WASHINGTON \u2014 There is a growing sense on the Hill that language designed to limit the procurement of Russian engines for military space launches needs to be altered to avoid unexpected fallout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and the panel’s his <\/span>ranking member Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., indicated a belief that section 1608 of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act needs to be re-opened and cleaned up to ensure the United Launch Alliance (ULA) can use its fully<\/span> lot of purchased RD-180 engines. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a marathon double-hearing, Roger’s committee questioned, first, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell and ULA head Tory Bruno, and then Pentagon representatives, about whether the language, which restricted the use of RD-180 engines on the Atlas V launch vehicle to those that were purchased before the February invasion of Ukraine, was being properly interpreted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation Congress is dealing with is complicated, to put it lightly. The Hill passed 1608 with the intention of allowing ULA to use 14 engines it was already on contract for before the Russian invasion. However, Pentagon lawyers have apparently concluded that the language, as written, allows ULA to use only five of those 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time this is happening<\/span>, ULA has decided it will close down its Delta IV medium launch vehicle line by 2018, leaving it just with the Atlas V and the Delta Heavy, used only every few years for specialized missions. Without the extra RD-180 engines, ULA says, it will run out of the ability to compete for competitive launches after 2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That would leave SpaceX’s Falcon 9 \u2013 which members of Congress, SpaceX executives and US Air Force officials alike continue to say will be certified by June of this year<\/span> \u2013 as the only military space launch option for the US <\/span>Air Force. Meanwhile, costs for the Delta IV Heavy would increase, potentially to as high as $1 billion per launch, Bruno said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reverse-monopoly is an idea ULA, which SpaceX been hammering on for being a monopoly during over <\/span>the last decade, has taken great pains to point out. So did Rogers, who tried hard to get Shotwell to use the “monopoly” word when describing that situation before eventually giving up and using it himself. <\/p>\n\n\n\n “You would have a monopoly, is where I’m going with this, and I just want you to acknowledge it,” Rogers said after a back and forth with Shotwell. “You would have a monopoly on that work.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Rogers and Cooper alike made it clear they were sympathetic to the need for ULA to have access to those extra engines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n