Recommended Posts

American Space Exploration Depends Too Much on Russia

 

A Space Race, But On Russia's Terms

 

In order to maintain its space superiority, the United States currently relies on Russian technology ? so much so, in fact, that every once in a while American claims to space superiority seem rather hollow. This state of affairs has been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks.

 

On August 27, the Kremlin's English-language television channel, Russia Today, reported that the Security Council of the Russian Federation was considering an export ban of the venerable RD-180 rocket engine. This engine is sold exclusively to the U.S. launch firm United Launch Alliance to power its Atlas V rocket. The vehicle is considered by many industry insiders, analysts and casual observers to be the workhorse of the U.S. Launch fleet, and is regularly contracted to lift NASA, National Reconnaissance Office and United States Air Force payloads into orbit.

 

The Russian decision, therefore, would be potentially disastrous from a national security standpoint. Losing the RD-180 would have a serious effect on the United States' ability to access space, thereby impacting everything from military communications and control to the intelligence and commercial satellites enabling the United States to effectively pursue and protect its interests on the world stage.

 

 

  • Like 1

Bring it on. All it would do is

1) cause NASA and the USAF to turn even more to SpaceX. Falcon 9 can already lift more than all but 2 versions of RD-180 based Atlas V, and the domestically engined Delta IV Heavy can handle those until Falcon Heavy flies.

2) cause the US to activate a contract clause that allows Rocketdyne to produce the RD-180 here

3) similar clause as 2) for the NK-33/AJ-26 by Aerojet that's used in Antares

4) accelerate the development of the RS-25, an expendable version of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). Already started for the SLS super heavy launcher.

5) cancel plans to mothball the J-2X upper stage engine.

6) accelerate plans by Rocketdyne to bring the Saturn V's massive F1b back into production. Also already in the cards for liquid version an of the SLS boosters.

Game On.

This would hurt Russia more than the US. The main reason the US bought those engines was to help keep their Russian makers in business after the revolution, with a secondary goal of preventing their engineers from moving to Iran, NK etc. Now they're moving here and to Europe.

  • Like 2

The main reason the US bought those engines was to help keep their Russian makers in business

 

Aw, it's so good-hearted and philanthropic of you. It's not like the engine's specs or the build quality had anything to do with it. /s

It was a pragmatic decision to keep your engineers put instead of becoming hired guns. Try reading a non-Russian history book of the period - you might learn something.

This would also put a lot of people out of work at NPO Energomash, who are building one of the few Russian space products that outsiders want to buy. Hard to see hpw that helps Russia's struggling space industry.

When it comes to Governments they always ruin everything. And i understand that both programs are government funded but the scientists within those operations do not care much about USA or Russia more than they care about Human. once they are up on the space station or soyuz capsule they are the same team. not competing. its not the cold war anymore.

There's no waggling to it. He bought another Russia Times tabloid exploitation fiction hook, line and sinker and I'm calling him on it.

 

Russia Times tabloid?

 

The source is usnews.com

 

About U.S. News & World Report

U.S. News & World Report is a multi-platform, publisher of news and information, which includes www.usnews.com and www.rankingsandreviews.com, as well as the digital-only U.S. News Weekly magazine.

U.S. News and World Report traces its history back to the weekly newspaper the United States News founded by David Lawrence in 1933.

  • Like 2

If Russia does block sales, I bet pretty much everything that DocM has will happen will actually occur. You'd also see congressional agreement on something (for once) and I bet that they would send a few billion dollars more to NASA and the DOD in the name of national security. 

Russia Times tabloid?

The source is usnews.com

And US News & World Report used Russia Times as their primary source. This story has been broadly discussed in the aerospace community and the consensus is it would hurt Russia more than the US.

This because not only would it cost Russian makers jobs but ULA has a stockpile of RD-180's sufficient for ~3 years (enough to replace it). Aerojet is set up to produce the NK-33/AJ26, SpaceX and Orbital are flying more than capable launchers with bigger ones coming etc. etc. AND soon we won't have to depend on Soyuz for crewed flights.

ISTM this is more for internal political consumption. One more way Putin can try to look "manly."

  • 1 month later...

Atlas V currently relies on Russian engines. Atlas V is not "the US."

While it and Delta IV currently launch NASA and Air Force EELV (evolved expendable launch vehicle) payloads, that is changing with the opening up of NASA and EELV launches to New Space operators like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. More will follow.

Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, SLS and the coming Blue Origin medium-heavy lifter do not use Russian engines. Atlas V could also evolve to use domestic engines.

Falcon 9 v1.1 is one launch away from qualifying for EELV launches and is already launching NASA payloads. Falcon Heavy will be able to launch 2+ EELV payloads at once, and 12.2 metric tons (2-3 communications satellites) to Mars.

Orbital Science's Antares depends on the AJ26, a derivative of the old Russian NK-33, but it will be domestically produced. They may even end up buying engines from another New Space outfit. They are already launching NASA ISS resupply flights, and with upgrades to Antares could also do EELV.

Again, Russia has mote to lose by such an action than anyone. Much more.

  • 3 weeks later...

Atlas V currently relies on Russian engines. Atlas V is not "the US."

While it and Delta IV currently launch NASA and Air Force EELV (evolved expendable launch vehicle) payloads, that is changing with the opening up of NASA and EELV launches to New Space operators like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. More will follow.

Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, SLS and the coming Blue Origin medium-heavy lifter do not use Russian engines. Atlas V could also evolve to use domestic engines.

Falcon 9 v1.1 is one launch away from qualifying for EELV launches and is already launching NASA payloads. Falcon Heavy will be able to launch 2+ EELV payloads at once, and 12.2 metric tons (2-3 communications satellites) to Mars.

Orbital Science's Antares depends on the AJ26, a derivative of the old Russian NK-33, but it will be domestically produced. They may even end up buying engines from another New Space outfit. They are already launching NASA ISS resupply flights, and with upgrades to Antares could also do EELV.

Again, Russia has mote to lose by such an action than anyone. Much more.

Exactly - Atlas V is commercial, not military.

 

This will seriously whack Russia right in the currency-exchange; if Russia is serious about hardening the ruble (Russia's currency) you don't reject exports to nations that actually HAVE harder currency.  (Russia may not like that the United States remains the hardest currency issued by any government - while their own ruble is one of the softest - but that is economic reality, and it is primarily because the Russian marketplace is hostile to imports from anywhere; the same has been true of not only the PRC, but even Japan and most of the "Asian tigers".)

 

Russia also has to take India seriously - unlike the PRC, India IS actively looking to commercialize their space venture - do they really want India to take the rest of Russia's lunch?

well, when the President slashes NASA's budget, this stuff happens. oh, but lets continue to inflate the budget for the military for the fake war on terror.

 

I'd look at what Nasa is doing with the money they currently get...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/nasa-official-walks-claim-muslim-outreach-foremost-mission/

*If you don't like the source, Search for another...

 

The sooner the Government uses private companies (chosen on accomplishments and price instead of lobbyists and politics) the better!  But chances are that will never happen...

  • 2 weeks later...

The sooner America break up ties with Putin's Russia space industry  - the better for American space industry. It's funny how American army buy Russian helicopters for 1 billion, than Russia spends this 1 billion on their "russia today" channel to spread Anti-Americanism worldwide. 

The sooner America break up ties with Putin's Russia space industry  - the better for American space industry. It's funny how American army buy Russian helicopters for 1 billion, than Russia spends this 1 billion on their "russia today" channel to spread Anti-Americanism worldwide. 

I agree with sentence one. However the rest is one sided propaganda.

I'd say it's good competition

 

Just like in the '60's

 

Patriotic or not, no one can deny the advancements made in tech due to opposing countries competing for penis points.

(necessity, the mother of all inventions)

United States currently relies on Russian technology ...

 

Complete rubbish.

 

The US has above top secret technology that makes Russia look like the Flintstones.

 

NASA is really a smoke & mirrors decoy, distracting the public from what really has been developed.

Complete rubbish.

 

The US has above top secret technology that makes Russia look like the Flintstones.

 

NASA is really a smoke & mirrors decoy, distracting the public from what really has been developed.

 

Oh please Hum, show us some of this real technology...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!