Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States

Russia Halts Deliveries of Rocket Engines To US (reuters.com) 186

Posted by BeauHD from the time-to-whip-out-the-broomsticks dept.
Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Reuters reports: "In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," [Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on state Russian television]. According to Rogozin, Russia has delivered a total of 122 RD-180 engines to the U.S. since 1990s, of which 98 have been used to power Atlas launch vehicles. Roscosmos will also stop servicing rocket engines it had previously delivered to the U.S., Rogozin said, adding that the U.S. still had 24 engines that would now be left without Russian technical assistance.

Russia has earlier said it was suspending cooperation with Europe on space launches from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana in response to Western sanctions over Ukraine. Moscow has also demanded guarantees from British satellite company OneWeb that its satellites would not be used for military purposes. OneWeb, in which the British government has a stake, said on Thursday it was suspending all launches from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Rogozin said Russia would now focus on creating dual-purpose spacecraft in line with the needs of Roscosmos and the Defence Ministry.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Halts Deliveries of Rocket Engines To US More

Russia Halts Deliveries of Rocket Engines To US

Comments Filter:

  • SpaceX (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:26PM (#62323803)

    I think SpaceX has this covered.

    • Re: SpaceX (Score:4, Informative)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:31PM (#62323819)

      Uh the FAA has been trying every trick in their book to shutdown SpaceX. For example, delaying and dragging the environmental review.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by cirby ( 2599 )

        This is the perfect opportunity to make them stop that crap.

        Headlines like "Washington bureaucrats support Russian space program, impede US companies."

      • As has NASA. The insanity of the required boat landings added years to their development time.

      • Uh the FAA has been trying every trick in their book to shutdown SpaceX. For example, delaying and dragging the environmental review.

        Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review? I know you guys would give up your life for Muck, but this isdea that he must have dominion over the US Government is kind of oligigarchic in concept.

        • Uh the FAA has been trying every trick in their book to shutdown SpaceX. For example, delaying and dragging the environmental review.

          Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review?

          That was a fucking amateur move there, bucko.

          Person A accuses the FAA of delay and dragging out the reviews and you pull a straw-man out of you ass with your "Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review?" bullshit.

          How the hell do you go from "delay and drag out" to "are you suggesting they shouldn't even have to go through the process"?

          What the actual fuck? Is that how your brain operates? You don't think maybe the RATIONAL conclusion to come to would be: Have the review, but don't drag it out and weapo

          • Uh the FAA has been trying every trick in their book to shutdown SpaceX. For example, delaying and dragging the environmental review.

            Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review?

            That was a fucking amateur move there, bucko.

            That was a question that is asked in the course of conversation, mon chichi. That it triggered you badly is noted. Those questions need asked, in a professional context. It's designed to make you think for a second. You're taking a shitfit is even useful, if only to tell me where exactly you are coming from. Thank you. You are a well indoctrinated fan of Musk's.

            Person A accuses the FAA of delay and dragging out the reviews and you pull a straw-man out of you ass with your "Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review?" bullshit.

            If you are going to make accusations of strawmen, don't be specious about it. Questions are not strawmen. A proper and rationa response is "Of cour

          • Person A accuses the FAA of delay and dragging out the reviews and you pull a straw-man out of you ass with your "Should Spacex be exempt from FAA review?" bullshit.

            That's not a strawman.
            OP implies that SpaceX should not be subject to the FAA's "delay and drag out", or they're implying that the FAA is overstepping its statutory authority.

            However, I'm pretty sure SpaceX would be in court slapping the FAA in the face if it were.

            PS. Ask your doc for some Xanax. No amount of cheerleading is worth how high your blood pressure just got.

          • straw-man ... ass

            You pulled a straw-man out of your own ass, though.

            Person A asserted that the FAA was "dragging their feet" out of a desire to "shut SpaceX down." Which, frankly, is stupid and doesn't pass the "straight face" test, because if the FAA tried to do that, they'd get an executive order to put them in their place. SpaceX is an important part of the US space strategy. The FAA knows that, because they're regularly involved in approving and overseeing launches.

            Person B pointed out, by implication, that everybody ha

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arethan ( 223197 )

        And I'm sure they were similarly pissed when a group of Wernher von Braun followers were doing "dangerous things" circa 1940s. I agree, regulations are there to keep the general population safe, but you _must_ have room for technological advancement or you're just stagnating, ultimately doing more harm to your populace than good.

        If you can't deal with SpaceX doing test flights in the middle of a veritable Texan no-man's land, then get fucked, honestly. The people that stayed know what they're in for - (ama

        • Werver von Brauh was working for the US Army after World War II. The FAA has, generally, been cooperative with US Military programs.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Arethan ( 223197 )

            Well, yes, that is a specific situation of the era. However, we have no such FAA cooperation despite the fact that SpaceX has been building some very serious US-based launch capability. It's damn near embarrassing that the FAA isn't giving SpaceX the same level of leeway as von Braun (et al) -- but whatever, I'm just happy to see that SpaceX has pressed onward in that stead regardless.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Rhipf ( 525263 )

              You do realize there is a BIG difference between 1940's, 1950's and now don't you? Most of the delays are due to the fact that space is becoming littered with junk. Most of that junk may be useful but it is getting crowded up there and the FAA wants assurances that SpaceX isn't going to be causing problems for other space projects. It isn't like the FAA is giving SpaceX a hard time getting clearances and rubber stamping everyone else.
              Another big difference is that there was no EPA in the 40's or 50's. It wa

          • It is true Wernher von Braun was treated decently, but that was only because the leadership of that time recognized the potential of rockets after WW2. But what about before that? Robert Goddard was well ahead of the Germans up until the 1920s (in fact von Braun utilized a lot of Goddards innovations), but in the US Goddards work was stalled due to lack of support and even ridicule.

        • This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but where a rocket takes off from isn't all that important to its risk assessment. If it were, we'd be firing ours off from Puerto Rico instead of Florida.
      • If the FAA wanted to shut down SpaceX, they would shut down SpaceX.
        Rather, they're doing their statutory job: enforcing the rules that they are statutorily empowered to make.

        Rules can be inconvenient to people sometimes, I get that.
        And rules for spaceflight are particularly onerous, because well, spaceflight is fucking dangerous to people on the ground, and other peoples shit in orbit.
        Companies like SpaceX who are flying by the seat of their pants- rules slow them down. I get it. But they're there for

      • Uh the FAA has been trying every trick in their book to shutdown SpaceX.

        The world is full of idiots, but if you want to find bigger idiots than we have on slashdot, you might have to resort to Pravda.

      • Ironically, the issue with the latest environmental review is the fault of the Dept of Interior, National Park Service, and Fish & Wildlife. In fact, they're still objecting to things that are no longer even part of SpaceX's plan: https://www.teslarati.com/spac... [teslarati.com]

    • I think SpaceX has this covered.

      Absolutely, now is the perfect time to eliminate our need for anything Russian in this realm, just as we should all be working to end European reliance on Russian oil and gas as well.

      Not sure what else Russia sells the west that is of any value, but no matter what happens with Ukraine, I expect a lot of Russia's business is never coming back.

      • From the past: Republican Senator John McCain labeled Russia as nothing but a 'gas station masquerading as a country' in a television appearance Sunday where he called out president Obama's 'disturbing lack of realism' in dealing with the crisis in Crimea.

        • From the past: Republican Senator John McCain labeled Russia as nothing but a 'gas station masquerading as a country' in a television appearance Sunday where he called out president Obama's 'disturbing lack of realism' in dealing with the crisis in Crimea.

          While generally I agree with McCain's analysis, I'd like to point out that when the gas station has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons it somewhat limits your options in dealing with the antisocial behaviour of its management.

      • Yeah, Musk just lost a major competitor, and he's gotten really, really good at rapidly deploying large manufacturing complexes.

        As this is going to have national security implications, he'll be well positioned to get a very nice chunk of funding to make a giant factory churning out engines made in america.

        And we've already heard stories about his concern that SpaceX isn't making enough rocket engines. So not only does he want and need this, the US is going to as well.

        • "and he's gotten really, really good at rapidly deploying large manufacturing complexes."
          In this case, "rapidly" means a couple of years instead of the 5+ for anybody else.
          Which is not fast enough, as things stand.

      • Titanium? Recall the need for it and clandestine methods of acquisition for the SR-71.

        • Probably you are thinking of platinum. China seems to have the biggest Titanium reserves.
          • It was titanium. Do you not know the story of the US setting up shell companies to buy the titanium to build the SR-71s from Russia? Something like %90 of the titanium that built those was mined in Russia.
      • Also, time to bring the chip fabs back and start building phones and computers in the US. China one day will be the next Russia.

      • "Not sure what else Russia sells the west that is of any value"
        Grains, minerals.
        Gold, Platinum, Iron, Nickel (for special steels), Copper, ...
        Some other energy-intensive products, as energy could be cheap in Russia.
        Some military hardware and maintenance related activities on it.

    • I think SpaceX has this covered.

      You have to realize that, right now, any pronouncements like this are for Russian internal consumption. Roscosmos knows very well this isn't going to significantly impact the US - especially given that US companies started actively working towards finding alternatives back in 2014 (the last time Russia went into Ukraine). But the Russian public likely isn't familiar with current US space technology. They may not even know just how backwards their own country is.

      • > especially given that US companies started actively working towards finding alternatives back in 2014

        Heck the US started working toward choosing alternatives in 2004. They selected Ares I and Ares V. In 2007 the contractors were selected. The Constellation program never received funding for the overall program, though, and the Ares I didn't make fiscal sense on its own.

        In 2011, it was redesigned into the SLS program. That's supposed to fly this year, with a wet test this month.

        • SLS is a joke. It's set to use old shuttle engines.
          There are 16 of them. They're modifying the things that have been sitting in cold storage for 2 decades.
          Work hasn't even started on trying to build more.

          SLS is one badass space phallus, but the program is a fucking joke.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        But the Russian public likely isn't familiar with current US space technology. They may not even know just how backwards their own country is.

        If they're so backwards why do they have the world's most advanced rocket engine?

        I'm sure the average Russian citizen doesn't want this war any more than American citizens want their wars. From what I've seen, the numerous attempts to get rid of Putin have all ended up with something happening to his opponent.

        • So they say.
          Others may differ.
          Russia just published an expose of corruption and incompetence in their space industry. Heads are about to roll.

        • But the Russian public likely isn't familiar with current US space technology. They may not even know just how backwards their own country is.

          If they're so backwards why do they have the world's most advanced rocket engine?

          One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

          And the concept of Russia being so backwards is a bit of a meme.

          But aside from that, the RD-180 is a very good engine. Selling some 120 of them since the 1990's.

          But here's the thing. Those are indeed really good engines. But stopping selling them to the US is like a big gift to Spacex. A good bit of the purchase was a goodwill and already developed exchange of money for engines. Other engines are fully capable.

          Spacex's largest issue here is they'll probabl

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            And the concept of Russia being so backwards is a bit of a meme.

            Yeah, I mean it's unwise to underestimate Russia's technical capability because their leader has corrupted the state to hang onto power.

            But stopping selling them to the US is like a big gift to Spacex. Spacex's largest issue here is they'll probably have to ramp up production quickly. And when this is all over, that engine market for Russia is gone forever as we adapt and overcome.

            So true, first thing I thought, this is a great opportunity for, probably Musk, to seize the opportunity to make a better engine.

        • If they're so backwards why do they have the world's most advanced rocket engine?

          They don't. No Russian rocket is the most powerful, most efficient, or has the best thrust-to-weight ratio.
          There are, of course, dubious entries- rockets that only ever had 1 built, etc.
          The veneral RD-180 is a great workhorse, but in no way a great rocket engine.

          SpaceX currently has the world's most advanced rocket. Which makes sense, because they're the only people not spit shining Soviet-era toys.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        I suspect it would only be the older generation that relies on state television for information that would be taken in. The bulk of the population will view things with a patriotic bias but would still have a fair idea of where they really stand.

    • Elon to his already growing horde of Raptor 2 engines: "I dub thee... Nimbus 2000!"

    • Or just playing our military and NASA. Which to be honest is where SpaceX got its tech. But either way we can build rocket engines anytime we want. If we were having Russia build them it wasn't because we needed Russia to build them it was because we wanted Russia to build them because we wanted Russia to have an economic dependency on us. This will hurt them a hell of a lot more than it will hurt us. Which was the whole point

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arethan ( 223197 )

        Which to be honest is where SpaceX got its tech

        Oh damn, you're right! I totally saw fully reusable self-landing booster rocket stages prior to SpaceX...

        oh wait...

  • In other news... (Score:3)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:29PM (#62323815)

    I really had never caught on before that the U.S. buys rocket engines from Russia.

    And I am not sure what the impact of this statement is, since there will be no way to pay for the rocket engines anyway with the sanctions in place.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

      by splutty ( 43475 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:36PM (#62323831)

      Look up the RD-180 on Wikipedia or other places. The thing is actually fantastic. A great example of how Russian engineering in the 70's was completely different from US engineering.

      (And that's not as a "Russia Apologist" but as a rocket scientist :P)

      • NASA pursued the Fuel Rich Staged Combustion engine (i.e. RS-25) as they were unconvinced that they could create the metallurgy to prevent hot, oxygen rich gasses from eating the turbo pumps resulting in failures (especially if they were going to re-use the engines for many flights). Russia pursued the opposite path, i.e. Oxygen Rich Stage Combustion engine cycle, which was really the right path for their fuel choice (i.e. kerolox) and the non-reusability of their rockets. Of course SpaceX decided to pursue

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Megane ( 129182 )

          as they were unconvinced that they could create the metallurgy to prevent hot, oxygen rich gasses from eating the turbo pumps resulting in failures

          Well it sure looks like Blue Origin is having those very troubles getting ORSC to work. It's a good thing that Elon had access to alien technology so they could make FFSC work!

      • Look up the RD-180 on Wikipedia or other places. The thing is actually fantastic. A great example of how Russian engineering in the 70's was completely different from US engineering.

        It was a robust design, IIRC, shuttle used a similar concept though a bit different in execution. The RD-180 was also cheap.

        • _Nothinig_ was robust about the Shuttle design. With so many distinct manufacturers of so many distinct technologies, designed by Congress to funnel business to each of their states' businesses, it could not be made robust without completely starting over.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by splutty ( 43475 )

            The engines on the main shuttle were actually pretty damn good :D Everything around it... Not so much...

            • What makes you think that one component was fundamentally reliable or robust? Given the high rate of catastrophic failures for the entire system, I'd find it difficult to rate any one component very reliable except, perhaps, on a manager published checklist.

              • "Given the high rate of catastrophic failures for the entire system"
                153 flights, 306 SRBs used, one accident.
                153 flights, one Shuttle lost due to damage to the heat shield.
                That's not a high catastrophic failure (0.3% in the rocket boosters, 0.6% for the heat shield) - at least compared to "industry-standards".
                They were incredibly high profile incidents, but not "high rate".

          • _Nothinig_ was robust about the Shuttle design. With so many distinct manufacturers of so many distinct technologies, designed by Congress to funnel business to each of their states' businesses, it could not be made robust without completely starting over.

            The engines, however, were pretty darn good. They were just stuck to a vehicle that had a lot of compromises to secure funding.

            • Since only 6 space shuttles were ever built, one never was launched to space, and 2 of the remaining 5 failed lethally, one from catastrophic engine failure, it's difficult to call the engines robust, The strap-on solid boosters were not recycled, so evaluating an expandable strap-on, very large bottle rocket as "robust" with so many safety inspection failures on the pad seems ill-founded. The main engines were recycled, but they required complete inspections and nearly complete rebuilds after every launch.

              • it's difficult to call the engines robust

                No, it's not.
                You just conflated a bunch of shit with the reliability of the RS-25, which is 99.95%.
                Challenger wasn't an engine failure, one of its big solid candle stick rockets exploded. An SRB isn't an engine.

                • it's difficult to call the engines robust

                  No, it's not. You just conflated a bunch of shit with the reliability of the RS-25, which is 99.95%. Challenger wasn't an engine failure, one of its big solid candle stick rockets exploded. An SRB isn't an engine.

                  There you go, bringing facts into an internet argument on /.

              • Since only 6 space shuttles were ever built, one never was launched to space, and 2 of the remaining 5 failed lethally, one from catastrophic engine failure,

                Challenger was lost because of blowby from an SRB seal, it had nothing to do with the rocket motor.

      • I was under the impression US has stopped buying Russian rockets awhile back.Also thought that's why Atlas has only a limited number of launches left, as once the currently stocked Russian rockets run out, they are not buying anymore.

        Didn't know it was still ongoing.

    • We could ship them Pepsi.

    • I really had never caught on before that the U.S. buys rocket engines from Russia.

      And I am not sure what the impact of this statement is, since there will be no way to pay for the rocket engines anyway with the sanctions in place.

      Yeah, it's kind of weird. To announce you're going to stop selling to a world that's rushing to stop buying isn't fooling anyone.

      Russia's space program has been faltering for year now. I mean, ever since they Shuttle they took care of business. But the last few years they haven't innovated and they're getting eclipsed by everyone else. They won't recover from this.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Probably no impact, since there's a congressional mandate to stop using RD-180s by the end of this year and the US purchased a multi-year supply of the things.

    • Russia has been cut off from Swift. Swift exists to make the transfer of money *easy*, not to make it possible.
      Already Russian companies are opening Chinese accounts. The west will continue to do business with Russia for a while longer (though at least spring is coming so Europe's dependency on Russian gas will reduce.

  • The world's best rocket engines... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Photo_Nut ( 676334 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:37PM (#62323839)

    If and when the Russian economy recovers, they will be lucky to find a buyer of their now 20 year old obsolete space equipment.
    In the meantime, someone please come up with a funny acronym for BROOMS.

  • He was instrumental in getting a law passed that banned the use of the RD-180 after 2022. Of course, the US could simply copy the RD-180 as, IIRC, part of teh deal was rights to key technology used in the design. As a result, tis seems to be no big deal.
    • They're trying to move to a methane-oxygen rocket. The RD-180 is RP1-Oxygen. ULA and Blue Origin are just behind on the BE-4 engine, or it wouldn't even matter.

  • Appropriate response? (Score:3)

    by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @07:55PM (#62323903)

    Moscow has also demanded guarantees from British satellite company OneWeb that its satellites would not be used for military purposes.

    I hope OneWeb demanded that Moscow go fuck itself.

  • ULA and Atlas V are all set (Score:3)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Thursday March 03, 2022 @08:15PM (#62323963)

    Tory Bruno, the CEO of United Launch Alliance answered this quetion last week, if they woud be affected and apparently they have needed engines to finish the last of the Atlas V.

    "I accelerated the delivery of the last RD180s. We have all that are required for the Atlas fly-out in hand, stored at the Rocket Factory in Decatur Alabama."

    in terms of support

    "We like to have a retainer in order to ask questions or do repairs, if that were to come up. But, we have a lot of experience and expertise here, so we can do without if neccessary.

    I don't think there are any other non-Russian rockets using the RD-180 so I think this move was inevitable, nobody has anything to lose.

    It's a bit sad though, Those RD170/180, NK33/43 Soviet Cold war engines are real marvels of engineering, superior in a lot of ways to their US counterparts. Even the ill fated N1 moon rocket can be looked at as ahead of its time as their design of using lots of smaller engines opposed to fewer giant ones is really what SpaceX is doing now with Starship and Falcon. Chances are that type of design really needed modern digital sensors and controls to really be viable, trying to do it with 60's mostly analog tech was probably just a bit too much at the time.

  • The funny part here is that the Russian rocket engines only helped slow the development of our own. Now that the Russian rocket engines are no longer an option, there is even more incentive to design even more. While retaliatory, they only hurt themselves with this move because it's a loss of income that requires negligible amounts of work.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Same thing with Semiconductors. Now Russians will develop their chip industry. Also Swift. Russia and China are developing their own version and as Europe will still need to pay for gas all European countries will need to join.
      • Oooh, yes. I bet TSMC, Samsung, and Intel are just quaking in their boots over Russian chips designed on fucking protractors.

      • You can't easily duplicate the chip industry without also duplicating the chip manfacturing machines itself (EUV lithography machines, etc).

        And even those companies which have good lithography machines have problems making modern chips (Intel in the pass few years, and latest rumours say TSMC is having problems with it's 3nm nodes).

        And not to mention the other related industries and material, from silicon wafers to packaging to everything else in between.

        Just cos you throw a bunch of money does not mean you

        • Until China decides it's time to repatriate Taiwan and just takes all that TSMC IP for themselves, I'm sure they're adjusting their playbook hourly based on the Ukrainian "test case".

          • I understand there are standing orders that the moment any China soldiers step foot onto Taiwan soil, TSMC foundries go poof.

            Doesnt take much to make a foundry unusable.

            Getting the IP, knowing how it's done, is not the same as being able to do it. Especially when TSMC is dependant on ASML for it's EUV machines. And I will assume in such case, the Taiwanese will not be in a hurry to help China to recreate whatever TSMC was doing.

          • Until China decides it's time to repatriate Taiwan and just takes all that TSMC IP for themselves,

            Considering the world's dependence on TSMC, the response to Chinese aggression is also different. It's also the reason why many countries are attempting to spin up their own microfabrication. One thing is certain, if Taiwan falls then the people with the knowledge of closely guarded secrets will be fleeing to other nations. I wouldn't be surprised if there were plans in place to ensure this outcome.

      • "Now Russians will develop their chip industry."
        Most of the advanced lithography machines are made by a Dutch company.
        Also, they're sold for the next many years.

      • Same thing with Semiconductors. Now Russians will develop their chip industry.

        The two industries are different in that microfabrication has continued to advance whereas rocket engine design stagnated for decades until quite recently.

        Europe will still need to pay for gas

        The thing about the gas situation is that alternative energy sources and generation is possible.

        Also Swift. Russia and China are developing their own version

        Booting them from SWIFT was punitive which means joining something to bypass that punitive measure will be prohibited.

  • I think I am with SpaceX on that one
  • What ever will we do without Das Roketskovskies from the great Roketskovskies developers in a third world shithole?! Why, this will surely be the end of the US space program?!!!

  • No new gas pipeline to Germany. No rocket engines to USA. Clobbered biggest nuclear power plant in Europe. I am having serious trouble working out the benefits to Russia in all this mess. Do they want to be taken over by China?

  • Lefties don't like Russia (welcome very belatedly to the club!), but they don't like Musk either. What to do?

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close