...
Okay different issue years ago in the 1990's General Dynamics Space Systems Division made a call. they were contracted for the then upcoming Atlas III rocket system and as part of it they needed bigger engines. the decision was made to buy them from the Russians
The Berlin wall had fallen and the Russians were in bad shape the choice was made to partner with the Cosmonauts in the hopes that by doing so they could make a ally of Russia.
The choice however has had a cost. It's long been argued by many as a potential opening for theses very issues. in fact there was recently a injunction filed by SpaceX pointing this possibility out. now this will hit the Air force hard short term but the US is a unique case in space launches. as We have alternatives the Delta IV rocket system is actually just a little bigger (8,600-22,560 kg to LEO vs Atlas V's 9,800–18,810 kg) but uses All American made Engines and both systems are made by United Launch Allience, A Joint between Boeing and Lockheed Martin ( who bought all of General Dynamics Aviation divisions) and if you still want a second option SpaceX Falcon 9 can cover the lower end.
I saw this yesterday ... it's out of my interest, don't know almost anything about space exploration (the only space program I tried to read about was the Soviet satellite system for attacking with the Shipwreck AShM) but I'll put it here anyway:
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 13, 2014
The uncertainty surrounding the future of the Atlas V's Russian-built RD-180 engine and an escalating need for the United Launch Alliance to lower its costs in order to meet rising launch competition have pushed ULA to consider the implications of scaling down from two launch vehicle families to just one, a top Boeing space executive told reporters on May 13.
ULA, a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin venture that has served as the Air Force's longtime sole-source lift provider for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class missions, builds both the Atlas V and the Delta IV launch vehicle. The Delta IV is powered by the RS-68 engine, which is produced in the United States. Roger Krone, Boeing's president of network and space systems, said during a May 13 press briefing that the possibility of ULA's narrowing its focus to the Delta family of launch vehicles is not off the table.
"Will we have a single launch system?" Krone said. "It's clearly one of the options that we're considering. . . . It's in the trade space. No decision has been made." Notably, Boeing developed the Delta family of launch vehicles, whereas Lockheed is the original producer of the Atlas V.
The Atlas V's upper-stage engine, the RD-180, has been the focus of a very public dispute between launch provider SpaceX and the U.S. government. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. Federal Claims Court on April 28, SpaceX asserted that ULA's use of the engine, built by Russian company NPO Energomash, violates U.S. sanctions against Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. The court initially sided with SpaceX on this claim, but reversed its position last week when it learned the Treasury, State and Commerce departments had not found evidence that Rogozin has any control over Energomash.
Meanwhile, Rogozin said during a May 13 press conference that his country plans to take action to block sales of the Atlas V's Russian-built RD-180 engines to be used for U.S. military missions. Boeing and ULA officials said they have not received confirmation of Rogozin's claims from Energomash or the Russian government.
The Air Force is analyzing its reliance on the RD-180 engine and is investigating alternatives, to include building a domestic liquid propulsion rocket engine. Service officials have said such an endeavor would cost upwards of $1 billion and take at least four years to field. The House Armed Services Committee, in its mark-up last week of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill, provided $220 million for the service to begin developing a domestic rocket engine to replace the RD-180.
The service is also working to cultivate competition in its EELV launch business, and SpaceX's Falcon 9 vehicle is almost certain to be the first new rocket to achieve certification. The Falcon 9, like the Atlas V, is not a heavy-class vehicle and so cannot be used for some of the missions now carried out by the Delta IV. During a congressional hearing in March, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk asserted that should the Air Force discontinue its use of the Atlas V, the Falcon 9 would be a worthy replacement.
Krone said given the uncertainty surrounding the RD-180's future and the company's need to find ways to reduce costs in order to compete with potential new entrants like SpaceX, scaling down to a single family of launch vehicles is an option for ULA. Such a move, he said, would not favor either Boeing or Lockheed Martin as both companies have an equal share in ULA profits.
While the ongoing dispute over the use of the RD-180 is not a welcome disruption for Boeing or ULA, Krone said it would not impact ULA's contract to deliver 35 rocket cores to the Air Force over the next five years. ULA will be able to fulfill its five-year space launch contract with the Air Force -- finalized last December -- even without additional Russian-built Atlas V engines, he said, though the move would mean relying more heavily on the Delta IV launch vehicles.
"We believe we can fully deliver on the block buy with the engines that we have on hand, new production of RS-68s on the Delta and adjustments on the manifest to move some of the payloads that are dual manifested from one launch vehicle to another," Krone said.
The contract loosely designates half of the 35 cores to Delta IV and half to Atlas V vehicles. ULA has enough RD-180s on hand to fulfill about half of the missions manifested for Atlas V, but Krone said the remaining missions can be shifted to fly on the Delta IV. While some National Security Space missions must fly on either the Atlas V or the Delta IV, the Global Positioning System and Wideband Global Satellite Communications payloads both are dual manifested, which means they can fly on either vehicle.
"It's fairly easy to move them," he said, adding: "It's not our desire. We'd just as soon not move the manifest."
Krone noted that the manifest changes could be made without any adjustments to the terms of the block-buy contract.
EDIT
oops, it's early morning here, I thought I was in the US Military thread ... sorry for the off-topic post ... I shouldn't have gone into Space LOL