ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[Lars_J]

It just won't die, no matter how many times it is staked.

On a more serious note, would this be an all-solid LV?

[Ben the Space Brit]

It just won't die, no matter how many times it is staked.

On a more serious note, would this be an all-solid LV?

At a guess, using the 'Liberty' name suggests a solid core/hydrolox top stage design.  However, that's only a guess - similarly-named LVs can be radically different, take Taurus-XL and Taurus-II (Antares) for example.

[MATTBLAK]

If ATK migrated the Liberty first stage concept over to their advanced composite expendable 4 segment solid - similar to their SLS proposal - suddenly their vehicle might start to promise some decent lifting power. The Ariane V based corestage is a good design and any Ariane V upgrades could reap benefits to Liberty II's performance.

[Jim]

Hmmmm.  Wonder if this could be the U.S. "Ariane 6" I've been wondering about in the General thread.  Advanced Booster stuff?  Monolithics?  (It needs to be, since segmented has repeatedly been bid, and lost, at the EELV game.  (LCLV, etc.)

Huh?  Logic says it still will use a shuttle booster and not a new design. 

[Patchouli]

If ATK migrated the Liberty first stage concept over to their advanced composite expendable 4 segment solid - similar to their SLS proposal - suddenly their vehicle might start to promise some decent lifting power. The Ariane V based corestage is a good design and any Ariane V upgrades could reap benefits to Liberty II's performance.

But EPC and its Vulcain engine don't have a long term future.  Ariane 6 won't use them. ATK will have to use something else, which in my mind implies a different architecture. EPC was not a good match for the GTO mission anyway.

Ed Kyle

They might want to buy the tooling for those items.

[MATTBLAK]

This might be a strange and slightly naive question: but would ITAR apply in any way to that prospect? The U.S. is not supposed to let some rocket technology flow one way: are there any reverse direction issues? And not meaning to digress, but how did the purchase of Russian engines ever overcome any related issues?

It strikes me that the Ariane V technology and hardware would be a real shame to lose for good.

[joek]

This might be a strange and slightly naive question: but would ITAR apply in any way to that prospect? The U.S. is not supposed to let some rocket technology flow one way: are there any reverse direction issues?

Yes.  Having lived through it many times, the situation is at best ludicrous if not surreal.  For example, importing part X (containing or embodying ITAR-controlled stuff) from manufacturer Y in country Z does not relieve you of ITAR constraints should you want to return/export that same part X to the same manufacturer Y in the same country Z.

[MATTBLAK]

Wow...

[Halidon]

But EPC and its Vulcain engine don't have a long term future.  Ariane 6 won't use them. ATK will have to use something else, which in my mind implies a different architecture. EPC was not a good match for the GTO mission anyway.

Ed Kyle

I'm not saying rockets are Lego, but subbing J-2X for Vulcain would seem to be an option to create "Liberty II."

[baldusi]

If they pretend to play in EELV ground they'll need to have the same mission capabilities and performance. Can it be done with less than a liquid upper stage?

[baldusi]

If they pretend to play in EELV ground they'll need to have the same mission capabilities and performance. Can it be done with less than a liquid upper stage?

Yes, but not with the "Liberty I" configuration.  An all-solid setup would need four stages for GTO missions, probably, and the first stage would need to be smaller - perhaps only two or three segments (with a one or two segment second stage, perhaps).  The upper stages could be "Athena-like" (Castor motors, for example). 

 - Ed Kyle

EELV have to do GPS (circular) and GSO missions, to be able to change orbital planes, and make super-synchronous GSO missions. And all that with high precision. A four stage solid could do that?

[Patchouli]

This might be a strange and slightly naive question: but would ITAR apply in any way to that prospect? The U.S. is not supposed to let some rocket technology flow one way: are there any reverse direction issues?

Yes.  Having lived through it many times, the situation is at best ludicrous if not surreal.  For example, importing part X (containing or embodying ITAR-controlled stuff) from manufacturer Y in country Z does not relieve you of ITAR constraints should you want to return/export that same part X to the same manufacturer Y in the same country Z.

It seems ITAR was written by people who had little understanding of the technology and global industry.

Back on topic the need for a third stage may not be not much of a problem for ATK since they already manufacture small solid upper stages.
Really I don't see anyway to get around the need for a thrid stage if you insist on using a solid first stage.

Even some liquid boosters such as Falcon heavy look like their GTO payloads would benefit greatly from the addition of a third stage.

[spectre9]

5-seg solid
Castor 120
Castor 30
Star 30

That would be my guess.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I've had a 'super-heavy' configuration preying on my mind for some time.  Basically, the bottom layer is a 2-1-2 parallel group of ACBs.  The outer pairs are ground lit and the central booster is air-lit.  The objective of the configuration is to get the DCSS with as much propellent as possible into LEO parking orbit.

Practical?

[spectre9]

We just don't know how much development costs for those new composite segments are going to be.

Might be a good idea if ATK is able to use advanced booster funding on it.

How about solids + J-2X? Yes I know that's an Ares 1 but it wouldn't have to launch Orion so there won't be unrealistic mass requirements on the upper stage.

Perhaps ATK need to get innovative and build a liquid core stage.

RD-180 is a good engine. They could make their own version of Atlas V. Additional lift off thrust provided by composite strap on solids and not requiring a hydrolox upper stage?

Maybe AJ-26 or the dual nozzle version of it.

[woods170]

If ATK migrated the Liberty first stage concept over to their advanced composite expendable 4 segment solid - similar to their SLS proposal - suddenly their vehicle might start to promise some decent lifting power. The Ariane V based corestage is a good design and any Ariane V upgrades could reap benefits to Liberty II's performance.

But EPC and its Vulcain engine don't have a long term future.  Ariane 6 won't use them. ATK will have to use something else, which in my mind implies a different architecture. EPC was not a good match for the GTO mission anyway.

Ed Kyle

They might want to buy the tooling for those items.

Tooling alone won't cut it. ATK would also have to buy the IP or buy licensed manufacturing rights. The IP they cannot actually buy as it is shared between the Ariane contractors on one hand (Astrium, Safrane, etc.) and ESA on the other hand.

[GClark]

How about an upper stage powered by AJ26-60/NK-43?  Granted, you would still need a 3rd stage...

For that matter, ISTR that Kuznetsov tested that series for hydrolox.

[baldusi]

Ed, I still wonder why you talk about rocket concepts as "weighting too much". I thought that cost is the most important factor here. Do you think that a four stages solid rocket would be cheaper than a two stages one (say a 4 segment composite with a restartable CH4/LOX US).

[Lobo]

It just won't die, no matter how many times it is staked.

On a more serious note, would this be an all-solid LV?

At a guess, using the 'Liberty' name suggests a solid core/hydrolox top stage design.  However, that's only a guess - similarly-named LVs can be radically different, take Taurus-XL and Taurus-II (Antares) for example.

I wonder if Liberty II uses the ATK composite 4-seg booster instead of the steel 5-seg booster?  If ATK is hoping to get the SLS advanced booster contract (which they have a good shot at if Block 1B is realy 118mt, because then ATK's advanced solids should get Block 1B over 130mt, and thus NAA2010 is met with nothing additional.) then Liberty could be a viable EELV-class launcher with reasonable production rates of expendible composite boosters.  I wonder if they'd still plan on using the Ariane 5 core as it will probably not be produced in the future if they move to Ariane 6.  With an ATK Castor 120 2nd stage, a high thrust liquid upper stage is not needed, and a lower thrust shorter liquid stage like a DCSS could probably be used with decent GTO/GSO/Escape performance.

[Lobo]

Hmmmm.  Wonder if this could be the U.S. "Ariane 6" I've been wondering about in the General thread.  Advanced Booster stuff?  Monolithics?  (It needs to be, since segmented has repeatedly been bid, and lost, at the EELV game.  (LCLV, etc.)

Huh?  Logic says it still will use a shuttle booster and not a new design. 

Yea, I think to make a new LV viable for ATK, they'd have to base it on the SLS booster, current steel, or composite if SLS were to go that way.