33 ms·
ULA's reasoning was pretty straightforward. The main reason they dropped out of the competition is because the bidding was to be decided largely on price, The
by SHIT_TALKER 11y ago
ULA's reasoning was pretty straightforward. The main reason they dropped out of the competition is because the bidding was to be decided largely on price,
The reason they had to drop out is because they're a space launch company without any goddamned engines. The chatter about the bid process is just the typical jawing members of the defense cartel engage in when they deign to speak of competitors. Sometimes they're even successful in reopening the bid process. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X
- fleitz 11y agoAs they say in the space industry... All rocket, no engines.
- tgb 11y agoI don't understand. Can you explain this and the parent's comment on engines?
- danmaz74 11y agoThe ULA launchers use the Russian produced RD-180 engine
- avmich 11y agoOnly Atlas-V. Delta-IV uses American hydrogen engines (RS-68); however Delta-IV is rather more expensive than Atlas-V. Even though Atlas-IV is rather more expensive than Falcon-9 - which uses simpler, less performant but cheaper technology.
- JumpCrisscross 11y agoULA's vehicles were designed around the RD-180 rocket engine [1][2]. This is an engine built and designed in Russia. After Russia annexed Crimea, Congress banned the Pentagon from using Russian rocket engines. Russia responded by counter-banning the Pentagon from using its engines [3]. This made things complicated for ULA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 [2] http://www.ulalaunch.com/faqs-rd-180.aspx http://www.ulalaunch.com/faqs-rd-180.aspx [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-13/russia-bans-rocket-engine-sales-to-u-s-military http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-13/russia-ban...
- fleitz 11y agohttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=all%20hat%2C%20no%20cattle http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=all%20hat%2C%... So if you're a rocket company and don't make your own engines you're not really a rocket company, you're just talk.
- avmich 11y agoOr if you don't have a reliable supplier of engines. In this case world politics meddled with space rocketry, so supplier's goods became less than completely available.
- gozo 11y ago> (From Article) Congress wants to phase out the use of the RD-180 engine for national security launches by 2019 as a result of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. I have't been paying close attention, but maybe you know this. Didn't Russia actually ban export of engines for military launches over Crimea before congress? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/15/us-space-military-programme-russia-sanctions http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/15/us-space-mili... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-201...
- fleitz 11y agoYes, like most people quit their jobs before they get fired.
- mattkevan 11y agoBit embarrassing isn't it, that a joint venture between two of the US's (and world's) largest aeronautics and defence companies doesn't have their own engines – and has to rely on the Russians?
- avmich 11y agoWell, Russians are world leaders in at least kerosene-based rocket engines for one. And ULA doesn't quite lack just any engines - they have RS-68 hydrogen engines.