USA launch vehicle redundancy

 

Very interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal written by Willie.  J. Webb

 

 

By 

William Shelton 

June 29, 2015 7:07 p.m. ET 

The explosion of an unmanned SpaceX rocket after liftoff at Cape Canaveral in Florida on Sunday was a graphic reminder of why U.S. national space policy requires that there be two independent means of launching satellites for national-security missions: in case one launch system fails. 

SpaceX, headed by Elon Musk, is contracted to resupply the International Space Station. Critics who are unhappy about the use of Russian rocket engines for national-security launches have campaigned to get SpaceX involved in those missions. But the failure of its Falcon 9 version 1.1 rocket should give everyone pause about jettisoning a dependable arrangement vital to U.S. security. 

Current U.S. space policy is implemented by buying both the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets from the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. BA 0.46 % Both rockets have a 100% success record—83 launches without failure.

Yet Congress is on the verge of passing legislation—the fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act—that will put U.S. space policy at considerable risk.

The problem arose last year from attacks on United Launch Alliance as a monopoly and for using Russian-made engines on its rockets. These criticisms ignore why the two companies, with the government's blessing, formed a joint venture in 2005. There was simply not enough business to sustain two domestic launch companies. 

Today the Atlas V lofts two-thirds of all national-security satellites. The first stage of the rocket is powered by the Russian-produced RD-180 engine. The U.S. government encouraged Lockheed Martin to use this engine primarily because of its performance and relatively low cost. There was also a desire to keep Russian rocket scientists at work for us, and not on projects for other countries perhaps less friendly to the U.S. 

Still, the U.S. Air Force does seek to lower launch costs, and an important part of its plan is to get new entrants into the rocket business. Today several companies are attempting to do just that. But before any new company can compete for national-security launch contracts, it must pass a rigorous certification process to ensure its rocket or rockets are reliable.

SpaceX is the first company to complete the certification process for its Falcon 9 Version 1.1 rocket—the one that failed on Sunday. But the company is also developing a "Full Thrust" Falcon 9—capable of carrying all but the heaviest satellites—and that is the rocket it intends to use to bid on national-security contracts. 

The Falcon 9 Full Thrust version hasn't gone through certification, indeed it has never been launched. Nevertheless, SpaceX lobbyists last year convinced key congressional leaders that their rocket is ready to launch national-security missions. The company's criticism of United Launch Alliance and its Russian-produced RD-180 engines—including a widely publicized antitrust lawsuit it filed in April 2014 (then withdrawn in January)—played very well on Capitol Hill and in public opinion.

As a result, the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law last December, banned using the Russian-made RD-180 beyond the remaining few engines already under contract. The purported rationale is to uphold Russian sanctions and avoid rewarding the country's bad behavior in Ukraine and elsewhere. 

Fair enough: It is smart policy to seek an alternative to a supplier based in a more bellicose Russia. But an abrupt ban is not smart. The Air Force has a more cautious transition plan—which would not curtail the RD-180 until there are two certified alternatives—but congressional action is causing that plan to unravel. 

The December legislation also mandated that a new American rocket engine be ready by 2019. United Launch Alliance has announced that it will develop a new engine, and a new rocket, to replace the Atlas V, and will do so on time. Many experts are dubious about this timetable. Yet even if United Launch Alliance can meet the deadline, it will run out of RD-180 engines well before its new rocket is ready. United Launch Alliance has also announced that it will stop production of its far more expensive Delta IV (with the exception of a variant that can lift the heaviest U.S. satellites). 

Therein lies the risk. Once United Launch Alliance runs out of RD-180 engines and Delta IV production stops, the only available rocket for most payloads will be SpaceX's uncertified Falcon 9 Full Thrust. The long-standing national space policy to ensure two means of access to space for national security satellites will be ended, essentially by congressional fiat. 

As a boss taught me long ago, the first rule of wing walking is to never let go until you have a firm grasp on the next handhold. Yet our pique at Russia, coupled with effective lobbying, has resulted in legislation that is tantamount to letting go. 

In April the House of Representatives passed a new, slightly revised fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. It contains a clause that allows the secretary of defense to waive the ban on the RD-180 for as long as needed if the secretary deems it in the national interest to do so. The Senate's version, passed on June 18, limits the waiver to a maximum of nine engines, thereby ensuring the elimination of the Atlas V from competition. 

The House and Senate bills will be reconciled in the near future. It is up to the senior leadership of the Armed Services Committees and a conference committee to protect U.S. national security by ensuring that we always have more than one reliable rocket to launch all of our military satellites. 

Gen. Shelton, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, was the commander of Air Force Space Command from January 2011 to August 2014.

Sent from my iPad