Hacker News Reader

ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

Also to match costs, you have to look at the payloads and the distance to space.

Falcon 9 - $56M - 4.8 metric tons to GTO

Falcon 9H - $135M - 21 metric tons to GTO

Atlas IV/V - $160M - 7 metric tons to GTO or 21 tonnes to LEO

Ariane V - $200M - ? metric tons to GTO

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1q...

These other companies justify the higher price because they have a better track record. If you're a military customer and your payload needs to get to space, you probably will choose the "safe" bet. Its a catch-22. SpaceX needs more flights to prove their record, but they can't get more flights because of their record.

All Atlas V first-stage engines (RD-180) are manufactured in Russia. That the second stage engines are made in the US doesn't change the fact that you're dependent on Russian supply.

In response to your edits:

>but they can't get more flights because of their record

The Air Force required 3 successful flights in the exact configuration the Air Force would fly. SpaceX provided the "record" as stipulated by the Air Force, which nevertheless committed to a large block-buy contract with ULA. By the Air Force's own standards, the billion-dollar subsidy is not necessary for their needs-to-get-to-space payloads.

Also, "the other companies" is just a single supplier, ULA.

I've heard it's a common practice in defense contracts to carefully write the requirements such that you are in effect pre-selecting your desired vendor, while providing the appearance of impartiality and neutrality.

Yes, it's called "wiring" a contract. When I worked at a company that sold specialized processors to the government we ran into that all the time. Usually it was something defensible on its face, at least, like software compatibility with a previous piece of hardware.

But sometimes we would see unimaginative stuff like a specification of the LED layout on the front panel or very specific weight restrictions that happened to fall between our hardware and the preferred vendor.

In the government's defense, though, the system is set up to combat this tendency, at least for smaller contracts. When I was on the other side (having left the vendor to work for our civil service customer) we would routinely get pointed questions from the purchasing people regarding this or that line of the RFP - was it really required, or were we trying to wire the contract?

That's common I think in just about every government procurement deal. In higher ed we would choose the service or software we wanted to buy. then write the procurement request to fit that product. And in many cases the vendors that deal with Higher ed and government contracts, provide guidance with writing the request.

It's common in telecoms too. We get RFPs that are pretty much lifted from the spec page of a competitors (incumbent) product.

>you're dependent on Russian supply

and my understanding that this supply is limited to the what had already been manufactured long time ago. Beside the inventory issues, one can easy imagine Putin saying "bad Americans, no more gas ... err... rocket engines for you"

RD-180 are being manufactured continuously last ~20 years. All new, not manufactured long time ago.

NK-33 - from which AJ-26 are made - aren't manufactured today. It's a question if the manufacturing will restart. There are a few tens of them in US. Orbital Sciences has that question in the middle of their table, or close to it.

Russian-American relationships in space trace back to at least 1975, deep Cold War. We're not at that state of affairs just yet. As somebody mentioned on The Space Review, ISS is a front-runner for Nobel peace prize, so let's not jump the gun too early. It doesn't seem to be too desirable for Putin to close that particular relationship.

There is a successor NK-33A engine being produced for Russia's own Soyuz-2-1v. http://www.uk-odk.ru/eng/presscenter/odk_news/?ELEMENT_ID=20... http://www.samspace.ru/news/press_relizy/4228/ (in Russian)

Unfortunately engine itself is not produced. Those are all modifications of existing NK-33.

This catch-22 applies across the government-aerospace interface surface.

I used to intern for a company trying to break into aerospace software---not hardware, just tracking and modeling. At the time, they faced a nearly-vertical climb into the market to get around the big names in aerospace; they couldn't sell to them directly (the people involved in the purchasing decisions were the people who would be getting downsized if the software proved to be as good as advertised) and they couldn't sell to the Air Force (it's basically nearly impossible to get into an AF contract cycle if you haven't been in an AF contract cycle).

Their break-in point was the US Army; at the time, the Army had a relatively small air asset capability (relative to the other branches), but a sudden need to know what was up with the GPS constellation AT ALL TIMES relative to their land and air deployments. The company was able to get face-time with the Army reps because the regular aerospace names wanted to sell them software that came at a price-point that usually bundled a shiny new fighter jet or stealth asset with it, and they weren't willing to drop their prices because they didn't want their regular Air Force customers asking "Why is the Army getting this software for a tenth of the up-charge you quoted us when we closed this whole contract last year?"

Sadly, that was years ago and I have no idea of the shape of the market now. My only other data point is the portrayal of the aerospace industry in the movie _The Aviator_ and the observation that it hadn't changed much between then and the early-21st century. ;)

Funny you should mention ... that nasaspaceflight forum has commenters saying the same thing:

I guarantee there will be a congressional committee hearing about this very soon. Reminds me of what Howard Hughes had to go through to break Pan American Airways' legal designation as the United States' sole international carrier. Most portray Elon M. as a the new "Steve Jobs"; wrong I live in Nevada and an early study was of Howard Hughes. Elon M. is a modern day Howard Hughes. Once you understand that, things fall into place.

What you wrote about Atlas V is a bit misleading. It uses an American engine for the upper stage, but the whole issue is about the Russian built RD-180 engines that power the first and largest stage. The other ULA rocket, the Delta IV, does use all American engines but the Delta IV is less capable and sees far less use.

You mix up everything, and many posters do that further down.

These are the relevant rockets and their first stage engines that fly from US soil:

  1) ULA Delta IV: US made RS-68 (new).
  2) ULA Atlas V: Russian made RD-180 (new). 
  3) SpaceX Falcon 9: US made Merlin-1 (new).
  4) Orbital Sciences Antares: Soviet made NK-33 (decades old, now refurbished in USA).

Only NK-33 modified into AJ-26 used on Antares rockets is manufactured in early 1970-s. RD-180 was designed in 1990-s, about the same time as RS-68, the engine from Delta-IV first stage.

Good point. I should have said "some of" as a qualifier.

Regarding payloads, it depends on what you're launching. If your satellite is 4 tons, then you can directly compare the price of a Falcon 9 and an Atlas, for example. It doesn't get noticeably cheaper to fly a rocket at less than full payload. Obviously, if you're launching something that exceeds Falcon's maximum payload then it's not an option, but given their campaign, there must be a lot of lighter payloads going up as part of this program.

Musk mentioned GPS satellites as one of the kinds of payloads he wanted to bid for. It looks like they fall well within the capacity of the Falcon 9. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_IIF

I watched a senate hearing where Elon Musk squares off with the ULA. It's awesome. One great quote is where the ULA says Space X can't handle the missions. Elon responds. If our rockets are good enough for NASA, they are good enough for the Department of Defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0

That was an interesting watch, even as a foreigner. The ULA representative did everything he could to defend their contract - a 'good' politicians as it seems. He responded pretty well to Feinstein's chart I have to say - a chart with cost per ton in orbit would have been much more informative and I couldn't deduct from her numbers whether that has actually gone up significantly. Musk's response to Shelby's remark on a partial SpaceX mission failure was very witty - "according to ULA's standard's this mission was perfect" - he seems to be very good at thinking on the foot.

Yeah, that chart is painful. Talking about absolute dollars with no basis is not productive.

I suspect if you asked a DoD gal if it was more critical that, say, a military commsat got to orbit than something that measures solar flares, she'd beg to differ with Elon.

Yeah we all would expect them to say that. Everyone's baby is the cutest. Everyone's problems are the most important.

It's not equally important news.

Suing the government for mismanagement of a procuration process is a short-term path to selling more of the same.

Demonstrating landing ability, then refueling and launching within a day is a medium-term path to completely changing space flight.

[added] When I say short-term vs medium-term, I mean it wrt strategy. I wouldn't bet on the short-term issue being solved first...

ULA testified to congress that they have a 2 year supply of RD-180 engines (not sure of the exact number).

The RD-180 argument is definitely weaker. Cost & reusability are much stronger arguments for canceling/recompeting the ULA block buys.

That said, I can't wait until we have genuine competition in the space launch sector, especially with lightning fast turn times. It would be a genuine revolution in space access—even if money were no object, there's no one in history that has had the technology to support continual launches to orbit.

Wow, he really knows how to push the right buttons... I suppose it helps to have a company you built with almost unfair price/technical advantages behind you.

Yes it was so easy

? I didn't say it was easy,..

pointing out an accomplishment as "unfair" without further elaboration serves to diminish it

I just meant unfair as in they have extreme advantages that almost no one else can replicate. That's an impressive accomplishment, I don't think it diminishes what they've done at all.

Musk said a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million. I'm not sure exactly what's involved with "Government-driven costs in addition to the cost of launch services" but I'd hazard a guess that they're not $40 million per launch. Could end up being a nicely profitable sale for SpaceX if they can pull it off.

Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.

Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.

Elon Musk explains it in this answer to Senator Shelby. The whole committe hearing is interesting, but your specific question is answered at 53:02 in the video, which I link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0#t=3182

It's poorly-defined, but includes a wide array of reviews, audits, inspections, etc.

See PDF page 17 of http://www.gao.gov/assets/520/511460.pdf

... especially if, as he said, he can reduce his current launch costs by 30% by re-using rockets.

It seems likely the the USAF would specify first-run rockets for the best chance of success, so the USAF would not see a cost reduction unless spacex were to re-purchase the recovered booster or similar (or offered a credit that equated to the same).

The USAF buys a launch, not the rocket itself. The recovered stages belong to SpaceX.

True, but then in that situation SpaceX would just not give the 30% cost reduction for the launch. The 30% figure he mentioned was after giving the "under $100M" price point.

Space programs should probably not be the first to sanction in such situations. I doubt Putin would be too hurt about it anyway. If there are sanctions, they should be on other markets first.

When we'll be a "space race", I doubt it will matter much whether those sent into space are Americans, or Russians or Chinese or Germans.

Deleted comment

While I agree that it is definitely best to use domestic launchers and not have to rely on the Russians for engines or astronaut launch, I don't think that "Fuck the Russians" is really a great expression of that. Since Apollo-Soyuz, spaceflight has been something that our two countries can productively collaborate on, despite our (at times, vast) political differences.

Maintaining good relations between NASA and the RKA is valuable for everybody. SpaceX/RKA relations are less important however.

Deleted comment

This is a bad Hacker News comment: both politically inflammatory and a glib throwaway. That makes it a bad comment squared, not even counting its implicit Godwinism.

Your "Fuck the Russians" comment upthread was another bad one. It derailed the conversation into an off-topic, indignant subthread. These are the thistle patches of HN.

Please don't post any more comments like these to Hacker News.

Calling for NASA to stop working with Roscosmos and the ISS over Putin is nuts. Space research and exploration is more than petty flag waving.

Somehow I think taking over Crimea is more than petty flag waving to the people who live there. I'd ask for more empathy for those whose lives may be irrevocably damaged by the actions of the Russian Head of State.

Taking over Crimea is awful and completely predictable, as is the land corridor from Crimea to Russia that will be opened to the north. Russia is scared of losing control of the naval base it has held there for over a century.

However the collaboration with the ISS is something that forces communication and trust on a joint project at a high level. It is not just that it is important for space research, it is even more important for soft diplomacy. It forces the governments into situations where they have to talk about something other than sabre rattling on a regular basis.

To be fair, most of people living there are Russians, and they seem to be happy to live in Russia.

Of course the way Russia took Crimea wasn't very good, and was just to secure naval base, but they did it without bloodshed, which wouldn't be possible if people there wanted to stay with Ukraine.

That was a karma 4 acccount and this is much later, but...

The main problem imho is that the last time destabilization and military [threat] was used to steal land areas around Europe, it was by guys in mustasches... And the motivation was similar -- "protect" Russi... German speaking populations.

And right now the same methods are used in another area. Just like the 1930s, too.

That second area will hardly be the last, if it works again. "Peace in our time" failed last time...

As an European, this is just scary and everything really needs to be done to stop this before there is another big war.

Having empathy doesn't mean we should fall into the politician's fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate how would stopping the collaboration actually help the Crimeans, it's nothing but demagogy.

"Seems like the wrong time to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin" -- Elon Musk

He's certainly not making friends in Russia today. That said, I feel like the ISS is too important to be left to the whims of the US Congress. IIRC NASA plans to deorbit the American part of it within the next decade, while Russia keeps the rest aloft and turns it into a waystation for planetary missions.

Not many people know that he initially (pre-SpaceX) tried to buy a couple decommissioned ICBMs to send a plant to Mars. He was ready to write the check, and the Russians spiked the price at the last minute.

So he's probably got a grudge or two.

I've heard of Russian ICBM story, but I haven't heard of this part before:

> the Russians spiked the price at the last minute

What's the source for this part?

    They had two more trips scheduled to Russia; now Ressi 
    decided, as he says, "I didn't like dealing with Russians," 
    and told Musk he wasn't going back. Musk went anyway. On 
    the second trip, Musk brought his wife, Justine — "I think 
    that's the trip when the lead Russian designer started 
    spitting at us," Cantrell says — and on the third and final 
    trip he brought his money. He was ready to buy three Russian 
    ICBMs for $21 million when the Russians told him that no, 
    they meant $21 million for one. "They taunted him," Cantrell 
    says. "They said, 'Oh, little boy, you don't have the money?' 
    I said, 'Well, that's that.' I was sitting behind him on the 
    flight back to London when he looked at me over the seat and 
    said, 'I think we can build a rocket ourselves.'"

http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int...

It's a great article.

I doubt it's a grudge. Accusing your competitor of sending money to the Kremlin in a time when the U.S.-Russia relationship isn't exactly great is simply a well-executed political jab.

What is your source on that? According to a page on the NASA site from Oct 13. The Station is expected be operational through at least 2028.

I wouldn't be so hasty. By the time NASA has its own launch capability to the ISS again, Putin may have retired.

Well, F* nationalists. Earth is too important to be left to the whims of crazies like you.

As always, there is a middle ground between "rah rah <country>" and "one world!".

The U.S. government, especially its intelligence agencies, have many potentially grave flaws for a democracy. Putin and the Russian government, however, are decidedly worse leaders for freedom, and no friend of the US government or its citizens. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to look to be less dependent on their honesty, integrity and goodwill.

So stop being so F*ing judgmental.