Student comments on From Russia With(out) Love: Russian Rockets & American Aerospace

1. November 26, 2017 Rob S says:

   Ultimately, I believe that the BE-4 will become the primary engine supplied for the ULA Vulcan. Blue Origin has more recent experience developing new engines, having proven its ability to develop a throttle-able rocket engine with the flight-tested BE-3. By comparison, Aerojet Rocketdyne has not developed a new ground-up engine in over a decade. Additionally, the BE-4 using LNG for propellant, which is between 1/4 and 1/3 the cost of the RP-1 used in the AR1, adding a further recurring cost advantage to the BE-4. The AR1 is currently about two years behind the BE-4 in development schedule. Given the currently strained relationships with Russia, it would be difficult for Congress to continue approving ULA’s sanction exemptions once an American-sourced alternative is available.

   By partnering with Blue Origin, ULA is effectively subsidizing a future competitor’s development efforts. Blue Origin has demonstrated it’s suborbital RLV platform with the New Shepard, and once the New Glenn is mission-ready will be able to compete directly with ULA for launch contracts. As you mentioned, the recurring cost savings from the Blue Origin RLV will put significant market pressure on ULA. Although ULA is claiming that its recoverable engine plan will bring Vulcan launch costs within range of the reusable booster concepts, it is completely untested and not ready for its first test flight until at least 2024. This gives Blue Origin 4-5 years to refine its process for restoring New Glenn 1st stage boosters (in addition to the experience the company already gains from testing New Shepard rockets), which will likely generate additional cost benefits.

   ULA’s best hope is to continue to leverage their longstanding relationships with NASA and the DoD, and proven track record of handling projects relevant to national security interests. Aerojet Rocketdyne would be a natural partner for this effort, but unless the partnership can deliver on their promise of cost parity, it may be too little too late.
2. November 28, 2017 Brooke says:

   The escalating tensions between the US and Russia creates uncertainty in the approach and strategic direction of ULA. An interesting development that adds an additional layer of complexity is the recent indecision of the EU government on guaranteeing ArianeGroup at least five government satellites [1]. This could present an opportunity for ULA to challenge SpaceX through their partnership with Blue Origin, or at least consider European opportunities outside of Russia. This recent development makes me wonder whether the EU is moving in the direction of isolationism, or considering exploring international options for rockets?

   [1] “EU Governments’ Indecision on SpaceX Challenge Seen as Threat to Ariane System’s Survival.” Space Intel Report, http://www.spaceintelreport.com/eu-governments-indecision-spacex-challenge-seen-threat-ariane-systems-survival/, accessed November 2017.
3. November 28, 2017 Austin Pulsipher says:

   The US government has made a series of strategic decisions that have unfolded into a very difficult situation within the space industry. Space is much more than scientific exploration, I use my GPS nearly everyday and know the US military relies on intelligence that is bounced off satellites orbiting the earth. As we look back on the US government’s exodus from building launch vehicles, the US government has become beholden to the decisions of private enterprises. I find it very concerning and hilarious that in a situation of contention with the Russians that we are reliant on them for critical pieces of infrastructure that relate to our national security. It is amazing to see how interconnected the world has become and important to realize the impact of how certain isolationist policies ripple through the economy and government. Bezos and Musk, who have been driven to space by their fascination with the topic could be the unlikely winners in this problem because of their domestic production. For any industry it is vital to always have a plan B. UAL was put in a very unfortunate position where geopolitical issues interfered with their profitability and they did not have a Plan B.
4. November 30, 2017 Tom Anderson says:

   Ben, this is a fascinating topic and I appreciate you sharing it. Like Austin, I’m a bit surprised that ULA has allowed its supply chain to remain so vulnerable over the past decade despite numerous indications of the deteriorating relationship between the US and Russia well before 2014. I would push back on one of Austin’s points however in that I think it was a series of tactical decisions rather than strategic decisions that led the US and ULA to this point. Despite spending more than $120 million in 1995 to develop domestic RD-180 production capability, Lockheed Martin and ULA were unable to compete with Russia’s $10 million-per-rocket production cost (https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-does-the-usa-depend-on-russian-rockets-to-get-us-into-space). The government decided it was better (and probably more politically expedient) to continue buying the cheaper rockets from Russia instead of pursuing expensive domestic alternatives. Even as recently as June of this year, the US Air Force awarded another $191 million to ULA to continue using the Atlas V with Russian-made RD-180 engines through 2019. With continued investment in ULA, I, like Rob, would expect the BE-4 to be the eventual replacement of the RD-180 and stave off threats of an Aerojet merger.
5. December 1, 2017 502503 says:

   After reading this article, I thought it was informative, and also indicative of some of the short-sightedness of large successful companies. I would think that the fact that the ULA is still dependent on Russian rockets after more than a decade is a major mistake. It seems the ULA’s primary strategy to ease the political isolationism related to Russia is to keep banking on import exceptions. How can the U.S. military allow itself to be dependent on Russian rockets until 2019, at the earliest? Also, such projects may experience significant delays. It seems an intentional lack of planning on the part of ULA and the DoD where they are now in a situation where they are in a race against time to domestically develop another rocket engine before the sanctions are kept in place for Russian rockets. Can’t we work with the other countries in the mean time?
6. December 1, 2017 Ashley Shaw says:

   Ben, thanks for this very interesting read! I think your article perfectly highlights the irony of political conflict in the face of economic interdependency, which is particularly interesting in the context of the US/Russia space race as they have been and continue to be vocal rivals. I appreciate that the solution you present is to utilize free market incentives to boost up American space companies in order to mitigate the economic risks of political isolationism, and I wonder if conversely there will be strong enough business incentives to overcome the suffering, pain, and disadvantage caused by political isolationism. This article makes clear that the US remains in many ways completely dependent for its national security on the very agents (China, Russia particularly), that it must boost up its national security to protect itself against. Even if one solution is to outsource to American companies, those companies may also have in their best interest to export supply chain management out to these same nation-state agents with which the US has an antagonistic political relationship. Perhaps the best protectionism is to embrace the truth of economic interdependency and translate its motivations into diplomatic achievements.
7. December 1, 2017 Anum Chandani says:

   Very interesting read! Its so fascinating to see US still export engine for their rockets form Russia. What I am curious about is if ULA is planning on moving toward RLV. RLVs are much more cost effective and with the current successful runs of SpaceX with RLVs , it seems to me that the market is moving towards that trend. And if in the future private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are able to provide cheaper yet safer rockets, what would limit the US govt or Nasa from not using these companies instead of ULA. I guess what I don’t understand is, in spite of being a market leader, why has ULA not been able to develop a stronger position on RLVs.