ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[Downix]

Or, burning pieces of propellant hit the parachutes (much bigger targets)...

Assuming that you have enough deltav in the launch abort system you could at least get far enough away from the shower of burning fuel.  I'm not sure how much deltav is needed to clear a worst case scenario, but I'd guess that it must be at least 500 m/s or more if it is such an issue.

Or shield the chutes and cabin until safe distance is reached. That is one of the benefits of the MLAS in this case. The crew capsule would be underway for a longer period than with the LAS, and enveloped in an insulated cocoon as it were. The 45th Wing report discussed the distances needed. With LAS on Orion, to increase the capability to meet that distances would be problematic on Ares, weigh too much. With Liberty's capsule being significantly lighter, and the MLAS offering more thrust, it should have ample capability to get the distance between it and the Liberty if the worst were to happen. If they include more insulation on the MLAS, not possible on Orion again due to the weight and space requirements, the parachute melting due to the heat scenario in the report may also be avoided as well.

[Lars_J]

With LAS on Orion, to increase the capability to meet that distances would be problematic on Ares, weigh too much. With Liberty's capsule being significantly lighter, and the MLAS offering more thrust, it should have ample capability to get the distance between it and the Liberty if the worst were to happen.

The Liberty capsule being *significantly* lighter than Orion's? That's quite the statement to make. Do you have information to back this up? The CCM test for NASA did not appear to prove any significant weight savings. (and if there were any, they were eaten up by added mass to compensate for composite disadvantages)

While the Liberty capsule might end up being slightly lighter than Orion's, the most significant weight difference will be the SM. And the SM will not be part of any abort during the 1st stage burn.

[sdsds]

If they include more insulation on the MLAS [...] the parachute melting due to the heat scenario in the report may also be avoided

That would be impressive insulation! The USAF analysis indicates the cloud of solid propellant fragments would radiate 4,000 degree F heat toward the parachutes which (deployed or not) melt at ~400 degrees F.

Assume for the moment though that MLAS insulation is the plan. How easy would it be for ATK to demonstrate the insulation's ability to protect nylon from melting during a HTPB deflagration event? Given the concerns which have been expressed (not here, but by the range authority) why wouldn't ATK conduct such a test and publish the results?

[wolfpack]

Or, burning pieces of propellant hit the parachutes (much bigger targets)...

Assuming that you have enough deltav in the launch abort system you could at least get far enough away from the shower of burning fuel.  I'm not sure how much deltav is needed to clear a worst case scenario, but I'd guess that it must be at least 500 m/s or more if it is such an issue.

Found the 45th SW report, finally. From what I understand, you'd probably need to put the capsule on a ballistic trajectory that has it descending on a path that is 10,000 feet radially outwards from the point of the blast. Assume destruct happens at max-Q. Do we know Liberty's CCM mass (if not, use Orion as a baseline)? Is that enough information to calculate the delta-v needed from the LAS?

[Zachstar]

Ares-1-X was not representative of Ares 1 or Liberty in the least.

Not that you read his post correctly, as he never said it was, but "in the least"? You mean, like the OML, the integration, the mass sim, the single SRB control, the TVC, the ascent profile.........tell me when to stop.

At 5 segments.

Ares I was cancelled nearly two and a half years ago.  Let's leave it be.  Liberty is not Ares I.
 - Ed Kyle

No it's not Ares 1 it is ATK. and no grand US/French history is going to change that in my opinion.

[joek]

wrong the study was only for that design.

Then will the real "Liberty CCM" please stand up?  Maybe that's not possible if it's an early work in progress and there isn't much to show yet, but that is not the impression given... 

What is being shown and described as the "Liberty" crew module in many (most? all?) publications appears to be that Other CCM.  E.g., the one undergoing "vacuum chamber testing at MSFC"; pictures of the Other CCM captioned "Liberty composite crew module", which are recaptioned old pictures of the Other CCM.

[Downix]

If they include more insulation on the MLAS [...] the parachute melting due to the heat scenario in the report may also be avoided

That would be impressive insulation! The USAF analysis indicates the cloud of solid propellant fragments would radiate 4,000 degree F heat toward the parachutes which (deployed or not) melt at ~400 degrees F.

Assume for the moment though that MLAS insulation is the plan. How easy would it be for ATK to demonstrate the insulation's ability to protect nylon from melting during a HTPB deflagration event? Given the concerns which have been expressed (not here, but by the range authority) why wouldn't ATK conduct such a test and publish the results?

phenolic plastic suspending a carbon matrix has been tested to this temperature. Similar to the nozzle material used on the RS-68 engine.

[Martin FL]

ATK said that the abort system would be designed to clear any first stage failure

That is a remarkable goal! Is that exactly what they have said? It has never come across to me as having been quite that directly stated! Did they say "would be" designed (future tense) or "has been" designed (past tense)? So ... do they have a solution to the problem, or just an admirable intent to address it?

Rominger stated that the abort system would have to "pull a capsule off of a first stage that's still burning and outrun it".

His presentation also listed a better than 1/1,200 loss of crew number for the system.

 - Ed Kyle

There's a good point on this too. This is MLAS. Ares 1 was LAS. Different beasts.

[Lobo]

Why does Scaled Composites use them?  Why did Boeing build the 787 this way?

wrong.
not applicable analogies.  Did not work out for x-33 and it was found on MER to be a waste of effort since it did not save any weight. 

Fuselage shapes are different than a capsule, weight savings do not always translate

As much as it pains me to agree with Jim sometimes (just kidding Jim!), weight savings do not always translate, or if they do, they might not be significant enough to be worth the extra costs/hassel.  A structure like a bike frame (or I imagine large airplane components) made from composite can have pretty significant weight savings over say steel, or even aluminum bike frames.  Which is why that's something they make high end bike frames out of.  But they don't make things like watch cases, needles, or thumbtacks from composites, because any weight savings would be negligible and not worth the extra costs/hassles.  So while carbon composite might make for a 20 or 30% weight savings in airplanes or bike frames, it might only mean a 3 or 5% weight savings in a capsule.  Which might not be significant enough to go with compared to the extra costs/issues associated with it.   

PS:  I have a brother-in-law that works for Boeing on the 787 and it's REALLY late and over budget, and they had a lot of problems with it.  I'm not sure how much of that, if any, is due to composite parts it might have, but it's not a good example of new technologies being used for the first item.  ;-) 

[Go4TLI]

Why does Scaled Composites use them?  Why did Boeing build the 787 this way?

wrong.
not applicable analogies.  Did not work out for x-33 and it was found on MER to be a waste of effort since it did not save any weight. 

Fuselage shapes are different than a capsule, weight savings do not always translate

As much as it pains me to agree with Jim sometimes (just kidding Jim!), weight savings do not always translate, or if they do, they might not be significant enough to be worth the extra costs/hassel.  A structure like a bike frame (or I imagine large airplane components) made from composite can have pretty significant weight savings over say steel, or even aluminum bike frames.  Which is why that's something they make high end bike frames out of.  But they don't make things like watch cases, needles, or thumbtacks from composites, because any weight savings would be negligible and not worth the extra costs/hassles.  So while carbon composite might make for a 20 or 30% weight savings in airplanes or bike frames, it might only mean a 3 or 5% weight savings in a capsule.  Which might not be significant enough to go with compared to the extra costs/issues associated with it.   

PS:  I have a brother-in-law that works for Boeing on the 787 and it's REALLY late and over budget, and they had a lot of problems with it.  I'm not sure how much of that, if any, is due to composite parts it might have, but it's not a good example of new technologies being used for the first item.  ;-) 

Look, again I stand by my comments.  Go ahead and agree with Jim, I certainly have no problem with that but in reality he said nothing to counter any of my points that I tried to raise. 

And the Liberty-Orion module is hardly a watch case, needle or thumbtack so in my personal opinion we need to keep this based as much in reality as possible around here.  Again, the mass savings are unknown but I am still waiting for a credible argument as to why this was not a driving factor.  So again, to sum up:

1.  Obviously, ATK wants to fly cargo.  Every pound they can save in the CM allows for the cargo module.

2.  The NESC pathfinder project may not directly correlate to what is being proposed here.  Obviously that was a conservative attempt based on unseen ground processing damage and potential impact damage seen in flight, notably beyond LEO.

3.  The expedient method would be to use an aluminum structure, as has been in the baseline design since inception and to draw on that.

Finally, the 787 production problems were related to supplier management.

[Lobo]

Fellas, this is about Liberty, not general liquid vs. solid debate. Liberty is an inline, 2 stage rocket with a solid fueled 1st stage. The question is whether or not this is the best design from an engineering standpoint. In my opinion it is not, but I'm open to being educated on the subject.

I don't have a problem with the specifics of the rocket itself.  It is a powerful two-stage rocket created by assembling existing, or largely existing, proven and reliable systems.  It would be built in existing factories by existing workers, and be transported, assembled, and launched using largely existing infrastructure.  Its systems would continue to be used by other rockets, helping defray costs.

But the question is this - best design for what?  Liberty lifts twice as much mass as its ISS commercial crew competitors.  It would, as a result, seem to be a costlier solution for that application.  It can only compete on costs, it seems to me, if it also takes over the ISS cargo work, which would turn it into a sort of mini-shuttle.  ATK/EADS have, of course, made just such a proposal. 

Liberty and its spacecraft seem to offer more capability than its competitors.  But can NASA use that capability?

 - Ed Kyle

Ed,

I think this –might- be a mis-assumption here that bigger means more expensive.  Not necessarily.  Agreed, in the Space industry that seems to be often true, but it’s not true in lots of other areas.  An F-150 truck is not more expensive than a Ferrari just because it’s bigger.  The Ferrari is much smaller and less capable in many categories (including fuel economy!).  It’s bigger, but it doesn’t use as exotic materials or equipment, and it’s made it much larger quantities than the Ferrari. 

So, Liberty would have twice the capacity needed, but if it’s using existing casings, existing tooling for fueling, existing rail-cars and rail lines for segments, an existing upper stage that’s used on another program.    So that extra capacity might not necessarily cost any more.  If it –does-, then it would likely be dropped from the competition and there you go.  Assuming the capsule would be roughly the price of CST-100, Dreamchaser, or Dragon Rider, and if the LV is roughly the price of Atlas or man-rated F9, then they should be right in there price-wise with everyone else, even with twice the lift capacity.  I think Jim or someone said once that they can only evaluate where a competitor meets spec, and can’t give “extra credit” for exceeding spec.  So technically, I don’t know that NASA could give them any extra credit for that capacity, but that’s not to say they won’t informally, if they see future advantage and/or cost savings in that extra capacity. 

Something interesting I just thought of that might or might not be taken into consideration.  Liberty could probably be used to launch a short-fueled Orion CSM to the ISS if there was ever a need to do so, without the full SLS.  The Liberty capsule will already use similar LM components as I understand, and won’t it’s service module be similar? (I thought I heard that too).   Liberty would be stacked in the VAB vertically, and launched from KSC.  So it could be processed and just have Orion added to it instead of the liberty capsule.

Now, not saying there’s much need for this.  The idea of Commercial crew is so Orion doesn’t have to do that.  But that doesn’t mean some in NASA might not find the prospect of one of the Commercial crew providers to have that backup capacity.  I’m sure it’s not as simple as that, but it just got me thinking.
Also would give NASA a means to possibly launch a crew on Orion prior to a lunar flyby crewed mission, without launching a full SLS.  They could check it out in LEO, and even dock with the ISS to test out it’s automatic and manual docking systems.  Basically an “Apollo 7” type mission prior to the “Apollo 8” type mission which would otherwise be the first crew to go up in Orion.   Might be the Saturn 1B to the Saturn V of SLS?

Just wondering if this might be one of those things in the back of NASA’s mind that gives a little unofficial extra consideration for it?  Especially if they choose SLS Block 1B and they use 5-seg SRB’s for several flights, instead of upgrading quickly to advanced boosters.  And NASA seems to want to have companies launch from KSC, which ATK would, but I don’t know that crew Dragon, Dream Chaser, or CST-100 would?  Sounds like ULA would modify LC-41 with an elevator on the UT for Dreamchaser and CST-100.  Or at least that’s what the art usually shows.   And SpaceX might just modify LC-40 for Dragon Rider and keep everything horizontally integrated.

[Jim]

2.  The NESC pathfinder project may not directly correlate to what is being proposed here.  Obviously that was a conservative attempt based on unseen ground processing damage and potential impact damage seen in flight, notably beyond LEO.

It directly correlates.  There are more impacts in LEO than beyond.

[FinalFrontier]

Or, burning pieces of propellant hit the parachutes (much bigger targets)...

Assuming that you have enough deltav in the launch abort system you could at least get far enough away from the shower of burning fuel.  I'm not sure how much deltav is needed to clear a worst case scenario, but I'd guess that it must be at least 500 m/s or more if it is such an issue.

Its been tested. Its not just an issue of DeltaV its an issue of how much thrust you need to achieve that and how quickly you can do so.

And how much the system used to do so weighs. What has already been determined is that even a LAS that weighed more than Orion itself would not have been sufficient to ensure a safe abort off an Ares 1 early in the fly. Towards MaxQ it gets even worse. And after Max Q there is not that much first stage flight time left, so then it becomes a non-issue if for 2/3 ds of the flight you can't safely abort.

This remains an un-resolved issue.

[FinalFrontier]

Or, burning pieces of propellant hit the parachutes (much bigger targets)...

Assuming that you have enough deltav in the launch abort system you could at least get far enough away from the shower of burning fuel.  I'm not sure how much deltav is needed to clear a worst case scenario, but I'd guess that it must be at least 500 m/s or more if it is such an issue.

Or shield the chutes and cabin until safe distance is reached. That is one of the benefits of the MLAS in this case. The crew capsule would be underway for a longer period than with the LAS, and enveloped in an insulated cocoon as it were. The 45th Wing report discussed the distances needed. With LAS on Orion, to increase the capability to meet that distances would be problematic on Ares, weigh too much. With Liberty's capsule being significantly lighter, and the MLAS offering more thrust, it should have ample capability to get the distance between it and the Liberty if the worst were to happen. If they include more insulation on the MLAS, not possible on Orion again due to the weight and space requirements, the parachute melting due to the heat scenario in the report may also be avoided as well.

This would have to be tested. It could work, but I would like to see the numbers run on this concept. Also I would like it if ATK would tell us what LAS system they plan on using.

[joek]

I think Jim or someone said once that they can only evaluate where a competitor meets spec, and can’t give “extra credit” for exceeding spec.  So technically, I don’t know that NASA could give them any extra credit for that capacity, but that’s not to say they won’t informally, if they see future advantage and/or cost savings in that extra capacity.

For an acquisition contract (as in competed under Federal Acquisition Rules); CCiCap is not an acquisition and evaluation is squisher.

Just wondering if this might be one of those things in the back of NASA’s mind that gives a little unofficial extra consideration for it?

And for good or bad, raises the spectre of Orion-SLS-etc competing via Liberty.  Undoubtedly that's causing heartburn in some quarters.  In any case, NOT a subject for this thread.

[joek]

Also I would like it if ATK would tell us what LAS system they plan on using.

They've said it will use MLAS.

[joek]

2.  The NESC pathfinder project may not directly correlate to what is being proposed here.  Obviously that was a conservative attempt based on unseen ground processing damage and potential impact damage seen in flight, notably beyond LEO.

It directly correlates.  There are more impacts in LEO than beyond.

 Rominger also stated some time ago:

"We're trying to minimize any changes," adds Rominger. "The fact is, the module as it is today is probably overdesigned, it's stronger and more robust than we actually need."

Maybe the decision to minimize changes was revisited in the past few months weeks, but everything they've been feeding the press and on their site suggests otherwise.

[Go4TLI]

2.  The NESC pathfinder project may not directly correlate to what is being proposed here.  Obviously that was a conservative attempt based on unseen ground processing damage and potential impact damage seen in flight, notably beyond LEO.

It directly correlates.  There are more impacts in LEO than beyond.

Come on Jim, let's get real. You don't know that it correlates as you are not privy to the design or the reasons they chose it. Just yesterday you were suggesting they went for a composite design for expediency.

As for more LEO impacts, that depends on factors and is not an absolute truth. In addition, in LEO and at ISS there are more options than in deep space

[Prober]

Come on everyone let's get creative.....some of the points over, and over will not change anything.   I feel sorry for the mods having to read material that gets plain on the boring side.

[RyanC]

If I remember correctly the only way to a abort a burning solid is to depressurize it.  This is generally done explosively and basically unzips a good portion of the pressure chamber.

Minuteman III had it's thrust terminated through a series of thrust termination ports (TTP) at the top of the booster. In a little bit of ingeunity, they also used the TTPs to provide thrust to 'back away' the final stage from the post-boost vehicle, which contained the warheads.

This system works only on monolithic inlines, such as say... Ares I/Liberty/Minuteman/Peacekeeper/etc.

Titan IIIM for the X-20 Dynasoar program could not use this due to it's sidemounted SRBs being strapped to the huge explosive tank of the central Titan II core. So they planned to have the TTP be on top of the booster - venting up through the nose cones.

This concept survived X-20's cancellation, and was used for MOL/Blue Gemini, before being picked for early Space Shuttle design concepts.

Ultimately, thrust termination ports were deleted from the final Shuttle design; thus beginning the myth that solids cannot be shut down.