ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[john smith 19]

Some interesting comments on my post. Thank you all.

Baldusi
Ariane 5 stages are not "balloon" tanks (too avant-garde for the French ). They do use a common bulkhead which some still seem to have issues with. Spacex uses a "semi-pressure stabilized" design for some of its tanks, a technique that dates back at least as far as the British Blue Streak IRBM. Sadly even Centaur tanks are now machined isogrid aluminum.

Spacejulien
Nice untangling of why people *think* Arianspace have done altitude starting, when in reality they have not. I've a feeling Europe *does* have altitude testing chambers that could handle debugging a Vulcain 2 altitude start sequence but I don't think anyone has actually *tried* to do one yet. Any links to the contrary would be *very* interesting.

Woods170
Good point. A5 was designed for Hermes and hence crew rated to the relevant European standards (Love to find out if they are available online). It still *theoretically* is but the 2 big ticket items for this are the Emergency Detection System and a structural safety factor of 1.4x any actual load, rather than the ELV standard of 1.25. It's unclear if
the sensors for the former have been retained and what the standards the current *version* of the A5 stg1 is built to (but this will not be what is used on Liberty).

Oberon_Command. I don't know about this. The start sequence is complex but uses Augmented Spark Ignitors, basically spark plug with a separate GH2/GO2 supply, not a consumable start cartridge, so could start indefinitely. I always suspected it had more to do with what Rocketdyne were planning to charge them than technical issues, but that's just my hunch.


edkyle99
Liberty seem to be planning to get their payload capsule from the "Composite Capsule Program" which appears to be nothing more or less than a structural test article IE an empty shell, much like the DreamChaser and the Enterprise shuttle, before fitout.

As for CTS100 and DC progress it's hard to say how well fitted out *either* of them are. As a lifting body (made in composites to boot) and making a glide landing from orbit I would expect DC to spend a *lot* of time hanging (and falling) from parachutes and helicopters, as those last few minutes of flight are some of the *most* dangerous in the mission and need to be *very* well characterized.

I suspect you instinct about Liberty going away is correct. It is not a concept I will be shedding any tears over.

[wolfpack]

I suspect that Liberty will now vanish into history, and with it much of Launch Complex 39.

 - Ed Kyle

Why do you think it bodes ill for LC-39? SLS is more than enough to keep LC-39 alive and well. Pad 39-A needs to find a user, though.

I speculate that Liberty lost because it is a Powerpoint rocket. Also, when your boss tells you to stop working on something, and you finagle a way to keep working on it, you might get reminded of the fact that you were told to stop working on it. Not saying any of that happened, but it sure is plausible.

[Jim]

Sadly even Centaur tanks are now machined isogrid aluminum.

No, they are still balloons.

[Robotbeat]

Sadly even Centaur tanks are now machined isogrid aluminum.

No, they are still balloons.

But the (upcoming?) Common Centaur is supposed to be isogrid, right?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Sadly even Centaur tanks are now machined isogrid aluminum.

No, they are still balloons.

But the (upcoming?) Common Centaur is supposed to be isogrid, right?

No, ACES would still use stainless steel baloon tank. This is still the lightest and best material in holding LH2 (manufacturing of any length or strength tank is simple compared to doing the same with aluminum). ULA has flip flopped its ACES design back and forth between stainless steel and aluminum to determine which would work out better with which top level systems design. But stainless steel is what is in most of the ACES documentation.

[Robotbeat]

I'm talking about Common Centaur, not ACES. Not the same thing.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I'm talking about Common Centaur, not ACES. Not the same thing.

DCSS is sometimes mentioned as a way for commanality. Its is aluminum. Such a vehicle would not be a Centaur derived but DCSS derived.

[Robotbeat]

I'm talking about Common Centaur, not ACES. Not the same thing.

DCSS is sometimes mentioned as a way for commanality. Its is aluminum. Such a vehicle would not be a Centaur derived but DCSS derived.

I didn't make this up. http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/ULA-Innovation-March-2010.pdf Page 6

[Patchouli]

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'.

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

I suspect commercial crew probably is also a technology development program as the three winners each have a completely different vehicle with a different landing system.
But I would not call the CST-100 and DC empty shells Boeing has been testing many systems on the CST-100 and DC builds on the work on the HL-20 and shares propulsion technology with SS2.
I suspect Boeing never really canceled their CEV work and instead simply back burnered it waiting for an opportunity to come along.
DC probably will end up flying with the most characterized abort propulsion of the three since every powered SS2 flight could be considered a test.

Now there might still be a case for the Liberty LV as presently two of three vehicles share a common LV the Atlas V and a stand down of Atlas would ground those two vehicles.

[Robotbeat]

CST-100 has also been shown in powerpoints flying a Delta IV. If redundancy of LV is an important consideration, qualifying Delta IV is probably a much better option.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I'm talking about Common Centaur, not ACES. Not the same thing.

DCSS is sometimes mentioned as a way for commanality. Its is aluminum. Such a vehicle would not be a Centaur derived but DCSS derived.

I didn't make this up. http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/ULA-Innovation-March-2010.pdf Page 6

Carefully read end of page 5. It talks about the fact that the common Centaur would use the lighter baloon tank structure to increase performance for Delta IV and that if they used the aluminum structure for Atlas the Atlas V would lose significant performance. So they are talking about stainless steel baloon tanks for the common Centaur but at the 10' and 5m diameters. Where the 5m diameter tanks would be used for DIVH also probably using the RL-10B engine as well in order to gain its higher ISP.

Edit: We're off topic for this thread anyway.

[john smith 19]

Carefully read end of page 5. It talks about the fact that the common Centaur would use the lighter baloon tank structure to increase

Edit: We're off topic for this thread anyway.

agreed this is OT but I've read this report (very interesting for the tests they've been doing on on orbit LO2/LH2 handling for long duration. Not glamorous but vital for any plans for future depots) and it's talking about a ACES Vs the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, not an isogrid vs pressure stabilized tank.

 It confirms ACES is lighter but not *why* and I recall a significant stage weight reduction in (IIRC) the Delta II when they switched from "waffle grid" to isogrid. The words aluminum and steel are absent from the report.

I thought Centaur had switched also because of a picture I thought I recalled in the ULA house magazine. I was sad to see it as balloon tanks were always one of the *truly* innovative ways to do tanks, apart from isogrid and NASA's experimental deep pressing work (That could have gone *so* much further but done by a company that made pressed goods, not airframes).

People always mention that stainless steel is much easier to weld than Aluminum (although the British managed it with Blue Streak using a "spot welding" technique. At least one of their tanks was also pressure stabilised) but I wonder how many people are aware it's also 1/10 the thermal conductivity of Aluminum. Handy when you're dealing with LH2 (any cryogen really) and want to reduce heat leaks into the liquid.

I'll keep in mind Centaur is still using balloon tanks and I hope so will its successors.

[jongoff]

From a Jeff Foust article that included some quotes from ATK's president and CEO (http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/08/10/will-atk-continue-liberty/):

On Thursday, in a call with financial analysts to discuss the company’s latest quarterly earnings report, ATK president and CEO Mark DeYoung suggested that Liberty was, at the very least, not a priority for the company going forward, if the company even planned to pursue it. He reiterated on a couple occasions that ATK was “disappointed” in the CCiCap decision. “We offered a safe, mature, affordable solution to NASA, and we’re looking forward to learning more about their decision.”

However, he also said that, unlike its work on the Space Launch System and advanced booster concepts related to it, Liberty was not as high a priority for ATK. “Liberty was a little bit of a longer shot for us, so we hadn’t planned on it, so from that view it should not have any significant financial impact for the company,” he said. “Going forward, we’re going to focus on SLS, we’re going to focus on the advanced booster, we’re going to execute on those programs.” He later said that, with regards to commercial crew, “we were disappointed, we’re moving on.”

ATK officials involved with Liberty had previously indicated that the company would continue its efforts on the program if it didn’t get an award, albeit at a slower pace. DeYoung’s comments hint that progress on Liberty could come at a far slower pace—or possibly not at all.

I had been under the impression that ATK was saying they were going to continue with Liberty even if they didn't get a CCiCAP Award. Did something change?

~Jon

[FinalFrontier]

From a Jeff Foust article that included some quotes from ATK's president and CEO (http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/08/10/will-atk-continue-liberty/):

On Thursday, in a call with financial analysts to discuss the company’s latest quarterly earnings report, ATK president and CEO Mark DeYoung suggested that Liberty was, at the very least, not a priority for the company going forward, if the company even planned to pursue it. He reiterated on a couple occasions that ATK was “disappointed” in the CCiCap decision. “We offered a safe, mature, affordable solution to NASA, and we’re looking forward to learning more about their decision.”

However, he also said that, unlike its work on the Space Launch System and advanced booster concepts related to it, Liberty was not as high a priority for ATK. “Liberty was a little bit of a longer shot for us, so we hadn’t planned on it, so from that view it should not have any significant financial impact for the company,” he said. “Going forward, we’re going to focus on SLS, we’re going to focus on the advanced booster, we’re going to execute on those programs.” He later said that, with regards to commercial crew, “we were disappointed, we’re moving on.”

ATK officials involved with Liberty had previously indicated that the company would continue its efforts on the program if it didn’t get an award, albeit at a slower pace. DeYoung’s comments hint that progress on Liberty could come at a far slower pace—or possibly not at all.

I had been under the impression that ATK was saying they were going to continue with Liberty even if they didn't get a CCiCAP Award. Did something change?

~Jon

They "said" that. It was almost a given that they did not mean it at all.



And they can be as "disappointed" as they want, they were not selected for obvious reasons.


It's their money they wasted it now its their problem. If they are expecting a bailout of some sort in order to make the thing a worth wile investment they can forget it. Either they find private sector users for it or they kill it and save the money, or third option they continue living in denial and kill themselves over it. As I said before, if that's what happens I won't shed a tear.

Maybe they will continue it but I doubt it. SLS contract for 5 seg motors is ridiculous anyway they should be happy they got that much.

[Jim]

People always mention that stainless steel is much easier to weld than Aluminum (although the British managed it with Blue Streak using a "spot welding" technique.

Which they learned from Atlas.

[daveklingler]

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

All three winners passed PDR this year, so that puts Liberty at least a year behind, probably more in the neighborhood of two. 

SN has a pretty healthy business building and selling their own avionics.

[john smith 19]

Which they learned from Atlas.

Do you have a reference for this?  I've an ongoing interest in welding tech and I've found no references for the UK work. All I've found out is that they used 2 parallel welds and it seems to have been more of a "seam" weld than individual welds as such. I'm not sure how much of the technology would have transferred over given the differences in material properties the 301SS and whatever Aluminium alloy they were using.

This is O/T but I've had no luck finding a write up anywhere for this.

[FinalFrontier]

I had been under the impression that ATK was saying they were going to continue with Liberty even if they didn't get a CCiCAP Award. Did something change?
~Jon

In order to continue with the launcher, ATK and Astrium would now need to pony up many millions of euros and dollars to finish development of a rocket that does not have a customer, and that has little prospect of garnering a customer.  Perhaps they can "continue" by just keeping an office open staffed by an employee who tries to drum up business for a couple of years. 

 - Ed Kyle

Correct.

But I saw this on another thread:
I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

Figured I would drop that in here as its very relevant and has not been posted here. I found it really funny when they said "seek to challenge it"


How exactly would they "challenge" the CCicap award decision? By discrediting Gerst somehow? Its a completely ridiculous notion but it does bear discussion.

It also occurs to me that if the presidency changes in November the new guy could throw all of this out if he wanted. And we all know there are "pro utah space" lobbyists hanging around the Romney camp atm, although it doesn't look like anyone is listening to them.



Anyway, would like to discuss how they might "challenge" something like that.

[joek]

Figured I would drop that in here as its very relevant and has not been posted here. I found it really funny when they said "seek to challenge it"

How exactly would they "challenge" the CCicap award decision? By discrediting Gerst somehow? Its a completely ridiculous notion but it does bear discussion.

It also occurs to me that if the presidency changes in November the new guy could throw all of this out if he wanted. And we all know there are "pro utah space" lobbyists hanging around the Romney camp atm, although it doesn't look like anyone is listening to them.

AFAICT, Torres (or anyone from ATK) did not suggest that they would "seek to challenge it"; that appears to be an inference.  Note Bloomberg's quote is only "it's too early" and there is no such direct quote from ATK as to exactly what "it's too early" for...

Not to mention subsequent comments during ATK's  quarterly earnings conference call, which did not mention any such action, and suggested that CCiCap/CTS is not a significant part of ATK's current or future business plans.

In any case, if there is a challenge, I expect it will not come from ATK directly, but via proxy; e.g., via Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) or somesuch.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I suspect that any challenge from ATK, assuming one will come, will only happen after their engineers and lawyers have torn NASA's written debriefing apart word-by-word.