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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. ;)
The Russian state is not in financial difficulties. The oil and natural gas industries are reliable ruble generators, having been effectively resocialized in Putin's era. Russia has paid off its foreign debt completely. The regime won't feel the effect of Western economic pressure any time soon.
The Russian economy is much worse off, however. Competitiveness and industrial development have been neglected by the regime that's happy to siphon off profits from unrefined natural exports. Quality of life is not improving, corruption is rife as ever, wages and pensions can go unpaid.
Lately the government seems to be trying to shift blame onto foreigners and deviants, and so increasing numbers of Caucasian immigrant workers and homosexuals are getting beat up or murdered.
Medvedev talked the talk on much-needed economic development, but turns out he was just a puppet. There doesn't seem to be much hope for change in the near future.
But who do you think NATO should attack next with a wink and a smile? Ah yes, whoever dares to challenge the petrodollar, right? If that's the case then taking away their rockets is a good step for humanity.
Are you mistaking my honest opinion for paid astroturfing? Or do you feel that your own world view is so righteous that anything else must be a fallacy?
Do you actually believe this conflict has something to do with petrodollars? Ukrainians want a better life, they see others with that life. I know we are all supposed to be afraid of Russia but please. A cornered squirrel is dangerous but it is still a squirrel.
This is a classic argument for promoting Western intervention. "Don't be a monster, people just want a better life!". And somehow this argument gets translated into Captain America coming over and scorching the earth until nothing's left.
My hopes for making you just a little more cynical about these things are low, but please try and open your eyes. What is the first thing that happens in every country that gets "freedomed" by the NATO. The oil fields get secured, the installed regime continues selling oil in US dollars at agreeable prices, and the society descends into chaos... but the oil fields are secure.
Do you disagree that Ukraine is a polarized country and that the Euromaidan does not speak for the whole country?