Senator McCain is Upset About Russian Rocket Engines in the Budget

With the new Federal budget opening the door again to the previously banned Russian RD-180 rocket engine, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was not happy at all as expressed in his statement of the floor of the Senate:

This is outrageous. And it is shameful. And it is the height of hypocrisy, especially for my colleagues who claim to care about the plight of Ukraine and the need to punish Russia for its aggression. How can our government tell European governments that they need to hold the line on maintaining sanctions on Russia, which is far harder for them to do than us, when we are gutting our own policy in this way? How can we tell our French allies, in particular, that they should not sell Vladimir Putin amphibious assault ships, as we have, and then turn around and try to buy rocket engines from Putin’s cronies? Again, this is the height of hypocrisy. 

Excellent points, yet Senator Shelby from Alabama was not deterred by Senator McCain's remarks and defended his middle-of-the-night manuever:

I’m the first one to argue that we should not be dependent upon any foreign power for access to space — especially in the national security arena. I have already worked to secure more than $300 million in funding for the development of an American-made rocket engine. However, recklessly restricting the use of the RD-180 in the near-term will undermine both national security and the prospects for real competition in the military launch business.

I expect the United Launch Alliance believes Senator Shelby has been good this year and will properly reward him with a little something extra in his Christmas stocking. 

SpaceX: The Knives Are Out

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial penned by retired USAF General William Shelton, who served as the commander of the Air Force Command as late as August 2014.  Titled National Security After the SpaceX Explosion, he makes the point that the explosion "should give everyone pause about jettisoning a dependable arrangement vital to U.S. security."  Of course, that "arrangement" is with United Launch Alliance (UAL), a continual foe of SpaceX, which continues to argue that it needs access to Russian rockets.  

I do not doubt General Shelton's interest in obtaining the best assets for military and space missions.  Early last year, in reference to Elon Musk, he stated, "I don’t doubt that guy anymore, by the way...What he says, he’s going to do."

That said, the General goes on to boast about the ULA rockets, noting:

Current U.S. space policy is implemented by buying both the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets from the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing.  Both rockets have a 100% success record - 83 launches without failure.

I think the General has very selective memory and forgot the difficulties any rocket maker will experience as they develop new approaches and technology.  Maybe he does not remember this headline from almost 30 years ago - Delta Rocket Failure Cripples Nation`s Space Program.  The article states:

The accident effectively guts the nation`s space program. This is why:  The most dependable launch vehicles, the Delta rockets, are now grounded indefinitely...The $30 million rocket, considered the most dependable and described as the workhorse of NASA`s fleet, was carrying a $57.5 million weather satellite that was to help forecasters track Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. The satellite was destroyed...The Delta rocket has been launched 178 times since 1960, with 12 failures during that time. Until Saturday`s accident, there had been 43 successful launches since 1977.

What makes this Delta explosion eerily similar is this statement that accompanied the article:  

It was the third space-related accident in three months, leaving the space program with no reliable means of getting satellites, or people, into orbit.

Well, here we are again General, and this time it is SpaceX finding its legs after a disaster.  And while I agree with need some redundancy in the space program, I would rather it be US-based rocket redundancy.  Maybe we still will need some Russian rockets, and maybe Congress should be a little more flexible on the issue, but we should be working full speed on multiple alternatives to the Russian option.  Why does a South African-born entrepreneur running a US rocket company seem to appreciate this argument more than a USAF general? 

New York Times: Maintain the Russian Rocket Ban

It is nice to see the Russian rocket ban is getting more attention these days, as in this New York Times editorial:

The core problem is that the United States let itself become dependent on Russian rocket engines for national security missions. After the Cold War, it made sense to encourage cooperation between the nations and offer opportunities to Russian scientists and technicians so they would be less likely to sell their skills to Iran and North Korea. But in recent years, Mr. Putin has become increasingly at odds with the United States. Meanwhile, United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of the defense giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing also known as ULA, has become the Pentagon’s primary rocket maker and gets its engines from NPO Energomash, a Russian company that reportedly has close ties to Mr. Putin...After leaning on France to cancel the sale of two ships to Russia because of the invasion of Ukraine, the United States can hardly insist on continuing to buy national security hardware from one of Mr. Putin’s cronies.

Sadly, the Obama administration seems to be going soft on sanctions, which is ridiculous since it has already gone soft on a military option.  What is left?  Someday I hope relations with a new Russian regime improve, but in the meantime it is in the interest of the United States to build its own rockets for its own missions. 

Image Credit:  Photo taken by 23-year old Lana Sator who sneaked into the Russian Energomash's manufacturing plant.

ana Sator in the Energomash plant.

ana Sator in the Energomash plant.

Noteworthy Quote: Russian Rocket Roulette

"Yet why send hundreds of millions of dollars more to cash-strapped Russia when engines from three American companies will be able to launch rockets that can do the same job as Russian-engine-fitted Atlas V rockets? At about $100 million a launch with an American-made rocket compared with ULA’s $400 million a launch, that’s a bargain in more ways than one."

-- Ron Wahid in a Wall Street Journal editorial titled "American Plays Russsian Rocket Roulette."   The three American companies he mentions are SpaceX, Aerojet Rocketdyne, and Blue Origin. 

Why Are We Using Russian Rockets?

I can understand that we are dependent on the Russians for a lift to the International Space Station (ISS) while we rebuild our spacefaring capacity after the loss of the shuttle program.  However, we are also dependent on Russian rockets in other parts of our space program, such as the Atlas rockets.  I was reading about how a federal judge recently lifted a temporary injunction against the United Launch Alliance's (ULA) procurement of Russian rocket engines.  Per the Red Orbit article, SpaceX had complained that ULA was violating the U.S. sanctions against Russia.  While the U.S Government determined this was not the case, I still wonder whether this is wise regardless of the sanctions.  The U.S. should be building more of it space program at home, so I agree with SpaceX even if its argument is a little self-serving. 

And what is ULA, which attacked SpaceX's concerns, stating "SpaceX’s actions are self-serving, irresponsible and have threatened the U.S.’s involvement with the International Space Station and other companies and projects working with Russian State entities"?  Per its webpage, ULA is a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing running the Atlas V, Delta II, and Delta IV rocket programs.  Its customers include NASA, the Pentagon, and our spy agencies.  And is it a monopoly, as claimed by SpaceX?  Yes, albeit a regulated monopoly as is much of the space and defense industry where a few firms control most of the contracts.  This has been an a sad reality for a long time, which may explain some of the decline in America's space ventures (that, and a short-sighted Congress).  Luckily, we have many new space adventurists with new ideas, with SpaceX being one of many up-and-coming companies willing to offer new approaches to the help America to the stars, or at least low-Earth orbit. 

But the real issue on the table is whether this American monopoly should use Russian rockets.  And I would rather we develop what we need at home but keep some other options on the shelf, which could include a few Russian products.  While some may argue foreign parts are cheaper, we may need to dig deeper into Elon Musk's arguments in his testimony before the Senate in March, when he stated:

 In FY13 the Air Force paid on average in excess of $380 million for each national security launch, while subsidizing ULA’s fixed costs to the tune of more than $1 billion per year, even if the company never launches a rocket.  By contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 price for an EELV mission is well under $100M—at least a $280 million per launch difference, which in many cases could pay for the satellite and launch combined – and SpaceX seeks no subsidies to maintain our business. To put this into perspective, had SpaceX been awarded the missions ULA received under its recent non-competed 36 core block buy, we would have saved the taxpayer $11.6 billion.

And leaving costs and the embargo to one side, we really need to rethink our space program procurement.  We need a little more common sense in the program.  Elon Musk made this as his last point in the March testimony:

Our Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles are truly made in America.  We design and manufacture the rockets in California and Texas, with key suppliers throughout the country, and launch them from either Vandenberg AFB or Cape Canaveral AFS.  This stands in stark contrast to the United Launch Alliance’s most frequently flown vehicle, the Atlas V, which uses a Russian main engine and where approximately half the airframe is manufactured overseas.  In light of Russia’s de facto annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimea region and the formal severing of military ties, the Atlas V cannot possibly be described as providing “assured access to space” for our nation when supply of the main engine depends on President Putin’s permission. 

The part about "President Putin's permission" does not sound that far fetched after the comments a few weeks back by Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s space program, who said "I suggest the US deliver its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline."

Time to wake up, America.  If you build your house on a pile of sand, do not be surprised when it is all washed away.