This rocket won't die...

[publiusr]

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

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

Assuming that Musk can deliver OVER TIME. There was a recent documentary on the electric car (REVENGE OF THE ELECTRIC CAR) where Musk seemed to have...rather much on his plate. I loved how Bob Lutz took the current rich kids to task for thinking that Moore's law applied to everything.

The problem with these type one one-man shows is that you open yourself up to a powerful entrepreneurs personal problems. Musk's divorce could easily have resulted in a similar situation to the Dodgers debacle I mentioned elsewhere.
Safran is an outfit of men, not personalities.

Suppose Musk undercuts everyone, runs off the competition, then folds. Can you imagine the time it would take to rebuild the infrastructure, the workforce? Same with folks who want to end the post office. Once you do that--THAT'S IT.

This is why I always prefered Arsenal approach as was done with ABMA--you take the personalities out of it as much as you can. Institutions not individuals. People have this idea that NASA should buy rides and not be in the rocket making business. I have never bought that line. There was an article in AV WEEK (page 17 Of the January 16, 2012) showing a disgruntled Army man sick of contractors telling him what he needed for a helicopter project. Like Griffin, he was of the old school of keeping contactors on a short leash (a choke chain at that). But that's politics...

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

I mentioned Centaur. Now to respond to this:

You really think think Centaur is a reasonable comparison to the monstrosity that is Liberty?

Yes I do. Because both Centaur (which is balloon tank) and the Ariane 5 core (which isn't, BTW) are both known quantities. If anything, I would think an Ariane 5 core would be more robust and less sensitive. Centaurs are a pretty sizable piece of kit as it stands.

, they might as well just restart the Ares-1.

I'd rather have that myself, as the J-2 would be common to both it and SLS upper stages, and was always an upper stage engine. If you want to make an arguement against Liberty--the best tactic is to remind folks that Ariane 5's engine was never meant to be fired at altitude. That can be overcome--but if you want to bash something, don't focus on the the Lego approach--focus on the not-made-here arguements behind Ares-I and how it was argued to be an indigenous, all American rocket, so why should we use tax dollars to prop up the Arianespace cadre? That's the arguement you should be making.

Dynetics is to have F-1 powered strap-ons--which is what I would prefer--and we have plenty of medium lift rockets in the stable now. Liberty might usurp SLS funding too. Remember folks once said that Ares I would distract from HLV support--so we needed to cancel Ares I and focus on HLV, and how Musk should compete against ULA for more modest sized LEO-only LVs.

Suits me. Let him and ULA fight it out. If Safran can do Liberty on their own dime and make it work--that's fine too.

[djellison]

Folks said that Ares I would distract from HLV support--so we needed to focus on that and let Musk comete against ULA for more modest sized LEO only LVs.
.

All funding of Altair and Ares V was diverted to stem the problems of Ares I 'Folks said it would'. It did. Fact.

'let' Musk compete against ULA?

He's already doing a damn good job
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Here's an argument against Liberty. It's too damn expensive.

If it gets government money, then the ONLY reason is pork. There is no sound engineering or programmatic argument for Liberty at all.

[publiusr]

You have to be careful in the 'no sound engineering' bit. Even N-1 could have been made to work had they kept at it. Look, everything is pork to someone. There are folks who consider any space spending as pork. This was LBJ's brilliance. From a manufacturing standpoint, all LV production should be in Florida. There was no need for Houston..put that in Florida too. But if you put everything in one state, a national space effort starts to look like one state's pork really fast--so you spread out your space efforts in the solid GOP south that overwise loves to cut things--unless it is in their own state--where they defend it. Jolly Good.

That might be the only reason we even have a space program AT ALL. I for one am thankful of the other white meat, as opposed to choking on ULA's bull-

Remember, Musk was forced to launch off that rock in the middle of the ocean when EELVs were also an unproven quantity. An EELV could just as easily have veered off and hit Musk's rocket instead. What with the Boeing employee theft of EELV info from LockMart (before they became one big happy fleet) and the tanker fiasco--I for one would have loved to have had a hidden camera to see if someone slipped the range safety folks money to force Musk off the coast and bankrupt him with a massive logistical burden. Good for him for sticking it out longer than Beal. As for the future, who knows?

[aquitaine]

Assuming that Musk can deliver OVER TIME. There was a recent documentary on the electric car (REVENGE OF THE ELECTRIC CAR) where Musk seemed to have...rather much on his plate. I loved how Bob Lutz took the current rich kids to task for thinking that Moore's law applied to everything.

The problem with these type one one-man shows is that you open yourself up to a powerful entrepreneurs personal problems. Musk's divorce could easily have resulted in a similar situation to the Dodgers debacle I mentioned elsewhere.
Safran is an outfit of men, not personalities.

Ok, first of all SpaceX and Tesla Motors are not "one man shows", they both have a lot of people working for them, more than a thousand in both cases. He can divide his attention between these two simply because he doesn't have to do a lot of the annoying, time comsuming tasks that other startup founders have to deal with, and can focus on strategy instead. That's the nice thing about being superrich, you can have your money work for you and not the other way around.

Suppose Musk undercuts everyone, runs off the competition, then folds. Can you imagine the time it would take to rebuild the infrastructure, the workforce? Same with folks who want to end the post office. Once you do that--THAT'S IT.

If it was able to run off its competition ala Standard Oil or Microsoft, it wouldn't fold unless the industry itself was totally wiped out.

This is why I always prefered Arsenal approach as was done with ABMA--you take the personalities out of it as much as you can. Institutions not individuals. People have this idea that NASA should buy rides and not be in the rocket making business. I have never bought that line. There was an article in AV WEEK a couple months back showing a disgruntled Army man sick of contractors telling him what he needed for a helicopter project. Like Griffin, he was of the old school of keeping contactors on a short leash (a choke chain at that). But that's politics...

But this isn't about NASA, this is about accelerating the development of private spaceflight to create a new market. Depending on NASA to get common folk into space has been an absolute and utter failure for decades. Now that the market is finally being opened up, we're seeing just how massively uncompetitive Lockheed and these other traditional contractors really are. SpaceX isn't the only company out there, although they are probably furthest along which turns up the heat even more.

We need more free enterprise in space, not less.

I'd rather have that myself, as the J-2 would be common to both it and SLS upper stages, and was always an upper stage engine. If you want to make an arguement against Liberty--the best tactic is to remind folks that Ariane 5's engine was never meant to be fired at altitude. That can be overcome--but if you want to bash something, don't focus on the the Lego approach

The Ares 1 is just as uncompetitive as the Liberty.

focus on the not-made-here arguements behind Ares-I and how it was argued to be an indigenous, all American rocket, so why should we use tax dollars to prop up the Arianespace cadre? That's the arguement you should be making.

Ok, how about this: SpaceX has indigenous, all American rockets and it's much cheaper.

Liberty might usurp SLS funding too. Remember folks once said that Ares I would distract from HLV support--so we needed to cancel Ares I and focus on HLV, and how Musk should compete against ULA for more modest sized LEO-only LVs.

Who said that? I really don't understand your personal vendetta against Musk. Is it just because his company can design a rocket much cheaper than NASA has been able to? And since it isn't directly tied into NASA it has the real possibility of carrying, you know, ordinary people into space?

[NEOWatcher]

Depending on NASA to get common folk into space has been an absolute and utter failure for decades.

No; it's not a failure because it's not a goal, and not one that I want tax money to go to. NASA is about science, technology and research. Not for joyrides.
They may pave the way for the technology to do it, but it's up to private industry to make it commercial. And that's where we are at.

[mike alexander]

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


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

Depending on how you stretch the definitions, the Saturn 1 was derived from the Redstone and Jupiter.

[Garrison]

No; it's not a failure because it's not a goal, and not one that I want tax money to go to. NASA is about science, technology and research. Not for joyrides.
They may pave the way for the technology to do it, but it's up to private industry to make it commercial. And that's where we are at.

Well one of the objective's of the Shuttle was to make spaceflight practically routine, and open up opportunities. Making spaceflight easier and cheaper would have had significant positive effects on space science and exploration.

[NEOWatcher]

Well one of the objective's of the Shuttle was to make spaceflight practically routine, and open up opportunities. Making spaceflight easier and cheaper would have had significant positive effects on space science and exploration.

Yes, I can agree with that.

If I remember right, it was the popular media at the time that was touting some kind of civilian travel.

[djellison]

Well one of the objective's of the Shuttle was to make spaceflight practically routine, and open up opportunities.

DoD hijacked it with requirements.

[MaDeR]

Depending on how you stretch the definitions, the Saturn 1 was derived from the Redstone and Jupiter.

Derivation is not LEGO rocketry.

Well one of the objective's of the Shuttle was to make spaceflight practically routine, and open up opportunities. Making spaceflight easier and cheaper would have had significant positive effects on space science and exploration.

It was known from very beginning that those promises were lies.

[Garrison]

It was known from very beginning that those promises were lies.

I think that's harsh; ambitious perhaps but laudable and as djellison they could have come much closer to them had it not been for the military requirements. Some of the proposals that envisioned two fully reusable vehicles would probably still have been too expensive but then that depends what sort of first stage you use, a conventional booster designed to be recovered and refurbished could still keep costs down even if it wouldn't be as cool as a full winged RLV.

[aquitaine]

It was known from very beginning that those promises were lies.

And yet most people believed it, right to the end of the program. Without DoD meddling, maybe it could have even been realized.

[NEOWatcher]

Derivation is not LEGO rocketry.

I don't see a difference based on those terms. The difference I see is the choice of building blocks.

[publiusr]

I really don't understand your personal vendetta against Musk.

No vendetta. I wasn't the one who ran him off the coast. I just think he is a bit green and needs to focus on doing one thing well. He was on Science Friday today:
http://sciencefriday.com/segment/05/...t-mission.html

Personally, I rather liked the ET-centric path to space from here:http://www.highfrontier.org/Archive/...4-15-05c_5.pdf
There, a Capsule would have fitted atop an engine-equipped ET without solids for LEO uses--allowing wider craft.

Back on topic. There is a lengthy new article on page 24-25 of the latest issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 14, 2012.)

Guy Morris is the author, and there is an interview with Lockheed-Martin's lead for Liberty, Scott Norris.

I don't think there is any relation, but I wanted to be fair and give all details for the sake of discussion. I might be a bit profligate with my links/posts--but as they say there is method to this.

There is a photo of the Liberty capsule (yes I said capsule), largely of composites.

"ATK says the system could be tested in 2014 with the first crewed test mission anticipated as early as 2015."

Composites are a 'core competancy' of theirs as the article explains, since they do work on composites in airframes as well, although there was a blurb about skeptics.

There is also talk about perhaps having the Liberty upper stage, a strengthened Ariane 5 core manufactured in the US. Despite this Schumacher insists that "no major tooling will be needed to accommodate the Liberty on (the existing) Ariane line" which could go from 6-7 per year to"'easily incorporate three to five more."

Now some of you might remember some of the bashing Ares I took over "potential thrust-oscillation issues at liftoff."

That was dealt with earlier:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....41#post1957541

Let's take a look at the November 7, 2011 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology--especially page 24, where we see the column on Space Depots called..."Fact Checking" in how the grousing began to sound 'a lot like a reprise of the old attacks on the Bush administration's Ares I rocket." All fixable.

All has all been rendered moot at any rate since Liberty has the "oxygen tank higher in the second stage than the liquid hydrogen tank."

This all "'changes the axial modes'" More on the topic: "'We need no mitigation and are well within the requirements. NASA is fully on board with that.'"

The capsule will be for LEO use only it seems, so there go any weight issues. On page 23 we hear of three Apollo commanders who want to hurry the downselect, so stay tuned.

[Garrison]

"ATK says the system could be tested in 2014 with the first crewed test mission anticipated as early as 2015."

Yes but as they admit only if they can worm their way into a piece of the CCDev money. This rocket offers nothing useful or new, SpaceX is far ahead of it in development terms, so are OSC, Sierra Nevada, and Boeing/ULA. When it comes to developing a working launch vehicle ATK are the amateurs.

[publiusr]

Yes but as they admit only if they can worm their way into a piece of the CCDev money.

Worm? No...Bully/belly up to the bar? Yes. You see, there is another piece in the magazine issue I cited to you above: "Power Poll." The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) found that 25% of Americans back cuts to Defense, including The Air Forces Next Generation Bomber, JSF and the new Ford class carriers. The public also judged the jobs arguements to be among the least persuasive, a sentiment which some of ATK's critics share here of course. But then--comes this heartbreaker: The CPI study co-author admits that elections are decided by noisy minorities, not by the broader views of the American public at large.

As long as we have a military that wants a supplier of surface-to-air or air-to-air solid rockets, there will be ways found to prop up solid fuel production so as to keep their expertise. Good, bad, or indifferent.

To steal a quote from Dante's Inferno--this has been willed where what is willed MUST be. ULA will falter--for a bit; Musk will be crowded out--and Liberty will fly.

No amateurs they. The pad is still outfitted for Ares I-X remember? Now they just need to swap the hoses.

[Garrison]

As long as we have a military that wants a supplier of surface-to-air or air-to-air solid rockets, there will be ways found to prop up solid fuels productions so as to keep their expertise. Good, bad, or indifferent.

To steal a quote from Dante's Inferno--this has been willed where what is willed MUST be. ULA will falter--for a bit; Musk will be crowded out--and Liberty will fly.

Such incoherent nonsense defies any reasoned reply.

[publiusr]

Nothing incoherent in saying "what will be, will be."
More on the rocket: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...acecraft-mlas/

Last night I was watching Science Channel's "Destination Titan" and noticed two things. Earlier in this thread there was mention about how the Robert Byrd radio telescope directly heard the Huygens descent package: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/huygens/

More importantly, while looking at the anti-nuke hysteria, I put up two fingers to either side of the image of the Titan IV--which used solids to either side as strap-ons. Once obscured, what I saw was a wasp waisted Titan II derived core, and a very much wider cryogenic upper stage up top--so, as you can see, this configuration isn't exactly new.

[Garrison]

Nothing incoherent in saying "what will be, will be."
More on the rocket: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...acecraft-mlas/

Last night I was watching Science Channel's "Destination Titan" and noticed two things. Earlier in this thread there was mention about how the Robert Byrd radio telescope directly heard the Huygens descent package: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/huygens/

More importantly, while looking at the anti-nuke hysteria, I put up two fingers to either side of the image of the Titan IV--which used solids to either side as strap-ons. Once obscured, what I saw was a wasp waisted Titan II derived core, and a very much wider cryogenic upper stage up top--so, as you can see, this configuration isn't exactly new.

Just a pointless waste of time. at least with a liquid fuelled first stage you can shutdown and try again.

[publiusr]

There is that certainly. I wonder if engine-out helped with Falcon in spreading the load as it were. Then too, once a solid goes it goes--and you have a lesser part count. Six of one...

[NEOWatcher]

As long as we have a military that wants a supplier of surface-to-air or air-to-air solid rockets, there will be ways found to prop up solid fuel production so as to keep their expertise. Good, bad, or indifferent.

Such incoherent nonsense defies any reasoned reply.

Maybe you don't agree, and maybe there's not enough data in there for you to see where the comment is coming from, but I don't agree with "incoherent nonesense".

I wish I could find a post I made some time ago discussing ATK's income. In it, it showed the comparison of thier income and costs between NASA projects and other projects. The numbers were hugely disproportional with NASA taking the biggest hit. Whether true or not, it sounded to me like NASA funds were being funneled to keep them a viable supplier.

[Garrison]

Maybe you don't agree, and maybe there's not enough data in there for you to see where the comment is coming from, but I don't agree with "incoherent nonesense".

And if you hadn't cut out the second sentence from the quote perhaps you would have the data specifically publiusr said this:

To steal a quote from Dante's Inferno--this has been willed where what is willed MUST be. ULA will falter--for a bit; Musk will be crowded out--and Liberty will fly.

I see nothing but nonsense there.

[djellison]

[QUOTE=publiusr;2018802 ULA will falter--for a bit; Musk will be crowded out--and Liberty will fly.[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have for this?

Moreover - in what way is that good thing for NASA or indeed the nation as a whole?

Why do you want access to orbit to be MORE expensive?

[publiusr]

Never said that was what I wanted. I hope Musk gets this flight off the ground. This is all about a little something called institutional inertia--it's the same thing Musk faced when getting into the car business and going up against GM, which has had years to get all cozy with D.C. Musk may indeed be able to compete and launch for less, and ATK might even be able to launch for less than Atlas. As per the AV WEEK article, more and more is happening behind the scenes to make Liberty a reality. It all boils down to the Space X launch. I will say this though. It is any easy thing to foul a launch. Ariane 5 suppered a loss due to a rag left behind in a propellant line. Musk should even be on the lookout for sabotage.

We saw with the Erskine Alexio EELV data theft in the pre-ULA days that this can be a shady business, what with the old blind called a rogue employee allowing plausible deniability.

My problem with the ATK bashers comes from folks who think this overall design won't work--will be more expensive, etc. Astrium isn't made up of fools, or 'nonsense,' Garrison. They are well connected and have great engineers both. It isn't one or the other.

There are a lot of things that dictate LV production. Politics is one of them as surely as engineering. Musk has one more chace or two to prove everyone wrong. Let's hope he makes the best of it. Even then, if he is in over his head, but makes a flash in the pan enough to bankrupt other LV providers with more experience--what if he goes under then? How long will it take to get all that experience back?

[djellison]

My problem with the ATK bashers comes from folks who think this overall design won't work--will be more expensive, etc.

Would it work given enough money? Maybe. I see no reason why it would be cheaper than Ares 1 which was cancelled as part of constellation for being too expensive.

From Ares 1 Wiki page

"the total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 rose from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009.[45] The Ares I-X project cost was $445 million........ In December 2011, NASA administrator Charlie Bolden testified to congress that the Ares I would cost $4-4.5 billion a year, and $1.6 billion per flight."

And yet we have ATK telling us they can fly Liberty for about 12% of that price, and for a tiny tiny fraction of the dev costs. For goodness sake - Ares 1-X without ANY upper stage was more than $400M.

Where do these order of magnitude savings come from - where do you magic away $40B of dev costs and >$1.4B/flight costs? Upper stages don't cost that much. The 5 seg booster is basically finished right?

Either they are lying now, or they were essentially defrauding the American public with Ares 1. Or possibly both.

I think I know which it is. Which do you think it is?

[NEOWatcher]

And if you hadn't cut out the second sentence from the quote perhaps you would have the data specifically publiusr said...

Yes; that part was confusing to me. But; you did include the other which was very understandable with data to support it.
I'll split the difference with you.

Either they are lying now, or they were essentially defrauding the American public with Ares 1. Or possibly both.
I think I know which it is. Which do you think it is?

Probably a little of both. The lying part could be part of normal marketing, and the defrauding part is including related but not direct costs into Ares 1 (plus some pork).
But; there could also be:
- Accounting differences (like Alliant not including development costs)
- Taking advantage of research and development that has already been done.
- Quoting a cargo-only version to use before it's human capable.
- Lowered costs by not having a beaurocracy.
But; of course, that's just questions in my mind. I don't even know if they factor in.

According to astronautix, a booster was originally $28M. I've seen other references putting the modified figure to $40M. Of course, that is only the raw booster cost without any operational, development or other hardware. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Garrison]

I will say this though. It is any easy thing to foul a launch. Ariane 5 suppered a loss due to a rag left behind in a propellant line. Musk should even be on the lookout for sabotage.

You make comments like that and wonder why I don't treat your views seriously?

My problem with the ATK bashers comes from folks who think this overall design won't work--will be more expensive, etc. Astrium isn't made up of fools, or 'nonsense,' Garrison. They are well connected and have great engineers both. It isn't one or the other.

The two most recent projects ATK have been involved in are Ares I and the Taurus II/Antares, given the track record neither bodes well for Liberty.

There are a lot of things that dictate LV production. Politics is one of them as surely as engineering. Musk has one more chace or two to prove everyone wrong. Let's hope he makes the best of it. Even then, if he is in over his head, but makes a flash in the pan enough to bankrupt other LV providers with more experience--what if he goes under then? How long will it take to get all that experience back?

More nonsense and more evidence that you just don't do any research despite the wall of links you constantly put up. Even before today the Falcon 9 had two successful launches and one test of the Dragon, so who exactly does SpaceX have to 'prove wrong'? They also have commercial contracts, Iridium being the largest, but they are hardly driving everyone else to the wall. The goal is to expand the market by making access cheaper.

As far as Liberty goes whether it could be made to work is moot. As far as I'm concerned its 'a day late and a dollar short'. There are four manned vehicles under development that are all further along than the Liberty capsule. There are three functional rocket to launch them. Liberty is rehash of old technology that has no further development potential; its a pointless dead end and giving it CCDev money would just slow down the genuine contenders.

[publiusr]

I never said that I would advocate giving it CCDev money--just questioning some of the knee-jerk hostility against it. Now to be fair, there was a blurb on page 8 of the May 21, 2012 Av Week from an individual worried about vibrations induced by the five segment solids upon Liberty (which has a nice bit of art inside the back cover.) That's fair--but vibration can be a factor in any LV. It is nonsense to say that they are not genuine contenders.

Now, you asked "so who exactly does SpaceX have to 'prove wrong'?" That would be the public. So far, that has been done. If anything, the speedy repair of the fautly valve was probably a plus overall. That was quick. Solid first stages are simpler however. But you did not address my point about attrition of aerospace workers. There was a reason why two EELVs were kept--in case there was a problem with one comapny, there could be another. Even Greason, who I don't always agree with, said that the pressure to downselect to even two vehicles this summer would "blunt competition," to use a quote from him on page 17 of the issue of Av Week I cited. Now it might be cheaper to taxpayers if Musk were to price ATK and ULA out of the ballpark--but is it healthy for the institution as a whole?

The latest:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...dence-liberty/

[Garrison]

I never said that I would advocate giving it CCDev money--just questioning some of the knee-jerk hostility against it. Now to be fair, there was a blurb on page 8 of the May 21, 2012 Av Week from an individual worried about vibrations induced by the five segment solids upon Liberty (which has a nice bit of art inside the back cover.) That's fair--but vibration can be a factor in any LV. It is nonsense to say that they are not genuine contenders.

It is when Atlas V, Delta IV, and the Falcon 9 are already flying, OSC should have their launcher/vehicle in space before the end of this year and all four CCDev vehicles are far ahead of this nameless capsule that ATK have just decided to add to their offering. NASA needs to firmly slam the door on this pointless project when they try for a piece of CCDev again.

Now, you asked "so who exactly does SpaceX have to 'prove wrong'?" That would be the public.

Really? Please show where this 'public' is? Sure there's a few doomsayers like yourself but on most places I've read people seem to be broadly positive about SpaceX, sorry to disappoint you.

So far, that has been done. If anything, the speedy repair of the fautly valve was probably a plus overall. That was quick. Solid first stages are simpler however. But you did not address my point about attrition of aerospace workers. There was a reason why two EELVs were kept--in case there was a problem with one comapny, there could be another. Even Greason, who I don't always agree with, said that the pressure to downselect to even two vehicles this summer would "blunt competition," to use a quote from him on page 17 of the issue of Av Week I cited. Now it might be cheaper to taxpayers if Musk were to price ATK and ULA out of the ballpark--but is it healthy for the institution as a whole?

It's been explained to you that SpaceX has a pretty full order book, they don't have the capacity to drive everyone else out of the market, though if they kill off the Liberty I'll shed no tears. The long term key is to increase the size of the market, part of which depends on the deployment of commercial crew vehicles to allow the likes of Bigelow to get off the ground.

[djellison]

Now it might be cheaper to taxpayers if Musk were to price ATK and ULA out of the ballpark--but is it healthy for the institution as a whole?

Ermmm - yes. If he can price them out, it's because he's cheaper. Ergo it's healthy. If he can't then it'll be a race between them to be cheaper.

However - we already know that Liberty is far far more expensive that F9+Dragon. The argument is entirely moot.Which he is.

If Liberty ever gets off the ground, it wont be because it offers good value or some capabilities we can not source elsewhere. It'll be because of pork.