ATK Pitches Liberty Launch Vehicle with New Details
ATK Liberty Launch Vehicle Targets First Crewed Flight in 2015, Commercial Space Watch (With video)
“It was 15 months that ATK announced with Astrium (an EADS Company) announced that they were working together and would compete in NASA’s Commercial Crew Development-2 (CCDev-2) procurement. At that time they announced an initial test flight by the end of 2013, a second test flight in 2014, and operational capability in 2015. Today’s announcement reinforces the previous plans with a few changes and offers some new information.”
If they can cut it in open competition with other suppliers, more power
to them. Competition is the key to low cost and robust capabilities.
I wonder how they plan to launch this thing at KSC? The CxP ML shown in their graphic belongs to the GSDO Program and they will not give it up or share. They might be able to negotiate use of one of the VAB highbays, and maybe Pad A could be negotiated. But the ML is a major issue. It will take until 2015 just to reach some type of agreement on the use of existing facilities, not to mention the modifications required.
and you think they are not already doing that
Oh, I forgot. The ML should become available in the very near future when GSDO collapses under its own weight (along with SLS). MPCV will survive yet again, maybe they could launch it on this thing. Oops, forgot again. This launch vehicle configuration can’t lift Orion to orbit. They’ll have to parlay that test flight on Delta IV Heavy into an operational combination.
The video shows Orion as a spacecraft that Liberty can lift. The discrepancy between the video and nasa817 needs clarifying.
nasa817 is correct. By the time you add crew, propellant and a service module to Orion, Liberty cannot lift Orion to orbit. So, without the possibility of Orion based missions or interest from any of the other capsule vendors, ATK are forced to develope their own capsule in an attempt to stay relevent.
So you have analyzed the new propellant then
It can’t lift Orion?????
I know they can call Spacex and put a dragon on it!!
5/10 The freedom rocket lol
Here they go again trying to tell us that putting humans on a solid rocket booster is a good idea.
In many earlier NASA WATCH posts I have read the multiple reasons that a solid rocket booster should NEVER be man rated. They are numerous.
So if NASA is so concerned with human space flight safety why do they even consider such a Hulk rated only fire cracker to put Orion on?????
Hummmm? What are the pig rating requirements??
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
I really hope them the best of luck. I would like many options in the Earth portfolio of Cargo and Crew vehicles.
That being said, this looks like a very expensive design. Too many different portions from different organisations and companies (And almost all the old guard).
Are we trying to make an evolutionary jump in space transportation? Or just keep people employed?
And you think spacex is making everything
Not everything (such as avionics), but the foundation of their business model is vertical integration (Al-Li comes in one end, rockets come out the other). Elon has repeatedly stated that his goal is to do as much in house as possible. Parceling it out like legacy space does only makes sence in 2 cases
1. It helps build political support since you spread it across as many congressional districts as possible
2. There is a broad and well developed competitive supplier ecosystem that allows you to source from multiple vendors to drive down costs (this does not yet exist in the space industry)
Humph. Too many from the Old Guard is right.
If Ariane V already works, then why don’t we just…
Wait!
1) Shelby gets ATK pac money ( a lot!)
2) Shelby was for EADS involvement in huge AF tanker contract
3) EADS to make second stage for this ATK Liberty conjoined thingie.
Shelby is clearly working for the French to undermine our Launch capability through delay and obfuscation so that Ariene V looks good and keeps needin’ to launch the ATV to Station. Oh, and weren’t they working on man rating that ATV thing?
Silly, I know. But it ALL seems silly recently. Let’s please see how Space X does, then Orbital, then the other entrant(s) before committing to yet another launch system.
No government funding? Aside from the gazillions already provided in R&D for advanced Shuttle/and Ares SRB’s… and whatever other subsidies have been provided by home state- It’s clear that once this Liberty program ramps- NASA money will be needed, and Shelby will be there for his ATK friends.
Subsidies like SpaceX is getting
what subsidies is SpaceX getting? NASA is paying for work completed.
As they did for the Shuttle and Ares1
The arrangements are very different. For Shuttle, Aries and SLS the contractors get paid for effort, regardless of success. SpaceX only gets paid a fixed amount for meeting specific milestones. ATK would have gotten paid even if Aries-X blew up on the pad, SpaceX has no such guarantee
The models for Shuttle and Aries were very different. Under cost plus ATK (and others) get paid purely for effort. Aries-X could have exploded on the pad and contractors would still get paid. Under CCDev and COTS it is all milestone based. SpaceX won’t get paid a red cent if (knock on wood) the next Falcon 9 explodes on the pad
That comparison is freakin’ beyond silly.
Fixed price, the firm has to complete each milestone with their own money and satisfy NASA before they get paid.
To non competitively bid, cost plus, fixed fee, with enough escalator clauses to reach the moon and do not even have to complete work to get paid..
The only thing missing is the oink.
SpaceX is getting some of the development costs subsidized; although, as pointed out the contract model is different. If ATK was under SpaceX’s contract model, they would have been paid almost nothing for their Ares I work.
Also, SpaceX’s development subsidies are a small fraction of what Ares I was getting. SpaceX has much more skin in the game.
You still never mentioned what subsidies SpaceX is getting.
Good luck ATK I have always thought since this was announced this would be the quickest way of getting America back into Space, not that I have anything against Spacex but all the grand promises SpaceX has made was not reality as we are now seeing
Hey Dan, what has been the maximum altitude of a “Liberty” or “Ares I”? How many full-up vehicles have made it to the pad?
Well Ares 1x WAS 130,000 FT without an upper stage and how long has spacex been in developement lets see Liberty is only 2 years old in developement
Ares 1x was not a full up launch. It was a shuttle SRB with a dummy 5th segment, a dummy upper stage, and borrowed guidance. Liberty is just Ares I with a new paint-job. Ares-I has been ongoing since at least 2007.
Falcon 9 has flown twice and is on the pad for the third launch. The second stage has been to 6,800 MILES.
Dragon has orbited and returned.
BTW, the 50 mile barrier was broken with a solid fueled amateur rocket in 1996. The amateur record is 72 miles in 2004. These were hobbyists.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/R…
So, no – Ares Ix and Liberty (a paper rocket) do not impress me.
Gosh, if only SpaceX would have received a couple billion to develop the Falcon 33 first, then get to compete in CCDEV and rename it to the Falcon 9.
Please.
Ares 1x was a Frankenstein vehicle with little resemblance to the final design, thrown together at the last minute to demonstrate ‘progress’ for political purposes only. Using that as an example of why we should believe the ‘Liberty’ claims only weakens your argument.
I recall ATK making the exact same arguments to promote the Constellation design.
Wow. Talk about astroturfing.
Well, good luck to them, but a) it will be a rough ride up to orbit even if the thing works, b) it is a system with built-in payload limitations, meaning that c) ATK will have to come up with their own spacecraft or (probably) use Boeing’s, and I don’t hear the sound of metal being bent in Utah. And d) their safety claims are debatable, and the same criticisms that are being leveled at new space companies also will apply to ATK.
Most importantly though, their schedule is very aggressive. I doubt they can make their liftoff date
An interesting exercise would be to add up all the money NASA has already spent on Ares I and Orion and compare that to all the money already paid to SpaceX. (I honestly don’t know the answer)
I believe the figure for SpaceX is less than $400 million and the figure for Ares I and Orion is more than $8 billion. It’s a factor of more than 20.
ATK/Liberty = disaster.
From a public relations perspective, solid-fuel rockets have very breathtaking launches. I’d like to see this thing fly (so I can take pictures of it).
As one of the harshest critics of the Ares I, I applaud what ATK/Astrium is doing!
One of my major objections to the Ares I was my belief that no private company would want to utilize a solid rocket vehicle for manned commercial launches which would limit the Ares I to only being used by NASA. But the Liberty concept could prove me wrong:-)
Liberty could also compete with the Delta IV heavy for lifting 20 tonne plus payloads into orbit.
And if the Liberty does become economically successful as a commercial crew and cargo launch system then this could also reduce the recurring cost of using 5-segment rocket boosters on NASA’s future SLS system.
Marcel F. Williams
Folks:
ATK (and friends) are pulling out all the stops here:
Composite Orion capsule instead of aluminum, Wallops MLAS launch escape system. LockMart Orion service module…
From Spaceflightnow
ATK adds crew capsule to Liberty rocket proposal
I don’t see how they can do this at a launch price cheaper than Spacex but ATK seems to be showing some innovation (through desperation) here.
tinker
Desperation is the mother of invention lolololol
Where the H$&@ did I put my old adage book.
DTARS:
Don’t bother. I think you got it right in this case! 😀
tinker
Don’t be fooled by appearances.
The game here is to take Constellation discards, a story to “glue” them together for weak minds to enthuse, in order to generate a plausible “commercial” to allow ATK’s lobbyists to wheedle a few billion more out of Congress, when SLS falters, to be considered a “me too” to Boeing/SpaceX.
The billions would, with many schedule slips and cost overruns, allow them to gradually cudgel the Constellation parts into something usable, depending on the added collateral of a dying SLS program.
This is a brilliantly marketed salvage program for arsenal space.
I could live with that outcome. It would be unjust and wasteful, and it would waste another decade, but if it ends up turning ATK into a viable launch services provider by subsidising development costs then at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. Once we have four or five launch services providers, but not enough payloads, there should be broad support for a propellant launch program.
If Obama had spent the political capital to force through a wiser policy, we could have had the first such flights in the air this year, maybe even last year. That would have started the clock on development of radically cheaper space launch, which is of course the holy grail people have been chasing since the days of von Braun.
If it takes another ten years before we have the commercial propellant flights and another ten years to develop cheap lift after that I may yet live to see substantial commercial spaceflight and exploration of the moon and beyond. Others of course will not be so lucky, and for no good reason.
… turning ATK into a viable launch services provider…
More likely is that if govt HLV goes into “commercial” provider eclipse, it affords a means to keep it on life support indefinitely awaiting a SLS/CxP redux to waste more billions.
If Obama had spent the political capital …
He won’t/wouldn’t. Ever.
Once we have four or five launch services providers …
Congress won’t allow a launch services industry. Because it interferes with large weapons systems prime contractors. Obama doesn’t want the prime’s to hide from his “right sizing” of the defense budget by playing the “commercial” provider to survive cuts.
If it takes another ten years before we have the commercial propellant flights and another ten years to develop cheap lift after that I may yet live to see substantial commercial spaceflight and exploration of the moon and beyond.
All depends on how things collapse. And timing.
Hard to call.
I think we’ll get a class of lower cost LV’s. Then comes the battle for flight rate and payloads to support it. Then comes the next govt HLV/SC schedule slip. The relentless rise of prop depots as shortcut to HLV as mapping “commercial” into growth to supplant HLV program failure to execute. Eventual EFT-1 success late. costly, and “insufficient” will cause a reevaluation. I think “commercial” incrementally squeezes out govt HLV. All HLV dies because govt program failure poisons the HLV well.
However govt developed vehicles will abruptly switch to deep space mobile ISS derivatives as they discover its the only game left that commercial can’t/won’t do. This signals the beginning of rational commercialization of space – I hope we know what to do with it by then.
Two words – thrust termination. Of a firing engine
Liquid fueled – turn off a valve. Jettison/offload propellant to safe vehicle.
Solid fueled – linear shaped charge to rip open casing and eject nozzle. Burning propellant retains velocity/momentum, overtaking payload/capsule. No way to safe vehicle.
HSF is inherently unsafe in a non-“safeable” vehicle.
Unless a political agenda overrides the definition of “safety”.
Thank you sir
noocqs:
Yes, we know. Solid Rocket Boosters should never be (have been) used in human carrying launch vehicles (to make it perfectly clear).
Folks:
Don’t be fooled by the thirty year ‘success story’ of the Space Shuttle. SRB weren’t necessary for human launch then and aren’t now.
But, hey, there is some good direction here. Why not just use the Ariane V as is, a ‘Carbon Orion’ with the ATV service module and help the Europeans with some crew launch? How ’bout jamming a couple of Castor stages on top of a five segment SRB, buy a stretched Cygnus cargo vehicle from Orbital and lob cargo to the ISS? No more of this Frankenrocket… stuff.
Jus’ sayin’
tinker
The Shuttle was successful (as a HSF vehicle not as an economic success as intended) in spite of the compromises in its design. Not being able to shutdown boosters made every Shuttle launch much more risky than it needed to be.
Getting away with murder doesn’t mean safe.
I think that forty years ago an enduring setback to HSF occurred when it was decided to use SRB’s on the Space Shuttle. We were still landing men on the Moon when this decision was made, a time much different than today in terms of safety vigilance in the United States. Consider the fact that in 1972, the year that the decision to use SRB’s was made, the first crash tests of passenger vehicles by the NHTSA was still five years away.
If it weren’t for the use of SRB’s on the Space Shuttle I believe that there would be no chance of convincing anyone today to even consider using SRB’s in a human launch system, due to the inherent risks and what would have been a lack of precedent. As it turned out, because of Shuttle there is a precedent that proponents can point to. SRB’s are an easy sell by pointing to the following statistics:
– Through January 1986 the success rate of SRB’s in HSF was 49/50, based on twenty-four successful missions with two SRB’s each, plus one flight which had one failed and one successful SRB.
– After the 1986 failure, SRB’s flew safely for twenty-three straight years.
– From 1988 to 2011 the record for SRB’s was 220/220 (110 flights x 2).
– Total record = 269/270.
– The mission success rate was 134/135 which is 99.6%.
The fact that SRB’s are now accepted as safe can be easily seen by the multitude of designs that have included them such as Ares I, SLS, Liberty, Side-Mount and Jupiter. Unfortunately I believe that nothing short of another fatal accident will convince people to revisit the topic of whether solid fuel is suitable for HSF.
Things might have turned out differently if NASA had gone with a Titan IV developed a decade earlier and a revived Dyna-Soar.
Titan IV was never meant as a HSF vehicle – certain necessary shortcuts were taken in its development. Was amazed how well it did considering.
DynaSoar was too heavy, relied on materials / control technology past the bleeding edge at the time, and like the later Hermes only worked in too narrow a mission profile to be easily afforded. X-37 B/C finally did/does this job – note the changes required.
People here, some of whom work at NASA, will not believe the Liberty is safe until they have seen it fly. This means that the project needs to survive for at least 2 years more years. Consequently NASA down selecting this year will kill it.
Everyone assumes that the down select is aimed at SpaceX but the ricochets will get ATK.
If ATK genuinely wants Liberty, possible as a cargo launcher, then it needs to mount a major lobbying offensive to prevent Congress forcing NASA to down select until the spacecraft have flown.
How could they fly it? ATK said they need 300-500 million just to take it to the critical design review.
Also, when the SLS is canceled there goes the crawlers, unless ATK is planning on paying the upkeep.
Without being reusable in their timeline I do not see this monster surviving long term.
http://www.opensecrets.org
It will be interesting to see how much ATK money went to house members… particularly those in the Appropriations Committee.We will be watching and we hope you all will be too.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space