ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[Robotbeat]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

[baldusi]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

LM and Astrium are not either?

[joek]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

Yup.  I wondered about that in another thread and got no takers... presumably they're able to buy that in, either through one of the existing subs or separately.

[zerm]

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?

...and you have documented proof of that charge?

As I recall, Chris just said- back to the hardware.

Can we please put aside the "frankenrocket" "leggo rocket" name-calling and stick to facts? Information? Questions that may draw information?

[Zachstar]

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!

I personally believe atleast those idols (And likely even American Idol) has more use for the country than ATK could dream of.

[Go4TLI]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

Yup.  I wondered about that in another thread and got no takers... presumably they're able to buy that in, either through one of the existing subs or separately.

Seriously?  Why was this even brought up?  Are people really prepared to say ATK does not have the experience?  If so, i'd like to here specific examples and rationale 

Furthermore I'd like to hear how this is different than SpaceX, SNC or Blue Origin and why that has not been brought up at length with respect to them and CCDev funding and CCiCap.

If that is how people want to play the only worthy contender is Boeing

[baldusi]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

Yup.  I wondered about that in another thread and got no takers... presumably they're able to buy that in, either through one of the existing subs or separately.

Seriously?  Why was this even brought up?  Are people really prepared to say ATK does not have the experience?  If so, i'd like to here specific examples and rationale 

Furthermore I'd like to hear how this is different than SpaceX, SNC or Blue Origin and why that has not been brought up at length with respect to them and CCDev funding and CCiCap.

If that is how people want to play the only worthy contender is Boeing

Are you seriously telling me that SpaceX have no experience in "actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts", really? Sure, they are new, but at least they are 5/8 on launches and 2/2 on spacecrafts. And SNC does has the CHIPSat, TrailBlazer and TacSat-1 experience not to mention the whole G2 ORBCOMM fleet, but that doesn't counts?
BTW, the original poster said not even a whole stage. To which I would ask about the Orion and Castor stages. And they did TacSat-3 and ORS-1, which are spacecrafts. Besides, ATK does has LM AND Astrium as partners. You can't get more experience than those guys. So the poster was awfully wrong, yes. Just state the facts on why he was wrong, not trying to state "You just don't like ATK" to any criticism.

[Robotbeat]

Go4TLI:
Nobody said anything about "worthy contenders" except you. It's a /fact/ that folks like Blue Origin (and SpaceX, until quite recently) were new entrants into the field with little experience in designing an orbital launch vehicle successfully to launch and a spacecraft actually used for human spaceflight. ATK is also one of those new entrants. (Again, they've done components and structural test articles, but never an actual launch vehicle and never an actual spacecraft for HSF.)

And of course Boeing has the most experience with these sort of systems (Lockheed does as well, but they are not the subject of this... ATK is subcontracting stuff to LM for good reason).

[joek]

ATK counts as one of the "big guys?" Only from the perspective of sheer size, not experience with actually integrating and launching any orbital launch vehicles or spacecrafts. Components, sure, but not vehicles. Or even full stages, as far as I'm aware.

ATK is a relatively new entrant into this realm.

Yup.  I wondered about that in another thread and got no takers... presumably they're able to buy that in, either through one of the existing subs or separately.

Seriously?  Why was this even brought up?  Are people really prepared to say ATK does not have the experience?  If so, i'd like to here specific examples and rationale 

Furthermore I'd like to hear how this is different than SpaceX, SNC or Blue Origin and why that has not been brought up at length with respect to them and CCDev funding and CCiCap.

If that is how people want to play the only worthy contender is Boeing

Whoah there!  ATK is not being, and has not been, singled out.  At times in the no-so-distant-past that question has been raised with respect to every contender, both CCDev-CCiCap-CTS and COTS-CRS (by people who appear to be "veterans").

The only ones who seems to get a consistent pass are Boeing and LM.  That doesn't mean Boeing is the "only worthy contender" or that the rest of the pack is incapable.  Nor does it mean ATK is being put on the rack.

It was an honest question, and the answer appears to be that, at least with respect to ATK and Liberty, it's a non-issue.  The rest... SpaceX, OSC, BO, SNC, etc.. ... YMMV.

[Go4TLI]

ATK is subcontracting to LM because they are the OEM for Orion. It is that simple and it seems to make perfect sense to use something already in development, with considerable effort behind it for uses other than NASA BEO, as opposed to starting over.

And I would not call ATK a "new entrant" in the context in which I believe you were subtly trying to imply. We can leave it at that

[peter-b]

I'm not sure if this has already been covered and I missed it... how does Liberty give "US space flight independence" if half of it is designed and built in Europe?

[neilh]

This might be a silly question, but why isn't LM or Astrium the prime, with ATK being subcontracted, rather than the other way around? It just seems a little odd that the subcontractors have more relevant experience with launch vehicles, spacecraft, integration, etc, than the prime contractor.

[joek]

I'm not sure if this has already been covered and I missed it... how does Liberty give "US space flight independence" if half of it is designed and built in Europe?

If you consider the complete system including spacecraft, it's likely much less... less than 1/4 by value?  Hey! Look! Shiny! RD-180!

Seriously, presumably the stack taken as a whole meets foreign content requirements.  There was also mention sometime back (can't find a reference at the moment) that the second stage might be built in the US (North Carolina maybe?).

[joek]

This might be a silly question, but why isn't LM or Astrium the prime, with ATK being subcontracted, rather than the other way around? It just seems a little odd that the subcontractors have more relevant experience with launch vehicles, spacecraft, integration, etc, than the prime contractor.

Astrium is foreign; non-starter.  As to why LM isn't the prime...  The simple version is that CCM is really an ATK baby, only superficially resembles Or**n, and the LV is pretty much an ATK affair, so the rationale for LM as prime would seem a bit thin.  Not that this Or**n is too thin skinned, but it is, if you get my drift.

The tabloid version is a more tumultuous and incestuous story of LM and Or**n, and how it might be seen among polite folk if LM where to propose a NASA funded/subsidized Or**n derivative (perceived or real) in competition with the other more polite CCiCap/commercial folk.  Which is to say, it would probably create a s***-storm (with a "T"), with many a heated four-lettered word exchanged.  Especially those beginning with "B", albeit longer than four letters, if you get my drift.  (The possibility of such was the subject of some debate a while back.  Short version: don't even think about it.)

Then of course there's the smoke-filled-room version as to whether or not LM thinks this  stands a snowball's chance, and thus whether they would be willing to stick their kneck out, or prefer to leave ATK to put their head in the noose.  You might imagine the LM boardroom conversations that ensued.  Or not.  (I suspect, however, that words starting with "s" were over-represented.)

[sdsds]

Attached is the chart many of us saw showing the Q (dynamic pressure) values for the planned Ares I ascent profile. Chris, could you ask ATK if this chart is still representative of what they expect for Liberty? (No need to mention to them the red lines drawn by the USAF analyst. )

[Downix]

Attached is the chart many of us saw showing the Q (dynamic pressure) values for the planned Ares I ascent profile. Chris, could you ask ATK if this chart is still representative of what they expect for Liberty? (No need to mention to them the red lines drawn by USAF analyst. )

Even I could tell you that it is not going to mirror the new vehicle. The different upper stage dimensions will change air flow, which changes the Q. Might not be much, but I suspect significant divergence will appear.

[sdsds]

It's a soft-ball question. Were the ATK rep to say, "Oh no, our max-Q won't be anywhere near that high," Chris would be quite capable of choosing his own followup question!

[Stephan]

I'm not sure if this has already been covered and I missed it... how does Liberty give "US space flight independence" if half of it is designed and built in Europe?

And mostly in France for the European part. Let's call it Lafayette or Rochambeau

[daveklingler]

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.

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).

That's exactly my point.  The commercial space passenger market doesn't yet exist, except for values of commercial=Russian.  Ten or twenty years down the line one might be able to evaluate demand using real traffic, but right now it's all speculation.  So ATK is playing it safe by letting the gov't pay their bill wherever possible.  For that matter (don't want to stray too far here), the bill for Boeing's reusable passenger vehicle (the basis of their long-term plan) is being paid by the Pentagon.  The vast majority of the bill for SNC's reusable vehicle fits the same description (including all the support hardware currently flying in other spacecraft).  Heck, even Excalibur Almaz's vehicle leverages Russian and European gov't funds to a very high degree. 

Only the two upstarts are jumping the gun by paying the majority of their own way, hoping that by doing so they'll develop a market that doesn't yet exist, and that by the time the heavies come in it'll be too late.  The others are playing cautiously and thinking a decade ahead.

[Jim]

the bill for Boeing's reusable passenger vehicle (the basis of their long-term plan) is being paid by the Pentagon.  The vast majority of the bill for SNC's reusable vehicle fits the same description (including all the support hardware currently flying in other spacecraft). 

How so?  The DOD is not involved with either of them.