Author Topic: ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread (Read 207060 times)

woods170 · « **Reply #140 on:** 04/19/2012 05:35 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/18/2012 04:50 am

"Stay tuned, there's more to come".

This is going to be fun ...

- Ed Kyle

Speak for yourself. IMO anything that even remotely resembles 'Griffin's folly' will be no fun at all.

kirghizstan · « **Reply #141 on:** 04/19/2012 05:51 pm »

well that was the biggest waste of 45 seconds i've spent all week.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #142 on:** 04/19/2012 06:08 pm »

Quote from: kirghizstan on 04/19/2012 05:51 pm

well that was the biggest waste of 45 seconds i've spent all week.

Remember the target audience. This is the sort of thing I'd imagine they'd run on Utah TV, for example.

Kaputnik · « **Reply #143 on:** 04/19/2012 09:01 pm »

What vehicle is the little girl going to fly in?

rusty · « **Reply #144 on:** 04/20/2012 07:53 am »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/19/2012 10:13 pm

...
When the sums of money required is considered, the scope of these efforts, taken together, is breathtaking. Billions of dollars altogether, not even counting SLS. It reminds me in some ways of the era of jet aircraft innovation during the 1950s.

Not all will succeed, but the brewing spaceflight innovation era seems likely to produce some advances.

- Ed Kyle

Advances, yes, but those exists w/wo funding (creativity doesn't require money). I'd disagree this is similar to the 'jet age of the 50s' and more akin to the dot.com age of the 90s when, at the same time, LV operations were on track to consolidation.

With all the LVs now in development/proposal, the only important questions is "Does it work, how well and at what price?". Medium/heavy lift vehicles like Falcon9 (sats) and AresI/Liberty (LEO cargo) appear viable. Athena could be if that mass market is large enough. DeltaIV has unmatched capabilities. All the rest, including AtlasV and Antares, I have my doubts about.

douglas100 · « **Reply #145 on:** 04/20/2012 09:19 am »

I'm surprised you have doubts about Atlas V. Just look at its record.

And I don't think Liberty is viable at all. So we disagree. Still, these are interesting times...

beancounter · « **Reply #146 on:** 04/23/2012 06:38 am »

Quote from: douglas100 on 04/20/2012 09:19 am

I'm surprised you have doubts about Atlas V. Just look at its record.

And I don't think Liberty is viable at all. So we disagree. Still, these are interesting times...

Most of these are either very early design or powerpoint which is where SLS and Liberty are currently.
When you're considering these concepts, bear in mind existing LVs, costs and reliability. Current LVs fill the needs admirably well in terms of capability and reliability so any new vehicles have to do much better on cost and just as well on reliability. The only way to demonstrate the latter is to have considerable savings in the former to make any new customers take the chance a la SpaceX.
So under these circumstances I'd rate SLS, Liberty, Skylon, Statolaunch - no chance. JM2CW.

simonbp · « **Reply #147 on:** 04/24/2012 03:55 am »

Quote from: beancounter on 04/23/2012 06:38 am

The only way to demonstrate the latter is to have considerable savings in the former to make any new customers take the chance a la SpaceX.
So under these circumstances I'd rate SLS, Liberty, Skylon, Statolaunch - no chance. JM2CW.

? I'd certainly agree with you about SLS and Liberty, but not Stratolaunch and Skylon. The Stratolaunch vehicle is built by SpaceX, and gains quite a bit of performance from its launch method, and so should be competitive with F9 on a $/ton to GEO basis. Likewise, Skylon is an RLV that will have such a massive flight rate before the first paying customer (assuming it works) that the insurance companies will all but demand satellites are launched on it. Both have large technical challenges, but if they overcome the engineering, they will have customers.

paycom · « **Reply #148 on:** 05/08/2012 05:32 pm »

ATK is going to provide a "major announcement" about the liberty vehicle tomorrow:
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=37712

bad_astra · « **Reply #149 on:** 05/08/2012 07:28 pm »

One question, and I apologize if it has already been asked and answered:

Would use of the casings on Liberty affect availability for SLS or would they be building new casings?

Thanks!

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #150 on:** 05/08/2012 08:15 pm »

We'll be covering this in an article tomorrow when they release the information on the development.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #151 on:** 05/08/2012 09:32 pm »

Got to ask some questions to ATK about Liberty today. Here are the answers:
-New ML will be built for way cheaper than the first one
-Thrust oscillation went away as soon as upper stage was selected, as it has a different natural frequency than the AIUS
-Vulcain air-start is easy, and has already been developed
-No black zones
-If a spacecraft's LAS works for the Atlas, it will work for Liberty too - the solid first stage doesn't require any more abort thrust
-Will compete for NRO launches
-Liberty is optimized for LEO, whereas Ariane V is GTO
-Can double- or triple-manifest LEO satellites

simonbp · « **Reply #152 on:** 05/08/2012 09:53 pm »

Interesting, thanks!

The NRO note is especially puzzling, as NRO LEO sats tend to be in polar orbits...

sdsds · « **Reply #153 on:** 05/09/2012 05:16 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/08/2012 09:32 pm

-If a spacecraft's LAS works for the Atlas, it will work for Liberty too - the solid first stage doesn't require any more abort thrust

Fascinating! So they claim an ascent profile for Liberty on which max-Q is no greater than max-Q on an Atlas launch?

Proponent · « **Reply #154 on:** 05/09/2012 05:42 am »

Maybe they're proposing a thrust-termination system for Liberty. Charlie Precourt has in the past mentioned the possibility of "unzipping" the nozzle.

woods170 · « **Reply #155 on:** 05/09/2012 07:16 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/08/2012 09:32 pm

-Vulcain air-start is easy, and has already been developed

Yes. Air-start proved to be a whole lot easier than I previously figured. That is a direct result of the failure of the first Ariane 5 ECA launch. Following the re-design of the Vulcain 2 nozzle-extension, it was extensively tested, even under 'altitude' conditions on the P5 test-stand in Lampoldhausen in Germany.

The P5 test-stand was modified to provide an 'altitude' environment around the Vulcain-2 engine, particularly the nozzle-extension. Ambient pressure could be regulated between 1,000 and 200 mbar.
However, several of the test-firings started with the ambient pressure already at 200 mbar (that is about one-fifth the pressure at sea-level). So, in proving that the re-designed Vulcain 2 would not suffer the original failure (buckling under flight loads), it coincidentaly proved itself to be capable of air-start.

When the Liberty vehicle initiative was anounced I figured it would take an expensive development program to make Vulcain 2 capable of air-start. That was in-part based on the then available documentation on Vulcain 2. However, most of that information concerned the original Vulcain 2 design, and not the re-designed engine that actually is more capable. The changes and improvements to make Vulcain 2 capable of air-start were developed and implemented after the failure of Ariane flight V157, but not with that specific goal in mind. They were made to prevent a repeat of the V157 failure.

So, I must change my stand on this: air-start of Vulcain 2 is possible with little or no modification at all. With this 'new' reality, and the fact that TO is now out of the picture as well, it suddenly becomes very obvious why ATK and EADS chose to mount an Ariane 5 core stage as an upper stage for their Ares-1 re-boot.
Add the fact that Liberty is primarily a LEO vehicle, so it does not directly compete with Ariane 5, and it becomes even more obvious.

So, I was wrong. Liberty will become a reality. Ares-1 may have been erased from existence when CxP was killed off, but it's nephew will become reality.

Kaputnik · « **Reply #156 on:** 05/09/2012 07:21 am »

How serious are the changes in load paths through the ECP?
And the lack of a capsule to go on top?

Lampyridae · « **Reply #157 on:** 05/09/2012 07:27 am »

Quote from: Kaputnik on 04/19/2012 09:01 pm

What vehicle is the little girl going to fly in?

Something with a VERY capable LAS.

Lampyridae · « **Reply #158 on:** 05/09/2012 07:31 am »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/24/2012 03:55 am

Quote from: beancounter on 04/23/2012 06:38 am
The only way to demonstrate the latter is to have considerable savings in the former to make any new customers take the chance a la SpaceX.
So under these circumstances I'd rate SLS, Liberty, Skylon, Statolaunch - no chance. JM2CW.

? I'd certainly agree with you about SLS and Liberty, but not Stratolaunch and Skylon. The Stratolaunch vehicle is built by SpaceX, and gains quite a bit of performance from its launch method, and so should be competitive with F9 on a $/ton to GEO basis. Likewise, Skylon is an RLV that will have such a massive flight rate before the first paying customer (assuming it works) that the insurance companies will all but demand satellites are launched on it. Both have large technical challenges, but if they overcome the engineering, they will have customers.

Valid point. Even at comparable $/kg to current LVs, AND comparable insurance, a vehicle that has a 99.9% LOM is something I want to put my revenue-generating satellite on. Lost satellite = 2 years of lost revenue.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #159 on:** 05/09/2012 04:28 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2012 08:15 pm

We'll be covering this in an article tomorrow when they release the information on the development.

bumping article as reminder