Marco Caceres, senior space analyst for the Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal Group, said there have been no public disclosures of any anomalies in the April 18 mission. Caceres, who follows the launch industry, said that even if there was a glitch with the mission, such as falling short of the intended orbit, it was a success because the SpaceX vehicle was able to dock with the space station. “Rockets don’t usually fall short in delivering their payloads to the intended orbit, but it happens on occasion,” he said. “It’s certainly legitimate for Rogers to ask.”

Given the stakes involved — the Pentagon expects to spend almost $70 billion on the program by 2030 — Marco Caceres, a senior analyst at the Teal Group, said he was not surprised that Musk “is playing hardball.” “There’s a lot at stake,” he said. “These contracts are very lucrative.” But, Caceres said, there could be other implications. The United States depends on Russia to take its astronauts to the space station. And if Russia decided it would not longer do that, it “could become a political nightmare,” he said. “Certainly it would be an embarrassment for the United States if there are no Americans on the space station.”

It's believed that ULA has enough RD-180s to continue to launch Atlas V's for the next two years, however if it is to continue to do so in the long-term it would need to develop a replacement engine, which Marco Caceres, director of Space Studies at the Teal Corporation, a US research agency, tells IBTimes UK could cost the military up to $1bn. "The real winner in all of this is SpaceX," says Caceres, who explains that the US airforce will now be encouraged to look at alternative options to the Atlas V, including SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. He continues: "From a business standpoint it's a silly move as they make money from the sale of the engine. On the other hand, from a pride standpoint, it doesn't surprise me that Putin would stop selling the engine altogether, in a way saying to the US: 'see how you like that'."

High resolution is useful for military and government purposes, but some experts question how much resolution actually is needed. "If you are going to have the most powerful imaging satellite out there, whether that would be a good thing for your company, I think, really depends on what your target market is and what services you are looking to fill," Teal Group space analyst Marco Cáceres said. "Not everyone needs 30-centimeter resolution. That's more of a surveillance capability. ... (Tarr) must be saying that they have certain clients that need that."

But the lower dollar amounts do not necessarily mean the US Defense Department is reducing its capabilities, experts say. “Just the fact that we’re asking for less money doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re getting less than we did,” said Marco Cáceres, senior analyst and director of space studies for the Virginia-based Teal Group consulting firm. “In many cases, we may be getting more than in the past decade.”

DoD also has been planning changes in the makeup of its satellites, putting more payloads on a single spacecraft, thus returning a bigger bang for the buck since multiple launches are no longer required. “They’re trying to find ways to develop and build and operate their satellite systems a lot cheaper,” Cáceres said. “My sense is they’re going to save a lot of money there in terms of satellites.”