You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
SASC Adopts Amendment Prohibiting Russian Rocket Engine
2014-05-24

While one part of official Washington worries that Russia will follow through on a recent threat to prohibit use of RD-180 engines for U.S. national security space launches, another part is working to ensure exactly that outcome. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) yesterday adopted a McCain amendment that prohibits future contracts to purchase Russian rocket engines to launch national security satellites.

The amendment also requires the Air Force to "have a full and open competition on two satellites that they tried to sole-source" and for an investigation on "undue reliance by the U.S. space industry on foreign suppliers and parts such as engines."
This at the same time Elon Musk's lawsuit over the EELV contract where those engines are used in the Atlas 5 gets crazier. Elon's twitter tweets (name redacted so Rantburg will not delete)

Elon Musk:
V(ery) likely AF official {redacted by poster} was told by ULA/Rocketdyne that a rich VP job was his if he gave them a sole source contract

Elon Musk:
Reason I believe this is likely is that {redacted by poster} first tried to work at SpaceX, but we turned him down. Our competitor, it seems, did not.


Glenn Mahone, a spokesman for Aerojet Rocketdyne, said the allegations surrounding {redacted by poster}'s hiring are "completely without merit." He said {redacted by poster} began working at Aerojet only a week or two ago -- well after the contract had been awarded -- and that his hiring was vetted and cleared by the Air Force.

"We are confident in the process we followed in hiring Mr. {redacted by poster}," Mahone said.

{redacted by poster} did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.

An Air Force spokesman declined comment Friday, citing ongoing litigation over the contract.
The dollars in question keep getting bigger and bigger too. First reports were 4 billion then 33 billion now 90 billion and it involves a sanctioned Russian too. I have no clue at this point what the real dollar ballpark is as it is conflated between the USAF/NRO/NSA/Nat GeoSpac/ULA/LM/Boeing/PWR/RD_Amross.

The tree keeps getting bigger and bigger each part tying into another new one.

Russian leaders shouting about taking their pieces of the ISS and splitting. World scientists including Russian beliving that the pieces have been in the ISS so long that they are vacuum welded together and not possible to separate and if separated all pieces becoming quickly unbalanced and the ISS crashing. Hints of Russia just seizing the whole thing.

The motor issue messing up the non-SpaceX manned commercial options, the ISS breakup/deorbit removing the reason for commercial manned space for NASA so torpedoing all the US commercial manned options and maybe crippling SpaceX, the only way to launch critical AF/NRO etc sats in a timely manner being Delta Vs as fast as they can make them and the same for Falcon Heavy, oh and if we just make the Russian engine in the Atlas 5 well its co-production rights run out in 2022 and if we build it past that point we risk destroying the international patent union! Whew! - Its a true ClusterF***!
Posted by:3dc

#3  DragonFly approved by FAA for testing at McGregor. DragonRider expected to be tested on same pad.
discussion link
Posted by: 3dc   2014-05-24 11:13  

#2  Johann-Dietrich Woerner, chairman of the German Aerospace Center, DLR — GermanyÂ’s space agency — said Germany backs full approval of the extension to 2020 and also wants ESA governments to support NASAÂ’s proposed extension of station operations to 2024.
....
France has been less interested in the station than Germany and in the past has conditioned its support on GermanyÂ’s continued financial backing of EuropeÂ’s Ariane rocket program. That condition remains, but May 20 remarks here by FranceÂ’s space minister, Genevieve Fioraso, suggest that France is not contesting the extension to 2020.

In a briefing with journalists, Fioraso said France nonetheless has issues with extending its participation to 2024 without an indication from NASA that its support for rocket builder Space Exploration Technologies Corp. will not permit SpaceX to proceed with “dumping, because that’s what it is” of cheap SpaceX rockets on the international market where they compete with Europe’s Ariane 5 vehicle.
Posted by: 3dc   2014-05-24 10:28  

#1  I should have pointed out that making the RD-180 might be wishful thinking on the part of Atlas 5 supporters as this nay-sayer points out:



I think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1202647#msg1202647

has a file with pics of some of the parts they manufactured.

Thanks for that. The stator and preburner assemblies are CAD models, not fabricated hardware.
Stator vanes are easy to manufacture. I was doing that for P&W engines in the 1970's.
The other 6 items are extremely simple basic shapes that could be milled in a garage.
I see nothing there of any difficulty.
Where's the turbine generator?
Where's the fuel injector?
Where are *any* of the parts that make the RD-180 so unique?

If they had actually made those instead of these non-discript and simple parts then I would have more confidence.
Did they build anything of any difficulty?
Did they duplicate any of the metallurgy that was so unique to the engine?
Did they document any of the assembly specifications?
How much torque was used for bolting assemblies together, and which assemblies?
What was the surface finish value of mating surfaces?

Making more than 1,000 CAD models proves only that the designer can operate CAD software.
Do the CAD models fit together properly? Do those models faithfully duplicate the actual parts? Are the tolerances invoked consistent with the Russian standards? Are there proper geometric constraints on any of them or are these simply surface volumes? What kind of GD&T was invoked? How were the fluid boundaries handled? Were the design disciplines properly integrated, and to what protocols?

I don't know the answer to these, but rolling out such simple-to-make pieces is not proof of the ability to duplicate the engine. That's why I said that I think it would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. So far I remain unimpressed because I could have manufactured everything I see there myself in my uncles old machine shop. A pile of simple parts does not an engine make.


Posted by: 3dc   2014-05-24 03:54  

00:00