Those clearly are the three composite segments that ATK was touting for the Advanced Boosters.
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.
And if I'm seeing things correctly, there are two for a first stage and one for a second stage.
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.
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, 2013 and a presentation 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: baldusi on 03/03/2016 10:41 pmEd, 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. Still have to maintain the LOX/LH US.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/03/2016 10:50 pmQuote from: baldusi on 03/03/2016 10:41 pmEd, 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 KyleYes, 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.