This rocket won't die...

[Garrison]

By which I mean that the ATK 'Liberty' is still being developed:

ATK's Liberty rocket targets 2015 debut

Which all sounds well and good until you get near the bottom where the big snag is revealed:

Kent Rominger confirmed that the 2015 target for a first crewed launch was dependent on Nasa choosing Liberty as one of its preferred systems, in which case it would then receive financial support.

In other words if they can cream off a chunk of CCDev they can develop this by 2015. Even if they got such funding I'm more than dubious about that date. This would be about the same time frame as a manned Dragon, a CST-100 or even Dreamchaser, all of which appear to be a lot further along in the design process. And there is also the small question of how this rocket which is essentially a derivative of the Ares-1 can be ready sooner than that rocket would have been while having so much less money put into it?

[djellison]

"I know I've been bad, but I can do better. This time I mean it, I really mean it. You've just got to trust me baby"


They even had the audacity to show a chart showing just how dreadful the vibration was on Ares 1 and how Liberty would be better.

[cjameshuff]

I note that their projected price is higher per launch than Falcon Heavy, nearly 4 times higher per kg, while launching less than half the mass to LEO. It's also higher per launch than Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy, while lifting a comparable payload.

[Trebuchet]

See also The BA's Post on the subject. Color me unimpressed.

[Garrison]

See also The BA's Post on the subject. Color me unimpressed.

Yeah he seems to have missed the part where they admit they need a chunk of CCDev money, for which read all of it, to make this deadline.

[publiusr]

In this week's article from "Aviation Week & Space Technology" May 7, 2012 edition--page 21--we see this quote from Jean-Lin Fournereaux, COO for Safran: "This project is a very smart project, low-risk, low-cost, using almost off-the-shelf products..." Safran USA also looks to be producing solid rocket propellants. On page 29 of the same issue we see information on Blue Origin's Space Vehicle, and Liberty is talked about once again on page 30:

"Boeing and perhaps other companies (developing capsules) are considering Liberty as a possible lower-cost alternative to the Atlas V."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...acecraft-mlas/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=28840.0

Oh well--I guess we will wait and see.


Ironically, the beggest news in this issue of AV WEEK was the page 24 story of Delta buying its own refinery. I think we are seeing vertical integration on a come back--and not just in launch vehicle assembly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration

Here is a novel idea for Musk and others. Buy your own small oil field in Texas, and supply your own rocket fuel.

[KaiYeves]

I presume this is how women who date feel when they see their ex-boyfriends acting dumb in public.

Giggle, avert your eyes, and keep on walking.

[publiusr]

I'm not so ready as to count them out yet. There are a lot of folks looking for contracts. In the article from Av Week and space I list above--in other news--Dream Chaser will have a 2g load on the crew as opposed to a 5 g tounchdown from Boeing's capsule. (page30).

One question I'd like to know is this. Based on everything I've read (esp. SPACEFLIGHT IN THE ERA OF AEROSPACEPLANES), top-mount spaceplanes are subject to weight creep, pitch-loads, bending moments, etc. So a rugged, engine-out vehicle like Falcon 9 would make more sense than Atlas V.

But if even the alt.spacers on the payload side of things won't ride atop their brothers in the alt.LV community, then what does that say about folks who don't have ATKs/Lockheed's chops?

[djellison]

In this week's article from "Aviation Week & Space Technology" May 7, 2012 edition--page 21--we see this quote from Jean-Lin Fournereaux, COO for Safran: "This project is a very smart project, low-risk, low-cost, using almost off-the-shelf products..."

Apart from the fact it's not low cost. It's very high cost. As for risk...the team have demonstrated that they will happily take government money and work on a vehicle they knew to be dangerous. Frankly - I'd call dealing with them a risk.

Here is a novel idea for Musk and others. Buy your own small oil field in Texas, and supply your own rocket fuel.

What's the benefit? Economics of scale dictate they wont be able to do it cheaper than just buying ready to go RP1 off the shelf. Why attempt to reinvent that particular wheel. Even if you save a buck per gallon, you're not saving a statistically significant portion of the cost to fly the vehicle. There are far more important and impacting areas to focus on.

[publiusr]

Delta doesn't see having their own oil field as anything but a way to save money. If you can supply your own fuel at cost, then rising fuel prices won't affect your profits as much. As for Safran--it's easy to call it salesmanship--but I don't think their COO is stupid either. Notice what I said about Safran USA also buying into solid production--vertical integration again, it seems.

Frankly - I'd call dealing with them a risk.

That's also true with the alt.spacers

[Garrison]

In this week's article from "Aviation Week & Space Technology" May 7, 2012 edition--page 21--we see this quote from Jean-Lin Fournereaux, COO for Safran: "This project is a very smart project, low-risk, low-cost, using almost off-the-shelf products..." Safran USA also looks to be producing solid rocket propellants.

This is the same argument made for the Ares-1, and it proved specious then. Rockets are not lego sets, this kind of rearrangement is almost bound to throw up problems. As for the notion Boeing et al are considering it as an alternative to the Atlas V it seems far fetched. Any cost benefits are purely theoretical at this point and the Atlas V is a known and reliable vehicle, when you are talking about manned flights that has to be a consideration. If they really wanted lower launch costs they would looking at a Falcon derivative, not Liberty.

[Trebuchet]

It's a shuttle SRB with an Ariane 5 first stage as the second stage. Why not a just use a really proven system -- Ariane 5 all by itself?

[djellison]

Because politically that would be no better than the current problem of buying rockets from Russia.

[Doodler]

Within the bounds of forum rules on political content, I really do have to have say this...

I SMELL BACONNNNNN!!!!!

This thing's continued existance must be the result of someone in DC massaging priorities for pork spending.

[Garrison]

Because politically that would be no better than the current problem of buying rockets from Russia.

Besides ATK couldn't squeeze any more money out of NASA if they did that.

[publiusr]

This is the same argument made for the Ares-1, and it proved specious then.

It isn't specious at all.

It's a shuttle SRB with an Ariane 5 first stage as the second stage. Why not a just use a really proven system -- Ariane 5 all by itself?

That is a good question. You'd think that Safran would encourage ATK to have an Americanized Ariane 5, but with two larger solids than used now on Vega--two stumpy SRBs so the vehicle wouldn't be as tall.

Other solids:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/srm1.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p230.htm

According to Wade the SRM was used on Titan 34 and Shuttle. That doesn't seem right. I thought Titan solids were a bit smaller in size--closer to Ariane 5's...

[djellison]

Publiusr - why do you continue to treat rockets like lego blocks? It doesn't work that way.

[publiusr]

To say that rockets aren't "Legos" as you put it tells me you haven't heard of Atlas Able, Thor Able, Thor Able Star--etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Able
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor-Ablestar

So as you can clearly see, there is a history of mixing and matching after all--going all the way back to Bumper WAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(rocket)

As for the notion Boeing et al are considering it as an alternative to the Atlas V it seems far fetched.

I'm just telling you what was reported in AV WEEK. Now have they gotten some things wrong in the past? I imagine all publications do.

The biggest controversy was over this: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_...paceplane.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...c-10f2622b4029

But by and large Av Week is a respectable--and reliable--publication.

[Trebuchet]

I was just looking up the Boeing CST-100 and, at least according to Wikipedia, they say the same thing about needing the NASA funding to continue. It's probably true of SpaceX as well when you get down to it. Still, it's a pretty exciting time for the future of American manned space travel with at least four efforts under way. At least the CST-100 is planned to be launched on an existing rocket.

[Garrison]

To say that rockets aren't "Legos" as you put it tells me you haven't heard of Atlas Able, Thor Able, Thor Able Star--etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Able
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor-Ablestar

So as you can clearly see, there is a history of mixing and matching after all--going all the way back to Bumper WAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(rocket)

Did you actually read those links you provided?

Atlas-Able
Total launches 3
Failures 3

Bumper(A research vehicle consisting of a sounding rocket stuck on top of a V2)
8 Launches only one of which was a complete success

Thor-Ablestar
Total launches 19
Successes 12
Failures 5
Partial failures 2

Not exactly resounding endorsements for the 'Lego rocket' approach are they?

[Garrison]

I was just looking up the Boeing CST-100 and, at least according to Wikipedia, they say the same thing about needing the NASA funding to continue. It's probably true of SpaceX as well when you get down to it. Still, it's a pretty exciting time for the future of American manned space travel with at least four efforts under way. At least the CST-100 is planned to be launched on an existing rocket.

You have a number of projects like Dragon/Falcon 9, CST-100, and Dreamchaser that have received CCDev funding and are a long way towards having working hardware. Then you have Liberty which exists only on paper and has already been rejected once by NASA, twice if you count Ares-1. The only exciting news from ATK would be that they've dropped this and decided to focus on squeezing as much money as they can out of the SLS.

[djellison]

Did you actually read those links you provided?

Clearly he doesn't - they are all damning indictments against the case he's trying to make.

13 success out of 30 launches across the projects he cites....I'm not sure that's 'man rated'

[Nicolas]

Well, the electric chair is also man-rated...

In defence of the legorockets, these projects were from the very early days of spaceflight. Perhaps such endeavours would go better today. Still, it will be a huge challenge & project if both parts weren't made for each other from the start.

[publiusr]

Not exactly resounding endorsements for the 'Lego rocket' approach are they?

Bumper is how we learned staging--and if you will recall, all early LVs were a bit wonky. 12 successes is nothing to sneeze at.

Centaur has been used on Titans, the new Atlas, etc. I'd say that IS a resounding endorsement.

[MaDeR]

Oh my, frankenstein is back! Or most ridiculous rocket currently in development.

Bumper is how we learned staging--and if you will recall, all early LVs were a bit wonky.

Do you have any modern examples of LEGO rocketry besides Liberty itself? Preferably with a little more successful history.

[Garrison]

Bumper is how we learned staging--and if you will recall, all early LVs were a bit wonky. 12 successes is nothing to sneeze at.

Centaur has been used on Titans, the new Atlas, etc. I'd say that IS a resounding endorsement.

You really think think Centaur is a reasonable comparison to the monstrosity that is Liberty? It's going to be more expensive than alternates that already fly without offering any new capability. Liberty is simply the product of ATK realizing there's a pot of NASA money they haven't gotten a hand in. They have a piece of COTS through their involvement in the Taurus II or Antares as it is now known. They have a chunk of the SLS funding, and still they have to find a way to get a piece of the CCDev cake.

[kamaz]

Here's a relevant past discussion -- read from the linked post on: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....72#post1760772

Short version: US gov't uses solid motors in its space program to subsidize missile manufacturers.

Thus, in a contrived way, Liberty actually makes a lot of sense: ATK gets their subsidy, and Arianespace gets access to US gov't orders. It's a clear win for both parties.

[Garrison]

Here's a relevant past discussion -- read from the linked post on: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....72#post1760772

Short version: US gov't uses solid motors in its space program to subsidize missile manufacturers.

Thus, in a contrived way, Liberty actually makes a lot of sense: ATK gets their subsidy, and Arianespace gets access to US gov't orders. It's a clear win for both parties.

And a clear lose lose for anyone interested in opening up space access, they might as well just restart the Ares-1. If ATK needs a subsidy why doesn't the DOD come up with some pointless project for them to do? They certainly have more money to spend than NASA.

[aquitaine]

Here's a relevant past discussion -- read from the linked post on: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....72#post1760772

Short version: US gov't uses solid motors in its space program to subsidize missile manufacturers.

Thus, in a contrived way, Liberty actually makes a lot of sense: ATK gets their subsidy, and Arianespace gets access to US gov't orders. It's a clear win for both parties.

Wasn't the whole point of COTS and CCDev to get away from doing that? It makes no sense at all for anyone except certain special interests.

[NEOWatcher]

Delta doesn't see having their own oil field as anything but a way to save money. If you can supply your own fuel at cost, then rising fuel prices won't affect your profits as much...

But Djellison is talking about scale. Here's a comparison.
Delta uses 3.9B gal of fuel/year... 36% of it's budget.
So; saving a buck on fuel translates to well over 10% of thier operating expenses.

Falcon 9 uses 29K gallons of kerosene. At $3/gal (using Delta's cost) they would save $58K per launch. Or about 1% of thier launch cost.

The realistic numbers would be based on Delta's savings:
Delta is only expecting to save $300M with this move. Or about $0.08/Gal.

Now the numbers are Delta: 3%, Falcon 0.004%.

It's a comparison that doesn't even sound worth mentioning.