ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[pippin]

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.

Haven't done the math but I doubt it.
Ariane 5's LEO payload is structurally limited, not delta-v limited.

[Downix]

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

The U.S. Navy says that the unit costs of a Nimitz class carrier was $4.5 billion.  The last, and most recently launched, Nimitz entered service in 2009. 
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4

If they fly SLS once every two years, each mission (SLS + MPCV) will cost about $6 billion - and that's for flights that don't actually land on anything.

 - Ed Kyle

The US is not building Nimitz class carriers anymore.  May as well go "the unit cost of an Essex class carrier is $78 million" as a point of reference.  If you are going to argue in comparison of a launch vehicle to enter service you must compare to the vehicles being produced simultaneously, which are the Gerald Ford class carriers.

[Robotbeat]

There are other aircraft carriers than the US supercarriers...

Why are we talking about this, again?

[Chris Bergin]

This is the Liberty thread, remember.

Keep it on topic folks.

[manboy]

Unlike the Liberty-class alternatives, only Liberty would keep KSC open.

 - Ed Kyle

Why does that matter?

[Downix]

Yes, there are other Liberty-class rockets, but only Liberty does the job with two stages. 

Not to GTO, which is where the lions share of business is.  There are several rockets which can match Liberty to GTO with only two stages.  If you honestly think ATK is going to support the full cost of this vehicle on the two crew launches per year, I fear you will be sadly disappointed.

Unlike the Liberty-class alternatives, only Liberty would keep KSC open. 

Only if you launch Liberty from KSC, which is not a sure thing and not even in any level other than some powerpoint presentations.  ATK already has two launch facilities, neither one are part of KSC.  Both can be developed to support it for far less than the cost to enable KSC for Liberty operation. 

To take point #2 and feed it back into point #1, the Liberty offers ATK a solid low-cost vehicle for the GTO market, being price competitive with vehicles such as the Proton if the promised price point is reached.  To reach that price point without blowing the R&D budget, they cannot afford to use KSC.  The development for Wallops or Spaceport Florida would be in their best interest cost-wise, to enable maximum profit for GTO and LEO flights.

[Downix]

Yes, there are other Liberty-class rockets, but only Liberty does the job with two stages. 

Not to GTO, which is where the lions share of business is.  There are several rockets which can match Liberty to GTO with only two stages.

I can only think of two rockets that can lift more than 8.85 tonnes (ATK's Liberty projection) to GTO - Ariane 5 ECA and Delta IV Heavy.  Both use four propulsion units (Ariane uses two boosters and two core stages, Delta IV Heavy uses three cores and one upper stage, all liquid).  Atlas V almost lifts as much, but only with five strap on solids (making a total of seven propulsion units).  This compares with three Liberty stages for GTO and other BEO missions.

And there goes this number of stages bit again.  Small secret Ed, most customers don't care how many stages, they care about how much they're spending.  And you'd be wrong, the Atlas V 542, Atlas V 551, Atlas V 552, Delta IV (5,4) and H-IIB are all in that class of launcher as well, and the Delta IV Heavy crushes it, lifting nearly 40% more.  You're going "five strap on solids" so I counter with "5 solid rocket motor segments, making the Atlas with only an additional liquid motor on the first stage."  Just because you're aligning your solids in series instead of parallel does not mean you get to ignore how many you have.

  If you honestly think ATK is going to support the full cost of this vehicle on the two crew launches per year, I fear you will be sadly disappointed.

ATK proposes using Liberty for crew, cargo, and "U.S. government satellite" launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Then I highly doubt KSC is at the top of their list.

[Comga]

This sounds like a shoe-dusting contest, guys.  Five segments with one steering nozzle vs five fixed nozzle solids with a steering liquid main engine... We can agree that differences of a few hundred kg are still "in that class", and that Delta-IVH exceeds the projections for Liberty, whether or not it "blows it away".

The point is total cost including development cost and infrastructure cost.  Delta-IVH and Atlas V are already flying from existing pads and have the capacity for many additional flights.  Ignoring the "sunk cost" fallacy, how could it be reasonable to develop everything still required for Liberty?  All they really have so far are test firings of the 5-segment solid, a ground start engine, and similar upper stage tanks.  How are they going to take away from ULA "U.S. government satellite" launches and the cargo missions from SpaceX and Orbital?

[spectre9]

The difference between launching things on DIV-H and Liberty is the company that makes the profit.

Competition is always a good thing.

If Liberty can't compete on price it will get scrapped.

It does seem to have SLS booster development going for it. Could you use an advanced lightened 5-seg on the liberty?

[Jason1701]

The point is total cost including development cost and infrastructure cost.  Delta-IVH and Atlas V are already flying from existing pads and have the capacity for many additional flights.  Ignoring the "sunk cost" fallacy, how could it be reasonable to develop everything still required for Liberty?  All they really have so far are test firings of the 5-segment solid, a ground start engine, and similar upper stage tanks.

Bingo. I think the key is that Liberty has no ML anymore, which was the single largest "sunk cost" item that made it appealing in the past. Another $200-300 million added to Liberty's development costs is a lot, and it failed to get customers even before that sum was added.

[manboy]

Unlike the Liberty-class alternatives, only Liberty would keep KSC open.

 - Ed Kyle

Why does that matter?

It matters to some people - some of them with the power to decide.  It was one of the reasons for creating SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle

But unlike Liberty, there are no other vehicles currently capable of lifting 130 mt.

[kkattula]

Does Liberty make any sense without SLS?

All the material I've seen stresses the commonality with Block I SLS SRBs. Take those away and Liberty has to wear the entire 5-seg RSRM sustainment cost. I don't think it would be at all competitive in that scenario.

[baldusi]

Does Liberty make any sense without SLS?

All the material I've seen stresses the commonality with Block I SLS SRBs. Take those away and Liberty has to wear the entire 5-seg RSRM sustainment cost. I don't think it would be at all competitive in that scenario.

On the contrary, I think SLS would hurt Liberty. Given that SLS will require the FAR inflated costs, and given the the five segment was developed for and paid by the Constellation/SLS program, Liberty would have to pay it's fair share, not the marginal cost. If SLS doesn't launches very often, then the prorata would be heavily lean on Liberty. If not, they will be, effectively, heavily subsided by the govnt for commercial launches.
Not to mention that for DoD they would need to launch from VAFB or Kodiak. Which would mean a lot of extra infrastructure cost. And the percentage of foreign parts might be a problem.
Again, when ATK/Astrium shows that they have spent 500M on this, then I will take them seriously.

[Jim]

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.

ATK has stated they will have to mod a shuttle MLP for Liberty

[Jason1701]

I wonder if they're considering a Vandenberg or Kodiak site for all those NRO payloads.

[Jim]

O.K.  Straight from the source.  Liberty is aimed straight at ULA.   

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/12/european_space_company_will_co.html

"Sean O'Keefe, president of EADS North America and a former NASA administrator [said that] EADS will develop two versions of the new rocket, O'Keefe said. One will be "human-rated" to carry astronauts, and the other will be designed to lift Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office satellites into space. "They're looking for price competition," O'Keefe said."

 - Ed Kyle

the need for a third stage and lack of VAFB pad will make it non competitive

[kevin-rf]

the need for a third stage and lack of VAFB pad will make it non competitive

Why? On paper one can go into polar orbit from the Cape. Just ask that cow in Cuba

[Ben the Space Brit]

the need for a third stage and lack of VAFB pad will make it non competitive

Why? On paper one can go into polar orbit from the Cape. Just ask that cow in Cuba

Lack of a pad, especially one with the specialised safety requirements of a large solid core (remember the accoustic fears for Vandenberg shuttle?) will add a big figure for the VAFB costs.  The dog-leg for polar out of KSC will use up a lot of Liberty's launch energy and greatly reduce its polar payload from an East Coast pad; a third stage is the logical way to beat that problem.

If ATK is serious about confronting ULA, it will need the capability to boost to GTO from near-equatorial LEO; that means either Vulcain-2 will need to be vacuum restartable (with a consequential drop in overall payload) or, again, a third stage for the transfer burn will be required.

Either way, it will add a bit to Cargo Liberty's dev costs.

Overall, ATK and EADS have a bit of a hard sell for both variants of Liberty, probably due to the late entry into the fray.  ULA's products, and even SpaceX's to a degree, have the advantage of having payloads and methodology having been planned for a while.  Unless ATK can massively undercut Atlas-V's costs, they are going to be hard pressed to find a customer for Stick Mk2.

[baldusi]

Just a nitpick, but why would it be so difficult to use ECA or ECB on a Liberty? I thought it was a shoe in.

[Jim]

Just a nitpick, but why would it be so difficult to use ECA or ECB on a Liberty? I thought it was a shoe in.

too much foreign content?