This rocket won't die...

[Jerry]

So are you agreeing with Barbee that a rocket that has never flown with a capsule they only dreamed up after the Liberty was turned down the last time is better bet that the Falcon 9 or the Atlas V? SpaceX has delivered cargo to the ISS and returned material safely to Earth. Atlas V has 30 straight successful launches to its name; is it truly reasonable to ignore that in favour of a rocket that still only exists in Powerpoint?

If you had to choose between the maiden flight of a 747 stretch, and the third flight of the first Piper Cub composite, which do you think would pose the greater risk?

For a manned launch, yes, I think the Liberty would be the safer bet at this point in time because of the long track record of each of the business ends of the rocket - and the fact that the hardware was recovered and put under the microscope, helping to weed out engineering margins that may have been shaved too close.

It will take a number of successful Falcon flights to push the risk factor in any other direction. The launch delay rate needs to come down to prove cost effectiveness, too.

That said, in many ways the Falcon series is supported by a rich heritage as well. Falcon 9 is 2/2; but the family is what? 4/8? Something like that. Keep testing, but a single Falcon 9 failure kicks the odds dramatically.

FWIW, i have worked on minor components of both the Falcon and the Liberty precursor. Spaceship I, too. (Minor roles, but it is fun to be able to say it.)

[Jerry]

Yes, because that's how the free market works. Usually whoever can deliver the best bang for each dollar spent, wins.
This does make me wonder, do these contracts have some kind of an expiration?

There is no free market here. The only somewhat competitive market is in communications satellites; and even then, most programs are heavily subsidized by supportive governments.

NASA is the only real customer. From a technology standpoint, the cost per cubic whatever of payload shouldn't be nearly as great as it is. When we tested for SpaceX, there was one or two layers of engineering between us and Elon - we even got a personal thank you. Test the same article for ATK, and there are more layers of vice presidents involved than there are engineers at SpaceX. The cost is in the fat; not the technology.

[ugordan]

For a manned launch, yes, I think the Liberty would be the safer bet at this point in time because of the long track record of each of the business ends of the rocket - and the fact that the hardware was recovered and put under the microscope, helping to weed out engineering margins that may have been shaved too close.

The fact the Ariane V 1st stage will fly in a never before used configuration - air started in a different external environment - should not be downplayed as something trivial.

It will take a number of successful Falcon flights to push the risk factor in any other direction. The launch delay rate needs to come down to prove cost effectiveness, too.

Frankly, I can't see how you're willing to give Liberty an edge over F9. I consider both vehicles to be equally unproven. None of the components of Liberty have ever flown in that particular setup. There will be modifications required to Ariane V EPC for it to fly on Liberty. On the other hand, the current F9 will be superseded by the v1.1 with new engines and engine configuration so the current engine history will be lost. I will point out a bit of trivia to think about, though - SpaceX has flown almost as many Merlin 1C engines in just a few launches as Ariane V has flown Vulcain 2 engines in total.

[slang]

O/T

Now you have got me curious. I figured you and Cowing were pretty much on the same page on a lot of things--what has he written that you disagree with?

No, let's not. You're already aware that it's off-topic for this thread, and these launcher threads are enough trouble as they are. Shoot dj a PM or start a topic on blogs, but let's not derail this thread.

[Garrison]

If you had to choose between the maiden flight of a 747 stretch, and the third flight of the first Piper Cub composite, which do you think would pose the greater risk?

Except the Liberty is more like the fuselage of the 747 mated to the wings and engines of a completely different aircraft in a completely untried configuration so your argument breaks down pretty much right there.

[aquitaine]

There is no free market here. The only somewhat competitive market is in communications satellites; and even then, most programs are heavily subsidized by supportive governments.

Yes but now we have more choices beyond the good old boys defense contractors. SpaceX is just the farthest along, but we will see more, and this will (eventually) lower the cost enough for the rest of us to consider actually going up there ourselves, which creates new markets.

NASA is the only real customer. From a technology standpoint, the cost per cubic whatever of payload shouldn't be nearly as great as it is. When we tested for SpaceX, there was one or two layers of engineering between us and Elon - we even got a personal thank you. Test the same article for ATK, and there are more layers of vice presidents involved than there are engineers at SpaceX. The cost is in the fat; not the technology.

For now NASA is the only real customer, and you are right about the technology. But that begs that question, how can those few companies still be competitive despite being so bloated?

[Garrison]

There is no free market here. The only somewhat competitive market is in communications satellites; and even then, most programs are heavily subsidized by supportive governments.

NASA is the only real customer. From a technology standpoint, the cost per cubic whatever of payload shouldn't be nearly as great as it is. When we tested for SpaceX, there was one or two layers of engineering between us and Elon - we even got a personal thank you. Test the same article for ATK, and there are more layers of vice presidents involved than there are engineers at SpaceX. The cost is in the fat; not the technology.

And yet despite making such a comment your basically willing to give them a pass on Liberty. The Liberty is the product of ATK seeing a slice of the NASA pie they haven't go their hands on. They haven't delivered a working launcher to date(Ares I massive overruns cancelled, Antares, still waiting for a first flight) you really think with their track record their suddenly going to get their act together?

[Jerry]

Except the Liberty is more like the fuselage of the 747 mated to the wings and engines of a completely different aircraft in a completely untried configuration so your argument breaks down pretty much right there.

The engineering teams involved have considerable experience mating.

[Jerry]

And yet despite making such a comment your basically willing to give them a pass on Liberty. The Liberty is the product of ATK seeing a slice of the NASA pie they haven't go their hands on. They haven't delivered a working launcher to date(Ares I massive overruns cancelled, Antares, still waiting for a first flight) you really think with their track record their suddenly going to get their act together?

??? Hundreds of successful satellites in hundreds of configurations, hundreds of minutemen, tens of Polaris and Trident, booster configurations for everything from Cassini to New Horizons.

Ares was cancelled because of cost, period - Falcon 9s first launch was delayed three years - that is longer than the Ares program existed, and there was never funding period for the 'delayed' second stage. FWIW I think ATK is a bloated top-heavy bloodsucker that never should have been allowed to evolve; but they do have (or did have) engineers who know how to build a reliable rocket.

[ugordan]

Ares was cancelled because of cost, period - Falcon 9s first launch was delayed three years - that is longer than the Ares program existed

Say what?

FWIW I think ATK is a bloated top-heavy bloodsucker that never should have been allowed to evolve; but they do have (or did have) engineers who know how to build a reliable rocket.

Name one launch vehicle (not an isolated rocket stage they provided to someone else), as an end-to-end product that ATK developed and successfuly flew. They may have expertise building solid stages, but their expertise at systems engineering and integrating everything into a functioning system is, as far as I'm concerned, undemonstrated.

[Garrison]

Say what?

Yeah I'm at a loss as to how that proves anything about Falcon 9 versus Liberty, especially as I'm not sure his dates are ccurate. More relevant is how exactly ATK can develop a 'version' of a rocket that was projected to cost $40 billion for the maybe couple of hundred million on offer from CCDev; heck the Ares 1-X flight cost more than the entire Falcon 9 program to that date.

Name one launch vehicle (not an isolated rocket stage they provided to someone else), as an end-to-end product that ATK developed and successfuly flew. They may have expertise building solid stages, but their expertise at systems engineering and integrating everything into a functioning system is, as far as I'm concerned, undemonstrated.

That's what I was saying but you explained it far better.

[Drbuzz0]

If you had to choose between the maiden flight of a 747 stretch, and the third flight of the first Piper Cub composite, which do you think would pose the greater risk?

For a manned launch, yes, I think the Liberty would be the safer bet at this point in time because of the long track record of each of the business ends of the rocket - and the fact that the hardware was recovered and put under the microscope, helping to weed out engineering margins that may have been shaved too close.

It will take a number of successful Falcon flights to push the risk factor in any other direction. The launch delay rate needs to come down to prove cost effectiveness, too.

That said, in many ways the Falcon series is supported by a rich heritage as well. Falcon 9 is 2/2; but the family is what? 4/8? Something like that. Keep testing, but a single Falcon 9 failure kicks the odds dramatically.

FWIW, i have worked on minor components of both the Falcon and the Liberty precursor. Spaceship I, too. (Minor roles, but it is fun to be able to say it.)

No, two flights is not a lot for the Falcon-9, but expect it will rack up a few more in pretty short order. By the end of 2012 there should be another two. Six or more could fly in 2013.

We have flown crews on rockets with a history that is far more limited, especially given the extent to which the components have been tested.


I'd say there is more to the safety of a rocket than just the chances of the rocket failing. I'd be willing to fly on a rocket of otherwise unacceptable safety margins if it had an extremely reliable and effective LES and abort options.

But then again, I'd also be willing to fly on an aircraft that I was less than 100% confident in if it had a good ejection seat in it.

[ugordan]

No, two flights is not a lot for the Falcon-9

I don't want to jinx the vehicle by nitpicking like this, but if we're talking about the rocket alone this was actually the 3rd orbital flight of F9.

By the end of 2012 there should be another two.

IMHO, one is more realistic, the CRS-1 flight currently set for October.

[Garrison]

It also worth remembering that the article wasn't a straight Liberty v Falcon 9 argument. Barbee also placed the Liberty ahead of the Atlas V and if we are talking about a track record how on Earth can the Liberty better that?

[Doodler]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277...5#.UBbTiLQkKSo

A little write up from NBC News on how ATK is trying to pick Elon's pocket. Significantly slanted to the benefit of SpaceX, but the idea is pretty much what's been slandered against Liberty hereabouts, the Good Ol' Boy network yanking leashes on their pet Congresscritters to put their hand in the cookie jar.

[Garrison]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277...5#.UBbTiLQkKSo

A little write up from NBC News on how ATK is trying to pick Elon's pocket. Significantly slanted to the benefit of SpaceX, but the idea is pretty much what's been slandered against Liberty hereabouts, the Good Ol' Boy network yanking leashes on their pet Congresscritters to put their hand in the cookie jar.

It's only slander if it isn't true....

ETA: And let's not forget this isn't just about a launcher; it's about a crew capsule as well and there ATK have exactly zero experience Dragon, CST-100 and Dreamchaser are far, far, ahead in that area. We have working launchers that can do the job; the capsule is key and on that score alone Liberty should be rejected.

[Van Rijn]

Well, maybe not dead, but it isn't getting money from NASA. I just saw this article:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...paceships?lite

Apparently there will be an announcement later today with more details, but:

Teams headed by the Boeing Co., SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corp. will be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from NASA over the next 21 months for further development of spaceships capable of transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station, knowledgeable sources told NBC News today.

NASA is to make the official announcement of the winning commercial teams on Friday morning — but NBC News' Cape Canaveral correspondent, Jay Barbree, received word from two sources who were informed of the decision in advance, on condition of anonymity. The sources did not discuss how much money any of the companies would be receiving.

[...]

Other companies sought unsuccessfully to win CCiCap funding — most prominently, a consortium that included ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium. The consortium's Liberty launch system would adapt the ATK-manufactured solid rocket booster that was used for the space shuttle and the now-canceled Ares 1 rocket. The second stage would be based on Astrium's Ariane rocket. The composite capsule would be provided by Lockheed Martin, which is the prime contractor for NASA's more capable Orion deep-space capsule.

[...]

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, quoted industry sources as saying that Boeing and SpaceX were expected to share the bulk of NASA's CCiCap money, and that Sierra Nevada seemed likely to emerge with a smaller award.

[Garrison]

BBC article has more details:

Nasa announces space shuttle replacement shortlist

In summary:

SpaceX(Dragon) gets $440m

Sierra Nevada(Dreamchaser) gets $212.5m

Boeing(CST-100) gets $460m

ATK(Liberty) gets ZIP! ZERO! NADA! NOTHING!

Blue Origin also gets nothing but frankly with so little info about their craft its hard to have an opinion on that either way.

Sanity prevails with I guess SpaceX and Boeing being the '2' and SNC the '0.5'

[Sardonicone]

BBC article has more details:

Nasa announces space shuttle replacement shortlist

In summary:

SpaceX(Dragon) gets $440m

Sierra Nevada(Dreamchaser) gets $212.5m

Boeing(CST-100) gets $460m

ATK(Liberty) gets ZIP! ZERO! NADA! NOTHING!

Blue Origin also gets nothing but frankly with so little info about their craft its hard to have an opinion on that either way.

Sanity prevails with I guess SpaceX and Boeing being the '2' and SNC the '0.5'

I cheered when I read this.

[publiusr]

Sierra Nevada should have gotten more.
Sad about Blue Origin:

Musk should be happy.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...crew-vehicles/
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...Space_999.html

In other news ATK tried to make a competing bid for UTC. Aerojet got them instead. The PDF:

http://advertise.spacenews.com/sn_pd...0_Jul_2012.PDF

This is also on page 22 of the July 30 2012 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology.
"JOINING FORCES Aerojet hopes (Pratt & Whitney) Rocketdyne will Forge an Entity Greater than the Sum of its Parts." by Guy Norris and Anthony Velocci

O/T We see small, COTS inspired planet finder smallsats on page 41 of the above described issue.

On Page 22 of the July 23 issue, we learn of the possible return of the F-1 for LFBs, even as Aerojet is to work on a larger version of the NK-33.

Speaking of Aerojet:
"NASA was planning on replacing the post-Challenger SRBs with a new Advanced Solid Rocket Booster (ASRB) to be built by Aerojet[11] at a new facility, on the location of a canceled Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power plant, at Yellow Creek, Mississippi. The ASRB would have produced additional thrust in order to increase shuttle payload, so that it could carry modules and construction components to the ISS. The ASRB program was canceled in 1993 in favor of continued use and improvement of the SRB.

Two ASRB casings can be found on the Space Shuttle Pathfinder on display at the United States Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama"

I think the solids for SLS block 3 were to go from PBAN to HTPB: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls4.html That would give them 150 tons to LEO--same as with LFBs.

I wonder if Aerojet might look back to big solids again. Doubt If we will see AJ-260--but hey...maybe we will see Sea Dragon talk in a few decades

[cjl]

I think the solids for SLS block 3 were to go from PBAN to HTPB: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls4.html That would give them 150 tons to LEO--same as with LFBs.

Just the change from PBAN to HTPB wouldn't make much of a difference (I believe PBAN is actually slightly better performance, but it's a pretty tiny difference, and HTPB is easier to work with). My guess is that the change from PBAN to HTPB is incidental, and mainly to allow for easier processing, while the real change would involve a change in propellant quantity, geometry, operating pressure, or some other parameter to improve performance.

[Garrison]

Sierra Nevada should have gotten more.

There wasn't enough money in the pot to fully fund three projects, of course if Congress trimmed some of the fat off the SLS program...

Sad about Blue Origin:

From comments elsewhere it appears they intend to carry on regardless. NASA funding would have been useful but apparently not imperative.

Musk should be happy.

You mean SpaceX should be happy, backing them and Boeing was the smart move

In other news ATK tried to make a competing bid for UTC. Aerojet got them instead. The PDF:

Since that's a commercial magazine that charges for copies should you be redistributing it for free?

[Trebuchet]

Blue Origin also gets nothing but frankly with so little info about their craft its hard to have an opinion on that either way.

Blue Origin is founded and funded by one of the richer guys on the planet. $440M is not exactly chump change to him, but he can certainly afford to keep it moving along. That may have been taken into account by NASA when they made the selections.

ETA: $440M is about 2% of Bezos's net worth. Maybe it IS chump change!

[publiusr]

Since that's a commercial magazine that charges for copies should you be redistributing it for free?

They actually post many of their articles later, and if it causes folks enough interest to look for they might subscribe themselves. It's common to post snippets on the web--fiar use, etc.

Only 2%? Wow. Bezos can afford a little more then--but I'm guessing much of that isn't liquid.

[Jerry]

Just the change from PBAN to HTPB wouldn't make much of a difference (I believe PBAN is actually slightly better performance, but it's a pretty tiny difference, and HTPB is easier to work with). My guess is that the change from PBAN to HTPB is incidental, and mainly to allow for easier processing, while the real change would involve a change in propellant quantity, geometry, operating pressure, or some other parameter to improve performance.

HTPB (hydroxyl-terminated poly-butadiene) can carry a higher solid-loading; so the propellants can be somewhat denser - improving net performance ~10%. The trade-off is generally greater static sensitivity. HTPBs have never been man-rated, but have an excellent safety record. I will be surprised if the next manned vehicle does not have solid boosters of some kind simply because it is easier to stuff them onto a launch pad.

[Garrison]

HTPB (hydroxyl-terminated poly-butadiene) can carry a higher solid-loading; so the propellants can be somewhat denser - improving net performance ~10%. The trade-off is generally greater static sensitivity. HTPBs have never been man-rated, but have an excellent safety record. I will be surprised if the next manned vehicle does not have solid boosters of some kind simply because it is easier to stuff them onto a launch pad.

Well let's see. The Falcon 9 doesn't use solids so the Dragon wouldn't. The CST-100 and Dreamchaser don't as far as I'm aware specify the heavier versions of the Atlas V so I'd say no there as well. So I think it you stand to be surprised. You did notice that Liberty is dead as doornail now didn't you?

[djellison]

I will be surprised if the next manned vehicle does not have solid boosters of some kind simply because it is easier to stuff them onto a launch pad.

You shouldn't be.

Falcon 9 will almost certainly be the next manned vehicle, and it doesn't use solids.

If not them, then probably Boeing on an Atlas V 401 or Delta IV - and the configs suggest don't use solids either.

[cjl]

HTPB (hydroxyl-terminated poly-butadiene) can carry a higher solid-loading; so the propellants can be somewhat denser - improving net performance ~10%. The trade-off is generally greater static sensitivity. HTPBs have never been man-rated, but have an excellent safety record. I will be surprised if the next manned vehicle does not have solid boosters of some kind simply because it is easier to stuff them onto a launch pad.

I'd be curious to see a citation for that - looking through my sources, everything I have indicates pretty similar performance for both HTPB and PBAN, with solids loading around 88% in both cases (with up to 90% possible). I could definitely be wrong though - I haven't studied binders all that extensively.

[Jerry]

I'd be curious to see a citation for that - looking through my sources, everything I have indicates pretty similar performance for both HTPB and PBAN, with solids loading around 88% in both cases (with up to 90% possible). I could definitely be wrong though - I haven't studied binders all that extensively.

Very good. HTPBs can hold up to ~95% bimodal solids; and then the net gain depends upon what solids you load the polymer with.

A LEO human payload will not include solids; but a trip to Mars should. The debate has gone round and round these threads about the virtues of each family. IMOHO the multiple launches likely necessary for an all liquid system will prove cost ineffective comoared with a liquid core strapped to a gang of high density solids. Now that Liberty is out of the way, the designers should move towards the most cost effective heavy launch system.

[djellison]

IMOHO the multiple launches likely necessary for an all liquid system will prove cost ineffective comoared with a liquid core strapped to a gang of high density solids. Now that Liberty is out of the way, the designers should move towards the most cost effective heavy launch system.

The three heaviest flown or planned vehicles of all time ( Saturn V, Buran and Falcon Heavy ) have not a single solid motor between them.

Why do you work under the assumption that heavy lift requires solids?