Author Topic: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket  (Read 110090 times)

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #100 on: 05/26/2016 03:49 am »
Do we know if the side GEMs fit on both the medium and the heavy? 
The heavy will be closer/close to the Stick?

And do the side GEMs provide as big a benefit if the first stage is essentially fixed duration, no throttling?
I've yet to see any drawings of the Heavy configuration. 

The first and GEMs stage will likely "throttle", via. propellant grain shaping.  They will provide all the thrust they can muster at first, then probably tail off for Max-Q and toward the end-of-burn.  See the SRB and GEM-60 thrust profiles below for examples.

 - Ed Kyle

I guess my thought, and it was just a fuzzy guess, was that when you mounted SRBs to an Atlas V, the liquid engines could be throttled a bit to reduce the acceleration at inappropriate times (ie maxQ and near SRB burnout?).  This throttling, then, would yield more fuel in the tank for later in the flight. 

I haven't actually checked...does the first stage of an Atlas burn any longer or stage any higher/faster when the solids are used?  I guess it depends on whether the strap-ons are being used for a high energy mission or a heavy lower energy mission.

The throttling you mentioned for SRBs is cast into the solid, so the first stage without an add-on must act exactly like a first stage with add-on(s).  Unless you assume the burn profile is tailored each mission, which I wouldn't doubt is possible but do doubt could ever be cost-effective.  And my question was, does this inflexible burn pattern limit the usefulness of the strap-ons?  It seems like a slightly different burn pattern would be useful to take advantage of the strap-ons.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #101 on: 05/26/2016 04:30 am »
Do we know if the side GEMs fit on both the medium and the heavy? 
The heavy will be closer/close to the Stick?

And do the side GEMs provide as big a benefit if the first stage is essentially fixed duration, no throttling?
I've yet to see any drawings of the Heavy configuration. 

The first and GEMs stage will likely "throttle", via. propellant grain shaping.  They will provide all the thrust they can muster at first, then probably tail off for Max-Q and toward the end-of-burn.  See the SRB and GEM-60 thrust profiles below for examples.

 - Ed Kyle

I guess my thought, and it was just a fuzzy guess, was that when you mounted SRBs to an Atlas V, the liquid engines could be throttled a bit to reduce the acceleration at inappropriate times (ie maxQ and near SRB burnout?).  This throttling, then, would yield more fuel in the tank for later in the flight. 

I haven't actually checked...does the first stage of an Atlas burn any longer or stage any higher/faster when the solids are used?  I guess it depends on whether the strap-ons are being used for a high energy mission or a heavy lower energy mission.

The throttling you mentioned for SRBs is cast into the solid, so the first stage without an add-on must act exactly like a first stage with add-on(s).  Unless you assume the burn profile is tailored each mission, which I wouldn't doubt is possible but do doubt could ever be cost-effective.  And my question was, does this inflexible burn pattern limit the usefulness of the strap-ons?  It seems like a slightly different burn pattern would be useful to take advantage of the strap-ons.
All other OrbitalATK launchers including sounding rockets are commonly tailored for each mission. Surplus GS motors are not mission tailored and is only adjusted in OA's commercial made upper stages on those missions

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #102 on: 05/26/2016 04:36 am »
If that turns out to be the case (no pun intended, but there it is), I don't see this vehicle getting the economies of scale needed to compete.

Nor do I really think it's a wise use of money to _start_ another EELV, when the existing two families are already going to be leaning heavily on commercial sales to keep their launch rate up.
In addition to the upper stage being shared with other Blue projects, the economies of scale would come, eventually, from from sharing the booster segments with SLS.  That would mean shared engineering, production, and launch processing resources and personnel.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I think the Blue Origin upper stage will not be a problem on cost.
SLS doesn't help much on costs, I think.  In the timeframe of interest, SpaceX plans to be launching 30+ times a year, and ULA even plans 12-16 launches including commercial flights.  In that context, 2 additional SRBs, or 4 if it's a busy year, isn't going to shift the cost curve.  It may keep people busy where they would otherwise have been idled.  I guess one assumption here is that Orbital-ATK employees would handle launch processing for SLS SRBs? 

In that regard, I can see why NASA might welcome the Orbital-ATK LV.  If it shifts a cost curve, it would be on the SLS side, not the Orbital-ATK side.  But I'm mystified by the Air Force support...they don't get anything but a billion-ish dollar bill, and then another launch vehicle to get pressured to support by throwing launches at it.  Or, if DoD doesn't throw launches at it, Orbital-ATK adds another LV to its impressive collection of vehicles that haven't launched in a few years but are still available if anyone wants to order one.

I still think, and I'm greatly in the minority here apparently, that the Air Force would do / have done better to fund the AR-1 the way Congress told them.  Rather than developing this LV from scratch, Antares could easily be adapted into an EELV-competitor using an AR-1, and perhaps a BE-3 upper stage option.  Commonalities with the CRS-2 hardware would have helped economies of scale.  But that Humpty Dumpty looks sadly scrambled now.

I wonder if the Air Force will try to modernize the Minuteman solids...there's a bit of talk about spending a fair amount sprucing up the aging deterrence weapons.  Seems like a better use of Air Force-to-ATK money than this, IMO.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #103 on: 05/26/2016 04:50 am »

The throttling you mentioned for SRBs is cast into the solid, so the first stage without an add-on must act exactly like a first stage with add-on(s).  Unless you assume the burn profile is tailored each mission, which I wouldn't doubt is possible but do doubt could ever be cost-effective.  And my question was, does this inflexible burn pattern limit the usefulness of the strap-ons?  It seems like a slightly different burn pattern would be useful to take advantage of the strap-ons.
All other OrbitalATK launchers including sounding rockets are commonly tailored for each mission. Surplus GS motors are not mission tailored and is only adjusted in OA's commercial made upper stages on those missions

So you think the burn profile of the CBS would be changed if a mission involved add-on solids, or even between a heavy LEO with add-on solids vs a light, high-energy mission with add-on solids?  A custom booster for each mission?  That seems like the opposite of "Common".

« Last Edit: 05/26/2016 04:50 am by a_langwich »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #104 on: 05/26/2016 04:52 am »
And didn't you indicate earlier that the CBS were steel casing Dark Knight 1.5x-length segments?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #105 on: 05/26/2016 05:25 am »
And didn't you indicate earlier that the CBS were steel casing Dark Knight 1.5x-length segments?
yes but composite casings as they are not intended for reuse in OA's plans

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #106 on: 05/26/2016 05:28 am »
If that turns out to be the case (no pun intended, but there it is), I don't see this vehicle getting the economies of scale needed to compete.

Nor do I really think it's a wise use of money to _start_ another EELV, when the existing two families are already going to be leaning heavily on commercial sales to keep their launch rate up.
In addition to the upper stage being shared with other Blue projects, the economies of scale would come, eventually, from from sharing the booster segments with SLS.  That would mean shared engineering, production, and launch processing resources and personnel.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I think the Blue Origin upper stage will not be a problem on cost.
SLS doesn't help much on costs, I think.  In the timeframe of interest, SpaceX plans to be launching 30+ times a year, and ULA even plans 12-16 launches including commercial flights.  In that context, 2 additional SRBs, or 4 if it's a busy year, isn't going to shift the cost curve.  It may keep people busy where they would otherwise have been idled.  I guess one assumption here is that Orbital-ATK employees would handle launch processing for SLS SRBs? 

In that regard, I can see why NASA might welcome the Orbital-ATK LV.  If it shifts a cost curve, it would be on the SLS side, not the Orbital-ATK side.  But I'm mystified by the Air Force support...they don't get anything but a billion-ish dollar bill, and then another launch vehicle to get pressured to support by throwing launches at it.  Or, if DoD doesn't throw launches at it, Orbital-ATK adds another LV to its impressive collection of vehicles that haven't launched in a few years but are still available if anyone wants to order one.

I still think, and I'm greatly in the minority here apparently, that the Air Force would do / have done better to fund the AR-1 the way Congress told them.  Rather than developing this LV from scratch, Antares could easily be adapted into an EELV-competitor using an AR-1, and perhaps a BE-3 upper stage option.  Commonalities with the CRS-2 hardware would have helped economies of scale.  But that Humpty Dumpty looks sadly scrambled now.

I wonder if the Air Force will try to modernize the Minuteman solids...there's a bit of talk about spending a fair amount sprucing up the aging deterrence weapons.  Seems like a better use of Air Force-to-ATK money than this, IMO.
Answer to USAF decision on Minuteman is to replace the entire 1950s programme with this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39622.0

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #107 on: 05/26/2016 05:37 am »

The throttling you mentioned for SRBs is cast into the solid, so the first stage without an add-on must act exactly like a first stage with add-on(s).  Unless you assume the burn profile is tailored each mission, which I wouldn't doubt is possible but do doubt could ever be cost-effective.  And my question was, does this inflexible burn pattern limit the usefulness of the strap-ons?  It seems like a slightly different burn pattern would be useful to take advantage of the strap-ons.
All other OrbitalATK launchers including sounding rockets are commonly tailored for each mission. Surplus GS motors are not mission tailored and is only adjusted in OA's commercial made upper stages on those missions

So you think the burn profile of the CBS would be changed if a mission involved add-on solids, or even between a heavy LEO with add-on solids vs a light, high-energy mission with add-on solids?  A custom booster for each mission?  That seems like the opposite of "Common".


It is common in all regards except misture ratio is modified during the pour. This allows for instance a reduction in thrust during Max-Q  followed by higher thrust afterwards. You need to think outside the box more as a lot can be done with solids rangeing from Mixture ratios, to burn time, time between burns. there is a lot they can do. Minotaur Family is OA's Prime example of this and Pegasus is best example of reliable cost. yes cost can be brought down and that is willingness and dialogue between Manufacturer/LS Provider and clients  that is finally happening, albeit slowly.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #108 on: 05/26/2016 03:12 pm »
Let me first note that all this is speculation from my side.

So the second stage is the one segment Castor 300; the first stage is either the two segment Castor 600 or the four segment Castor 1200. The Lockheed Martin and ULA Athena 3 concept would use a Castor 900, could a three segment CBM be a Castor 900?.
Could the Castor 1200 be the same size as the SLS five segment RSRB?
Isn't it more logical to make a heavy with a Castor 900-Castor 300 and BE-3UEN?
That will be less of a pencil rocket.

If it would be a composite casing I know the following about the production process.
Most likely they will go for carbon fiber composite casing segments that are filament wound around a mandrel. This mandrel has to be segmented otherwise it can't be taken out of the produced casings. I think they design a mandrel system that can be assembled in four configurations:
- Castor 300, single segment, on one side the nozzle on the other side the top bulkhead with igniter.
- Lower segment, on one side the nozzle on the other side a segment connection interface.
- Top segment, on one side the top bulkhead with igniter on the other the segment connection interface.
- Middle segment, on both sides a segment connecting interface.
With building blocks for 1) the nozzle, 2) top bulkhead and 3) a connection interface all configurations can be build on the same tooling. They only assemble the mandrel differently. I think Orbital ATK will make one or two winding machines for both the SLS and Solid EELV.
The segments have different casting configurations, for this different casting molds are required. I don't know enough about the casting process to make a conclusion on how they will do this.   

I expect that Orbital ATK has used this technology on multiple projects already. I think they even configure different casing lengths with this method (Orion 50; Castor 120/30; GEM family).

On development cost. The AR-1 development will cost at least 1 billion. All high power liquid high performance engine development programs have development costs above a billion dollars. I expect OrbitalATK can develop the CBS system for a lot less then 0,5 billion. And the cost of launching SLS will go down when it is developed and used.
I read about Brazilian VS sounding rocket metal casing production and the development of the carbon composite S50 (German casing). The S40/ S43 casings took more than a month to produce, the composite S50 casings can be produced in about a week or so. This saves a lot of production costs. I think the same is true for the RSRM and CBS segments. I even expect the production of CBS segments to be a lot cheaper than the refurbishment of RSRM segments.
The CBS can be produced using robots and without air supply systems. The insulation of the RSRM segments have to be  removed and replaced by hand. Also the workers have to use external air supply because of the Chlorine oxides and hydrogen chlorides that have been produced during the burning of the AP propellant.
I think the CBS development could earn itself back very quickly also when only SLS launches are taken into consideration. For AR-1 that has a doubtful use, because SpX is developing Raptor and BO is developing BE-4 on their own funding. I think it is certain it will not repay itself.
I also hope (not my concern since I'm from Europe) that Nasa will take in consideration BE-4 and Raptor as replacement of the leftover RS-25 STS engines. When considering the billion dollar production restart program of RS-25 engines. I wonder what a billion dollar Big Fat Rocket COTS program can lead to. (sorry for being partially off topic ) 

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #109 on: 05/26/2016 03:33 pm »
My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other.
Interesting.  Do you also have a guess which one it would be?  I am having a hard time myself deciding which market segment is a better opportunity.  The medium market seems awfully crowded.  But there are very few launches in the really heavy-lift area and we will have  Falcon Heavy and Vulcan domestically and add Ariane 6 commercially there already.  I am leaning slightly towards the heavy market but really have no idea.

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #110 on: 05/26/2016 04:14 pm »
Isn't it more logical to make a heavy with a Castor 900-Castor 300 and BE-3UEN?

Depends on what thrust levels they require for the heavy's operation. AIUI, solid booster burn time increases with diameter, but thrust increases by motor height. As a very simplistic example, SLS' 5-segment boosters have about 20% more thrust than the 4-segment Shuttle boosters, and are about 20% longer. Thus, a Castor-600 to Castor-1200 upgrade might mean that the heavy would have possibly double the takeoff thrust of the medium.

I would assume that a Castor-900's smaller 50% increase over the 600 would be insufficient for their needs -- which thinking about the Falcon Heavy and Delta IV Heavy makes some sense as both those triple the medium version's takeoff thrust with their tri-barrel designs.


That will be less of a pencil rocket.

Does this matter? SpaceX doesn't seem to have any issue balancing F9 broomsticks on their tails.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2016 03:39 pm by GreenShrike »
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #111 on: 05/26/2016 05:20 pm »
Let me first note that all this is speculation from my side.

So the second stage is the one segment Castor 300; the first stage is either the two segment Castor 600 or the four segment Castor 1200. The Lockheed Martin and ULA Athena 3 concept would use a Castor 900, could a three segment CBM be a Castor 900?.
Could the Castor 1200 be the same size as the SLS five segment RSRB?
Isn't it more logical to make a heavy with a Castor 900-Castor 300 and BE-3UEN?
That will be less of a pencil rocket.

If it would be a composite casing I know the following about the production process.
Most likely they will go for carbon fiber composite casing segments that are filament wound around a mandrel. This mandrel has to be segmented otherwise it can't be taken out of the produced casings. I think they design a mandrel system that can be assembled in four configurations:
- Castor 300, single segment, on one side the nozzle on the other side the top bulkhead with igniter.
- Lower segment, on one side the nozzle on the other side a segment connection interface.
- Top segment, on one side the top bulkhead with igniter on the other the segment connection interface.
- Middle segment, on both sides a segment connecting interface.
With building blocks for 1) the nozzle, 2) top bulkhead and 3) a connection interface all configurations can be build on the same tooling. They only assemble the mandrel differently. I think Orbital ATK will make one or two winding machines for both the SLS and Solid EELV.
The segments have different casting configurations, for this different casting molds are required. I don't know enough about the casting process to make a conclusion on how they will do this.   

I expect that Orbital ATK has used this technology on multiple projects already. I think they even configure different casing lengths with this method (Orion 50; Castor 120/30; GEM family).

On development cost. The AR-1 development will cost at least 1 billion. All high power liquid high performance engine development programs have development costs above a billion dollars. I expect OrbitalATK can develop the CBS system for a lot less then 0,5 billion. And the cost of launching SLS will go down when it is developed and used.
I read about Brazilian VS sounding rocket metal casing production and the development of the carbon composite S50 (German casing). The S40/ S43 casings took more than a month to produce, the composite S50 casings can be produced in about a week or so. This saves a lot of production costs. I think the same is true for the RSRM and CBS segments. I even expect the production of CBS segments to be a lot cheaper than the refurbishment of RSRM segments.
The CBS can be produced using robots and without air supply systems. The insulation of the RSRM segments have to be  removed and replaced by hand. Also the workers have to use external air supply because of the Chlorine oxides and hydrogen chlorides that have been produced during the burning of the AP propellant.
I think the CBS development could earn itself back very quickly also when only SLS launches are taken into consideration. For AR-1 that has a doubtful use, because SpX is developing Raptor and BO is developing BE-4 on their own funding. I think it is certain it will not repay itself.
I also hope (not my concern since I'm from Europe) that Nasa will take in consideration BE-4 and Raptor as replacement of the leftover RS-25 STS engines. When considering the billion dollar production restart program of RS-25 engines. I wonder what a billion dollar Big Fat Rocket COTS program can lead to. (sorry for being partially off topic ) 
RS-25 Programme restart contracts have already been signed as NASA MSFC declared the RS-25 the only capable winner in the competition for core stage engines.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #112 on: 05/27/2016 11:11 am »
Is my understanding correct that the number after Castor is the stage mass in 1000 pound. So Castor 300 weighs 300,000lb, Castor 600 600,000lb and Castor 1200 1200,000lb. The 4 segment STS RSRB contain 1,100.000 lb propallent and have a take off weight of 1,300,000lb.
   
Orbital ATK now goes for a three stage (Solid Solid Liquid) configuration. Could they also go for a two stage configuration: Castor 600; 900 or 1200 with different sized of BE-3UEN upper-stages. This alternative will demand more dV from the upper-stage but one (heavy) stage is eliminated. The downside of this is that the accelerations (G-forces) will increase. And the BE-3U stages will have to be a lot larger (same diameter but longer).
Does someone have an idea on the time it will take to develop the CBS's. Can the OrbitalATK solid EELV serve as gap-filling measure for the transition form Atlas 5 to Vulcan? Or is it available at the same time, or later than the transition period.   

Edit: these CBS segments will contain a little bit less propellant then the P120C/ESR stages.
ESR's will be D 3,4m by L 14m.
Will they have a 12ft (3,66m) diameter and a length of about 32,5ft (~10m)? 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2016 12:17 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #113 on: 05/27/2016 05:02 pm »
Here is my suggested analysis of the NGL images.  It appears to me that what Orbital ATK may be doing with Common Boost Segment is creating a standard-length segment.  Shuttle SRB used three different segment lengths, one for the aft, one forward, and two in the center. 

The NGL 500-series drawings suggest the possibility for common segment lengths, all based roughly on the longest Shuttle SRB cylindrical segment casing that was part of the aft segment.  Another factor consistent with this SRB-segment length are the supposed gross weights of the motors suggested by the Castor names, as discussed upthread.  This does not tell me whether the segment casings are steel or composite, nor does it tell us if the propellant is PBAN or HTPB.  I would not be surprised by any of these outcomes.

I'll add that the NGL 521 drawing looks more "finished" than the 501 drawing.  I suspect that the 521 is closer to the appearance of a real NGL rocket.

I've added a suggested Heavy.  One assumes common segment lengths.  The second assumes the development of shorter center segments like those used by SRB.  Both illustrate the problem presented by the longer first stage.  A Medium pad would not work for the Heavy - unless they brought back the "Milkstool" idea!

 - Ed Kyle 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2016 07:14 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #114 on: 05/28/2016 12:25 am »

But, to consider.  FH with all 3 cores recovered would probably only have a performance similar to a single core of this Orb-ATK LV.  Performance that will require a heavy version of the Orb-ATK solid LV would probably require at least an expendable FH central core.  So the price points might be single-core solid LV vs. FH with all 3 recoverd cores.  Or tri-core solid LV vs. FH with expendable central core.

We don't know the "recycle" time/economics yet. There have been recent hints that this might be quite different then we were led to believe with Shuttle. If "once in a blue moon" FH NSS launches w/o reuse from F9 payload business contributing, then a solid vehicle that is gradually produced/stacked economically might compete favorably. It gets around the "minimum number of launches" per annum issues that ULA has.

Now, the part I completely don't buy is the hydrolox US. OA has no experience with LH - they chickened out of it before with Antares (which was wise in retrospect), and I can't see them outsourcing this need, much less having the launch frequency to "keep alive" a hydrolox US in house.

Best I could see is sharing it with Antares, but once you'd have two LV (Antares LV + solid LV), there would be enormous pressure to have just one LV, so one would be back to all the same problems as before, which is why they didn't do a solid Antares nor a LH US for it.

So all this seems to be is a backup LV paper concept for if ULA trips and falls flat on its face ;)

Good insight as always Space Ghost.

Yes, I don't think a true heavy lift payload will be needed often, and it does look like they are thinking of a long stick "heavy" version in those cases.  As FH would need to be expending cores to get that upper range performance, And DH or the heavier Vulcan's would be all expendable (except maybe a recovered main engine), it's possible it could play there.  Especially if a lot of the development costs were covered by NASA visa vi SLS. 

it's interesting. 

I can't comment on the hydrolox upper stage.  They may feel that's necessary to get the performance needed.  BO seems to be doing ok with hydrolox stages and the BE-3 engine.  Sounds like recently there's been some conflicting info that OrbATK is looking to buy maybe the whole stage and engine from BO?
That could be how they get around not really having experience in hydrolox.

After all, with Antares both the booster core and engine have been outsourced to two different suppliers, and only the upper stage is made in house.
With such a new solid LV, the booster and 2nd stage would be done in house, with just the upper stage with engine being outsourced, as a single piece.  So not really anything different than what's being done now.  Just that the stage and engine would be domestic supplied rather than foreign supplied.
I'd imagine if ULA uses the BE-3, they'll make their own ACES type stage in house and just buy the engine.  But BO has demonstrated a hydrolox booster stage with their BE-3 engine, so I imagine they could do a hydrolox upper stage with the engine too, based on their experience with New Shepard.

 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #115 on: 05/28/2016 02:00 pm »
The NGL 500-series drawings suggest the possibility for common segment lengths, all based roughly on the longest Shuttle SRB cylindrical segment casing that was part of the aft segment.  Another factor consistent with this SRB-segment length are the supposed gross weights of the motors suggested by the Castor names, as discussed upthread.  This does not tell me whether the segment casings are steel or composite, nor does it tell us if the propellant is PBAN or HTPB.  I would not be surprised by any of these outcomes.

 - Ed Kyle 
Stephen Clark has written a story about Orbital-ATK's Next Generation Launcher, with some answers to these questions.  First, he confirms that the segment casings are composite.  Second, he reveals that the NGL 501 - the base model - will get 5.5 metric tons to GTO.  Third, he notes that in addition to LC 39B, Orbital/ATK is considering VAFB SLC 2 as a launch site.  Fourth, he reports that NGL will cost less than AR-1 to develop.  Finally, he says that Orbital ATK will need 5 to 6 flights per year to make the system pay.  The company plans to decide next year.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/27/details-of-orbital-atks-proposed-heavy-launcher-revealed/

To this I would add the following table, which lists three potential contenders for future EELV work in the Medium and Heavy classes.  Clark suggests that the Pentagon would like to have two viable contenders for EELV.  I would suggest that there might end up being two contenders in each category (Medium and Heavy), which does not mean that we would only end up with two launch vehicle families or providers.  Keep in mind when you are circling your two choices in each category that only one of these six listed launch vehicles (Falcon 9) currently exists!

            SpaceX           ULA               Orbital-ATK

MEDIUM      Falcon 9         Vulcan Centaur    NGL-Intermediate

HEAVY       Falcon Heavy     Vulcan-Aces       NGL-Heavy



 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/28/2016 06:09 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #116 on: 05/28/2016 10:11 pm »
  Third, he notes that in addition to LC 39B, Orbital/ATK is considering VAFB SLC 2 as a launch site. 


Reading that article, it seems Liberty also planned to use LC-39B. 
Did that plan include using the (now SLS) MLP and CTs? 
But presumably stacked in a different high bay than SLS? 
Does not having an MLP handy (say, if the Orbital-ATK solid is being stacked and sent to the pad) interfere with stacking operations for the other rocket (SLS)? 
Would you stack the EELV off to the side, on top of one of the SLS SRB exhaust ports on the MLP, and then work to adapt the launch umbilicals to this location? 
Or just hang it over the larger middle opening? 
Presumably the Orbital-ATK umbilicals are integrated into the NASA mobile launcher? 
And either a milkstool or a separate set of upper stage umbilicals for the medium as compared to heavy?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #117 on: 05/28/2016 10:26 pm »
  Third, he notes that in addition to LC 39B, Orbital/ATK is considering VAFB SLC 2 as a launch site. 
Reading that article, it seems Liberty also planned to use LC-39B. 
Did that plan include using the (now SLS) MLP and CTs? 
But presumably stacked in a different high bay than SLS? 
Does not having an MLP handy (say, if the Orbital-ATK solid is being stacked and sent to the pad) interfere with stacking operations for the other rocket (SLS)? 
Would you stack the EELV off to the side, on top of one of the SLS SRB exhaust ports on the MLP, and then work to adapt the launch umbilicals to this location? 
Or just hang it over the larger middle opening? 
Presumably the Orbital-ATK umbilicals are integrated into the NASA mobile launcher? 
And either a milkstool or a separate set of upper stage umbilicals for the medium as compared to heavy?
Next Generation Launcher would not use the SLS launch platform.  The unused, but still extant STS/Apollo platforms offer an alternative starting point.  In addition, NGL would be stacked in High Bay 1.  SLS is using High Bay 3.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/28/2016 10:26 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #118 on: 05/29/2016 12:25 am »
still extant STS/Apollo platforms offer an alternative starting point

Those are still around?  Didn't NASA call for bids for those, as long as the winner removed them from the premises?  Did no one bid, or did NASA change its mind?

Offline the_roche_lobe

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #119 on: 05/29/2016 03:01 am »
Quote
nor does it tell us if the propellant is PBAN or HTPB

Is it certain they will use one of these? Is there any chance a higher ISP propellant might be used?

P

Tags:
 

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