ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[daveklingler]

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.

Of course it is, but I'm not going that far off-topic.  If you want to argue I'll do it in private or in another thread.  I've already been spanked once.

[Jim]

I think that he means that the X-37 technology is being used indirectly in DC. As far as Boeing, I am assuming that he means that all of its DOD contracts gives them an edge in terms of technology development for the CST-100.

Well, I guess* he is wrong on both accounts.
The DOD contracts are not applicable to CST-100, Boeing has its own spaceflight experience to draw upon and it is not from the DOD.

X-37 technology is not being used by SNC.

edit:  * wrong word, I know he is wrong.

[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.

Of course it is, but I'm not going that far off-topic.  If you want to argue I'll do it in private or in another thread.  I've already been spanked once.

No, of course,it is not.   Stop making unsubstantiated comments
A.  these are commercial projects
b. These are being developed to meet NASA's and tourism needs
c.  The DOD has no requirements for these vehicles.

[daveklingler]

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.

I think that he means that the X-37 technology is being used indirectly in DC. As far as Boeing, I am assuming that he means that all of its DOD contracts gives them an edge in terms of technology development for the CST-100.

No, I don't mean any of that, and if you've gotten that idea then I've been obtuse.  In the short run, CST-100 is more profitable for Boeing, and if the passenger market materializes, X-37C hedges their bets.  X-37B buys down the risk for X-37C and it's a sole-sourced Pentagon project.  I'd be very surprised if Boeing hasn't done most of its X-37C studies on grants, hence my argument that Boeing's long-term strategy, if the market should materialize, is being paid by the Pentagon.*

Almost all of SNC's business is black and sole-sourced.  They fly a LOT of hardware.  The amount of money invested in DC's support hardware development inside SNC and at other companies like Aerojet is probably even larger than what NASA invested in HL-20.  I'm saying that SNC is leveraging that R&D for DC.  The engines were a civilian investment, of course.

To drag this back on topic, what I'm saying is that the established players are able to use a cautious strategy of leveraging off hardware that's already been developed; that's just good business.  Because it's space hardware, it's been developed mostly on taxpayer money.

* addendum - RIGHT NOW

[daveklingler]

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.

Of course it is, but I'm not going that far off-topic.  If you want to argue I'll do it in private or in another thread.  I've already been spanked once.

No, of course,it is not.   Stop making unsubstantiated comments
A.  these are commercial projects
b. These are being developed to meet NASA's and tourism needs
c.  The DOD has no requirements for these vehicles.

I haven't done anything but state the obvious.  You haven't read my post.

[Chris Bergin]

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

Yep. And already answered that when Jeff Foust mentioned the headline.

http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/07/06/atks-big-liberty-push/

(ATK has also benefited from some friendly media coverage, like this article published Wednesday at NASASpaceFlight.com, which cites unnamed sources who claim Liberty “is actually becoming a favorite option of some high ranking Agency managers.” The site, though, may have missed the unintentional irony of the July 4th-themed headline—“ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty”—when Liberty uses a second stage manufactured in Europe.)

Responded on his comment section...

"Heh! That was sort of intentional (the headline), as the EPC is built in France. Didn’t the French come running over the hill (sailing across the ocean) when the US needed them when fighting for independence? Let me ask the famous historian Mel Gibson…

Anyway, I was sort of thinking along those lines when I wrote it. If it’s still too ironic, I’ll get my (red) coat!"

#HeadlineWin

[Lurker Steve]

Since the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France, perhaps the Liberty name is appropriate for this vehicle.

[Robotbeat]

Since the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France, perhaps the Liberty name is appropriate for this vehicle.

Except this time it's a gift /to/ France?

(Sorry, had to.)

[joek]

You seem to have made an impression Chris, although some of the irony may have been lost in translation... Quoted and the article is linked to on the ATK Liberty Facebook page, along with This is the latest info on Liberty Launch – This article gives all the details http://bit.ly/MKzVQL - pass it on!.

[Zachstar]

Since the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France, perhaps the Liberty name is appropriate for this vehicle.

Liberty is a perfectly appropriate name, given the history and meaning of the word to both the citizens of the United States and France. 

France won the key victory of the American Revolution (Battle of the Chesapeake) that bottled up Cornwallis and all but ended the war.  It then went through its own French Revolution, an uprising fought, by many, for "Liberté".

The word is part of the national motto of France.  It was used famously by Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!") in a 1775 speech in Virginia.  Some Colonials fought beside Liberty flags emblazoned with the word.  The French red, white, and blue tricolor flag, for which more than 1.3 million died in horrible World War I battles, itself is in part a representation of Liberty.  Liberty is the name of that iconic statue gift that stands before  New York largely because of its shared value. 

Suffice it to say that the rocket will have to work hard to live up to its name.

 - Ed Kyle

Or they can just be (hopefully) rejected in the next round and we no longer have to worry about attaching some grand US and European history to it.

[neilh]

I'm skeptical of their claims too, Zachstar, but that's just mean-spirited...

[joek]

Or they can just be (hopefully) rejected in the next round and we no longer have to worry about attaching some grand US and European history to it.

Even if fairly judged and found wanting, they may still contest the award, in which case we may be hearing about this for quite some time.  I'll withold judgement until and if that happens, but the recent PR blitz should give pause.

[sdsds]

Specifically Rominger indicated that even without a CC iCap award Liberty would move forward towards a crewed test flight. Suppose that flight were to take place before NASA acquired actual crew transportation services. It might be then difficult for NASA to select -- in a way that complied with FAR -- a bid offering transport on a system that had not yet conducted a crewed test flight.

[Zachstar]

I'm skeptical of their claims too, Zachstar, but that's just mean-spirited...

So was "Safe, Simple, Soon" in my opinion.

Specifically Rominger indicated that even without a CC iCap award Liberty would move forward towards a crewed test flight. Suppose that flight were to take place before NASA acquired actual crew transportation services. It might be then difficult for NASA to select -- in a way that complied with FAR -- a bid offering transport on a system that had not yet conducted a crewed test flight.

IF that happens it will be because of congress being so reluctant to spend what is needed for the next rounds of funding.

[spectre9]

What do I like about Liberty?

Large segmented solids are highly reliable due to flight experience.

If the 5-seg is subject to destructive failure it hasn't happened in tests to date.

MLAS has been tested. Others are only testing the engines.



International cooperation. NASA has to develop good relationships with international partners. EADS Astrium isn't in this to take NASA money offshore. Each side is sharing technology with the other and it will be a good learning experience for both. Astrium North America is in Texas I think? Not sure sure where jobs might be created in the USA.

CCM

This seems ok. ATK is good at composites. I think having commonality with Orion is a big bonus for the NASA exploration program.

Lastly I like the idea of how tall this rocket is going to be.

I think it will look impressive on it's own custom pad rolling down the causeway. Possibly with a sweet stars & stripes paint job 

Liberty isn't all bad. Those making the decisions at NASA have a difficult choice ahead of them.

[Zachstar]

5 Segment rockets have zero flight experience.

I doubt they are safe in my opinion.

They are not simple in my opinion.

And hopefully will not be chosen to fly anytime soon.

[Jim]

MLAS has been tested. Others are only testing the engines.

MLAS has not been tested.  The test was nowhere close to representative of the actual hardware or operations.   There were no abort motors fired on the test, it was nothing more than a parachute test.  The "others" are actually further along in development than MLAS.

It was another waste of money like Ares I-X

[Jim]

1. This seems ok. ATK is good at composites. I think having commonality with Orion is a big bonus for the NASA exploration program.

Lastly I like the idea of how tall this rocket is going to be.

I think it will look impressive on it's own custom pad rolling down the causeway. Possibly with a sweet stars & stripes paint job 

Liberty isn't all bad. Those making the decisions at NASA have a difficult choice ahead of them.

None of your comments have any bearing.

ATK and composites have nothing to do with manned spacecraft structure
There isn't going to be that much commonality with Orion
Tall and thin are not good characteristics for a launch vehicle.

It is all that bad

[spectre9]

All rockets have had zero flight experience at some point.

5-seg has been tested on the ground.





I have no reason to believe this isn't safe and simple.

Doesn't look as complex as a 9 liquid kerosene engine cluster to me 

[mmeijeri]

Large segmented solids are highly reliable due to flight experience.

So are liquid rockets and they have properties that are inherently safer.

If the 5-seg is subject to destructive failure it hasn't happened in tests to date.

These particular ones have zero flight experience. Yes, solids can be made very reliable, but not as safe (!= reliable) as liquids and these particular ones have zero track record.