ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[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.

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

The target payload of SLS with advanced boosters is 105mt. That is what  many of the DRMs are based on. I've heard that target is going to be a bit difficult for solids to reach. ATK would have to push the technology to get there. Things such as composite cases, new nozzle, and boosted chamber pressures would be mandatory. It may be doable but its not like ATK has a slam dunk on their hands with the booster competition. Especially since liquid boosters can do the job pretty comfortably. It could be that the 105mt is not needed and that a lower target may be set but even then liquids still look pretty darn good. Personally I think SLS should spend the least amount of time and money in development and move more "directly" into operations. I like block 1B.

Liberty has the highest amount of synergy with Orion, SLS, and LC-39 of all the competitors. That could go both ways. SLS may be able to procure its boosters cheaper, both due to an increased volume of production and sharing overhead. The more tenants for LC-39 the less each have to pay for upkeep. I very much doubt LC-39 would be decommissioned even if SLS were canceled. If ATK makes a winning booster proposal, or even if it loses but still develops the needed tech, they can roll that into Liberty.

The impact to the SLS program shouldn't be the primary selector but it shouldn't be ignored. That may seem unfair but if NASA can reduce the total amount of money it spends that is not a bad thing in my book. I'm not to warm to Liberty at this point but I am trying to keep an open mind about it. I would certainly be interested to hear more about its impacts on the SLS program.

[Drkskywxlt]

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say ATK built Liberty "using their own money"?  I realize they must have put some (not insignificant) money into developing Liberty to where it is today, but much of it is Ares I heritage that was paid for by taxpayers. I'm sure we'll never see a legitimate cost breakdown of Ares I heritage vs. true Liberty-original design. 

[yg1968]

Liberty has the highest amount of synergy with Orion, SLS, and LC-39 of all the competitors. That could go both ways. SLS may be able to procure its boosters cheaper, both due to an increased volume of production and sharing overhead. The more tenants for LC-39 the less each have to pay for upkeep. I very much doubt LC-39 would be decommissioned even if SLS were canceled. If ATK makes a winning booster proposal, or even if it loses but still develops the needed tech, they can roll that into Liberty.

The impact to the SLS program shouldn't be the primary selector but it shouldn't be ignored. That may seem unfair but if NASA can reduce the total amount of money it spends that is not a bad thing in my book. I'm not to warm to Liberty at this point but I am trying to keep an open mind about it. I would certainly be interested to hear more about its impacts on the SLS program.

The commercial crew program's objectives should be independant of SLS/MPCV. If anything, the commercial crew program should be providing SLS/MPCV some indirect competition which could eventually drive costs down (e.g., by having Dragon or an improved CST-100 compete against Orion; or liquid boosters compete against solid boosters).

[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.

About cargo delivery, has Liberty enough capability to launch an additional 5 mTon pressurized cargo segment. I highly doubt it, because Liberty can't launch Orion with LAS.

Also which is less heavy LAS or MLAS? I would chose for the lightest one, for both Liberty and SLS. Although LAS will make the rocket a lot longer (with most likely drove ATK toward MLAS)   

[rmencos]

IMHO, "political capital" is a horrible reason to make a decision.

But that's how NASA makes all of its major budget decisions.  It isn't corrupt to understand that political will is needed to keep budgets going.  And you can't harness that political will unless you have political capital (meaning clout to implement a desired strategy).  In the case of ATK, I agree that they need to have a technically feasible, cost-efficient, realistic proposal.  That is the most important question.  And NASA needs to really scrub the proposal.  IF ATK does have a feasible proposal, then NASA needs to consider these other "political" factors.

I don't know much about ATK's lobbying efforts etc.  And that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about when Bolden talks to a congressman, and that person mentions the billions wasted on Constellation, Bolden can say, "well, actually the SLS and this new Liberty program are taking direct advantage of those billions.  We're about to do great things.  Now about that funding for the next Mars mission . . . ."  Political capital has been there since the start of this great nation.

[KEdward5]

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say ATK built Liberty "using their own money"?  I realize they must have put some (not insignificant) money into developing Liberty to where it is today, but much of it is Ares I heritage that was paid for by taxpayers. I'm sure we'll never see a legitimate cost breakdown of Ares I heritage vs. true Liberty-original design. 

It's disingenuous to complain about something you admit you have no data on.

It's also ironic and hypocritical to appear to be cautious about using CxP development, as the alternative would be to throw that money away. How is that fiscally responsible?

[Rik ISS-fan]

The commercial crew program's objectives should be independant of SLS/MPCV. If anything, the commercial crew program should be providing SLS/MPCV some indirect competition which could eventually drive costs down (e.g., by having Dragon or an improved CST-100 compete against Orion; or liquid boosters compete against solid boosters).

Wasn't the main purpose of the CCDev program to establish independent American human launch capability SSAP. So Nasa could buy human launch services in the US in staid of from the Russians?
The competition is a possible positive side effect, isn't it? 

[Robotbeat]

Even so, the point that they paid for this all themselves strikes me as a little... ungrateful. They paid for it partly with MY money.

[nodog]

And your money hasn't also partly paid for Falcon, Dragon, Dreamchaser, and all of the other CCDev/CCiCap/COTS/CRS vehicles and spacecraft?

[Lars_J]

It's also ironic and hypocritical to appear to be cautious about using CxP development, as the alternative would be to throw that money away. How is that fiscally responsible?

The CxP money has already been spent. It can't be thrown away. We can't get it back if we wanted to. What we have to do at every step is to look at the value/experience/hardware that past funding has bought, and to see if it makes sense to move forward building on that in the long term. My longish point boils down do this - sometimes it is indeed *fiscally responsible* to not move forward with something, even if large funds has been spent on it in the past.

Having said all that, SLS/Orion is already building on those same CxP elements that Liberty would, so "not throwing away CxP money" should not be an argument that matters for or against Liberty in the commercial crew selection.

[yg1968]

The commercial crew program's objectives should be independant of SLS/MPCV. If anything, the commercial crew program should be providing SLS/MPCV some indirect competition which could eventually drive costs down (e.g., by having Dragon or an improved CST-100 compete against Orion; or liquid boosters compete against solid boosters).

Wasn't the main purpose of the CCDev program to establish independent American human launch capability SSAP. So Nasa could buy human launch services in the US in staid of from the Russians?
The competition is a possible positive side effect, isn't it? 

The commercial crew program has two main objectives. The primary one is to reduce the gap. The secondary one is to create competition. Both are important objectives. The agreement with Wolf only states that the commercial crew's primary objective is to reduce the gap but that still leaves room for its secondary objective. You could even argue that having competition is important in order to reduce the gap because if one competitor were to be delayed (or even fail) for either technical or financial reasons, you would still have a second parallel option which would ensure that you still meet the 2017 objective. 

[Robotbeat]

And your money hasn't also partly paid for Falcon, Dragon, Dreamchaser, and all of the other CCDev/CCiCap/COTS/CRS vehicles and spacecraft?

Of course it has, but it's understood that it hasn't all been on their own dime. ATK's Liberty proposal is made out of a whole bunch of scraps from other programs, and while it's good they appear to be making something viable from them, it's absolutely not something they've done all on their own dime.

[Norm Hartnett]

Ice Cream!

Oh, wait, this is the Internet, no real Ice Cream. Nice article in any case, Chris.

I found this article somewhat odd, if true.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/nasa-to-announce-commercial-space-shuttle-successors-soon.php

I had not realized the selection process was so advanced. Do you suppose that NASA leading off with the twits about Boeing and ATK have any meaning? If they are really going down to 2.5 vehicles soon that certainly explains the ATK advertizing blitz.

[nodog]

And your money hasn't also partly paid for Falcon, Dragon, Dreamchaser, and all of the other CCDev/CCiCap/COTS/CRS vehicles and spacecraft?

Of course it has, but it's understood that it hasn't all been on their own dime. ATK's Liberty proposal is made out of a whole bunch of scraps from other programs, and while it's good they appear to be making something viable from them, it's absolutely not something they've done all on their own dime.

Every presentation I have seen made about Liberty talks to "leveraging NASA's prior investment". Where have they claimed to have "done it all on their own dime"?

[yg1968]

Ice Cream!

Oh, wait, this is the Internet, no real Ice Cream. Nice article in any case, Chris.

I found this article somewhat odd, if true.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/nasa-to-announce-commercial-space-shuttle-successors-soon.php

I had not realized the selection process was so advanced. Do you suppose that NASA leading off with the twits about Boeing and ATK have any meaning? If they are really going down to 2.5 vehicles soon that certainly explains the ATK advertizing blitz.

Bolden recently said mid-July. But Gerst said late July/August to Congress, a day later.

[Jason Sole]

Even so, the point that they paid for this all themselves strikes me as a little... ungrateful. They paid for it partly with MY money.

That's a poor post. No one's said they have "paid for this all by themselves". The article is about the SAA.

[Robotbeat]

And your money hasn't also partly paid for Falcon, Dragon, Dreamchaser, and all of the other CCDev/CCiCap/COTS/CRS vehicles and spacecraft?

Of course it has, but it's understood that it hasn't all been on their own dime. ATK's Liberty proposal is made out of a whole bunch of scraps from other programs, and while it's good they appear to be making something viable from them, it's absolutely not something they've done all on their own dime.

Every presentation I have seen made about Liberty talks to "leveraging NASA's prior investment". Where have they claimed to have "done it all on their own dime"?

People on this forum have made that claim. NOT ATK, so I guess I should've been clearer, there.

[notsorandom]

Liberty has the highest amount of synergy with Orion, SLS, and LC-39 of all the competitors. That could go both ways. SLS may be able to procure its boosters cheaper, both due to an increased volume of production and sharing overhead. The more tenants for LC-39 the less each have to pay for upkeep. I very much doubt LC-39 would be decommissioned even if SLS were canceled. If ATK makes a winning booster proposal, or even if it loses but still develops the needed tech, they can roll that into Liberty.

The impact to the SLS program shouldn't be the primary selector but it shouldn't be ignored. That may seem unfair but if NASA can reduce the total amount of money it spends that is not a bad thing in my book. I'm not to warm to Liberty at this point but I am trying to keep an open mind about it. I would certainly be interested to hear more about its impacts on the SLS program.

The commercial crew program's objectives should be independant of SLS/MPCV. If anything, the commercial crew program should be providing SLS/MPCV some indirect competition which could eventually drive costs down (e.g., by having Dragon or an improved CST-100 compete against Orion; or liquid boosters compete against solid boosters).

Why? If the cost of both programs may be reduced and as a whole NASA would have to spend less money. I am not saying that is the case here, but these things do not exist in a vacuum. Look at the cost of the RL-10 after the SSP was shut down. The EELV program and SSP were separate. Reductions in cost due the the existence of other programs past, and present, may not be totally fair but it is an advantage. One that should be evaluated. An advantage that other competitors have already leveraged to gain CCDev funding.

[RobbieCape]

First off, great article. Lots of info in there!

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say ATK built Liberty "using their own money"?  I realize they must have put some (not insignificant) money into developing Liberty to where it is today, but much of it is Ares I heritage that was paid for by taxpayers. I'm sure we'll never see a legitimate cost breakdown of Ares I heritage vs. true Liberty-original design. 

It's disingenuous to complain about something you admit you have no data on.

It's also ironic and hypocritical to appear to be cautious about using CxP development, as the alternative would be to throw that money away. How is that fiscally responsible?

He has a partial point, but not for an article specific to the "state of play" on the SAA - which is unfunded.

Totally agree with the irony of some, a handful, who take 10 posts to make a point. SLS and Liberty, or anything with a SRB, is a red flag to a few people for reasons I don't understand.

[nodog]

And your money hasn't also partly paid for Falcon, Dragon, Dreamchaser, and all of the other CCDev/CCiCap/COTS/CRS vehicles and spacecraft?

Of course it has, but it's understood that it hasn't all been on their own dime. ATK's Liberty proposal is made out of a whole bunch of scraps from other programs, and while it's good they appear to be making something viable from them, it's absolutely not something they've done all on their own dime.

Every presentation I have seen made about Liberty talks to "leveraging NASA's prior investment". Where have they claimed to have "done it all on their own dime"?

People on this forum have made that claim. NOT ATK, so I guess I should've been clearer, there.