ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[Lars_J]

That's certainly an ... interesting looking concept. I'll give them props for out of the box thinking.

[Danderman]

Whatever is sitting on Node 2 Zenith has an active CBM on top, so its not the CAM. Probably ATK is thinking that NASA is going to come around to the idea of putting a stowage module for cargo on Node 2 Zenith some day.

[Silmfeanor]

That's certainly an ... interesting looking concept. I'll give them props for out of the box thinking.

ditto...
But, won't this open up the heatshield for debris damage again? I assume it's not hard to add some kevlar on the top end of the carrier, but I dont see it on these concepts...

[baldusi]

Strange concept. Kudos to them for the out of the box thinking. On this particular implementation, I have a couple of issues:
1) That's not a pure crew vehicle. I like to stick to a requirement.
2) It seems sort of inefficient mass wise. The LLM is pretty small for its volume, and you still need those trusses or connectors to the SM to work as thrust structure, thus, seems a heavy concept.
Nice things about it:
1) Easily converted to unpressurized volume.
2) Seems sort of straight forward to convert to a tug module (but the LV might be a limitation in that case).

[Ronsmytheiii]

Whatever is sitting on Node 2 Zenith has an active CBM on top, so its not the CAM. Probably ATK is thinking that NASA is going to come around to the idea of putting a stowage module for cargo on Node 2 Zenith some day.

Considering the JEM has NASDA on it, it is a VERY old digital model.

Interesting new direction for ATK, but dont think it will change odds much as Commercial Crew only focuses on crew, the cargo delivery must be aimed at CRS extension contract.

[Ronsmytheiii]

ATK (NYSE: ATK), the company leading development of the Liberty commercial spacecraft, is pleased to announce an expanded crew and cargo capability. The extended cargo configuration will allow the Liberty spacecraft to take full advantage of the launch vehicle lift capacity to transport a pressurized pod (the Liberty Logistics Module or LLM) along with the composite crew module. Based on NASA's 15-foot diameter Multi-Purpose Logistic Module design, the LLM will include a common berthing mechanism and will be capable of transporting up to 5,100 pounds of pressurized cargo. With that capability, the LLM could be used to transport four full-size science racks to the International Space Station – along with a team of scientists to perform the associated science.

http://atk.mediaroom.com/2012-07-03-ATK-Unveils-Unique-Liberty-Capability

[Lars_J]

1) That's not a pure crew vehicle. I like to stick to a requirement.

That is a very silly requirement. Every crew vehicle always carries some cargo anyway.

And any commercial crew vehicle going to ISS will replace unused seats with cargo.

[kirghizstan]

ATK (NYSE: ATK), the company leading development of the Liberty commercial spacecraft, is pleased to announce an expanded crew and cargo capability. The extended cargo configuration will allow the Liberty spacecraft to take full advantage of the launch vehicle lift capacity to transport a pressurized pod (the Liberty Logistics Module or LLM) along with the composite crew module. Based on NASA's 15-foot diameter Multi-Purpose Logistic Module design, the LLM will include a common berthing mechanism and will be capable of transporting up to 5,100 pounds of pressurized cargo. With that capability, the LLM could be used to transport four full-size science racks to the International Space Station – along with a team of scientists to perform the associated science.

http://atk.mediaroom.com/2012-07-03-ATK-Unveils-Unique-Liberty-Capability

Has anyone ever tried something similar to this design?

Reminds me of eating the cake and leaving the frosting

[Prober]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26773.msg923694#msg923694

Liberty Transportation Service


They are working hard on all ends to get a contract.  Isn’t this what everyone wished for “competition”?

[baldusi]

1) That's not a pure crew vehicle. I like to stick to a requirement.

That is a very silly requirement. Every crew vehicle always carries some cargo anyway.

And any commercial crew vehicle going to ISS will replace unused seats with cargo.

Which is why I'm a bit surprised. The Liberty should have at least as much space as a Dragon. So a robotic version should work for cargo pretty well. I don't see the need for the LLM (given it's complexity and inefficiencies). Now that I see the press release, carrying racks is an interesting capability. But I don't think anyone will need four racks on a launch, HTV already can transport them, and Dragon could do it if they developed a harness with a dedicated flight. This wouldn't be any different than SpaceX making a pressurized 5m trunk (and may be using a Falcon Heavy). But a bit more complicated. I guess the most similar case would be the CST-100.
Making space for a rack on the Liberty capsule itself, on the other hand, would allow to take it back to Earth, which no current vehicle is capable of.
The concept is very interesting. And if it's an optional (or further) development it would be very interesting. I just wouldn't like to put it on the critical path for commercial crew.

[sdsds]

Is there (or will there be) a requirement to demonstrate the LAS using the actual 5-seg booster?

ATK has indicated it would like to do a Liberty test flight essentially the same as what would have been "Ares I-Y." This would be the first flight of a 5 segment booster, with a mass-representative but inert second stage. After stage separation the launch escape system would take a boilerplate capsule away from the launch vehicle. This simulates a failure mode which has a comparatively high likelihood of occurring, i.e. failure of the second stage engine to ignite.

Has anyone associated with Liberty ever discussed an abort test during the powered portion of first-stage flight?

[joek]

The concept is very interesting. And if it's an optional (or further) development it would be very interesting. I just wouldn't like to put it on the critical path for commercial crew.

Agree.  If they can combine cargo and crew flights, it might significantly reduce costs and make ATK much more competitive.  Presumably two fewer flights/yr would also reduce ISS operations and scheduling burden; no idea how much that might be worth.

[Chris Bergin]

Thread tidied. Distruptive member is on a timeout.

I don't care who you are. No one, I repeat no one, will be allowed to be distruptive, uncivil or a general pain in the arse on this site's forum.

Ironically, the member kinda had a point - as much as the member failed to get his point across without breaching site rules. There are a few armchair engineers acting like internet warriors, people who I will class as trolls if that is their only angle, and will kick off this site if confirmed.

This is a heavily read space flight site with actual engineers on it, not some 1999 site with 10 "OMG, it's so pointy!" comments via facebook. Remember where you are and respect the community.

[baldusi]

The concept is very interesting. And if it's an optional (or further) development it would be very interesting. I just wouldn't like to put it on the critical path for commercial crew.

Agree.  If they can combine cargo and crew flights, it might significantly reduce costs and make ATK much more competitive.  Presumably two fewer flights/yr would also reduce ISS operations and scheduling burden; no idea how much that might be worth.

If Liberty can do 20tonnes to ISS, it's only logical that they try to fill it up as much as possible. given that NASA expects Commercial Crew Services by 2017, and the Cargo Resupply Services will need to be renewed by then, this might point out to what I think should be the logical final step: Combined Commercial Crew and Cargo.
The "problem" for commercial to the ISS, at least for crew, is that at the current rotation, and given that the Russians will keep flying on Soyuz, there's not enough flights to support multiple flight.
But once you add cargo, you have enough for at least two suppliers and may be even three.
I think that ATK found themselves with a "too big" rocket for the crew needs of the ISS, but found that if they could do both roles at the same time, they could have a very competitive offering.
Clearly that's a game SpaceX can play very well, and I suspect both Boeing and SNC would be very competitive. Specially if their vehicles can do cargo with an Atlas 432. I don't know if the 4m Atlas wouldn't be limited by the stress efforts on the Centaur, nor if CST-100 or SNC would be volume limited anyways, though.
But analyzing it more from a business side, rather than a pure technological side, this might be a master stroke.
I'm surprised of the great creativity, ingenuity and sheer audacity of their business development guys at ATK. They started as the "SRB contractors" (with extra specialty on composites and solar panels), and have come with what I believe is the most innovative business case for a combined Commercial Crew and Cargo Services.

[MP99]

[Now we're even further down the slippery slope and this entire effort is already pretty close to business as usual already

So... You are suggesting that NASA enforce minimum safety standards and tests for a product that they will use for the ULTIMATE criticality-1 component, people, is inefficient, unnecessary and would ultimately be pointless? Remind me never to fly on something you designed, ever.


[edit]
Seriously, what did you think that the COTS flights were for? To ensure that the product NASA was buying met certain standards.  This must necessary apply even more to a crewed spacecraft.

It seems some people think a LAS is the ultimate safety feature and with it nothing can go wrong and the crew will always be safe during launch. A LAS is not a guarantee of anything

What I have been trying to convey is exactly that and launch is only one phase of the overall mission cycle. There are many other things that could potentially go wrong and endanger the crew. So given that truth why focus only so intently on LAS testing?  What about the others that are a function of design?

ISTM that for early BEO missions any sensible launcher (even Atlas / Delta without HR upgrades, Shuttle as was) would be a small part of total mission risk. Apollo demonstrated a 1:9 LOM on Lunar missions (but thankfully no LOC) - I presume modern BLEO missions will be better than that!

LEO is demonstrably safer than that, to date, but ISTM if there's a bucket of money to be spent, it might be better spent on improving orbital, rendezvous or reentry safety (basically, the capsule) than launch.

cheers, Martin

[Ronsmytheiii]

ditto...
But, won't this open up the heatshield for debris damage again? I assume it's not hard to add some kevlar on the top end of the carrier, but I dont see it on these concepts...

The SM will block the direction of travel where most MMOD comes from, as it will provide a wake shield.  The concept kind of reminds me of HTV, except with a pressurized cargo container instead of the unpressurized part.

[Robotbeat]

It sure looks a little crazy, which doesn't mean it won't work. I'm glad they're serious (apparently?) and that they're thinking outside the box. Hopefully they're busy also working on other possible markets as well.

[MP99]

The concept is very interesting. And if it's an optional (or further) development it would be very interesting. I just wouldn't like to put it on the critical path for commercial crew.

Agree.  If they can combine cargo and crew flights, it might significantly reduce costs and make ATK much more competitive.  Presumably two fewer flights/yr would also reduce ISS operations and scheduling burden; no idea how much that might be worth.

If Liberty can do 20tonnes to ISS, it's only logical that they try to fill it up as much as possible. given that NASA expects Commercial Crew Services by 2017, and the Cargo Resupply Services will need to be renewed by then, this might point out to what I think should be the logical final step: Combined Commercial Crew and Cargo.

CAIB. Said that crew shouldn't be put at risk to deliver cargo when it wasn't necessary. At a headline level, could make problems for them, even if it's not truly the intent of that CAIB finding.

I think that ATK found themselves with a "too big" rocket for the crew needs of the ISS, but found that if they could do both roles at the same time, they could have a very competitive offering.

Another point - isn't ATV about 20t? Only one-a-year, of course. Thales Alenia are making MPLM-derived capsules for Orbital, maybe they could do something more like an actual MPLM, driven by a liberty SM (scaled up if necessary). Like a super-sized Cygnus, if you like.

Even use the remaining MPLMs, perhaps?

cheers, Martin

[Ronsmytheiii]

CAIB. Said that crew shouldn't be put at risk to deliver cargo when it wasn't necessary. At a headline level, could make problems for them, even if it's not truly the intent of that CAIB finding.

A few of things:

1) The capsule will still be able to abort away, just like Orion and any other one.
2)  The mission will not exist solely for cargo, it is a tag along
3) With the end of Shuttle and ATV plus the extra ISS crew member starting with commercial crew, cargo will be needed

The spacecraft and the cargo are very interesting, and the most different to any of the other CCP proposals with probably the exception of Dreamchaser.  I would be hard pressed at this point to eliminate ATK, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, or SpaceX. 

[apace]

The spacecraft and the cargo are very interesting, and the most different to any of the other CCP proposals with probably the exception of Dreamchaser.

Huh? SpaceX offers cargo transfer in the trunk also. And they can extend the trunk as needed for NASA needs.