News ATK & Astrium Liberty™ Launch Vehicle

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Ex-SpaceX VP Bowersox on ATK’s Liberty Independent Assessment Team:

Former NASA Astronaut Ken Bowersox, who quit as SpaceX’s vice-president of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance late last year, is now advising ATK on how to human-rate its Liberty rocket.

SALT LAKE CITY, July 2, 2012 (ATK PR) – ATK and the Liberty program announced an independent assessment team and their first tasking to advise the company on development of its commercial human certification plan for the Liberty system, which includes the launch vehicle, upper stage, abort system, composite spacecraft, ground and mission operations, crew and passenger training and a test flight crew.

{...}

 

[Kyle]

Images with the Liberty Capsule & Liberty Logistics Module.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Liberty Would Deliver Crew and Cargo to ISS in Same Flight

 

[T.Neo]

I like how the Liberty spacecraft rendering uses what is presumably a very old ISS model, with the CAM and SPP still present...

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty

 

[PhantomCruiser]

A favorite among high ranking NASA managers? I smell something...

 

[Urwumpe]

A favorite among high ranking NASA managers? I smell something...

Smells like...victory. :thumbup:

 

[T.Neo]

It may be victory for the vendor, but everyone's own product is always their favourite...

This sounds suspect to me;

This results in tremendous value since all other commercial offerings would need two flights to accomplish what Liberty does in one.

This value is determined by other, highly variable factors. The ISS already has a crew on hand to unload cargo (crew size has not seemed to pose a problem for the four other cargo vehicles that have visited the station), and there is no effective cost decrease if the launch/spacecraft are twice the price of the competing systems. The shuttle demonstrated that such claims (i.e. the advantage of launching a human crew together with satellites, for example) can be very distant from reality.

 

[Urwumpe]

The shuttle demonstrated that such claims (i.e. the advantage of launching a human crew together with satellites, for example) can be very distant from reality.

Yes, it didn't deliver the payload for free and not on native platinum dishes encrusted with yellow diamonds. :facepalm:

 

[T.Neo]

Delivering payloads for free and on platters of diamond-encrusted platinum was never a requirement of the shuttle, but it is not too much to ask that a vehicle provide a useful service at a decent price. Considering that numerous satellites have been launched successfully and at a relatively low price by other vehicles, it can be argued that the supposed value in the shuttle's crew-and-cargo combination was, if not entirely superfluous, certainly not worth the extra risk and cost that it entailed when part of that particular system.

 

[Urwumpe]

Delivering payloads for free and on platters of diamond-encrusted platinum was never a requirement of the shuttle, but it is not too much to ask that a vehicle provide a useful service at a decent price. Considering that numerous satellites have been launched successfully and at a relatively low price by other vehicles, it can be argued that the supposed value in the shuttle's crew-and-cargo combination was, if not entirely superfluous, certainly not worth the extra risk and cost that it entailed when part of that particular system.

You forget one thing: Delivery of space station components. Launching satellites with the Shuttle is really something pretty useless unless you need crew interaction there.

But when you need crew interaction (IVA, EVA) the Shuttle concept was irreplacable.

Can you have delivered cargo on unmanned flights and crew on separate manned flights for a space station? Sure. But not as effective as if you deliver both in one flight, because the space station module needs far less overhead and can be optimized better for its duty in space. If you only look at the first 10 minutes of a mission, the ascent, the Space Shuttle really fares bad. But what about the other years?

 

[T.Neo]

But when you need crew interaction (IVA, EVA) the Shuttle concept was irreplacable.

I don't think it helps to compare solely to the ISS, as the ISS was designed around the capabilities of the shuttle and would therefore obviously require them.

Granted, comparison to the ISS at some point is unavoidable, since the sample size of station construction is low and the ISS is the largest such project conducted so far...

If you only look at the first 10 minutes of a mission, the ascent, the Space Shuttle really fares bad. But what about the other years?

The problem is that how something fares in those first 10 minutes is crucial to determining its success elsewhere. I'm not saying that the shuttle was not a very capable vehicle (it was)- or even saying that capabilities such as having a human crew onboard to repair or rescue satellites, are useless. It's just that the value of a trait needs to be determined by the situation at hand and how various different factors interact with eachother.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't think it helps to compare solely to the ISS, as the ISS was designed around the capabilities of the shuttle and would therefore obviously require them.


Granted, comparison to the ISS at some point is unavoidable, since the sample size of station construction is low and the ISS is the largest such project conducted so far...

We could also draw the comparison to Mir. Mir modules had been separate indepedent spacecraft: They had a very high mass (in form of subsystems) that did not contribute to the spacestation but only existed for getting the module to the station.

The launch phase limited the modules, and the advantages of the US Shuttle concept gets easily visible there: The modules at the station are lighter and simpler, have less rudiments of their launch. This is also an advantage for the station mission: The lower mass of the modules saves fuel for reboosts and attitude control.

The problem is that how something fares in those first 10 minutes is crucial to determining its success elsewhere. I'm not saying that the shuttle was not a very capable vehicle (it was)- or even saying that capabilities such as having a human crew onboard to repair or rescue satellites, are useless. It's just that the value of a trait needs to be determined by the situation at hand and how various different factors interact with eachother.

Yes, but you are arguing too launch-focussed and that view is what I wanted to oppose. The launch is not the most important thing of a mission, it is just one very important milestone among many more or less important milestones. Furthermore, the launch is not what you design your spacecraft for in first place. You design it in first place for the mission you have in mind, and then adapt it in a way that can be launched by available launchers (or design the launcher for it).

That is what I meant with these ten minutes. The mission isn't successful after just 10 minutes. The launch is just the most dramatic event, the visible birth of a mission, after many years (or decades) of gestation in the R&D hell.

In Orbiter, you maybe already stop playing after reaching orbit or docking to a station. In reality, the fun just starts.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, but you are arguing too launch-focussed and that view is what I wanted to oppose. The launch is not the most important thing of a mission, it is just one very important milestone among many more or less important milestones. Furthermore, the launch is not what you design your spacecraft for in first place. You design it in first place for the mission you have in mind, and then adapt it in a way that can be launched by available launchers (or design the launcher for it).

Perhaps some confusion has arisen; I do indeed simply see launch as a means to an end, though due to its high cost and considerable risk, a fairly important part of the mission. It isn't about designing around the launch, but maximising the effectiveness of the launch phase in order to maximise mission productivity and the real 'fun' of spaceflight that you refer to.

Garbage disposal should not need to be an epic of uncertainty and adventure, but someone has to take interest in it, lest trash pile up on the streets.

In any case, Liberty is not (or at least, is no longer) simply a launch vehicle, but now a system including both an LV and a spacecraft.

 

[N_Molson]

I already had thoughts about a capsule that would have a cargo bay attached behind it. Interesting to see that concept coming to life. When I was thinking about it, my main concern was about the structural rigidity of the thing during launch/ascent (because you can't have more than 2 support beams to extract freely the payload). Looks like they managed to get through this.

Now it would be interesting to add a re-entry capacity to the cargo module... I guess it would add a lot of dead mass, though, and require a more powerful launcher. :hmm:

 

[Capt_hensley]

I thought Liberty was supposed to be a quick man rated solution LV for anything it could house in an adapter ring, or fairing? Right now it's just vaporware! ATK needs get off thier collective buts and build it, otherwise we all can just shutup and color untill it happens!

I like this Idea, but right now it's all bark, and no bite. Let's just wait for more updates, hopefuly about the movement of an article to the launch pad.

 

[downix]

Just an FYI, appears that the A3 is getting a major kick off, as the Liberty test vehicle in 2014:

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/liberty-tv.htm

Now 3 segments (as the half-segment which was to be part of the Ares V development was never developed) and two Castor 120's on top. Nice render of the vehicle too on there.

 

[orb]

Spaceflight Now: ATK 'moving on' after Liberty commercial proposal loss

 

[RGClark]

Spaceflight Now: ATK 'moving on' after Liberty commercial proposal loss

Seems to imply they won't be developing it.
The ESA if they wanted their own manned space flight system could get it quickly by using the Ariane 5 core stage alone with the addition of a second Vulcain engine, capable of carrying a Dragon-sized capsule to orbit.
Even the Dragon is larger than it needs to be just to LEO. If you made a capsule half its size to carry just three passengers, then by cutting the size of the Ariane 5 core to half-size you could loft the half-size capsule to orbit on just a single Vulcain engine.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Seems to imply they won't be developing it.
The ESA if they wanted their own manned space flight system could get it quickly by using the Ariane 5 core stage alone with the addition of a second Vulcain engine, capable of carrying a Dragon-sized capsule to orbit.

Please explain with proper engineering. No links to your forum posts in which you do calculations that aren't even accurate enough to be called a first order estimate. Let me tell you again, why:

Even if you assume that the structural mass does not increase for adding a second engine (which would), you would get less thrust force than weight force at sea level thrust (but only 11 kN). Even if you would launch without the 13 tons of Payload by the Dragon, a naked stage with magic mass-less fairing, the acceleration at launch would be 0.61 m/s² - after 100 seconds of flight, the rocket would finally pass 4 km altitude.

I didn't do anything special, no math that goes beyond thrust equation or rocket equation. No estimates or calculations for the changes on the structural mass. All I did was researching the proper numbers, pay attention to the context of the numbers (sea-level thrust vs vacuum thrust) and never mix numbers of the wrong context with each other.

That is a first-order estimate. Simplified math and estimation models still require proper input data to minimize the errors. Also, if I would be doing a proper first order estimate, I would also keep track of the large error margins that my model still has and include them in the presentation: Only that with all numbers on the favorable end of the errors a third Vulcain II engine could permit launching it does not mean that it is feasible.

With error margins included (I am not paid for doing this, but it costs you only 2 x 110 € for the two hours of math and documentation for me to do it), I would get a probability how likely it is that this configuration could work out, especially compared to other solutions. I would guesstimate, that the three-engine version has only a 30% chance of reaching the performance goals.

Even the Dragon is larger than it needs to be just to LEO. If you made a capsule half its size to carry just three passengers, then by cutting the size of the Ariane 5 core to half-size you could loft the half-size capsule to orbit on just a single Vulcain engine.

Since the first order estimate is already negative, you can already stop here and return to meditation.