Russia Pulls Space Cooperation in Response to Ukraine Sanctions

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
19,998
Reaction score
10,557
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-pulls-space-cooperation-response-ukraine-sanctions-250869

http://politics-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/05/13/170242/russia-bans-us-use-of-its-rocket-engines-for-military-launches
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html


Was not the Space Station mostly of US design and financed?

Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.
 
I've heard it's just some contract extension stuff happening in 2020. Dragon will fly much sooner than that, and Orion will fly too.
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html


Was not the Space Station mostly of US design and financed?

Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.


uh oh. Looks like http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21749.msg217166.html#msg217166

and

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21791.msg217701.html#msg217701

may be coming to pass.

I wonder if Bolden will follow through on his statement that he'll recommend terminating the US manned space program.
 
F-14D said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html


Was not the Space Station mostly of US design and financed?

Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.


uh oh. Looks like http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21749.msg217166.html#msg217166

and

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21791.msg217701.html#msg217701

may be coming to pass.

I wonder if Bolden will follow through on his statement that he'll recommend terminating the US manned space program.
Those comments were about losing access to ISS in the near term. 2020 is 6 years away, enough time to at least cook up a NASA/ESA service module to replace Zvezda. Or to commit to the Gateway Station as a replacement.
 
In an ironic coincidence: http://aviationweek.com/blog/us-court-lifts-rd-180-injunction
 
Could the F-1B currently in development be a replacement for the NPO Energomash “V. P. Glushko" RD-180 rocket engine?

bobbymike said:
Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.

So much for the New World Order and the Peace Dividend.
 
Moose said:
F-14D said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html


Was not the Space Station mostly of US design and financed?

Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.


uh oh. Looks like http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21749.msg217166.html#msg217166

and

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21791.msg217701.html#msg217701

may be coming to pass.

I wonder if Bolden will follow through on his statement that he'll recommend terminating the US manned space program.
Those comments were about losing access to ISS in the near term. 2020 is 6 years away, enough time to at least cook up a NASA/ESA service module to replace Zvezda. Or to commit to the Gateway Station as a replacement.

My concern is that the Administration's commitment to advanced space flight seems to be less than enthusiastic. Don't forget, the plan after they canceled Constellation was to reduce the Orion capsule to simply a lifeboat for the ISS; Congress was the driving force behind keeping its development for advanced missions.

Given the prevailing attitudes, I don't know that I have a high degree of confidence that we'd do something to fix the situation as you hope. Even if we did, guven the glacial ways we do things, I wonder if enough priority would be assigned to get it ready in time.
 
"Boeing: No New Russian RD-180 Engines Needed For ULA Bulk Buy Deal"
May 13, 2014 Amy Butler | AWIN First

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-no-new-russian-rd-180-engines-needed-ula-bulk-buy-deal

WASHINGTON — United Launch Alliance (ULA), which operates the embattled Atlas V, has enough of the rocket’s Russian engines in storage to meet its commitment to the U.S. Air Force in the company’s 36-booster bulk buy inked in December, according to a Boeing executive.

"We believe we can deliver on the block buy with the engines we have," says Roger Krone, president of Boeing Network and Space Systems. ULA has 16 RD-180s on U.S. soil, according to an industry official.

Krone was asked about the stockpile during a May 13 roundtable with reporters, shortly after Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister, announced Moscow would halt further sales of the RD-180 for military launches and truncate International Space Station participation beyond 2020. His announcement was a response to sanctions posed by the U.S. and allies — targeting specific Kremlin officials, including Rogozin — after Russia annexed Crimea and began stirring rebels in Ukraine.

Krone and ULA say they have received no official notification of a stoppage from NPO Energomash, the Russian RD-180 manufacturer, or RD Amross (a joint venture including Aerojet Rocketdyne crafted solely to sell the engines in the U.S.), of a work stoppage on domestic orders.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin share a 50/50 financial stake in ULA since the two merged their launch operations in 2006. He says the company’s assumption going into the block buy was a roughly even split between Delta IV (a legacy Boeing vehicle) and Atlas V (a legacy Lockheed Martin vehicle) cores. ULA has said it maintains a two-year stockpile in the U.S. in accordance with the policy crafted when Lockheed received approval to source its propulsion system from NPO Energomash.

Should it run short of RD-180s, ULA and U.S. Air Force, its customer, can shift some launches from the Atlas V manifest to Delta IV. "That is not our desired approach," Krone says. "We’d just as soon not move the manifest."

The Atlas V and Delta IV, designed under the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, were crafted with enough commonality to allow for satellites to fly off either model. But despite their similarities, each does have peculiar requirements – and integration costs – for a particular satellite model. Krone says integration on both boosters has already been done for the GPS IIF – seven remain to be launched – and Wideband Global Satcom – at least four remain to be launched.

The fate of the Atlas V was suddenly questioned due to tensions between Moscow and Washington. Fanning the flames is a suit filed in Federal Claims Court by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) April 28. The company, founded by entrepreneur Elon Musk, claims the Air Force’s 36-core deal with ULA bypassed traditional competition rules, resulting in a buy that is needlessly costly and monopolistic.

In reviewing SpaceX’s claim and the sanction rules, the court placed a temporary injunction on payments from ULA to RD Amross for the RD-180s. However, it was lifted May 9, and payments resumed May 13, ULA spokeswoman Jessica Rye says. "There is no impact to ULA’s factory or launch operations," she says.
 
Triton said:
Could the F-1B currently in development be a replacement for the NPO Energomash “V. P. Glushko" RD-180 rocket engine?
Its about twice as powerful and less efficent than RD-180, would require some big changes to Atlas V to work. Before their merger with Rocketdyne, Aerojet was working on an engine called AJ1E6 that was supposedly very close to RD-180 in performance. But I'm not sure if it survived the merger.
 
bobbymike said:
Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.

why does the US space program need a kick start? It is doing fine. NASA does not equate to the US space program
 
Byeman said:
why does the US space program need a kick start? It is doing fine. NASA does not equate to the US space program

Would you be so kind to point me to a privately-financed or crowd source-funded manned expedition to the moon, an asteroid, or Mars?
 
Triton said:
Byeman said:
why does the US space program need a kick start? It is doing fine. NASA does not equate to the US space program

Would you be so kind to point me to a privately-financed or crowd source-funded manned expedition to the moon, an asteroid, or Mars?

why does the US govt need to fund any of those. "space program" includes comsats, weathersats, imagingsats, launch vehicles, etc and many other items and they are not paid for by taxes.

Anyways, here is your pointer -------------------> SpaceX
 
Triton said:
Would you be so kind to point me to a privately-financed or crowd source-funded manned expedition to the moon, an asteroid, or Mars?

why does the US govt need to fund any of those. "US space program" includes comsats, weathersats, imagingsats, launch vehicles, etc and many other items provided by US companies and not paid for by taxes.

Anyways, here is your pointer -------------------> SpaceX
 
Byeman said:
why does the US govt need to fund any of those. "US space program" includes comsats, weathersats, imagingsats, launch vehicles, etc and many other items provided by US companies and not paid for by taxes.

Anyways, here is your pointer -------------------> SpaceX

The United States space program also includes human spaceflight and this component is what F-14D is concerned will be cancelled. Your question is why I believe human spaceflight is in jeopardy of cancellation in this country. Can a United States human spaceflight program exist without Cold War political drivers of beating the Soviet Union?
 
Byeman said:
bobbymike said:
Of course to me this is a perfect 'black swan' event to kick start both the US space program but also the Triad and nuclear enterprise.

why does the US space program need a kick start? It is doing fine. NASA does not equate to the US space program

If you're talking about putting up satellites and other things we've done before, then the space industry is OK. Not great, but doing OK and will likely grow in the future. Of course, a large part of the potential business is servicing the ISS, which did require NASA to create and goes away in a decade or less.

However, operations beyond LEO, advancing the further reaches of technology, expanding the frontier, exploration for its own sake without indications of immediate gain are not things that private companies seem to jump at. They're good, though at following and improving and doing it more efficiently after some one else will "boldly go where no man one has gone before".

If you look at the history of the last five years or so, that's what's suffering and bodes ill for commercial activities to follow.
 
F-14D said:
If you look at the history of the last five years or so, that's what's suffering and bodes ill for commercial activities to follow.

You have to go back much further in history than the last five years or so. Trotting out artist impressions and throwing some research money at aerospace firms for vehicles and missions that will never be funded is not a manned space program either. Remember the hostile response by the White House and Congress to the $500 billion "90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars" that was published on November 20, 1989. Further, President George HW Bush appointed Dan Goldin as NASA Administrator, and during his tenure near-term human exploration beyond Earth orbit was abandoned, and the “faster, better, cheaper” strategy was applied to space science robotic exploration. It's unfair to place the blame of this situation entirely on the Obama Administration. It also isn't like the retirement of the Space Shuttle came as any shock to anyone and three previous presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat, and the Congress chose not to fund a replacement vehicle.
 
Triton said:
F-14D said:
If you look at the history of the last five years or so, that's what's suffering and bodes ill for commercial activities to follow.

You have to go back much further in history than the last five years or so. Trotting out artist impressions and throwing some research money at aerospace firms for vehicles and missions that will never be funded is not a manned space program either. Remember the hostile response by the White House and Congress to the $500 billion "90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars" that was published on November 20, 1989. Further, President George HW Bush appointed Dan Goldin as NASA Administrator, and during his tenure near-term human exploration beyond Earth orbit was abandoned, and the “faster, better, cheaper” strategy was applied to space science robotic exploration. It's unfair to place the blame of this situation entirely on the Obama Administration. It also isn't like the retirement of the Space Shuttle came as any shock to anyone and three previous presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat, and the Congress chose not to fund a replacement vehicle.

You are correct that problems existed before the current Administration. Arguably manned exploration beyond LEO was abandoned during the Nixon Administration, although there were lots of pretty paper studies. Goldin did champion "faster, better, cheaper", but he also championed Mars Pathfinder, a low cost manned mission to the moon (the focus changed towards more robots to Mars), Hubble missions and the ISS itself.

The "90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars" got a cool reception, and it deserved it. I am a fervent supporter of humans on Mars, but even I opposed that. It was a classic example of what I posted elsewhere, NASA's tendency to be take a requirement to deliver the Millennium Falcon and going out and trying to build Battlestar Galactica. That reception did lead, though, to the eminently more practical Design Reference Missions, which were evolutions of the concepts first popularized by Dr. Robert Zubrin. So big change, but they were still working toward a set goal. DC-X/Y SSTO, X-33 (arguably another Battlestar) were attempts to reach goals and advance technology as well

Constellation, the follow-on, not replacement for, the Shuttle (the of which to retire was made in the Bush, not Obama, years because after ISS we didn't really have a mission for it) in our manned space flight program may not have been the best concept to come up with, but it did have definite goals and objectives. There was also some mischaracterized criticism in the open press that it wouldn't work. In reality, what the studies showed was not that we couldn't do it, but that you couldn't do it for the cost the Bush Administration was stating. Again, though, there were goals and plans to go forward.

What's different recently was the cancellation of Constellation with no definitive plans to replace it except for some fuzzy statements (I'm not talking about commercial launch initiatives, which I support). Orion reduced to being just a lifeboat, until Congress forced its partial restoration. Pulling out of the 2016 and 2018 missions we had committed to fly with the European Space Agency (Russia was rumored to be interested in stepping in to fill the gap) and the decision to mothball SOFIA (which has to thrill the German Space Agency) are worrisome.

I'm concerned because it seems our future seems more nebulous than in the past. Before we may not have always followed through on the way, but we still planned to do. Now, it's just sort of drifting. OK, we may try and go out and lasso an asteroid, if we develop the launch vehicle... and...? The public statement that if we are denied access to ISS our response would be to abandon our manned spaceflight program?

My concern is that those currently in the driver's seat don't seem to really have much interest in this area, for whatever reason. Where are the goals, the objectives? Without the not for profit leading, I fear there may be nothing for the commercial industry to follow.
 
Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) is a name for a whole consistent philosophy that included small but well built very competent teams, smaller projects with shorter schedules and limited scopes, more freedom and less bureaucracy.

It was successful. It also moved NASA forward a lot. Now NASA has drifted more towards "battlestar galactica" (BSG) missions with long times between. That means stagnation.

With FBC, sure, you might lose a probe here and there, but if they cost a tenth of a big probe, in time and money, it's still a net win and you move a lot faster, can build cumulative experience etc.

With BSG projects, there is a strong tendency to start making everything double-safe because the mission is getting bigger and bigger, and the impact of failure will get worse and worse. People's life careers are tied to one mission. Schedules slip a lot. Costs are overrun massively. A large portion of the teams are doing internal bureaucratic work.
 
mz said:
Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) is a name for a whole consistent philosophy that included small but well built very competent teams, smaller projects with shorter schedules and limited scopes, more freedom and less bureaucracy.

It was successful. It also moved NASA forward a lot. Now NASA has drifted more towards "battlestar galactica" (BSG) missions with long times between. That means stagnation.

With FBC, sure, you might lose a probe here and there, but if they cost a tenth of a big probe, in time and money, it's still a net win and you move a lot faster, can build cumulative experience etc.

With BSG projects, there is a strong tendency to start making everything double-safe because the mission is getting bigger and bigger, and the impact of failure will get worse and worse. People's life careers are tied to one mission. Schedules slip a lot. Costs are overrun massively. A large portion of the teams are doing internal bureaucratic work.



Problem that can occur with FBC is when it's used on some very advanced, and especially high profile missions. For something we know how to do, we need to make much greater use of it because we keep reinventing the wheel as it is now. We can't keep doing that.

For bigger scale, IMO sometimes it can bite us. FBC got part of its bad rap due to some successive failures on high visibility missions that could have been avoided with better planning and more testing. And reality is that on things like Mars missions, even if you can do them at 1/10th the cost, they aren't going to let you do 10 instead of one, they might let you do two. And if they fail, there's just as much fallout as if there were only one mission. So, we've got to find the balance.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what happens on BSG projects and how they bloat and grow. I also am talking about the very mindset that causes NASA to get into this situation in the first place, their tendency to go after the bigger, more complex way to accomplish the job even if it's far more than what's needed or asked for. Luke and Yoda ask NASA what it can develop to just get the two of them to Alderaan and instead of Han and the Falcon, NASA asks for the funds for Adama and the Galactica, starts to build it, and then what you describe happens.

FWIW, although Goldin was appointed appointed by Bush the Elder, only 18% of his term as Administrator was under the auspices of the Generations Bush. The rest, including FBC for good or ill, was during the reign of Clinton the Naughty.
 
Was DIRECT 3.0 a better approach to manned space exploration compared to the Constellation Program? Or were they both Battlestar Galactica/Commander Adama approaches?
 
Triton said:
The United States space program also includes human spaceflight and this component is what F-14D is concerned will be cancelled. Your question is why I believe human spaceflight is in jeopardy of cancellation in this country. Can a United States human spaceflight program exist without Cold War political drivers of beating the Soviet Union?

US space program HSF does not equate to NASA HSF

Again, here is your pointer------------> SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Dream Chaser, etc
 
Triton said:
Byeman said:
why does the US govt need to fund any of those. "US space program" includes comsats, weathersats, imagingsats, launch vehicles, etc and many other items provided by US companies and not paid for by taxes.

Anyways, here is your pointer -------------------> SpaceX

The United States space program also includes human spaceflight and this component is what F-14D is concerned will be cancelled. Your question is why I believe human spaceflight is in jeopardy of cancellation in this country. Can a United States human spaceflight program exist without Cold War political drivers of beating the Soviet Union?

The answer is still the same, SpaceX intends on going to Mars
 
"Russia Bans U.S. From International Space Station: A Golden Opportunity for Elon Musk and SpaceX?"
by Rich Smith
May 18, 2014

Source:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/18/russia-bans-us-from-international-space-station-a.aspx

You've got to hand it to Elon Musk -- he called it.

Musk testified before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in March, you see, trying to convince the Senators to open up competition on contracts to launch military satellites into space. And he warned the Senate that the company that currently has a near monopoly on this business, the Boeing (NYSE: BA ) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) joint venture United Launch Alliance, has a fatal flaw:

'By relying on Russia to supply the engines for its Atlas V rockets, ULA risks having its supply chain interrupted. This might happen if Russia should decide, for example, to embargo sale of these engines to America in retaliation for sanctions imposed over Russia's invasion of Crimea.'

Well, surprise surprise. America did impose sanctions on Russia (and not just sanctions). And Russia has decided to retaliate.

Red ire rising

Upset at America's imposition of travel restrictions on Russian government and industry officials -- himself included -- Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin lashed out at the U.S. this week. In public statements and in tweets, Rogozin promised to block the sale of NPO Energomash RD-180 rocket engines to ULA, objecting to their use in launching U.S. military satellites into space.

What's more, Rogozin advised that Russia "doesn't plan to continue cooperation" with the U.S. on the International Space Station after 2020. That could be a problem, given that right now, the only way we can get our astronauts to the ISS is by renting rides on Russian rockets -- at $70 million a pop -- and that the current contract securing astronauts' right to ride these rockets expires in 2017. After that, Rogozin quipped: "I propose that the United States delivers its astronauts to the ISS with the help of a trampoline."

Rogozin's threat may even raise implications for space firm Orbital Sciences (NYSE: ORB ) , which uses Russian NK-33 rocket engines to power its Antares light-to-medium-lift launcher -- used to ferry supplies to the ISS. Orbital is currently in the process of tying the knot with peer space firm ATK (NYSE: ATK ) to form a new firm, Orbital ATK, which could soon feel the brunt of Russia's ire.

Blame the whistleblower
How did we get to this point? The U.S. sanctions against Russia lie at the core of the matter, certainly. But according to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the real culprit here is none other than Elon Musk himself.

Following up on his warning that ULA was overly dependent on Russia, Musk's firm, SpaceX, filed a protest against a recent Air Force decision to award a sole-source contract for 36 space launches to ULA -- cutting SpaceX out of the loop. This protest spurred a federal judge to order a temporary ban (since lifted) on purchases of RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, irking Rogozin. It also inspired ULA to complain "that SpaceX's irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station."

So you see, the root cause of this problem isn't ULA outsourcing a key element of America's critical defense missions to a supplier from a hostile country. It's really all Elon Musk's fault, for pointing out what ULA did.

Right.

Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Elon...
Whoever's to blame for the mix-up with Moscow, this impasse cries out for resolution. Otherwise it could damage the space businesses of both Boeing and Lockheed Martin -- which generate in excess of $8 billion in revenues apiece, annually, for the two firms -- and imperil U.S. national security to boot.

I see three likely beneficiaries here, and two likely losers, as the situation shakes out. The losers, obviously, are Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Whether they lose access to key rocket parts entirely or are simply forced to switch suppliers to someone more expensive -- cutting into profits -- either way, things are not looking good for the members of the United Launch Alliance.

On the beneficiaries side, meanwhile, it seems certain that one of the key missions of the new Orbital ATK space firm, once ATK and Orbital finalize their merger, will be to develop an independently produced rocket engine capable of lifting ULA's space packages into orbit. The companies will have a guaranteed customer in ULA, and probably gain others around the globe, as Russia's one-time embargo on rocket engines creates uncertainty among the country's other customers.

Separately, ULA's declamations aside, Elon Musk makes an excellent point in noting that SpaceX builds its engines internally, and does not rely on Russian suppliers for its ability to support Air Force launch missions. That's going to be a big factor in SpaceX's favor when the Senate agrees -- as I believe it must -- to open up military space launch missions to price-based competition.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/16/nasa-russia-international-space-station-column/8821671/
 
Triton said:
Was DIRECT 3.0 a better approach to manned space exploration compared to the Constellation Program? Or were they both Battlestar Galactica/Commander Adama approaches?

Direct 3.0 was a subset of 1.0 and required more Earth launches. On the other hand, it did not require the development of a massive heavy lift vehicle, although 3 did require the restarting of the nuclear rocket work abandoned previously. Both of them were a revision of the Mars Direct plan popularized by Dr. Zubrin. IMO, they were better than NASA's previous plans (which were classic Galactica) because they were actually affordable, practical, involved less risk and development and provided greater redundancy. I also think they were better than Constellation, the fallout from them could be used for lunar and deep space exploration as well as expanding the work on Mars. They would also, in my mind, be more amenable to expansion by private industry as the "leading edge" moved on. That said, Constellation with all its flaws was better than where we are now because at least it had a direction and a plan.
 
F-14D said:
That said, Constellation with all its flaws was better than where we are now because at least it had a direction and a plan.

The end does not justify the means
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom