|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« on: 09/09/2011 07:08 PM » |
|
Ho ho! This will be Liberty! MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-189 NASA, ATK ANNOUNCE NEW COMMERCIAL CREW AGREEMENT CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) managers will announce an agreement that could accelerate the availability of U.S. commercial crew transportation capabilities at 3 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, Sept. 13. The announcement will occur at the Press Site auditorium at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will not be carried live on NASA Television. NASA TV's Video File segment will air highlights. The announcement participants are: -- Ed Mango, Commercial Crew Program manager, NASA -- Kent Rominger, vice president, Strategy and Business Development, ATK Aerospace -- John Schumacher, vice president, Space Programs, EADS North America Journalists without permanent NASA Kennedy accreditation need to apply for credentials by 4 p.m., Sept. 12. New international media accreditation is closed. Badges can be picked up at the Kennedy Space Center's Badging Office on State Road 405 starting at 10 a.m. on Sept. 13. Media must apply for credentials online at: https://media.ksc.nasa.gov For NASA TV downlink information, Video File schedules and links to streaming video, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv For information about ATK, visit: http://www.atk.com/ For information on NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 09/09/2011 07:08 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rocket Science
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 09/09/2011 07:12 PM » |
|
Hey Ed! Your rides' here...  Robert
|
|
|
|
HIP2BSQRE
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 09/09/2011 07:13 PM » |
|
Who has been drinking the kool aid???
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 09/09/2011 07:13 PM » |
|
Probably an unfunded SAA for the Liberty Launch Vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Scia
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 09/09/2011 07:13 PM » |
|
The domino's continue to fall.
|
|
|
|
aquanaut99
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 09/09/2011 07:13 PM » |
|
I have a bad feeling about this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
HIP2BSQRE
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 09/09/2011 07:14 PM » |
|
How will accelerate commerical crew???
|
|
|
|
PahTo
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 09/09/2011 07:14 PM » |
|
Wha??? Do I see Liberty taking shape? Those SRBs are pernicious, if nothing else...
|
|
|
|
DaveJSC
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 09/09/2011 07:14 PM » |
|
Great move. Helps SLS and also helps us get further out of being stuck with SpaceX, who we REALLY don't want to be stuck with.
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 09/09/2011 07:17 PM » |
|
Hear hear !
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 09/09/2011 07:17 PM » |
|
Wha??? Do I see Liberty taking shape? Those SRBs are pernicious, if nothing else...
100 percent Liberty, given EADS are in on the presser too.
|
|
|
|
RadarMonkey
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 09/09/2011 07:17 PM » |
|
Misread the first sentence of the announcement that there was going to be a manned launch next Tuesday!  Silly, RadarMonkey.
|
|
|
|
sdsds
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 09/09/2011 07:20 PM » |
|
100 percent Liberty, given EADS are in on the presser too.
Which leads to a suggestion for journalists who have the opportunity to ask questions. Don't bother asking any of Mango or Rominger; the only really interesting answers will be coming from Schumacher!
|
|
|
|
PahTo
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 09/09/2011 07:23 PM » |
|
Chris, any chance of an article/insights before the presser? Obviously this will be a big article post-presser...or so we hope to see one from this great site.
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 09/09/2011 07:23 PM » |
|
Great move. Helps SLS and also helps us get further out of being stuck with SpaceX, who we REALLY don't want to be stuck with.
Unless a spacecraft provider decides to choose the Liberty as its main LV, the Liberty doesn't have much chances of carrying crew.
|
|
|
|
Scia
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 09/09/2011 07:23 PM » |
|
Great move. Helps SLS and also helps us get further out of being stuck with SpaceX, who we REALLY don't want to be stuck with.
Why would we be stuck with SpaceX if the Atlas 5 is being human rated, and Boeing is building their own Crew capsule?
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 09/09/2011 07:25 PM » |
|
Great move. Helps SLS and also helps us get further out of being stuck with SpaceX, who we REALLY don't want to be stuck with.
Yeah, being stuck with huge fixed costs is way better.
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 09/09/2011 07:31 PM » |
|
Chris, any chance of an article/insights before the presser? Obviously this will be a big article post-presser...or so we hope to see one from this great site.
They want to announce it at a set time. Sometimes they will help you, like ULA did with Atlas V/Dreamchaser and allow you to write up the content and then publish at the time of the announcement, but never before. When you see reports before the announcement, it means someone has broken an embargo, which is poor journalistic practise. Absolutely will cover it best I can 
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 09/09/2011 08:07 PM » |
|
Great news! In my book, one more crew-rated rocket can't be bad news.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 09/09/2011 08:13 PM » |
|
This is odd... More commercial crew offerings are always good - but this does not appear to be funded as part of CCDEV. So where is the money coming from?
Is NASA setting up a separate funding stream for ATK, not from CCDEV funds?
I have no objection to ATK being part of the commercial crew programs supported by NASA, but the playing field should be even.
If the end result is ATK lobbying for more commercial crew funding in general, that would be a good outcome. But their recent history makes me skeptical of that. I would love to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 09/09/2011 08:21 PM » |
|
Akin's Law #39: "39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles." http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 09/09/2011 08:25 PM » |
|
Hey Ed!
Your rides' here...
Robert
Heh! I would rather see a J-2X stage, but c'est la vie. Liberty stays alive simply because it has a lot of parts ready to fit together - on paper. It is "competitive" because it has low development costs, leveraging Ares I work completed, and especially because it shares an entire stage with another, robust launch vehicle program. The challenge here is that ATK has never successfully managed a large launch vehicle development effort. That ATK Launch Vehicle didn't work out so well, for example. http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/rocket-explodes-shortly-after-launch-wallops-island - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 09/09/2011 08:27 PM » |
|
This is odd... More commercial crew offerings are always good - but this does not appear to be funded as part of CCDEV. So where is the money coming from?
Is NASA setting up a separate funding stream for ATK, not from CCDEV funds?
I have no objection to ATK being part of the commercial crew programs supported by NASA, but the playing field should be even.
If the end result is ATK lobbying for more commercial crew funding in general, that would be a good outcome. But their recent history makes me skeptical of that. I would love to be proven wrong.
I *think* they don't actually gain any physical money from NASA, they sort of pay for it themselves in return for presenting to the NASA teams the same way as the other CCDEVs are.....which puts them back in the running for the downselection. Not all that confident about that, so someone correct me, but if it's unfunded SAA, they get no money from NASA, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Lurker Steve
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 09/09/2011 08:36 PM » |
|
This is odd... More commercial crew offerings are always good - but this does not appear to be funded as part of CCDEV. So where is the money coming from?
Is NASA setting up a separate funding stream for ATK, not from CCDEV funds?
I have no objection to ATK being part of the commercial crew programs supported by NASA, but the playing field should be even.
If the end result is ATK lobbying for more commercial crew funding in general, that would be a good outcome. But their recent history makes me skeptical of that. I would love to be proven wrong.
I *think* they don't actually gain any physical money from NASA, they sort of pay for it themselves in return for presenting to the NASA teams the same way as the other CCDEVs are.....which puts them back in the running for the downselection.
Not all that confident about that, so someone correct me, but if it's unfunded SAA, they get no money from NASA, I believe.
It's can't be totally unfunded, since it needs some level of NASA support. No funds are transferred to ATK, but similar to the ULA agreement, they needs NASA employees to participate in reviews, check milestone progress, etc. There is some level of overhead associated with those tasks. I wonder which cape facilities they propose to use for this effort.
|
|
|
|
Cherokee43v6
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 09/09/2011 08:41 PM » |
|
I think this is a good thing. With all the CCDev folks (except SpaceX) jumping on the AtlasV bandwagon, I was beginning to get worried that the least likely part of the system to have problems was the part that would have all the redundancy.
As the recent Progress launch failure has shown us, having too many systems dependent upon a launch vehicle can be problematic.
ps... I am in no way implying that the CCDev teams were looking at using AtlasV exclusively... Just that the kind of redundancy that people here talk about must extend to launch vehicles in addition to crew capsules.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 09/09/2011 08:45 PM » |
|
I think this is a good thing. With all the CCDev folks (except SpaceX) jumping on the AtlasV bandwagon, I was beginning to get worried that the least likely part of the system to have problems was the part that would have all the redundancy.
As the recent Progress launch failure has shown us, having too many systems dependent upon a launch vehicle can be problematic.
ps... I am in no way implying that the CCDev teams were looking at using AtlasV exclusively... Just that the kind of redundancy that people here talk about must extend to launch vehicles in addition to crew capsules.
Why would we need more than 3 different launch vehicle families? (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Soyuz... all of which have flown already, while Liberty is nowhere near flight) See Atkin's Law #39: http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
|
|
|
|
A_M_Swallow
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 09/09/2011 08:45 PM » |
|
If NASA and ATK are announcing a new manned launch vehicle is there any information on which spaceships will fly on it?
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 09/09/2011 08:47 PM » |
|
I wonder which cape facilities they propose to use for this effort. Isn't that pretty clear? VAB and LC39. KSC is at least probably pretty eager to do this, since this might be the only near-term launch from LC39, with SLS in some sort of temporal limbo. Liberty-X? But the funding issue will be real interesting to unravel.
|
|
|
|
manboy
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 09/09/2011 08:49 PM » |
|
Probably an unfunded SAA for the Liberty Launch Vehicle.
Here's to hoping that this is all that design is going to get.
|
|
|
|
Ronsmytheiii
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 09/09/2011 08:50 PM » |
|
ATK believes there is a market and is willing to invest its own capital, is that not the point of commercial spaceflight?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 09/09/2011 08:51 PM » |
|
Great move. Helps SLS and also helps us get further out of being stuck with SpaceX, who we REALLY don't want to be stuck with.
You have nothing to base that on
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 09/09/2011 08:55 PM » |
|
ATK believes there is a market and is willing to invest its own capital, is that not the point of commercial spaceflight?
I agree. If ATK think it's a viable design and market, then I trust them.
|
|
|
|
Cherokee43v6
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 09/09/2011 08:55 PM » |
|
I think this is a good thing. With all the CCDev folks (except SpaceX) jumping on the AtlasV bandwagon, I was beginning to get worried that the least likely part of the system to have problems was the part that would have all the redundancy.
As the recent Progress launch failure has shown us, having too many systems dependent upon a launch vehicle can be problematic.
ps... I am in no way implying that the CCDev teams were looking at using AtlasV exclusively... Just that the kind of redundancy that people here talk about must extend to launch vehicles in addition to crew capsules.
Why would we need more than 3 different launch vehicle families? (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Soyuz... all of which have flown already, while Liberty is nowhere near flight)
See Atkin's Law #39:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Has the Soyuz been rated to fly on anything /other/ than a Soyuz rocket? Similarly, the SpaceX folks seem to be marrying the Dragon to the Falcon pretty tightly. Basically, what I'm saying is that having CST100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin's capsule committed to a single launch vehicle defeats the redundancy of their separate capsule systems. Sure, Elon would be massively happy to sell them Falcons, but having more options increases robustness. If it is an unfunded SAA, then they have to make thier own business case for proceeding forward. The human launch business will not be big enough to support any 'dedicated launch vehicle', even if it were a sole provider, which means that they must see some kind of market beyond that.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 09/09/2011 08:56 PM » |
|
If NASA and ATK are announcing a new manned launch vehicle is there any information on which spaceships will fly on it?
Nobody is announcing a new vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 09/09/2011 08:57 PM » |
|
I dont understand why this forum is up in arms about an unfunded agreement. After all, aTK believes there is a market and is willing to invest its own capital, is that not the point of commercial spaceflight?
I certainly don't mind if ATK spends its own money. What many of us are reacting to is just a sneaky suspicion that there might be NASA funding involved for this. If that is not the case, then by all means...
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 09/09/2011 08:58 PM » |
|
I dont understand why this forum is up in arms about an unfunded agreement. After all, aTK believes there is a market and is willing to invest its own capital, is that not the point of commercial spaceflight?
I certainly don't mind if ATK spends its own money. What many of us are reacting to is just a sneaky suspicion that there might be NASA funding involved for this. If that is not the case, then by all means...
NASA funding is essentially guaranteed if Liberty is ever going to fly, since Liberty can only realistically launch from one place... So talking about Liberty as if it somehow could be done solely by ATK with no NASA funding (or basically paying for huge fixed infrastructure costs that other commercial launch vehicles do not require) is pretty disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 09/09/2011 08:58 PM » |
|
Basically, what I'm saying is that having CST100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin's capsule committed to a single launch vehicle
CST100 is not committed to a single launch vehicle . Boeing has said their vehicle will be compatible with Atlas, Delta and Falcon 9.
|
|
|
|
Rocket Science
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 09/09/2011 08:59 PM » |
|
Hey Ed!
Your rides' here...
Robert
Heh!
I would rather see a J-2X stage, but c'est la vie.
Liberty stays alive simply because it has a lot of parts ready to fit together - on paper. It is "competitive" because it has low development costs, leveraging Ares I work completed, and especially because it shares an entire stage with another, robust launch vehicle program.
The challenge here is that ATK has never successfully managed a large launch vehicle development effort. That ATK Launch Vehicle didn't work out so well, for example.
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/rocket-explodes-shortly-after-launch-wallops-island
- Ed Kyle
Glad I made you smile! I'm sure there are enough smart people out there to help ATK be successful in their efforts. Robert
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 09/09/2011 09:05 PM » |
|
ATK believes there is a market and is willing to invest its own capital, is that not the point of commercial spaceflight?
I agree. If ATK think it's a viable design and market, then I trust them.
Concur. Huge amount of respect for ATK's solids. You only need to follow the FRR/IFA content to see just how much effort they put into those solids. I'd ride one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 09/09/2011 09:15 PM » |
|
I wonder which cape facilities they propose to use for this effort.
Isn't that pretty clear? VAB and LC39. ...
"As a result of lower-than-expected cost projections, the 21CGSP management team provided approval to apply the shear web reinforcement to both Crawler-Transporter 2 (CT2) and CT1. Redundant crawlers with heavy lift capabilities will result in more options for the use of the crawlers in the future." "Kennedy Complex Control System (KCCS) connectivity to the Launch Control Center (LCC) is complete. LC39B now has redundant connectivity to the LCC for all connected systems. Timing and countdown circuits are also complete to the LCC." "The prototyping of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) Adjustable Outer Mold Line (OML) platform is being conducted at the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF). The OML platform insert simulator has been constructed." "The Command, Control, Communication and Range (C3R) team has completed Phase 1 (Integrated System Software) of the Launch Control System (LCS). A demonstration, including lessons learned and planned improvements, was provided to Program Management by the Integration team." etc.
|
|
|
|
Jason1701
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 09/09/2011 09:15 PM » |
|
One thing about Liberty has me confused. A huge inline solid requires the spacecraft to have a substantially more powerful LAS than if the rocket is all-liquid or has a small solid strap-on, is that correct? If so, how could ATK expect any CC provider to choose Liberty when doing so would mean a significant redesign of their spacecraft?
|
|
|
|
dks13827
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 09/09/2011 09:16 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly. SRB's may be pernicious but they work and they exist and they aren't powerpoint fantasies.
. "Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 09/09/2011 09:18 PM » |
|
Go Chris Go!!
Wrong flag for me 
|
|
|
|
gladiator1332
|
|
« Reply #45 on: 09/09/2011 09:26 PM » |
|
As long as they are kept on an even playing field with the rest of the CCDev competitors, then I have no problem with this.
|
|
|
|
Lurker Steve
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 09/09/2011 09:27 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly.
. "Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
So they are less cost than a Altas or Delta Heavy. I assume that's what they mean by "comparable". I wonder how close they come to the Atlas 402.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 09/09/2011 09:28 PM » |
|
"Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
Doubtful. I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 09/09/2011 09:30 PM » |
|
One thing about Liberty has me confused. A huge inline solid requires the spacecraft to have a substantially more powerful LAS than if the rocket is all-liquid or has a small solid strap-on, is that correct?...
Not necessarily. (IMO). How powerfull the LAS is, is dictated by the zero-zero abort case; zero thrust, zero altitude - just off the launch pad and watch those parachutes ! need time to deploy them. How fast is the total LAS impulse applied - yes, that's a function of how fast is the booster pushing the stack through max drag and max q. However, if a huge inline solid single stick first stage is very, very reliable...
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 09/09/2011 09:33 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly.
. "Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
So they are less cost than a Altas or Delta Heavy. I assume that's what they mean by "comparable". I wonder how close they come to the Atlas 402.
ATK has never developed an orbital launch vehicle which has flown (they developed solids, but never a full first stage for an orbital vehicle... Ares I was basically their introduction to the scene.), and Liberty is far from being ready for orbit. They can claim lower costs, but considering what we know from Ares I, there's really no reason that I can see to believe that their actual costs will be anywhere near their estimates, since they've never done it before.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 09/09/2011 09:38 PM » |
|
Has the Soyuz been rated to fly on anything /other/ than a Soyuz rocket?
Small note so as to not derail the thread, yes, there were several Soyuz launched on Proton rockets in the 1960's as part of the Zond program.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 09/09/2011 09:40 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly.
. "Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
So they are less cost than a Altas or Delta Heavy. I assume that's what they mean by "comparable". I wonder how close they come to the Atlas 402.
ATK has never developed an orbital launch vehicle which has flown (they developed solids, but never a full first stage for an orbital vehicle... Ares I was basically their introduction to the scene.), and Liberty is far from being ready for orbit. They can claim lower costs, but considering what we know from Ares I, there's really no reason that I can see to believe that their actual costs will be anywhere near their estimates, since they've never done it before.
This is actually not true. ATK has developed launch vehicles before in partnership with Lockheed, the Athena series, and one on their own, the ALV.
|
|
|
|
Jason1701
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 09/09/2011 09:42 PM » |
|
One thing about Liberty has me confused. A huge inline solid requires the spacecraft to have a substantially more powerful LAS than if the rocket is all-liquid or has a small solid strap-on, is that correct?...
Not necessarily. (IMO).
How powerfull the LAS is, is dictated by the zero-zero abort case; zero thrust, zero altitude - just off the launch pad and watch those parachutes ! need time to deploy them.
How fast is the total LAS impulse applied - yes, that's a function of how fast is the booster pushing the stack through max drag and max q.
However, if a huge inline solid single stick first stage is very, very reliable...
It doesn't matter how reliable the first stage is, NASA is still going to mandate a LAS. Doesn't the LAS need to be extra-powerful to outrun the burning fuel bits if the solid explodes?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 09/09/2011 09:42 PM » |
|
However, if a huge inline solid single stick first stage is very, very reliable...
Not proven
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 09/09/2011 09:43 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly.
. "Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
So they are less cost than a Altas or Delta Heavy. I assume that's what they mean by "comparable". I wonder how close they come to the Atlas 402.
ATK has never developed an orbital launch vehicle which has flown (they developed solids, but never a full first stage for an orbital vehicle... Ares I was basically their introduction to the scene.), and Liberty is far from being ready for orbit. They can claim lower costs, but considering what we know from Ares I, there's really no reason that I can see to believe that their actual costs will be anywhere near their estimates, since they've never done it before.
This is actually not true. ATK has developed launch vehicles before in partnership with Lockheed, the Athena series, and one on their own, the ALV.
But that was with Lockheed, as you say, and their own launch vehicle ALV is suborbital (at least as much as has been funded). And as Ed said: "The challenge here is that ATK has never successfully managed a large launch vehicle development effort. That ATK Launch Vehicle didn't work out so well, for example. http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/rocket-explodes-shortly-after-launch-wallops-island " ALV, which flew shortly before veering off course and being blown up, was a sounding rocket.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 09/09/2011 09:44 PM » |
|
This is actually not true. ATK has developed launch vehicles before in partnership with Lockheed, the Athena series, and one on their own, the ALV.
No, they just provided SRM's to Lockheed.
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 09/09/2011 09:56 PM » |
|
Doesn't the LAS need to be extra-powerful to outrun the burning fuel bits if the solid explodes?
Again, not necessarily. If you have the time and the interest, go listen http://archive.thespaceshow.com/shows/1605-BWB-2011-08-14.mp3Dr.David Livingston's Aug.14 show with "Guest: Kent Rominger. Topics: The ATK Liberty Launch Vehicle...etc." [cut nozzle, let booster go for a while where ever it wants to go, initial "fratricide" study's bad assumptions, etc.]
|
|
|
|
Rocket Science
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 09/09/2011 10:00 PM » |
|
Go Chris Go!!
Wrong flag for me
Fixed that for ya...
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 09/09/2011 10:00 PM » |
|
e ever it wants to go, initial "fratricide" study's bad assumptions, etc.]
The range stands behind its study. The assumptions were valid because a booster exploded in real life.
|
|
|
|
notsorandom
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 09/09/2011 10:04 PM » |
|
"Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
Doubtful.
I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
Isn't a significant portion of the Taurus II made overseas? How is the Taurus II different then Liberty in this regard?
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #60 on: 09/09/2011 10:05 PM » |
|
a booster exploded in real life.
Yes, that booster was blown up, ripped open by a linear shaped charge.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 09/09/2011 10:17 PM » |
|
"Liberty provides greater performance at less cost than any other comparable launch vehicle."
Doubtful.
I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
Isn't a significant portion of the Taurus II made overseas? How is the Taurus II different then Liberty in this regard?
The fuel tanks are made overseas, and the engines have some overseas content, but it is majority US made.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 09/09/2011 10:23 PM » |
|
a booster exploded in real life.
Yes, that booster was blown up, ripped open by a linear shaped charge.
So what is your point? Liberty and Ares I will have the same charges
|
|
|
|
Cherokee43v6
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 09/09/2011 10:23 PM » |
|
Basically, what I'm saying is that having CST100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin's capsule committed to a single launch vehicle
CST100 is not committed to a single launch vehicle . Boeing has said their vehicle will be compatible with Atlas, Delta and Falcon 9.
Please go back to page 2 and read my original post before attacking me. In addition, I will point out what others have said on other discussions about how the craft have to have modifications (even if it is just in the software) to be adapted for each launcher. You can't just yank a CST100 off an Atlas, slap it on a Delta and punch 'GO'.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 09/09/2011 10:25 PM » |
|
Basically, what I'm saying is that having CST100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin's capsule committed to a single launch vehicle
CST100 is not committed to a single launch vehicle . Boeing has said their vehicle will be compatible with Atlas, Delta and Falcon 9.
Please go back to page 2 and read my original post before attacking me.
In addition, I will point out what others have said on other discussions about how the craft have to have modifications (even if it is just in the software) to be adapted for each launcher.
And who says CST-100 will not do this? Your original post is the problem, CST-100 is not on the Atlas "bandwagon", it is being designed to accommodate 3 launch vehicles. Yes, there will be unique hardware and software, but again who they are doing it?
|
|
|
|
Cherokee43v6
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 09/09/2011 10:31 PM » |
|
Basically, what I'm saying is that having CST100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin's capsule committed to a single launch vehicle
CST100 is not committed to a single launch vehicle . Boeing has said their vehicle will be compatible with Atlas, Delta and Falcon 9.
Please go back to page 2 and read my original post before attacking me.
In addition, I will point out what others have said on other discussions about how the craft have to have modifications (even if it is just in the software) to be adapted for each launcher.
And who says CST-100 will not do this?
Entirely, completely and totally irrelevant to the argument you jumped in on. I will repeat, to you who is so fond of telling others to go read before posting... Go read my original post on page 2. Quite frankly, I only paid for the 5 minute argument... not the full half hour. Anything further is on YOUR nickel.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 09/09/2011 10:31 PM » |
|
Isn't a significant portion of the Taurus II made overseas? How is the Taurus II different then Liberty in this regard?
The fuel tanks are made overseas, and the engines have some overseas content, but it is majority US made.
Oh c'mon. Do you really believe what you just wrote? That the NK-33 itself is just "some content". 
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 09/09/2011 10:33 PM » |
|
Isn't a significant portion of the Taurus II made overseas? How is the Taurus II different then Liberty in this regard?
The fuel tanks are made overseas, and the engines have some overseas content, but it is majority US made.
Oh c'mon. Do you really believe what you just wrote? That the NK-33 itself is just "some content".
Well, per US Procurement standards, the remanufacturing of the engines to the AJ-26 constitutes a significant investment of US resources, and makes them as much, if not more, American than Russian. The AJ-26 has more thrust, better isp, and is in theory more reliable. (never had an NK-33 flight to compare with)
|
|
|
|
Diagoras
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 09/09/2011 10:38 PM » |
|
Collating the questions in this thread that caught my eye (ie. not "ATK sucks" or "SpaceX is the devil and Elon Musk feasts on the screams of the dying"). Hoping that those with expertise might take a shot at them.
1. I assume, that other than overhead, this is basically ATK putting forward money so that they can be in the running for CCDev3? Nothing more?
2. Have any spacecraft developers announced a design for Liberty? MOU? If not, exactly what is Liberty expected to launch?
3. Would existing spacecraft (New Shepard, CST-100, Dragon, Dreamchaser) need significant redesigns to work with a giant SRB? I'm really thinking about beefed up LAS here.
Thanks for those who answer,
Diagoras.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 09/09/2011 10:43 PM » |
|
Entirely, completely and totally irrelevant to the argument you jumped in on.
wrong, Directly applicable because it shows that there is no bandwagon. I am getting tired of people who make blanket statements with no relevant facts.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 09/09/2011 10:45 PM » |
|
Collating the questions in this thread that caught my eye (ie. not "ATK sucks" or "SpaceX is the devil and Elon Musk feasts on the screams of the dying"). Hoping that those with expertise might take a shot at them.
1. I assume, that other than overhead, this is basically ATK putting forward money so that they can be in the running for CCDev3? Nothing more?
2. Have any spacecraft developers announced a design for Liberty? MOU? If not, exactly what is Liberty expected to launch?
3. Would existing spacecraft (New Shepard, CST-100, Dragon, Dreamchaser) need significant redesigns to work with a giant SRB? I'm really thinking about beefed up LAS here.
Thanks for those who answer,
Diagoras.
1. yes
2. none have come forward
3. remains to be seen
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 09/09/2011 10:50 PM » |
|
Why would we need more than 3 different launch vehicle families? (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Soyuz... all of which have flown already, while Liberty is nowhere near flight)
See Atkin's Law #39:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
+100. This was the same issue with Ares I. Actually, it is 4 families.
|
|
|
|
Paul Howard
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 09/09/2011 10:52 PM » |
|
Excellent news! This is by far the best option. This is great to see NASA coming to its senses.
|
|
|
|
Jason Sole
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 09/09/2011 10:53 PM » |
|
Great news! In my book, one more crew-rated rocket can't be bad news.
Right on! God bless ATK and all who sail in her.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 09/09/2011 10:56 PM » |
|
Excellent news! This is by far the best option. This is great to see NASA coming to its senses.
Based on what?
|
|
|
|
dks13827
|
|
« Reply #75 on: 09/09/2011 10:58 PM » |
|
Based on the real world, reality. When Kent Rominger speaks one has to sit up and take notice. The guy knows plenty.
|
|
|
|
Paul Howard
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 09/09/2011 11:00 PM » |
|
Excellent news! This is by far the best option. This is great to see NASA coming to its senses.
Based on what?
Based on an existing and proven booster and an upper stage which is existing and proven. We all know you are EELV, but you see to be treating this as a Q&A. I wasn't looking for your approval
|
|
|
|
sdsds
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 09/09/2011 11:03 PM » |
|
Critics of Liberty seem to make the leap from, "Ares I had a high Q black zone" to "Any rocket using an ATK five-segment motor as its first stage will have a high Q black zone." Has anyone actually done the calculations for the proposed Liberty design?
|
|
|
|
dks13827
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 09/09/2011 11:06 PM » |
|
Suppose ATK has done that ?
|
|
|
|
Diagoras
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 09/09/2011 11:08 PM » |
|
Thanks for the response, jim. Paul Howard, you seem to know a lot about Liberty. Want to weigh in?
|
|
|
|
Paul Howard
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 09/09/2011 11:16 PM » |
|
Thanks for the response, jim. Paul Howard, you seem to know a lot about Liberty. Want to weigh in?
On your post? No, I'm sure Jim knows more than I ever will. I'm still entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
|
sdsds
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 09/09/2011 11:26 PM » |
|
Suppose ATK has done that ?
A high-Q black zone analysis for Liberty? I wish we could be confident ATK has done that! But ... it doesn't seem they, or NASA, did one for Ares I, at least until the AF range safety people did one that looked gloomy. And if they've done it for Liberty, and the results were rosy, why wouldn't they have published? (EDIT to point out: this would have to be a whole-vehicle analysis, not just a first-stage analysis. It depends on e.g. mass of spacecraft, type of LAS, etc.)
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 09/09/2011 11:50 PM » |
|
I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
If Taurus 2 is more than 50% "U.S." even though only a small physical part of the rocket is actually "U.S." made, then Liberty could surely be set up to be more than 50% in the same manner. I've highlighted the primary U.S. made Taurus 2 parts in the attached image. (Portions of the first stage thrust structure may also be U.S. made, but I'm not certain of their extent.) - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 09/09/2011 11:52 PM » |
|
Great great news. Something doable, we can fly. SRB's may be pernicious but they
"We can lift any potential crew vehicle out there, whether it's a space plane or a capsule," Rominger said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We can lift Orion, for that matter."
I don't think that Liberty, as I understand it, could lift a lunar Orion. It could lift an ISS Orion probably, one loaded with less propellant. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
dks13827
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 09/10/2011 12:05 AM » |
|
Suppose ATK has done that ?
A high-Q black zone analysis for Liberty? I wish we could be confident ATK has done that! But ... it doesn't seem they, or NASA, did one for Ares I, at least until the AF range safety people did one that looked gloomy. And if they've done it for Liberty, and the results were rosy, why wouldn't they have published?
(EDIT to point out: this would have to be a whole-vehicle analysis, not just a first-stage analysis. It depends on e.g. mass of spacecraft, type of LAS, etc.)
It's in the briefing, Rominger says the AF parameters and assumptions were incorrect and not valid. I believe him.
|
|
|
|
robertross
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 09/10/2011 12:06 AM » |
|
This is odd... More commercial crew offerings are always good - but this does not appear to be funded as part of CCDEV. So where is the money coming from?
Let's see: 1) Ares 1 ML sitting idle, freely paid for by NASA 2) Latest DM-3 test (with more to come), freely paid for by NASA 3) Any and all previous SRB heritage So how much is ATK putting in? 1/100 to 1/1000th of the total cost? (guesstimate) edit to add: many of the designs & analysis which has already been done by NASA, and if ATK choose to hire those workers, they have the experience
|
|
|
|
Will
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 09/10/2011 12:28 AM » |
|
I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
If Taurus 2 is more than 50% "U.S." even though only a small physical part of the rocket is actually "U.S." made, then Liberty could surely be set up to be more than 50% in the same manner.
I've highlighted the primary U.S. made parts in the attached image. (Portions of the first stage thrust structure may also be U.S. made, but I'm not certain of their extent.)
- Ed Kyle
I don't see how it would be easy to do so. Taurus passes because the imported components are surplus rocket engines and first stage structure built in a low wage nation. Cost is more important than volume or weight. Liberty would import a new-build cryogenic engine and upper stage structure built in high wage Europe, and would presumably use EADS avionics, since ATK does not have much experience providing that.
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 09/10/2011 12:52 AM » |
|
I would also see a suit if they won a contract, since it would not be 50% US made.
If Taurus 2 is more than 50% "U.S." even though only a small physical part of the rocket is actually "U.S." made, then Liberty could surely be set up to be more than 50% in the same manner.
I've highlighted the primary U.S. made parts in the attached image. (Portions of the first stage thrust structure may also be U.S. made, but I'm not certain of their extent.)
- Ed Kyle
I don't see how it would be easy to do so. Taurus passes because the imported components are surplus rocket engines and first stage structure built in a low wage nation. Cost is more important than volume or weight.
Liberty would import a new-build cryogenic engine and upper stage structure built in high wage Europe, and would presumably use EADS avionics, since ATK does not have much experience providing that.
The avionics would be the key cost decider. Overall vehicle guidance and so forth would probably have to shift to the U.S., even if that means shipping EADS boxes to a building in the U.S. where they are cabled together or something. Software, of course, costs a lot, and it would have to be developed specifically for Liberty. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 09/10/2011 03:17 AM » |
|
Based on the real world, reality. When Kent Rominger speaks one has to sit up and take notice. The guy knows plenty.
Based on what? He has no special qualifications
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 09/10/2011 03:20 AM » |
|
Excellent news! This is by far the best option. This is great to see NASA coming to its senses.
Based on what?
Based on an existing and proven booster and an upper stage which is existing and proven.
We all know you are EELV, but you see to be treating this as a Q&A. I wasn't looking for your approval
It is not a proven booster and not a proven system, not a proven launch pad . Existing vehicles are more "proven"
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #90 on: 09/10/2011 03:22 AM » |
|
Suppose ATK has done that ?
A high-Q black zone analysis for Liberty? I wish we could be confident ATK has done that! But ... it doesn't seem they, or NASA, did one for Ares I, at least until the AF range safety people did one that looked gloomy. And if they've done it for Liberty, and the results were rosy, why wouldn't they have published?
(EDIT to point out: this would have to be a whole-vehicle analysis, not just a first-stage analysis. It depends on e.g. mass of spacecraft, type of LAS, etc.)
It's in the briefing, Rominger says the AF parameters and assumptions were incorrect and not valid. I believe him.
I would believe the AF experts over him. They aren't selling anything.
|
|
|
|
aquanaut99
|
|
« Reply #91 on: 09/10/2011 04:53 PM » |
|
Based on an existing and proven booster and an upper stage which is existing and proven.
There is nothing proven about the Liberty upper stage. It is to be based on the Ariane 5 core stage, with a Vulcain-2. However, Vulcain-2 is ground-lit. On Liberty, it would have to be redesigned to be air-startable. That means essentially a new engine. So you can't talk about a proven and existing Upper Stage. In fact, J-2X is probably much farther along than Vulcain-2AS (air-startable), since it has at least been test-fired. Also, the first stage 5-seg SRB is not proven. It hasn't even flown yet.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #92 on: 09/10/2011 05:00 PM » |
|
Based on an existing and proven booster and an upper stage which is existing and proven.
There is nothing proven about the Liberty upper stage. It is to be based on the Ariane 5 core stage, with a Vulcain-2. However, Vulcain-2 is ground-lit. On Liberty, it would have to be redesigned to be air-startable. That means essentially a new engine. So you can't talk about a proven and existing Upper Stage. In fact, J-2X is probably much farther along than Vulcain-2AS (air-startable), since it has at least been test-fired.
Also, the first stage 5-seg SRB is not proven. It hasn't even flown yet.
Not so fast. The Vulcain-2 from what I can tell has no game-breakers for air-start. It is not a head-start, nor requires gravity-alignment. The only ground segment for it's ignition is the thrust chamber torch, which could be handled by a specially made interstage system, which would be needed anyways. The other parts are all internal to the engine itself.
|
|
|
|
peter-b
|
|
« Reply #93 on: 09/10/2011 07:03 PM » |
|
Liberty would import a new-build cryogenic engine and upper stage structure built in high wage Europe, and would presumably use EADS avionics, since ATK does not have much experience providing that.
Given the ITAR difficulties that SpaceX had with even soliciting foreign payloads to launch on Falcon 1, how on Earth does ATK expect to get away with actually collaborating on building a launch vehicle with a foreign company legally? Or will their lobbyists just negotiate a special exception? They do, after all, appear to have very good lobbyists.
|
|
|
|
MP99
|
|
« Reply #94 on: 09/10/2011 07:40 PM » |
|
Apparently the Ariane 5 core LH2 tank is autogenously pressurised with GH2 from the "regenerative circuit".
Presumably there's no problem maintaining pressure during first stage operation?
cheers, Martin
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #95 on: 09/10/2011 07:41 PM » |
|
Liberty would import a new-build cryogenic engine and upper stage structure built in high wage Europe, and would presumably use EADS avionics, since ATK does not have much experience providing that.
Given the ITAR difficulties that SpaceX had with even soliciting foreign payloads to launch on Falcon 1, how on Earth does ATK expect to get away with actually collaborating on building a launch vehicle with a foreign company legally?
Or will their lobbyists just negotiate a special exception? They do, after all, appear to have very good lobbyists.
Atm: ATK is a US company Buy parts from EADS and assemble in the USA. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS Recent activities
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #96 on: 09/10/2011 09:12 PM » |
|
how on Earth does ATK expect to get away with actually collaborating on building a launch vehicle with a foreign company legally?
By working with and getting approval from the State Dept. Which they did.
|
|
|
|
hektor
|
|
« Reply #97 on: 09/11/2011 01:42 PM » |
|
As a European, I find quite fascinating that you are discussing about the capability of ATK to develop a launcher and that you seem to completely forget that EADS has developed the top selling commercial launcher in the world...
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #98 on: 09/11/2011 02:56 PM » |
|
As a European, I find quite fascinating that you are discussing about the capability of ATK to develop a launcher and that you seem to completely forget that EADS has developed the top selling commercial launcher in the world...
EADS is a supplier and not the system integrator.
|
|
|
|
Lurker Steve
|
|
« Reply #99 on: 09/11/2011 03:36 PM » |
|
Why would we need more than 3 different launch vehicle families? (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Soyuz... all of which have flown already, while Liberty is nowhere near flight)
See Atkin's Law #39:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
+100.
This was the same issue with Ares I. Actually, it is 4 families.
We already broke this law when NASA funded Falcon 9 and Taurus II. There are already too many launch vehicle families. I understand Orbital repurposing old ICBMs as launch vehicles. They are cheap, proven launchers. Every other development is just an effort to replace your old supplier with a new supplier.
|
|
|
|
hektor
|
|
« Reply #100 on: 09/11/2011 07:06 PM » |
|
As a European, I find quite fascinating that you are discussing about the capability of ATK to develop a launcher and that you seem to completely forget that EADS has developed the top selling commercial launcher in the world...
EADS is a supplier and not the system integrator.
Want to bet ? I am not sure you fully grasp how these things work. It's obvious that Liberty system integrator will be a JV between EADS and ATK. With Ariane engineers who know their turf in the system team. Do you really think that EADS hired Sean O'Keefe for his good looks ?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #101 on: 09/11/2011 08:05 PM » |
|
Want to bet ? I am not sure you fully grasp how these things work.
It's obvious that Liberty system integrator will be a JV between EADS and ATK. With Ariane engineers who know their turf in the system team.
You are the one that don't grasp how it has to work. It can't be a JV. ITAR and requirements to be a "US" vehicle will dictate that ATK with be the SI. EADS won't be allowed to see the big picture, they will just be a supplier.
|
|
|
|
woods170
|
|
« Reply #102 on: 09/11/2011 08:38 PM » |
|
Based on an existing and proven booster and an upper stage which is existing and proven.
There is nothing proven about the Liberty upper stage. It is to be based on the Ariane 5 core stage, with a Vulcain-2. However, Vulcain-2 is ground-lit. On Liberty, it would have to be redesigned to be air-startable. That means essentially a new engine. So you can't talk about a proven and existing Upper Stage. In fact, J-2X is probably much farther along than Vulcain-2AS (air-startable), since it has at least been test-fired.
Also, the first stage 5-seg SRB is not proven. It hasn't even flown yet.
Not so fast. The Vulcain-2 from what I can tell has no game-breakers for air-start. It is not a head-start, nor requires gravity-alignment. The only ground segment for it's ignition is the thrust chamber torch, which could be handled by a specially made interstage system, which would be needed anyways. The other parts are all internal to the engine itself.
Minor nit: the power for igniting the solid charges that spin up the turbines comes from ground support equipment as well. It's not just the thrust chamber torch.
|
|
|
|
Calorspace
|
|
« Reply #103 on: 09/11/2011 10:18 PM » |
|
I guess we'll have to wait for the details but on the face of it I don't see how this would accelerate commercial crew.
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #104 on: 09/12/2011 03:16 AM » |
|
Do you really think that EADS hired Sean O'Keefe for his good looks ?
He does have a great mustache...
|
|
|
|
bnh819
|
|
« Reply #105 on: 09/12/2011 03:38 AM » |
|
Not sure I could conclude this is a commecial offering. I guess you could conclude it has some merit as an insurance policy incase the other guys don't succeed. Alot of NASA money is required to finish the vehicle design and finish the ground support systems. Lots of money!!! No one has comitted to flying on this vehicle yet. ATK just won't give up will they?
|
|
|
|
aquanaut99
|
|
« Reply #106 on: 09/12/2011 04:48 AM » |
|
Want to bet ? I am not sure you fully grasp how these things work.
It's obvious that Liberty system integrator will be a JV between EADS and ATK. With Ariane engineers who know their turf in the system team.
You are the one that don't grasp how it has to work. It can't be a JV. ITAR and requirements to be a "US" vehicle will dictate that ATK with be the SI. EADS won't be allowed to see the big picture, they will just be a supplier.
Somehow I doubt EADS would accept that. So I guess that means Liberty is DOA anyway. And a good thing too.
|
|
|
|
Launch Fan
|
|
« Reply #107 on: 09/12/2011 04:53 AM » |
|
Do you not think they would have thought about this?? You're not going to get an ATK manager read this thread and facepalm at these "revelations".
|
|
|
|
madscientist197
|
|
« Reply #108 on: 09/12/2011 05:40 AM » |
|
You're not going to get an ATK manager read this thread and facepalm at these "revelations".
I can very well imagine any ATK personnel reading this thread would be facepalming at this very moment.
|
|
|
|
aquanaut99
|
|
« Reply #109 on: 09/12/2011 05:43 AM » |
|
Do you not think they would have thought about this?? You're not going to get an ATK manager read this thread and facepalm at these "revelations".
You credit managers (in general, not just ATK) with far too much intelligence and common sense. Events of these past few years have shown that common sense errors like these are very possible, even likely. Unfortunately. Never underestimate the power of managerial stupidity...
|
|
|
|
hektor
|
|
« Reply #110 on: 09/12/2011 07:05 AM » |
|
Want to bet ? I am not sure you fully grasp how these things work.
It's obvious that Liberty system integrator will be a JV between EADS and ATK. With Ariane engineers who know their turf in the system team.
You are the one that don't grasp how it has to work. It can't be a JV. ITAR and requirements to be a "US" vehicle will dictate that ATK with be the SI. EADS won't be allowed to see the big picture, they will just be a supplier.
Explain to me what in ITAR prevents EADS and ATK to create "Liberty Corp", a joint venture based in Florida, with the only link between EADS and Liberty Corp being ownership and having EADS as supplier. And then this Liberty Corp hires Ariane system engineers from EADS who have conveniently found that the wages, the lifestyle and the weather in Cocoa Beach are better than the one in Les Mureaux, France or Bremen, Germany and resigned from EADS. Of course I guess ITAR would prevent them from working for EADS afterwards - at least in that field - but if you take them senior enough that should not be too much of a problem.
|
|
|
|
uko
|
|
« Reply #111 on: 09/12/2011 08:06 AM » |
|
Well.. if I understand it correctly, only US citizens can work for an aerospace company in the US. Probably not so easy and quick for those engineers from France or Germany to get US citizenship.
At least this requirement is given on SpaceX's jobs page: "To conform to U.S. Government space technology export regulations, SpaceX hires only U.S. citizens and U.S. Permanent Residents"
|
|
|
|
hektor
|
|
« Reply #112 on: 09/12/2011 08:48 AM » |
|
US permanent resident means Green Card. With a good and expensive lawyer this should not be an issue.
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #113 on: 09/12/2011 08:54 AM » |
|
Now you're grasping at straws.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #114 on: 09/12/2011 01:01 PM » |
|
Explain to me what in ITAR prevents EADS and ATK to create "Liberty Corp", a joint venture based in Florida, with the only link between EADS and Liberty Corp being ownership and having EADS as supplier.
EADS is still a supplier, which was my point. Liberty Corp isn't going to be able to hire enough EADS personnel anyways.
|
|
|
|
woods170
|
|
« Reply #115 on: 09/12/2011 01:19 PM » |
|
Apparently the Ariane 5 core LH2 tank is autogenously pressurised with GH2 from the "regenerative circuit".
Presumably there's no problem maintaining pressure during first stage operation?
cheers, Martin
No, evaporation of LH2 to a gaseous state is what keeps the LH2 tank pressurized. The O2 tank is pressurized with Helium (stored on board).
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #116 on: 09/12/2011 01:23 PM » |
|
Want to bet ? I am not sure you fully grasp how these things work.
It's obvious that Liberty system integrator will be a JV between EADS and ATK. With Ariane engineers who know their turf in the system team.
You are the one that don't grasp how it has to work. It can't be a JV. ITAR and requirements to be a "US" vehicle will dictate that ATK with be the SI. EADS won't be allowed to see the big picture, they will just be a supplier.
Somehow I doubt EADS would accept that. So I guess that means Liberty is DOA anyway. And a good thing too.
EADS has already accepted the arrangement. http://www.startribune.com/business/120597189.html"Alliant would produce the first stage of the rocket at its facilities in Promontory, Utah. Astrium would provide the second stage, and Alliant would oversee final assembly." - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #117 on: 09/12/2011 02:37 PM » |
|
Explain to me what in ITAR prevents EADS and ATK to create "Liberty Corp", a joint venture based in Florida, with the only link between EADS and Liberty Corp being ownership and having EADS as supplier.
EADS is still a supplier, which was my point.
Liberty Corp isn't going to be able to hire enough EADS personnel anyways.
I don't know if this addresses your point but for CCDev-2, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign owned companies were allowed to participate as long they provided substantial jobs to the United States. See page 6 of the attached PDF document: 4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this Announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:
A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or
B. A subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Transportation finds that –
(i) Such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through –
a. Investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies); and
b. Significant contributions to employment in the United States; and
(ii) The country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described in subparagraph A comparable to that afforded to such foreign company's subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by –
a. Providing comparable opportunities for companies described in subparagraph A. to participate in Government sponsored research and development similar to that authorized under Title 42 U.S.C. Chapter 141 (Commercial Space Opportunities and Transportation Services).
b. Providing no barriers, to companies described in subparagraph A. with respect to local investment opportunities, that are not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and
c. Providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph A.
|
|
|
|
jacqmans
|
|
« Reply #118 on: 09/12/2011 07:16 PM » |
|
MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-191 NASA, ATK NEW COMMERCIAL CREW ANNOUNCEMENT ON NASA TV CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) announcement of an agreement that could accelerate the availability of U.S. commercial crew transportation capabilities at 3 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, Sept. 13, will be carried live on NASA Television. The announcement will occur at the Press Site auditorium at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The participants are: -- Ed Mango, Commercial Crew Program manager, NASA -- Kent Rominger, vice president, Strategy and Business Development, ATK Aerospace -- John Schumacher, vice president, Space Programs, EADS North America Reporters may ask questions in person from Kennedy or using a phone bridge managed at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. To use the phone bridge, journalists must call the Johnson newsroom at 281-483-5111 by 2:45 p.m. EDT. For NASA TV downlink information, Video File schedules and links to streaming video, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv For information on NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/For information about ATK, visit: http://www.atk.com/
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #119 on: 09/12/2011 10:51 PM » |
|
Why would we need more than 3 different launch vehicle families? (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Soyuz... all of which have flown already, while Liberty is nowhere near flight)
See Atkin's Law #39:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
+100.
This was the same issue with Ares I. Actually, it is 4 families.
We already broke this law when NASA funded Falcon 9 and Taurus II.
No, we didn't. Read Akin's Law #39. COTS didn't deliver a manned spacecraft, it was unmanned resupply (COTS-D was never exercised). Taurus II is not even in the running for CCDev, and Falcon 9 has already flown to orbit twice (thus isn't entirely new). SpaceX received no money under CCDev1. They received money for CCDev2, but that was after Falcon 9 had already flown to orbit twice. Still, COTS/CRS would've likely been considerably closer to on-time if they wouldn't have effectively excluded the teams which relied on existing launch vehicles (such as Atlas V). The law has consequences: when you break it, you usually don't meet schedule or budget. Doesn't mean you should keep breaking it, unless you want to be even more over-budget and over-schedule. There are already too many launch vehicle families.
....
Quite possibly. So why add another???
|
|
|
|
PeterAlt
|
|
« Reply #120 on: 09/13/2011 12:52 PM » |
|
Today's 3:00 p.m. EST announcement...
My prediction is an unfunded SAA for the Liberty and associated human rating and use of NASA launch facilities.
My question is what does ATK expect its payload customer to be? Boeing already said they are going with ULA and the Atlas V. Of course, it's not SpaceX. Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin I believe also said they are with ULA and the Atlas V. That leaves only NASA and LM with the Orion MPCV.
This makes no sense, since SLS is automatically paired with the Orion MPCV, unless ATK is thinking it could fly the second, third, etc. test flights of the Orion MPCV on Liberty manned in LEO to ISS. Smells to me that this is nothing more than an attempt to commercialize Ares I.
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #121 on: 09/13/2011 01:27 PM » |
|
It is all rather surprising, Peter. I thought the loss of the CCDev2 was a real problem for Liberty and was surprised about how it was referenced at the DM-3 test. Now we know why! They are announcing at KSC, so a lot of the beat reporters will be there, asking the right questions.
By the way, we'll start a new thread for the presser onwards - so this can be a build up thread.
|
|
|
|
PeterAlt
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 09/13/2011 02:38 PM » |
|
It is all rather surprising, Peter. I thought the loss of the CCDev2 was a real problem for Liberty and was surprised about how it was referenced at the DM-3 test. Now we know why! They are announcing at KSC, so a lot of the beat reporters will be there, asking the right questions.
By the way, we'll start a new thread for the presser onwards - so this can be a build up thread.
Could ATK possibly be offering to use Liberty in combination with Orion as a commercial choice for ISS crew transport? Of course this would require NASA to contribute Orion vehicles for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #123 on: 09/13/2011 02:39 PM » |
|
Could ATK possibly be offering to use Liberty in combination with Orion as a commercial choice for ISS crew transport? Of course this would require NASA to contribute Orion vehicles for this purpose.
No, because of Orion. The key to commercial crew is not the launch vehicle but the spacecraft
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 09/13/2011 02:40 PM » |
|
Today's 3:00 p.m. EST announcement...
My prediction is an unfunded SAA for the Liberty and associated human rating and use of NASA launch facilities.
Was there any doubt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
