9 ms·

who is this bad for? It seems good for SpaceX

Crito 12y ago
It's bad for the ULA. The title is a bit misleading, they are banning exports of RD-180s that will be used for military missions, not just sales of RD-180s to the military itself. Therefore the ULA can still buy RD-180s, but they cannot then use those engines on missions with military payloads. If this restriction stays in place for long, it is fairly bad news for the ULA.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
It's bad for the humanity. Especially if the Russians leave the ISS project because of stupid political bickering.
- reqres 12y ago
  I don't think "stupid political bickering" fairly characterises the situation. Ukraine is slowly descending into civil war with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos. Normally I'm all for technological progress. But maybe just this once I'd be OK with postponing our advancement as a spacefaring species if it means we can get a peaceful resolution in Ukraine.
  - jqm 12y ago
    By "peaceful" I don't think you mean "resolution favoring the western agenda"? I am all in favor of peace. We in the west can't necessarily control what Russia does. But we can (or should be able to) control what we do. I certainly don't think sending senators and state department officials to meet with coup leaders in the day before the coup and the constant stream of hostile talk helps anything. Not supporting Russia annexing Ukraine. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
    - korzun 12y ago
      Finally somebody who gets it. For everybody else, Google Georgian conflict and compare it to what's going on in Ukraine. Hint: US tried to back Georgian military in a proxy attack and got shut down. If you don't think it's a bis suspicious for US to be so actively involved in this I have a bridge to sell you.
      - happyscrappy 12y ago
        Or maybe Ukranians are tired of being Putin's hand puppet. They have to be looking at Poland and hoping.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Poland is looking back and hoping the US stays out of this and the whole thing de-escalates. We don't want to die, you know. And that's what usually happens when a war breaks out. (yes, we're getting increasingly scared here)
    - ryanhuff 12y ago
      Other than hoping for a peaceful resution, I don't think he eluded to favoring any particular outcome.
    - ryanhuff 12y ago
      @korzun, Suspicious? Far from it. It's par for the course.
    - geoka9 12y ago
      Lest this thread gets hijacked with unnecessary "political bickering", I suggest we avoid using words like "coup" here.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      That's why I call this "stupid political bickering". It's not about Ukraine, it's about superpowers projecting their influence. Also, I might be biased, because I live not that far from the Ukrainian border and I would feel much safer if the US stayed away from this. Edited to add: I'm also less concerned about US not getting military launches and more about the future of the ISS. The Space Station is more than just a research post in a cold place; it's a monument, a symbol, of a bright future, of a peaceful progress of whole mankind. Losing ISS wouldn't be just a bad day for science, it would impact many people's hopes and dreams.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - makomk 12y ago
      If I'm not entirely mistaken, the "coup leaders" in Ukrane were in fact the duly elected government of Ukrane, and it was exactly as much a "coup" as Congress kicking out the US President would be. Edit: to be clear, I'm not being hyperbolic here, the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president, who I think even belonged to the same party as a number of the ringleaders. Edit 2: yep, "The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25."[1] His own former political allies voted to give him the boot. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliam...
      - geoka9 12y ago
        > the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president In fact, the president _illegally_ fled the country (on a Russian navy ship) leaving the parliament no choice but to appoint an acting president until the elections (which will be on May 25).
        jqm 12y ago
        You may wish to look into number of votes required to remove the existing president of Ukraine. And the number of people present voting.
        geoka9 12y ago
        The president illegally removed himself from the country, rendering the government inoperable - no bill could be signed into law by him "in absentia". He could return to the country but he chose not to. Calling for new elections and appointing an acting president until the time was the only sensible thing the parliament could do in such conditions.
        jqm 12y ago
        and why would the president "illegally" remove himself from the country? I suppose during peaceful democratic transitions of power this is a bit unusual to say the least. But ya... coup.
    - jqm 12y ago
      "with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos." I would consider that an allusion to a desired outcome. But agreed with the poster above who mentions political bickering. It won't get anyone anywhere. Besides, I've made my view known, I think it is just good sense on the part of the west to seek peace rather than hostility, I don't think not being unreasonably hostile in rhetoric and deed is capitulation and I don't have anything else to say.
    - us0r 12y ago
      coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government" Would be cool if that actually happened. The President signed a deal with the opposition then left the country. His parliament then voted to impeach him. How is that a coup?
      - jqm 12y ago
        sudden? check. violence? check. illegal? look at the number required vs those who voted to remove from office. I'm not saying the guy wasn't corrupt. But, look at some of those who are running the show now. They aren't a whole lot better. Avakov, the cheerleader for immediate violent action against the eastern insurgants for instance.
        us0r 12y ago
        They had 328 votes and needed 337. However it is a bit of a grey area as the constitution doesn't really cover the President abandoning his Country. This all began in October I believe. Is 4 months sudden? All of the violence was provoked from the government (him). The opposition definitely took advantage of it and are not entirely innocent in all of this. Corruption has always been a problem in Ukraine will be for the foreseeable future. This guy took it to another level.
        jqm 12y ago
        the statement "all of the violence was provoked from the government (him)" is not necessarily true at all.... just to get that out there.
    - Veratyr 12y ago
      (Kinda) backing you up here, Crimea actually _wanted_ to be a part of Russia: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrates-as-region-joins-russia-20143224139630640.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrat... The area has been culturally Russian for a very long time. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
- outworlder 12y ago
  Indeed. The cooperation between Russia and the US gave hopes that the old childish bickering would be over. Doesn't seem that way now.
  - jqm 12y ago
    Indeed. And I consider there are at least two parties at fault in this. Is there anything we can do to rectify the situation or do we need to spend 20% of our respective GDPs on arms for the next umpteen years and fight a dozen proxy wars around the globe? I don't know... just asking.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dTal 12y ago
  "Leave" the ISS project? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be renamed the Russian Federation Space Station.
slashclee 12y ago
Seems pretty bad for ULA, which is Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but they claim they have enough rocket boosters to fulfill the next two years of their launch commitments. They have contractual obligations further out than that, but SpaceX is arguing the validity of at least one of those contracts.
poopsintub 12y ago
For a country with financial difficulties, it sure is taking some odd steps. Write-off North Korea's debt, now cancel out million/billion dollar sales to the U.S. for rockets. I guess they don't want us to build any more fighter jets before NATO attacks. ;)
- bigdubs 12y ago
  Rocket engines != jet engines. But yeah, this is not sound fiscal planning on Russia's part.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >But yeah, this is not sound fiscal planning on Russia's part. "sound fiscal plans" have never been endemic to Russia. anyway, it was easily predicted :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649064
- jqm 12y ago
  Maybe they feel they might need the rocket engines in their inventory at some point. I think some rocket components were produced in Ukraine, not sure if that applies to this. So maybe they don't want a limited supply diminished.
  - seizethecheese 12y ago
    > I think some rocket components were produced in Ukraine If true, this is a significant wrinkle in the story.
    - trhway 12y ago
      It is Yuzhmash in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (still, Putin is working on the issue). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau (search for Antares :)
- mladenkovacevic 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

It's bad for the ULA. The title is a bit misleading, they are banning exports of RD-180s that will be used for military missions, not just sales of RD-180s to the military itself. Therefore the ULA can still buy RD-180s, but they cannot then use those engines on missions with military payloads. If this restriction stays in place for long, it is fairly bad news for the ULA.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

It's bad for the humanity. Especially if the Russians leave the ISS project because of stupid political bickering.

reqres 12y ago
I don't think "stupid political bickering" fairly characterises the situation. Ukraine is slowly descending into civil war with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos. Normally I'm all for technological progress. But maybe just this once I'd be OK with postponing our advancement as a spacefaring species if it means we can get a peaceful resolution in Ukraine.
- jqm 12y ago
  By "peaceful" I don't think you mean "resolution favoring the western agenda"? I am all in favor of peace. We in the west can't necessarily control what Russia does. But we can (or should be able to) control what we do. I certainly don't think sending senators and state department officials to meet with coup leaders in the day before the coup and the constant stream of hostile talk helps anything. Not supporting Russia annexing Ukraine. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
  - korzun 12y ago
    Finally somebody who gets it. For everybody else, Google Georgian conflict and compare it to what's going on in Ukraine. Hint: US tried to back Georgian military in a proxy attack and got shut down. If you don't think it's a bis suspicious for US to be so actively involved in this I have a bridge to sell you.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Or maybe Ukranians are tired of being Putin's hand puppet. They have to be looking at Poland and hoping.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Poland is looking back and hoping the US stays out of this and the whole thing de-escalates. We don't want to die, you know. And that's what usually happens when a war breaks out. (yes, we're getting increasingly scared here)
  - ryanhuff 12y ago
    Other than hoping for a peaceful resution, I don't think he eluded to favoring any particular outcome.
  - ryanhuff 12y ago
    @korzun, Suspicious? Far from it. It's par for the course.
  - geoka9 12y ago
    Lest this thread gets hijacked with unnecessary "political bickering", I suggest we avoid using words like "coup" here.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    That's why I call this "stupid political bickering". It's not about Ukraine, it's about superpowers projecting their influence. Also, I might be biased, because I live not that far from the Ukrainian border and I would feel much safer if the US stayed away from this. Edited to add: I'm also less concerned about US not getting military launches and more about the future of the ISS. The Space Station is more than just a research post in a cold place; it's a monument, a symbol, of a bright future, of a peaceful progress of whole mankind. Losing ISS wouldn't be just a bad day for science, it would impact many people's hopes and dreams.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - makomk 12y ago
    If I'm not entirely mistaken, the "coup leaders" in Ukrane were in fact the duly elected government of Ukrane, and it was exactly as much a "coup" as Congress kicking out the US President would be. Edit: to be clear, I'm not being hyperbolic here, the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president, who I think even belonged to the same party as a number of the ringleaders. Edit 2: yep, "The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25."[1] His own former political allies voted to give him the boot. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliam...
    - geoka9 12y ago
      > the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president In fact, the president _illegally_ fled the country (on a Russian navy ship) leaving the parliament no choice but to appoint an acting president until the elections (which will be on May 25).
      - jqm 12y ago
        You may wish to look into number of votes required to remove the existing president of Ukraine. And the number of people present voting.
        geoka9 12y ago
        The president illegally removed himself from the country, rendering the government inoperable - no bill could be signed into law by him "in absentia". He could return to the country but he chose not to. Calling for new elections and appointing an acting president until the time was the only sensible thing the parliament could do in such conditions.
        jqm 12y ago
        and why would the president "illegally" remove himself from the country? I suppose during peaceful democratic transitions of power this is a bit unusual to say the least. But ya... coup.
  - jqm 12y ago
    "with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos." I would consider that an allusion to a desired outcome. But agreed with the poster above who mentions political bickering. It won't get anyone anywhere. Besides, I've made my view known, I think it is just good sense on the part of the west to seek peace rather than hostility, I don't think not being unreasonably hostile in rhetoric and deed is capitulation and I don't have anything else to say.
  - us0r 12y ago
    coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government" Would be cool if that actually happened. The President signed a deal with the opposition then left the country. His parliament then voted to impeach him. How is that a coup?
    - jqm 12y ago
      sudden? check. violence? check. illegal? look at the number required vs those who voted to remove from office. I'm not saying the guy wasn't corrupt. But, look at some of those who are running the show now. They aren't a whole lot better. Avakov, the cheerleader for immediate violent action against the eastern insurgants for instance.
      - us0r 12y ago
        They had 328 votes and needed 337. However it is a bit of a grey area as the constitution doesn't really cover the President abandoning his Country. This all began in October I believe. Is 4 months sudden? All of the violence was provoked from the government (him). The opposition definitely took advantage of it and are not entirely innocent in all of this. Corruption has always been a problem in Ukraine will be for the foreseeable future. This guy took it to another level.
        jqm 12y ago
        the statement "all of the violence was provoked from the government (him)" is not necessarily true at all.... just to get that out there.
  - Veratyr 12y ago
    (Kinda) backing you up here, Crimea actually _wanted_ to be a part of Russia: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrates-as-region-joins-russia-20143224139630640.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrat... The area has been culturally Russian for a very long time. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
outworlder 12y ago
Indeed. The cooperation between Russia and the US gave hopes that the old childish bickering would be over. Doesn't seem that way now.
- jqm 12y ago
  Indeed. And I consider there are at least two parties at fault in this. Is there anything we can do to rectify the situation or do we need to spend 20% of our respective GDPs on arms for the next umpteen years and fight a dozen proxy wars around the globe? I don't know... just asking.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dTal 12y ago
"Leave" the ISS project? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be renamed the Russian Federation Space Station.

slashclee 12y ago

Seems pretty bad for ULA, which is Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but they claim they have enough rocket boosters to fulfill the next two years of their launch commitments. They have contractual obligations further out than that, but SpaceX is arguing the validity of at least one of those contracts.

poopsintub 12y ago

For a country with financial difficulties, it sure is taking some odd steps. Write-off North Korea's debt, now cancel out million/billion dollar sales to the U.S. for rockets. I guess they don't want us to build any more fighter jets before NATO attacks. ;)

bigdubs 12y ago
Rocket engines != jet engines. But yeah, this is not sound fiscal planning on Russia's part.
- trhway 12y ago
  >But yeah, this is not sound fiscal planning on Russia's part. "sound fiscal plans" have never been endemic to Russia. anyway, it was easily predicted :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649064
jqm 12y ago
Maybe they feel they might need the rocket engines in their inventory at some point. I think some rocket components were produced in Ukraine, not sure if that applies to this. So maybe they don't want a limited supply diminished.
- seizethecheese 12y ago
  > I think some rocket components were produced in Ukraine If true, this is a significant wrinkle in the story.
  - trhway 12y ago
    It is Yuzhmash in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (still, Putin is working on the issue). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau (search for Antares :)
mladenkovacevic 12y ago