Based on the stencil in the second photo, I'm thinking these are just retired Delta II GEM transportation hardware. Also based on this photo (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/images/large/2014-3596.jpg) of one of the GEM-46s for the SMAP Delta II, I'm definitively convinced that this is just old discarded Delta II GSE.It is old Delta II GSE but I'm not sure about discarded. If it was set for disposal they could have saved a lot of money and done that down in Florida. And if they were just destined for storage they would have gone to an Orbital ATK facility (they have a lot of nice empty desert to spare). For it all to come to Virginia it must have (at least at one point) been considered for actual use.
The problem of reusing it the GSE is that it was manufactured for a specific size flight hardware, in this case the Delta II GEM-46. It won't fit anything else unless it is also 46" in diameter.Based on the stencil in the second photo, I'm thinking these are just retired Delta II GEM transportation hardware. Also based on this photo (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/images/large/2014-3596.jpg) of one of the GEM-46s for the SMAP Delta II, I'm definitively convinced that this is just old discarded Delta II GSE.It is old Delta II GSE but I'm not sure about discarded. If it was set for disposal they could have saved a lot of money and done that down in Florida. And if they were just destined for storage they would have gone to an Orbital ATK facility (they have a lot of nice empty desert to spare). For it all to come to Virginia it must have (at least at one point) been considered for actual use.
I'm thinking these are for GEM-40 not GEM-46.the trailers from Japan as well as the ones assigned to CCAFS were to my knowledge sent back to ATK following the decommissioning of those launch sites and processing facilities. These particular ones match the hardware used by ULA at CCAFS. The VAFB ones are currently in use in there processing hanger. The chocks would be the processing stand and the trailers are what takes the GEMs to the pad. Now the GSE S/Ns are visible and if we had the corresponding data we could determine the Launch Site and GEM model. AFAIR, the Chock and trailers for GEM-46 would have said Delta IIH, not Delta II, so that means these are for GEM 40 or an earlier DII SRM
Either way, probably not big enough for OrbATK's "common booster segment"
As for what this stuff is doing at WIFF? No idea. (Conestoga II?)
I think the CBS (Common Booster Segment) is a carbonfiber-epoxy filament wound replacement for the RSRM (Reusable Solid Rocket Motor) rocket segments. From what I've read about the Brazilian VLS and VLM rockets, carbonfiber filament wound booster casings are much faster and cheaper to fabricate than metal (steel) casings. The investment in the development of these expendable composite solid rocket segments could have a very fast return on investment. (possibly one SLS mission)Back in the Shuttle days, ATK developed a Filament wound Composite SRM. It never flew, though, as it was intended for polar Shuttle missions. I believe a set is now on display with the Pathfinder Shuttle mockup in Huntsville.
Most likely the SLS solids will be replaced from 5segment RSRM's to 5 (or less, because they are larger) segment CBS engines. And I think Orbital ATK will use 2,5 (or less possibly 1 or 1,5) segment CBS as Castor 900 on Athena III (Athena is LM & ATK's commercial variant of the Minotaur rocket family. It uses Castor engines instead of military surplus Minuteman and Peacekeeper stages [stages that are close to or past their storage time]).
I do want to note that ATK could also have made these changes within the developement of the Five segment RSRM's. But SLS is a cost plus, old space Jobs program. ::)
Edit: Could the LC-43 launch site location be a good location for the Athena III, it is on the launch site 46 the Minotaur and Athena launch site at Cape Canaveral. A new launch site has to be build. For possible liquid upper-stages on the Athena family the facilities at LC-17 (Delta II) or LC-36 (BlueOrigin) could be used.
I've added a map I picked from a document about commercial development on the Cape, and I've edited it.
And a links to Info about Athena III from 2007 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atkcots.html), 2013 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/athena.html) and a presentation (https://www.sprsa.org/sites/default/files/conference-presentation/Athena%20Launch%20Vehicle%20Family-Kehrl_PR.pdf) from 2014.
Edit: Could the LC-43 launch site location be a good location for the Athena III, it is on the launch site 46 the Minotaur and Athena launch site at Cape Canaveral. A new launch site has to be build. For possible liquid upper-stages on the Athena family the facilities at LC-17 (Delta II) or LC-36 (BlueOrigin) could be used.I agree about the potential synergy between an SLS booster and a potential smaller, EELV class launch vehicle. This R&D "Common Booster Segment" program may be a way to start developing the improved SLS booster.
I've added a map I picked from a document about commercial development on the Cape, and I've edited it.
And a links to Info about Athena III from 2007 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atkcots.html), 2013 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/athena.html) and a presentation (https://www.sprsa.org/sites/default/files/conference-presentation/Athena%20Launch%20Vehicle%20Family-Kehrl_PR.pdf) from 2014.
I think Minotaur IV; V and VI are comparable to Athena Ic and IIc. Indeed Minotaur 1 is not comparable; Orbitals Pegasus has the same capability. Wasn't Athena form Lockheed Martin and ATK. link (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Athena_MPG_01-23-12.pdf)"Comparable" in the broad sense that they aim for the same general payload ranges, but there are many detail differences and they are "owned" by different companies.
In this presentation (http://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Kaufman-Nano-Launch-Vehicle-presentation.pdf) on page 3, it is shows clearly that Minotaur IV;V are comparable to Athena IIc.
I agree edkyle
Minotaur rockets (accept for Minotaur-C's) are US government only. I think launching an ICBM that is going to expire it's shelf live, is the cheapest method to get rid of it. Especially when a useful payload is carried/ launched.
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.An NSS "family picture" of currently paper rockets ... note all in pic have "smallish" US ... and that in theory any of the "large" US related, funded proposals, could make use of any of them in a pinch.
Those clearly are the three composite segments that ATK was touting for the Advanced Boosters.Any guesses on payloads to GTO and LEO if topped with 50t BE3U US?. Don't forget SRBs are also an option, most likely the same ones as Vulcan will use.
Those clearly are the three composite segments that ATK was touting for the Advanced Boosters.And if I'm seeing things correctly, there are two for a first stage and one for a second stage.
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.Neat, that was me! Hopefully we'll get a better render soon.
And if I'm seeing things correctly, there are two for a first stage and one for a second stage.Huh, I hadn't considered that it might be a three-stage design. I figured it would be like Ares I or Liberty.
The fine numbers all depend on the size of the upper stage. But even with a 30 tonne upper stage this rocket should beat Delta 4 Heavy to GEO/GTO if two Stage Zero boosters are added. It would be mid-EELV (~Atlas 421/431) range in the three-stage in-line form suggested in the image upthread.
I'd say ~8t to GTO and with 2 additional 2-segment boosters ~16t to GTO. Plus intermediate versions with Vulcan solids.
:)
Huh, I hadn't considered that it might be a three-stage design. I figured it would be like Ares I or Liberty.Even Liberty would have needed a third (liquid) stage to do GTO missions. Much better to split the solid motors into two stages, which gives a smaller, more optimum liquid insertion stage. The launch vehicle ends up grossing only 70% as much at liftoff.
I think the CBS (Common Booster Segment) is a carbonfiber-epoxy filament wound replacement for the RSRM (Reusable Solid Rocket Motor) rocket segments. From what I've read about the Brazilian VLS and VLM rockets, carbonfiber filament wound booster casings are much faster and cheaper to fabricate than metal (steel) casings. The investment in the development of these expendable composite solid rocket segments could have a very fast return on investment. (possibly one SLS mission)
Most likely the SLS solids will be replaced from 5segment RSRM's to 5 (or less, because they are larger) segment CBS engines. And I think Orbital ATK will use 2,5 (or less possibly 1 or 1,5) segment CBS as Castor 900 on Athena III (Athena is LM & ATK's commercial equivalent offer to the Minotaur rocket family. It uses Castor engines instead of military surplus Minuteman and Peacekeeper stages [surplus= stages that are close to or past their storage time]).
I do want to note that ATK could also have made these changes within the developement of the Five segment RSRM's. But SLS is a cost plus, old space Jobs program. ::)
Edit: Could the LC-43 launch site location be a good location for the Athena III, it is on the launch site 46 the Minotaur and Athena launch site at Cape Canaveral. A new launch site has to be build. For possible liquid upper-stages on the Athena family the facilities at LC-17 (Delta II) or LC-36 (BlueOrigin) could be used.
I've added a map I picked from a document about commercial development on the Cape, and I've edited it.
And a links to Info about Athena III from 2007 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atkcots.html), 2013 (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/athena.html) and a presentation (https://www.sprsa.org/sites/default/files/conference-presentation/Athena%20Launch%20Vehicle%20Family-Kehrl_PR.pdf) from 2014.
@Kraisee, sorry I used your picture.
Have I put it correctly now?
Ed, how many missions require Delta IV Heavy performance? Optimizing for the expensive case is sacrificing the bulk of launches. They have to beat Falcon 9 FT and Vulcan 50x on competitive bids.That's why this may work. The Heavy design, which would fly rarely, doesn't have to compromise the Medium, because it might lift the Medium. A key would be to use the same upper stage for both.
Can a 10' diameter road transportable solid with say 6-8 monolithic strap on solids compete in the medium lift market? I know it might take a three stage with strap on's to lift something. Just wondering.OrbitalATK did mention using Vulcan SRBs on the LV. At this assume LV pictured with up to 6 SRBs. Should be able to cover most of the market. The SRBs are in-house so considerably cheaper than when they will be when fitted to Vulcan.
Very curious to see if/how they fixed the problems ARES-1 had with environments. If I remember correctly that vehicle would shake everything to pieces. Maybe this doesn't experience the same level of vibration though.Fixes were identified for Ares 1 thrust oscillation. The shorter solids used in this design should have higher resonant frequencies, and ,since this is a new design, resonances could be de-tuned from the outset.
Ed, how many missions require Delta IV Heavy performance? Optimizing for the expensive case is sacrificing the bulk of launches. They have to beat Falcon 9 FT and Vulcan 50x on competitive bids.That's why this may work. The Heavy design, which would fly rarely, doesn't have to compromise the Medium, because it might lift the Medium. A key would be to use the same upper stage for both.
I can see Orbital/ATK's strategy here. The Medium would be able to lift payloads that are out of Falcon 9 Upgrade's reach. The Heavy would be simpler than Falcon Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
Solids do have their advantages, none of fuelling issues that have scrubbed F9 launches recently. They can sit on pad for hours waiting for range or weather to clear.True, but this is true of normal LOX as well, you just vent the offgas and top it off. With Falcon 9 v1.2, you had the oxygen warming up without boiling, which made it hard to remove the warm stuff and pump in fresh cool stuff.
Still have to maintain the LOX/LH US.
Ed, how many missions require Delta IV Heavy performance? Optimizing for the expensive case is sacrificing the bulk of launches. They have to beat Falcon 9 FT and Vulcan 50x on competitive bids.That's why this may work. The Heavy design, which would fly rarely, doesn't have to compromise the Medium, because it might lift the Medium. A key would be to use the same upper stage for both.
I can see Orbital/ATK's strategy here. The Medium would be able to lift payloads that are out of Falcon 9 Upgrade's reach. The Heavy would be simpler than Falcon Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
Yes, very interesting. I think the key is if they can manufacture the expendable booster casings and segments for price points that can be competitive with SpaceX's reusable boosters.
If they really are -much- cheaper than metal casings, there may be something to that.
Because even if FH is more complex, given it's more simple propellants (vs. LH2 on D4H) that's probably a cost that will be incurred during development, but not sure it'll make reoccuring costs much more once flying. Especially if the mission profile allows for recovery of the cores.
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.
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.Do you think it's possible they could use a common US with the Blue orbital LV?
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.
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.Do you think it's possible they could use a common US with the Blue orbital LV?
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.
I must ask again :)
When will Orbital ATK present all the details about this new launch vehicle?
Anyone?
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.
Orbital ATK also supplied a combined eighteen Delta IV and GEM-60 key composite structures, which provide lower weight and higher performance. The largest composite structures are four to five meters in diameter, range from one to eight meters in length, and are produced using either advanced wet winding or hand layup, machining and inspection techniques at Orbital ATK’s manufacturing facilities in Iuka, Mississippi, and Clearfield, Utah.
Additionally, Orbital ATK manufactured the propellant tank for the Delta IV upper stage roll control system at the company’s Commerce, California, facility, and it designed and manufactured the nozzle for Delta IV's RS-68A engine at its Promontory, Utah, facility. Orbital ATK also designed and produced the nozzle's thermal protection material, which is capable of shielding the nozzle from the extreme heat of launch, when external temperatures can exceed 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Yes, but I don't think any of the things OA makes for the Delta 4 are in contact with LH2. To the extent that propellants are involved, I think they are all solid or hypergolic.Actually yes there are some parts (tubing) within RS-68A leading to and then across the nozzle extension and back that are in contact with LH2 and LO2
Yes, but I don't think any of the things OA makes for the Delta 4 are in contact with LH2. To the extent that propellants are involved, I think they are all solid or hypergolic.Actually yes there are some parts (tubing) within RS-68A leading to and then across the nozzle extension and back that are in contact with LH2 and LO2
I wouldn't necessarily read that to mean they didn't think they could do it. At the time Orbital was competing in a very crowded field so by using an existing option on the US the perceived development risk, and possibly more likely the perceived schedule risk was reduced making their bid more attractive to NASA.
He spoke of the various options (including certain Russian and American engines) for kerolox/hydrolox stages. The key reason they went with a solid US was that they were taking enough of a gamble on the LRE first stage and didn't want to risk more.
I also expect Antares 200 to be replaced soon by Antares 300 with a AR-1 as first stage engine. Because the RD-181 (Export version of the RD-191) will be banned just like the RD-180.
I wouldn't necessarily read that to mean they didn't think they could do it.
He spoke of the various options (including certain Russian and American engines) for kerolox/hydrolox stages. The key reason they went with a solid US was that they were taking enough of a gamble on the LRE first stage and didn't want to risk more.
At the time Orbital was competing in a very crowded field so by using an existing option on the US the perceived development risk, and possibly more likely the perceived schedule risk was reduced making their bid more attractive to NASA.
Commercial crew is a good example of this. Any major space company could probably manage (and how many proposed) spaceplanes, but in the end capsules presented less risk from NASA's POV.
I also expect Antares 200 to be replaced soon by Antares 300 with a AR-1 as first stage engine. Because the RD-181 (Export version of the RD-191) will be banned just like the RD-180.The ban is on use of any Russian designed or built engine for national security launches; it's not relevant to Antares, which is at most targeting a few commercial launches as well as CRS. Besides, AR-1 isn't going to be available anytime 'soon', and quite possibly never will be.
For Antares I think there wasn't an HyLox engine that matched their needs. The upperstage would need about 200kN (45 000 lbf) engine. So Orbital choose for an cheap solution they could offer themselfs, castor 30 (xl). BE-3U can trottle down and meets te requirements.
I also expect Antares 200 to be replaced soon by Antares 300 with a AR-1 as first stage engine. Because the RD-181 (Export version of the RD-191) will be banned just like the RD-180.
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124 (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm), the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine.
Does anyone have a sketch of what this rocket might look like?
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?
Uploaded and attached;Link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/48q34n/lt_gen_greaves_eelv_talking_points_february_2016/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/48q34n/lt_gen_greaves_eelv_talking_points_february_2016/)
Does anyone have a sketch of what this rocket might look like?
Up thread, here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499163#msg1499163
and here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39322.msg1499218#msg1499218
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 DoD's own summary of the contract (http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/642983) clearly states GEM-63XL is for Orb-ATK NGLV as well as Vulcan:
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-57293
This 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.
Rons, I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is false.Castor 900 uses SLS type steel casings and CBS is longer Composite casing being Developed and previously referred to NASA and USAF as Advanced Solid Rocket Booster for future use in SLS Block-IIB and other vehicles. Castor 900 and similar versions of the Family were introduced during development of the 2nd Generation Athena Launcher Family.
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-57293
This 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.
Want happens if OA don't proceed with this LV. Do they have to refund DOD the money?.At the moment, only FY15 money is obligated. Presumably, DoD will only obligate funding for the portion of the work OA intends to do, and if the project gets cancelled next year, DoD won't fund the out-years.
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.
mainstream media article on subject:That's talking about using ICBM hardware for civil space, which is Minotaur, not OA's proposed EELV design.
Space companies feud over what to do with rockets in ICBM stockpile
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2016/04/18/4d649cb2-057b-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html
mainstream media article on subject:That's talking about using ICBM hardware for civil space, which is Minotaur, not OA's proposed EELV design.
Nobody can deny that this rocket plays to ATK's strengths - but does it play to the market strengths?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.
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.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.
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
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.
OA EELV Next Gen Vehicle based on available data from trade studies/media and recent Conference calls to date: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?
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)
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.
More info in tweet:Looks like we're finally getting some solid information about this rocket.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/735180704233971712
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.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.
I've yet to see any drawings of the Heavy configuration.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 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)".
Do we know if the side GEMs fit on both the medium and the heavy?I've yet to see any drawings of the Heavy configuration.
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?
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
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 missionsDo we know if the side GEMs fit on both the medium and the heavy?I've yet to see any drawings of the Heavy configuration.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
- Ed Kyle
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
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.
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
Answer to USAF decision on Minuteman is to replace the entire 1950s programme with this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39622.0If 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.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.
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.
- 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.
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.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
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.
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".
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.
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.
Let me first note that all this is speculation from my side.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.
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 )
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 ;)
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.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.
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX ULA Orbital-ATK
MEDIUM Falcon 9 Vulcan Centaur NGL-Intermediate
HEAVY Falcon Heavy Vulcan-Aces NGL-Heavy
Third, he notes that in addition to LC 39B, Orbital/ATK is considering VAFB SLC 2 as a launch site.
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.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?
still extant STS/Apollo platforms offer an alternative starting point
nor does it tell us if the propellant is PBAN or HTPB
Stephen Clark reported in an earlier story that NGL would use one of the old MLPs. To my knowledge the old MLPs are still there. One was recently used as a test load for CT-2 to carry to LC 39B.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?
Maybe its just me, but I just dont see how this rocket would be economicaly viable.For OA their 3 stage solid booster may will be competitive with Vulcan booster and maybe F9E, it is definitely a lot less complex. Why should Blue US being any more expensive than F9 US to build. Both Merlin and BE3 use modern manufacturing techniques. Hydrogen US can use autogenous pressurization, eliminating expensive He systems.
DoD will launch less payloads per years in 2020s
It will have to complete with SpaceX, ULA, and BO (which may also compete for DoD launches)
This rocket doesnt appear to be cheap: lots of solids + hydrogen upper stage + no reuse of parts.
Maybe its just me, but I just dont see how this rocket would be economicaly viable.For OA their 3 stage solid booster may will be competitive with Vulcan booster and maybe F9E, it is definitely a lot less complex. Why should Blue US being any more expensive than F9 US to build. Both Merlin and BE3 use modern manufacturing techniques. Hydrogen US can use autogenous pressurization, eliminating expensive He systems.
DoD will launch less payloads per years in 2020s
It will have to complete with SpaceX, ULA, and BO (which may also compete for DoD launches)
This rocket doesnt appear to be cheap: lots of solids + hydrogen upper stage + no reuse of parts.
If they can get two flights of CRS-2/yr, then they only need to win 3 launches per year of anything else to close the deal. They sell 3 to 4 GEO sats per year. So if they can get all that revenue they could close the case.
If they can get two flights of CRS-2/yr, then they only need to win 3 launches per year of anything else to close the deal. They sell 3 to 4 GEO sats per year. So if they can get all that revenue they could close the case.
If O-ATK are going to close the business case, they are going to have to compete with SpaceX, just like ULA will be aiming to do. And the powerpoint version better look like it can beat all, because that's as good as it gets. It's a really poor idea, I think, when you are deciding whether to go/no-go on a new product, to merely hope to capture a bit of 3rd place in the market if it is successful. Especially in a market where it is not certain the 2nd place provider will be sustainably busy.
Stephen Clark reported in an earlier story that NGL would use one of the old MLPs. To my knowledge the old MLPs are still there. One was recently used as a test load for CT-2 to carry to LC 39B.MLP-2 was on the Crawler in December.
Yep that is the MLP and CT they request along with HB-2Stephen Clark reported in an earlier story that NGL would use one of the old MLPs. To my knowledge the old MLPs are still there. One was recently used as a test load for CT-2 to carry to LC 39B.MLP-2 was on the Crawler in December.
Here is my attempt at a quickie side-by-side scaled comparison of the potential future EELV competitors. Only one of these is currently flying. (I would like to see them all fly.) Also, keep in mind that one of the Medium competitors, Vulcan-Centaur, will be replaced by Vulcan-Aces a few years after it begins flying.
- Ed Kyle
Maybe its just me, but I just dont see how this rocket would be economicaly viable.
DoD will launch less payloads per years in 2020s
It will have to complete with SpaceX, ULA, and BO (which may also compete for DoD launches)
This rocket doesnt appear to be cheap: lots of solids + hydrogen upper stage + no reuse of parts.
Is there a breakdown on how much Orbital ATK's new rocket could lift?All I've seen is 5.5 tonnes to GTO for the 501 model and EELV Heavy class for the Castor 1200 powered version.
That was 5.5 for medium ie Castor 600 with no Gem SRBs. Add a few Gems and the medium can handle most GTO missions.Is there a breakdown on how much Orbital ATK's new rocket could lift?All I've seen is 5.5 tonnes to GTO for the 501 model and EELV Heavy class for the Castor 1200 powered version.
Ed Kyle
The company plans to buy the rocket's second stage from Jeff Bezos' space company, Blue Origin.
Orbital planning new rocket to compete for U.S. military launches (http://www.reuters.com/article/space-orbital-rocket-idUSL5N18L67O)Irene simply got that wrong. Other reports from the same Space Congress presentation, including the photo of the presentation slides upthread, showed it to be the third stage.Quote from: Irene KlotzThe company plans to buy the rocket's second stage from Jeff Bezos' space company, Blue Origin.
Orbital planning new rocket to compete for U.S. military launches (http://www.reuters.com/article/space-orbital-rocket-idUSL5N18L67O)Irene simply got that wrong. Other reports from the same Space Congress presentation, including the photo of the presentation slides upthread, showed it to be the third stage.Quote from: Irene KlotzThe company plans to buy the rocket's second stage from Jeff Bezos' space company, Blue Origin.
In the Flight Systems Group, the Company and the Air Force continued to work in the first phase of what might develop as a four-year long joint development program aimed at fielding a new intermediate and large-class launch vehicle. Our investments this year, which are being strongly supplemented by the Air Force, are focused on the initial design and early development work. And in the second quarter, we complete the vehicle’s core preliminary design review in June. A joint Air Force and Orbital ATK decision about moving the program into full development is expected in mid-2017, based on our progress between now and then, and a variety of other factors.
In other related news that also applies to ULA Atlas and Vulcan and recently LM Athena 2cS launcher families: Completed GEM 63 Solid Rocket Motor Family Preliminary Design Review (see first PDF for reference).
Webcast Link: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=81036&eventID=5235190
They have not selected it. They are studying it as an option. As a prospective customer it was given the opportunity to participate in the PDR.
In other related news that also applies to ULA Atlas and Vulcan and recently LM Athena 2cS launcher families: Completed GEM 63 Solid Rocket Motor Family Preliminary Design Review (see first PDF for reference).
Webcast Link: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=81036&eventID=5235190
Has the Athena-2cS design switched from Orion-50SXLG to GEM-63 strap-ons?
With these solids, would it be possible to parachute them back down for reuse? Or is refurbishment of these smaller stages still about break even in cost?Composite solids of any type are currently capable of single use. major technological and material science advancements would be needed to reuse solid motors. those with Steel casings are the only ones that are capable of reuse but US industry is working quickly to phase those out to cut costs and increase profits.
What if you had a steel liner like an old Volkswagon engine. (Steel liners in an aluminum block). Might add a little weight, but wouldn't be burned with the steel liners.
I expect the September 1 Falcon 9/AMOS 6 explosion to influence Orbital ATK's decision about whether to proceed with its new rocket.
- Ed Kyle
Why would the AMOS 6 pre-static fire failure have anything to do with Orbital ATK's newest launch vehicle?As I see it, the AMOS 6 failure shifts the playing field. It increases SpaceX costs. It increases insurance costs for satellite owners. It delays Falcon Heavy. It raises reliability questions about the entire Falcon family design. Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains. Orbital ATK's decision makers, who will soon decide whether to proceed, have a different set of considerations now than they did last week.
As I see it, the AMOS 6 failure shifts the playing field. It increases SpaceX costs. It increases insurance costs for satellite owners. It delays Falcon Heavy. It raises reliability questions about the entire Falcon family design. Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains. Orbital ATK's decision makers, who will soon decide whether to proceed, have a different set of considerations now than they did last week.Spacex most likely will have returned to normal operations and gotten Falcon Heavy flying long before NGL is ready.
- Ed Kyle
Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains.You mean ... like ... Antares? When exactly is return to flight?
The only way I can see Orbital ATK catching up is if they keep the first stage as closely derived from a SLS booster ...Then they'd have to explain ... why SLS boosters were so expensive, while convincing that NGL boosters could be so cheap to be competitive.
Antares will likely fly before the next Falcon 9. But yes, like Antares. These big new U.S. liquid rockets seem to have a habit of cantankerousness and explosions, which is why the U.S. needs alternatives. Solid propellant is the most disparate back-up possible to pressurized, turbopump-fed liquids.Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains.You mean ... like ... Antares? When exactly is return to flight?
Antares will likely fly before the next Falcon 9. But yes, like Antares. These big new U.S. liquid rockets seem to have a habit of cantankerousness and explosions, which is why the U.S. needs alternatives. Solid propellant is the most disparate back-up possible to pressurized, turbopump-fed liquids.Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains.You mean ... like ... Antares? When exactly is return to flight?
Please note its September. They have not even announced a date, weeks away. Manifests haven't been updated.Antares will likely fly before the next Falcon 9.Orbital ATK's NGL is aimed at the same market as Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Vulcan, another rocket that will have to go through growing pains.You mean ... like ... Antares? When exactly is return to flight?
But yes, like Antares. These big new U.S. liquid rockets seem to have a habit of cantankerousness and explosions, which is why the U.S. needs alternatives. Solid propellant is the most disparate back-up possible to pressurized, turbopump-fed liquids.I've seen many cantankerous solids too.
We haven't had all solid vehicles backing up for the last 50 years, why start now.Do we? Right now the U.S. has Atlas 5, which itself had to be taken out of service earlier this year, and a very occasional Delta 4. Both will be retired in a few years. Their replacement, Vulcan, is as much TBD as Orbital ATK's NGL. Falcon 9 is out of service, probably for many months, and more pertinently has only proven to be "Proton reliable" to date (i.e., not good enough for EELV reliability standards). Antares is still out of service and has limited utility regardless.
We have enough vehicles the way it is
Which still do the job.We haven't had all solid vehicles backing up for the last 50 years, why start now.Do we? Right now the U.S. has Atlas 5, which itself had to be taken out of service earlier this year, and a very occasional Delta 4.
We have enough vehicles the way it is
Both will be retired in a few years.When multiple replacements have accumulated significant flight history.
Their replacement, Vulcan, is as much TBD as Orbital ATK's NGL.BE4 looks likely to make it to the test stand this year.
Falcon 9 is out of service, probably for many months, ...Musk claims Vandenberg launches within a month.
That is an over claim. You're getting ahead of yourself, in order to justify a position. Their position is that they mishandled a payload, not a launch failure.
... and more pertinently has only proven to be "Proton reliable" to date (i.e., not good enough for EELV reliability standards).
Antares is still out of service and has limited utility regardless.And we need them to do another limited utility LV (to begin with, it needs to start out that way)?
As for the solid question (obviously an EELV NGL will never be "all solid"), why not start now? The technology has improved with composites and more efficient propellants. They have proven to be very reliable, and in this business, where some U.S. government payloads can cost multiple billions of dollars, unreliability has a big cost.NGL will be end-end multibillion dollar. If like Antares, budget in at least one RTF too.
Falcon 9's incident could end up being, what, a half-billion dollar exercise?There's the causality losses of LV, pad, and SC. They claim they'll continue flying on 39A/4E. So a 3+ month delay is what they say at the moment.
I am merely interested in a bit of real technology diversity among the launch fleet.Please enlighten us exactly what this definition entails. To many here, they aren't all that different. It would help your position to be better understood objectively, rather than always going to the subjective "feel".
It might actually get us nearer to that "assured access" idea.This I can agree with you on.
BE4 looks likely to make it to the test stand this year.Unlike BE-4, BE-3 has actually flown. The solid motors still have to be developed, but they derive from SRB related research, such as the Filament-Wound Case motor testing completed during the mid-1980s. Clearly there is much work to do, but the same is true of Vulcan.
NGL's propulsion is still paper.
The launch site is ready, but we're not going to see a launch from there in one month.QuoteFalcon 9 is out of service, probably for many months, ...Musk claims Vandenberg launches within a month.
Anyone can do the math. Compare the gold standards (Atlas 5 and Ariane 5-ECA and even Delta 4M) against Falcon 9 and Proton M and you will clearly see why I am saying what I am saying. Falcon 9 can still improve these numbers if its basic issues are rooted out.Quote... and more pertinently has only proven to be "Proton reliable" to date (i.e., not good enough for EELV reliability standards).That is an over claim. You're getting ahead of yourself, in order to justify a position. Their position is that they mishandled a payload, not a launch failure.
Solid propellant is obviously a much different technology than cryogenic liquid propellant. It will have a completely different industrial base. A problem with one is not going to shut down the other.QuoteI am merely interested in a bit of real technology diversity among the launch fleet.Please enlighten us exactly what this definition entails. To many here, they aren't all that different. It would help your position to be better understood objectively, rather than always going to the subjective "feel".
That was the 1980's. A third of a century ago. Vulcan/Falcon are a bit more recent.NGL's propulsion is still paper.The solid motors still have to be developed, but they derive from SRB related research, such as the Filament-Wound Case motor testing completed during the mid-1980s. Clearly there is much work to do, but the same is true of Vulcan.
Source? I'm still hearing Vandenberg launches (plural) are still on schedule. Ready for that cup of coffee in Lompoc?QuoteThe launch site is ready, but we're not going to see a launch from there in one month.QuoteFalcon 9 is out of service, probably for many months, ...Musk claims Vandenberg launches within a month.
Know you have little use for SX, but they claim to be doing just that. Have no idea why they would do anything but. And the reasons for Proton M (or for that matter Zenit) reliability aren't in any way comparable.QuoteAnyone can do the math. Compare the gold standards (Atlas 5 and Ariane 5-ECA and even Delta 4M) against Falcon 9 and Proton M and you will clearly see why I am saying what I am saying. Falcon 9 can still improve these numbers if its basic issues are rooted out.Quote... and more pertinently has only proven to be "Proton reliable" to date (i.e., not good enough for EELV reliability standards).That is an over claim. You're getting ahead of yourself, in order to justify a position. Their position is that they mishandled a payload, not a launch failure.
QuoteSolid propellant is obviously a much different technology than cryogenic liquid propellant. It will have a completely different industrial base. A problem with one is not going to shut down the other.QuoteI am merely interested in a bit of real technology diversity among the launch fleet.Please enlighten us exactly what this definition entails. To many here, they aren't all that different. It would help your position to be better understood objectively, rather than always going to the subjective "feel".
the reasons for Proton M (or for that matter Zenit) reliability aren't in any way comparable.Sorry, but why aren't the reasons comparable? Because one launch system is relatively new and the other old? But couldn't the same cause create unreliability in both? Just as an example, maybe both suffer from a relatively unseasoned workforce, like the Proton guy who installed the part upside down? Do we know yet that it wasn't an upside down part that caused the SpaceX on-pad failure? ;-)
I have to respond to this incorrect assumption that I have "little use" for SpaceX. I'm as thrilled as anyone by this innovative company's achievements. I am only pointing out that Falcon 9 is still on a multi-year learning curve and is not as reliable as other rockets that depend on lessons learned over decades. Atlas and Titan and Centaur, the Atlas 5 progenitors, all had long, problem-filled childhoods.Anyone can do the math. Compare the gold standards (Atlas 5 and Ariane 5-ECA and even Delta 4M) against Falcon 9 and Proton M and you will clearly see why I am saying what I am saying. Falcon 9 can still improve these numbers if its basic issues are rooted out.Know you have little use for SX, but they claim to be doing just that. Have no idea why they would do anything but. And the reasons for Proton M (or for that matter Zenit) reliability aren't in any way comparable.
Suggest you consider Ed Kyle's comment closely first, before answer this. Tells you much ...the reasons for Proton M (or for that matter Zenit) reliability aren't in any way comparable.Sorry, but why aren't the reasons comparable?
You misunderstand my reference.I have to respond to this incorrect assumption that I have "little use" for SpaceX. I'm as thrilled as anyone by this innovative company's achievements.Anyone can do the math. Compare the gold standards (Atlas 5 and Ariane 5-ECA and even Delta 4M) against Falcon 9 and Proton M and you will clearly see why I am saying what I am saying. Falcon 9 can still improve these numbers if its basic issues are rooted out.Know you have little use for SX, but they claim to be doing just that. Have no idea why they would do anything but. And the reasons for Proton M (or for that matter Zenit) reliability aren't in any way comparable.
I am only pointing out that Falcon 9 is still on a multi-year learning curve and is not as reliable as other rockets that depend on lessons learned over decades.You make/made the mistake I made/make.
Atlas and Titan and Centaur, the Atlas 5 progenitors, all had long, problem-filled childhoods.We have a form of "childhood's end" with Falcon (and quite possibly Vulcan).
The statement that I possess a "presumption of feckless launch service providing" is not correct. I believe that all of these providers - SpaceX, Orbital ATK, ULA, etc. - aim for perfection.I have to respond to this incorrect assumption that I have "little use" for SpaceX. I'm as thrilled as anyone by this innovative company's achievements.You misunderstand my reference.
Was not to achievements - ULA and OA have more practical ones at the moment, but to their resolve/commitment to reliable launch as lacking. That comes across in your presumption of feckless launch service providing that others besides me have brought to attention.
Nice to hear it.The statement that I possess a "presumption of feckless launch service providing" is not correct. I believe that all of these providers - SpaceX, Orbital ATK, ULA, etc. - aim for perfection.I have to respond to this incorrect assumption that I have "little use" for SpaceX. I'm as thrilled as anyone by this innovative company's achievements.You misunderstand my reference.
Was not to achievements - ULA and OA have more practical ones at the moment, but to their resolve/commitment to reliable launch as lacking. That comes across in your presumption of feckless launch service providing that others besides me have brought to attention.
- Ed Kyle
Anyone can do the math. Compare the gold standards (Atlas 5 and Ariane 5-ECA and even Delta 4M) against Falcon 9 and Proton M and you will clearly see why I am saying what I am saying. Falcon 9 can still improve these numbers if its basic issues are rooted out.
In our Flight Systems Group the Company and the Air Force are in the first year of what may become a potential multiyear jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new intermediate and large class space launch vehicle family.http://seekingalpha.com/article/4021177-orbital-atks-oa-ceo-dave-thompson-q3-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript
Our objective in this initiative is to develop a modular vehicle capable of launching national security payloads, as well as science and commercial satellites with benefits to other parts of our business.
The company's investments in 2016 along with those of the Air Force cover the initial phase of design work with the go no go decision in mid to late 2017 concerning the remaining activity to develop build and test this new launch vehicle family.
From the OA non-earnings conference call today:The accompanying IR presentationQuoteIn our Flight Systems Group the Company and the Air Force are in the first year of what may become a potential multiyear jointly funded development program aimed at creating a new intermediate and large class space launch vehicle family.http://seekingalpha.com/article/4021177-orbital-atks-oa-ceo-dave-thompson-q3-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript
Our objective in this initiative is to develop a modular vehicle capable of launching national security payloads, as well as science and commercial satellites with benefits to other parts of our business.
The company's investments in 2016 along with those of the Air Force cover the initial phase of design work with the go no go decision in mid to late 2017 concerning the remaining activity to develop build and test this new launch vehicle family.
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
we do not know at this time and information that is available to answer that question is not yet able to be discussed on the public threads. Should be several big information drops between late Q2-2017 and Q1-2018 if they decide to proceed with their plans.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
Since they are using a mobile launcher, could they potentially do what they did for the later Saturn 1B missions, and just put the Shorter Rocket on a stand. Or just have the Hydrolox upper stage umbilicals on the tower be able to be raised or lowered?
Orbital ATK has released few details about what is known only as its “Next-Generation Launcher.” The vehicle would use solid-fuel lower stages based on space shuttle solid rocket motor segments developed by the company, as well as solid strap-on boosters. A liquid-oxygen, liquid-hydrogen upper stage would use a version of Blue Origin’s BE-3 engine that company is currently flying on its New Shepard suborbital vehicle.
I thought Liberty was scrapped. Why use an image of a two-stage rocket if the Next-Generation Launcher has three stages?
I had a Zenit, or Cyclone, second stage on top of shuttle SRB segments in mind, but if Jeff Bezos wants to get into the liquid stage market, why not?
New Jeff Foust article on state of Orbital's devdelopment:
http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-expects-decision-on-new-rocket-by-early-2018/ (http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-expects-decision-on-new-rocket-by-early-2018/)
Here's an excerpt:QuoteOrbital ATK has released few details about what is known only as its “Next-Generation Launcher.” The vehicle would use solid-fuel lower stages based on space shuttle solid rocket motor segments developed by the company, as well as solid strap-on boosters. A liquid-oxygen, liquid-hydrogen upper stage would use a version of Blue Origin’s BE-3 engine that company is currently flying on its New Shepard suborbital vehicle.
If the program continues, Thompson said he expected the split in funding would continue at current levels, with the Air Force providing two thirds of the funding and Orbital ATK one third. He also expected the Air Force to make an “early block purchase” of some of the vehicles during the program’s development.
New Jeff Foust article on state of Orbital's devdelopment:So, Orbital ATK is going to let the Air Force makes its NGLV decision.
http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-expects-decision-on-new-rocket-by-early-2018/ (http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-expects-decision-on-new-rocket-by-early-2018/)
It's charming to see that they don't realize the market is changing around them. Or that they think the AF has no alternatives. ATK is indeed partying like its 1999. :oShow me a launch vehicle that does not depend in large part on Government money, one way or another.
It's charming to see that they don't realize the market is changing around them. Or that they think the AF has no alternatives. ATK is indeed partying like its 1999. :oShow me a launch vehicle that does not depend in large part on Government money, one way or another.
New Glenn.It's charming to see that they don't realize the market is changing around them. Or that they think the AF has no alternatives. ATK is indeed partying like its 1999. :oShow me a launch vehicle that does not depend in large part on Government money, one way or another.
- Ed Kyle
It's charming to see that they don't realize the market is changing around them. Or that they think the AF has no alternatives. ATK is indeed partying like its 1999. :oShow me a launch vehicle that does not depend in large part on Government money, one way or another.
- Ed Kyle
The articles I've read on this LV give impression Blue will be providing completed upper stage.I had a Zenit, or Cyclone, second stage on top of shuttle SRB segments in mind, but if Jeff Bezos wants to get into the liquid stage market, why not?
??? If if used Zenit or Cyclone, then it could not be used for gov't payload. Bezos is not getting in the liquid stage market. Supplying an engine is not the same as supplying a stage.
I thought Liberty was scrapped. Why use an image of a two-stage rocket if the Next-Generation Launcher has three stages?Let's fix this repeated mis-information with an image of Orbital's real projected NGL lineup.
Ed, can you ad the SLS 5 segment booster to this image/drawing. I wonder what the length of those segments are compared to these and each other 😊Here is an image I put together last year that shows the smaller NGL beside Liberty, which would have used the five segment booster.
Thanks Ed. But what are the segment lenghts on those SLS 5 segment boosters?Same as 4-segment SRB except with one added 320 inch long center segment.
I wonder if a stretched h-2a upper stage would work out?Might not even need a stretch. The mass seems about right.
I wonder if a stretched h-2a upper stage would work out?upper stage is not a lego rocket and is not ideal and OA wants a completely US manufactured rocket for various reasons.
....
Amazingly, that was the same (old) mutual justification that existed between the Stick (Ares-I) and the Stack (Ares-V). And there was me thinking that old chestnut of reasoning had been thoroughly de-bunked and laid to rest.
Ross.
The best plan for declining launch demand is a massive R&D project?
I must agree with the previous comment that their management must be blind to the changing shape of the market today. A breathtaking case of heads being firmly sunk into the sands of time long past.
The best plan for declining launch demand is a massive R&D project?
I must agree with the previous comment that their management must be blind to the changing shape of the market today. A breathtaking case of heads being firmly sunk into the sands of time long past.
The best plan for declining launch demand is a massive R&D project?
I must agree with the previous comment that their management must be blind to the changing shape of the market today. A breathtaking case of heads being firmly sunk into the sands of time long past.
The best plan for declining launch demand is a massive R&D project?
I must agree with the previous comment that their management must be blind to the changing shape of the market today. A breathtaking case of heads being firmly sunk into the sands of time long past.
Save the R&D.
Already know the market is declining? ...just get out.
(you're too late already)
At this point, Orbital ATK and two other companies are involved in what the Air Force calls next-generation launch vehicle program. And under the structure of the current program, the Air Force is contributing about two-thirds of the total near-term investment and Orbital ATK and presumably the other companies are contributing about one-third.
We are so far performing very well and, from everything I can tell, the Air Force likes what we are doing and where we are headed. With regard to this go/no-go decision at the end of this year or early next year, the Air Force will have to decide on its part whether our family of vehicles is the right one or one of several that they would like to back for the long-term. And we will need to decide whether the investment case is sufficiently compelling to proceed.
And as part of all this, we would anticipate that one-third, two-third -- one-third on the Company side, two-thirds on the Air Force side -- and investment mix would likely continue. But on the Air Force side, there would also be an early block purchase of some of the vehicles that we would be developing. So we are working hard on it. It's at this point in our planning for 2017 and 2018. We assume it's ago.
If not, well in 2018 then we would maybe throttle back on our investment. We definitely would throttle back on our investment. But for the time being we are assuming it's ago. And we are very excited about it and committed to moving forward if it makes sense for the Air Force and also if it makes good business sense for us.
Orbital ATK Completes Major Development Milestones in Next Generation Launch Vehicle Program
Company’s Partnership with U. S. Air Force Focused on New Intermediate- and Large-Class Space Launch Vehicles
New Launchers to Use Company’s Industry-Leading Solid Rocket Propulsion Technology and Other Modular Elements
Dulles, Virginia 3 April 2017 – Orbital ATK (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, today announced that it has made important progress over the past 18 months in developing advanced solid rocket propulsion and other technologies to be used in a new generation of intermediate- and large-class space launch vehicles. Through a combination of internal investment and government funding from an Air Force contract awarded in late 2015 by the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Systems Directorate, the company’s Flight Systems Group recently completed design reviews, facility upgrades and tooling fabrication, and has now begun early production of development hardware for its Next Generation Launch (NGL) system.
The company’s modular NGL rocket family will be capable of launching a wide variety of national security payloads, as well as science and commercial satellites that are too large to be launched by its current fleet of Pegasus, Minotaur and Antares space launch vehicles. The NGL vehicles will operate from both east and west coast launch facilities and will share common propulsion, structures and avionics systems with other company programs, including its smaller space launch vehicles as well as missile defense interceptors, target vehicles and strategic missile systems.
“The NGL program is a great example of how industry and government can work together to develop an American launch system to support national security space launch requirements,” said Scott Lehr, President of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group. “Orbital ATK is well-positioned to introduce an intermediate- and large-class family of launch vehicles by leveraging the strengths of the merged company to achieve low-cost assured space access for current and future national security payloads and other satellites.”
Through commonality of hardware and other economies of scale, Orbital ATK’s proposed launch system will also reduce the cost of other U.S. Government rocket and missile programs managed by the Air Force, Navy, NASA and Missile Defense Agency, saving taxpayers up to $600 million on these programs over a ten-year period.
Over the past 18 months, Orbital ATK has successfully completed critical design reviews for major elements of the company’s solid propulsion stages, along with preliminary vehicle-level and launch site infrastructure reviews. The company has also refurbished a 60,000-square-foot production building, including installation of automated tooling, cranes and other equipment to enable the manufacture of large-diameter composite-case rocket motors. Recently, the company completed the manufacturing of prototype motor test articles to be used in verification activities this summer.
“The Orbital ATK NGL team, which now numbers several hundred engineers and technicians, has made tremendous progress since late 2015. Building on this work, we are looking forward to providing the Air Force and other customers with a highly-reliable and cost-effective launch system within the next four years,” said Lehr.
The next phase of the program is expected to commence when the Air Force awards Launch Services Agreements in early 2018, which would entail full vehicle and launch site development, with work taking place at company facilities in Promontory and Magna, Utah; Iuka, Mississippi; Chandler, Arizona; and Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
The only reason I see the need for a solid satellite launcher is to keep the military solid rocket people working. All military ICBM's, IRBM's, defense missiles, etc, are solids. If they just sit around and are not used, ATK has to lay off people. Then if we ever get into some type of conflict, it takes time to mobilize a solid manufacturing work force. This is why the Air Force is interested. It keeps the solid fuel manufacturing base going.
The only reason I see the need for a solid satellite launcher is to keep the military solid rocket people working."Through commonality of hardware and other economies of scale, Orbital ATK’s proposed launch system will also reduce the cost of other U.S. Government rocket and missile programs managed by the Air Force, Navy, NASA and Missile Defense Agency, saving taxpayers up to $600 million on these programs over a ten-year period."
The only reason I see the need for a solid satellite launcher is to keep the military solid rocket people working.Yes. One part of the story, the overt rationalization ...
If the DoD thinks it is important enough, they will subsidize the weapons division.... which is a long term flawed rationalization ...
The real news here is this part. This may be infrastructure for eventual SLS SRB steel case replacement.... and the hidden advantage for its major challenged SLS booster program.
"The company has also refurbished a 60,000-square-foot production building, including installation of automated tooling, cranes and other equipment to enable the manufacture of large-diameter composite-case rocket motors.
The only reason I see the need for a solid satellite launcher is to keep the military solid rocket people working. All military ICBM's, IRBM's, defense missiles, etc, are solids. If they just sit around and are not used, ATK has to lay off people. Then if we ever get into some type of conflict, it takes time to mobilize a solid manufacturing work force. This is why the Air Force is interested. It keeps the solid fuel manufacturing base going.
This is fear mongering, IMO. The same flawed argument was used with the Shuttle.
OrbitalATK is just going to have to operate as any other business / contractor. If the DoD thinks it is important enough, they will subsidize the weapons division.
Aren't ICBM's and Trident missiles fairly large solids? I know the Shuttle solids were 12' in diameter or about 3.7m. I also know some were 10' in diameter or a little over 3m in diameter from the Titan days. I shouldn't have just said to keep the military production working. I wasn't thinking about the SLS solids having some of the same components thus economy of scale to keep costs down.Missile motors in the US are limited around 92 inches maximum in diameter.
Aren't ICBM's and Trident missiles fairly large solids? I know the Shuttle solids were 12' in diameter or about 3.7m. I also know some were 10' in diameter or a little over 3m in diameter from the Titan days. I shouldn't have just said to keep the military production working. I wasn't thinking about the SLS solids having some of the same components thus economy of scale to keep costs down.Missile motors in the US are limited around 92 inches maximum in diameter.
"The company has also refurbished a 60,000-square-foot production building, including installation of automated tooling, cranes and other equipment to enable the manufacture of large-diameter composite-case rocket motors. Recently, the company completed the manufacturing of prototype motor test articles to be used in verification activities this summer."
- Ed Kyle
Aren't ICBM's and Trident missiles fairly large solids? I know the Shuttle solids were 12' in diameter or about 3.7m. I also know some were 10' in diameter or a little over 3m in diameter from the Titan days. I shouldn't have just said to keep the military production working. I wasn't thinking about the SLS solids having some of the same components thus economy of scale to keep costs down.Missile motors in the US are limited around 92 inches maximum in diameter.
But wouldn't they both come out of the same facility? Use similar techniques? Use similar raw materials? Sharing overhead and making more economical purchases can add up.