ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

[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.

I think that what people on this forum have pointed out is that any work done on the Liberty system (rather than on legacy components) must have been on their own dime, since they are operating under only an unfunded 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.

I think that what people on this forum have pointed out is that any work done on the Liberty system (rather than on legacy components) must have been on their own dime, since they are operating under only an unfunded SAA.

Sure, but almost EVERYTHING in the Liberty system IS random legacy components from other programs. It's a Lego rocket, and almost all the rest is powerpoint (except for some minor metal coupon testing).

[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).

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.

Yes but what I am saying is that not having any competition between various LVs and spacecrafts in the long run could increase NASA's costs for both LEO and BEO exploration.

[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.

I think that what people on this forum have pointed out is that any work done on the Liberty system (rather than on legacy components) must have been on their own dime, since they are operating under only an unfunded SAA.

Sure, but almost EVERYTHING in the Liberty system IS random legacy components from other programs. It's a Lego rocket, and almost all the rest is powerpoint (except for some minor metal coupon testing).

If the heavy use of legacy parts were to make its development cheaper (which we will be able to judge from how the current competition unfolds), is that a bad thing?  If it doesn't, then they likely won't receive an award, so you won't have anything to worry about.

[daveklingler]

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself. 

I have a tough time forgetting how for so many years NASA tried to transition to liquid boosters of various flavors and were prevented, even before the Shuttle ever flew.  And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.  Then there's X-33, wherein outside forces made composite cryogenic tanks mandatory despite the potential problems, and ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).*  The presence of solid boosters was the reason for years of delay and expense in Constellation, but they were deemed a necessity despite the efforts to switch to liquids for Shuttle.

My point is not one of political conspiracy, but I can't help wondering whether ATK can win on technical merit.  If they do win an ISS service contract, however they do it, can their presence be good for the space program when in the past, quite frankly, it has cost the lives of astronauts, man-years and tax dollars?  Is our space program better with ATK present in it?  Their presence has been a net negative, in my opinion, up until now.

I also have a question.  I have the impression that ATK has been paid to develop many of the aspects of the Liberty program, and I almost wonder whether that's a business strategy on their part.  I'm not faulting them; if I were their CEO, it would be my fiduciary duty to make sure the company paid as little as possible for Liberty. 

So far in Chris's article they seem to have paid for the artist's conceptions/video, the software development plan, the independent assessment team and whatever work's been done to use a cut-down MPLM.  Everything else has been paid by either U.S. or European taxpayers.  That's actually pretty clever.

So my second question is, what percentage of Liberty have they paid for so far and what percentage will they pay for if Liberty is chosen for CCiCap? 

For context, up until now in CCDev:
Boeing: $111M
Sierra Nevada: $125.6M
SpaceX: $75M
Blue Origin: $22M

Estimates differ on how much of their own money each company has spent.
* See Chris's article on X-33 from quite a long while back

[nodog]

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself. 

I have a tough time forgetting how for so many years NASA tried to transition to liquid boosters of various flavors and were prevented, even before the Shuttle ever flew.  And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.  Then there's X-33, wherein outside forces made composite cryogenic tanks mandatory despite the potential problems, and ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).*  The presence of solid boosters was the reason for years of delay and expense in Constellation

I'm no industry expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, butIi believe that the Thiokol name disappeared after they were acquired by ATK some 10 years ago (I think they even kept it for a few years). It had absolutely nothing to do with Challenger, which occurred 15 years prior.

And based on what data do you assert that it was the SRMs that caused delay and overruns on Constellation?  That program may have been flawed, but do you have inside information on those flaws?

[yg1968]

I also have a question.  I have the impression that ATK has been paid to develop many of the aspects of the Liberty program, and I almost wonder whether that's a business strategy on their part.  I'm not faulting them; if I were their CEO, it would be my fiduciary duty to make sure the company paid as little as possible for Liberty.  So my question is, what percentage of Liberty have they paid for so far and how much will they pay for if Liberty is chosen for CCiCap?

Under CCDev1, 2 and CCiCap, companies had/have to put skin in the game but there is no set percentage as to how much. However, if you have costs overuns during development, NASA is not responsable for them.

[mikegro]

Great article Chris!  You once again summed things up from L2 quite nicely with as much focus on the hardware (and when we might see stuff ride uphill) as possible.

As much as people may hate "the stick" concept, it sounds like we're inching even closer to having it become a reality.  Liberty really is a brilliant play for ATK, and you have to give them at least some credit for being savvy here.  It's understandable that NASA upper management would get behind this concept as a way to better utilize the VAB, crawlers, and new clean-pad LC-39B considering the relatively low nominal proposed flight rate of the SLS.  While not a requirement or technical consideration of the Commercial Crew program, it seems like there must be some synergistic benefits to this architecture.

I think this is a great example of how the new commercial space market is developing in that companies are making plays/gambles and while not all of them will survive we hopefully will have the best and fittest continue on.  ATK has positioned themselves well to succeed here, I think, and they certainly have the political clout to do so.  If they make the cut for Commercial Crew funding from NASA I think they'll have it all but in the bag as something we'll actually see fly with people on top.

The question now remains:  Later this summer, will NASA select Liberty in the CCiCap downselect over systems like Dream Chaser on Atlas V?  Boeing's CST-100 on Atlas V?  Even SpaceX's Dragon on Falcon 9 (least likely here, I'd say, unless they're way ahead on cost/schedule)?  It sounds like they could easily be the one extra serious contender to bump our favorite mini-shuttle from being funded at all...

-Mike

[daveklingler]

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself. 

I have a tough time forgetting how for so many years NASA tried to transition to liquid boosters of various flavors and were prevented, even before the Shuttle ever flew.  And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.  Then there's X-33, wherein outside forces made composite cryogenic tanks mandatory despite the potential problems, and ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).*  The presence of solid boosters was the reason for years of delay and expense in Constellation

I'm no industry expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, butIi believe that the Thiokol name disappeared after they were acquired by ATK some 10 years ago (I think they even kept it for a few years). It had absolutely nothing to do with Challenger, which occurred 15 years prior.

My mistake, I was thinking of the Thiokol name change a few years after Challenger, and it's quite possible that my feelings about the accident caused me to view the name changes afterward with suspicion.  My leftover Challenger resentment still stands.

And based on what data do you assert that it was the SRMs that caused delay and overruns on Constellation?  That program may have been flawed, but do you have inside information on those flaws?

That doesn't require insider information.  The thrust oscillation problems and booster redesigns are well-documented.

[rmencos]

My point is not one of political conspiracy, but I can't help wondering whether ATK can win on technical merit. 

I also have a question.  I have the impression that ATK has been paid to develop many of the aspects of the Liberty program, and I almost wonder whether that's a business strategy on their part.  I'm not faulting them; if I were their CEO, it would be my fiduciary duty to make sure the company paid as little as possible for Liberty.  So my question is, what percentage of Liberty have they paid for so far and how much will they pay for if Liberty is chosen for CCiCap?

I think that if you want answers on costs, you'll need to get on ATK's VIP insider list (board of directors/top management).  You can probably figure out some costs savings from what they were paid for developing the Constellation boosters (if the info is available), but even that would be rough guesses.

If ATK's proposal does not have technical merit, it needs to step aside and let the big boys play.  But only NASA has the best information on that, and we can only trust that they'll do their jobs.  I've also noticed the recent media blitz from ATK - it seems like overkill (e.g. extended cargo option).  It makes me think, are they serious about making this happen or are they just trying to peddle a product to the masses?

[Jim]

And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.

ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).* 

Wrong on both accounts.

Thiokol was bought by ATK, which was formed from Honeywell's defense businesses, which earlier bought Hercules Aerospace Company.  Hercules built the canceled filament wound cases for the SRB's and was a large producer of composite structures such as Delta fairings.

[nodog]

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself. 

I have a tough time forgetting how for so many years NASA tried to transition to liquid boosters of various flavors and were prevented, even before the Shuttle ever flew.  And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.  Then there's X-33, wherein outside forces made composite cryogenic tanks mandatory despite the potential problems, and ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).*  The presence of solid boosters was the reason for years of delay and expense in Constellation

I'm no industry expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, butIi believe that the Thiokol name disappeared after they were acquired by ATK some 10 years ago (I think they even kept it for a few years). It had absolutely nothing to do with Challenger, which occurred 15 years prior.

My mistake, I was thinking of the Thiokol name change a few years after Challenger, and it's quite possible that my feelings about the accident caused me to view the name changes afterward with suspicion.  My leftover Challenger resentment still stands.

And based on what data do you assert that it was the SRMs that caused delay and overruns on Constellation?  That program may have been flawed, but do you have inside information on those flaws?

That doesn't require insider information.  The thrust oscillation problems and booster redesigns are well-documented.

So all of the other elements were ready and on budget, just waiting for the "delayed" boosters?

[Jim]

My mistake, I was thinking of the Thiokol name change a few years after Challenger, and it's quite possible that my feelings about the accident caused me to view the name changes afterward with suspicion.  My leftover Challenger resentment still stands.

Unwarranted.  It should be focused on NASA and not Thiokol.  Thiokol did not want to launch.  NASA ok'ed the leaking joints for many missions.

[Jim]

booster redesigns are well-documented.

What redesigns did ATK do?  They were not in charge of Ares I, NASA was the system designer, ATK only provided the first stage.

[daveklingler]

And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.

ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).* 

Wrong on both accounts.

Thiokol was bought by ATK, which was formed from Honeywell's defense businesses, which earlier bought Hercules Aerospace Company.  Hercules built the canceled filament wound cases for the SRB's and was a large producer of composite structures such as Delta fairings.

Thanks, I muddied that.

On the other hand, several members of the Air Force Research Lab composite tank team which made presentations Space 2000 here in Albuuqerque told me that ATK's X-33 team had little or no experience.  They could best be described as angry about the mistakes the ATK team had made.

[Gary NASA]

I agree with Jim.

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself.

Three people on this thread do not equate to fair amount, no matter how many times they feel they need to post on a thread. I know it is your position too, so you're probably hoping for skepticism, but bringing up Challenger as a defence is insulting to all concerned.

Thrust Oscillation references were also a sign that you need to be better informed. Would you like me to assist you on that?

[Rik ISS-fan]

There's a fair amount of skepticism on this thread regarding ATK, and I confess to having a lot of it myself. 

I have a tough time forgetting how for so many years NASA tried to transition to liquid boosters of various flavors and were prevented, even before the Shuttle ever flew.  And I have a lot of resentment left over from Challenger, which is why Thiokol changed its name to ATK.  Then there's X-33, wherein outside forces made composite cryogenic tanks mandatory despite the potential problems, and ATK was put in charge of those tanks despite that their team had virtually no composites experience (I'm assuming that's the same team that got the contract for the CCM, but I haven't researched it yet).*  The presence of solid boosters was the reason for years of delay and expense in Constellation

...
And based on what data do you assert that it was the SRMs that caused delay and overruns on Constellation?  That program may have been flawed, but do you have inside information on those flaws?

I also an no expert, but wasn't ATK right on schedule with there three horizontal ground firings?
Wasn't it Boeing that designed an upper stage with a natural frequency right at the SRB oscillation frequency?
And Isn't the problem constant redesign and developing technologies during the development of a new spacecraft?
And wasn't the amount of funding for Constellation lower than expected?
       

[Jim]

Wasn't it Boeing that designed an upper stage with a natural frequency right at the SRB oscillation frequency?

No, NASA designed it and Ares I

[daveklingler]

booster redesigns are well-documented.

What redesigns did ATK do?  They were not in charge of Ares I, NASA was the system designer, ATK only provided the first stage.

I think one could make a reasonable argument that ATK's SRBs were not there for good technical reasons.  One could also form a long chain of non-technical decisions all the way back to Aerojet's solid motor proposal and why it wasn't chosen.

[Carl G]

This is NOT about Challenger. DaveK, no more from you on this thread. You're derailing, causing lots of complaints.