Lockheed Martin/ATK Plan 2nd Generation Athena

[edkyle99]

On March 25, 2010, Lockheed Martin and ATK announced they would team to develop a family of second generation Athena launch vehicles.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... thena.html

The new Athena rockets would use Castor 120 and Castor 30 solid motors made by ATK. The new Castor 30, which would replace the old Athena's UTC Orbus 21D motor, would serve as the second stage of Athena 1c and the third stage of Athena 2c (as well as the second stage of Orbital's new Taurus 2). Athena 1c should be able to lift more than 700 kg to LEO. The press release states that Athena 2c will lift 1,712 kg to LEO, but on paper the rocket looks able to lift up to 2 tonnes.

Athena 1c will likely compete against Minotaur 1 and Falcon 1e. Athena 2c matches up against Taurus 1 and Minotaur 4/5.

- Ed Kyle

 

[vulture4]

Lockheed had a good reason for giving up the Athena before - it wasn't competitive. Other than a probable subsidy to hire people displaced by the end of Shuttle, what has changed? If Orbital and SpaceX can already launch the relatively few payloads available in this class, won't creating a new launcher in the same class increase costs? What new technology is being developed? how will it lower the overall cost of space access in the future? ULA eliminated the Delta II because they sisn't see a sufficient market. We need projects that can attract commercial payloads, not one that will spend tax dollars.

There's plenty of productive work to do, but it's hard to see how spending money on such an old design will benefit our balance of payments.

 

[edkyle99]

Lockheed had a good reason for giving up the Athena before - it wasn't competitive. Other than a probable subsidy to hire people displaced by the end of Shuttle, what has changed? If Orbital and SpaceX can already launch the relatively few payloads available in this class, won't creating a new launcher in the same class increase costs? What new technology is being developed? how will it lower the overall cost of space access in the future? ULA eliminated the Delta II because they sisn't see a sufficient market. We need projects that can attract commercial payloads, not one that will spend tax dollars.

There's plenty of productive work to do, but it's hard to see how spending money on such an old design will benefit our balance of payments.

I'm not sure how this project will "spend tax dollars", since it is a commercial effort. If anything, it might save tax dollars by offering more launch services competition.

What has changed since Athena last flew in 2001? A world of things.

ATK has developed Castor 30 to serve as an upper stage for a reborn Athena. Atlas 2, Atlas 3, Titan 4, and Titan 23G have all ended their runs. Shuttle and Delta 2 are soon to go (no coincidence I suspect that Athena 2nd Gen is to start flying in 2012, the same year that Delta 2 stops flying). The EELVs have entered service and proven to be ghastly more expensive than predicted. Russia's START is gone, and Rokot seems to be falling out of favor. Japan has flown its last M-V rocket. Worldwide launch prices have risen quite a bit. Obama has shut down missile defense, driving up baseline costs for Pegasus, Taurus 1, Minotaur 1, and so forth. Pegasus didn't fly last year and may be on its last legs. Same for Taurus 1. SpaceX has flown and abandoned its original Falcon 1, with plans to replace it with a Falcon 1e that will out-lift Athena 1c and thus won't really be in a head-to-head fight all the time.

Minotaur and Taurus 1 can't be used for "commercial" payloads under normal rules, so there is more potential for Athena than meets the eye, I suspect. The real driver may be "commercial" imaging ("spy") satellites launched for commercial companies that typically sell their data to the U.S. government. (A precursor to what is happening with NASA's manned spaceflight program perhaps.)

As for the balance of payments, Athena is entirely a "U.S." rocket, unlike, say, Taurus 2, large parts of which are being built by Ukrainian and Russian workers, or Atlas 5 with its Russian engines and European payload fairings, etc..

- Ed Kyle

 

[vulture4]

You make some good points. But competition only lowers costs in the commercial market. In government launches, where prices are driven by costs, the opposite often occurs; the EELVs are a case in point; if competition can bring down cost, why didn't it work? Partly, it's because the government pays what it has to, and often seems motivated to keep its contractors in business. The Athena website mentions only NASA, DOD, and "other customers", presumably a metaphor for the intelligence agencies. The word "commercial" does not even appear. And there is already a subsidy from Florida which, to hear Space Florida, was essential to getting this started. The payload capacities are less important than launch cost. Can Lockheed and ATK really launch a given payload less expensively than SpaceX when you include the effect of lower launch rates? It will be interesting to see how many genuine commercial customers they get.

 

[edkyle99]

You make some good points. But competition only lowers costs in the commercial market. In government launches, where prices are driven by costs, the opposite often occurs; the EELVs are a case in point; if competition can bring down cost, why didn't it work? Partly, it's because the government pays what it has to, and often seems motivated to keep its contractors in business. The Athena website mentions only NASA, DOD, and "other customers", presumably a metaphor for the intelligence agencies. The word "commercial" does not even appear. And there is already a subsidy from Florida which, to hear Space Florida, was essential to getting this started. The payload capacities are less important than launch cost. Can Lockheed and ATK really launch a given payload less expensively than SpaceX when you include the effect of lower launch rates? It will be interesting to see how many genuine commercial customers they get.

It *will* be interesting.

One thing Athena has going for it is a proven launch history from sites that still exist both at the Cape and at Kodiak (its Vandenberg pad has been converted for Delta 4). SpaceX only has a single spartan Falcon 1 (not yet set up for Falcon 1e) launch site in remote Omelek in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Orbital has only flown Taurus 1 (and soon Minotaur 4/5) from Vandenberg. Lockheed Athena's launch site infrastructure is a plus compared to these competitors, who would need to invest in comparable ground facilities to handle comparable launches.

DoD's EELV plan was to replace Titan 4, Atlas 2, and Delta 2 with one EELV family. This would have been a reduction from three launch companies to only one. Initially, DoD changed its mind about "winner take all" and only got three down to two, but then ULA managed to make it "one". One company controlling *all* medium to heavy lift orbital launch for the government is clearly a reduction in "competition". Why should DoD be surprised that costs have risen?

- Ed Kyle

 

[EarthlingX]

Standards allowing interchangeability would lower prices, not winner takes it all. That just asks for gray area treatment, with so much money involved.

Defining payload dimensions and requirements doesn't sound too complicated, since at least a couple of more or less standard proprietary solutions are already available.

Why should be DoD bound to some proprietary interfacing standard for it's own payloads, and services, for which i'am almost sure, they pay at least decently ? If they have a standard, what's the problem then ?

Buy from those who meet requirements and standards, buy more from those with better reliability record.

 

[vulture4]

Lockheed Athena's launch site infrastructure is a plus compared to these competitors, who would need to invest in comparable ground facilities to handle comparable launches.

Not sure if the infrastructure is really there yet. It appears at least $10M in state funds is committed to prepare the pad, in return for 125 jobs in politically critical Florida.

DoD's EELV plan was to replace Titan 4, Atlas 2, and Delta 2 with one EELV family. This would have been a reduction from three launch companies to only one. Initially, DoD changed its mind about "winner take all" and only got three down to two, but then ULA managed to make it "one". One company controlling *all* medium to heavy lift orbital launch for the government is clearly a reduction in "competition". Why should DoD be surprised that costs have risen?

DOD could have awarded each launch to the low bidder, as the competitive model would suggest. Instead they divided them, leaving both EELV programs with launch rates well below capacity and the Delta operation in the red, even with the fees DOD was wiling to pay, which are substantially above world market rates. ULA has at least saved some money by merging operations, though it must maintain two completely different launch vehicles.

Obama has shut down missile defense, driving up baseline costs for Pegasus, Taurus 1, Minotaur 1, and so forth.

Exactly my point. Dividing the handful of govenment-funded payloads in the small LEO class between three companies rather than two will drive up baseline costs for all.

Pegasus didn't fly last year and may be on its last legs. Same for Taurus 1.

Pegasus has a mission next year: http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=685 Indeed, if there are really enough small LEO payloads to support another launch contractor, why aren't Orbital and SpaceX flying more often?

SpaceX has flown and abandoned its original Falcon 1, with plans to replace it with a Falcon 1e that will out-lift Athena 1c and thus won't really be in a head-to-head fight all the time.

Lift capacity is only one factor in cost; launch rate also plays a substantial role, as you pointed out. If Athena really has a significant cost advantage over SpaceX and Orbital based on advanced design and efficient operations, then by all means they deserve to win. But in that case they should have no trouble getting commercial customers as well. Conversely, if their advantage is based on the overwhelming political pressure for more jobs in Florida, which will certainly influence administration decisions, then it's more difficult to justify, since with lower utilization of all three launch systems, the cost to the taxpayers will go up, not down. SpaceX has been competing for and winning commercial payloads even from foreign payload operators, helping the balance of payments and not increasing the deficit. Lockheed, as the lead partner in both ULA and Athena, does not seem interested in competing in that arena.

 

[gawin]

I think they are thinking not so far ahead and realize that the GPS system of satellites need to be replaced very soon as it is already starting to fail.

That is 24 launches coming up in that size range.

 

[edkyle99]

I think they are thinking not so far ahead and realize that the GPS system of satellites need to be replaced very soon as it is already starting to fail.

That is 24 launches coming up in that size range.

New GPS launches will be performed by Atlas V and Delta IV. The first is to fly on a Delta IV that is currently standing on SLC 37B at the Cape. The launch is expected to occur in May.

- Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle99]

Lockheed Athena's launch site infrastructure is a plus compared to these competitors, who would need to invest in comparable ground facilities to handle comparable launches.

Not sure if the infrastructure is really there yet. It appears at least $10M in state funds is committed to prepare the pad, in return for 125 jobs in politically critical Florida.

Some work is obviously needed, since the sites have been mothballed for nearly a decade now, but the hard parts - the flame ducts, the launch mounts (one was stored at the Cape), the service towers, etc., already exist at both the Cape and at Kodiak. Athena was a low-infrastructure bird. It came from the Lockheed side, not the Martin side, of today's Lockheed Martin. In retrospect, it was *too* "low-cost" at first, since some aspects of its borrowed piece-part design were quickly found wanting.

If Athena really has a significant cost advantage over SpaceX and Orbital based on advanced design and efficient operations, then by all means they deserve to win. But in that case they should have no trouble getting commercial customers as well. Conversely, if their advantage is based on the overwhelming political pressure for more jobs in Florida, which will certainly influence administration decisions, then it's more difficult to justify, since with lower utilization of all three launch systems, the cost to the taxpayers will go up, not down. SpaceX has been competing for and winning commercial payloads even from foreign payload operators, helping the balance of payments and not increasing the deficit. Lockheed, as the lead partner in both ULA and Athena, does not seem interested in competing in that arena.

SpaceX, Orbital, and Lockheed Martin grappling for smallsat launch business, government and commercial, seems destined to leave blood on the floor. I suspect that one of these players must lose. It should be whichever costs too much. Driving out the high cost provider, if that is what happens, should result in a net savings for the taxpayer.

- Ed Kyle