ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[MATTBLAK]

GoSpaceX, yes - SRBs and their ATK masters had too much of an influence on NASA during the first decade of the 2000s. And the fact that SLS - if it gets built - may get stuck with Solid instead of superior liquid boosters could get unavoidable. 5 segment Solids are closest to flight readiness: unfortunately, no one else is close. I think the only solid boosters at KSC should be the GEMs and Aerojets on the Atlas Vs and Deltas. But the SRB legacy, and I underline this - for better or worse - is hard to erase. I wish they had retired along with the Shuttle.

But they are here, they are quite reliable after a fashion and ATK has the right to compete their design just like anyone else. If their salesmen and lobbyists are doing a good job, then their opposition should just be trying harder!!
**************************************
Now; I've been wondering about the Crawlers - are both getting the full upgrade and refurbishment treatment? And what are the prospects for a third Crawler being built and servicing both multiple SLS missions and Liberty? And other launch towers - If a Mars launch campaign by SLS ever gets underway, wont more Mobile Launch Platforms and Towers need to be built? If Liberty gets busy, I can see that scheduling will get busy.

[Chris Bergin]

Sorry, but I have hard time believing..

It is well known that Doc Horowitz had links to ATK as thick as anchor chain..

And then ESAS is released in November 2005 and - wow, are we surprised?...

Seriously. This *stinks*...

It was a suicide for any post-Shuttle HLV project to go against SRBs....

Edited lowlights above can only be seen as conspiracy theories. Not good, as it dilutes any points you may have.

Problem is, if you can't grasp basic facts about the performance, safety and history of the solids - items we've covered IN DEPTH on this site (seen as you're posting on this site) - and why it's a leading motor, then you need to be aware you'll be taken on with facts, to counter your whispers.

I'm not acting like some ATK love in, I'm actually pi-sed off with them, seen as they are paying for adverts on smaller sites that hardly cover them, and not here, probably because we already give them all the exposure they need via the news sites - hardly fair. But I'm a journalist, so that is not a consideration when writing articles.

And I know a bit about these solids, seen as I've written about 100 articles on them.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/srb/

Now we don't want a thread where you post and three people feel they have to respond to you, so no more from you on this. People want to discuss the article.

[greighn]

I have a simple question regarding Liberty, aside from all the issues with the technical design, how can it possibly be an economical system to run when it involves the crawler transporter, VAB, mobile service tower, etc?

Those items alone probably cost more to operate than an entire launch by one of the "other" private companies. SpaceX, for example, seems to pay a lot of attention to ensuring their pad and launch operations are as cheap and efficient as possible. Any system using the current NASA Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure surely cannot be.

Is NASA going to give those services away to a commercial company if they launch at Kennedy? I hope not! That would certainly unlevel the playing field with the rest of the commercial competitors who are trying to be efficient on their own.

[Rocket Science]

I have a simple question regarding Liberty, aside from all the issues with the technical design, how can it possibly be an economical system to run when it involves the crawler transporter, VAB, mobile service tower, etc?

Those items alone probably cost more to operate than an entire launch by one of the "other" private companies. SpaceX, for example, seems to pay a lot of attention to ensuring their pad and launch operations are as cheap and efficient as possible. Any system using the current NASA Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure surely cannot be.

Is NASA going to give those services away to a commercial company if they launch at Kennedy? I hope not! That would certainly unlevel the playing field with the rest of the commercial competitors who are trying to be efficient on their own.

Welcome to the forum! All good observations… After a while you will begin to see that the launch business “is more about political science than rocket science”… 

[yg1968]

some NASA sources (L2 Link to Liberty Updates and Resources) claim Liberty is actually becoming a favorite option of some high ranking Agency managers.

The fact that ATK is the favourite for commercial crew and for the advanced boosters tends to indicate that some people at NASA just can't let go of Constellation. The only way to ensure change at NASA is by forcing competition for the advanced boosters and for the commercial crew services contracts. For this reason, at least two suppliers need to be selected for each of these contracts in order to avoid one company having monoply power and influence. 

[Lurker Steve]

ATK will build a second “Ares I” style Mobile Launcher (ML), following the repurposing of the first ML to the SLS program.

I hope ATK will have to purchase that ML for $0.5b which went into building it?

It will be transported to the pad via one of the Crawler Transporters, following launch vehicle integration inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

And crawlers too?

Somehow I doubt it. Knowing these guys, they will lobby for getting it all free of charge.

I think building another ML will be much cheaper without the design work and without the NASA paperwork.

There isn't a need for a LV-specific crawler, right ? The crawler just picks up the MLP in the VAB, transports it to the pad, and then gets out of the way. It's just part of the LC-39 overhead that NASA needs to maintain, and possibily each company would just pay a fixed service fee for the transportation services to the pad.

[notsorandom]

some NASA sources (L2 Link to Liberty Updates and Resources) claim Liberty is actually becoming a favorite option of some high ranking Agency managers.

The fact that ATK is the favourite for commercial crew and for the advanced boosters tends to indicate that some people at NASA just can't let go of Constellation. The only way to ensure change at NASA is by forcing competition for the advanced boosters and for the commercial crew services contracts. For this reason, at least two suppliers need to be selected for each of these contracts in order to avoid one company having monoply power and influence. 

Putting off the advanced booster competition was done not to benefit ATK but to shave billions of dollars off the near term development cost of SLS. Something that may end up saving the program down the road. Its a good call IMHO. There are enough casings for 10 flights so eventually a booster competition will be needed.

This isn't an SLS thread so forgive me going OT here for a second. Most of the possible pre-Mars missions being looked at need the 105mt to LEO. 130mt isn't likely needed before we start talking about Mars. Advanced boosters are one way to get to the 105 mt target. The other is the upper-stage/EDS of block 1B. If the development costs are somewhat equal for blocks 1A and 1B then block 1B offers more capability for the money.

Bringing this back to Liberty now, if SLS block 1B is chosen then the demand for those casings increases. Does anyone know how Liberty and SLS intend to share the remaining stock of them?

[Prober]

Sorry, but I have hard time believing..

It is well known that Doc Horowitz had links to ATK as thick as anchor chain..

And then ESAS is released in November 2005 and - wow, are we surprised?...

Seriously. This *stinks*...

It was a suicide for any post-Shuttle HLV project to go against SRBs....

Edited lowlights above can only be seen as conspiracy theories. Not good, as it dilutes any points you may have.

Problem is, if you can't grasp basic facts about the performance, safety and history of the solids - items we've covered IN DEPTH on this site (seen as you're posting on this site) - and why it's a leading motor, then you need to be aware you'll be taken on with facts, to counter your whispers.

I'm not acting like some ATK love in, I'm actually pi-sed off with them, seen as they are paying for adverts on smaller sites that hardly cover them, and not here, probably because we already give them all the exposure they need via the news sites - hardly fair. But I'm a journalist, so that is not a consideration when writing articles.

And I know a bit about these solids, seen as I've written about 100 articles on them.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/srb/

Now we don't want a thread where you post and three people feel they have to respond to you, so no more from you on this. People want to discuss the article.

The article is what another user said a “great summation”.  The timing was bad in a way.  Had a chance to read it late night into 4th of July celebrations.  That being said, it brought a lot of mixed feelings up.

NSF has a head start on other news media in telling the Commercial Crew story before the bids become public.

[Orbiter]

Question: In the article, it was mentioned that obviously ATK will have to build their own MLP at KSC. I was wondering if there was any word on when construction on that would begin if they're actually serious about launching in 2015.

Great article!

Orbiter

[BrightLight]

Question: In the article, it was mentioned that obviously ATK will have to build their own MLP at KSC. I was wondering if there was any word on when construction on that would begin if they're actually serious about launching in 2015.

Great article!

Orbiter

Would the user of LC-39 such as Liberty have to pay full cost recovery on the whole infrastructure i.e. the VAB, etc.  or would they have a lease on the "occupied space"?

[yg1968]

some NASA sources (L2 Link to Liberty Updates and Resources) claim Liberty is actually becoming a favorite option of some high ranking Agency managers.

The fact that ATK is the favourite for commercial crew and for the advanced boosters tends to indicate that some people at NASA just can't let go of Constellation. The only way to ensure change at NASA is by forcing competition for the advanced boosters and for the commercial crew services contracts. For this reason, at least two suppliers need to be selected for each of these contracts in order to avoid one company having monoply power and influence. 

Putting off the advanced booster competition was done not to benefit ATK but to shave billions of dollars off the near term development cost of SLS. Something that may end up saving the program down the road. Its a good call IMHO. There are enough casings for 10 flights so eventually a booster competition will be needed.

Yes but apparently, ATK was the leading candidate for the advanced boosters contract before it was decided to delay it. Having 2 suppliers for the advanced boosters (whenever they are needed ) would still be a good idea in my opinion. But there will still be some smaller contracts for a total of $200 million for advancing the technology for the advanced boosters. And fortunately those will be for multiple (i.e., more than one) awards. 

See this thread for a discussion on the $200 million contracts:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27714.msg871697#msg871697

[Lars_J]

I have a simple question regarding Liberty, aside from all the issues with the technical design, how can it possibly be an economical system to run when it involves the crawler transporter, VAB, mobile service tower, etc?

Those items alone probably cost more to operate than an entire launch by one of the "other" private companies. SpaceX, for example, seems to pay a lot of attention to ensuring their pad and launch operations are as cheap and efficient as possible. Any system using the current NASA Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure surely cannot be.

Is NASA going to give those services away to a commercial company if they launch at Kennedy? I hope not! That would certainly unlevel the playing field with the rest of the commercial competitors who are trying to be efficient on their own.

All good questions. The only way I can see ATK getting even close to their projected price points is indeed to be given those services free of charge. ("cheapest $/lb to orbit, only possible exception being FH") - source: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26773.msg918650#msg918650

[neilh]

EDIT: By all means start a separate "ATK Solids & Ares sucks!" thread if you want to - Chris Bergin might even let you have one! But don't be surprised if it gets ugly at times in that thread...

Unfortunately, threads critical of ATK have a a pretty short deletion half--life. It might be worthwhile to create separate threads on technical issues like abort survivability, EELV blackzone allegations, etc., to try to separate out the political and in--group bias discussions which tend to trigger deletions.

[Chris Bergin]

EDIT: By all means start a separate "ATK Solids & Ares sucks!" thread if you want to - Chris Bergin might even let you have one! But don't be surprised if it gets ugly at times in that thread...

Unfortunately, threads critical of ATK have a a pretty short deletion half--life. It might be worthwhile to create separate threads on technical issues like abort survivability, EELV blackzone allegations, etc., to try to separate out the political and in--group bias discussions which tend to trigger deletions.

---Intermission, everyone get an ice cream---

Allow me to provide some context to that post, as it could sound like we're "protecting" a particular company. That's dangerous to leave out there.

Critical posts are fine, and actually welcomed if they are on the hardware, on the relevance of the article/thread, etc. Threads being derailed by someone taking potshots at any company for reasons clearly akin to troublemaking are hardly becoming for this site.

Deletions are very rare. An example in this very thread - where GospaceX hasn't lost his posts. He's a good guy, he's entitled to an opinion, but it required addressing and he's adhered to not taking it further (because he's a good member).

Then consider some of the other sites, who selectively publish comments that have been vetted in advance. This is a live forum, so while the moderation is more visible - as the moderation is "live editing" when required - it's actually a lot more open than most.

What we do here is keep the noise down and ensure that the "less than one percent of visitors to this site - i.e members, people who can post" do not dilute the quality of the site for everyone (99%+ plus "guests").

It would be oh so much easier, and far less expensive, to just have a news site and L2, but I'm trying to create a mega site, something that is better than the alternatives PRE-L2, with L2 being the "BOOOM!" for those actively supporting the site's running costs.

---Intermission over, back to the movie---

[yg1968]

For what it's worth, I am not sure that Liberty's extra cargo capability should be seen as an advantage. There are already contracts for CRS for cargo. So Liberty would be taking business away from the COTS/CRS companies by delivering cargo and crew at the same time.  Furthermore, to the extent that Liberty's prices for delivering cargo are more expensive than the ones from SpaceX or Orbital, it could even be seen as a disadvantage. Obviously ATK has to make the best out of the capabilities of its Liberty LV but I am not convinced that this extra cargo capability should be seen an advantage over other CCiCap proposals.

[rmencos]

Sometimes I think of ATK's Liberty proposal as an also-ran that can't catch up to tangible proposals by SpaceX, Boeing or Sierra Nevada.  NASA has also already spent money on those three, and they've performed, so why re-position those bets?  But then again Chris's article reminds me of something that everyone already knows - ATK's proposal is also tangible.  And although NASA has not funded Liberty, it has spent millions upon millions of tax dollars on the solid rocket booster that ATK developed for the now cancelled Constellation project.  NASA could save face and pick Liberty and say "see, we're good stewards of tax payer money."  Suddenly a chunk of Constellation is not a write-off.  Good for political capital.

I guess the real question is how credible ATK's representations are.  Do they really have a tangible proposal or is it a hyper-optimistic projection?  Can they piece everything together by 2015?  Are there any problems with Europe sharing their technology?  Are cost reductions feasible considering the large workforce involved?  There are so many questions.

NASA really has it's work cut out in this decision.  It better not screw up.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Indeed a nice article Chris.

I've studied aerospace engineering for one year (unfortunately). During that year I learned that composite materials are best suited for unidirectional tensile load cases. In this application composites are more than 30% lighter than aluminium. But in multiple directional load cases the strength of composites rapidly declines because the matrix material must bind the fibers together. (The composite strength can be determined by the rule of mixtures.)
This makes composites less suitable for pressure vessels. 

Lecturers stated that the all composite Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 aircraft's will be heavier than when the appropriate  materials were selected for every load case (as was done for the A380). Because some portions of fuselage had to be reinforced a lot.

Because of this, I'm not so sure that the composite pressure vessel will weight a lot less than the Al/Li version.
I also see no point in providing both a liberty composite version of Orion/MPCV and the Al/Li Orion itself.
Why does Lockheed Martin want to contribute the composite Orion to Liberty instead of a less capable version of Orion/MPCV (also named Orion Lite). I know LM should involve Bigelow Aerospace for this, but it's a much less risky and faster approach. (Most likely the composite version is better for the ATK lobby ore something).

This would also benefit the MPCV, because some subsystems will be flown more often, and this will lead to more flight experience. (All beneficial to the MPCV.)

The down side of this is that the capsule will most likely fall out of the CCDev program. But I think Liberty should stick with the launcher instead of providing a complete service. (as stated before).

         

[Robotbeat]

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.

[Lurker Steve]

For what it's worth, I am not sure that Liberty's extra cargo capability should be seen as an advantage. There are already contracts for CRS for cargo. So Liberty would be taking business away from the COTS/CRS companies by delivering cargo and crew at the same time.  Furthermore, to the extent that Liberty's prices for delivering cargo are more expensive than the ones from SpaceX or Orbital, it could even be seen as a disadvantage. Obviously ATK has to make the best out of the capabilities of its Liberty LV but I am not convinced that this extra cargo capability should be seen an advantage over other CCiCap proposals.

The cargo capability just sounds wierd also.

It sounds like 2 separate pressurized vehicles arrive at the ISS. The crew module docks at an NDS port. Then the SSRMS has to grab the pressurized cargo module, and berth it to a CBM port. Is that right ? So 2 ISS ports are used for the duration of the Liberty craft's stay at the ISS, or is there some method to dispose of the cargo craft without the help of the crew module ? Does the cargo craft have it's own propulsion to do a de-orbit burn ?

[yg1968]

Liberty is the only commercial vehicle that will launch from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) – a major plus point, per NASA’s intentions of converting the Florida launch site into an active 21st Century spaceport, launching not just the Space Launch System (SLS), but also commercial vehicles from its “clean pad” at 39B, before potentially including 39A – currently a mothballed “Shuttle Pad”.

I am not sure why the fact that Liberty uses KSC should give them extra points over other CCiCap proposals. It isn't a criteria for selection for CCiCap as far as I know. If NASA wants to force commercial crew companies to use KSC, they should refuse to fund pad and other infrastructure upgrades through CCiCap. They could simply fund the pad and other infrastructure upgrades at KSC through the 21st Century Complex funding (since this funding is restricted to KSC and other NASA facilities).

Incidentally, do we know for a fact that the other commercial crew launchers will not launch from KSC? I thought that both SpaceX and ULA had hinted that they might be willing to use KSC for launching crew under the right conditions.