It’s launch day at Kennedy Space Center in the not-too distant future. On the pad stands a gleaming rocket, pointed eagerly at the sky. Then the exciting countdown begins ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 … and it rises on a pillar of fire. Clearing the gantry, it quickly rolls slightly and swings around to north and by northeast, a hint of the polar orbit the payload is ultimately aimed for. In just a few seconds it is already supersonic, a few miles out over the calm Atlantic coast. By the time it approaches the mesosphere, where rocket planes fly and meteors die, the potent RD-180 Russian engines have done their job, punching through the dense lower atmosphere. The rocket is now ultrasonic, flying a whopping 10 times the speed of sound, and rapidly reaching orbital velocity. The command is given for the first stage to separate.
A moment later, an ornate fireball blossoms in the distance. Then a second explosion (set off intentionally by Mission Control for safety reasons) dots the doomed flight path, and tiny bits of flaming wreckage begin to rain down in graceful arcs from the edge of space. Fortunately, no one is hurt, it was only an unmanned launch … of a U.S. spy satellite intended to better monitor a growing volatile conflict centered on a battle-torn Syrian city. Over the next few days, Russian jets sweep in and clear the way for rag-tag infantry militias to annihilate it. An investigation eventually finds evidence this was no accident: The black box indicates a first stage Russian-built RD-180 engine blew on shutdown. This looks like sabotage.
Keep in mind this is purely hypothetical, 100 percent fiction of the paranoid variety. There is no reason to think it has ever even been considered. Besides, there are easier ways for Russia to delay or stop launches by the Department of Defense. Dive below to read more about that.
The fictitious scenario above is only offered here as an over-the-top example of how real world compromises have to be made in light of past short-sighted decisions which have limited our available ground-to-orbit options. In that same real world, any time a launch fails, there are investigations. We can reasonably assume if a super-secret spy satellite rocket suddenly blew up on ascent—or failed for any reason to deliver the payload to orbit—that investigation and its conclusions might not be as transparent as civilian inquiries into events like the shuttle disasters. But it would be, if anything, equally rigorous.
Besides, if Putin wanted to slow down military launches relying on Russia’s RD-180 engine, they wouldn’t need to resort to cloak-and-dagger sabotage schemes. They could just withhold the engines:
Russia will ban the United States from using Russian-made rocket engines for military launches, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced. The move comes in response to high-tech sanctions slapped on Moscow by Washington over Ukraine — May 2014
We chose to use the RD-180 in the Atlas V because it was available at a reasonable price, and we kept using it because it turned out to be a damn good engine in a damn good launch vehicle. After more than 60 flights the Atlas V record is almost perfect. There have only been a couple of minor problems and both ended in successful payload delivery. But no one is claiming this an ideal solution. Every year or two lawmakers discover anew that our DoD launches are reliant on a former nuclear rival run by a megalomaniac whose interests do not always line up with ours. And so far it has resulted in some hand-waving and the issue getting kicked down the road. The reasons are simple: money and time.
Estimates to fund and develop a homegrown replacement for the 180 top $1 billion dollars over three to five years. That’s a challenge defense-aerospace contractors would gladly accept for the right price because over the years, they’ve commissioned some studies on it. But Congress has so far failed to provide clear leadership and the increase in funding to go with it. The only other option is to use a different vehicle entirely.
For obvious reasons, the DoD wants that two-booster option ASAP, and given the recent string of successes by SpaceX, it’s natural to ask: Why can't a Falcon 9 do the job? The short answer is, it probably can. There would have to be some modifications made and a certification or two cleared to handle the most sensitive payloads. But Falcon 9s aren’t built overnight, only so many can be assembled at once using current facilities, and they’re more and more in demand. SpaceX has been making about as many as they can, and word is they’re looking at ramping up production capacity in anticipation of building more. But ramping up is a big business risk to take without a solid commitment.
There is also a great deal of competition going on and it is brutal—this is big bucks for big, politically connected businesses that have proven time and time again they know how to play hardball. Any progress toward any commitment can get mired down in the mud by lobbyist and industry shenanigans so fast, and in such obscure detail, it would make your blood boil in frustration or your eyes glaze over in boredom.
There’s another fascinating factor to consider: SpaceX was created for a specific purpose, at least according to its visionary founder Elon Musk, who explained this a few years ago on Daily Kos:
DS: Why did you start SpaceX?
Elon Musk: Extending life beyond Earth was my driver, the reason I started SpaceX in 2002. Making progress toward extending life beyond Earth is my overarching goal. I started thinking about it in college — 18 years ago, when I was 19. It seemed to me that there were three things that would have the biggest impact on our lives in the future: the Internet, transition to a sustainable energy economy, and, in particular, space exploration—the extension of human life to local planets.
Musk has been upfront from the beginning that his goal is for humans to be a multi-planet species. For years that sounded like pie-in-the-sky dreaming. But it’s now crystal clear that not only was it dead serious from the get go, but SpaceX planners have actually been developing and following a realistic, concrete plan and the first amazing steps in that effort may begin much sooner than anyone expected.
Those first visitors won’t be doing it like Apollo 11. They’re not going touch down, walk on Mars, gather samples, and haul ass back to claim title of the first person to visit another planet. This is a one-way trip by trail blazers tasked with preparing the way for many more to follow!
SpaceX intends to land unmanned Dragon capsules on one or more future colony sites. The idea is to provision those landing zones with ships and supplies sitting and waiting for the first small team of advance explorers to arrive. Musk has said details will be released this September at an upcoming conference. I’ll be writing about that as quickly as details are made available. Just to whet your appetite, there is talk of building a next generation super-heavy reusable spacecraft that can transport 100 tons or 100 people to Mars.
Will they succeed? If so, will that first colony prosper or turn into an ET version of the lost Roanoke settlement? It’s a hell of a risk. Images from the Red Planet may resemble the high western desert in the U.S., but that is an illusion. This alien environment is instantly lethal in a dozen different ways. But because of modern technology, we’ll be able to follow along from the safety of Earth.
Back to the original question: SpaceX’s primary concern isn’t resolving the RD-180 dilemma affecting military spy satellites thanks to decisions made more than a decade ago. For that Congress may have to actually step up with clear guidance and unambiguous commitment for the aerospace industry to follow. And based on past experience, that may be too much to expect from the current crop of anti-science clowns, extremists, and misfits in charge of space exploration policy—and the nation’s budget.