all the Russian engines they need to keep bidding on flights
    Agree or disagree???

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Agree, as ironic as it seems, since for the moment only Russia can compete with the American capitalism of SpaceX. But this may also accelerate Vulcan development and give Blue Origen a real customer. In fact, ULA might just buy the entire booster from BO

    • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
      0
      0

      Only Vladimir Putin knows the answer to this.

      IMO- He’s only one geopolitical skirmish away from a total embargo on All Things Russian

  8. EtOH says:
    0
    0

    Nature may not actually abhor a vacuum, as the saying goes, but capitalism certainly does, hence the Merlin and BE-3/BE-4 engines. The real question is whether the old guard will try to stand up and compete, or just get walked over.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Consider Aerojet Rocketdyne’s offer to buy ULA. If this had happend, it would have insured that AR’s liquid fueled engines and solid strap on boosters would be used in future ULA launch vehicles without the need for any competition.

      • EtOH says:
        0
        0

        True, but getting your engines into a rocket is one thing, selling that rocket is another. Now that AR has two competitors in the domestic liquid rocket field (who are capable of building their own vehicles), one way or the other they will have to compete on cost or go extinct. Or get way better at lobbying.

  9. Graham West says:
    0
    0

    Hopefully they’ll be told, “Tough shit. Keep offering Delta IV. The reason both exist is to avoid this problem.”

  10. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    I would rephrase it slightly “built by a(n) former enemy nation.