Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#51

Post by mkohlmyr »

josefresco wrote: post #40

For those interested in this topic, I found the following Senate hearing to be quite entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 Elon basically going head-to-head with Michael Gass from the ULA and holding his own quite well.

I watched this a few weeks ago when the lawsuit was first publicised. Senator Shelby from Alabama is so infuriatingly transparent. I mean it's so obvious he has no real interest in lowering spending. ULA is effectively a jobs programme for his constituents and the rest of the nation pays dearly for it.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#52

Post by monochr »

nkoren wrote: post #30
eps wrote: post #2

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

Elon's response to that tweet was more than a little bit epic: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 followed by: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!

"Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!"

Probably nothing.

The Soyuz rockets they use are so old they are literally still named after the Soviet Union. This might seem like a bad thing but in rocketry old means reliable and new means "Your payload will probably explode in one of the first 5 missions. Hope it wasn't important!"

In short, it won't be sometime before 2018 before the Dragon Mk 2 rockets become safe enough for Astronauts to use regularly to get to the space station.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#53

Post by rst »

jacquesm wrote: post #13
127001brewer wrote: post #5

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines. Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few: - Oribital Sciences - SpaceX - Sea Launch - Starsem - United Launch Alliance - EADS/Arianespace - ILS - ISC Possibly others. edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud

Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180 engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V.

(BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital has several suppliers for its various launchers.)

The larger suit does concern a block purchase of whole rockets from ULA, but the injunction does not interfere with the block buy, just payments to the Russian subcontractor.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#54

Post by chaostheory »

rst wrote: post #43
JackFr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not space exploration, its a jobs program for missile scientists -- you know keep them off the streets, keep them from joining gangs, kind of like Boys Clubs or something. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-ski... "The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading…

This is mixing up multiple things: the injunction concerns engines for launches of American defense satellites (GPS, spy sats, communications satellites), etc., which don't go to the space station and don't have much to do with it. (ISS is a NASA program, not military.)

> is a NASA program, not military

Nowadays with all the budget cuts NASA has been facing, in terms of projects the lines are blurring between the two organizations

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#55

Post by huhtenberg »

JackFr wrote: post #20
eps wrote: post #2

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

This is not space exploration, its a jobs program for missile scientists -- you know keep them off the streets, keep them from joining gangs, kind of like Boys Clubs or something. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-ski... "The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading…

And that's of course the US version of the story. Very cute, but I can tell you from lots of anecdotal evidence that all that ISS work was a drop in the ocean as far as Soviet space program was concerned.

Rocket scientists didn't go to work for rogue nations. You have to understand that Soviet space industry was (and still is) veiled in secrecy. Think of it as SkunkWorks but on a massive scale and with 100x of security officers. You couldn't just hand in your resignation and go work for Iran. It just didn't work this way (it still doesn't by the way). For example, people with a security clearance were required to keep their travel passports with HR and they were not generally allowed to leave the country unsupervised. That's if they could get passports issued to begin with. Perestroika or not, all this security scaffolding was still in place and you bet it was functioning. The state was still guarding its secrets and know-hows. Granted, it neglected people behind them, but it wasn't going to let others access its technology.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#56

Post by dfc »

thasmin wrote: post #46
dfc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do two people, neither of which is a senator on the relevant committee, go head-to-head in a Senate hearing?

Senators are not experts on every topic that they govern over, so they solicit advice from experts.

Agreed. However the "experts" are not allowed to address each other individually. Senators ask a question to an expert and the expert addresses his or her answer to the Senator.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#57

Post by jacquesm »

rst wrote: post #53
jacquesm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines. Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few: - Oribital Sciences - SpaceX - Sea Launch - Starsem - United Launch Alliance - EADS/Arianespace - ILS - ISC Possibly others. edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud

Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180 engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V. (BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital…

Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to Russian engines that US built engines could not supply?

I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder to compete with than ordering whole rockets!

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#58

Post by jack-r-abbit »

nkoren wrote: post #30
eps wrote: post #2

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

Elon's response to that tweet was more than a little bit epic: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 followed by: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!

I saw his tweet about Dragon Mk 2 but had no clue what he was talking about with the trampoline comment. Now it makes sense.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#59

Post by dfc »

josefresco wrote: post #47
thasmin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senators are not experts on every topic that they govern over, so they solicit advice from experts.

...and In this case 2/3 of the experts called were/are competing for the government's business. Edit: Strike that ... 1/3 of the experts is asking to compete for the government's business. 1/3 already have a monopoly for this work. I'd say that's pretty "head to head".

As long as "head to head" includes interaction mediated by the Senator currently recognized and the chairman of the committee. In my opinion this mediation eviscerates any "direct conflict" between two people who are not senators.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#60

Post by rst »

jacquesm wrote: post #57
rst wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180 engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V. (BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital…

Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to Russian engines that US built engines could not supply? I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder…

Among kerosene/oxygen rockets, the RD-180 gets an unusually high amount of propulsive kinetic energy per unit of fuel (technically, high specfic impulse), in part due to a more efficient combustion cycle (staged combustion), and in part due to very advanced materials science the Russians have, that the US hasn't matched. (And other engines with similar performance are also Russian: the RD-170, which is signficantly larger than the RD-180; the NK-33, which is quite a bit smaller...)

There is an American manufacturer that has licensed the RD-180 design, and technically has the rights to build them here, but they haven't --- and since that would involve duplicating Russian metallurgy, there's some skepticism that they could. (At a recent Senate hearing, it was the head of ULA(!) who said the Russian design did "things we found that our textbooks said were impossible".)

If you're asking why ULA can't just buy something else from, say, Pratt and Whitney, then the short answer is, "they don't sell anything that fits on an Atlas V". Think about trying to use the engine from a VW bug (or a large truck) to replace the engine in a pickup: even if the fuels are the same (and you can't take that for granted!), the fittings and performance characteristics are different enough that the combined thing just wouldn't work.

Post reply on HN