Author Topic: ATK's new vehicle to provide multi-access options (Read 27354 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 01/21/2008 10:53 am »

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5337

Resources attached (pressers and hi res images)

eeergo · « **Reply #1 on:** 01/21/2008 11:20 am »

Another Athena?

Well, it could certainly be a good alternative to Delta II (although I'm under the impression the ride will be a bit tougher on those solids) but let's hope it gets more flights than the other two versions have...

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #2 on:** 01/21/2008 11:35 am »

They've not named it yet, but when I was asking around (as the story was different orginally!) people referenced it as Athena III.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/21/2008 11:48 am »

So it is possible to make "new" composite shuttle casings to replace the current heritage metal ones.

How long before those end up in the Ares mix to increase Ares I performance? Wider longer burning solid that gives Ares I more delta V anyone?

Scotty · « **Reply #4 on:** 01/21/2008 12:04 pm »

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11539&start=1

Funny that a three segment SRM for Stumpy would have cost too much and taken too long to develope with Government funding.
But, ATK can whip up a two and a half segment SRM for their COTS proposal out of their own pocket and do it fast.
Something does not add up here.
So, what else is new? :bleh:

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #5 on:** 01/21/2008 12:07 pm »

Interesting. The more options the better the ultimate solution I suppose. With ATKs connections within NASA you have to think this has a strong likelihood of selection.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #6 on:** 01/21/2008 12:08 pm »

Why open your own pocket when someone else has already offered to pick up the check.

Jason Davies · « **Reply #7 on:** 01/21/2008 01:22 pm »

2.5 Segment? That's interesting.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 01/21/2008 01:22 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 21/1/2008 7:48 AM

1. So it is possible to make "new" composite shuttle casings to replace the current heritage metal ones.

2. How long before those end up in the Ares mix to increase Ares I performance? Wider longer burning solid that gives Ares I more delta V anyone?

1. Always been possible

2. Never if NASA is to continue preaching that the SRB is "safe", which depends on the past flight records. A new solid is not as safe and even more risky than a liquid booster.

Zap83 · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/21/2008 03:01 pm »

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.

clongton · « **Reply #10 on:** 01/21/2008 03:04 pm »

Quote

Zap83 - 21/1/2008 11:01 AM

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.

Sure looks like one, doesn't it.

William Barton · « **Reply #11 on:** 01/21/2008 03:13 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/1/2008 9:22 AM

Quote
kevin-rf - 21/1/2008 7:48 AM

1. So it is possible to make "new" composite shuttle casings to replace the current heritage metal ones.

2. How long before those end up in the Ares mix to increase Ares I performance? Wider longer burning solid that gives Ares I more delta V anyone?

1. Always been possible

2. Never if NASA is to continue preaching that the SRB is "safe", which depends on the past flight records. A new solid is not as safe and even more risky than a liquid booster.

Some while back I wondered if it were possible to recapture the technology of the Vandenberg Shuttle wound filament casings, so this seems equivalent to me (ragardless of how close the actual technology is). If Athena III comes to fruition, it would have a flight history by the time Ares V is in advanced development. That would develop some LOC/LOM numbers by then. I don't know how much a five-seg composite SRB would help Ares V payload, or Ares I when and if, but maybe Ares I would begin flying the "ISS Orion" with an Ares IB for the "Lunar Orion" way down the road.

Jim · « **Reply #12 on:** 01/21/2008 03:27 pm »

Most SRM's are composite case now days. The former Titan-IV SRMU was a 3 segment composite case

aero313 · « **Reply #13 on:** 01/21/2008 03:30 pm »

Considering that ATK developed and built the composite FWC cases for the shuttle, why would these not be the same designs, tooling, etc.

As for the vehicle, can you say "resonant burn"? There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post that talked about the resonant burn problems with Ares I. This vehicle will have the same problem. The Castor 120 has a 50 hz resonance. I assume the 2.5 segment first stage will have about a 30-35 hz resonance.

Interesting thing on the Lockheed OAM - it was so structurally inefficient that the Athena I had more performance WITHOUT the OAM.

clongton · « **Reply #14 on:** 01/21/2008 03:45 pm »

Chris,
ATK lifted the embargo so you could publish, but it's not up on their website yet. Any idea when that will happen?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #15 on:** 01/21/2008 04:03 pm »

No idea. I'm guessing ATK actually know what they are doing, by getting media interested in writing about it. Those that put it up on their site and then release it to media tend to find media don't bother.

Wouldn't surprise me as ATK's main PAO (George) is the best PAO in the biz if you ask me.

clongton · « **Reply #16 on:** 01/21/2008 04:11 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 21/1/2008 12:03 PM

No idea. I'm guessing ATK actually know what they are doing, by getting media interested in writing about it. Those that put it up on their site and then release it to media tend to find media don't bother.

Wouldn't surprise me as ATK's main PAO (George) is the best PAO in the biz if you ask me.

Any chance we could get him to salvage NASAs PAO office?

Antares · « **Reply #17 on:** 01/21/2008 05:27 pm »

Also, the business case is different now. The analysis of future Delta II cost and the decision not to bear that cost had not been made when the stumpy boosters were suggested. Now that there's a market gap in the payload class for a typical NASA science mission, the smart money is trying to fill it. Wishful thinking: whichever rockets end up in that niche can cut costs to the point that NASA, and new customers due to the lower price point, can support two vehicles and have a little competition for once.

tankmodeler · « **Reply #18 on:** 01/21/2008 05:39 pm »

Quote

clongton - 21/1/2008 11:04 AM

Quote
Zap83 - 21/1/2008 11:01 AM

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.
Sure looks like one, doesn't it.

If you take a look at the banner over the vehicle, the third entity up there, BMO, is the Canandian "Bank of Montreal". So, RpK had a huge stake from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (Canadian provincial teacher's union plan). P-Space has a Canadian Bank providing obviously some significant portion of its funding. Canadian banks & institutional investors are well known to be amongst the most conservative out there.

Interesting...

Paul

clongton · « **Reply #19 on:** 01/21/2008 05:44 pm »

Quote

tankmodeler - 21/1/2008 1:39 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008 11:04 AM

Quote
Zap83 - 21/1/2008 11:01 AM

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.
Sure looks like one, doesn't it.
If you take a look at the banner over the vehicle, the third entity up there, BMO, is the Canandian "Bank of Montreal". So, RpK had a huge stake from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (Canadian provincial teacher's union plan). P-Space has a Canadian Bank providing obviously some significant portion of its funding. Canadian banks & institutional investors are well known to be amongst the most conservative out there.

Interesting...

Paul

RpK had significant Canadian funding available to them but the COTS rules disallowed it, mandating "domestic funding only". Is there any such restrictions on the COTS Rebid?

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #20 on:** 01/21/2008 06:53 pm »

Could they make a 5-and-a-half segment Ares 1?

:laugh:

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #21 on:** 01/21/2008 07:06 pm »

Do you think that it could lift Space X Dragon to the ISS or to a Bigalow habitat?

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #22 on:** 01/21/2008 07:20 pm »

COTS 1.5

4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or

clongton · « **Reply #23 on:** 01/21/2008 07:24 pm »

Quote

HIP2BSQRE - 21/1/2008 3:20 PM

COTS 1.5

4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or

Looks like Canadian money is out again. That's kinda sad, and typical of the shortsightedness of the people who are running the country and it's agencies.

marsavian · « **Reply #24 on:** 01/21/2008 07:32 pm »

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080121/NEWS02/801210324

Jeff Lerner · « **Reply #25 on:** 01/21/2008 07:40 pm »

"....Canadian state ......"

??

The heck you say.....

Smoothie · « **Reply #26 on:** 01/21/2008 07:48 pm »

Quote

clongton - 21/1/2008 1:44 AM

Quote
tankmodeler - 21/1/2008 1:39 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008 11:04 AM

Quote
Zap83 - 21/1/2008 11:01 AM

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.
Sure looks like one, doesn't it.
If you take a look at the banner over the vehicle, the third entity up there, BMO, is the Canandian "Bank of Montreal". So, RpK had a huge stake from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (Canadian provincial teacher's union plan). P-Space has a Canadian Bank providing obviously some significant portion of its funding. Canadian banks & institutional investors are well known to be amongst the most conservative out there.

Interesting...

Paul
RpK had significant Canadian funding available to them but the COTS rules disallowed it, mandating "domestic funding only". Is there any such restrictions on the COTS Rebid?

From what I understand this would have made Rpk a majority Canadian owned company therefore disqualifying them from COTS. Planetspace is still a Majority US owned company and the majority of investment will come frm US sources. Even US investment banks owned by BMO. This way they will not have the Rpk problem.

SpacemanSpiff · « **Reply #27 on:** 01/21/2008 08:27 pm »

We used to turn out low fidelity mock-ups like that in a week or two at the commercial aero company I worked at. Doesn't amount to too much...that certainly is just shell (I zoomed in on it...).

edkyle99 · « **Reply #28 on:** 01/21/2008 08:58 pm »

For what it's worth, I've been trying to model this ATK COTS Demo Booster (or Athena III, or whatever it might be called) and I'm having trouble coming up with 6 tonnes to an ISS inclined low earth orbit. I get 6 tonnes to a 28.5 degree LEO from the Cape, but only 5.1-ish tonnes to a 51.6 degree orbit.

Part of the problem is guessing the properties of the new "Castor 30" motor. My first guess was to divide all of the Castor 120 masses by four, which makes sense from a naming perspective but only gives me 5.7 tonnes to a 28 deg LEO. A 35% scaled Castor 120 provides the 6 tonne result.

I may have guessed low on the removal of SRB recovery hardware. Each SRB has 3.511 tonnes of parachutes, so I guessed that the ATK COTS booster would be relieved of at least 4 tonnes dry mass compared to an STS launch vehicle.

Here are my assumed masses.

Stage 1 Total: 366 tonnes
Stage 1 Propellant: 311.79 tonnes
Stage 1 Avg ISP: 259.4 sec
Stage 2 Total: 53 tonnes
Stage 2 Propellant: 48.95 tonnes
Stage 2 ISP: 286 sec
Stage 3 Total: 18.55 tonnes
Stage 3 Propellant: 17.13 tonnes
Stage 3 ISP: 293 sec
Stage 4 Total: 0.714 tonnes
Stage 4 Propellant: 0.36 tonnes
Stage 4 ISP: 222 sec

- Ed Kyle

Zap83 · « **Reply #29 on:** 01/21/2008 09:19 pm »

Sorry Spiff, I didn't mean to imply that was the actual spacecraft but rather the configuration that they are proposing. Short, capsule like, biconic on the wake side, etc...I just hadn't seen anything to date.

Lampyridae · « **Reply #30 on:** 01/21/2008 11:30 pm »

Interesting to see how they would launch a manned COTS II capsule on a 2.5 seg SRB. Would this not result in the same thrust oscillation issues? Wouldn't this wind up being an Ares 1/2?

ryan mccabe · « **Reply #31 on:** 01/21/2008 11:31 pm »

Quote

Jason Davies - 21/1/2008 8:22 AM

2.5 Segment? That's interesting.

The SRB segments consist of two smaller segments that are joined at the factory, hence factory joint. Those pre-joined segments are then shipped to KSC where they are mated to form the lovable 4-segment booster.

So I assume we're just talking about 2 normal segments and one additional segment without it's factory counterpart?

aero313 · « **Reply #32 on:** 01/22/2008 01:12 am »

Quote

Lampyridae - 21/1/2008 7:30 PM

Interesting to see how they would launch a manned COTS II capsule on a 2.5 seg SRB. Would this not result in the same thrust oscillation issues? Wouldn't this wind up being an Ares 1/2?

From Post #233517:

Quote

aero313 - 21/1/2008 11:30 AM

As for the vehicle, can you say "resonant burn"? There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post that talked about the resonant burn problems with Ares I. This vehicle will have the same problem. The Castor 120 has a 50 hz resonance. I assume the 2.5 segment first stage will have about a 30-35 hz resonance.

Smoothie · « **Reply #33 on:** 01/22/2008 01:49 am »

Quote

aero313 - 21/1/2008 9:12 AM

Quote
Lampyridae - 21/1/2008 7:30 PM

Interesting to see how they would launch a manned COTS II capsule on a 2.5 seg SRB. Would this not result in the same thrust oscillation issues? Wouldn't this wind up being an Ares 1/2?

From Post #233517:

Quote
aero313 - 21/1/2008 11:30 AM

As for the vehicle, can you say "resonant burn"? There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post that talked about the resonant burn problems with Ares I. This vehicle will have the same problem. The Castor 120 has a 50 hz resonance. I assume the 2.5 segment first stage will have about a 30-35 hz resonance.

Yeah, And so did the Redstone and the Atlas and the Saturn-V.... They will solve it like they always do.

Jim · « **Reply #34 on:** 01/22/2008 03:27 am »

Quote

Smoothie - 21/1/2008 9:49 PM

Yeah, And so did the Redstone and the Atlas and the Saturn-V.... They will solve it like they always do.

incorrect. It was on Titan II and Saturn V. Those were liquid systems, not the same problem as for solids.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #35 on:** 01/22/2008 08:52 pm »

Chris, two questions.

1. Do you know if the reported payload mass figures for the GTO, TLI, and Mars Sciences missions assume a composite case first stage? (My guess is that they do.)

2. I see that ATK provided low and high numbers for the LEO payloads, which I assume are for the standard steel case and proposed composite case first stages. Do you know the orbital parameters for these payload masses, specifically inclination?

Thanks!

- Ed Kyle

mike robel · « **Reply #36 on:** 01/22/2008 10:39 pm »

I would imagine that ATK will not be able to use current shuttle SRBs segments for this booster, so they must be intending to manufacture new casings? Ostensibly, these will be expendible?

Antares · « **Reply #37 on:** 01/23/2008 06:14 am »

Quote

clongton - 21/1/2008 2:24 PM
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 21/1/2008 3:20 PM
COTS 1.5

4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or
Looks like Canadian money is out again. That's kinda sad, and typical of the shortsightedness of the people who are running the country and it's agencies.

Sigh. These restrictions come from the Commercial Space Acts and Commercial Space Launch Acts, variously passed and amended over the last 20 years. COTS is just obeying the laws passed by Congress, generally a good idea. Forgive me if that was known, but such awareness was not apparent in the words posted.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #38 on:** 01/23/2008 07:52 am »

Quote

edkyle99 - 22/1/2008 9:52 PM

Chris, two questions.

1. Do you know if the reported payload mass figures for the GTO, TLI, and Mars Sciences missions assume a composite case first stage? (My guess is that they do.)

2. I see that ATK provided low and high numbers for the LEO payloads, which I assume are for the standard steel case and proposed composite case first stages. Do you know the orbital parameters for these payload masses, specifically inclination?

Thanks!

- Ed Kyle

I'll send an e-mail off to ATK today and report back.

Smoothie · « **Reply #39 on:** 01/23/2008 12:18 pm »

Quote

Antares - 22/1/2008 2:14 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008 2:24 PM
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 21/1/2008 3:20 PM
COTS 1.5

4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or
Looks like Canadian money is out again. That's kinda sad, and typical of the shortsightedness of the people who are running the country and it's agencies.
Sigh. These restrictions come from the Commercial Space Acts and Commercial Space Launch Acts, variously passed and amended over the last 20 years. COTS is just obeying the laws passed by Congress, generally a good idea. Forgive me if that was known, but such awareness was not apparent in the words posted.

You guys have it all wrong.... A company must be more then 50 percent owned by US Nationals in order to participate in COTS. It says nothing about funding in that statement whatsoever.

danielc56 · « **Reply #40 on:** 01/24/2008 04:38 pm »

Quote

Zap83 - 21/1/2008 10:01 AM

In the high-bay picture, there is a short, squatty spacecraft down at the far end. I'm thinking this is PSpace's vehicle.

That mock-up looks very similar to the manned spacecraft concept studied by Bigelow & Lockheed Martin.

danielc56

libs0n · « **Reply #41 on:** 01/24/2008 05:55 pm »

Quote

Smoothie - 23/1/2008 8:18 AM

Quote
Antares - 22/1/2008 2:14 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/1/2008 2:24 PM
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 21/1/2008 3:20 PM
COTS 1.5

4.2 Eligible Participants
The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or
Looks like Canadian money is out again. That's kinda sad, and typical of the shortsightedness of the people who are running the country and it's agencies.
Sigh. These restrictions come from the Commercial Space Acts and Commercial Space Launch Acts, variously passed and amended over the last 20 years. COTS is just obeying the laws passed by Congress, generally a good idea. Forgive me if that was known, but such awareness was not apparent in the words posted.

You guys have it all wrong.... A company must be more then 50 percent owned by US Nationals in order to participate in COTS. It says nothing about funding in that statement whatsoever.

I wonder if NAFTA could have some relevance here; how, or if, it relates to Canadians being excluded from competition. i.e. whether this violates a part of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

TrueGrit · « **Reply #42 on:** 01/24/2008 06:10 pm »

Canada just demanded that Boeing and Lockheed make an equivelent investment in Canada for their current multi-billion C-17 & C-130 buys... I'd think the aircraft workers in SoCal, Georgia, Fort Worth, St Louis, etc would love it if this type of "jobs program" strings didn't exist. Complaints like this go both ways.

libs0n · « **Reply #43 on:** 01/24/2008 06:32 pm »

Yea, but in that case an American company wasn't excluded from competition. In this case, I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of developmental activities derived from Canadian funding or participation will be pursued in America. I'm just curious as to whether the letter of the law may be against the law itself, as perhaps due to NAFTA Canadians may have to be treated differently than other non-US nationals.

HMXHMX · « **Reply #44 on:** 01/24/2008 06:56 pm »

"That mock-up looks very similar to the manned spacecraft concept studied by Bigelow & Lockheed Martin."

That's because it is the very same mockup that used to be at LM Denver until a few weeks ago.

meiza · « **Reply #45 on:** 01/24/2008 07:28 pm »

Quote

HMXHMX - 24/1/2008 7:56 PM

"That mock-up looks very similar to the manned spacecraft concept studied by Bigelow & Lockheed Martin."

That's because it is the very same mockup that used to be at LM Denver until a few weeks ago.

And now at ATK.

TrueGrit · « **Reply #46 on:** 01/24/2008 09:28 pm »

Doesn't matter if it's violation of the law if no one fights against it... And to tell the truth every country out there demands these type of nationalistic priorities on governmental contracts. And considering all the flak over ATK and MDA I don't think nationalistic priorities are missing north of the border. And don't tell me it's about the land mine treaty... Most of the outcry is based on a Canadian company gettting eaten by a US company. Any Canadian company can come in and bid on COTS... They only need to come in wiht an equal American partner. It is just like the equal investment demands... A way to assure public money stays within as much as possible with the people who paid those taxes. And for note: US companies are forced to the same when they bid on government contracts in Japan, who US has a free trade agreement with.

clongton · « **Reply #47 on:** 01/24/2008 09:38 pm »

Quote

TrueGrit - 24/1/2008 5:28 PM

Doesn't matter if it's violation of the law if no one fights against it... And to tell the truth every country out there demands these type of nationalistic priorities on governmental contracts. And considering all the flak over ATK and MDA I don't think nationalistic priorities are missing north of the border. And don't tell me it's about the land mine treaty... Most of the outcry is based on a Canadian company gettting eaten by a US company. Any Canadian company can come in and bid on COTS... They only need to come in wiht an equal American partner. It is just like the equal investment demands... A way to assure public money stays within as much as possible with the people who paid those taxes. And for note: US companies are forced to the same when they bid on government contracts in Japan, who US has a free trade agreement with.

It needs to be 51% US holding to qualify for COTS. Doesn't matter where the other 49% comes from, with a few notable exceptions I would imagine.

Sid454 · « **Reply #48 on:** 01/25/2008 01:07 am »

I don't think this would be idea for crew launch an all solid vehicle would just be too rough a ride also a much larger reentry vehicle or a three module vehicle like soyuz would have to be used.
But if it can be done cheaply and if they can integrate a vehicle quickly it might be good for a fast response cargo launch vehicle that could launch days from when the order was given.
One big issue is can ATK/planetspace beat progress's ,H2's and the ATV's in cost per Kg to orbit though they might be able to do quicker response then any of them.

Any crew transport in this deal will likely be from some hybrid of ATK's and planet space's concepts maybe a nova core booster combined with two three segment RSRMs and the silverdart as a big liquid stage does a good job of damping the vibrations from large SRBs.

I seen the LM capsule but with the service module which I didn't see it might be too heavy for the vehicle shown also wither or not it also needs an orbital module depends on how quick the ISS rendezvous is if they can do a three orbit catchups like apollo did with skylab then the vehicle shown would do the job no OM needed.

But if you are going to perform two day ISS transfers then you might want to give the crew a little more room and some sort of bathroom facilities likely derived from Soyuz first I'd ask people who flew on Soyuz for suggested improvements.

The dart wouldn't be much heavier then the LM vehicle plus an OM but would be able to offer much more flexibility esp in landing opportunities .

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #49 on:** 01/27/2008 06:05 pm »

If you were building the LM capsule would you build it to perform a two day ISS transfer or 3 orbit catch up? How would this affect LM if they also want to use it for a Bigalow station? I think myself I would build it for a orbit catch up--less complex and hopefully less cost.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #50 on:** 02/04/2008 04:33 am »

Quote

edkyle99 - 21/1/2008 3:58 PM

For what it's worth, I've been trying to model this ATK COTS Demo Booster (or Athena III, or whatever it might be called) and I'm having trouble coming up with 6 tonnes to an ISS inclined low earth orbit. I get 6 tonnes to a 28.5 degree LEO from the Cape, but only 5.1-ish tonnes to a 51.6 degree orbit.

After looking at this in more detail using an ascent model, I'm now seeing nearly 6,000 kg to a 185 km x 51.6 degree orbit from Cape Canaveral for the "starter version" of "Athena III" (the one that uses steel rather than composite SRB-type motor casings). The high thrust to weight ratio of this launch vehicle appears to make the difference since it results in fairly low gravity losses. The same launch vehicle should be able to boost more than 6,300 kg to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit from the Cape.

This compares with my best guesstimate 5,000-5,200 kg to 185 km x 51.6 deg orbit for Taurus II and roughly 9,500 kg for Falcon 9.

- Ed Kyle

edkyle99 · « **Reply #51 on:** 02/04/2008 05:07 am »

BTW, my launch weight guesses for the three interesting COTS launch vehicles are: 255 tonnes for Taurus II, 336 tonnes for Falcon 9, and 440 tonnes for Athena III. Liftoff weight to 185 x 51.6 deg payload weight ratios are 50, 35, and 73, respectively.

It is hard to remember a more interesting launch vehicle competition in U.S. history. Here are three different approaches to the problem that not only produce three differing technological solutions but also three different payload capability solutions. We have all solid versus all liquid versus a solid/liquid combination. We have monster solid booster versus twin engine liquid versus mega-cluster liquid. We have two stage versus three stage versus four stage. And so on.

The EELV compete was nearly as interesting, but lacked the immediate drama of the current race. The CELV competition wasn't nearly as fascinating, mainly because what became Titan 4 was all but a foregone conclusion.

- Ed Kyle

antonioe · « **Reply #52 on:** 02/04/2008 09:25 am »

Quote

edkyle99 - 3/2/2008 12:07 AM my launch weight guesses for the three interesting COTS launch vehicles are: 255 tonnes for Taurus II, 336 tonnes for Falcon 9, and 440 tonnes for Athena III. Liftoff weight to 185 x 51.6 deg payload weight ratios are 50, 35, and 73, respectively.

Very interesting analysis... how do these three payload weight ratios compare with historic LV´s in this class?

Quote

It is hard to remember a more interesting launch vehicle competition in U.S. history... The EELV compete was nearly as interesting, but lacked the immediate drama of the current race.

I´m already working the movie rights for my script. I want Tom Hanks playing DWT, Brad Pitt playing Elon Musk, and Anthony Hopkins as Dan Murphy...

aero313 · « **Reply #53 on:** 02/04/2008 02:26 pm »

Quote

antonioe - 4/2/2008 5:25 AM

I´m already working the movie rights for my script. I want Tom Hanks playing DWT, Brad Pitt playing Elon Musk, and Anthony Hopkins as Dan Murphy...

Funny you should mention this (and to get wildly off topic). I had always thought that the "Making of Pegasus" movie should have had Ron Howard (when he had hair) as Dave and Tom Bosley as Ed Nicastri... :laugh:

edkyle99 · « **Reply #54 on:** 02/04/2008 03:52 pm »

Quote

antonioe - 4/2/2008 4:25 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 3/2/2008 12:07 AM my launch weight guesses for the three interesting COTS launch vehicles are: 255 tonnes for Taurus II, 336 tonnes for Falcon 9, and 440 tonnes for Athena III. Liftoff weight to 185 x 51.6 deg payload weight ratios are 50, 35, and 73, respectively.
Very interesting analysis... how do these three payload weight ratios compare with historic LV´s in this class?

Taurus II's payload ratio is comparable to Delta II, another liquid/solid mix. Falcon 9 approaches, but doesn't quite reach, the Atlas IIA/III realm, consistent with an all-liquid launch vehicle. There really isn't a good comparison for all-solid "Athena III". Lockheed's old Athena II, a much smaller vehicle (1/4th the liftoff mass) that used composite motor cases, would have had a similar gross launch weight to payload ratio, but a smaller dry mass to payload ratio.

The gross weight comparison is striking. Athena III is going to weigh 440 tonnes by my figuring (nearly 1 million pounds) at liftoff - more than either base EELV model and nearly as much as a Zenit 2, a rocket that hauls more than two times as much payload. Athena III's dry mass would be about three times that of Taurus II and roughly 2.8 times more than Falcon 9, but it would only carry 1.18 times more payload than Taurus II and 1.5-ish times LESS payload than Falcon 9.

This may or may not provide a clue about the solid versus liquid cost question. Presumably, Athena III cannot cost more than 1.17 times as much as Taurus II despite weighing more than 1.7 times as much at liftoff and 3 times as much dry. The Falcon 9 comparison is another thing altogether.

- Ed Kyle

antonioe · « **Reply #55 on:** 02/04/2008 03:54 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 4/2/2008 9:26 AM I had always thought that the "Making of Pegasus" movie should have had Ron Howard (when he had hair) as Dave and Tom Bosley as Ed Nicastri... :laugh:

Now that you mentioned it, Dave DID look A LOT like Ron Howard did... and he still SOUNDS like Ron Howard!!!

Let me call my agent, quickly!

kevin-rf · « **Reply #56 on:** 02/04/2008 04:54 pm »

Quote

antonioe - 4/2/2008 11:54 AM

Quote
aero313 - 4/2/2008 9:26 AM I had always thought that the "Making of Pegasus" movie should have had Ron Howard (when he had hair) as Dave and Tom Bosley as Ed Nicastri... :laugh:
Now that you mentioned it, Dave DID look A LOT like Ron Howard did... and he still SOUNDS like Ron Howard!!!
Let me call my agent, quickly!

Okay, since Slim Pickens is in the great beyond, who are you going to get imitate Icarus and ride the Pegasus?

Will this a Kubrick production?

antonioe · « **Reply #57 on:** 02/04/2008 08:02 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 4/2/2008 11:54 AM Will this a Kubrick production?

Yes, and the closing song will be "M-I-C K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E"...

antonioe · « **Reply #58 on:** 02/04/2008 09:03 pm »

<p>Left to right: DWT in early 1988, visiting the Hercules facilities in Magna, Utah; Ron Howard and Henry Winkler at the peak of the Happy Days happy days (circa 1980.)</p><p>Notice part of the black Pegasus model in the background (before we analyzed the surface temperature a black Pegasus would reach under a typical Mojave Desert noon sun.) Dave started Orbital in 1982, six years before that picture was taken. He looked younger in 1982.

publiusr · « **Reply #59 on:** 03/07/2008 06:01 pm »

I'd like to see some artists conceptions comparing Athena III, Taurus II, and Andrews Hercules if that is possible.

James Lowe1 · « **Reply #60 on:** 03/08/2008 05:34 pm »

This is about ATK's vehicle and it's not Constellation related, so let's keep it on topic. Thread deleted back.

marsavian · « **Reply #61 on:** 03/08/2008 05:39 pm »

Will ATK even bother with this design considering they have the upper stage of Taurus II and that's now being built ? I suspect not.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #62 on:** 03/08/2008 11:36 pm »

Quote

marsavian - 8/3/2008 12:39 PM

Will ATK even bother with this design considering they have the upper stage of Taurus II and that's now being built ? I suspect not.

In January, ATK said that the top three stages (Castor 120/Castor 30/OAM) of its COTS demo booster could fly as a small launch vehicle - something fairly similar to Lockheed's Athena I. It said that it already had signed three customers for the smaller booster. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen, since ATK needs to sell Castor 120 motors.

It also seems likely that an SRB-derived booster could appear in future COTS-type proposals. It makes sense to try to find ways to leverage the existing SRB production line for other purposes.

- Ed Kyle

Antares · « **Reply #63 on:** 03/08/2008 11:40 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 8/3/2008 6:36 PM
It also seems likely that an SRB-derived booster could appear in future COTS-type proposals. It makes sense to try to find ways to leverage the existing SRB production line for other purposes.

There is significant pressure from NASA HQ to increase its ROI on keeping the STS SRB line open. ATK has to at least propose it whenever possible. Else MG will not be pleased.