Author Topic: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket  (Read 71209 times)

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4444
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1609
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #60 on: 04/03/2016 10:55 AM »
Someone on Reddit uploaded a pdf with General Greaves' EELV talking points.  Included in the pdf was an (unfortunately small) image which may provide a look at the Orb-ATK proposal.

Link?
DM



Online ZachS09

Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #63 on: 04/04/2016 01:41 AM »
Does anyone have a sketch of what this rocket might look like?

Up thread, here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499163#msg1499163

and here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499218#msg1499218

Remind me if this question was answered:

What specific solid motors would have been used in this design? Castor 120...Castor 900...maybe Castor 30...
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22389
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 258
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #64 on: 04/04/2016 01:52 AM »

What specific solid motors would have been used in this design? Castor 120...Castor 900...maybe Castor 30...


This WILL use:

Quote
GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor[\quote] http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #65 on: 04/04/2016 07:40 PM »
Rons, I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is false.   

The article wrote:
The contract funds Orbital ATK for “the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.” - See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293

This is a list of three different developments. The Orbital ATK Solid rocket will use the Common Booster Segment. I think a version of CBS is Castor 900, but I could be wrong. Possibly a version of the solid rocket uses the GEM 63XL strap-on boosters, but they are developed for ULA's Vulcan rocket.
We'll have to wait until Orbital ATK reports what their new solid rocket really is. 
« Last Edit: 04/04/2016 07:42 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #66 on: 04/04/2016 08:08 PM »
Rons, I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is false.   

The article wrote:
The contract funds Orbital ATK for “the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.” - See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293

This is a list of three different developments. The Orbital ATK Solid rocket will use the Common Booster Segment. I think a version of CBS is Castor 900, but I could be wrong. Possibly a version of the solid rocket uses the GEM 63XL strap-on boosters, but they are developed for ULA's Vulcan rocket.
We'll have to wait until Orbital ATK reports what their new solid rocket really is.
The DoD's own summary of the contract clearly states GEM-63XL is for Orb-ATK NGLV as well as Vulcan:
Quote
This other transaction agreement requires shared cost investment with ATK Launch Systems Inc. for the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine. These rocket propulsion systems are intended for use on an Orbital ATK next generation launch vehicle.  The GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor is also intended for use on United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan launch vehicle.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4069
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #67 on: 04/04/2016 08:31 PM »
Rons, I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is false.   

The article wrote:
The contract funds Orbital ATK for “the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.” - See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293

This is a list of three different developments. The Orbital ATK Solid rocket will use the Common Booster Segment. I think a version of CBS is Castor 900, but I could be wrong. Possibly a version of the solid rocket uses the GEM 63XL strap-on boosters, but they are developed for ULA's Vulcan rocket.
We'll have to wait until Orbital ATK reports what their new solid rocket really is. 
Castor 900 uses SLS type steel casings and CBS is longer Composite casing being Developed and previously referred to NASA and USAF as Advanced Solid Rocket Booster for future use in SLS Block-IIB and other vehicles. Castor 900 and similar versions of the Family were introduced during development of the 2nd Generation Athena Launcher Family.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2016 09:29 PM by russianhalo117 »

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #68 on: 04/04/2016 09:21 PM »
Want happens if OA don't proceed with this LV. Do they have to refund DOD the money?.

 OA has a market for all three developments besides solid Antares. Blue will use the BE3U for their orbital LV and NASA will most likely used Advanced booster at some stage in very distant future.

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #69 on: 04/04/2016 09:58 PM »
Want happens if OA don't proceed with this LV. Do they have to refund DOD the money?.

 OA has a market for all three developments besides solid Antares. Blue will use the BE3U for their orbital LV and NASA will most likely used Advanced booster at some stage in very distant future.
At the moment, only FY15 money is obligated.  Presumably, DoD will only obligate funding for the portion of the work OA intends to do, and if the project gets cancelled next year, DoD won't fund the out-years.

Quote
Air Force fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $46,968,005 are being obligated at the time of award.  ATK Launch Systems Inc. is contributing $31,130,360 at the time of award.  The total potential government investment, including all options, is $180,238,059.  The total potential investment by ATK Launch Systems Inc., including all options, is $124,830,693.

I posted a number of quotes from the last OA earnings call in the other thread:
Quote
In our Flight Systems Group, the company and the US Air Force are in the first phase of a potential four year, jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new all-domestic intermediate and large-class space launch vehicle family.

Our objective is to develop a modular vehicle system capable of launching national security payloads and what is known as the EELV or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle as well as scientific and commercial satellites and to conduct initial launches using this new system by the end of the decade.

As part of the Defense Department's next-generation launcher program, which started last year, we are combining the world-leading solid rocket propulsion technology from our legacy ATK business with the launch vehicle systems engineering and operations experience from our heritage Orbital unit to compete in a market area that was not directly addressable by either companies prior to last year's merger.

Our investments in 2016, as well as those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and development work with a decision in the first half of 2017 concerning the remaining activity to actually build and test this new launch vehicle family.
Quote
With regard to the Flight Systems initiative, on the new launch vehicle to be developed jointly with the Air Force, if that goes forward from the decision point next year, then that has the potential to generate revenue, certainly by 2018, possibly by the end of 2017 beginning on how it is structured.

At present, during the first phase of the work, the Air Force and the company are jointly funding early-stage research and development. The Air Force is investing approximately $50 million and the company is investing about $30 million this year. The $50 million from the Air Force though does not generate revenue if it is structured as a co-operative R&D program. If that were to change in the future periods, then we could see revenue generated in that initiative by the second half of 2017, although at present, we do not plan for that to occur.
Quote
There is certainly some important carryover from Ares 1 with regard to the solid rocket propulsion. It also benefits from and in turn provides benefits to NASA's space launch system which is in a sense a descendant of the Ares 1 project and to some other NASA and Defense programs as well. So there is a fair amount of carryover from a prior work that ATK conducted back five years or longer ago.

The design of our system does include in most of its specific configurations a liquid upper stage and we have studied several - I guess, I would say, three engine alternatives for that upper stage. We have a current preferred approach and two alternatives. Again, for competitive reasons, I'd prefer not to get into those just yet. But the system does involve a liquid upper stage.

Well, there has been a great deal of discussion about launch vehicle reusability, particularly over the last six months. I think the it's still too early to say whether in the real world of launch rates and refurbishment cost and payload penalties and so on that relate do reusability, whether it's going to make economic sense to reuse some or large part of the launch vehicle. Well, it maybe intuitively appealing to make references to we don't throw [away] airplanes and so on. Our rockets and airplanes are quite different machines and a past experience with launch vehicle reusability has been mixed at best in terms of achieving sustainable cost reductions. And so, I am a skeptic with regard to many of the claims that have been made for cost reductions related to reusability and in the case of our specific program, we are designing it to be cost competitive with not only the current pricing, but even somewhat lower pricing that may emerge in the future. But, you are correct, our system does not contemplate reusability and we will have to wait and see whether that's a good judgment or not.

Offline block51

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #70 on: 04/06/2016 07:27 PM »
I have some answers on those carts at Wallops.

These are GEM 40 motor carts. Some how they ended up at WFF from KSC along with some other hardware. A few years back then NSROC II contract was tasked a few years back to see if they could be used with CASTOR IVB motors that MDA was looking to give to NASA. The MDA later decided not to move forward with getting rid of the motors and the GEM 40 carts have since been sitting in front of building F7. A large test fixture for load testing the carts was designed and is shown in the attached photos. I also included a photo of a spreader beam that was used for lifting of the GEM 40.

Short story: The hardware is all surplus GEM 40 stuff and the sounding rocket operations contract had been tasked with figuring out how to use it with CASTOR IVBs that the MDA ultimately decided not to give up to NASA.The big steel beam/load test fixture is now rusting away outside on another part of WFF.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 07:30 PM by block51 »

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #71 on: 04/20/2016 03:25 AM »
mainstream media article on subject:

Space companies feud over what to do with rockets in ICBM stockpile

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2016/04/18/4d649cb2-057b-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html
That's talking about using ICBM hardware for civil space, which is Minotaur, not OA's proposed EELV design.

There were a pair of duelling op-eds from OA and VG in SpaceNews about the subject, along with comments from Gen. Hyten trying to stake out a middle ground. The WaPo article looks like it's based on the same source material.

http://spacenews.com/hyten-tries-to-find-sweet-spot-on-surplus-icbm-issue/
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-ending-ban-on-retired-icbms-would-allow-u-s-companies-to-reclaim-small-satellite-launch-market/
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-dumping-excess-boosters-on-market-would-short-circuit-commercial-space-renaissance/

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4945
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1679
  • Likes Given: 1109
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #72 on: 04/20/2016 04:33 AM »
mainstream media article on subject:

That's talking about using ICBM hardware for civil space, which is Minotaur, not OA's proposed EELV design.



Ah yes!!! OK, I'll delete my post
« Last Edit: 04/20/2016 04:33 AM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 3

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13052
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3879
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #74 on: 04/26/2016 05:05 AM »
The latest Aviation Week says OATK's proposed rocket would use Common Booster Cores that produce 1.1 million pounds of liftoff thrust and an LH2 stage powered by a BE-3U/EN engine.  It says that "cores" are involved in the basic rocket, which seems to support the two-stage idea.  It also says that two or more cores would be strapped to the basic core if more lift were needed.  In addition, GEM-63 motors will be offered as an option to augment the Common Booster Core.

The first Common Booster Core static test is planned for 2018 and the first flight for 2019.Work will be performed in Magna, Utah, Iuka, Mississippi, and Chandler, Arizona. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3854
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #75 on: 04/26/2016 05:52 AM »
The stick is back

The zombie that never died.

If this get's built they need to paint a zombie version of areas one as a decal on the first stage.  8)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 4500
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #76 on: 04/26/2016 11:23 AM »
Actually, this is not the stick. It looks more like Ariane 6. 1.1Mlbf are roughly 1/3 of SSRB. So I would take a guess and say those are two segment solids. Or may be even single segment two in line. Nothing like the stick.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2016 12:15 PM by baldusi »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 756
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #77 on: 04/26/2016 12:07 PM »
Nobody can deny that this rocket plays to ATK's strengths - but does it play to the market strengths?
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 4500
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #78 on: 04/26/2016 12:17 PM »
Nobody can deny that this rocket plays to ATK's strengths - but does it play to the market strengths?
You mean if it caters to the market's desires, right? The demand doesn't have strengths, it has demands, it is the supply's job to cover those demands.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5205
  • Liked: 810
  • Likes Given: 557
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #79 on: 04/26/2016 05:01 PM »
I can see some parts of the US government thinking this rocket is a pretty good idea, even if it might tend to fall a little flat on a purely commercial basis.  The military will want to keep the the solid-rocket-motor industry turning over.  And NASA will push the benefits of someone else using the VAB.

Tags: