ATK/EADS: Liberty Launch Vehicle Update Thread

[spectre9]

Competing with ULA isn't going to be easy.

Hopefully they can at least force the price of Atlas V down enough to put them out of business 

Not sure what this will really achieve.

[kkattula]

I don't think ULA is Liberty's main competition. If DOD buy launches from anyone else, they'll be looking for prices at the SpaceX level or less.

With ULA's great record, i think DOD would need a big incentive to move even part of their business elsewhere.

[Namechange User]

I don't think ULA is Liberty's main competition. If DOD buy launches from anyone else, they'll be looking for prices at the SpaceX level or less.

With ULA's great record, i think DOD would need a big incentive to move even part of their business elsewhere.

Liberty's main competition are themselves.  Given the design of the launch vehicle if the vibro-acoustic environment is sufficiently different than that of an all-chemical rocket in the same class, why would anyone pick Liberty?  The higher vibro-accoustic environment could drive cost and schedule by increasing certs of the payload via beefed up structure and components.

It's all in how Liberty choses to address this and mitigate it, if possible. 

[spectre9]

Very good post OV-106.

Rockets should be smooth. If the Liberty isn't dirt cheap it's never going to happen.

[woods170]

Very good post OV-106.

Rockets should be smooth. If the Liberty isn't dirt cheap it's never going to happen.

The most succesfull comsat launcher of the moment (Ariane 5) has a fairly severe vibro-accoustic environment when the EAP's (solids) are still attached. This was partially solved thru modifications to the inside of the fairing and the payload adapter. No showstopper back then for bringing Ariane 5 into service. And no provisions were required from the comsat builders, beyond what was already standard. So, I don't see the potentially more severe vibro-accoustic environment of Liberty as a showstopper. And the TO problem was understood to be mostly non-existent even before Ares-1 was killed.

[Ben the Space Brit]

And the TO problem was understood to be mostly non-existent even before Ares-1 was killed.

Not quite - TO was known to be unpredictable - present on one burn and not on another.  Simply put, no-one is sure, just yet. 

It is also worth noting that Liberty =/= Ariane-5.  The difference between side-mount and in-line solids will probably change the game somewhat.

[Jim]

And the TO problem was understood to be mostly non-existent even before Ares-1 was killed.

 Not quite true.  It necessitated mods to the upperstage

[Namechange User]

Very good post OV-106.

Rockets should be smooth. If the Liberty isn't dirt cheap it's never going to happen.

The most succesfull comsat launcher of the moment (Ariane 5) has a fairly severe vibro-accoustic environment when the EAP's (solids) are still attached. This was partially solved thru modifications to the inside of the fairing and the payload adapter. No showstopper back then for bringing Ariane 5 into service. And no provisions were required from the comsat builders, beyond what was already standard. So, I don't see the potentially more severe vibro-accoustic environment of Liberty as a showstopper. And the TO problem was understood to be mostly non-existent even before Ares-1 was killed.

An excellent example of sticking your head in the sand.

Could it be mitigted?  Maybe...in a variety of differnt ways that do not all have to do with engineering, some are business.  Will it?  I don't know in all honestly. 

But to just gloss over it and suggest that because of Ariane 5, a completely different design, and that the vibro-acoustic environment is not a concern is a bit silly. 

So, in summary, what I said is it needs to be seriously considered.  If Liberty is different enough with respect to these environments, it will not be considered due to the factors I mentioned and it will not go anywhere.  Can it be mitigated?  Maybe.  Let's just not pretend that is not an issue at all.

[kkattula]

Was any acoustic/vibration data from the Ares I-X test ever published?  That has to be the closest analog to Liberty ever flown.

I seem to remember a report of insignificant TO, but nothing detailed.  It might be interesting to compare the acoustic environment to existing launchers.

[Namechange User]

Was any acoustic/vibration data from the Ares I-X test ever published?  That has to be the closest analog to Liberty ever flown.

I seem to remember a report of insignificant TO, but nothing detailed.  It might be interesting to compare the acoustic environment to existing launchers.

Closest thing ever flown, sure.  But that just validates the aerodynamics and that such a stack is controlable.  The acoustics and vibe environments would be somewhat different because it is a differnt motor. 

The acoustic environments would be derived from test firings and analysis of the proposed stack.  Validation of those environments can only happen through an actual test flight (and the pre-operational environments tend to be conservative anyway).

[Downix]

Competing with ULA isn't going to be easy.

Hopefully they can at least force the price of Atlas V down enough to put them out of business 

Liberty wouldn't compete with Atlas V really (it beats all Atlas V variants, performance-wise and is too powerful for bread and butter GPS type missions).

So you're saying Liberty can lift over 30 metric tons?  That's far more than anything I've heard coming out of ATK.

  It would compete with Delta IV Heavy.  That's a much more vulnerable target, cost-wise.  The thing is, however, that Liberty doesn't match Delta IV Heavy's performance, so there's that.

But that counters your earlier argument

A Vandenberg pad would be needed, unless Liberty is only going to try to capture GTO/GEO missions.  It could be a stack and shoot pad, less expensive than LC-39 and SLC-6, but still a big expense due to the tall tower needed for propellant loading, etc..  As for the needed third stage, there's ESC-A (and maybe ESC-B in the future).

So, on cost, Delta IV Heavy shares infrastructure only with Delta IV Medium, and together they've only flown about three times per year.  Liberty would share with SLS and Ariane 5, and, unlike Delta IV Heavy, it would share among manned and unmanned missions.  That means up to a dozen total flights per year for all of that shared infrastructure. 

 - Ed Kyle

You're neglecting the ULA consolidation going on

[woods170]

An excellent example of sticking your head in the sand.

Could it be mitigted?  Maybe...in a variety of differnt ways that do not all have to do with engineering, some are business.  Will it?  I don't know in all honestly. 

But to just gloss over it and suggest that because of Ariane 5, a completely different design, and that the vibro-acoustic environment is not a concern is a bit silly. 

So, in summary, what I said is it needs to be seriously considered.  If Liberty is different enough with respect to these environments, it will not be considered due to the factors I mentioned and it will not go anywhere.  Can it be mitigated?  Maybe.  Let's just not pretend that is not an issue at all.

Two things OV-106:

First, you're starting to act like Jim: starting your posts with slightly annoying one-liners.
Second: your post was an excellent example of reacting before reading twice.

You see, in my previous reaction I never stated that the vibro-accoustic environment of Liberty is not an issue at all. I specifically said that I don't see it as a showstopper. Not being a showstopper does not mean it's not an issue.

And I leave it at that.

[Jim]

First, you're starting to act like Jim: starting your posts with slightly annoying one-liners.

What is wrong with that?  You only seem to have trouble with it.

[kevin-rf]

That means up to a dozen total flights per year for all of that shared infrastructure. 

 - Ed Kyle

Well, if ULA succeeds with a combined upper stage, there would be similar upper stage synergy.

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hey some of us like one-liners.

[Downix]

Liberty wouldn't compete with Atlas V really (it beats all Atlas V variants, performance-wise and is too powerful for bread and butter GPS type missions).

So you're saying Liberty can lift over 30 metric tons? 

No.  I'm saying it out lifts any Atlas V variants.  Atlas 551, the most powerful variant currently available, can lift 8.7 tonnes to GTO (28.5 deg) from the Cape.  Liberty could lift 8.85 tonnes.

Is that 8.85 tonnes with how much margin? f you launch the 551 with MRS it hits GTO with more than 9 tonnes, so if Liberty out performs it, you must first answer, what margin does that number include?

Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist.  If it were developed, it would mean the end of Delta IV.

already discredited, different targets.

You're neglecting the ULA consolidation going on

ULA may be consolidating, but its prices continue to rise as if it were not.

 - Ed Kyle

Supplier issues, which would effect ATK as well. You keep side stepping the issues.

[Jim]

No.  I'm saying it out lifts any Atlas V variants.  Atlas 551, the most powerful variant currently available, can lift 8.7 tonnes to GTO (28.5 deg) from the Cape.  Liberty could lift 8.85 tonnes.

With what upperstage?

[Downix]

Is that 8.85 tonnes with how much margin? f you launch the 551 with MRS it hits GTO with more than 9 tonnes, so if Liberty out performs it, you must first answer, what margin does that number include?

ATK/EADS gave its number only as "GTO", which typically means standard GTO x 28.5 from the Cape.  If Atlas can lift more than its standard payload with an "MRS" profile, than so could Liberty.  In addition, the Liberty numbers were for a "DAC-0" configuration.  Advanced versions would lift more.

You assume, you guess, and there is nothing to back it up.  Using the figures in Schillings, I get 8.7 tonnes to the same GTO orbit for Liberty with MRS, Minimal Residue Shutdown, running the tank dry without any disruption or flight anomaly, the absolute maximum performance.  Not the ideal burn profile, it would not have any maneuvering or margin, no wiggle room to account for anything.  Which means real world performance would be lower than Atlas V for the same payload.  Orbit used is the ≥185 x 35,786 k listed in the Atlas V Users Guide, which has it's normal payload at 8,900kg but puts Atlas at an inclination of 27 degrees.  If you take Atlas V 551 and put it to the same 28 degrees Liberty is going to, I am getting closer to 10 metric tons when running to MRS.

Atlas V Heavy doesn't exist.  If it were developed, it would mean the end of Delta IV.

already discredited, different targets.

I am convinced that ULA would shut down Delta IV if it decided to develop Atlas V Heavy.  They are both EELVs designed to cover the EELV contract spectrum.

You are convinced of a lot of things, does not make them accurate.  Atlas V HLV has a very different payload profile over the Delta IV Heavy, and would not be a suitable replacement to the D4H for the main crop of payloads it is currently lofting.

You're neglecting the ULA consolidation going on

ULA may be consolidating, but its prices continue to rise as if it were not.

 - Ed Kyle

Supplier issues, which would effect ATK as well. You keep side stepping the issues.

The EELV prices and costs have risen because, I believe, the original promises to DoD were blue-sky (like Shuttle and many other big govt. contractor systems).

 - Ed Kyle

Claims you've made before, and were disproven before.  Just because the echo chamber can repeat the same thing over and over does not make it a viable point, it only reduces credibility.  The majority of the cost for commercial launches on EELV is USAF fees under the agreement ULA currently has with the USAF.  The next portion is cost of the launch vehicles themselves, and those costs have gone up significantly in the past few years due to issues in other programs, such as the RL-10 price tripling.  The original promises to DoD was dependent on a flight order rate which the DoD did not then meet. Remember, the DoD pre-paid for a set number of launches, but those launches were to be completed by 2008, and here it is 2011 almost 2012 and they have not yet finished with them.  It is easy to point fingers at the contractor, but they based their pricing based on a flight rate given to them by the DoD, with the commercial launches only gravy.

And Ed, don't forget that you can add a STAR-48 to the Atlas V for GTO operations as well, which would further increase the payload. 

[Xplor]

Question, what requirements are there for reentry of liberties second stage?  The Arianne V booster is very beefy, a lot of it will survive reentry.

[Downix]

You assume, you guess, and there is nothing to back it up.  Using the figures in Schillings, I get 8.7 tonnes to the same GTO orbit for Liberty with MRS, Minimal Residue Shutdown, running the tank dry without any disruption or flight anomaly, the absolute maximum performance. 

ATK/EADS project 8.85 tonnes to GTO in their presentation.  They know more about their vehicle than anyone else.

Not relevant.  I am using the same estimation tool for both vehicles, ergo, the same root calculations would apply for both.  When you compare two cars, you make sure they are running on the same track and configuration before you declare which one is faster than the other.  The use of Schillings is just a way to do that.

You are convinced of a lot of things, does not make them accurate.  Atlas V HLV has a very different payload profile over the Delta IV Heavy, and would not be a suitable replacement to the D4H for the main crop of payloads it is currently lofting.

Name one payload that Atlas V Heavy could not lift that Delta IV Heavy can.

 - Ed Kyle

Its GTO performance is 1.8 tonnes lower.