Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML

[Robotbeat]

Kludging Atlas V to be able to launch from LC-39 isn't originally an ULA idea.

[woods170]

Oooops. USA instead of ULA. Sorry. Will fix it in my original post.

And I don't think Atlas V would be kludged. The USA ULC idea will have to be 'kludged' to support Atlas V. Adapt the tower and pad to the existing vehicle. Not the other way around.

[Jim]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

No, I see a marketing pitch from a company trying to keep itself alive in an location where it is no longer relevant.  It is a better idea for them vs the users.

[Namechange User]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".
However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.

Yeah, sure.  Words like "unavoidable technical hurdles" seems to cast judgement right there.  So let's go back and look what I said:

1.  Regarding Jim's initial comment, I said it "does not have to be the case".  That is a true statement.

2.  I said, "there are concepts and designs in work now for otherwise".  That is a true statement.

3.  It was immediately called a "kludge" and dismissed by others declaring why it cannot happen.

Is it the ultimate solution?  I don't know.  There are a host of questions that need to be answered and concept of operations defined.  That however, does NOT mean a possible solution should be dismissed outright calling it a "kludge" and specifically saying it will not work because of reasons X, Y, Z. 

[Namechange User]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

No, I see a marketing pitch from a company trying to keep itself alive in an location where it is no longer relevant.  It is a better idea for them vs the users.

A "marketing pitch".  It is a concept from a company Jim.  No different than anything ULA or anyone else does.  It does not take away from the possibility so no reason for you to continue to be small and petty and pretend like you are the one with the ability to cast that final judgement. 

[spectre9]

I thought there were other unused MLPs now shuttle is retired.

[Robotbeat]

I thought there were other unused MLPs now shuttle is retired.

And recent experience suggest that it costs ~9 figures to convert them. There are only 3 total, at least 1 of which needs to be used for SLS (and likely two, if you're going to do dual-launch missions).

[Chris Bergin]

I'll splinter this thread later for the ML debate, as I can't merge it into the SLS ML article thread (given it's all about Liberty). Continue, I'll sort it out

[Ben the Space Brit]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Surely this could be fixed by having a hardware on the MLP to convert the juice to the voltage, amperage, frequency, etc. required.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Surely this could be fixed by having a hardware on the MLP to convert the juice to the voltage, amperage, frequency, etc. required.

You're joking, right?  It's not a matter of plugging in a universal wall adapter or anything.  The physical interfaces are different: for electrical and data alone you have different physical geometry, different connector design, different pin counts and arrangements, different locations on the launch vehicles, different data formats and data rates . . . Now let's talk about physical interfaces for fuel/oxidizer, purge gases, coolants, etc. . . .

"Rockets are not Legos!"

[Namechange User]

You're joking, right?  It's not a matter of plugging in a universal wall adapter or anything.  The physical interfaces are different: for electrical and data alone you have different physical geometry, different connector design, different pin counts and arrangements, different locations on the launch vehicles, different data formats and data rates . . . Now let's talk about physical interfaces for fuel/oxidizer, purge gases, coolants, etc. . . .

"Rockets are not Legos!"

You don't have to change the rocket interfaces and requirements. 

[Chris Bergin]

Split thread, leaving the Liberty specific update thread and allowing for this thread (I'm sure all the posts after the split were on the ML).

[Ben the Space Brit]

I think that we are establishing that each different rocket at LC-39 would need its own MLP and its own umbilical system, which I think is the point here.  If the Ares I MLP is converted to operate SLS, ATK/EADS will need to fund a new MLP for Liberty.

[woods170]

Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".
However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.

Yeah, sure.  Words like "unavoidable technical hurdles" seems to cast judgement right there.  So let's go back and look what I said:

1.  Regarding Jim's initial comment, I said it "does not have to be the case".  That is a true statement.

2.  I said, "there are concepts and designs in work now for otherwise".  That is a true statement.

3.  It was immediately called a "kludge" and dismissed by others declaring why it cannot happen.

Is it the ultimate solution?  I don't know.  There are a host of questions that need to be answered and concept of operations defined.  That however, does NOT mean a possible solution should be dismissed outright calling it a "kludge" and specifically saying it will not work because of reasons X, Y, Z. 

Regarding your points 1 and 2: no one here ever said you were lying. No one questioned the truth of your statements.So why do you find it necessary to point out you made two true statements? 

Regarding point 3:
The by-now infamous "kludge" statement came from Jim. He has a way of ticking people off. My advice: ignore the guy. Don't get worked-up over one of his one-liners or one-word-ers.

Also regarding your point 3:
No one said the ULC won't work. On the other hand: several people mentioned technical hurdles to be taken. "Unavoidable technical hurdles" must not be read as "it can't be done". That's not the case at all. "Unavoidable technical hurdles" must be read as "There will be technical challenges during development". There always are technical challenges. But that does not mean those technical challenges can't be tackled.

No one in this thread ever stated that it is impossible to bring the ULC into reality. But several people did say that the proposed ULC is probably a bad idea in terms of efficiency, practicality, cost, technical feasibility, etc.

So, please, stop reading "it can't be done" in the commentaries from other forum members. And, please, start thinking "hey, they might have a point here. So, how are we gonna over-come this hurdle?"

[Lars_J]

Or condensing into one line: Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean that it *should* be done.

[woods170]

Or condensing into one line: Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean that it *should* be done.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at.