ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[XP67_Moonbat]

Wow it's like the thread's turning into the Pepsi Challenge

[Go4TLI]

joek,

It is as simple as ATK is traditionally a launch vehicle supplier or elements of a vehicle (although taking a look at their website and learning their various capabilities, components, etc may go a long to curing the general ignorance and trash talk)

CCDev was not an integrated capability, one or two. Companies were free to submit proposals for spacecraft, launch vehicles or components. Obviously if one is providing a spacecraft work will be done on their part to assess various launch vehicles. If one is proposing a launch vehicle work will be done on their part to identify various spacecraft

The point we are at now is ATK is perfectly right, and capable, to be proposing an integrated system where they are the lead with LM, etc as their subs.

Furthermore very few people here are qualified to discuss "long poles" because very few people have the actual facts, story and what has been going on behind the scenes for quite some time. I will not divulge any of that either for what I do know and likely I don't even have the complete story. That will just have to do with folks.

[spectre9]

So why do they need to have a cargo module?

Does Liberty have too much performance for just the crew capsule? Must be very light.

Atlas V and Falcon 9 seem much more suited to the crew delivery role and both are already flying.

Seems like Liberty too late to the party.

They need to be put through the same scepticism that SpaceX and Falcon 9 was subjected to. 3 launches and we'll talk cargo, 7 launches and we'll talk crew. That might not be the official line but SpaceX is looking up to the task so far.

How can Liberty possibly be chosen for commercial crew funding without a single launch?

Surely they would have to get to the same level as the other competitors if considered for the next round? Will they pay for a test flight themself?

[Downix]

joek,

It is as simple as ATK is traditionally a launch vehicle supplier or elements of a vehicle (although taking a look at their website and learning their various capabilities, components, etc may go a long to curing the general ignorance and trash talk)

CCDev was not an integrated capability, one or two. Companies were free to submit proposals for spacecraft, launch vehicles or components. Obviously if one is providing a spacecraft work will be done on their part to assess various launch vehicles. If one is proposing a launch vehicle work will be done on their part to identify various spacecraft

The point we are at now is ATK is perfectly right, and capable, to be proposing an integrated system where they are the lead with LM, etc as their subs.

Furthermore very few people here are qualified to discuss "long poles" because very few people have the actual facts, story and what has been going on behind the scenes for quite some time. I will not divulge any of that either for what I do know and likely I don't even have the complete story. That will just have to do with folks.

While the migration from components to whole systems might seem a leap, it is not that large of a leap as one might imagine. They were leads in contracts for both first and second stage systems, for fairings, for support components. To go from that to full solution is not a large step. Their re-use of Constellation components only improves their costs, and speeds up their proposal. I'd consider it a fairly good and practical solution, they see the demand, they step up for it. Many people do not trust them after everything that happened, but I do trust them to do what a successful company does best, work its tail off to fit the need of its customer. If they were to be the sole vendor, I would not go with them, but with either SNC or Boeing, due to their use of the Atlas V. But as a backup to a primary, I see a lot of merit in their proposal. To quote Abraham Lincoln when he saw the USS Monitor for the first time, "I'd say there's something in it."

[Downix]

So why do they need to have a cargo module?

Does Liberty have too much performance for just the crew capsule? Must be very light.

Atlas V and Falcon 9 seem much more suited to the crew delivery role and both are already flying.

Seems like Liberty too late to the party.

They need to be put through the same scepticism that SpaceX and Falcon 9 was subjected to. 3 launches and we'll talk cargo, 7 launches and we'll talk crew. That might not be the official line but SpaceX is looking up to the task so far.

How can Liberty possibly be chosen for commercial crew funding without a single launch?

Surely they would have to get to the same level as the other competitors if considered for the next round? Will they pay for a test flight themself?

There is some data from Ares IX which can be viable, plus the work on Athena III and the flights of Ariane 5 to look at as well. By being a frankenrocket, ATK actually has a few legs to stand on, much how the successful flights of the Falcon 1 gave SpaceX a leg to stand on to push Falcon 9 development through a similar contract.

What leans in ATK's favor however is the same thing which turns off many people, they are very politically connected. A politically connected vendor in the list will keep the Congressional funding spigot open for the program, even if they are a secondary rather than primary choice.

[Go4TLI]

So why do they need to have a cargo module?

Does Liberty have too much performance for just the crew capsule? Must be very light.

Atlas V and Falcon 9 seem much more suited to the crew delivery role and both are already flying.

Seems like Liberty too late to the party.

They need to be put through the same scepticism that SpaceX and Falcon 9 was subjected to. 3 launches and we'll talk cargo, 7 launches and we'll talk crew. That might not be the official line but SpaceX is looking up to the task so far.

How can Liberty possibly be chosen for commercial crew funding without a single launch?

Surely they would have to get to the same level as the other competitors if considered for the next round? Will they pay for a test flight themself?

Why wouldn't they offer cargo?  They have the capability and put forth a proposal to use it.  That is how this works quite simply

Again, this is an integrated capability. This is about much more than a particular rocket and finally I can't shake the position that if SpaceX proposed sticking a mini MPLM in between Dragon elements the response from many here would be quite different

[Tea Party Space Czar]

People here need to realize what is happening... its called competition.  It is a very good and healthy thing.  I, personally, like some of the comments about cost launching from LC-39, the VAB, ect.  Those are some old and very expensive pieces of infrastructure. 

If ATK can sell a product to the public and NASA at a price that is competitive in the free market, why should we not embrace this?  The fact that ATK is pushing companies like SNC, ULA, and SpaceX is a good thing. 

We, at TPIS, are quite aware of the money ATK received.  $1.8 billion is a lot of money.  If they can develop a system on their own dime, using their own funds, and finding new investors, good for them.

Hating just to hate is childish.  There are a lot of things you can say about how contracts are awarded, but competition is good.  We will see what happens. 

Would you ride Liberty if given the chance?

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

[spectre9]

Why wouldn't they offer cargo?  They have the capability and put forth a proposal to use it.  That is how this works quite simply

Again, this is an integrated capability. This is about much more than a particular rocket and finally I can't shake the position that if SpaceX proposed sticking a mini MPLM in between Dragon elements the response from many here would be quite different

The shuttle offered crew and cargo. Why retire it at all?

Oh that's right there's a better way of doing things.

SpaceX isn't going to start sandwiching MPLMs into their Dragon trunk.

To me it just looks like Liberty is trying to justify extra performance and cost.

[Go4TLI]

I, personally, like some of the comments about cost launching from LC-39, the VAB, ect.  Those are some old and very expensive pieces of infrastructure.

Does the TPIS really know the costs of LC 39?  Does the TPIS think LC 39 is going anywhere?  If other users can use the facility and pay for their proportion of its use does that not get to "fiscal responsibility" and a win-win for all if that is what a particular provider chooses?  Do you have issues with the use of OPF 3 or potentially other bys by others? 
 

We, at TPIS, are quite aware of the money ATK received.  $1.8 billion is a lot of money.  If they can develop a system on their own dime, using their own funds, and finding new investors, good for them.

Can you show that ATK actually received 1.8 billion?  Just because that is a contract value does not mean a company actually gets that money for their own use, or profit, by any means

Would you ride Liberty if given the chance?

Would you, I think is the question and more to the point how will TPIS square their rather hate-filled (to use essentially your own words) quotes of the past for this.  Or does it really and just vail it's tactics slightly, perhaps as has been done above?

[Go4TLI]

Why wouldn't they offer cargo?  They have the capability and put forth a proposal to use it.  That is how this works quite simply

Again, this is an integrated capability. This is about much more than a particular rocket and finally I can't shake the position that if SpaceX proposed sticking a mini MPLM in between Dragon elements the response from many here would be quite different

The shuttle offered crew and cargo. Why retire it at all?

Oh that's right there's a better way of doing things.

SpaceX isn't going to start sandwiching MPLMs into their Dragon trunk.

To me it just looks like Liberty is trying to justify extra performance and cost.

We shouldn't have retired it when we did, simple as that. That's rather obvious.

Otherwise, I fail to see what you are getting at other than just wanting to be against ATK's concept.  Sorry

[Prober]

Yep, keep them coming. I'll pick out the best and while I can't propose a pdf worth of answers, something is always better than nothing!

this one might blow a few minds ......

What stops ATK from going the Liberty "stick" to a Jarvis type launcher? EDS engine in the center with two sets of solids.

They have the pieces and the experience.  Maybe ATK's PR dept is just warming us up with ideas?

[spectre9]

I'm not being biased against ATK, I'm saying their solution is poorly customised to the role.

I don't think they can can't meet the reliability/safety of Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

I'm trying to give them a fair hearing.

This system just doesn't look that good when compared to it's competition. Having the ability to take extra cargo isn't a requirement. There are a fleet of unmanned cargo carriers for that job.

[Go4TLI]

I'm not being biased against ATK, I'm saying their solution is poorly customised to the role.

I don't think they can can't meet the reliability/safety of Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

I'm trying to give them a fair hearing.

This system just doesn't look that good when compared to it's competition. Having the ability to take extra cargo isn't a requirement. There are a fleet of unmanned cargo carriers for that job.

You are not qualified to make any of those comments with any credibility, and let's be honest Falcon has flown three times over something like two plus years

Let's just leave it at that. You attempted to make your points. I see nothing that can be gained from this and will not comment further to any other posts from you on the subject

[spectre9]

Well that was a bit blunt Go4TLI.

Since this is the internet I'm claiming the win.

Lighter cheaper rockets that are actually flying beat giant chunky paper rockets that aren't 

[Go4TLI]

Well that was a bit blunt Go4TLI.

Since this is the internet I'm claiming the win.

Lighter cheaper rockets that are actually flying beat giant chunky paper rockets that aren't 

Whatever helps you sleep....

[Zachstar]

Well if the folks on this site can't have a laugh as usual. I will go for a simple statement.

In my opinion ATK will and deserves to fail at gaining any support for the Liberty system.

[joek]

CCDev was not an integrated capability, one or two. Companies were free to submit proposals for spacecraft, launch vehicles or components. Obviously if one is providing a spacecraft work will be done on their part to assess various launch vehicles. If one is proposing a launch vehicle work will be done on their part to identify various spacecraft

Understood, although while companies were free to submit proposals for any and all, the CCDev-2 focus was clearly on spacecraft or related systems.  I can't believe ATK was not aware of that.  ULA with their LV-centric proposal had an obvious CCDev-2 card to play as they had an LV selected by two (edit: arguably three) contenders.

ATK's CCDev-2 play with LV but no spacecraft was far from clear.  If they had a spacecraft to put in play, why not then?  From the time of the CCDev-2 solicitation (Dec 2010), to selection (Apr 2011), to ATK's announcement of the Liberty "system" (May 2012) is a relatively short period (at least in LV-spacecraft-dog-years).

That strongly suggests something significant changed in a relatively short period of time recently.  I appreciate that you are limited as to what information you (or any others) can provide, thus my questions... which I hope ATK will address when Chris interviews them, as it seems the Liberty spacecraft is the big question mark (at least for me).

People here need to realize what is happening... its called competition.  It is a very good and healthy thing.  I, personally, like some of the comments about cost launching from LC-39, the VAB, ect.  Those are some old and very expensive pieces of infrastructure. 

If ATK can sell a product to the public and NASA at a price that is competitive in the free market, why should we not embrace this?  The fact that ATK is pushing companies like SNC, ULA, and SpaceX is a good thing. 

I hope and expect most here realize what is happening, and what CCDev, CCiCap and ultimately what CTS/CCP is all about.  If ATK can provides the most competitive solution and wins on an open field based on its merits, I'll be among the first to congratulate them when they take the prize.

What I think you may detect (or maybe it's just me), is unease among some that there is something slippery and slithering beneath the surface, and the field is not quite as neutral as appearances suggest.  But methinks that is conjecture and the stuff of bogeyman's best left for other times and places--at least until proven otherwise.  I'd only remind everyone that "greed has no memory".

[Chris Bergin]

Well if the folks on this site can't have a laugh as usual. I will go for a simple statement.

"LOL, lol lol lol!!!" (and I quote) is not of the quality of this site, that's why it was removed. That's not having a laugh, that's a youtube comment on a Justin Beiber video (not that I've looked ).

In my opinion ATK will and deserves to fail at gaining any support for the Liberty system.

Your throwaway comment above - with zero rationale on your position - was a vast improvement. Well done!

Now let's turn that frown, upside down!

[93143]

The shuttle offered crew and cargo. Why retire it at all?

Oh that's right there's a better way of doing things.

The Shuttle's only fundamental disadvantage was the lack of a LAS.  Well, that and the inability to fly uncrewed, but that's more of a software issue, easily solvable if the right incentives were present...

For station resupply and crew exchange, if operated commercially as repeatedly proposed by USA, it would (according to my calculations) have been roughly cost-competitive with Falcon/Dragon and blown everything else out of the water.

And as the latest last-ditch attempt to revive Shuttle commercially revealed, the unique capabilities of STS would apparently be worth its true cost on the open market even without NASA as a customer.

STS should never have been cancelled at all.  It should have been spun off to a commercial operator.

I wonder what Shuttle's performance would have looked like with 5-seg (or kerolox) boosters and a pusher LAS on the crew cabin?

...okay, I'm off topic.  But frankly, seeing this cargo idea makes me a bit depressed.  It's basically a mini-Shuttle, but only the crew cabin so much as survives re-entry...  and with the possible exception of SNC, no one else is doing anything any more sophisticated...  this is supposed to be progress?

Heck, even Skylon doesn't replicate Shuttle's full capabilities.  It should be one hell of a lot cheaper, and I'm all for it, but the world has definitely lost something, and it looks to me like it won't be getting it back any time soon...

[yg1968]

People here need to realize what is happening... its called competition.  It is a very good and healthy thing.  I, personally, like some of the comments about cost launching from LC-39, the VAB, ect.  Those are some old and very expensive pieces of infrastructure. 

If ATK can sell a product to the public and NASA at a price that is competitive in the free market, why should we not embrace this?  The fact that ATK is pushing companies like SNC, ULA, and SpaceX is a good thing. 

We, at TPIS, are quite aware of the money ATK received.  $1.8 billion is a lot of money.  If they can develop a system on their own dime, using their own funds, and finding new investors, good for them.

Hating just to hate is childish.  There are a lot of things you can say about how contracts are awarded, but competition is good.  We will see what happens. 

Would you ride Liberty if given the chance?

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

Of course, we want ATK to compete with others. But Chris' article suggests that ATK is getting bonus points for launching from KSC. The fact that their proposal has a lot of commonality with SLS and MPCV is also seen as a positive. The fact that they have political clout and influence in Congress and within NASA is also seen as a positive. None of this should matter in a free market.