Author Topic: Thiokol EELV proposal  (Read 8263 times)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Thiokol EELV proposal
« on: 10/03/2006 01:46 pm »
Quote
On August 24, 1995, SMSC awarded EELV Phase I concept validation contracts to four contractor teams led by Alliant Techsystems Aerospace Systems Group of Magna, UT; Boeing Expendable Launch Systems (then known as McDonnell Douglas Aerospace-West) of Huntington Beach, CA; Boeing Missiles & Space Division of Seattle, WA; and Lockheed Martin Astronautics Group of Denver, CO. Each of the 15-month, $30 million contracts called for developing cost- and risk-reduction concepts for upgrades to existing launchers and their ground support infrastructure.

The Air Force made its down-select on December 20, 1996, and awarded EELV pre-development engineering and manufacturing contracts to the teams of Boeing Expendable Launch Systems and Lockheed Martin Astronautics for Delta IV and Atlas V. The two $60 million firm fixed contracts were scheduled for completion by May 1998.

As a historical interest, there were four EELV phase I contracts, Alliant/Thiokol/ATK, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed Martin. For phase II, Boeing bought Douglas and ATK was dropped and now there are two EELV:s.
But it's been hard to find data on the ATK proposal on the internet. They had solid rocket motors of course. But what was it like exactly and why did it lose? Did they propose a cluster or a "single stick" variant?

(The original Boeing proposal btw had a recoverable engine pod with SSME-like engine.)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #1 on: 10/03/2006 01:55 pm »
The USAF didn't want solids.

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2006 07:37 pm »
Quote
Jim - 3/10/2006  8:38 AM

The USAF didn't want solids.

I assume you mean Solids for the main stage?  Atlas V seems to like solids.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2006 08:58 pm »
This is the only illustration of the ATK / Thiokol EELV concept i have ever found:

Gunter

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #4 on: 10/03/2006 10:46 pm »
Quote
GraphGuy - 3/10/2006  3:20 PM

Quote
Jim - 3/10/2006  8:38 AM

The USAF didn't want solids.

I assume you mean Solids for the main stage?  Atlas V seems to like solids.

Those were added because of commercial requirements, not DOD

Offline Calphor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #5 on: 10/05/2006 05:10 am »
As a quick reminder, ATK had not purchased Thiokol at the time of the original EELV contract awards. ATK had purchased Hercules, who was, at that time, the manufacturer of the Trident D5 missile and the prime on the by then cancelled ASRM. It would be logical that the EELV proposal was a derivative of ASRM (I don't have definitive knowledge of that). Thiokol was not purchased by ATK until 2001.

Offline PurduesUSAFguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #6 on: 10/10/2006 10:55 pm »
It's a shame that the USAF was anti-solid, it seems to me that the ATK EELV stood the greatest chance of being the cheapest to produce given the simplicity of solid rockets.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #7 on: 10/10/2006 11:12 pm »
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 10/10/2006  6:38 PM

It's a shame that the USAF was anti-solid, it seems to me that the ATK EELV stood the greatest chance of being the cheapest to produce given the simplicity of solid rockets.

Not true.  It still needed upperstages

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #8 on: 10/10/2006 11:54 pm »
Quote
Calphor - 5/10/2006  5:53 AM

As a quick reminder, ATK had not purchased Thiokol at the time of the original EELV contract awards. ATK had purchased Hercules, who was, at that time, the manufacturer of the Trident D5 missile and the prime on the by then cancelled ASRM. It would be logical that the EELV proposal was a derivative of ASRM (I don't have definitive knowledge of that). Thiokol was not purchased by ATK until 2001.

Ah, sorry, I was a bit lost on these mergers, I should have written Alliant EELV proposal as topic of course.


But why was USAF anti-solid then? Titan IV used big solids. And surely huge amounts of other USAF hardware has solid rockets in them, smaller of course. But they should have been familiar with the technology at least.

And thanks for the pic, Gunter!

Offline quark

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #9 on: 10/11/2006 12:37 am »
The ATK proposal was based on the Titan IV SRMU.  They had a medium version that was a single stick with an upper stage and a heavy that was three SRMU's strapped together with an upper stage.

ATK was dropped because they had no experiecne as a LV integrator or prime, the SRMUs were deemed high risk as a core stage and the AF still had a bad taste in its mouth from the SRMU development.  That development was grossly overrun and behind schedule and resulted in a lawsuit and very large settlement by the USG (paid to ATK).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #10 on: 10/11/2006 12:40 am »
Quote
meiza - 10/10/2006  7:37 PM

Quote
Calphor - 5/10/2006  5:53 AM

As a quick reminder, ATK had not purchased Thiokol at the time of the original EELV contract awards. ATK had purchased Hercules, who was, at that time, the manufacturer of the Trident D5 missile and the prime on the by then cancelled ASRM. It would be logical that the EELV proposal was a derivative of ASRM (I don't have definitive knowledge of that). Thiokol was not purchased by ATK until 2001.

Ah, sorry, I was a bit lost on these mergers, I should have written Alliant EELV proposal as topic of course.


But why was USAF anti-solid then? Titan IV used big solids. And surely huge amounts of other USAF hardware has solid rockets in them, smaller of course. But they should have been familiar with the technology at least.

And thanks for the pic, Gunter!

Solids are only good for thrust augmentation

The USAF wanted to avoid the environmental impacts of the solids also.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #11 on: 10/11/2006 08:08 am »
Does anyone know, what kind of upperstages were to be used in this proposal?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Thiokol EELV proposal
« Reply #12 on: 10/17/2006 09:55 pm »
Quote
Jim - 10/10/2006  5:55 PM

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 10/10/2006  6:38 PM

It's a shame that the USAF was anti-solid, it seems to me that the ATK EELV stood the greatest chance of being the cheapest to produce given the simplicity of solid rockets.

Not true.  It still needed upperstages

Like all rockets don't? (outside of Atlas SCORE, etc) I think he was talking about first stages.

Then too, Ares I could be considered a back-door route to one--with ATK not really caring for Ares V after all--with the SRBs best for thrust augmentation and not for the Stick.

Too many EELVs, not enough HLLVs.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1