ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[Downix]

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.

So long as politicians control NASA's purse strings, politics will play a part.

[QuantumG]

None of this should matter in a free market.

So long as politicians control NASA's purse strings, politics will play a part.

Or, to put it another way: who said anything about a free market?

[Robotbeat]

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.

So long as politicians control NASA's purse strings, politics will play a part.

Doesn't matter. Why should we form an opinion on what's good or bad based on politics?

Let it be on technical merits.

[woods170]

The real question for the liberty rocket is: Will Safran Snecma and Astrium be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air start reliable? I think that at least two times a Ariane 5 launch was aborted because there were problems with the Vulcain engine.

Arianespace have not had problems with Vulcain 2 for a long time. It has become a very reliable engine. Kudos to SNECMA and it's contractors for getting it there after the failure of the first Ariane-5 ECA mission.
To answer your question: yes, they will be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air-start reliably. Basically they already have. A direct result of the investigation and improvements made after the failure.

[Rik ISS-fan]

The real question for the liberty rocket is: Will Safran Snecma and Astrium be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air start reliable? I think that at least two times a Ariane 5 launch was aborted because there were problems with the Vulcain engine.

Arianespace have not had problems with Vulcain 2 for a long time. It has become a very reliable engine. Kudos to SNECMA and it's contractors for getting it there after the failure of the first Ariane-5 ECA mission.
To answer your question: yes, they will be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air-start reliably. Basically they already have. A direct result of the investigation and improvements made after the failure.

May I recall you to VA-201.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23773.0
On May 30th 2011 the Ariane 5 launch with Yahsat 1A and Intelsat New Dawn aborted shortly after main engine ignition. Wasn't it the case that an actuator (that would pivot the engine) didn't work normally.
If this would have happened with an Air-start, the mission would have failed, isn't it?
To this failier (abort) I was referring.

[woods170]

The real question for the liberty rocket is: Will Safran Snecma and Astrium be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air start reliable? I think that at least two times a Ariane 5 launch was aborted because there were problems with the Vulcain engine.

Arianespace have not had problems with Vulcain 2 for a long time. It has become a very reliable engine. Kudos to SNECMA and it's contractors for getting it there after the failure of the first Ariane-5 ECA mission.
To answer your question: yes, they will be able to get the Vulcain 2 engine to air-start reliably. Basically they already have. A direct result of the investigation and improvements made after the failure.

May I recall you to VA-201.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23773.0
On May 30th 2011 the Ariane 5 launch with Yahsat 1A and Intelsat New Dawn aborted shortly after main engine ignition. Wasn't it the case that an actuator (that would pivot the engine) didn't work normally.
If this would have happened with an Air-start, the mission would have failed, isn't it?
To this failier (abort) I was referring.

Don't call them 'problems' if you are referring to a single problem.

The problem you refer to was a one-off. Has happened only once. One-offs can always occur, either on the ground or during flight.

And no, such an actuator failure would very likely not have led to a failure on an air-start mission because it would have been identified during the pre-launch check-out phase. (I suggest you stop applying Ariane-5 sequences to Liberty. Since the core-stage will be used as an upper stage, a lot of sequencing will be shifted to different moments in the launch-timeline).

On Liberty, a substantial part of Vulcain-2 checkout will move from the ignition phase to a pre-launch phase, and that will include check-out of the actuators. During an air-start, there will not be a 7-second check-out phase. The engine will either fire and work or not at all.

[krytek]

I'm trying to get a few things sorted out.
Wikipedia says Liberty is priced at180 million $ per launch and has a payload capacity of 20,000kg. Are these numbers correct? does this price represent the cost to NASA or some sort of a minimal order price ? ( like Falcon 9's advertised price).

Honestly if it's the bare minimal price (no integration work etcetera) I can't see how they think they could compete with anyone.  Do you?

[Rocket Science]

I'm trying to get a few things sorted out.
Wikipedia says Liberty is priced at180 million $ per launch and has a payload capacity of 20,000kg. Are these numbers correct? does this price represent the cost to NASA or some sort of a minimal order price ? ( like Falcon 9's advertised price).

Honestly if it's the bare minimal price (no integration work etcetera) I can't see how they think they could compete with anyone.  Do you?

Pricing is something difficult to nail down. A large diverse corporation my artificially lower the cost for a particular product or service in order to lock up a contract. Income from other lines are used to subsidize the other “lowered” price… It is the “big picture” that counts for overall profits. I’m not saying that this will be the case but it could very well be….

[daveklingler]

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. 

[snip]

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).

I've had the thought that

A.  If what I think I know about CCDev is true, it's unprofitable or not very profitable in the current phase.  The motivation for participation is that a portion of one's R&D will be paid by NASA.

B.  The bill for ATK's amalgam vehicle is already being paid at a decent profit in some cases by other contracts.  I'd bet that even EADS is paying some or all of the second stage-related costs.  ATK is probably running a profit on Liberty right now if you figure in the worth of the pieces. 

C.  All the competitors probably thought they'd be going to FAR in phase 3, where there's more wiggle room.  There's a good possibility that ATK figured all along that they'd come in about now, when there was actually money to be made.

In any industry, it's always more profitable to let the little guys develop the market while pumping all their money on R&D.  Then the big guys step in and mop up.  Whether or not it works out that way, it's entirely possible that's the way the established companies are playing it.

[FinalFrontier]

IMHO, "political capital" is a horrible reason to make a decision. I will not accept this commonly held notion that it is "just normal, so we shouldn't get upset." No, it's not normal, it's corruption.

Those who say that ATK's only real chance is the use of political capital are essentially acknowledging corruption as a viable option. It's not a viable option.

So, we ought to judge the proposal on its technical merits, not on political connections, because every time we take into account political connections, we are implicitly giving legitimacy to corrupt practices that puts self-serving politicians ahead of the interests of our great country.

ATK apparently believes they have a proposal that's got technical merit, and it's on THAT that they should be judged. Judging it on political merit is just an encouragement to corruption, and I won't stand for it. The point is to have a domestic, low-cost, financially sustainable, safe crew transport option as timely as possible. Those are essentially the things that Liberty should and will be judged on, NOT on "political capital."

(And if "political capital" is what it is judged on, then we should FIRE THOSE POLITICIANS NOW, and prosecute them for corruption.)

So, I will choose to judge the proposal on technical grounds.

That is all.

100% agree with you but there are two problems:

1. This isn't the space policy section.

2. Them getting fired will not work at this point. The people replacing them have been shown to be as bad or worse, look no further then  the house if you want an example.

The entire system is broken now. Just firing people is not the solution.


Constitutional amendments regarding campaign financing would be. 

[FinalFrontier]

Now then, moving on to topic.


Regarding the LV and the article. I think most of us are not pleased with this vehicle. That is obvious by the sort of comments that always seem to populate these ATK threads. There are saftey issues with it, I had a somewhat short lived thread (because I injected opinion) about the abort issues, but there are many more around.


The basic point here is that, for all the problems with the stick, it still is just one vehicle. Its not even being funded by NASA at this point. There are many more out there.


Now if this vehicle was chosen over, say, SpaceX or DC I would be upset. But we are not there yet and its highly unlikely, IMO, that this will happen because guess what: the NSF community is not the only people who have issues with ATK. I am sure there are people within NASA management who don't want to fly crew on it either.



The bottom line is we wait and see, and follow development of the system in the mean time. Continuously bashing ATK will gain us nothing.

If crew ultimately ends up flying on it so be it. 

[Lurker Steve]

Now then, moving on to topic.


Regarding the LV and the article. I think most of us are not pleased with this vehicle. That is obvious by the sort of comments that always seem to populate these ATK threads. There are saftey issues with it, I had a somewhat short lived thread (because I injected opinion) about the abort issues, but there are many more around.


The basic point here is that, for all the problems with the stick, it still is just one vehicle. Its not even being funded by NASA at this point. There are many more out there.


Now if this vehicle was chosen over, say, SpaceX or DC I would be upset. But we are not there yet and its highly unlikely, IMO, that this will happen because guess what: the NSF community is not the only people who have issues with ATK. I am sure there are people within NASA management who don't want to fly crew on it either.



The bottom line is we wait and see, and follow development of the system in the mean time. Continuously bashing ATK will gain us nothing.

Actually right. The next round of NASA funding goes to the companies that are closest to completion. SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC are now, or soon will be at the CDR level, and are bending metal / composites, and have actual production / operational plans in place. Is there any hope for ATK / LM to even be close to the PDR level by 2014/5 with both the launcher and the capsule ? They can continue funding this with their own money if they wish, but I don't see how it would be selected by NASA given the agreement on the 2.5 funded companies for this round.

Some people can have all the ATK hate they want. I'm sure that if ATK were offering free rides on the LEGO rocket, they would certainly get in line.

[FinalFrontier]

Now then, moving on to topic.


Regarding the LV and the article. I think most of us are not pleased with this vehicle. That is obvious by the sort of comments that always seem to populate these ATK threads. There are saftey issues with it, I had a somewhat short lived thread (because I injected opinion) about the abort issues, but there are many more around.


The basic point here is that, for all the problems with the stick, it still is just one vehicle. Its not even being funded by NASA at this point. There are many more out there.


Now if this vehicle was chosen over, say, SpaceX or DC I would be upset. But we are not there yet and its highly unlikely, IMO, that this will happen because guess what: the NSF community is not the only people who have issues with ATK. I am sure there are people within NASA management who don't want to fly crew on it either.



The bottom line is we wait and see, and follow development of the system in the mean time. Continuously bashing ATK will gain us nothing.

Actually right. The next round of NASA funding goes to the companies that are closest to completion. SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC are now, or soon will be at the CDR level, and are bending metal / composites, and have actual production / operational plans in place. Is there any hope for ATK / LM to even be close to the PDR level by 2014/5 with both the launcher and the capsule ? They can continue funding this with their own money if they wish, but I don't see how it would be selected by NASA given the agreement on the 2.5 funded companies for this round.

Some people can have all the ATK hate they want. I'm sure that if ATK were offering free rides on the LEGO rocket, they would certainly get in line.

Agreed. Although I can tell you even if they paid me to do it I personally would not sit on the stick. But that's just me.

[Go4TLI]

(To people unhappy).

I doubt if anyone cares if you and others are "pleased" with this vehicle or not. The cause displayed by those has been clearly shown time and time again not to be one of objective judgement based on data but instead "anything but ATK" attitude, even when it goes against claims made by said individuals in the past

The vast majority of the "NSF community" is not qualified to speak on the subject intelligently as evidenced by the posts in this thread. In addition many cross-post across other websites saying the same thing, arm waving and such, in order to be against something

I'm sure within NASA there are people who have concerns, issues, etc with aspects of the design. The law of a averages suggest that to be true. There are also those with equal concerns and issues with SpaceX. The point is most are professional enough to deal with it and not rant endlessly and aimlessly without any valid points

[Chris Bergin]

OK guys, back to the article, or next time I'll just write:

"Do you like ATK?"

And then post a link to the thread. Will probably get more views too (Actually, the article's on 82,000 reads, which is not too shabby at all!)

We've established some people aren't their biggest fans. We've established some of that is without real rationale, some is (I too remember the "Safe, Simple, Soon" stuff).

Let's move on and discuss the hardware and the potential future.

[notsorandom]

Chris, If you are still looking for interview question ideas it may be interesting to hear what they have to say about potential impacts (positives or negatives) to the SLS and Orion programs. Those programs share some hardware, legacy, and facilities with Liberty both the LV and spacecraft.

[baldusi]

Basically, they have stated repeatedly that they are looking for much more than ISS, but it would require quite an investment and decisions about infrastructure. Given their past record, I assumed they had set their hype dial too high. But given the latest round of concepts and developments, I'm willing to give them some benefit of doubt.
I'm particularly interested on how they plan to tap the DoD LEO market, since they need a polar/SSO compatible pad. Kodiak needs a tenant, and if Athena III is base on the SRB, it will be close to Liberty's first stage. But, the pad can't take that level of thrust and the whole place is extremely basic, with no liquid fueling infrastructure (specially H2) whatsoever. After the experience of Wallops I only see VAFB as a possible place for them. But SLC-6 is already taken, and they would need a second MLP and a CT on top of whatever pad they could use (SLC 3W or SLC 4W)? So, could you ask them which polar launch sites have they studied?
Also, are they going to offer the Ariane 5 ME's new fairing? Do they see themselves offering dual LEO manifest? Seems to me that 20 tonnes is a lot for a LEO without that. They would seem like they would try to take the Delta IV Heavy on the West, but that's also in direct competition with the Falcon Heavy and they couldn't replace the East launches. Or have they talked to Arianespace about putting the ECA (or ECB) stage on top only for DoD/NASA launches (thus, no commercial competition for Ariane 5)?

[gospacex]

booster redesigns are well-documented.

What redesigns did ATK do?  They were not in charge of Ares I, NASA was the system designer, ATK only provided the first stage.

ATK was behind Ares I idea from the start. Who else in their right mind would want to build it? What for?

[joek]

In any industry, it's always more profitable to let the little guys develop the market while pumping all their money on R&D.  Then the big guys step in and mop up.  Whether or not it works out that way, it's entirely possible that's the way the established companies are playing it.

I don't think the record supports that interpretation.  By all appearances ATK appears to have been trying to get a piece of the action for some time.  They threw their hat in the ring with CCDev-1 and CCDev-2 (and scored well as far as their proposal went), and subsequently signed a non-funded SAA.

It might be different if the "little guys" early effort helped ATK, but it doesn't.  Maybe if one of the other contenders was in trouble, they complemented each other's efforts, and ATK made them an offer they couldn't refuse.  What ATK might offer and how that might transpire is far from clear; the systems aren't exactly mix-and-match.  (I'd guess ATK already shopped the Liberty LV prior to CCDev-2 and didn't find any takers.)

There is also no previously latent or unproven market which has become apparent for the big guys to mop up after the little guys beat the trail.  Nothing in the market landscape has changed for quite some time, and isn't likely to change for quite some time--there's nothing to "mop up" (even assuming ATK has a mop, which isn't a given).

In short, this looks like a good old fashioned horse race, and I don't see any of the "big guys" hanging back.

[joek]

Chris -- Softball question: When/if will ATK have a name for the crewed vehicle?  Something maybe a bit catchier than that-which-rides-on-the-Liberty-launch-vehicle.  Heh, maybe get them to sponsor a name contest?