So.. In 4-5 years we might have:Delta IVAtlas Vbeginnings of Vulcan(?)Falcon 9/Hbfr/BFS (?)Antareszombie Liberty (?)Blue Origin's launch vehicle (?)There's going to have to be some consolidation here.
What makes you say that? Just to be clear, I meant coordination within the last few days not throughout the entire process. But I admit that it's a bit of a guess on my part. But I just find it hard to believe that ATK would make a huge investment without knowing if it has any potential clients for its investment. It's also a gamble for the Air Force to invest millions into a rocket if it has no potential client. In any event, I expect ATK to win a CRS2 award. From a political perspective, abandonning OrbitalATK and Wallops would be a huge blow to the company and that facility. I can't see NASA abandonning OrbitalATK for a new company unlesss their prices are completely out of whack with other companies (which seems unlikely).
The Stick is the most persistent zombie ever. Ares I is still alive. Incredible!
Quote from: J-V on 01/14/2016 09:56 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2016 09:54 amQuote from: Kryten on 01/14/2016 03:30 amMike Gruss just tweeted a statement (attached) from Rob Meyerson confirming that the Be-3U work in this contract is for the OrbATK next-gen vehicle.If Blue is supplying the engine why not the whole upper stage. OrbitalATK have shown with Antares booster they will buy stages from other companies. LOX/LH stages are not easy to develop and I doubt OA has much expertise in this area."upper stage solution" sounds like an entire stage to me. Or did I miss where they said they will provide only the engine?ATK had planned to use Antares 5 US for Liberty LV. A Blue US is likely to be considerably cheaper especially if Blue use same US themselves.http://spacenews.com/atk-pitches-liberty-rocket-commercial-crew-program/
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2016 09:54 amQuote from: Kryten on 01/14/2016 03:30 amMike Gruss just tweeted a statement (attached) from Rob Meyerson confirming that the Be-3U work in this contract is for the OrbATK next-gen vehicle.If Blue is supplying the engine why not the whole upper stage. OrbitalATK have shown with Antares booster they will buy stages from other companies. LOX/LH stages are not easy to develop and I doubt OA has much expertise in this area."upper stage solution" sounds like an entire stage to me. Or did I miss where they said they will provide only the engine?
Quote from: Kryten on 01/14/2016 03:30 amMike Gruss just tweeted a statement (attached) from Rob Meyerson confirming that the Be-3U work in this contract is for the OrbATK next-gen vehicle.If Blue is supplying the engine why not the whole upper stage. OrbitalATK have shown with Antares booster they will buy stages from other companies. LOX/LH stages are not easy to develop and I doubt OA has much expertise in this area.
Mike Gruss just tweeted a statement (attached) from Rob Meyerson confirming that the Be-3U work in this contract is for the OrbATK next-gen vehicle.
Bad ideas never go away, until they are implemented. Then the finger pointing begins.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we saw the Orbital ATK proposal for EELV engine replacement, I believe it was two solid stages. Two solid stages topped with a hydrogen upper stage likely makes more sense than a multi-segment SRB, no? They'd be able to be shipped as completed units. This approach isn't nuts, it looks similar to some of the Ariane 6 concepts, and a lot of the problems with the huge multi-segment SRB like thrust oscillations should be much easier to deal with at the smaller size AAUI. Might even be able to have a Delta II class version with only one solid stage.Moreover, looking at ULA I don't think it's unreasonable to think about scenarios where they can't fund Vulcan to completion or has trouble getting enough commercial launches to support it, in which case some solids ideas might make sense as a relatively low rate launcher.
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/14/2016 01:49 amWhat makes you say that? Just to be clear, I meant coordination within the last few days not throughout the entire process. But I admit that it's a bit of a guess on my part. But I just find it hard to believe that ATK would make a huge investment without knowing if it has any potential clients for its investment. It's also a gamble for the Air Force to invest millions into a rocket if it has no potential client. In any event, I expect ATK to win a CRS2 award. From a political perspective, abandonning OrbitalATK and Wallops would be a huge blow to the company and that facility. I can't see NASA abandonning OrbitalATK for a new company unlesss their prices are completely out of whack with other companies (which seems unlikely).Everyone on the Government's side in these major source selections is paranoid about violating the Procurement Integrity Act, which is punishable by jail.
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.
Solids are expensive, very heavy, hard to transport and store, and even if made reusable, cost about the same as a new solid rocket. The burned solid fuel is also a hazardous material. SpaceX and Blue Origin realizes it is less expensive in the long run to develop liquid fueled rockets that are reusable. Solids are great for long term storage of ICBM's and other military use. This argument went round and round during the Direct talks. Liquid fueled rockets can be shut down in case of emergency, solids cannot. You would have to go back several years ago to the threads when the talks about how to develop SLS began. The "stick" or Liberty can launch 20 tons to LEO. So can Atlas V. So can Falcon 9 FT expendable. Nasa didn't think Liberty could match the price of either of the other two.
Here is an article on this Next Generation Orbital ATK rocket:http://spacenews.com/orbital-developing-rocket-to-compete-with-spacex-ula/
Doesn't it seem...uh, backwards...to be doing trades on rocket motor sizes and stages and staging, AFTER submitting a proposal to USAF and getting an award to build and test a prototype? AFTER having presented a proposal in 2014 to redo Antares with solids, which presumably is very similar to this new design? And presumably having a wealth of experience with a previous EELV bid and Sticks and Liberty and Athena II and Taurus and Minotaurs...
Is a solid-motor-based rocket that much different from liquids, such that trading various sizes can happen later in the design process?
In theory further milestones could be pursued, but in reality it's known to be paper study money and maybe a report as a deliverable.