Russian Rocket Engines

[Navy1960]

Purchased by the Air Force and supplied by the United Launch Alliance (Lockheed Martin and Boeing), the Atlas V rocket is used for launching things like satellites – even satellites used by the U.S. intelligence community. The Atlas V depends upon Russian built, Russian supplied engines. In other words, we’re paying Russia to supply engines for rockets that are used for potentially sensitive national security missions, at the lowest point in U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War

Houston, We Have a Problem: Russian Rockets, NATO Solidarity and the Need for Defense Acquisition Reform

I don't get to post on here much anymore, but wanted to take the time to say hello to all on USMB and wish all well. Second, I had the chance to read this article and many like it and it struck me ,why are we buying Russian made Rocket engines for USAF rockets, have we let our military and domestic space program slide down to the point where we now have to pay Russia for engines we used to know how to build ourselves? Its my humble opinion that while many may not agree on things right and left perhaps we can all agree that using American tax payer dollars for military applications should be spent or attempted to be spent on hardware made here first.

 

[KNB]

Your frustration should be aimed at the United Launch Alliance. Lockheed and Boeing probably make more money by making the engines overseas. It's just free-market Capitalism.

 

[Navy1960]

KNB, I have no issues with ULA using whatever source they wish for the Atlas V , what I do have a problem with is using American tax dollars to pay for products that can be sourced here in this country and made here for two reasons actually, the first being a national security reason. Lets suppose for a moment that Russia just up and decides to put an export halt on these engines to the US, then the Atlas V which is used for most if not all of the Defense Dept. heavy space lifts will be dead in the water. The second reason is from a pure economic reason and promoting the health of the economy with US tax payer dollars. Now, if the Atlas V were a commercial rocket only and developed with only ULA funds and used just for that purpose I would not care at all where they got their engines from much less any other part.

 

[KNB]

KNB, I have no issues with ULA using whatever source they wish for the Atlas V , what I do have a problem with is using American tax dollars to pay for products that can be sourced here in this country and made here for two reasons actually, the first being a national security reason. Lets suppose for a moment that Russia just up and decides to put an export halt on these engines to the US, then the Atlas V which is used for most if not all of the Defense Dept. heavy space lifts will be dead in the water. The second reason is from a pure economic reason and promoting the health of the economy with US tax payer dollars. Now, if the Atlas V were a commercial rocket only and developed with only ULA funds and used just for that purpose I would not care at all where they got their engines from much less any other part.

Again, it's just Capitalism. Lockheed and Boeing know what they're doing. They do what is best for the company, not the country. They're businesses, intended to create maximum profit for the shareholders. Outsourcing exists to maximize profits. It's always been this way. Whether the company is making plastic toys or rocket engines, if it's more profitable to have the work done overseas then that is what the company is going to do for the good of the company. The super-rich don't have national loyalty. Their money goes everywhere.

 

[Navy1960]

KNB, you don't have any disagreement from me as to what it's called, however, if ULA contracts with DoD , and then uses the maxim "they are doing whats best for shareholders and not the country" then they have a real problem. The source of those profits come from American tax payers , again I have no issues with ULA paying for their own R&D and using that rocket for commercial reasons only , what I do take issue with is ULA funding its R&D and its Atlas V with tax payer money, then using a foreign source for its construction when that rocket is being used for 36 different USAF launches.

 

[francoHFW]

My problem is that it was a no compete contract, and SpaceX was not allowed to compete. They seem to be doing better things much cheaper...
THEY SHOULD AT LEAST GET SOME OF THE ACTION.

 

[1776]

The RD-180 rocket engine is what we buy off the Russians.

The Russians stole the Nazi "rocket" scientists and we got the other group of Nazi scientists after WW2, that is why they have always had the lead going to space but we build better things for space.

 

[Navy1960]

All good points, I am aware that Space X and others are going to file suit on the no bid contract awarded to the USAF. In the end , again I have no issues with commercial development and these companies paying for their own R&D for commercial purposes and use. Where I part company with some is when these companies use taxpayer dollars for critical systems used for defense, and more so for systems that can clearly be made here, so that our nation is not exposed to the supply chain being suddenly cut off for the political whims of those we happen to do business with.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm pretty sure we could make RD-180 here if we need to. We make most of the Atlas V rocket already.

https://www.rocket.com/article/aero...ed-launch-alliance-successful-atlas-v-mission

 

[Navy1960]

NASA’s J-2X engine, once considered the pacing item for the next U.S. human-rated rocket, will go on the shelf after development testing wraps up next year because it will be years before the engine is needed to push humans toward Mars.

NASA?s J-2X Engine To Be Mothballed After Testing | AWIN content from Aviation Week

BlindBoo is correct we do have the the capability to make our own engines to lift the Atlas 5 , the above engine is a good example. The problem here is ULA was allowed to outsource this engine to the lowest bidder for a rocket that is used for national security and defense purposes and Space X and many others who have pointed this out have a a valid point when they point out that not only was ULA's contract with Air Force a no bid contract it puts at risk the defense needs of this nation.