ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[Jim]

And MLAS was sketched by Griffin on a paper napkin and low and behold it’s on Liberty…

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_mlasfolo.html

That is bit of revisionism. Griffin's sketch was motors on the service module, the original MLAS was to have motors inside the fairing as tractor rockets.

[Rocket Science]

And MLAS was sketched by Griffin on a paper napkin and low and behold it’s on Liberty…

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_mlasfolo.html

That is bit of revisionism. Griffin's sketch was motors on the service module, the original MLAS was to have motors inside the fairing as tractor rockets.

Yes Jim, and here we have the same issue that came up on my other thread “Sons of Constellation”. Is liberty a derivative of Ares 1? Yes and no...  Is MLAS still the same as designed?  Yes and no… BTW the CST-100 has pusher tractor motors and looks a lot like someone’s sketch and if not selected for Boeings commercial crew proposal, I already stated that it could very well end up on this vehicle. You correctly renamed my thread “More like the Bas@#%ds Sons of Constellation”, because Liberty has had “multiple sex partners” and the while the paternity in somewhat in question, Griffin’s DNA is all over it…
 
I have already stated that this could end up affecting policy; therefore the discussion should happen on that thread. All these events are not happening in a vacuum and I think somebody wants his job back…

Regards
Robert

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29410.15

[phred]

Yes, the general idea has been around since at least 1993, but I've been told that the Astronaut Office apparently didn't know about it when they worked out the concept.  Or at least that they weren't working from ATSS concepts directly.  I found that hard to believe, but perhaps the ATSS report from Lockheed that had the concept was presented only to Marshall rather than JSC.

BTW, I think the idea pre-dated ATSS.  I seem to remember some discussion of similar possibilities during the 1980s, though none that I can find on paper.

 - Ed Kyle

I was looking at the 2004 Garriott Griffin paper that QuantumG linked.  In their discussion of a CEV launcher, they put the EELV option on the table first, and then mentioned "in addition to Atlas and Delta, another CEV launch option merits further consideration...."

The text also mentions the figure that Comga extracted from the paper (basically an Ares I): "A sketch of such a new launch vehicle is provided in figure 1, courtesy of ATK Thiokol."

[Ben the Space Brit]

The text also mentions the figure that Comga extracted from the paper (basically an Ares I): "A sketch of such a new launch vehicle is provided in figure 1, courtesy of ATK Thiokol."

It's pretty obvious that ATK has been working independently on something along the lines of Ares-I/Liberty for some time.  CxP simply marks a brief window when it was the Program of Record.

This might explain their relatively fast progress: A lot of the paper number-crunching has long since been done and it is simply a case of making it into a physical vehicle.

[Prober]

From Liberty web site.

o_Duffy Will be holding my first #SpaceChat answering questions on @LibertyLaunch today at 1 p.m. EST...wish me luck! #GoLiberty @Astro_Rommel

[Rocket Science]

o_Duffy Will be holding my first #SpaceChat answering questions on @LibertyLaunch today at 1 p.m. EST...wish me luck! #GoLiberty @Astro_Rommel

Good Luck!

[neilh]

From Liberty web site.

o_Duffy Will be holding my first #SpaceChat answering questions on @LibertyLaunch today at 1 p.m. EST...wish me luck! #GoLiberty @Astro_Rommel

https://twitter.com/LibertyLaunch

[sdsds]

Nice response to the question from Waterloo Rocketry:

Waterloo Rocketry: "Does Liberty have any issues with 11Hz vibration like the Ares 1 did?"

LibertyLaunch: "No, the tanks on our core stage from the Ariane V are reserved, which changes the vehicle dynamics & there is no issue- BD"

(Of course he means the tanks are "reversed", not reserved.) This seems more than merely plausible; there is no reason a priori to assume the normal vibrations of the solid motor will excite a resonance frequency of the Ariane-derived stage, and maybe having the mass of the LOX higher in the stage might help.

Did a question get answered (or even asked) about runaway thrust oscillation within the solid motor itself, or about catastrophic nozzle blockage? Admittedly compared with the normal vibrations of the motor those have fairly low likelihood of occurring.

[Prober]

was searching for methane engines and found this developement engine ATK worked on.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/ATK_Test_Fires_Liquid_Oxygen_Methane_Rocket_Engine_In_Vacuum_999.html

[LaunchedIn68]

Now that ATK has not been selected to receive any of the alotted funding, does this mean the hinted at test flight from LC-39 in 2014 will now most likely not take place?

[Prober]

Now that ATK has not been selected to receive any of the alotted funding, does this mean the hinted at test flight from LC-39 in 2014 will now most likely not take place?

Just looked on the web for any news of ATK found this
video & story.....

http://fox13now.com/2012/08/02/atk-on-list-for-potential-nasa-contract/#ooid=tpN3hqNTrIIJP7XiCczmZZqSYqlb3OsK

http://fox13now.com/2012/08/02/atk-on-list-for-potential-nasa-contract/

"We look forward to a debriefing from NASA."

[Go4TLI]

"We look forward to a debriefing from NASA."

Standard practice is both the winners and losers get a debriefing.

[john smith 19]

Liberty is a launcher that at first glance looks *very* good. Plenty of pedigree, all stages man rated, supplier with long NASA history.

But look a little closer. It's worse than you think.

The 5 seg SRB has *no* flight history (but that's known)

But *neither* has the Ariane stage. EADS Astrium stated they've been doing mfg tests because the panels are *much* thicker on the Liberty 2nd stage than normal Ariane Stg1. It's not a stock Ariane 1st stage with a new lighter forward skirt (which is the SRB attach point) to support the much lighter load on top.

So it will need a different production flow, specific management of parts etc.

And there has been *no* discussion AFAIK from the mfgs of the Vulcain 2 about how to air start it beyond what seemed off the cuff comments that "It will be no problem."

In the late 90's Rocketdyne said that about the SSME but when time came to make it happen that became "Sorry, it's too difficult."

Vulcain 2 is in the J2 size and cycle class so it *should* be doable but that's not the same thing. J2 was designed from day 1 as a 2nd stg engine. I'm not sure if they will slap a new nozzle on it as well. A logical upgrade but more development work.

Liberty's Ariane stage is just like a regular Ariane 1st stage the way the Liberty 1st stage is just like a shuttle SRB.

It looks a low risk, high performance design. It might deliver the performance but I'm very doubtful about the risk level.

[woods170]

Liberty is a launcher that at first glance looks *very* good. Plenty of pedigree, all stages man rated, supplier with long NASA history.

But look a little closer. It's worse than you think.

<snip>

Nice analysis. You could add one more point of criticism: The Ariane-5 core stage was designed in the late 1980's/early 1990's with man-rating in mind. But it never actually flew as a man-rated vehicle, courtesy of the Hermes mini-shuttle being cancelled in the early 1990's.

[Oberon_Command]

In the late 90's Rocketdyne said that about the SSME but when time came to make it happen that became "Sorry, it's too difficult."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought (thanks to a post on this forum which I haven't been able to find yet) that the SSME could be made airstartable, but not restartable, and therefore the Ares-V EDS couldn't use it, and that's the real reason why it was dumped in favour of J-2X (which could be both air-started and restarted).

[baldusi]

Nice analysis. You could add one more point of criticism: The Ariane-5 core stage was designed in the late 1980's/early 1990's with man-rating in mind. But it never actually flew as a man-rated vehicle, courtesy of the Hermes mini-shuttle being cancelled in the early 1990's.

You know it better than me. But the modifications from H158 to H173 I doubt that had any man rating in mind. I would expect that part of the optimizations were to do away with man rating margins where not needed.
The Vulcain 2 was demonstrated to start at 0.2atm as part of the work after the V-157 failure. And the Ariane 5 has the solids attachment on the forward skirt (or intertank), but since it does has an engine (which the ET doesn't), it already has some thrust structure. In fact, I believe it's a balloon tank, and thus has a lot of structural strength. The need to increase the wall width is probably to cope with extra pressure.

[spacejulien]

Nice analysis. You could add one more point of criticism: The Ariane-5 core stage was designed in the late 1980's/early 1990's with man-rating in mind. But it never actually flew as a man-rated vehicle, courtesy of the Hermes mini-shuttle being cancelled in the early 1990's.

You know it better than me. But the modifications from H158 to H173 I doubt that had any man rating in mind. I would expect that part of the optimizations were to do away with man rating margins where not needed.

I don't think moving from H158 to H173 made any difference wrt manrating standards. But the European required factors of safety for tanks and structures are lower than the NASA ones given in https://standards.nasa.gov/documents/detail/3314903 .

The Vulcain 2 was demonstrated to start at 0.2atm as part of the work after the V-157 failure.

I doubt that, see: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29354.msg927875#msg927875
The 0.2 atm pressure was created only on the outside of the nozzle, to create a more representative pressure loading on the nozzle. No reduced ambient chamber pressure during ignition.

And the Ariane 5 has the solids attachment on the forward skirt (or intertank), but since it does has an engine (which the ET doesn't), it already has some thrust structure. In fact, I believe it's a balloon tank, and thus has a lot of structural strength. The need to increase the wall width is probably to cope with extra pressure.

But during MaxQ (maximum aerodynamic pressure) the Ariane 5 stage only has Vulcain thrust, main thrust is bypassing the core stage from booster via front skirt to upper stage and fairing. Already the move from Vulcain to Vulcain II increased tank mass by about 1000 kg.

~spacejulien

[Lars_J]

Liberty is a launcher that at first glance looks *very* good. Plenty of pedigree, all stages man rated, supplier with long NASA history.

But look a little closer. It's worse than you think.

We've discussed these issues before.  Yes, five-segment and air-start Vulcain 2 haven't flown, but neither has Falcon 9v1.1 or Merlin 1D.  Etc.

It came down, I think, to money and bid responsiveness.  ATK went big, proposing a much bigger, and therefore more expensive (though more capable), rocket than its competition.  The competition proposed what NASA asked for in its RFP.

Possible... But I think more likely the major reason the bid failed was the spacecraft - or lack thereof. Remember that the bid was for an integrated solution - LV + spacecraft. The 'Liberty' capsule was simply too far behind the competition, who had all put their spacecraft through CCDEV-2. The competitors were already 'bending metal'.

[Robotbeat]

... The competitors were already 'bending metal'.

Hey! I call material prejudice! ATK's capsule is composite, not metal.

[pathfinder_01]

I haven't seen a CST-100 or a Dream Chaser do much more than look like pretty, empty display shells or hang beneath parachutes.  Liberty's avionics were coming from Orion, which has been in development for awhile now. 

 - Ed Kyle

CST-100 and Dreamchaser have test fired thrusters. Tested landing systems(airbag and gear). Have had their interiors designed.Both have choosen their TPS materials. CST-100 tested it's lifesupport early in the program. I am unsure about Dreamchaser's avonics but there are plans to do enterprise style landings soon(Which will require some level of Avonics being ready).

Compsite Orion had none of that going for it.