Author Topic: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket  (Read 109965 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #80 on: 04/26/2016 06:49 pm »
Interesting that the 1.1 million pound thrust number given in AWST roughly corresponds to the 1,134,183 lbf given as the "average thrust" for a 1.5 segment SRM in the ATK solid motor handbook.  Note, however, that the liftoff thrust for 1.5 segment was higher than the "average thrust" at roughly 1.25 million pounds. 

Meanwhile, the images seem to suggest something roughly the size, perhaps a bit longer than, a single-segment SRM, with two segments for Stage 1 and one for Stage 2.  You can fit a New Shepard Propulsion Module neatly into the fairing.

This all suggests a low-end Medium class EELV lifter (i.e. Atlas 401 class) in base form.

Apologies for re-posting my comparison image here, but I think it may help in discussion.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/26/2016 06:57 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8749
  • Liked: 4660
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #81 on: 04/26/2016 08:34 pm »
Interesting that the 1.1 million pound thrust number given in AWST roughly corresponds to the 1,134,183 lbf given as the "average thrust" for a 1.5 segment SRM in the ATK solid motor handbook.  Note, however, that the liftoff thrust for 1.5 segment was higher than the "average thrust" at roughly 1.25 million pounds. 

Meanwhile, the images seem to suggest something roughly the size, perhaps a bit longer than, a single-segment SRM, with two segments for Stage 1 and one for Stage 2.  You can fit a New Shepard Propulsion Module neatly into the fairing.

This all suggests a low-end Medium class EELV lifter (i.e. Atlas 401 class) in base form.

Apologies for re-posting my comparison image here, but I think it may help in discussion.

 - Ed Kyle
yes, 1-Stage consist of two CBS's and the 2-Stage consist of one CBS. CBS in past investor conference calls was formerly known initially as the Dark Knight Advanced Solid Rocket Booster Segment and in 2014 and 2015 was known as the Dark Knight Advanced Common Booster Segment. In 2016 they are now known as the just the Common Booster Segment, which is a composite segment that is lengthened from the SLS steel Segment length to decrease the integration and processing time because they are longer which means less booster segments SLS Block-IIB and what is now OA Next Gen launcher family. Yes, CBS Composite casings are 1.5 Steel STS/SLS casings long.

OA EELV Next Gen Vehicle based on available data from trade studies/media and recent Conference calls to date:
0-Stage: None (Lite Version) or 0-6 GEM-63XL SRM's (All Medium to Heavy Versions)
1-Stage: 2-4 CBS's (Medium to Heavy Versions)
2-Stage: 1 CBS (All Versions)
3-Stage: None (Suborbital Version) or Castor-30 Family (Orbital Lite Version) or LO2/LH2 Upper Stage with 1 BE-3U/EN LRE (Medium to Heavy Versions)
x-Stage: Additional upper/kick stages are available from OA's Minotaur launcher family based on customer's needs

Edited based on additional info from Ed's PM to me

« Last Edit: 05/26/2016 04:18 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #82 on: 04/26/2016 09:02 pm »

You mean if it caters to the market's desires, right? The demand doesn't have strengths, it has demands, it is the supply's job to cover those demands.

Whilst you're semantically right, some LVs are stronger in certain market environments than others - the commercial requirements have changed through the evolution of spaceflight.

Satellites might get smaller, but there's likely going to be more of them. The LEO market has the potential to rise, but so does the BLEO market.  You can thus see the advantages of linguistic parallelism when grappling with this problem.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #83 on: 04/27/2016 04:48 am »
OA EELV Next Gen Vehicle based on available data from trade studies/media and recent Conference calls to date:
0-Stage: None (Lite and some Medium versions) or 0-6 GEM-63/GEM-63XL SRM's (Some Medium Versions) or 4 CBS's (Heavy Version)
Is acceleration or max-q a problem with these heavier versions? The thrust with all those solids sounds formidable. Do we know what the thrust is per CBS? Do they change the manufacturing to trade burn time for thrust based on which stage and configuration?

Interesting about the solid upper stage option. That sounds like quite a good optimization for lower energy launches compared to EELV considering OATK has such a well established selection of these. The ULA option of "another RL-10" seems like a poor cost optimization for what should be a less challenging launch.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2016 04:51 am by ArbitraryConstant »

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #84 on: 05/09/2016 10:32 pm »
Some information from the quarterly earnings conference call May 5.  Short answer is that work now is modest; the go/no-go decision comes next year.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-oa-earnings-conference-200923610.html
Quote
There were no really major developments in the first quarter on that [launch vehicle] program. We did -- as I mentioned back a couple of months ago, Orbital ATK and the Air Force started at the beginning of the year the first phase of what could be about a four year, jointly funded development program that would be aimed at creating a new, all US-based intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicle. Our objective in pursuing this, if it goes through the full development cycle, would be to introduce a modular vehicle capable of launching not only defense-related satellites in the larger class, but also scientific and commercial satellites. And it would be competitive, both domestically and internationally.

Our investments this year, and those of the Air Force, will cover the initial phase of design and early development work, and the decision in the first half of next year will be made concerning whether the remaining activity to complete development, to produce and introduce this new vehicle, will proceed. There will be -- it represents a relative -- not an insignificant, but a relatively modest investment over the next couple quarters, which, if the market indicators and the product performance continue to move in a favorable direction, could lead to a decision sometime about this time next year or a little later relating to the remaining work to actually build and test the vehicle.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #85 on: 05/24/2016 07:05 pm »

Offline ThisIsGroundControl

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #86 on: 05/24/2016 09:20 pm »
More info in tweet:
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/735180704233971712
Looks like we're finally getting some solid information about this rocket.

Stage 1 is either a 2-segment (Intermediate - Castor 600 or C600) Common Boost Segment (CBS) or a 4-segment (Heavy - C1200) CBS.  Both the Intermediate and Heavy stages appear to support 1-6 GEM 63XL strap-on boosters (similar to Vulcan).  I'm having trouble reading for sure, but it looks like the CBS will have a Electro-Hydraulic Actuation (EHA) TVC.  Both the CBS and the GEM 63XL are part of the AF public-private contract award.

Stage 2 is a single-segment CBS, or C300.  1-2 and 2-3 interstages are composite structures

Stage 3 is a BE-3U powered LH2/LOX stage with 120k lbf thrust.  The BE-3U will use a deployable extension for the nozzle, as expected based on AF award.  BE-3U will support deep throttling and multiple restart capability.

Payload Fairing is 5.25m diameter x 15m length with some sort of acoustic damping capability.  The 2 LVs on the right seem to have different fairing shape and 2-3 interstage taper.  I wonder if one's just an old render.

Naming convention seems to be NGL (Next Generation Launcher?) 501 for the basic intermediate LV, where the 2nd number is the number of GEM-63XL strap-ons.  I'm guessing the 3rd digit is for the 3rd stage, with 1 BE-3U.  Not sure how they'll distinguish for the Heavy configuration, maybe a 6 instead of 5 for the first digit?

Takeaway box gets to their design approach: "NGL: Modular Design Enables Tailoring to Specific Mission Requirements"

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #87 on: 05/24/2016 10:01 pm »
Quote
The 2 LVs on the right seem to have different fairing shape and 2-3 interstage taper.  I wonder if one's just an old render.

The main graphic on the left also shows a taper on the 2-3 interstage. Compare it with the 1-2 interstage which clearly has a different (right cylindrical) shape.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32358
  • Likes Given: 8025
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #88 on: 05/25/2016 06:18 am »
Here's an enhanced version of the image. Here's what I could read.

Solid Boost/Liquid U.S. Solution
(Common Boost Segment - 501 Baseline LV)

Strap on Boosters
* GEM63XL
* 1-6 each

Stage 1 (medium - intermediate 2 segment)
* CASTOR 600 (C600)
* EHA TVC and aft skirt

Stage 1 (heavy - 4 segment)
* CASTOR 1200 (C1200)
* EHA TVC and aft skirt

Common Boost Segment (CBS)

Interstage Adaptors
* Composite structures

Stage 2
* CASTOR 300 (C300)

Aft Stage Adaptor
* AS stage adaptor

BE-3UEN Extendable Nozzle (EN)

Stage 3 - Upper Stage
* 5.25 m dia LOX/LH2 upper stage
* BE-3U LOX/LH2 120 klbf (534 kN) thrust
* Deep throttleable restart capability
* Deployable extended nozzle

Integrated Avionics
* Flight control GNC
* Stage control
* FTS telemetry

Launch Vehicle Adaptor

Payload Fairing
* 5.25 m x 15 m length
* Acoustic damping system

Spacecraft

NGL 501
NGL 521

NGL Modular Design Enables Tailoring to Specific Mission Requirements
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 06:27 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #89 on: 05/25/2016 06:59 am »
So do we think Caster 300 is one segment, C600 is two segments, and C1200 is four segments of the same SRM?  That is, you could mix and match segments between them (obviously the nozzle section stays at the bottom :)  ).  But the SRM also has to have a pressure bulkhead at the top, too...?

If they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?

Common Scenario:  The factory just cranks out segments like lifesaver candies, and they get stacked with a nose and tail?  4 segments for a heavy (plus 0-6 GEM), 2 segments for a medium, and 1 segment either way for 2nd stage?


Or, the Not-So-Common scenario, the top segment has to be special (ie, the top segment has to have the pressure bulkhead included), so the C300 is unique.  If the bottom segment has to include the nozzle, then the C600 is unique also, and only the C1200 can have two extra generic segments installed?
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 07:00 am by a_langwich »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32358
  • Likes Given: 8025
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #90 on: 05/25/2016 09:30 am »
So do we think Caster 300 is one segment, C600 is two segments, and C1200 is four segments of the same SRM?  That is, you could mix and match segments between them (obviously the nozzle section stays at the bottom :)  ).  But the SRM also has to have a pressure bulkhead at the top, too...?

The slide says that C600 is two segment and C1200 is four segment.

Quote
If they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?

Probably the casings, like in the Space Shuttle SRB's. The core tooling and nozzle are probably different. The forward dome, aft dome and TVC are probably the same.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline MarekCyzio

Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #91 on: 05/25/2016 12:32 pm »
Roll control? Wondering how it will be done with this rocket...

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #92 on: 05/25/2016 01:45 pm »
Roll control? Wondering how it will be done with this rocket...
My guess would be roll control thrusters either on the upper stage or on the interstage below the upper stage.  Just a guess though.

 - Ed Kyle

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #93 on: 05/25/2016 01:47 pm »
For me, the surprise was the four-segment first stage for Heavy missions.  That is an entirely different rocket than the Medium version with its two-segment first stage.  Heavy and Medium will need significantly different launch pad setups, maybe even different launch platforms.  My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #94 on: 05/25/2016 07:35 pm »
For me, the surprise was the four-segment first stage for Heavy missions.  That is an entirely different rocket than the Medium version with its two-segment first stage.  Heavy and Medium will need significantly different launch pad setups, maybe even different launch platforms.  My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other.

 - Ed Kyle

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?

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #95 on: 05/25/2016 07:46 pm »
If they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?

Probably the casings, like in the Space Shuttle SRB's. The core tooling and nozzle are probably different. The forward dome, aft dome and TVC are probably the same.

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.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #96 on: 05/25/2016 07:50 pm »
If they aren't interchangeable, what's "Common" about them?

Probably the casings, like in the Space Shuttle SRB's. The core tooling and nozzle are probably different. The forward dome, aft dome and TVC are probably the same.

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

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #97 on: 05/25/2016 07:53 pm »
For me, the surprise was the four-segment first stage for Heavy missions.  That is an entirely different rocket than the Medium version with its two-segment first stage.  Heavy and Medium will need significantly different launch pad setups, maybe even different launch platforms.  My guess is that in the end one might be developed but not the other.

 - Ed Kyle

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
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 08:13 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #98 on: 05/25/2016 08:11 pm »
I might have missed it while reading, but what is the casing material for "this beastie", fully composite?
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 08:53 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1352
Re: Proposed Orbital ATK Solid Rocket
« Reply #99 on: 05/25/2016 11:22 pm »
I might have missed it while reading, but what is the casing material for "this beastie", fully composite?
I can only offer this scaled comparison of the NGLS drawings versus an STS SRB.  The SRB segments appear, to me, to be shorter than the NGL "Common Booster Segment(s)". 

This, of course, assumes that the NGL drawing extracted from the skewed view of the initial overhead presentation is to scale!  After adding the original poor-resolution image extracted from another presentation to the drawing, I'm beginning to wonder.  The US Flag should have a width to height ratio of 1.9, which is closer to the original, shorter, rocket image that, itself, suggests standard SRB-length segments.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/26/2016 02:25 am by edkyle99 »

Tags:
 

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