Author Topic: Orbital and ATK’s Aerospace and Defense Groups to Combine in $5 Billion Merger  (Read 91629 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
To me the vertical integration that helps is doing the spacecraft and the rocket.

It could certainly help by using things like propellant transfer and/or docking to get large satellites to GEO with small launch vehicles. If you build your own satellite and launch vehicle, you have less persuading to do.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Think we missed it;  everyone thinks ATK Solid Rocket motors

But if you look at their web site, ATK is a manufacturer with many years of experience in many areas.  So now its very possible Orbital ATK can one way or another manufacture the AJ-26 or a clone of it.   The combined company could make the tankage, and the Cygnus.  For the CRS contract maybe 90% content.  Going to be very interesting to watch :D

While I doubt that ATK has enough of the relevant experience to build and qualify a sophisticated large liquid-fueled rocket engine like NK33, they do have a liquid division--or at least they did. XCOR worked with ATK's liquids group (based out of somewhere in upstate NY IIRC) back 5-7yrs ago on the large LOX/Methane engine for NASA.

So while I agree with your overall point (skepticism that ATK is going to all of the sudden start cranking-out NK-33 class staged combustion LOX/Kero engines anytime soon), I think you overstate your case on their lack of liquids capabilities.

~Jon

I understand where you're coming from jon....think my point got lost with everyone.  Let me try it again...

ATK = manufacturing & propulsion expertise & CNC machines etc.
Orbital = Electronics etc. real experience launching a 1970's era rocket engine.
Each company has a "cash cow"
That's what comes to the table for this project.

Look at the AJ-26 Status = what's in stock then done.
Management thinking =  Wants to keep the investment in Antares flying....what to do?

Clone the AJ-26.......Understand cloning isn't developing
The old name for "Clone" would be reverse engineering.  Today its very possible to take cast hardware and "clone" a perfect copy.  So any real development work isn't needed the toolsets handle it.

For our interests the company would clone the AJ-26 and test the parts to make sure they are correct. So we are again talking "no development".  The electronics can be purchased from Aerojet, or in house developed making the engine the companies own.

The 70's era castings should be no problem to duplicate. Using the existing CNC equipment ATK has, or even investing in bargain used CNC equipment,  the finished product should be of higher tolerances then the current inventory of AJ-26's.

Finished costs could be very competitive.


2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
I understand where you're coming from jon....think my point got lost with everyone.  Let me try it again...

ATK = manufacturing & propulsion expertise & CNC machines etc.
Orbital = Electronics etc. real experience launching a 1970's era rocket engine.
Each company has a "cash cow"
That's what comes to the table for this project.

Look at the AJ-26 Status = what's in stock then done.
Management thinking =  Wants to keep the investment in Antares flying....what to do?

Clone the AJ-26.......Understand cloning isn't developing
The old name for "Clone" would be reverse engineering.  Today its very possible to take cast hardware and "clone" a perfect copy.  So any real development work isn't needed the toolsets handle it.

For our interests the company would clone the AJ-26 and test the parts to make sure they are correct. So we are again talking "no development".  The electronics can be purchased from Aerojet, or in house developed making the engine the companies own.

The 70's era castings should be no problem to duplicate. Using the existing CNC equipment ATK has, or even investing in bargain used CNC equipment,  the finished product should be of higher tolerances then the current inventory of AJ-26's.

Finished costs could be very competitive.
Pretty sure this would be thoroughly illegal.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
I understand where you're coming from jon....think my point got lost with everyone.  Let me try it again...

ATK = manufacturing & propulsion expertise & CNC machines etc.
Orbital = Electronics etc. real experience launching a 1970's era rocket engine.
Each company has a "cash cow"
That's what comes to the table for this project.

Look at the AJ-26 Status = what's in stock then done.
Management thinking =  Wants to keep the investment in Antares flying....what to do?

Clone the AJ-26.......Understand cloning isn't developing
The old name for "Clone" would be reverse engineering.  Today its very possible to take cast hardware and "clone" a perfect copy.  So any real development work isn't needed the toolsets handle it.

For our interests the company would clone the AJ-26 and test the parts to make sure they are correct. So we are again talking "no development".  The electronics can be purchased from Aerojet, or in house developed making the engine the companies own.

The 70's era castings should be no problem to duplicate. Using the existing CNC equipment ATK has, or even investing in bargain used CNC equipment,  the finished product should be of higher tolerances then the current inventory of AJ-26's.

Finished costs could be very competitive.
Pretty sure this would be thoroughly illegal.

How so ....explain?
Is the Russian government going to sue?

Would also remind you that China purchase engines from Ukraine and reverse engineered and plan on using them for their advanced rocket in the future.  This is done all the time.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2014 08:20 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Aerojet Rocketdyne is going to sit by and watch while another company clones their engine?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
The vertical integration will certainly help them from a profitability standpoint. A more profitable company is a stronger company.

Or as I look at it, a new space company has gobbled up an old space company :)
Yes has the potential for improvement.

I've long thought of ATK as a "cave man" company, not due to lack of capability or effectiveness to potentially compete. But because the way that management has chosen to run the business doesn't allow them to apply the potential for a better result. Cave men with stone rockets.

Both Japan and Europe have gotten far more effective in how they deploy SRBs cost effectively than ATK. Shipping solid segments is just plain nuts when you look at the total economics - this is one of hundreds of examples I don't wish to type into a post.

So ORB has a track record of doing things better, if they can make ATK work better and fit in to the competitive landscape, well that will be great. Smart men then with stone rockets.

edit: missed a /
« Last Edit: 04/30/2014 08:47 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7689
So this is later than I would have wanted it to go on, but my day jobs took up 14 hours of today and I want Chris G to concentrate on an article very much in his field. Not making excuses, but I know a lot of people think I do this as a full time job (I wish!)

At the same time, this is too big a deal to leave the news to the forum, so I wrote an article. I had to cover the announcement, so did that in the opening paras, but we're about the space hardware here, so angled this with the current synergy they have with Antares and Stratolaunch.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/04/orbital-atk-form-space-flight-super-group/

Nice read

I'm hoping it doesn't impact the workers negatively (job losses)

Still not sure how I feel about the merger, but it certainly is a big plus for Stratolaunch, which I like.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
How so ....explain?
Is the Russian government going to sue?
Russia's Kuznetsov Design Bureau must approve any new manufacturing of these engines.  Kuznetsov would be able to sue, and win, if its design was stolen outright in this fashion.   Aerojet claims that it has "complete design documentation and a manufacturing license for production of new engines in the U.S", but last year Orbital revealed that there are "Russian restrictions" that limit what can actually be done, and that new NK-33 engines would have to be produced in Russia. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/30/2014 10:19 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3622
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 775
I've put together a list of Orbital ATK's ancestor companies  at http://planet4589.org/latest.html

Comments welcome.
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
With one minor tweak, I totally agree.  Why would SpaceX merge with anybody?  (except Design / Program Associates, of course, but hey.)
In the near term I think Spacex can build any LV they want to and any payload they are currently interested in.

However taking Musk at his word means Spacex getting into long duration deep space journeys well beyond Lunar orbit. Even a Dragon capsule carrying just 2 people is going to be pretty cramped for something like that.

I could see Spacex hooking up with Bigelow eventually but I could just as easily see them happily signing a contract to have Bigelow do the heavy lifting on a habitat and they handling the launching. 53mT packs a lot of habitable volume if it's inflatable.

The only other thing I could see Spacex merging (or given the scale actually buying) would be some business that supplied a phenomenally good way to carry out some highly specialized task they felt was utterly vital to their long term plans.

Viable radiation protective food air and water drug regime? Close to flight ready NTR engine? Reactionless drive based RCS? Who knows. On their track record if it's anything less exotic they'd probably build it themselves.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 212
Maybe a poll on whether or not launch prices will fall?

Here's their own appraisal of the cost savings in numbers...

Annual revenue and cost synergies of $220-300 million are expected by 2016, consisting of $150-200 million of incremental annual revenue and $70-100 million of annual cost reductions.

Citigroup acted as financial advisor...

(Hyperlink mine. Anyone know what Citigroup did for the Shuttle?)

Back on topic, I don't know if they've accounted for the revenues/costs incurred by Orbital and ATK when they did business with each other. That figure isn't mentioned.

Anyway, I don't know the number of launches they have manifested for that period, or for the period that follows soon after... but assuming some kind of a tail-heavy distribution of cost-cuts to launch prices...

What I'm interested in is if this merger changes their position on the international map, as a cheap launch services provider for small/medium international satellites.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2014 11:25 pm by AJA »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Aerojet Rocketdyne is going to sit by and watch while another company clones their engine?

who says they must?

They have the RD-180 plus all the rest of Rocketdyne.   Russia doesn't think there's any future in the NK-33 or they would manufacture it.   They want everything switched over (from what I see) to the RD 191?   The RD-180 is worthless to Russia as that launcher project got killed.

Now put yourself in Orbitals place.   The company invested in a new launcher with the understanding AJ-26's would be available for the future.   
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
I'm pretty sure Orbital ATK is not going to pirate Aerojet and build knock-off copies of NK-33. That would be dumb.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
[ATK] do have a liquid division--or at least they did. XCOR worked with ATK's liquids group (based out of somewhere in upstate NY IIRC) back 5-7yrs ago on the large LOX/Methane engine for NASA.

I believe the only ATK group in NY is in Ronkonkoma: their Missile Products General Applied Science Laboratory (GASL).
https://www.atk.com/locations/missile-products-ronkonkoma-n-y-2/
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
[ATK] do have a liquid division--or at least they did. XCOR worked with ATK's liquids group (based out of somewhere in upstate NY IIRC) back 5-7yrs ago on the large LOX/Methane engine for NASA.

I believe the only ATK group in NY is in Ronkonkoma: their Missile Products General Applied Science Laboratory (GASL).
https://www.atk.com/locations/missile-products-ronkonkoma-n-y-2/
https://www.atk.com/products-services/manufacturing/     ATK’s Beltsville, Md
take a look at this:  https://www.atk.com/products-services/propellant-tanks/
https://www.atk.com/products-services/space-launch-vehicle-structures/
https://www.atk.com/products-services/space-shuttle-reusable-solid-rocket-motor-rsrm/
https://www.atk.com/products-services/machine-shop/
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 01:42 am by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
[ATK] do have a liquid division--or at least they did. XCOR worked with ATK's liquids group (based out of somewhere in upstate NY IIRC) back 5-7yrs ago on the large LOX/Methane engine for NASA.

I believe the only ATK group in NY is in Ronkonkoma: their Missile Products General Applied Science Laboratory (GASL).
https://www.atk.com/locations/missile-products-ronkonkoma-n-y-2/

That's the one. Couldn't remember the name until jcm posted the list on the previous page.

~Jon

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Aerojet Rocketdyne is going to sit by and watch while another company clones their engine?
They have the RD-180 plus all the rest of Rocketdyne.   Russia doesn't think there's any future in the NK-33 or they would manufacture it.   They want everything switched over (from what I see) to the RD 191?   The RD-180 is worthless to Russia as that launcher project got killed.
United Technologies still holds half ownership in RD-AMROSS, and therefore is still in charge of RD-180 use in the U.S., but of course this engine and its RD-190 series cousins are produced by Energomash in Russia.

Aerojet-Rocketdyne has U.S. rights to NK-33, but Russia's Kuznetzov will do any new production of that engine, if it ever occurs.

When it comes to primary space launch propulsion, Aerojet-Rocketdyne itself currently only manufactures RS-68 and RL-10.  Only five or six of the former fly each year.  New production of the latter hasn't happened in a few years, as I understand things.  Nothing there to inspire the accountants I suspect.

 - Ed Kyle 
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 02:02 am by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
When it comes to primary space launch propulsion, Aerojet-Rocketdyne itself currently only manufactures RS-68 and RL-10.  Only five or six of the former fly each year.  New production of the latter hasn't happened in a few years, as I understand things.  Nothing there to inspire the accountants I suspect.
Probably true.

I keep hoping some of the team would stage an MBO of the RL10 assets. It's got huge pedigree and I suspect it's been a bit of a cash cow. Out on its own I could see a more streamlined production that doesn't take the claimed 70 000 hours to mfg (although I can't believe the stories about hand filed turbine blades or hand brazed combustion chamber tubes can be true). An independent high performance LH2/LO2 engine mfg not captive to an LV mfg could have some interest from global customers.

<sigh>
Although IRL I expect a display team of Chester White's to land at Oshkosh before that happens.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
hand brazed combustion chamber tubes can be true).

An independent high performance LH2/LO2 engine mfg not captive to an LV mfg could have some interest from global customers.


it is

and ITAR and other countries' national interest would nix this.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Athena-III to replace Antares as the LV for Cygnus in the event that core and/or NK-33 supply is interrupted?
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 01:40 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

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