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. 

Does Ukraine Still Have a Space Industry?

Last week I read a piece in Parabolic Arc stating the Ukrainian space industry was close to collapsing. The article relates to Yazhmash, the rocket manufacturer and cornerstone of the Ukrainian space industry, and its recent notice about problems with orders from the Russians.  The article quotes the company's press release:

Yuzhmash

Yuzhmash

Factor of negative trends – landslide production cutbacks due to rupture of ties with traditional customers, who provided most of the orders.

The actual bankruptcy of the enterprise will result in the loss of Ukraine’s status as a space power, failure of the obligations of the State to enter into international agreements, irreversible loss of proven technologies.

At present, the SE “PA YuMZ behalf AM Makarov” is a participant in the high-tech large-scale international projects: "Sea Launch","Land Launch", "Taurus II / Antares", "Dnepr","Cyclone-4", "Vega". 

For instance, Orbital Science's uses the Antares rocket that was built in cooperation with Yazhmash.

Russian has been threatening for some time to find substitutes for the Ukrainian rocket parts, with the Moscow Times noting:

Russia's dependence on Ukrainian defense imports is a by-product of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. When the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became an independent state in 1991, Kiev found itself in possession of vital Soviet-era defense industry assets such as the Yuzhmash factory in Eastern Ukraine, which produces space rockets, satellites and missiles along with machinery for civilian uses.

Bloomberg Business highlighted the company's plight, stating:

Sales to Russia plummeted from $1.7 billion in 2011 to only $28 million last year, Yuzhmash said in a statement posted on its website last month. The Dnepropetrovsk-based company owes some $140 million in back wages to its 15,000 workers and partially suspended manufacturing operations until late February. The company did not respond to calls from Bloomberg Business.

Russia has already caused enough problems for Ukraine, and now this.  Maybe the US government can find a way to bring Ukraine into its military and civilian space industry while continuing to exclude the Russians.

At present, the SE “PA YuMZ behalf AM Makarov” is a participant in the high-tech large-scale international projects:” Sea Launch “,” Land Launch »,« Taurus II / Antares »,« Dnepr “,” Cyclone-4 »,« Vega ». - See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/02/10/ukraine-space-industry-verge-collapse/#sthash.TyzNMQhQ.dpuIf you go to the company's website you will fin

Factor of negative trends – landslide production cutbacks due to rupture of ties with traditional customers, who provided most of the orders.
The actual bankruptcy of the enterprise will result in the loss of Ukraine’s status as a space power, failure of the obligations of the State to enter into international agreements, irreversible loss of proven technologies.
- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/02/10/ukraine-space-industry-verge-collapse/#sthash.4nIVIOJO.dpuf

Factor of negative trends – landslide production cutbacks due to rupture of ties with traditional customers, who provided most of the orders.
The actual bankruptcy of the enterprise will result in the loss of Ukraine’s status as a space power, failure of the obligations of the State to enter into international agreements, irreversible loss of proven technologies.
- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/02/10/ukraine-space-industry-verge-collapse/#sthash.4nIVIOJO.dpuf

More on the Orbital Sciences Mishap

To date most of the stories on the Orbital Sciences' explosion last month placed blame on the Soviet-era engines in the Antares rocket.  CEO David Thompson recently noted, "Current evidence strongly suggest that one of the two AJ26 main engines that powered Antares' first stage failed about 15 seconds after ignition."   

Forbes magazine provided more information on these Russian rockets:

The rocket’s two engines were modified Soviet-era hardware initially acquired from Russia in the late 1990s by the now defunct Kirkland, Wa.-based Kistler Aerospace Corporation. At the time, prior to its merger with Rocketdyne, the Sacramento, Ca.-based Aerojet Corporation had been subcontracted by Kistler to modernize the engines. However, Aerojet subsequently gained title to the engines as part of Kistler’s bankruptcy settlement.  “They were originally developed by the Soviet Union for their N-1 manned lunar rocket which experienced several failures resulting in the Soviet cancellation of their manned lunar landing program,” said Bill Ketchum, a retired General Dynamics Corporation aerospace engineer, familiar with such systems.

So Orbital Sciences used engines from the 1970s, which were associated with a failed Soviet lunar mission, as the foundation for their work with NASA?  Was anyone watching the hen house?  I prefer SpaceX's approach of building everything in-house.  I would prefer NASA and the Air Force would do the same rather than also relying on Russian rockets.  

On November 5th, Orbital Sciences restated it intentions to fulfill the International Space Station (ISS) commitment:

Under the new approach and in line with Orbital’s existing CRS contract, all remaining cargo will be delivered to the International Space Station (ISS) by the end of 2016. There will be no cost increase to NASA and only minor adjustments will be needed to the cargo manifest in the near term...To maintain the CRS program’s critical ISS supply line, Orbital plans an early introduction of its previously selected Antares propulsion system upgrade in 2016. This will be preceded by one or two non-Antares launches of the company’s Cygnus cargo spacecraft to the ISS in 2015-2016, employing the spacecraft’s compatibility with various launch vehicles and its flexibility to accommodate heavier cargo loads as launcher capacity permits. In addition, the company expects repairs to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) launch complex at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility to be undertaken quickly, allowing launch operations to continue at Wallops Island with the upgraded Antares beginning in 2016.

In other words, the program will continue, but the Cygnus cargo capsule will be carried on third-party rockets for now.  Maybe SpaceX Falcons?  This is not a very encouraging sign, but hopefully a short-term solution for one of the only two private sector suppliers for the ISS.

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. 

Space Launches: Monkeys in Space

These past few weeks have seen a number of space launches, including:

--  Japan:  On January 27, Japan launched a two satellites into space, including one that will keep tabs on the North Koreans (who launched their own rocket back in December). 

-- South Korea:  On January 30, South Korea successfully launched a weather satellite.  The Nara rocket used in the launch was built with the assistance of the Russian space agency.  This was the country's first successful attempt to put a satellite into orbit with one of its own rockets. 

-- United States:  On January 30, NASA successfully launched the first of three Tracking and Data Relay Stations to improve communications with the International Space Stations, the Hubble Space Telescope, and other space missions.

-- Russia: On February 1, the Russian-owned, Pacific-based Sea Launch AG rocket (Ukrainian-built) failed to put an Intelsat 27 satellite into orbit.  In a press release, Sea Launch reported:

"We are very disappointed with the outcome of the launch and offer our sincere regrets to our customer, Intelsat, and their spacecraft provider, Boeing,” said Kjell Karlsen, president of Sea Launch AG. “The cause of the failure is unknown, but we are evaluating it and working closely with Intelsat, Boeing, Energia Logistics Ltd. and our Zenit-3SL suppliers. We will do everything reasonably possible to recover from this unexpected and unfortunate event.”

However, the real news story of the past week or so was Iran's launch of a monkey into space.  On January 28, Iran announced the successful rocket launch.  However, no one could independently confirm the launch, which is pretty strange given the number of nations currently monitoring (aka "spying on") the country.  And now there are more stories about two different pictures of the space monkey, something the Iranians attribute to confusion by the Iranian press.  Of course, the Iranians have lost credibility over the years with false statements, such as 2008 doctored images of a Revolutionary Guards missile launch. 

Iran is credited for earlier launches including a rat, two turtles and a worm (it also tried a monkey with no luck in 2011), as well as two Earth-observing satellites back in 2011 and 2012, so they are not new to this. Iranian space officials see the early tests as part of plans to send a human into space by 2020, and maybe even place an astronaut on the moon by 2025.  The moon may be very crowded in the 2020s if all of the countries aiming for it meet their goals. 

Launch Image Above:  March 19, 2008 Zenit-3SL rocket launch by the Sea Launch Co.