RD-180 Compromise Reached
Senate Reaches Agreement on Russian RD-180 Engines, SpacePolicyOnline
“Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) brokered an agreement among Senators who have been at sharp odds over how to transition U.S. rocket launches away from reliance on Russian RD-180 engines to a new American-made engine. The Nelson amendment passed the Senate this morning by voice vote as part of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA itself then passed the Senate by a vote of 85-13. In brief, the compromise sets December 31, 2022 as the end date for use of the RD-180 by the United Launch Alliance (ULA) for Atlas V launches of national security satellites. It also limits to 18 the number of RD-180s that can be used between the date that the FY2017 NDAA is signed into law (enacted) and that end date.”
This should have been a blanket ban for all Russian rocket parts (engines and other parts) for ALL U.S. Launches, national defense, NASA and otherwise! I hate this … we will launching ATLAS V well into the 2030’s and beyond with this POS compromise.
No more ATLAS V’s period.
Where do you have evidence that any Atlas Vs (with russian engines) will be launched in the 2030s?
from “stupid Obama”, of course.
The ban should be on import of Russian engines PERIOD, not just for National Security Launches. This will protect us from a sudden shift in Russian politics that could do intense harm to NASA and commercial U.S. interests should Russia deny rocket engines.
No U.S. Launch provider for ANY reason (National Security, NASA, Commercial … i.e. satellite) should be permitted to use Russian Rocket Engines.
ISS will continue to 2028. The Dreamchaser, Boeing Starliner and Orbital-ATK Cygnus all launch on rockets with Russian Engines (RD-180/RD-181). Given the opportunity, both ULA and Orbital-ATK will continue buying engines for non-national security launches for at least the next decade and probably longer. There is no compelling reason for ULA to commit sufficient resources for the development of Vulcan (a replacement for Atlas V) as long as the decision to ban Russian rocket engines can be “kicked down the road” as this compromise does. In 2020-22, it will be a different Congress and likely the decision to ban rocket engines will continue to be “kicked down the road”. This is like acute appendicitis; the longer you put off the surgery, the worse the patient fares and if you wait long enough the patient goes terminal. As long as ULA is one of the “Assured Access” launch provider for National Security Launches (along with, presumably SpaceX) and RD-180’s are permitted, ULA will keep using them. In 2018, they will go before Congress and say that x number of the 18 permitted have been used for NASA launches and they need more and they will get 18 more or the Congress will have changed and they will get the ban lifted.
We need to do this NOW, not 2022! The Congress needs an ironclad commitment from ULA to fully fund and develop a NON-Russian alternative to Atlas V. Without that, ULA is just sucking at the teat Congress without the necessity of a long term financial commitment for a replacement. The vaunted ULA VULKAN will never LAUNCH!
This is what happens when corporations function solely to produce shareholder wealth.
Hopefully this will “stick” over the next several years. I would hate to hear ULA crying foul because they can’t do any long term planning due to changing government rules. They’ve got one shot at getting Vulcan done on time and with the quality and reliability needed to compete without using Russian engines. The parent companies had better take note of the RD-180 limits and the deadlines and make the appropriate investments.
But the parent companies refuse to commit beyond the next quarter and so on so the prospect is that Vulcan will never fly.
Possibly. Time will tell. With a “hard” deadline from the US Government, the parent companies just have to decide if this is a business they want to continue, since they simply can’t compete with SpaceX on price. Falcon Heavy may be delayed yet again, but it’s still much further along than Vulcan.
Hopefully SpaceX will also stick to this schedule and not try to torpedo the 18 engines – but I wouldn’t bet on it!
SpaceX has nothing to do with this. Russian dependence must be eliminated. SpaceX is the only 100% made American provider of launch services. Yes, they initiated legal action to permit SpaceX to compete for National Security launches but the primary legal challenge was not based on Russian involvement in ULA but on PRICE and COMPETITION.It was the actions of the Russians and the threat of the Russians cutting off RD-180’s that prompted U.S. Senators & Congressmen to ban Russian rocket motor imports. Of course, This is all about U.S. Politics & Russia and nothing about SpaceX .
Something just occurred to me. Everyone makes a big deal about the RD-180 because engines are a big, important part. But what about small ones? How many launch vehicles use microprocessors or other chips which are made in countries we aren’t on the best of terms with? I know there are some issues with fair pricing for the RD-180, which probably don’t apply to chips. But if the objection is, “we can’t let _them_ build important components”, then I think lots of small components would be as worrying as a few big ones.
microprocessors are not an issue. They are not made in Russia, China (mainland), North Korea or Iran.
Components for Orbital-ATK Antares rocket besides rocket engines are made in the Russian occupied Ukraine and Russia itself. These should be banned as well.
Really? The microprocessors on an Atlas aren’t made in the People’s Republic of China? None of them? Do you have a parts inventory? The PRC makes a large number of microchips for many US companies. I’d be a bit surprised if none of the chips on an Atlas came from China.
I also didn’t know that Russian-occupied Ukraine had much of an aerospace industry. For all its political significance, it’s actually a small part of Ukraine. Unless you are including the Crimea, which isn’t exactly occupied (it’s more properly a rebel province which decided to join another nation.)
The U.S. does not rely on PRC sourced microchips! Your description of Crimea is politically expedient only if you are a Russian and absolutely wrong otherwise. It is an occupied territory wrested from Ukraine by military force.