Lockheed: RD-180 ban may kill ULA


Recommended Posts

So, either Congress backs off the RD-180 ban or they kill ULA? Good luck getting that change past Sen. McCain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0Z00BK20150614?irpc=932

Lockheed says rocket launch venture hinges on U.S. law waiver

PARIS, June 14 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp issued a warning on Sunday over the viability of its rocket launch joint venture with Boeing Co, saying the venture urgently needed the United States to waive a law banning the use of Russian engines to launch military and spy satellites.

Rick Ambrose, who heads Lockheed's space business, told Reuters in an interview that concerns about the United Launch Alliance (ULA) venture's prospects had prompted the partners to approve funding for its new U.S.-powered Vulcan rocket only one quarter at time.

He said it was "prudent" for the partners to proceed cautiously, given uncertainty about both ULA's ability to use its Russian-powered Atlas 5 rocket for military and intelligence satellites, and growing competition in the commercial market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An American company, fighting for the "right" to use Russian engines to launch American technology and "sensitive" payloads, while other American companies are on board, already, to give America the ability to keep all launch vehicles American on American soil.

 

Sounds like a "B" movie script.......but it's true..... :/

 

Hello "Lockheed"....stay out of the launch business and play with the 100's of other cash cow projects you have rigged.....No One Feels Sorry For You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ULA, really LockMart and Boeing, have been given ~$1B a year for assured access and never put it towards assuring we have an engine if Russia ran off the rails. This even after Russia started threatening to not sell RD-180's in about 2011-2012.

Epic Fail2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We largely know: largely shareholder dividends, with perhaps a bit of siphoning off for black projects.

 

Shouldn't that therefore come under fraud? They were allocated that money for the development of a USA based launch solution.  If they used it for something else, that's misappropriation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that assured access was loosely defined. Pulling the trigger on the development of a US built RD-180 wasn't mentioned, even though common sense would indicate it should have been a priority.

That option was legal under the US AMROSS (Rocketdyne-Energiya) joint venture contract, which was separate.

Without that strict definition assured access became defined by practice as just keeping the Atlas & Delta factory lights on if no launches were ordered.

Money for nothin' and chicks for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that'll teach whoever allocates such monies to be a wee bit more specific where it goes, otherwise it'll just get embezzled again with no recourse on it.

 

Morons and crooks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ULA deserves to fail then. They could not adapt, even though they had ample time and money to do so.

 

It's their own fault.

 

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out ... actually, I hope the door does hit ya. Right in the keister.

 

Sorry, Bruno. You lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.