Recommended Posts

To compete for US Air Force EELV launches.

 

Sounds like their ATK Liberty Commercial Crew launcher concept, which was a second bite at the apple after the Constellation Program Ares I launcher for Orion was cancelled.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/spacex-rocket-orbital/

 

 

Quote

This SpaceX Competitor Just Unveiled a New Rocket

 

It could be a new player in the battle for military and commercial missions to space.

 

Orbital ATK on Tuesday unveiled plans for a new rocket to compete against United Launch Alliance and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies for missions to launch U.S. military and commercial satellites.

 

Orbital’s Next Generation Launcher is based on the solid-rocket strap-on boosters that flew on NASA’s space shuttles, Orbital Business Development Director John Steinmeyer said at the 2016 Space Congress conference in Cape Canaveral.

 

The company plans to buy the rocket’s second stage from Jeff Bezos’ space company, Blue Origin.

 

Currently, United Launch Alliance—a partnership of Lockheed Martin  LMT 0.61%  and Boeing  BA -0.06% — and Musk’s SpaceX  SPACEX 0.00%  are the only companies certified to launch U.S. military and national security satellites.

 

“We’re working cooperatively with the Air Force to make sure there’s room for three players,” Steinmeyer said in an interview with Reuters.

Orbital would launch the rocket from one of the space shuttle’s old launchpads at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

 

If the Air Force maintained requirements for a West Coast launch site as well, Orbital could refurbish a pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Steinmeyer said.

 

Orbital in January won an Air Force contract worth up to $180 million to develop rocket propulsion technologies. Steinmeyer declined to say how much Orbital was investing in the project.
>

 

 

Liberty.png

 

Edited by DocM

Stephen Clark of Space News tweeted a slide of the layout, but it was shot at an angle which messed up the perspective. Fortunately, we can mitigate that :)

 

Straightened slide below.  I'm assuming the CASTOR solids are their 96 inch units, and their length is also in inches. Conversions added.

 

My translation. If anyone can get more out of it, go for it.

 

1-6 GEM 63XL solids (Atlas V is ditching its AJR solids for these)

Core diameters:  2.438 meter (96 inch)

 

S1 (2 seg): CASTOR 600 (600 in/15.24m)

S1 (4 seg Heavy): CASTOR 1200 (1200 in/30.48m)

S2: CASTOR 300 (300 in/7.62m)

 

S3 specs

Diameter: 5.25 meter
Engine: BE-3U-EN (extendable nozzle)
Propellants:  LOX/LH2 
Thrust: 120 klbf (534 kN)
Features: deep throttle, restartable

 

Payload fairing: 5.25x15 meters

 

Adjusted slide

f51648c88712ebaf1771bcea10605d0a.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • 9 months later...

I don't see this flying, it's Ares I with a different upper stage and will need boosters to get heavy payloads up. The acoustics will be murder, which was the death knell of Constellation. Without really heavy dampeners astronauts riding Ares I  would have been turned into tomato soup, and those made it impossible to lift Orion to a decent orbit..

  • Like 1
  • 9 months later...

Mostly paywalled, it makes you wonder what they didn't like about the Blue Origin BE-3U. 

 

Good luck in getting AJR to bring the price down on the RL-10, and I would imagine getting USAF or congressional approval for a foreign upper stage engine on defense payloads isn't going to be a walk in the park  either.

 

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-ngl

 

OrbitalATK is considering the Aerojet-Rocketdyne RL10 or Ariane Group Vinci rocket engine for its Next Generation Launcher upper stage after rejecting Blue Origin's BE-3U. Decision expected in Q1 2018.....

Uuuughh ... the RL-10 is seriously underpowered for anything beyond satellite tasks (it could barely deal with Cygnus, and had almost zero margins left for that) unless and until it gets clustered, and there's no way that the USAF will use another foreign engine for DoD payloads again.

 

Possible use for the Interim Upper Stage for SLS, maybe? I'd sure love for it to see some action beyond the one or two flights, and it'd be trivial to adapt it for ATK's new rocket. New software and adapters, maybe a bulkhead and the panels. Otherwise it wouldn't take a heck of a lot to adapt it, really. 20% redesign/repurpose isn't a lot really. Oh, and four RL-10's are gonna have some throwing capability. :yes: 

I think the idea for Centaur V (5.4m core instead of the usual 3 meter) and ACES is to use up to four RL-10's.

 

One thing that could drop the cost is that AJ-R recently tested a 3D printed thrust chambe4,

 

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-achieves-3-d-printing-milestone-successful-testing-full-scale-rl10-copper

 

20170403_AM.jpg

  • Like 1

There's a lot of 3D printing going on. NASA has been working on 3D printed nozzles, and just about everyone in aerospace is trying to see what can be printed and what can't.  SpaceX prints turbopumps, valves, SuperDraco thrusters and much of Raptor.

 

So far it looks like 3D printing cuts the part count by at least 90%, with a similar reduction in waste. What's not to like?

  • Like 1
  • 2 months later...

DoD is re-doing EELV as EELV 2, and AIUI new participants need to bid on all launch types and payload classes - a direct response to ULA refusing to bid on the GPS-3 launch SpaceX then won by default. This after SpaceX won the previous round by a LOT.

 

NGL can meet the GTO 18,000 lb launch requirement, but I haven't seen anything  to meet the 14,500 lb GEO 2 requirement, which a direct injection to GEO launch.

 

 

eelv_rfp_reference_orbits.jpg

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!