This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Will SLS Kill America's Solid Rocket Fuel Industry?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 17, 2014
Filed under , ,

Fading Solid Fuel Engine Biz Threatens Navy’s Trident Missile, Breaking Defense
“Failure to launch” isn’t a metaphorical concern when you work on nuclear weapons. That’s why the director of the Navy’s euphemistically named Strategic Systems Program (SSP) is a worried man. What has Vice Adm. Terry Benedict worried is something neither he, nor the Navy nor the entire Defense Department directly control. It’s the viability of what Benedict called “an already fragile industry” that produces the solid-fuel rocket boosters for the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The worst part is that the solid fuel rocket engine business is an industry that will live or die not on the military’s own decisions, but on NASA’s.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

29 responses to “Will SLS Kill America's Solid Rocket Fuel Industry?”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Relatively large solids may be quite appropriate for missiles that are required to remain relatively inert for years, but sill have the capability to be launched on a moment’s notice. But, for launch vehicles, relatively large solids have some significant downsides to them.

    As the launch industry transitions from expendables to reusables, this will become doubly true. The shuttle program demonstrate that large, recovered and refurbished, solids aren’t terribly cost effective over the life of the program.

    • ellegood says:
      0
      0

      I was never able to get a straight answer on the cost comparison between refurbished Shuttle SRBs and new ones.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I’ve never seen actual numbers for this either, but the assertion that I’ve seen quite frequently is that the cost difference between the two wasn’t very significant.

        For the shuttle, recovering them to inspect them after each flight was important enough for safety that reusing them made some sense. Reusing them also helped with the argument that the space shuttle was reusable, because “only” the ET was disposed of after each mission.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        People in the program have never claimed that SRB refurbishment was cost-effective overall. It was made part of the Shuttle program because reusability was a NASA requirement. Refurbishing an SRB is marginally cheaper than manufacturing the same SRB, but when the full overhead of reusability is considered, including trhe recover system and the remanufacturing which was needed to remove residual materials and mitigate the effects of salt-water immersion, reuse was more expensive than disposal. Part of the reason Musk went for a powered landing on land.

  2. ellegood says:
    0
    0

    Interesting timing for this Navy statement, as Lockheed Martin is pressing forward with its solid-fueled Athena, Orbital Sciences/ATK is considering a solid-fuel first stage for Antares and Thunderbolt (for Stratolaunch), and NASA must choose between solid- and liquid-fuel options for SLS boosters. The Athena and Orbital/ATK’s Taurus both use Castor-120 solid rocket motors, which are roughly the same as the Navy’s D-5 Trident motors. Rather than rely on NASA’s SLS, perhaps what’s really needed is a stronger market for commercial sales of these launch vehicles.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Totally agree. This is a right sizing issue for DoD. But a smaller and more efficient solids industrial capability is kept off the discussion because no one wants to get into the fight with Utah and assorted representatives who don’t want to see the revenue per year to these companies drop. The other alternative, to get commercial launcher markets to grow, maintaining that industrial base for DoD when needed again for new missiles, is held back by the same mind-set. Commercial use must be at lower (that is, non-DoD) prices, which entails risks in new ways of doing things. Risks in tackling markets that are non-DoD. And once again, the uproar to keep on keeping on.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        There’s some indication the problem goes all the way back to James Fletcher, who chose Thiokol over the recommendations of the selection board.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Gerstenmaier told Space News there wasn’t going to be a booster contest in 2015, so for now ATK’s solids are it.

      (Last 2 paragraphs)

      http://www.spacenews.com/ar

  3. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    So in the article -“Benedict said. “If you want to have that capability, it should not be on SSP’s back” to keep the industry alive until someone else decides to start buying again.” But what makes it right the nations solid’s capability be on NASA’s back, especially as other non-solid options are fine for NASA?

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      He then suggested the unthinkable; that if NASA would not play ball, maybe Navy would have to collaborate with the Air Force in developing and procuring missiles.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        LOL! You mean they don’t now?

        Ok, NASA has benefited a ton in the past from the military, obviously. I wonder how things shake out nowadays though. We know how Shuttle went.

  4. Jeff Smith says:
    0
    0

    Here’s the “post Shuttle” industry report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/mibp

    Look at page 8 (PDF page 16) to see the real situation. The rest of the industry simply can’t consume any amount of propellant that is even close to comparing with NASA’s usage. Even in an active shooting war, it would be iffy.

    There’s a reason both Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 will have solids: to protect a strategic resource. This is simply how tactical and strategic (nuclear) missiles are made. Europeans do it, but then they also subsidize launch to make up for it.

    We subsidize solid production too, we just add a billion or two to NASA’s budget. If we shift that cost to DoD, then expect NASA’s budget to go down by that amount.

    Where do you want to put that line item, in the NASA or DoD budget?

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      Thanks for the link!

      The rest of the industry simply can’t consume any amount of propellant that is even close to comparing with NASA’s usage.

      Yeah but that was 2004 or whatever.

      Ok, I see number one by a factor of 10 is the Shuttle RSRM at 1,100,000 pounds of propellant to about 240,000 pounds for the rest of the field which is military. Now NASA definitely doesn’t intend to use the same amount in the future. Even if SLS uses the 5 segment Shuttle derived solids, it won’t fly much. I forgot what the proposed flight rate was, but this would easily bring it down a lot. Then, they might use liquid boosters eventually also. So NASA has never intended to use the same amount of solid propellant since Shuttle. It’s over. I’m betting that Military will consume the majority.

      I also don’t know if I agree with your predicted automatic budget shift from NASA to DOD if responsibility for the solids industry is handed over. A drop like that to the top-line budget really sticks out so I’m not so sure it would happen like that. There could be some good headlines there

      • Jeff Smith says:
        0
        0

        The shift in budget would result from a shift in the technical experts and testing budgets. Many (most) experts are at Marshal, which is convenient, because they already have badges for Redstone Arsenal. If you shift the authority out of NASA to DoD, you just do the reverse of how von Braun’s ABMA was put into NASA – take the people, reassign them to a new organization, and shift the budget to the new organization. If you shift all the experts, and the testing and technologies maintenance budget from NASA to DoD (my guess would be either straight Army, or even MDA given what’s at Redstone), it could easily be 1 billion or so.

        Firing a single SRB, or advanced/enhanced/improved SRB each year for “sustainment” consumes more propellant than the rest of all the other DoD programs use together. There just aren’t any “good” answers to this problem. You cannot pull on one strand of this spiderweb without affecting all others.

        Here’s a thought: what if we find out in a few years that the real solution to low cost access to space is a modern Scout vehicle? Then we’d REALLY be glad we didn’t thrown away this capability!

        • Mal Peterson says:
          0
          0

          The last version of the Scout had limited payload to low Earth orbit even when launched from an equatorial platform owned by Italy. And, given the host of launchers using solids, there is little likelihood the US will be throwing away the capability to manufacture the various types of solid propellants. The Navy’s complaint is about cost.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          “Here’s a thought: what if we find out in a few years that the real
          solution to low cost access to space is a modern Scout vehicle? Then
          we’d REALLY be glad we didn’t thrown away this capability!”

          I see little chance of that ever happening. SpaceX is proving that liquid fueled launch vehicles can be quite inexpensive to build and fly, which signals the beginning of the end of the use of large solids as launch vehicle stages.

          Furthermore, if SpaceX proves successful at reusing the first stage of Falcon 9, this opens the door for reusable liquid fueled “boosters” on Falcon Heavy, which will signal the beginning of the end of solids used as strap-on boosters in the launch industry.

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      The problem, at bottom, is that there is massive overcapacity in the solids business, essentially all of it within ATK, now part of Orbital. The Shuttle flew 135 missions over 30 years. That’s an average of 4.5 missions per year. Each mission needed two solid boosters and each booster had four grain segments. That’s an average usage of 36 grain segments per year.

      SLS uses two 5-segment boosters per mission, but it’s only going to launch every other year – or less. That’s an average of, at most, 5 grain segments per year even assuming SLS makes it to flight status and continues at the upper end of its estimated flight rate thereafter. Both of these assumptions I would charitably describe as unlikely.

      So the best case for SLS demand is 5 grain segments per year vs. 36 when Shuttle was operating. That’s an 86% drop in demand. If, as seems increasingly likely, SLS is cancelled by the next administration, demand will fall 100% to zero grain segments per year.

      If I was in Orbital’s management, I’d be asking myself how long I thought I could run a facility at 14% of capacity and make any money. A one-time write-down of the SRB works might look a lot better than continued slow death by exsanguination.

      Face it, the only future market for giant solids is SLS. If SLS goes, that market goes.with it. Orbital should give SLS a shove to accelerate its inevitable fall, abandon the giant segmented solids business, write off the infrastructure and then look to expand markets for other, smaller solid motors with one-piece grains.

      • Jeff Smith says:
        0
        0

        I agree there is over capacity. We aren’t in a nuclear shooting war, and hopefully we never will be. A lot of reduction has already occurred and will continue. ATK is no longer the big problem here, they’ve fired thousands of people in Utah and are working to reduce further (the test to go to a composite case with HTPB instead of the D6AC steel with PBAN last year is part of that). The real problem now is AMPAC (America Pacific electrochemical company), who makes the Ammonium Perchlorate. They is a tricky process for a niche chemical market (it’s not like Ammonium Nitrate that is also fertilizer).

        Just for your math, most people don’t work in the industry don’t realize how many motors are statically tested every year. In addition to the flight motors, ATK would still be firing one or two motors per year no matter what just to show THEY STILL CAN. I’m not arguing for a particular process, just saying what NASA does for their reliability programs. That was done under shuttle and will continue under SLS.

        Orbital ATK is the logical decision for both organizations: make solid space launch vehicles and cut out the overhead. They aren’t SpaceX, and for many reasons, will never be. They realize this and made the best decision for their businesses. I think Orbital has done an admirable job of developing systems quickly and evolving them to do new things. The Minotaur V, Cygnus and Antares are all good examples of that. If they can make solid motor launch vehicles work on cost and performance, more power to them, I want to see LOTS of competition where EVERY idea gets a fair test by Mother Nature (the engineering) and the free market ($).

        Jeff

        • duheagle says:
          0
          0

          Thanks for the additional info. But a verification ground test every so often doesn’t materially alter the fact that SRB-class solids are a dead-end market.

          Orbital ATK would be far better off bailing out on SLS and developing a solid 1st-stage to replace their dwindling supply of AJ-26’s and their associated Ukraine-sourced tankage and structure for Antares. A sustainable Antares 2.0 could find a niche in the low-end of the general purpose satellite launch business.

  5. lopan says:
    0
    0

    Solid fuel rockets are a dead-end technology and have always been inherently unreliable. I think future ballistic missiles will simply be unpropelled payloads launched by rail-guns – probably derived from systems like the recently-tested 5000 mph Navy prototype.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      well no, that’s not true. solid rocket motors are very reliable, and have the bonus of being able to be stored for long periods of time in a flight ready state. both reasons for which most missiles, sounding rockets, and ICBMs use solid rocket motors.

      the most common failure modes for solid rocket motors are burn-through or deformation of either the casing or the engine nozzle, however, this can easily be avoided with a good design. there are far fewer failure modes for solid rockets than there are for liquid fueled rockets, and most of their failure modes are shared by liquid fueled rockets as well.

      • lopan says:
        0
        0

        “Very reliable” compared to what? Certainly not compared to literally anything else.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Compared to liquids. Didn’t you read what he said? Simpler launch pad is another advantage.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          i haven’t found any numbers which support your assertion, and one that i can think of that does not support it: the success rate of the Shuttle SRBs, which is 271 successful launches (135 Shuttle launches with 2 SRBs per launch and the one Ares I-X launch) to one failure, a success rate of 99.63%. if you do have some sources which shows that solid rocket motors are not really that reliable, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide some?

          however, i believe that my comment stands well supported, because solid rocket motors have few failure modes.

          http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech

          and some of those failure modes, specifically nozzle failure, combustion instability, GN&C failure, structural failure, and ignition failure, can also happen to liquid fueled rockets.

          whereas on liquid fueled rockets, every pipe, valve, joint, and moving part is a potential point of failure.

          Solid rocket boosters have been used on many different launch vehicles, with few failures.

          the two main drawback of solid rocket motors are that 1. you can’t throttle them, however, you CAN shape the grain of the fuel, and produce a throttling effect by the changing rate of fuel being burned, and 2. you can’t turn them off once they are ignited.

          keep in mind, also, for ICBMs and things like air-to-air missiles, you generally don’t need or want to shut them down, or reduce the thrust, and this usually isn’t the case for rockets that are launching a payload to orbit, either.

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      I agree with Hug Doug’s replies. IMHO, Iopan, you are off-base. Far from being a “dead-end” technology…Solid Fueled boosters are REQUIRED for every stage of the USN’s SSBN ballistic missiles (i.e., the Trident II-D5). Liquid-fueled missiles are not allowed anywhere near a US nuclear fleet ballistic sub, and it has been that way ever since the first Polaris SLBMs.

      Heck, the Trident D-5 doesn’t even use hypergolics for final course correction of it’s terminal, bus/payload stage.

      Furthermore, US nuclear posture strategy dictates that 2 legs of the triad (land-based ICBMs and sea-based SLBMS) are available 24/7 on a “launch on command” state of readiness. Again, only solid-fueled ballistic missiles can meet this criteria.

      As far as reliability of SRBs, over-and-above what Hug Doug has already stated, I suggest you review the launch test record success of the Trident D-5, as well as the Minuteman III.

      Finally, there is NO WAY, NO HOW, that any current nuclear warhead would be able to survive (much less function) after being “launched” by an electro-magnetic rail gun. While modern US thermonuclear warheads like the W-78 and W-88 are certainly robust, and are designed for the challenging dynamic loads that occur during their flight profiles ( particularly during reentry phase)…they aren’t going to handle the thousands (or tens of thousands) of g’s acceleration which occurs during launch from a rail-gun. The current state-of-the-art EM Rail Gun prototypes being tested by ONR can launch a 10 kg inert round a distance of approx. 200 nautical miles. To launch a 400 kg warhead 7,000 nautical miles, you are talking about a EM railgun the likes of which is currently only found in the pages of a science-fiction novel.

      Then you have to consider the fact that an entirely new generation of thermonuclear warheads would have to be designed. This is something that hasn’t occurred for 30 years, due to the CTBT, which, although non-ratified by the USA, is still observed. The last new warhead to be designed and tested is the W-88 warhead, from the mid 1980s.

  6. cb450sc says:
    0
    0

    Maybe DOD should just expect to pay what it has to to maintain their fleet of solid fuel rockets? Their pockets are a lot deeper than NASA’s. I will admit that I suppose they actually _use_ their rockets a lot less than ours – NASA launches every rocket it buys, hopefully DOD never launches any of theirs!

  7. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Old solids must be replaced??

    To remain ready navy needs to practice launch.

    Shelby wants money in his state to build solid rocket boosters.

    Cancel SLS and have Marshal build fuel depots which are launched to space by the navy and the air force.

    If we have to have the solids around to carry nukes that will never be launched. Have military use that free launch to build fuel depots. Pubic highway to the inner solar system.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Orbital currently uses old Peacekeeper and Minuteman missile stages in its rockets.