ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[baldusi]

That said: for the life of me I don't understand why EADS is participating in this, that's probably politics.

If someone comes and ask you if you would sell him a very expensive piece of hardware, would you say no? The true question here is how much money is EADS Astrium putting out of their own pocket. The total number of people working on this, even including the SSA NASA personnel, was something like 40. Which doesn't sounds like they are in "full steam ahead" mode to me.

[Downix]

Now I know you're making things up,

I'm not "making things up".  I'm comparing one manufacturer's claim to another.  That is a valid comparison.

No, it isn't.  You're comparing one manufacturers marketing material to another manufacturers performance charts.  That's not a valid comparison by any measure.

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. 

It is up to ATK and EADS to back up their claims.  The fact that they already have working hardware prompts me to think they're not just blowing smoke.  Between them, ATK and EADS have built motors or stages for more than twice as many rockets as have the EELV manufacturers during the past decade or so.

 - Ed Kyle

You're the one making claims, however.  ATK and EADS are not here claiming they can outperform Atlas V, you are.  They put a number in their marketing material, without any clarifying detail, and left it at that.  You, right here, have taken that number, again without the clarifications needed in order to make an actual claim, and keep pushing that it will outperform.  Not that it could, but that it does, something neither ATK nor EADS are doing.

[Downix]

ATK and EADS are not here claiming they can outperform Atlas V, you are. 

ATK/EADS state 8.85 tonnes to GTO.  ULA states 8.7 tonnes to GTO for Atlas V.  There has long been a convention for a "standard" GTO from Cape Canaveral.  It is one that leaves a payload about 1,800 m/s short of a geostationary orbit - a minimal plane change from the Cape's latitude.  ATK/EADS almost certainly projected a number for that orbit.  If they didn't, if they gave it for the standard Ariane 5 GTO (about 1,500 m/s short of GEO), then Liberty beats Atlas V even more, since Atlas 551 can only lift 6.7 tonnes to the latter orbit.

This discussion was about what EELV payloads Liberty would attempt to capture.  It appears sized to compete for a payload range that exceeds existing Atlas V models, and that extends into the Delta IV Heavy range.  Liberty is not an EELV Medium class launcher.  It is a Heavy class launcher.  That is my point.  Let's please stop talking about the leaves and get back to the forest.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, ULA lists a *range* of performance curves to GTO.  Here, I'll post them. and you will see plain as day that the Atlas V can hit 14,988 kg to GTO, crushing the Liberty's posted figures!  And by the same chart, the Atlas V can hit 7,410 kg to GTO, and is crushed by Liberty.  Which tells us that saying "it can lift xyz kg to GTO" is meaningless unless you have the same definition of GTO.  These figures also do not account for MRS or IFR which can adjust this even further.

Until similar figures are available to Liberty, such claims of comparison in performance is mearningless.

[ugordan]

Ed, ULA lists a *range* of performance curves to GTO.  Here, I'll post them. and you will see plain as day that the Atlas V can hit 14,988 kg to GTO, crushing the Liberty's posted figures!

That's not what the table says. It says 551 can lift 15 tonnes to a 5000 km apogee trajectory. That's not a GTO transfer. There's only one figure in there that corresponds to an actual GTO transfer, it's 8.9 tonnes and the notes specify it's a transfer 1800 m/s short of GEO.

[pippin]

That said: for the life of me I don't understand why EADS is participating in this, that's probably politics.

If someone comes and ask you if you would sell him a very expensive piece of hardware, would you say no? The true question here is how much money is EADS Astrium putting out of their own pocket. The total number of people working on this, even including the SSA NASA personnel, was something like 40. Which doesn't sounds like they are in "full steam ahead" mode to me.

Makes sense, as long as they can spare the people for the time. Actually I _have_ said no to people asking to buy very expensive pieces of software if I didn't have the resources to do it without cannibalizing something else but for EADS it might indeed come quite right to get a bit up to speed until Ariane 6 and ECB actually become more real.

[Robotbeat]

Ed, ULA lists a *range* of performance curves to GTO.  Here, I'll post them. and you will see plain as day that the Atlas V can hit 14,988 kg to GTO, crushing the Liberty's posted figures!

That's not what the table says. It says 551 can lift 15 tonnes to a 5000 km apogee trajectory. That's not a GTO transfer. There's only one figure in there that corresponds to an actual GTO transfer, it's 8.9 tonnes and the notes specify it's a transfer 1800 m/s short of GEO.

Even the 5000km apogee trajectory can sort of be considered to be a GTO... I can throw a baseball in a GTO trajectory... with ~14km/s to go!

[spacenut]

Could Liberty be making the claim based on launch from South America closer to the equator?  Jim was right about 6 years ago, that they should have gone with Atlas V phase II, 5 or 5.5 m core with two RD-180s.  It could have launched Orion and could have been used to replace the solids on the core like Ajax.  Impressive launcher.  It could have probably replaced Delta IV heavy with a few strap-on solids.  Three core would have launched 75 tons or use 2 cores on an AJAX launcher.  Lots more scalable and upgradable.  Same crawlers could be used without major upgrades Ares V was having to make.  I just don't like solids for human launch.  Requires too large a LAS and more "g's" on the astronauts than a liquid booster would would require.

[Downix]

Ed, ULA lists a *range* of performance curves to GTO.  Here, I'll post them. and you will see plain as day that the Atlas V can hit 14,988 kg to GTO, crushing the Liberty's posted figures!

That's not what the table says. It says 551 can lift 15 tonnes to a 5000 km apogee trajectory. That's not a GTO transfer. There's only one figure in there that corresponds to an actual GTO transfer, it's 8.9 tonnes and the notes specify it's a transfer 1800 m/s short of GEO.

It is part of the GTO range chart as given here.  You still need a kick motor from GTO to hit geo-stationary regardless.  And even this, 8.9 tonnes is still higher than Liberty's listed 8.85 tonnes, but we do not know what the exact orbital details are for Liberty.  If you go further into the Atlas V users guide, it also points out that an additional 200-350 kg can be added to the performance at this exact altitude if you use advanced maneuvering techniques at the risk of mission failure due to lack of margin, which would put it at over 9.2 tonnes, as I'd earlier pointed out.

[Prober]

Made a new thread for some ideas been playing with:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27613.0

[Downix]

.... even this, 8.9 tonnes is still higher than Liberty's listed 8.85 tonnes, but we do not know what the exact orbital details are for Liberty.  If you go further into the Atlas V users guide, it also points out that an additional 200-350 kg can be added to the performance at this exact altitude if you use advanced maneuvering techniques at the risk of mission failure due to lack of margin, which would put it at over 9.2 tonnes, as I'd earlier pointed out.

It also says that the 8.9 tonnes is "payload systems weight", which includes non-payload mass of the spacecraft adapter, adapter ring, and other options like payload fairing insulation, etc.  Subtracting the typical stuff gets us down to 8.7 tonnes or so of actual payload mass.  And, as I said previously, if Atlas V can use "advanced maneuvering techniques", so can Liberty.  It's just orbital mechanics.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, but the issue remains, are the numbers for Liberty with or without such taken into account?  Until that is known, it's a pointless argument, such as who would win in a fight, Mike Tyson or Mohammad Ali, at their peak.

[rusty]

ATK/EADS completed milestone #3 - Launch system initial system design

Jan 20 article - http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/01/20/atk-holds-isd-under-ccdev-2-saa/
"During the ISD, Liberty team members from ATK, its European-based partner, Astrium, and their subcontractors presented the status of Liberty’s system level requirements, preliminary design and certification process to representatives from the Commercial Crew Program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida and other NASA centers."

Space Act Agreement - http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS06S-ATK.pdf
Milestone event #3 December 2011
Milestone event #4 February 2012 - Technical interchange meeting #2
Milestone event #5 March 2012 - Program status review

[floss]

first post was wondering about upgrades to liberty a monolitic carbon fiber core aka vega and the high thrust engine seemes to be one path ,mabey even a second launch pad in kourou .getting flight rate up to mabey 16 or 18 is probably the easiest
 way to get prices down.

[Jim]

first post was wondering about upgrades to liberty a monolitic carbon fiber core \

Logistics are a showstopper

[woods170]

mabey even a second launch pad in kourou .getting flight rate up to mabey 16 or 18 is probably the easiest
 way to get prices down.

Liberty would be a competitor to Ariane-5. Both ESA and CNES have major stakes in ArianeSpace and Ariane-5. They would not look kindly towards a competitor launcher, as Liberty could become. And they would very likely not allow such a vehicle to launch from what is basically a CNES facility in French-Guyana.

CSG is not an open-to-all spaceport. It's exclusively for CNES, Arianespace and ESA use.

[floss]

Thinking of 2020 time table strato launcher can easily transport the first stage empty so no tunnel to go through can use the solid fuel plant in french guiana to fill it second stage comes by ship so logistics no bother.liberty half french much better than all russian soyuz .was thinking of human launches,ESA only have to devlop single core ariane 6 which is ment to go from 2 to 8.5 tons to orbit .Gives jobs in france second stage, germany high thrust engine ,italy solid fuel,french guiana the launch pad,utah the first stage,florida other launch pad .would cut costs for esa nasa so everybody wins.

[Jim]

Thinking of 2020 time table strato launcher can easily transport the first stage empty so no tunnel to go through can use the solid fuel plant in french guiana to fill it

Too big for Strato and too big for french guiana.  Still cant move it out of the plant

[floss]

thanks anyway good to know

[spectre9]

Why can't the USA make their own LH2 upper stage engine of similar thrust?

Why does the J2X take so long? Is it SLS only?

Would it cost ATK too much to build an Ares 1 like rocket by themself?

They've been given so much opportunity to keep these large solids alive.

I wish them luck I really do but they will have to move on sometime.

[Prober]

Why can't the USA make their own LH2 upper stage engine of similar thrust?

Why does the J2X take so long? Is it SLS only?

Would it cost ATK too much to build an Ares 1 like rocket by themself?

They've been given so much opportunity to keep these large solids alive.

I wish them luck I really do but they will have to move on sometime.

this thread might be of interest to you.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27613.0

[Chris Bergin]