ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[Lurker Steve]

Purely IMHO, ATK's determination to proceed with Liberty no matter what suggests to me an ambivilence about either:

a) the likelihood of them winning the SLS advanced booster competition or

b) the likelihood of SLS representing a major customer for segmented solids (low flight rate).

Simply put, ATK need to leverage the RSRM technology onto a new product that they need to sell  - Hence Liberty and the Full-Court Press to sell it to the American public.  It is quite possigble that, should Liberty fails, ATK would need to significantly downsize to save costs.

ATK must see the handwriting on the wall and knows that NASA prefers replacing the SRB’s for SLS with liquid boosters in the long term.  That being said, the only way for them to stay in the game with solids is to build their own LV.

I thought that ATK had some advantage with solids back when we were still building a decent volume of ICBMs, and the SRBs were just an off-shoot of that same technology. The ICBM volume could cover the overhead of the SRB business.

We really aren't building many new ICBMs any more. We test fire the latest Trident and/or PeaceKeeper once or twice per year, and the DOD probably pays for a replacement, but is that enough volume to cover the overhead ?

[Prober]

IMO, anyone in the spaceflight community who poo-poos these guys, does so at their own mistake. While we get all hung up on the "popular kid" in the schoolyard, the outcast is making huge steps toward big things under the radar.

It will be interesting to watch.

agree with you, the firm has a long history going back to the 1950's with rocket engines (liquid) and solids. 

[phantomdj]

ATK must see the handwriting on the wall and knows that NASA prefers replacing the SRB’s for SLS with liquid boosters in the long term.  That being said, the only way for them to stay in the game with solids is to build their own LV.

I thought that ATK had some advantage with solids back when we were still building a decent volume of ICBMs, and the SRBs were just an off-shoot of that same technology. The ICBM volume could cover the overhead of the SRB business.

We really aren't building many new ICBMs any more. We test fire the latest Trident and/or PeaceKeeper once or twice per year, and the DOD probably pays for a replacement, but is that enough volume to cover the overhead ?

The amount of solids outside of the SRM’s for shuttle are small and not enough to sustain ATK at present levels.  There was even some concern about the effect on cost and supply of these other solid motors if ATK stopped making shuttle sized SRM’s.  That’s one of the reasons ATK wants to keep making them and has come up with the Liberty LV.

edit: clarification

[spacenut]

ATK also owns Federal ammunition company and makes a lot of military ammo as well as civilian ammo. 

[docmordrid]

ATK Aerospace: Utah - SRB's, Liberty etc.

ATK Armament: Utah - Bushmaster cannons, chain guns, artillery ammo etc.

ATK Missile: Maryland - missile weaponry, ammo for small, medium and large caliber gun systems, fuses etc.

ATK Security & Sporting: Minnesota - LE and sporting ammo (Federal, CCI, Speer, Lawman, and Blazer) & sporting / tactical gear

[FinalFrontier]

Anyone know if they have figured out a solution for the abort problem yet or has that been backburnered as usual? Was never solved during CXP so I was wondering if they think they solved it or not.

[phantomdj]

ATK Aerospace: Utah - SRB's, Liberty etc.

Just to clarify, ATK does not make SRB’s they make SRM’s (solid rocket motors).  When the forward and aft skirts are attached (with the electronics and hydraulics) then it becomes a solid rocket booster.  That part of the process  was done by United Space Boosters, Inc. (USBI) and then by United Space Alliance (USA).  If Liberty because a reality then ATK will most likely hire what remains of USA to make and test the SRB’s themselves.

[Robotbeat]

The part that caught my ear was that ATK will absolutely press ahead, on their own funds, to operational status even if they are not picked by NASA for CCDEV. He sounded very clear on that point. I get the impression that this vehicle IS coming no matter what. The only snag is that it will take a bit longer (I think he said a couple of years) without NASA funding. These guys are going to bank-roll it themselves, build their own LUT, test it and start flying. Critics may scoff at ATK and say that this is all just boasting, or PR to try and woo NASA, but these ATK people are not playing a game here. They are leveraging STS hardware, they have invested a lot of cash, partnered with overseas folks and they fully intend to make this happen.

I found it also interesting that he specifically mentioned being able to loft Bigelow Space's payloads.

IMO, anyone in the spaceflight community who poo-poos these guys, does so at their own mistake. While we get all hung up on the "popular kid" in the schoolyard, the outcast is making huge steps toward big things under the radar.

It will be interesting to watch.

Talk is cheap, whether or not they are clear.

They have never developed an orbital launch vehicle. They haven't even been successful with their suborbital sounding rocket. That isn't to say they can't eventually develop what they say they are, it's just to say you can't say they have the proven capability to do so, in spite of their impressive lobbying capability (not that they're the only ones with lobbying capacity).

I hope they are successful, but it's important to remember that right now they are mostly just powerpoints, relying on scraps of other programs that they once were paid to do, but not an integrated whole. I haven't seen any new hardware that has been self-funded, just power points of old projects. I'd love to be corrected on this point. They also aren't shooting for any sort of enormous revolution in launch costs like folks like Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc, are.

Also, they have been engaged in what could /almost/ be described as false advertising with their "Safe, Simple, Soon" campaign. They have slandered other companies by repeating the /lie/ (and it is a lie) of unmitigated black zones in other launchers, making them out as if they are incredibly unsafe compared to ATK's totally unproven launcher. And there are other things that ATK have done which I'm sure the DIRECT team can fill you in on. So, excuse me while I have little pity for them being poo-pooed on the playground.

So the reasons they are poo-pooed:
1) Have yet to be successful even in their sounding rockets.
2) Only have power points and scraps from old programs
3) Aren't shooting to enormously lower the cost of space.
4) Have burned the trust of many in the space industry by their past dishonesty (which they continue to repeat, for instance the black zone myth which was prominently repeated in their presentation).

I sure hope they are successful, but I'm going to need to see new, real hardware and a real, successful launch before I'm bought over that they're serious about going alone and investing the requisite resources themselves to jump-start the company. They have a reputation to repair, much like SpaceX after a year and a half of no launches (but plenty of propaganda), except in ATK's case it's infinity years of no orbital launches of their own. And just like SpaceX, propaganda is not going to win over the skeptics, only real hardware and a real successful launch can do that.

[Robotbeat]

I will say that ATK is at the Cape and has been working on getting ready for their (currently planned) 2014 launch, but we shall see if they actually do get a launch off in 2014, and if it's something like Liberty as they presented it or if it's closer to an Athena III-sort of vehicle. I haven't heard any news out of Europe about the cryogenic upper stage being ready. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a solid upper stage ala Athena.

(And not that a solid upper stage would be a bad thing... it plays much closer to ATK's strengths and could be all-domestic and would provide a greater chance of being cost-competitive, IMHO... Besides being much less likely to result in schedule over-runs.)

[spacenut]

I mentioned Federal, but as docmorbid said, they have profit making capabilities beyond the large solid boosters.  However, it may be far more profitable even if limited. 

[edkyle99]

ATK must see the handwriting on the wall and knows that NASA prefers replacing the SRB’s for SLS with liquid boosters in the long term. 

News of SLS Block 1B, reported in Chris's latest article, contradicts this statement.  NASA may be planning for advanced booster in the long term, but that contract, if ever competed, has been designed to allow competition between advanced solids and liquids. 

Everyone seems to adore liquid boosters, until the bill comes.   

 - Ed Kyle

[zerm]

For all of this- time will tell.

I recall being at the press site for STS-135 and almost everyone had their tents and their full scale mock-ups of their spacecraft and lots of pro.mo. material and ATK had one little model of the Liberty and they were not saying a lot, yet in the background they were going full speed, or so we now see.

Let us also recall that there are actual "issues" to be solved along the way to becoming operational and then there are the Internet forum generated BS issues. A good example being the non-air-startable Vulcain 2 engine. Remember?... wooo that was the big snag when the Liberty was first announced. And it turned out that there was no real problem there at all.

Thus time will tell what ATK will be able to do and we should get our first clues in 2014. My bet is that most of the negative smack that will be posted on the internet concerning Liberty will turn out to be... poo, poo (as my 5 year old would say)

Bottom line is, across the entire spaceflight community it is starting to look like 2014 and 2015 are going to be very interesting years... we just have to drag ourselves through the rest of 2012 and all of 2013 first. (Thank God for SpaceX to keep us going)

[jongoff]

The part that caught my ear was that ATK will absolutely press ahead, on their own funds, to operational status even if they are not picked by NASA for CCDEV. He sounded very clear on that point. I get the impression that this vehicle IS coming no matter what. The only snag is that it will take a bit longer (I think he said a couple of years) without NASA funding. These guys are going to bank-roll it themselves, build their own LUT, test it and start flying. Critics may scoff at ATK and say that this is all just boasting, or PR to try and woo NASA, but these ATK people are not playing a game here. They are leveraging STS hardware, they have invested a lot of cash, partnered with overseas folks and they fully intend to make this happen.

My only question is if you would take an identical claim from Elon or Boeing, or SNC with the same level of faith. It's really easy to claim you're going to do something on your own dime even if you don't get funding. I've seen enough companies (NewSpace and OldSpace) and space agencies make big claims and then back down on them later. Call me a skeptic who'd love to be proven wrong, but claims are cheap, hardware isn't.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

For all of this- time will tell.

Indeed! A well-deserved "attaboy" will be given if they launch Liberty.

I recall being at the press site for STS-135 and almost everyone had their tents and their full scale mock-ups of their spacecraft and lots of pro.mo. material and ATK had one little model of the Liberty and they were not saying a lot, yet in the background they were going full speed, or so we now see.

Let us also recall that there are actual "issues" to be solved along the way to becoming operational and then there are the Internet forum generated incorrect issues. A good example being the non-air-startable Vulcain 2 engine. Remember?... wooo that was the big snag when the Liberty was first announced. And it turned out that there was no real problem there at all.

That is the claim. It hasn't been established. It /can/ be established when they demonstrate an air start with a Vulcain 2. *shrug* I have no doubt that it can be made to work, but I don't buy the claim that nothing will have to change in its new role. It smacks a little of Lego building, with PR spin to make things look like they will be easier than they will (again, ATK doesn't have a monopoly on PR spin). But this is hardly a big deal. The biggest is all their extreme exaggeration about the reliability difference, since they are using an essentially new booster stage (quite different from the Shuttle one, and operating in a different role and environment) and then claiming that they're going to be so so so much safer than Atlas V with its 30 successful launches in a row (and yes, all got to a useful orbit for their payload, the only sane definition of "successful"), even when there are still unanswered questions about how big the abort motor has to be to clear the burning-solid-booster-pieces debris field and not have the parachutes melted on the way down.

It's the hypocrisy of the safety claims and the slander about the black zones that's the real problem that many in the space industry and space enthusiast community have with ATK, and the same attitude by ATK is still going on with Liberty.

Thus time will tell what ATK will be able to do and we should get our first clues in 2014. My bet is that most of the negative smack that will be posted on the internet concerning Liberty will turn out to be... poo, poo (as my 5 year old would say)

I really hope you're right.

Bottom line is, across the entire spaceflight community it is starting to look like 2014 and 2015 are going to be very interesting years... we just have to drag ourselves through the rest of 2012 and all of 2013 first.

Amen! And I actually am pretty excited about the 2014 ATK launch, even though ATK has serious issues with their reputation that they must rebuild (and stop with slandering companies about the myth of the black zones).

(Thank God for SpaceX to keep us going)

And don't forget ULA and Orbital, who have launched far more often and just as often, respectively, this year! Godspeed, MSL!

[phantomdj]

ATK must see the handwriting on the wall and knows that NASA prefers replacing the SRB’s for SLS with liquid boosters in the long term. 

News of SLS Block 1B, reported in Chris's latest article, contradicts this statement.  NASA may be planning for advanced booster in the long term, but that contract, if ever competed, has been designed to allow competition between advanced solids and liquids. 

Everyone seems to adore liquid boosters, until the bill comes.   

 - Ed Kyle

Not at all. The contradiction, if any,  comes from Charles Bolden, himself.  I sat in a briefing with him as he explained that there is very little technological advancement left available from chemical propulsion from the ground to LEO (possibly a few extra 1 or 2 % improvement) yet at the same time he was willing to spend billions with a B (I believe he said 8b) to “see” if liquid boosters should replace solids.  It may be a safety issue more than a thrust or cost issue but there is a definite leaning toward liquid.

And I do agree with you that there seems to be an adoration toward liquid until the bill comes (billions) and I think ATK is using Liberty as Plan B if they lose the solids on SLS block 1a, 1b or 2.

[Alexsander]

ATK Aerospace: Utah - SRB's, Liberty etc.

ATK Armament: Utah - Bushmaster cannons, chain guns, artillery ammo etc.

ATK Missile: Maryland - missile weaponry, ammo for small, medium and large caliber gun systems, fuses etc.

ATK Security & Sporting: Minnesota - LE and sporting ammo (Federal, CCI, Speer, Lawman, and Blazer) & sporting / tactical gear

ATK is the former Thiokol, maker of the ill-fated SRB booster launched with shuttle Challenger in 1986.

[zerm]

The part that caught my ear was that ATK will absolutely press ahead, on their own funds, to operational status even if they are not picked by NASA for CCDEV. He sounded very clear on that point. I get the impression that this vehicle IS coming no matter what. The only snag is that it will take a bit longer (I think he said a couple of years) without NASA funding. These guys are going to bank-roll it themselves, build their own LUT, test it and start flying. Critics may scoff at ATK and say that this is all just boasting, or PR to try and woo NASA, but these ATK people are not playing a game here. They are leveraging STS hardware, they have invested a lot of cash, partnered with overseas folks and they fully intend to make this happen.

My only question is if you would take an identical claim from Elon or Boeing, or SNC with the same level of faith. It's really easy to claim you're going to do something on your own dime even if you don't get funding. I've seen enough companies (NewSpace and OldSpace) and space agencies make big claims and then back down on them later. Call me a skeptic who'd love to be proven wrong, but claims are cheap, hardware isn't.

~Jon

Yes I would take such a claim with exactly equal weight.

[Lurker Steve]

For all of this- time will tell.

I recall being at the press site for STS-135 and almost everyone had their tents and their full scale mock-ups of their spacecraft and lots of pro.mo. material and ATK had one little model of the Liberty and they were not saying a lot, yet in the background they were going full speed, or so we now see.

Let us also recall that there are actual "issues" to be solved along the way to becoming operational and then there are the Internet forum generated incorrect issues. A good example being the non-air-startable Vulcain 2 engine. Remember?... wooo that was the big snag when the Liberty was first announced. And it turned out that there was no real problem there at all.

Thus time will tell what ATK will be able to do and we should get our first clues in 2014. My bet is that most of the negative smack that will be posted on the internet concerning Liberty will turn out to be... poo, poo (as my 5 year old would say)

Bottom line is, across the entire spaceflight community it is starting to look like 2014 and 2015 are going to be very interesting years... we just have to drag ourselves through the rest of 2012 and all of 2013 first. (Thank God for SpaceX to keep us going)

Have they announced any pricing for Commerical launches on a Liberty yet ? That's the number I want to see, especially with them using the LC-39 infrastructure.

[zerm]

For all of this- time will tell.

I recall being at the press site for STS-135 and almost everyone had their tents and their full scale mock-ups of their spacecraft and lots of pro.mo. material and ATK had one little model of the Liberty and they were not saying a lot, yet in the background they were going full speed, or so we now see.

Let us also recall that there are actual "issues" to be solved along the way to becoming operational and then there are the Internet forum generated incorrect issues. A good example being the non-air-startable Vulcain 2 engine. Remember?... wooo that was the big snag when the Liberty was first announced. And it turned out that there was no real problem there at all.

Thus time will tell what ATK will be able to do and we should get our first clues in 2014. My bet is that most of the negative smack that will be posted on the internet concerning Liberty will turn out to be... poo, poo (as my 5 year old would say)

Bottom line is, across the entire spaceflight community it is starting to look like 2014 and 2015 are going to be very interesting years... we just have to drag ourselves through the rest of 2012 and all of 2013 first. (Thank God for SpaceX to keep us going)

Have they announced any pricing for Commerical launches on a Liberty yet ? That's the number I want to see, especially with them using the LC-39 infrastructure.

Not that I've seen.

Has anyone else released exact numbers (Boeing, SNC, etc.)?

[jongoff]

The part that caught my ear was that ATK will absolutely press ahead, on their own funds, to operational status even if they are not picked by NASA for CCDEV. He sounded very clear on that point. I get the impression that this vehicle IS coming no matter what. The only snag is that it will take a bit longer (I think he said a couple of years) without NASA funding. These guys are going to bank-roll it themselves, build their own LUT, test it and start flying. Critics may scoff at ATK and say that this is all just boasting, or PR to try and woo NASA, but these ATK people are not playing a game here. They are leveraging STS hardware, they have invested a lot of cash, partnered with overseas folks and they fully intend to make this happen.

My only question is if you would take an identical claim from Elon or Boeing, or SNC with the same level of faith. It's really easy to claim you're going to do something on your own dime even if you don't get funding. I've seen enough companies (NewSpace and OldSpace) and space agencies make big claims and then back down on them later. Call me a skeptic who'd love to be proven wrong, but claims are cheap, hardware isn't.

~Jon

Yes I would take such a claim with exactly equal weight.

Interestingly enough, so would I. It would just involve a pretty large grain of salt.

~Jon