ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[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.

Liberty is not Ares I. 

Falcon Heavy is no nearer to launch than Liberty.  Its smaller Falcon 9 cousin has only flown twice and only in a scaled down and underpowered version of its planned operational self (and both flights had "issues").  Taurus II seems a means to transfer U.S. taxpayer money to Ukraine, Russia, Italy, etc.  Atlas, which only flies four or five times per year, is costing taxpayers more than expected, with future costs projected to increase. 

But no hate for them.  Only ATK garners spite, for some reason. 

 - Ed Kyle

I never said anything to the contrary. The fact remains that Liberty does not have any payload agreements (that we know about), and has nowhere to launch from now that the ML will be converted for SLS.

It's not that hard to see why people hate ATK. (Not for the above reasons.)

[wolfpack]

I wouldn't say hate, but it does seem to me that ATK uses a lot of political lobbying muscle to get designed into launch vehicles. From an engineer's (and capitalist's) standpoint, it's a bit like cheating. You should win on merit. If solid motors make the best launch vehicle first stages, then they should be used. If not, then not. The funny thing is you don't see SpaceX planning on using them. The Russians don't use them. It doesn't look like Blue Origin is using them. So there are a lot of aerospace folks who don't seem to think that solid fueled rockets are the best way to go for man-rated LVs.

[baldusi]

Liberty is not Ares I.

We know, that's why it's not straight hate.

Falcon Heavy is no nearer to launch than Liberty.

What? Falcon Heavy has everything that it needs to exist already flight proven or in final testing. Liberty doesn't have an air startable Vulcain 2, still hasn't defined how are they going to transfer the thrusts, and they don't even have a fairing specification. Falcon Heavy has it's pad on construction. Liberty not only doesn't have a pad, it has lost its proposed ML. The IOC of FH is supposed to be 2013, Liberty 2015.

Its smaller Falcon 9 cousin has only flown twice and only in a scaled down and underpowered version of its planned operational self (and both flights had "issues").

Every flight has issues. Specially in the first couple of launches. Yet, they have flown successfully enough to classify both missions as "success". And the third is being put off for reasons external to the LV. Which is a lot more than you can say about the Liberty. What's more, neither Falcon nor Taurus II have used billions of federal money to develop the first stage engine, only then using it as commercial.

Taurus II seems a means to transfer U.S. taxpayer money to Ukraine, Russia, Italy, etc.

As the Liberty is fully US made? Really?

Atlas, which only flies four or five times per year, is costing taxpayers more than expected, with future costs projected to increase. 

And which is also arguably the safest LV on the US arsenal, if not in the world? The little workhorse that has been launching all national security and NASA missions without failing. The one that is expected to take the next US astronauts in an US LV? You could have talked about the Delta IV, which won most EELV contracts through corruption and insider information, and was technically less capable and way more expensive than initially designed for. But you failed to mention it.

But no hate for them.  Only ATK garners spite, for some reason. 

I understand that you wanted to do some colorful commentary. But this is ridiculous. You can't attack the rest of the LV in M/HLV class with so little arguments. Liberty earned it when they stated that rockets are Legos^tm.

[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.

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

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/1024.pdf

 - Ed Kyle

Hate?  No. That implies much more emotion that is really here.
Disbelief? Decidedly.  Liberty is not credible.

The point is that this interview did not increase the credibility of the project. 
That PDF doesn't do much for it either, with their nine variations and what not.

[Jason1701]

If it is O.K. to fund Taurus II, given its majority non-U.S. labor-hour content, it should be O.K. to fund Liberty.

Wrong. Taurus II has all its components finished, and a launch pad almost finished. It has assured Cygnus payloads for years, and the possibility of a CRS extension and NLS contracts. Liberty needs many unbuilt or untested components, doesn't have a launch facility, and doesn't have payloads.

Of course it does.  So do Lockheed Martin, Boeing, ULA, Orbital, and SpaceX.  They must, because government contracts are the only way to profit in space launch in the U.S..  They have to deliver too, which is something that ATK and predecessors have done for decades.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I dislike ATK more than other powerful lobbying companies because they speak blatant lies to the taxpayers to advance their aims. At the recent commercial crew hearing, for example, their statement completely switched the facts concerning black zones of solid and liquid first stages. Also, safesimplesoon.com (recently removed), which was made by ATK, had many false statements designed to perpetuate incorrect views on the Ares rockets.

[spectre9]

Lots of hate for a rocket that is only using spare parts.

SLS needs the solids and Ariane 5 still needs a liquid stage. These parts will be getting built anyway.

If there is some kind of competitive edge for a 20mt launcher I'm sure it will be found.

I would agree with other comments the lack of a mobile launcher is a problem.

It is playing Lego with rockets but so what? It's an Ares 1-x revisited and that is a rocket that flew 1 real test flight.

[manboy]

Liberty is not credible.

Frankly, I'd rather see Liberty fly than SLS.

I'm curious, why?

[Robotbeat]

....
It is playing Lego with rockets but so what? It's an Ares 1-x revisited and that is a rocket that flew 1 real test flight.

Ha!

Real test flight? Nothing on Ares Ix was how it would be for Ares I or Liberty.

Let's make a list:
1) The upper stage wasn't real. It was boilerplate (as was the payload)
2) First stage wasn't even the same stage as would be used for Ares I/Liberty... it was a left over Shuttle 4-seg of a different chemistry compared to the 5-seg needed for Ares I/Liberty
3) The avionics were from a different rocket entirely (Atlas V, actually), not the Ares I or Liberty avionics.
4) I believe the MLP was also very different as well.

It was just shaped roughly like Ares I/Liberty. No way can you claim it was a "real" test flight of either Ares I or Liberty.

[apollolanding]

Ed, while I've never been a deep "Stick" hater I can't say you can compare wanting Liberty to see the light of day over SLS.  Launch vehicles with drastically different capabilities.  If we returned to a 1.5 launch architecture, I would love to see both fly (provided Liberty is the safest and most economically viable Crew Launch Vehicle).

I know the Arex I-X test was more show than blow and was the last gasp of Constellation but I love watching any big rocket fly.  Of course if it was me on top... I'd kinda prefer a liquid fueled booster in which the engine(s) can be shut down and not just by pyrotechnically splitting the motor casing.  The pogo situation (not just damping the resonance between the booster and the payload) would be a nice issue to fix.

However if ATK and its partners are willing to develop Liberty and associated GSE at their own cost then by all means they should proceed.  The bottom line is the Astronaut Office should have more than a consulting role in the choice to go forward with Liberty or any Crew Launcher for that matter.  The last thing I want to see is millions of development dollars get thrown into something crews feel unsafe on top of.  That word will leak out and would not go over well in a Congressional hearing.

Apollolanding - Joe Clemente

It may never fly, but the concept seems worthy of consideration, and detailed study, to me.  Frankly, I'd rather see Liberty fly than SLS.- Ed Kyle

[Jason1701]

If there is some kind of competitive edge for a 20mt launcher I'm sure it will be found.

I completely agree with you. So what does Liberty's current sum of payloads tell you?

[spectre9]

Hey I never said it was likely to be competitive.

Also I think the Ares1x proves the concept if nothing else of this fat top stick rocket design. Of course they will need lots of all new parts to make the Liberty fly.

Thing is they're just holding out for NASA funds like everybody else.

[Zed_Noir]

Correct me, if I am wrong. IRC the Ariana 5 actually have better lift capability than the Liberty as it is.

[ugordan]

Lots of hate for a rocket that is only using spare parts.

Of course they will need lots of all new parts to make the Liberty fly.

[baldusi]

Taurus II seems a means to transfer U.S. taxpayer money to Ukraine, Russia, Italy, etc.

As the Liberty is fully US made? Really?

If it is O.K. to fund Taurus II, given its majority non-U.S. labor-hour content, it should be O.K. to fund Liberty.

You only seem interested in attacking everything else. Taurus II the majority of the value in US. If successful, might even be the reason of being for the AJ-500, which will be a fully US made rocket. Even the AJ-26 have most of it's current value made in the US. But more importantly, the total investment of the US govt in the Taurus II is so low, that quite probably the total amount of foreign dollars is comparable to any other US LV.
Besides, my whole point is that we can discuss for hours which of each rocket has a bigger percentage or total amount of dollars sent abroad for a given payload. But are, quite probably, the most outsourced rockets that can be called US made.
Again, the problem with Liberty is the lack of credibility in actually going forward. The amount of people assigned to the task is minuscule, it needs a new engine development, new thrust structure, new avionics (GNC is ITAR and they can't use the Ariane's because of that), new ML, new GSE, etc. They have exactly zero customers on the manifest. And they haven't done a serious commit. If they say that they are launching a Demo flight in 2015, out of their own pockets, then I'll start to take them seriously, else, it's pure arm waving until they start bending metal.

Correct me, if I am wrong. IRC the Ariana 5 actually have better lift capability than the Liberty as it is.

The Ariane 5 is a three stages rocket. And highly optimized for GTO. It also has a better launch site for equatorial launches.

[spectre9]

Ok I got caught out there.

They need the interstage and whatever it takes to keep it pointed in the right direction. Robotbeat has pointed this out already. 

[Chris Bergin]

It should be a forum rule not to "hate" rockets of any kind.

Rocket rights for all!

[Downix]

Correct me, if I am wrong. IRC the Ariana 5 actually have better lift capability than the Liberty as it is.

The Ariane 5 in the two-stage configuration as Liberty would be (core + boosters) lifts less than Liberty. If you added the Ariane 5's second stage to Liberty, it would have a GTO payload higher than Ariane 5.

[wolfpack]

I wouldn't say hate, but it does seem to me that ATK uses a lot of political lobbying muscle to get designed into launch vehicles.

Of course it does.  So do Lockheed Martin, Boeing, ULA, Orbital, and SpaceX.  They must, because government contracts are the only way to profit in space launch in the U.S..  They have to deliver too, which is something that ATK and predecessors have done for decades.   

ATK wasn't even the biggest contractor on Ares I, let alone SLS.  Boeing has somehow magically gained the lion's share of the SLS work, for the core stage (world's biggest-ever rocket stage), without ever having had to compete for the job!  Where are the howls of protest for that?

 - Ed Kyle

True, I suppose they all have their hands out to some degree or another. If there's something to "hate" I guess it would be the way our rockets get designed by political process rather than engineering merit and free markets. Too many Congresspeople using the space program as pork and jobs programs.

[M_Puckett]

Correct me, if I am wrong. IRC the Ariana 5 actually have better lift capability than the Liberty as it is.

The Ariane 5 in the two-stage configuration as Liberty would be (core + boosters) lifts less than Liberty. If you added the Ariane 5's second stage to Liberty, it would have a GTO payload higher than Ariane 5.

And to be fair, Ariane has a equatorial launch site so it gets a bit of a freebie from the Earth's rotation.

[Downix]

Liberty is not credible.

Frankly, I'd rather see Liberty fly than SLS.

I'm curious, why?

SLS will be spectacularly costly.  Each mission will cost as much as an aircraft carrier.  NASA simply won't be able to fly the thing - certainly not more than once every few years at best.  A smaller rocket like Liberty will cost much, much less, and will be able to fly more often.

And BTW, to those mentioning the launch platform thingy, SLS doesn't have a launch platform either!  The existing platform was built for Ares I and will have to be extensively rebuilt to handle SLS, as you know.

 - Ed Kyle

The Gerald Ford has a sail away cost of $14 billion. You honestly are claiming each SLS will cost $14 billion?