Someone on Reddit uploaded a pdf with General Greaves' EELV talking points. Included in the pdf was an (unfortunately small) image which may provide a look at the Orb-ATK proposal.
Link?
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/03/2016 10:55 amLink?https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/48q34n/lt_gen_greaves_eelv_talking_points_february_2016/
Quote from: spacenut on 04/01/2016 07:13 pmDoes anyone have a sketch of what this rocket might look like?Up thread, here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499163#msg1499163and here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499218#msg1499218
Does anyone have a sketch of what this rocket might look like?
What specific solid motors would have been used in this design? Castor 120...Castor 900...maybe Castor 30...
GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor[\quote] http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293
Rons, I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is false. The article wrote: The contract funds Orbital ATK for “the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine.” - See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/orbital-atk-pursuing-solid-fuel-launch-vehicle/#more-57293This is a list of three different developments. The Orbital ATK Solid rocket will use the Common Booster Segment. I think a version of CBS is Castor 900, but I could be wrong. Possibly a version of the solid rocket uses the GEM 63XL strap-on boosters, but they are developed for ULA's Vulcan rocket.We'll have to wait until Orbital ATK reports what their new solid rocket really is.
This other transaction agreement requires shared cost investment with ATK Launch Systems Inc. for the development of prototypes of the GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor, the Common Booster Segment (CBS) solid rocket motor, and an Extendable Nozzle for Blue Origin’s BE-3U upper stage engine. These rocket propulsion systems are intended for use on an Orbital ATK next generation launch vehicle. The GEM 63XL strap-on solid rocket motor is also intended for use on United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan launch vehicle.
Want happens if OA don't proceed with this LV. Do they have to refund DOD the money?. OA has a market for all three developments besides solid Antares. Blue will use the BE3U for their orbital LV and NASA will most likely used Advanced booster at some stage in very distant future.
Air Force fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $46,968,005 are being obligated at the time of award. ATK Launch Systems Inc. is contributing $31,130,360 at the time of award. The total potential government investment, including all options, is $180,238,059. The total potential investment by ATK Launch Systems Inc., including all options, is $124,830,693.
QuoteIn our Flight Systems Group, the company and the US Air Force are in the first phase of a potential four year, jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new all-domestic intermediate and large-class space launch vehicle family.Our objective is to develop a modular vehicle system capable of launching national security payloads and what is known as the EELV or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle as well as scientific and commercial satellites and to conduct initial launches using this new system by the end of the decade.As part of the Defense Department's next-generation launcher program, which started last year, we are combining the world-leading solid rocket propulsion technology from our legacy ATK business with the launch vehicle systems engineering and operations experience from our heritage Orbital unit to compete in a market area that was not directly addressable by either companies prior to last year's merger.Our investments in 2016, as well as those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and development work with a decision in the first half of 2017 concerning the remaining activity to actually build and test this new launch vehicle family.QuoteWith regard to the Flight Systems initiative, on the new launch vehicle to be developed jointly with the Air Force, if that goes forward from the decision point next year, then that has the potential to generate revenue, certainly by 2018, possibly by the end of 2017 beginning on how it is structured.At present, during the first phase of the work, the Air Force and the company are jointly funding early-stage research and development. The Air Force is investing approximately $50 million and the company is investing about $30 million this year. The $50 million from the Air Force though does not generate revenue if it is structured as a co-operative R&D program. If that were to change in the future periods, then we could see revenue generated in that initiative by the second half of 2017, although at present, we do not plan for that to occur.QuoteThere is certainly some important carryover from Ares 1 with regard to the solid rocket propulsion. It also benefits from and in turn provides benefits to NASA's space launch system which is in a sense a descendant of the Ares 1 project and to some other NASA and Defense programs as well. So there is a fair amount of carryover from a prior work that ATK conducted back five years or longer ago.The design of our system does include in most of its specific configurations a liquid upper stage and we have studied several - I guess, I would say, three engine alternatives for that upper stage. We have a current preferred approach and two alternatives. Again, for competitive reasons, I'd prefer not to get into those just yet. But the system does involve a liquid upper stage.Well, there has been a great deal of discussion about launch vehicle reusability, particularly over the last six months. I think the it's still too early to say whether in the real world of launch rates and refurbishment cost and payload penalties and so on that relate do reusability, whether it's going to make economic sense to reuse some or large part of the launch vehicle. Well, it maybe intuitively appealing to make references to we don't throw [away] airplanes and so on. Our rockets and airplanes are quite different machines and a past experience with launch vehicle reusability has been mixed at best in terms of achieving sustainable cost reductions. And so, I am a skeptic with regard to many of the claims that have been made for cost reductions related to reusability and in the case of our specific program, we are designing it to be cost competitive with not only the current pricing, but even somewhat lower pricing that may emerge in the future. But, you are correct, our system does not contemplate reusability and we will have to wait and see whether that's a good judgment or not.
In our Flight Systems Group, the company and the US Air Force are in the first phase of a potential four year, jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new all-domestic intermediate and large-class space launch vehicle family.Our objective is to develop a modular vehicle system capable of launching national security payloads and what is known as the EELV or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle as well as scientific and commercial satellites and to conduct initial launches using this new system by the end of the decade.As part of the Defense Department's next-generation launcher program, which started last year, we are combining the world-leading solid rocket propulsion technology from our legacy ATK business with the launch vehicle systems engineering and operations experience from our heritage Orbital unit to compete in a market area that was not directly addressable by either companies prior to last year's merger.Our investments in 2016, as well as those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and development work with a decision in the first half of 2017 concerning the remaining activity to actually build and test this new launch vehicle family.
With regard to the Flight Systems initiative, on the new launch vehicle to be developed jointly with the Air Force, if that goes forward from the decision point next year, then that has the potential to generate revenue, certainly by 2018, possibly by the end of 2017 beginning on how it is structured.At present, during the first phase of the work, the Air Force and the company are jointly funding early-stage research and development. The Air Force is investing approximately $50 million and the company is investing about $30 million this year. The $50 million from the Air Force though does not generate revenue if it is structured as a co-operative R&D program. If that were to change in the future periods, then we could see revenue generated in that initiative by the second half of 2017, although at present, we do not plan for that to occur.
There is certainly some important carryover from Ares 1 with regard to the solid rocket propulsion. It also benefits from and in turn provides benefits to NASA's space launch system which is in a sense a descendant of the Ares 1 project and to some other NASA and Defense programs as well. So there is a fair amount of carryover from a prior work that ATK conducted back five years or longer ago.The design of our system does include in most of its specific configurations a liquid upper stage and we have studied several - I guess, I would say, three engine alternatives for that upper stage. We have a current preferred approach and two alternatives. Again, for competitive reasons, I'd prefer not to get into those just yet. But the system does involve a liquid upper stage.Well, there has been a great deal of discussion about launch vehicle reusability, particularly over the last six months. I think the it's still too early to say whether in the real world of launch rates and refurbishment cost and payload penalties and so on that relate do reusability, whether it's going to make economic sense to reuse some or large part of the launch vehicle. Well, it maybe intuitively appealing to make references to we don't throw [away] airplanes and so on. Our rockets and airplanes are quite different machines and a past experience with launch vehicle reusability has been mixed at best in terms of achieving sustainable cost reductions. And so, I am a skeptic with regard to many of the claims that have been made for cost reductions related to reusability and in the case of our specific program, we are designing it to be cost competitive with not only the current pricing, but even somewhat lower pricing that may emerge in the future. But, you are correct, our system does not contemplate reusability and we will have to wait and see whether that's a good judgment or not.
mainstream media article on subject:Space companies feud over what to do with rockets in ICBM stockpileWashington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2016/04/18/4d649cb2-057b-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html
Quote from: catdlr on 04/20/2016 03:06 ammainstream media article on subject:That's talking about using ICBM hardware for civil space, which is Minotaur, not OA's proposed EELV design.
mainstream media article on subject:
Nobody can deny that this rocket plays to ATK's strengths - but does it play to the market strengths?