News ATK & Astrium Liberty™ Launch Vehicle

[Urwumpe]

Well, they think that the rocket isn't really intended to fly - it's there just to siphon money from the commercial development programme and thus make it harder for others to compete.

I don't know how true is that, I am just re-phrasing what I read there.

They then acting pretty stupid and maybe too much used to NASA work ethics. EADS is not known for not building stuff, they are known for redesigning and delaying roll out. :lol: (And of course, such a presentation already costs a fair share of money, that has to be earned again)

I am pretty sure, that such a launcher would be evil for the smaller companies, because it is two large companies joining forces and reusing the infrastructure that should be redesigned for their needs. Of course it steals "their money, that they could potentially have".

But seeing it in the light of a bit more realpolitik, such a blend of STS and Ariane technology could be the better gap filler. It must not be a program for all eternity, but it offers a good transition. It buys the USA time to restructure the spaceflight program, has US hardware still flying from KSC, so it is no longer about "burning KSC down and building it back up again", and it keeps a large part of ATK in business, which is politically not the worst.

And there is of course another problem: The ATK+EADS idea is perfectly following the rules. It is not illegal, you would have to make Orbital Sciences, LMM and Boeing quit the programs as well and leave only SpaceX if you would change the rules that could ban EADS. It is a bit hard to make spaceflight without having a major share of the parts come from abroad.

 

[tblaxland]

I would also like to think that if it "isn't really intended to fly", such things would become evident to the bid reviewers. They would have a great deal more detailed data on the proposal than is available in the blogosphere.

And there is of course another problem: The ATK+EADS idea is perfectly following the rules. It is not illegal, you would have to make Orbital Sciences, LMM and Boeing quit the programs as well and leave only SpaceX if you would change the rules that could ban EADS. It is a bit hard to make spaceflight without having a major share of the parts come from abroad.

:goodposting:

 

[zerofay32]

Also, isn't compitition good for the industry. To me this idea is a little out of left field, but I hope that it causes other companies to look at similar "frankenstein" rockets as a way to fill the gap. But like Urwumpe said, such vehicles should only be a temporary "gap filler".

 

[Victor_D]

But seeing it in the light of a bit more realpolitik, such a blend of STS and Ariane technology could be the better gap filler. It must not be a program for all eternity, but it offers a good transition. It buys the USA time to restructure the spaceflight program, has US hardware still flying from KSC, so it is no longer about "burning KSC down and building it back up again", and it keeps a large part of ATK in business, which is politically not the worst.

There's another complaint about that that I read there. Some claim it can't be made ready to fly in the time frame that's proposed. Vulcain-2 needs to be made air startable (I have no idea how long would that take, I am not an engineer), then if it's true the Ariane-5 core stage can't be used as it is it will have to be redesigned and tested, and there will still be issues with vibrations caused by the solid booster underneath it.

I guess we'll see, but as I understand it, the people at nasaspaceflight believe these issues can hardly be resolved in time and so if Liberty is chosen by the NASA brass it will then get delayed and most likely cancelled later without ever having flown.

Others say that the issue isn't with launchers, the US already has plenty of medium-lift rockets available to it - Delta-IV, Falcon-9 to name just a couple - but with spaceships where there's just the Dragon that's anywhere close to being able to fly.

And there is of course another problem: The ATK+EADS idea is perfectly following the rules. It is not illegal, you would have to make Orbital Sciences, LMM and Boeing quit the programs as well and leave only SpaceX if you would change the rules that could ban EADS. It is a bit hard to make spaceflight without having a major share of the parts come from abroad.

I agree, maybe that's why the proposal evokes so many vitriolic reactions

Personally, my main issue with this rocket is its low payload mass to LEO (and its cost). And possibly that it doesn't really fit into the European strategy, if there's any. Unless it could also be launched from Kourou (which would require another new launch pad, which won't be easy to push through after the experience with the building of the Soyuz pad), what role could it play in Europe's plans?

 

[Urwumpe]

There's another complaint about that that I read there. Some claim it can't be made ready to fly in the time frame that's proposed. Vulcain-2 needs to be made air startable (I have no idea how long would that take, I am not an engineer), then if it's true the Ariane-5 core stage can't be used as it is it will have to be redesigned and tested, and there will still be issues with vibrations caused by the solid booster underneath it.

The Vulcain-2 isn't that complex, you can make it air-startable in a much shorter period of time than for example the SSME. The time frame is pretty optimistic, that is right, but only if you know that EADS never hits its own deadlines unless their life depends on it. Practically, EADS can also use a pretty large amount of research in both fields, since the European Space Flight Agencies all did some research in alternative and growth options for the Ariane 5 - the same as in the USA, where NASA also did research for Boeing & Co.

What would need to be done?

For the engine, the dependence on GSE has to be removed. Also even the minimal needs for thermal conditioning of the Vulcain-II have to be reduced. Since there was research already for this, it wouldn't start at zero. A test campaign of the engines could take between 2 years and 4 years, depending on the funding alone. The number of test hours can be considered constant for a man-rated launcher. Europe has the number of test stands for doing enough engine tests in a short time.

The structural changes would be mostly about doubling the number of structural longerons in the tank structures, so you would need to do all the vibration and static load testing for the stage. Could be done in a year, it isn't that much testing.

If EADS really wants to, it can be done in the time. It wouldn't even be a all or nothing program for EADS, they make enough money to pay such a development in a year. The problem is only refinancing this money. If NASA signals that EADS could get money for each successful development step, EADS has already a reason, as long as the rocket will not be used for GSO missions. It would then open a new market in their eyes and not compete with the Ariane 5.

The extra money could then also be welcome as funding for EADS ramp up the core stage production rates - currently, the launch rate of Ariane 5 is limited by the speed needed to building the rockets. If there would be an additional need for Liberty rockets for a few years, EADS could double the production rates and still only need to pay maybe a 20% growth by themselves, and see the rest by NASA and EU. That would be a pretty neat deal for EADS, even if it does not look that profitable at first glance.

 

[T.Neo]

I don't like Liberty, it is already twice the cost of Falcon 9H, with a far higher cost/kg (though Falcon 9H does have effectively 10 tons of extra mass... lifting... ability that the current launch market doesn't really need). Even if Falcon 9 was a good deal more expensive than $95 million, it'd still be cheaper than Liberty...

I don't want to delve into any sort of conspiracy here, but it just looks to me like a bid by ATK to 'keep them in the game' (a perfectly understandable move) while not offering any special cost advantages, and actually being more expensive than competing concepts...

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't like Liberty, it is already twice the cost of Falcon 9H

The Falcon 9H is also not build yet and its price a pretty mystery, since nobody really knows how SpaceX calculates. I would be careful with such statements.

 

[ky]

I'm wondering if someone can build this for orbit hanger.It would be pretty easy attatching a 5-segment shuttle srb to an araine 5 first stage and developing a new service module and capsule.Almost like Velcro Rockets.

 

[dougkeenan]

Oops I got to here w/o realizing this *wasn't* an add-on.

They're serious? Really?

 

[T.Neo]

The Falcon 9H is also not build yet and its price a pretty mystery, since nobody really knows how SpaceX calculates. I would be careful with such statements.

If Falcon 9H ended up costing more than twice the figure stated, it would end up as a pretty historically amusing mistake...

We already have Falcon 9 though, which can perform cargo and crew roles, and has a cost of $56 million- but this is also a SpaceX figure...

 

[Urwumpe]

We already have Falcon 9 though, which can perform cargo and crew roles, and has a cost of $56 million- but this is also a SpaceX figure...

Exactly. For the Falcon 9, $50 to $75 million would at least be realistic, it would then still be 5 times more expensive as a Soyuz-U rocket.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, but we all know how probable Soyuz-U getting the COTS contract would be. :lol:

 

[GoForPDI]

Imagine a Russian rocket launching US Astronauts... The horror!

''This is America! Speak American!''

 

[Capt_hensley]

Attn: URWUMPE

If your offer is valid, I also would like to put in my bid to see an add-on made from the parts already in existance. What's the big deal if we add another concept add-on to the pile of concept add-ons already here? I really like the idea, even if it's half baked

 

[Arthur Dent]

So the LEO payload of this hypothetical rocket is 22t ?
The Ariane 5 itself is capable of launching a payload of 21 t to LEO.

As they said, the Ariane 5 is flight-proven. An inline development of the Ariane 5 isn't. Isn't it simpler, quicker and cheaper to man-rate existing stuff, than developing an entire new configuration of partly existing stuff which would need manrating anyway?

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, it doesn't really take much effort, I just need to upper stage as vehicle to attach and fine tune some autopilot data.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Cool is there a capsule? Boeing CST-100 here abouts? I'll have a look.

Arthur Dent: Sure there will be some work, but the Airane 5 was already on it's way to man rating, so should be minimal work.

Found this site with some very nice detailed images
http://www.overoll.com/Content/Spac...e-space-tourist-market-/2010/9/19/341428.news

Yet another
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/23/22339/

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/ccv hires 01b.jpg

http://danielmarin.blogspot.com/2010/12/la-cst-100-toma-forma.html

It seems as though I can't find the CST model that was made for orbiter, I'll keep looking

 

[Krikkit]

So the LEO payload of this hypothetical rocket is 22t ?
The Ariane 5 itself is capable of launching a payload of 21 t to LEO.

As they said, the Ariane 5 is flight-proven. An inline development of the Ariane 5 isn't. Isn't it simpler, quicker and cheaper to man-rate existing stuff, than developing an entire new configuration of partly existing stuff which would need manrating anyway?

Thats 21t from Guiana.

You forget who will be flipping the bill for this one.

It must be launched from Kennedy, and must be at least mostly built in the US.

If they even considered launching a full French rocket from a french colony congress would go into an even larger fit than they went into when we tried to buy Airbus A330 to replace our KC-135s

 

[Urwumpe]

If they even considered launching a full French rocket from a french colony congress would go into an even larger fit than they went into when we tried to buy Airbus A330 to replace our KC-135s

Good example, since the A330 solution would have likely been better in terms of jobs created and had also been the only tanker aircraft in the competition that carried enough fuel for refueling more than two aircraft, but just had the problem of being "not invented here" and also meant that Boeing would have lost jobs...jobs that would have been lost already since the 767 is an obsolete plane that can't be sold to airlines anymore, while the A330 is pretty recent.

But that is how politics work - it isn't about what is best for your country, but what makes a congressman look good for a few minutes, before some journalist discovers that his decision was actually very stupid.

We should also have bought the An-70 plane instead of the A400... would have been better than this nonsense about the An-70 performance, which wasn't as good as the A400 on the paper, but now it seems to outperform the A400 in reality.

 

[orb]

As they said, the Ariane 5 is flight-proven. An inline development of the Ariane 5 isn't. Isn't it simpler, quicker and cheaper to man-rate existing stuff, than developing an entire new configuration of partly existing stuff which would need manrating anyway?

And would then Ariane 5 launch from KSC, or only from French Guiana (more here)?