ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[alexw]

Name one payload that Atlas V Heavy could not lift that Delta IV Heavy can.

Its GTO performance is 1.8 tonnes lower.

     Do you have a new payload planner's guide updated for RS-68A? Otherwise, they look to be within a couple of hundred kg.
             -Alex

[Downix]

Name one payload that Atlas V Heavy could not lift that Delta IV Heavy can.

Its GTO performance is 1.8 tonnes lower.

     Do you have a new payload planner's guide updated for RS-68A? Otherwise, they look to be within a couple of hundred kg.
             -Alex

No, but always be careeful of wwhich GTO orbit you mean. I ran both through Schillings, to identical orbits, ratheer than book orbits.

[Xplor]

A Vandenberg pad would be needed, unless Liberty is only going to try to capture GTO/GEO missions.... As for the needed third stage, there's ESC-A (and maybe ESC-B in the future).

National security folks are only using D-HLV's for LEO (Vandenberg) and GSO missions (not GTO) at fewer than one per year.  Giving up the LEO looses half the market.  As far as I'm aware the ESC-A can not perform 3 burn GSO missions so there goes the GSO market.

So, on cost, Delta IV Heavy shares infrastructure only with Delta IV Medium, and together they've only flown about three times per year.  Liberty would share with SLS and Ariane 5, and, unlike Delta IV Heavy, it would share among manned and unmanned missions.  That means up to a dozen total flights per year for all of that shared infrastructure. 

Interesting, last I heard the D-HLV was substantially common with the D-M and D-M+ with between 15 and 20 flights.  Even if you are counting Ariane 5's six launches each year in your dozen flights I believe that you are being a bit optimistic.  NASA currently isn't even planning a single Orion/SLS flight per year.  And additional SLS cargo flights don't start until the mid 2020's.  Even then, how much commonality will Liberty share with Ariane V and SLS, pieces but certainly not anything approaching the stack.

Personally I encourage ATK to invest their own money in Liberty.  They are very likely to learn how to make $1m in the rocket busines (start with $1B).

[TrueBlueWitt]

You assume, you guess, and there is nothing to back it up.  Using the figures in Schillings, I get 8.7 tonnes to the same GTO orbit for Liberty with MRS, Minimal Residue Shutdown, running the tank dry without any disruption or flight anomaly, the absolute maximum performance. 

ATK/EADS project 8.85 tonnes to GTO in their presentation.  They know more about their vehicle than anyone else.

Not relevant.  I am using the same estimation tool for both vehicles, ergo, the same root calculations would apply for both.  When you compare two cars, you make sure they are running on the same track and configuration before you declare which one is faster than the other.  The use of Schillings is just a way to do that.

You are convinced of a lot of things, does not make them accurate.  Atlas V HLV has a very different payload profile over the Delta IV Heavy, and would not be a suitable replacement to the D4H for the main crop of payloads it is currently lofting.

Name one payload that Atlas V Heavy could not lift that Delta IV Heavy can.

 - Ed Kyle

Its GTO performance is 1.8 tonnes lower.

Would it be possible to fly a DIVH US on an AVH?  Wouldn't the performance to GTO then easily exceed that of the DIVH? 

[ugordan]

Would it be possible to fly a DIVH US on an AVH?

Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it. In this world, ain't gonna happen. Delta and Atlas have different avionics and fault tolerance.

A common upper stage one day, maybe.

[Robotbeat]

Would it be possible to fly a DIVH US on an AVH?

Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it. In this world, ain't gonna happen. Delta and Atlas have different avionics and fault tolerance.
...

*looks at thread title*...
I'm definitely not disagreeing with you... But this is true for the Ares-1/SLS-booster and Ariane 5 mashup we call Liberty even more. At least with Delta and Atlas, the engineers speak the same language!!!

[Downix]

ATK/EADS project 8.85 tonnes to GTO in their presentation.  They know more about their vehicle than anyone else.

Not relevant. 

You can't know more than ATK/EADS knows about their own vehicle.  They haven't announced details about the third stage, nor do we know second stage propellant loadings or mass ratios,etc.

Quite correct, and neither do you.  This means your claims are also not relevant to the point.  I am pointing out that this is unknown, a lot of unknowns, including burn profiles, target orbit, etc.  You keep saying I am wrong, but have nothing to back it up.  I am using what little is known, and using the existing Ariane 5 and 5-seg SRM information, getting similar numbers to theirs, and you still say I am wrong.

Name one payload that Atlas V Heavy could not lift that Delta IV Heavy can.

Its GTO performance is 1.8 tonnes lower.

The current payload user's guides and product cards show nothing like that - they show similar performance (D4H 12.98 tonnes GTO, A5H 13 tonnes GTO) and don't take into account the planned rebuilding of RL10B-2 for Centaur use, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, the users guide does not show any GTO performance curves, only gives a single line statement, a rough estimate figure.  When you go down to the actual data chart, there is nothing there, telling you the GTO burn profile, what fuel margin is, etc.  So, using the users guide in this case is not a good basis for comparison.  You must compare those charts.  I went through the work to calculate out mission burn and profile, but it does not belong in a thread about the ATK Liberty but to say that the Liberty meets a specific mission profile, and does it in a cost effective manner if they hit the price point discussed.  I would not classify it as a knock it out of the ballpark, but a solid step forward.

[Xplor]

Interesting, last I heard the D-HLV was substantially common with the D-M and D-M+ with between 15 and 20 flights. 

But only an average of three per year total for Delta IV.  It has been sadly underused.

 - Ed Kyle

Since 2001 I think the launch rate was less than twice a year.  That Boeing/ULA have managed to launch it successfully at this dismal rate is impressive.  But little wonder that the costs have risen.  I wish ATK the best in trying to enter Liberty into such a depressed launch market.

[woods170]

As far as I'm aware the ESC-A can not perform 3 burn GSO missions so there goes the GSO market.

Yes.  A restartable upper stage would be necessary, which strongly implies ESC-B.  ESC-B is the next expected upgrade step for Ariane 5.

On the current status of ESC-B:
ESC-B is powered by the Vinci engine. Snecma, manufacturer of Vinci expects Vinci to enter service in late 2016, early 2017. ESC-B will obviously not fly before that.

[Ben the Space Brit]

You can't know more than ATK/EADS knows about their own vehicle.

Quite correct, and neither do you.  This means your claims are also not relevant to the point. 

I am using the ATK/EADS numbers.  You are not.  How can your numbers be more accurate than those provided by the rocket developers?

One word: Marketing

[kevin-rf]

At least with Delta and Atlas, the engineers speak the same language!!!

Are you having visions and flashbacks to the incompatible CAD systems used by the French and Germans when developing the a380? What's a wiring harness between business partners.

[pippin]

I don't think language will be an issue in this business, after all EADS engineers are used to work internationally.

Now measurement units, that's a totally different issue....

[dks13827]

Hey some of us like one-liners.

Sorry for you.

[dks13827]

Re:  TO
Nasa already said the 1-X test did not show much of an issue on that flight.
ATK already said the Liberty 2nd stage frequency would not add to any TO potential.

[Jim]

Re:  TO
Nasa already said the 1-X test did not show much of an issue on that flight.
ATK already said the Liberty 2nd stage frequency would not add to any TO potential.

1-X test was irrelevant wrt to TO on a 5 segment SRM. 
ATK says is marketing spin and not to be believed much like their website, simple, safe, soon.

[aquanaut99]

Liberty is merely a zombie Ares-I that has returned from the grave. Just goes to show how desperate ATK must be to engage in this kind of "necromancy"...

Liberty has all the issues and problems that plagued Ares-I, and a host of new ones too. Including but not limited to:

- New upper stage engine that wasn't designed to be air-started and nobody (not even EADS) knows if it is even possible.
- Metric vs imperial units... This has doomed us before...
- Europe is on the verge of disintegration anyway. And nobody knows if Arianespace and EADS can survive Europe's impending implosion. Hardly what I would call a reliable partner.

[arkaska]

- Europe is on the verge of disintegration anyway. And nobody knows if Arianespace and EADS can survive Europe's impending implosion. Hardly what I would call a reliable partner.

And the US with their budget-crisis are more reliable!? Maybe you should look in your own backyard before saying that europe is in trouble..

[Downix]

You can't know more than ATK/EADS knows about their own vehicle.

Quite correct, and neither do you.  This means your claims are also not relevant to the point. 

I am using the ATK/EADS numbers.  You are not.  How can your numbers be more accurate than those provided by the rocket developers?

 - Ed Kyle

Now I know you're making things up, because there are no ATK/EADS numbers to use.  You are using a marketing figure from a slideshow which has nothing to back it up.  I've already displayed how the Atlas V can beat the posted GTO performance without going to HLV, using actual Atlas V numbers, with nothing to counter it because there are no actual numbers to counter it with.  Without the hard details on glow, dry weight, impulse, if the upper stage engine can be restarted, etc, the provided numbers from ATK/EADS are meaningless because you cannot even tell us what they mean by GTO.  I can give you thousands of GTO numbers for Atlas and Delta, all equally valid, because GTO is a kind of orbit, not a specific orbit.  You need those numbers before you can even make a claim, because otherwise it is just marketing hype. 

I want Liberty to succeed, but these claims about performance without the numbers to back it up only hurts its potential, because it creates hype.  A hyped up product which fails to deliver will suffer as a result, and in this business failing to deliver is far more common than delivering within spec the first time out.

[baldusi]

Let me add that even they can't really know the actual numbers. This is more like the hoped for performance. The US engine is not fully developed. The thrust transfer structure is not developed for the US. The solution to air start it is sort of identified but it's not actually developed, thus, it's weight is an unknown. The first stage might be pretty well developed and kind of set in stone. So, if the US, or some of the additional hardware yet to be developed exceed its margin designs, the overall performance will be less than the target.
Does anyone remember any rocket design with a huge and mostly developed solid first stage, and significant unknowns on the US that failed to meet it's target performance. There might be a history lesson if anyone can find one.

[pippin]

- Europe is on the verge of disintegration anyway. And nobody knows if Arianespace and EADS can survive Europe's impending implosion. Hardly what I would call a reliable partner.

Europe is in the process of  fixing some of its more severe issues. Unlike certain other countries.

Don't fear for Europe, it's probably the most reliable partner you'll find around, at least there is no 170 degree change of direction with every new congress.

And: this is not a "European" proposal. This is a proposal by one of the three biggest and most successful aerospace companies in the world, one that even HAS a profitable space business.
That said: for the life of me I don't understand why EADS is participating in this, that's probably politics.