Two companies vying with SpaceX for a NASA commercial crew program – Boeing(BA:US) and Sparks, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp. – - may also find themselves relying on Russian engines, because of their plans to use Atlas V rockets, said Marcia Smith, a former director of the space studies board at the National Research Council and now editor of Arlington, Virginia-based spacepolicyonline.com. Even so, mutual dependencies in space may make this one area that’s immune to disagreements on the ground. “The Russians are making money off these sales,” said Marco Caceres of the Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal Group. “It would make sense from a political standpoint to snub us, but from a financial standpoint, it’s not so good.”

If Russia did cut off supplies of the RD-180, it might be more symbolic than actually painful for the US, according to Marco Caceres, director of space studies with the Teal Group. “The Atlas V isn’t launching that much, so short-term impact would be minimal,” Caceres said. “The long-term impact would be that Atlas V would have to find another engine and that wouldn’t be easy.” The biggest impact might come not to US military launch, but to the corporate firms that provide it. Right now, military launch is provided either by ULA’s Atlas V or Delta IV. For years, the US has wanted to maintain two families of launch vehicles in case one failed. However, SpaceX looks poised for certification this year. The combination of having a third launch option, along with the lack of RD-180 parts, might lead to the end of the Atlas V. That may be all hypothetical, however, as Caceres doubts Russia would block sales of RD-180s, primarily because of the financial impact. “It’s not to the benefit of the Russians to do this. These are engines that bring in hard currency to Russia, the same way Russian oil and gas does,” he said. “Russia doesn’t really export much else of any consequence. ”

Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis at Teal Group, said the acquisition fits into Lockheed’s strategy of taking services it had sold to government agencies and finding new areas in the private sector to apply them. “What Lockheed is doing is taking its core expertise and looking at what are the potential markets that are growing,” he said.

While these cuts to overhead costs are proactive, Marco Caceres, a senior space analyst for aerospace/defense adviser Teal Group, worries that this is not the end of Lockheed’s downsizing. “They are becoming very realistic about their future of space systems,” which is changing because of budget cutbacks, budget stagnation, increased competition from international players and competition from other U.S. commercial companies, Caceres said. “They are being smart. They are moving now as opposed to two to three years from now when it might be too late,” he said. “If they can’t see a significant way to lower their costs, they could be scooted out of the business in the future.”

Marco Caceres, a senior space analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, said the Pentagon has been lucky that the current GPS systems have lasted so long, but they now need to be replaced. “You’re fighting two wars,” he said. “You have military troops all over that have to communicate, and they’re dependent on satellites.” The newest GPS program will be closely watched, as the Pentagon’s space programs have long suffered cost overruns, problematic technologies and delays. John Young, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said he has directed the Air Force to tie the contractor’s payments to “specific program accomplishments,” not to adjust the scope of the program or change its technical specifications and to “consider solutions which lower cost or risk to deliver within or below budget.”

The oversight efforts, Young said, are part of “continuing a DoD push to award fees more carefully and on a more objective basis.” Of the Pentagon’s eight biggest satellite programs, all are over budget, from at least 20 percent over to more than double the original price, Caceres said. That includes a missile detection and warning satellite system made by Lockheed. “DoD is always looking for the latest technology for its satellites,” Caceres said. “The problem is that technology develops quickly but the development of the satellite itself takes a while. By the time it gets to its maturity, you realize there’s more advanced technology out there, so you add that at the last minute, and it leads to higher costs.”