Flip Flopping at DoD Over Solid Rockets

Payton had said earlier that there wouldn't be a major impact on solids as DoD doesn't use the large segmented solids on EELVs. He said there would be some impact on ICBMs, but that was apparently not a major issue.

Keith:

There may well be programs requiring large solids
that I am unaware of. However, as far as I know we
need solid production to support testing and
replacement of Trident, and the 450 remaining
Minuteman III/Peacekeeper’s, and for the
development of the strike from the homeland
(or whatever they are calling it now), suborbital
hypersonic program (now using the minotaur for tests).
That along with the small solid rocket requirement is
enough to support a smaller ATK. They don't need
NASA for survival, they need NASA for profits. Heaven
forbid they should spend some money on developing
a hybrid solid so that they could get limited
throttleability, cost competitiveness, and grow
their market share because they deserve it in the
marketplace.

DOD needs to buy what DOD needs not budget NASA’
budget.

Is it just me or is that Rueters blip really weak?

The DoD has been pushing NASA around on many issues such as NPOESS or trying to offload ULA (which gave up long ago on non-government business) onto the agency. Sure, ULA rockets are very reliable but the fact is they are quite expensive and they've essentially given on real commercial payloads which, instead, have gone over to Ariane and Russian boosters (and moreso now when the Soyuz launch pad in Kourou begins operations).

We need to start focusing on what NASA needs without letting the DoD (with a much larger space budget) drive its requirements. ATK has been singled out as the 'black sheep' but, in fact, there is plenty of blame to go around starting back in the days ULA was created (Keith, remember the 'resistance is futile' posts some years ago?).

The bottom line is that we don't need four (or more) U.S. launchers competing for commercial and government LEO to GEO payloads. Two launchers would be just fine to meet U.S. needs and still provide reasonable competition, so let the market do its job. ULA had its chance and blew it, so it's time for the Commercial Spaceflight Federation to put its money where it's mouth is and let Falcon, Minotaur, Delta, and Atlas compete fairly.

This has nothing to do with NASA's need for a real HLV that can support BEO missions without requiring more than 2 launches to assemble a spacecraft. Trying to do this with smaller launchers would be wonderful for these companies but it is not practical nor cost-effective for NASA. This was already discussed in the early Apollo days where an EOR mission turned out requiring an absurd number of smaller Saturn I and IIs. In any case the CSF shouldn't whine about this since, after all, its members will be the ones contracted to build the stages of this new HLV.

P.S. Speaking of reducing launch costs ... CSF should start considering a launch range on the equator. Until they do that both Ariane, and now Soyuz-Fregat, will retain a significant edge (typically two additional years of GEO satellite lifetime ... which is not insignificant).

Keith, who from DOD complained? Are they more senior than the people who aren't complaining?

decdogluvr, this is important news because there are people in Congress saying NASA needs to buy solid rockets to protect America.

Trying to do this with smaller launchers would be wonderful for these companies but it is not practical nor cost-effective for NASA.

Sure, it is definitely more cost-effective to spend $40+ billion to design and build a new government operated single-customer heavy lift rocket than to use the "smaller" launchers currently available in the marketplace.

Because NASA is going to have money left over to actually purchase an exploration payload once the deca-billion development costs and multiple billion per flight costs have consumed the entire human spaceflight budget.

Agree. SRB processing is very expensive and contributed to high Shuttle costs, economics of reuse have questionable from the start and decision to use them on Ares was inexplicable. There is no commonality between the SRBs and any DOD system. Money still being spent on Ares is wasted.

HLVs don't appear to make sense either. We are not going to have another Project Apollo. It was canceled in 1974 because it was too expensive, and it still is. Human spaceflight BEO will be practical when its cost can be reduced by at least a factor of ten, and not before. If for some unknown reason we really need an HLV, we could simply procure one from ULA or SpaceX since no really new or high-risk technology is involved.

@RC: No kidding. I work for SRBs. My comment was towards the "heresay" nature of the Rueters blip. Where's the names, facts, dates, etc.? More fodder?

More uninformed posts by a shuttle person. The DOD has NOT been trying to offload ULA onto NASA. If anything, it is the opposite. NASA missions impact the DOD launch manifest. Also, ULA has not blown it, it has kept the EELV costs down.

@decdogluvr

What addition details do you need from Rueters? The article:

1. Quotes Brett Lambert
2. Identifies him as "the Pentagon's top official for industrial policy"
3. Says that Lambert made the statement on July 19 at the Farnborough Airshow

The statement that the solid rocket industry is "over capacity" means, IMO, that the current demand for solids, both DoD and NASA, isn't enough for ATK to keep two separate facilities active. Neither of their Utah facilities are even near "capacity" or capability. At least thats what the intent of the statement was.

The original statement simply means that if NASA cancels CxP and no longer needs solids, then the DOD pays the entire bill to keep ATK in business.

Both are valid comments.

The words in the separate statements may sound confusing, but the above is what they meant.

Vulture, got any numbers to back up your claims? Also, the most efficient LV has solids as the first stage (t/w) and liquids as the core and/or second stage (ISP).

@1cosmigirl:

I don't know about you but when I go to buy a car, I do my homework. I don't buy it 'cause the salesman says the car is the "greatest".

I want to know:

(1) "over capacity" - Give me numbers, facts.

(2) "consolidation was long overdue" - Details people!

(3) That's it! That's all this Rueters clip said. How lame!

Keith,

Sorry for delay in commenting, but no senior official from the Defense Department *ever* commented publicly on the record against the cancellation of Ares 1 (or of an SRB-using HLLV). In fact, Charlie Bolden spoke to multiple senior DOD officials about this topic BEFORE the President's budget was released.

Everyone complaining about how terrible it is for national security for NASA to stop using large segmented solid rocket motors has been:

a) a politician from Utah
b) an ATK consultant or employee
c) an ATK fanboy

The *ONLY* impact on ICBMs or other national security uses of solid rockets is that because NASA isn't buying as much of the raw material (ammonium perchlorate), the per-pound price might go up a little.

Of course, it's really cheap to subsidize a production price like this. Much cheaper than designing/building/launching SRBs. Cheaper than
the savings from sharing the fixed costs of EELV production between DOD and NASA.

- Jim