Congress, Other

Is ULA going its own way for an RD-180 replacement?

Although legislation making its way through both the House and Senate would support the development of a large hydrocarbon rocket engine that could, in principle, replace the Russian-built RD-180 used on the Atlas V, United Launch Alliance (ULA) appears to be moving to take matters into its own hands. The company announced late Monday that it’s signed “commercial contracts with multiple American companies to investigate next-generation liquid oxygen/hydrocarbon first stage propulsion concepts.” That work will cover feasibility studies as well as analysis of cost, schedule, and technical risks for designs that would be ready by 2019.

The company did not disclose how many contracts it’s awarded beyond “multiple,” nor who the companies are. There are, though, only a handful of companies in the US that have the expertise to develop such a large engine. It would be surprising if ULA’s contracts did not include Aerojet Rocketdyne, which has recently stepped up marketing of its proposed AR1 LOX/kerosene engine to ULA, Orbital Sciences, and even SpaceX. (On the other hand, despite SpaceX’s work on the Merlin series of LOX/kerosene engines and plans for even larger LOX/methane engines, the current animus between the two companies makes it an unlikely awardee.)

In the meantime, ULA said in the release it will continue to work with RD AMROSS, the US-Russian joint venture that provides ULA with the RD-180, to evaluate continued long-term use of the RD-180 in lieu of a new engine. Those discussions, ULA said in the release, include “evaluating product improvements, U.S. production and other enhancements to enable its future viability.”

ULA, in its release, said it plans to select “its future concept and engine supplier” by the fourth quarter of this year. As for how that new engine—if any—would be paid for, the release referred to “both private investment and the potential for government–industry investment” options. That could clash with proposals currently in Congress, such as in the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which calls for “full and
open competition” for the development of a government-funded next-generation liquid rocket engine that would be “available for purchase by all space launch providers of the United States.”

Meanwhile, in an op-ed in The Hill today, Peter Marquez, former director of space policy at the National Security Council, argues for a “pragmatic” approach to the future of the RD-180 engine and development of a domestic replacement. “[I]t may be more beneficial for the U.S. to evolve its own capabilities to increase independence and use such capabilities to alter the U.S.-Russia relationship to identify and increase the opportunities for true mutual benefit,” he writes, referring to use of the RD-180 as well as US-Russian cooperation on the International Space Station. “The best way ahead is a pragmatic path where the United States can utilize the RD-180 in the near term, while developing our own propulsion capabilities.”

28 comments to Is ULA going its own way for an RD-180 replacement?

  • Coastal Ron

    No doubt there are smart business people that run ULA, and no doubt ULA’s parents (i.e. Boeing and Lockheed Martin) have lots of serfs listening to what’s being talked about on capital hill.

    My take on this is that ULA may see that the proposed legislation for funding a next-generation liquid rocket engine would not produce an engine quick enough for the future business conditions ULA sees, and they are pursuing a parallel effort just in case. Which if the goal is to produce an RD-180 engine as soon as possible, doing it as an internal ULA effort is the best way to do that.

    And since this was ULA’s problem to begin with, and ULA has no shortage of available funds either thru it’s parent entities and revenue being generated, it makes sense for ULA to take charge of finding a solution.

    • Henry Vanderbilt

      A quibble RE ULA having no shortage of available funds either thru its parent entities (Boeing & LockMart) or ULA revenues:

      For that to be true, the parent entities would have to want to treat ULA as a long-term investment rather than a medium-term cash-cow.

      Everything I’ve seen says, the parents are going for medium-term cash cow, not plowing significant funding back in for new competitive booster developments. (If there turns out to be real money behind these engine contracts, then that may be changing – but so far they look like relatively low-budget study contracts.)

      ULA is one of three US entities with a recently-proven booster development team, and the only US entity with current experience developing operational cryo upper stages. (Why is Boeing being sole-sourced for *all* SLS cryo stages again, including the upper, someone remind me?)

      My modest conclusion: If Boeing and LockMart are determined to let such a national resource wither on the vine, I’d tend to think national policy should support ULA being spun off and sold to someone with deep pockets and ambition to own a competitive space transportation company.

  • Michael Kent

    My take is that ULA is moving forward with the trade studies and design space exploration themselves so that when federal funds become available, they can move quickly into the development phase.

    Notice that ULA wants an engine by 2019 whereas the bill making its way through Congress says 2022.

  • reader

    Hope this is more than a PR move, and there are real funds being invested and exchanged here. Although at this stage, it’s probably study kind of money.
    Also, as discussed here previously, the “best american propulsion companies” that can do anything about a first stage booster engine can be counted on one thumb at this moment, if you exclude SpaceX.

    • Michael Kent

      Three thumbs: Aerojet Rocketdyne, RD Amross, and Northrup Grumman.

      I’m not counting Dynetics because they seem to be an integrator using Aerojet Rocketdyne for their engine work.

      • reader

        RD AMROSS is a legal entity that exists only to truck in Russian engines – which is not an option. NG does not do booster engines.

        • Michael Kent

          If you look at the ULA press release, they specifically mention RD Amross and improving the RD-180 as being in the trade space.

          Northup Grumman was building the TR-107 and took it through PDR. It’s probably the closest to an American drop-in replacement to the RD-180 out there.

  • josh

    Too little too late. This won’t save ula.

  • Jim Nobles

    Even if ULA can acquire a RD-180 replacement by 2019 is it going to allow them to field a cost competitive launcher? Given the situation as it appears it may be at that time?

    • Michael Kent

      If Elon Musk’s recent remarks that SpaceX will not build a mobile service tower at their launch pads holds true, there will be a substantial number of military launch contracts available.

      • Willns

        A traditional mobile service tower may not be the only way to integrate those specialty payloads. They may be able to build a much simpler service tower. Assemble most of the rocket horizontally and only use the service tower to attach the payload.

        If they charged just a little less than Delta’s pricing, even a full blown copy of ULA’s $300 million dollar service tower would be paid for in a few launches.

  • Blackjax

    The ULA effort and the government effort do not need to be incompatible. If ULA meets with the Congressional representatives it has in its pocket, it can arrange for the necessary Requirements Engineering to ensure that the partner they have decided to use is the one that ends up best fitting the requirements of this “full and open competition”. ULA and its parents aren’t exactly new at this game.

    • Jeff

      Not a chance. SpaceX has even more politicians in their pocket to kill any reasonable plan that would compete with “SpaceX: The Next Monopoly!!!”

      • Jim Nobles

        “Not a chance. SpaceX has even more politicians in their pocket to kill any reasonable plan that would compete with “SpaceX: The Next Monopoly!!!”

        That’s sarcasm, right? Oldspace has far more lobbying power and friendly politicians than newspace or SpaceX. Far more.

        I certainly wouldn’t want another monopoly to form though. Monopolies aren’t good for space business in the long run. But don’t be upset with SpaceX about possibly becoming a monopoly. They’ve just learned how to build and operate stuff better. If they establish and maintain a monopoly it would be because others aren’t savvy enough to compete with them.

        I think we’re still at the near beginning phase of this change. Oldspace (and their supporters) are mostly still at the “Shocked and Awed” stage. Still using denial as their main coping mechanism. As well as some morally questionable tactics (lies, name-calling, legal sabotage [Bezos-39A],and paying politicians to help them).

        All of this will work itself out.

      • Dick Eagleson

        I think you picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

  • Willns

    This reads like a stall. A PR move designed to change the growing perception of Atlas as a dying platform.

    Announcing these plans costs them anything. They won’t have to fund any of this until 2015, if ever. Six months from now they should have a good idea whether engines will ship or not, and whether taxpayers will fund a replacement.

    Can taxpayer money save Atlas? If the engines don’t ship, probably not. Without engines, what are they going to do with all those employees until the replacement engine’s ready in 2019?

    If the engines do stop coming, Atlas is probably going to be cancelled, whether or not the taxpayers are willing to pay for a new engine.

    The Air Force has admitted the lack of engines will result in years of delays for a large number of high priority payloads. The Russians have got to be loving this.

    • Jim Nobles

      I’m still having a hard time believing that Putin & Co. are going to stop selling the RD-180 to the U.S. of A. Or even that they will back up their talk about not allowing it to be used on D.O.D. launches.

      I guess we’ll find out the next time ULA has to fill out the paperwork for another purchase. Whether the fine print will say, “End user certifies engine will only be used for commercial launches.” or the legalese version of same.

      We will see…

      Maybe the real danger to ULAs use of the motor is the U.S. government finally waking up to the idea that using foreign assets on critical D.O.D. missions is actually a really dumb idea and deciding that it won’t be tolerated.

      • Dick Eagleson

        Hey, they just quit selling natural gas to Ukraine. Compared to that, what they were getting from RD-180 sales is chump change. The RD-180 is no swallow and ULA is no Mission San Juan Capistrano – they ain’t coming back.

    • Dick Eagleson

      Without engines, what are they going to do with all those employees until the replacement engine’s ready in 2019?

      Feed them on that billion a year they get for “maintaining capability” maybe? Damned good question in any case. I don’t see any scenario in which ULA gets a new engine soon enough to save either Atlas V or their whole company.

      The Air Force has admitted the lack of engines will result in years of delays for a large number of high priority payloads.

      Or the Falcon Heavy will get certified perhaps as soon as the end of next year and start clearing that backlog.

  • Michael Kent

    “Maybe the real danger to ULAs use of the motor is the U.S. government finally waking up to the idea that using foreign assets on critical D.O.D. missions is actually a really dumb idea and deciding that it won’t be tolerated.”

    The DoD was always aware of the risks. The original EELV contracts required an American engine. Lockheed had to get a waiver to use the RD-180 temporarily. Then they had to get another one to use it permanently.

    Those waivers are the source of a lot of the mischief on the EELV program over the years. All of it, probably.

    • Jesus

      That’s interesting, how’d they manage that permanent waiver? Shouldn’t they have at least been trying to make a replacement in the past few years?

  • Dick Eagleson

    how’d they manage that permanent waiver?

    In the dark of night around a guttering candle flame in a ruined abbey with their demonic familiars by their sides I suppose. You know – the usual.

    Shouldn’t they have at least been trying to make a replacement in the past few years?

    Nah, that’s just What Jesus Would Do.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    Meanwhile, in an op-ed in The Hill today, Peter Marquez, former director of space policy at the National Security Council, argues for a “pragmatic” approach to the future of the RD-180 engine and development of a domestic replacement… “The best way ahead is a pragmatic path where the United States can utilize the RD-180 in the near term, while developing our own propulsion capabilities.”

    Well, duh…

    Of course we have to buy as many RD-180s as we can before the line is shut off to us while developing our own designs and production ASAP.

    Is this the kind of obvious “insight” that Marquez was paid to deliver while he staffed the National Security Council?

    Besides rubber-stamping repeated waivers on Atlas V engine production, what actions did Marquez take to reduce reliance on foreign rocket engines during his three-plus-year tenure as Director of Space Policy?

    Oh right, nada.

    What a joke…

    • Dick Eagleson

      As Glenn Reynolds frequently says, today’s political class is the worst we’ve had in the nation’s history. Supporting data points, one of which you note here, may be found in abundance.

Leave a Reply to Michael Kent Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>