Russian RD-180 Embargo Could Boost American Rocket Industry

MarkWhittington (1084047) writes According to a Saturday story in the Los Angeles Times, the recent revival of tensions between the United States and Russia, not seen since the end of the Cold War, may provide a shot in the arm for the American rocket engine industry. Due in part in retaliation for economic sanctions that were enacted in response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, Russia announced that it would no longer sell its own RD-180 rocket engines for American military launches. This has had American aerospace experts scrambling to find a replacement. The stakes for weaning American rockets off of dependency on Russian engines could not be starker, according to Space News. If the United States actually loses the RD-180, the Atlas V would be temporarily grounded, as many as 31 missions could be delayed, costing the United States as much as $5 billion. However SpaceX, whose Falcon family of launch vehicles has a made in the USA rocket engine, could benefit tremendously if the U.S. military switches its business from ULA while it refurbishes its own launch vehicles with new American made engines.

Comments

Re:Hooray for the private sector, I guess

[ColdWetDog]

Ah no. At best, they lease it. Of all people you should realize the impermanence of ownership.

As as aside, it should be pointed out that the Russia isn't the only country that makes rocket engines. Arianespace has some perfectly cromulent launch systems available for hire. Bulk discounts likely available. The advantage for them is that they are quite further along with the systems integration than SpaceX.

However, it may be even less politically palatable to be beholden to the .... French .... for space access.

'Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.'

Re:Are you actually telling me?

[Trepidity]

"Running the government like a business" has been a catchphrase used by both major parties for some years now. Outsourcing in order to save money is standard practice in business. Is it surprising that they did exactly that?

Re:Are you actually telling me?

[msauve]

"What is the point of even having a military if that military requires good relationships with all other powerful nations on Earth to continue to function."

To redistribute money from common taxpayers to military-industrial complex corporations.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

- Dwight Eisenhower

Re:thankX

[Teancum]

Name the mission that "goes up in flames" with the engine, then you can complain. Lockheed-Martin had engines made by American companies and even told Congress that even the Russian engines they purchased could be made in America (as recently as February when they made that pronouncement again under oath at a congressional hearing). This whole thing is a problem of their own making, and I hardly loose sleep or cry that they made themselves so vulnerable because of foreign outsourcing of their product line. All in the name of trying to make a buck or two extra.

Re:thankX

[Anonymous Coward]

Name the mission that "goes up in flames" with the engine, then you can complain. Lockheed-Martin had engines made by American companies and even told Congress that even the Russian engines they purchased could be made in America (as recently as February when they made that pronouncement again under oath at a congressional hearing). This whole thing is a problem of their own making, and I hardly loose sleep or cry that they made themselves so vulnerable because of foreign outsourcing of their product line. All in the name of trying to make a buck or two extra.

Russian engines are reliable. American made ones who knows ?
Copying is easy, making sure the copy is as reliable as the original is a whole other game.

Re:Are you actually telling me?

[sumdumass]

Actually, out sourcing like this made perfect sense.

It started at a time which we wanted to calm down a threat. You, lile many others in this thread think this was only about being cheep and saving money. It is or was not. When we started buying from the Russians, it was about funneling money to them in ways that didn't create resentment while dealing with their concerns about continued US military strength after the colapse of the USSR.

In short, this had more diplomatic reasoning than financial when it was implemented. It served those diplomatic purposes well until recently when the advantage has been turned around. But ignoring the diplomatic aspect originally involved does not explain the situation properly.

Re:thankX

[shutdown -p now]

If you look at the raw numbers (total number of launchers vs failures), the most reliable engines today are actually Chinese, with American next, and then Russian.