ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[hektor]

There is a conference called SPACE ACCESS is Paris next week.

http://www.space-access2011.com/httpdocs/documents/prog_space_access.pdf

Various papers by ATK and EADS Astrium about Liberty will be presented.

In particular

Adapting Shuttle Boosters for Commercial Crew Applications Kent ROMINGER,ATK

Liberty™ Launch Service, an International Venture Charlie PRECOURT,ATK

European Approach for the 2nd Stage of the Liberty™ Rodrigo DA COSTA,ASTRIUM ST

[gospacex]

This ATK zombie rocket simply refuses to die.

[grr]

This ATK zombie rocket simply refuses to die.

Not really. It will die. The fact is, that this rocket is going to be more expensive than the Ariane itself, which is already more expensive than Spacex. Worse Liberty will launch less then the Ariane.

No, this is a last minute attempt to get into the final bids for human launch.
It will go the same way as T-Space for COTs did.

[uko]

There is a conference called SPACE ACCESS is Paris next week.

http://www.space-access2011.com/httpdocs/documents/prog_space_access.pdf
...

Mmm.. and also there is this..
ROUND TABLE
Which Breakthrough for Access to Space
Technological/Strategic/Economic/Political
Moderator: Michel PONS, CNES
Speakers: Silvio SANDRONE,ASTRIUM ST - Marco BIAGIONI,AVIO - Christophe BAUER, Space-X - Charlie PRECOURT,ATK
Oleg VENTSKOVSKY,Yuzhnoye Design Office - Axel ROENNEKE, MT Aerospace
Alain SOUCHIER, Launcher and Propulsion Expert - TBD, MHI

Could be interesting.. with SpaceX and ATK together..

[docmordrid]

Sounds like it could be a PPV worthy event

[alexw]

Concerning the stage structures:
The tank, which makes up 25 of the 30m is very much optimised...

     Thank you for this informative post; it goes some way towards explaining the mystery of the (apparently crazy) Liberty proposal.
        -Alex

[savuporo]

http://moonandback.com/2011/09/19/moonandback-interview-with-trina-patterson-part-1-the-liberty-rocket/

[Ronsmytheiii]

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

[Comga]

This looks like the CST-100 on top.

Has the claim been made that the CST-100 internal, liquid fueled, pusher LAS has sufficient thrust to escape potential first stage debris at max-Q?  This should be verifiable to some degree.

edit: typo

[pippin]

Well, as long as there's still a heavy, fully fueled Ariane-5 first stage on top of it... If that's already broken apart it's probably too late for a successful abort anyway.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Has the claim been made that the CST-100 internal, liquid fueled, pusher LAS has sufficient thrust to escape potential first stage debris at max-Q?  This should be verifiable to some degree.

Concerns have been raised here about the ability of the CST-100's internal pusher LAS to cope with Liberty's flight dynamic environment.  ATK apparently share these concerns, as I've seen at least one publicity shot of a Liberty launch with a MLAS.  I'm fairly sure that would work well with CST-100.

Worst comes to worst, they would have to buy the OSC Orion LAS, which was designed for Ares-I and is thus likely to work on Liberty.

[Jim]

Has the claim been made that the CST-100 internal, liquid fueled, pusher LAS has sufficient thrust to escape potential first stage debris at max-Q?  This should be verifiable to some degree.

Concerns have been raised here about the ability of the CST-100's internal pusher LAS to cope with Liberty's flight dynamic environment.  ATK apparently share these concerns, as I've seen at least one publicity shot of a Liberty launch with a MLAS.  I'm fairly sure that would work well with CST-100.

Worst comes to worst, they would have to buy the OSC Orion LAS, which was designed for Ares-I and is thus likely to work on Liberty.

Another case of someone playing Legos again.
CST-100 is being designed to take loads from its abort motors on the aft.
There is no indication that it is designed to take tension loads from a tractor LAS (Orion or MLAS).

[Ben the Space Brit]

Has the claim been made that the CST-100 internal, liquid fueled, pusher LAS has sufficient thrust to escape potential first stage debris at max-Q?  This should be verifiable to some degree.

Concerns have been raised here about the ability of the CST-100's internal pusher LAS to cope with Liberty's flight dynamic environment.  ATK apparently share these concerns, as I've seen at least one publicity shot of a Liberty launch with a MLAS.  I'm fairly sure that would work well with CST-100.

Worst comes to worst, they would have to buy the OSC Orion LAS, which was designed for Ares-I and is thus likely to work on Liberty.

Another case of someone playing Legos again.
CST-100 is being designed to take loads from its abort motors on the aft.
There is no indication that it is designed to take tension loads from a tractor LAS (Orion or MLAS).

Remember, Jim - absence of proof is not proof of absence.

In interests of clarity, my previous post, which earned Jim's ire, was hypothetical.  I was merely considering what might be necessary if CST-100 were to fly on Liberty.

AFAIK, ATK and EADS haven't got any actual potential payloads for Liberty yet, just lots of artwork.  Boeing have already selected Atlas-V-412 to launch CST-100 and one assumes that it will be optimised to that LV's flight environment.

[docmordrid]

Doesn't that leave Liberty in the position of a ship without passengers owing to the CCDev candidates all being optimized for liquid first stages and either pusher or integrated LAS designs?

[Jim]

Remember, Jim - absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Why would Boeing design CST-100 with all the extra mass to enable a tractor LAS.

[baldusi]

Remember, Jim - absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Why would Boeing design CST-100 with all the extra mass to enable a tractor LAS.

[irony]
Because Liberty is the cheapest, safest and most capable LV currently on the market. And yes, currently because all the parts already exist, and ATK said it's happening.
[/irony]

[Comga]

http://moonandback.com/2011/09/19/moonandback-interview-with-trina-patterson-part-1-the-liberty-rocket/

Apparently it is named after the Statue of Liberty because:

They are both tall.
They are both French.
They both have a light at one end.
You can cram a few people into the top of each one.
And...
Neither one is going anywhere.

[Lurker Steve]

Remember, Jim - absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Why would Boeing design CST-100 with all the extra mass to enable a tractor LAS.

[irony]
Because Liberty is the cheapest, safest and most capable LV currently on the market. And yes, currently because all the parts already exist, and ATK said it's happening.
[/irony]

They can put a Boeing capsule on top, it just wont be the current CST-100 design.

Does anyone have an estimate on how much it would cost to design a capsule based on the CST-100 where the pusher LAS is removed and the necessary attachment points for the OSC LAS are added ? I assume there may be some other structural changes required to enable the capsule to be "pulled" instead of "pushed" off it's LV. Even assuming the 2 vehicles share common Guidance / Navigation systems, there is still all of the wind tunnel, acoustic, and vibration testing that needs to be performed, which are specific to this vehicle. That testing that Lockheed is performing on Orion does not look in-expensive.

Lots of engineering work for a capsule that will never fly. These NRE costs push the CST-xxx cost greater than the standard CST-100 cost on an Atlas.

[baldusi]

I still do not understand the hate.  Why aren't people hating Taurus, Falcon, Atlas, etc.?

I think you are confusing hate with utter lack of credibility. Specially now the the ML is going to be used by SLS. Everybody loves rockets. And if we thought this had a serious chance of happening, I'm sure there would be a lot more support.

[Jason1701]

I still do not understand the hate.  Why aren't people hating Taurus, Falcon, Atlas, etc.?

All of them have payloads and launch facilities. The Shaft doesn't.