RD-180 Deliveries Halted?

[edkyle98]

http://www.interfax.com/3/305353/news.aspx<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[thereiwas]

I wonder what the "change in end user" was the defense ministry is worried about? The formation of the Alliance?

 

[edkyle98]

Probably was the change from LM to ULA, but my first thought was that the Putin government was using this as a foot-dragging opportunity to send yet another message to the Pentagon, along with the bomber patrols, Topol launches, etc..<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[docm]

Cold War or not, you can always depend on the Russians to be an endless source of entertainment <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I thought it was a little odd that the Atlas, direct descendant of an ICBM, should now have engines manufactured in Russia.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Maybe Putin is thinking the same thing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[docm]

Maybe a good reason for SpaceX's Merlin 2/3 to get off the ground, 'eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

RS-84 would be better

 

[docm]

Merlin 3's theoretical numbers look better (1.15M lbs vs. 1.5M), so is there some other reason? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Maybe Putin is thinking the same thing?</font>/i><br /><br />Russia under Putin has certainly been changing. Comments about the collapse of the Soviet Union being a terrible tragedy. Planting the Russian flag under the North Pole to make a territorial claim. Starting up the long-ranger bomber missions. Threatening neighbors by withholding oil or flying over their airspace and dropping a bomb. Blocking efforts to slow or halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.<br /><br />For the US space program to be so dependent on Russia is becoming a little scary for me.</i>

 

[vattas]

1. I like how breakage of it "destroyed" my and my parents' lifes. Couldn't wish better.<br />2. Couldn't you just stay in your present teritory? You have a lot...<br />3. NATO planes are usually droping bombs, flying into foreighn airspace and then saying "oh, that's not us, we are just being provoked".<br />4. Using oil as a means of political pressure. Doesn't matter what the price will be - it will be used as such just the same.<br />5. Obligations to country, that can build a a-bomb and is unpredictable?<br /><br />That's not a political discussion thread. What I want to say is to be dependant on russians is to be asking for trouble. Damn, I would pay 2x price for oil/gas if it could make our country (Lithuania) not dependant on their oil.

 

[rfoshaug]

That's why Atlas can't be used for the Vision for Space Exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

RS-84 is not spacex

 

[jimfromnsf]

"That's why Atlas can't be used for the Vision for Space Exploration"<br /><br />Not so, if it can be used for national security payloads and nuclear payloads, it can be used for VSE

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">RS-84 is not spacex</font><br /><br />Who in hell said it was? My point is that the US needs reasonably priced alternatives to using Russian motors now they're back in mischief mode. The RS-68, SpaceX motors etc. fit the bill, and IMO the big Merlin would be of benefit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

The SpaceX engines are not designed by people who have never done this before. Just being made by somebody <i>not</i> SpaceX does not in an of itself make the Rocketdyne engine better. Let's wait and see how well the final designs work out. The F1-class Merlin 3 engine is still on the drawing board.

 

[docm]

Isn't it a 2x scale Merlin 2? How far are they on that?<br /><br />Regardless; I'd love to see that thing fly. Better yet a cluster. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"IMO the big Merlin would be of benefit."<br /><br />IMO it isn't, we need to have another provider

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The SpaceX engines are not designed by people who have never done this before. "<br /><br />Wrong, they haven't built anything bigger than the Merlin 1 nor have they met their design requirements.

 

[solarspot]

They as in they the company called SpaceX? Or They the employees of SpaceX? IIRC, most SpaceX employees came from the major aerospace companies, who have done this stuff before.<br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

Not so, not that many came from Rocketdyne or worked on the F-1

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"That's why Atlas can't be used for the Vision for Space Exploration"<br /><br />Not so, if it can be used for national security payloads and nuclear payloads, it can be used for VSE<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, without engines, it can't be used for any payloads, can it?<br /><br />Maybe using russian engines for national security and nuclear payoads was a bad idea? Although I'm not sure which nuclear payloads you are referring to. If you're thinking about RTG's, the problem we're discussing here is not rockets blowing up because of Russian engines, but rockets not getting launched because of lack of Russian engines. Of course this is bad for any high-priority launch, but whether or not there is nuclear material on board is irrelevant unless I've misunderstood what you mean.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, the point is that one of the criterias in the Vision for Space Exploration is that it will use American hardware and workforce and not rely on any foreign nations. This is not the "International Moon Station". This is an American space program. Hinging the lunar exploration program on deliveries of Russian (or any foreign) engines or other vital parts would be a bad idea, as international political climates (and the availability and price of said vital parts) can change so much in a decade.<br /><br />Besides, of course, there are the political reasons of American politicians and tax payers wanting their money spent in the US. Can't say I blame them.<br /><br />Whether EELV's are technically better suited to launch Orion is another debate, but the fact that Atlas V uses Russian engines pretty much automatically excludes it from playing a vital role in the next big shiny new manned American space program. The news of a possible engine shortage just confirms why that is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"but the fact that Atlas V uses Russian engines pretty much automatically excludes it from playing a vital role in the next big shiny new manned American space program."<br /><br />No it doesn't. Just as national security payloads can depend on it so can NASA

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">This is an American space program. Hinging the lunar exploration program on deliveries of Russian (or any foreign) engines or other vital parts would be a bad idea, as international political climates (and the availability and price of said vital parts) can change so much in a decade. </font><br /><br />At VSE volumes the engines would be put into production locally. It's pretty pointless right now for PWR to set up a production line, Atlas is barely managing five launches a year.