Q&A with Mike Laidley, vice president of Orbital ATK’s Next Generation Launch program (members only)

Artist’s concept of Orbital ATK’s Next Generation Launch system. Credit: Orbital ATK

Mike Laidley leads development of Orbital ATK’s Next Generation Launch system, a rocket the commercial space company hopes will provide a foothold in the lucrative market to launch U.S. military satellites, a business currently dominated by SpaceX and United Launch Alliance.

The U.S. Air Force is preparing to select up to three companies later this year for Launch Services Agreements, the Pentagon’s name for cost-sharing public-private development contracts aimed at giving the military multiple launch options in the 2020s, all with U.S.-supplied propulsion systems.

ULA, which was the only launch provider certified by the Air Force until 2015, is retiring most of the configurations in its Delta 4 rocket family in 2019, followed by the phase-out of the Delta 4-Heavy version in the early or mid-2020s. The company says the Delta 4 is no longer competitive on cost.

ULA’s Atlas 5 will be replaced by the Vulcan rocket in the early 2020s, a two-stage launcher that will use U.S.-made engines. This Atlas 5, which is less expensive than the Delta 4, currently uses Russian-made RD-180 engines.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is the other major player in today’s national security launch market. Since its certification by the Air Force in 2015, the Falcon 9 has won contracts to launch five GPS navigation satellites, and is in the running for more military launch deals.

The Falcon Heavy rocket, which flies with three modified Falcon 9 rocket boosters bolted together, is not yet eligible to launch the military’s most expensive space missions. That certification will come once the Falcon Heavy accrues multiple successful flights, and goes through a detailed Air Force engineering review.

Orbital ATK is a newcomer to the market for launching large military communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites. But Laidley says the company’s Next Generation Launch system, which uses solid-fueled first and stage stage motors topped with a cryogenic liquid-fueled upper stage, is a solution the Air Force should consider.

The Air Force awarded funding in 2016 to ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne to work on U.S.-made propulsion technology to power new rockets, eyeing a replacement to the Russian RD-180 engine. The funding agreements required the companies to put forward some of their own money in the effort.

ULA directed much of its funding toward Blue Origin, the space company founded by’s Jeff Bezos which is testing the BE-4 engine fueled by liquified natural gas. ULA says Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine is their preferred option to power the Vulcan rocket’s first stage. SpaceX’s slice of the Air Force engine money went toward the company’s Raptor engine, a methane-fueled powerplant for a huge new rocket named the BFR, or Big Falcon Rocket.

Orbital ATK focused its funding on the Next Generation Launch system, while Aerojet Rocketdyne — an engine-builder, not a rocket operator — advanced the design of its AR1 engine, which ULA is keeping as a backup option for the Vulcan launcher in case the BE-4 runs into trouble.

The Air Force released a follow-up request for proposals in October, seeking bids for government funding to help launch companies pay for their next-generation rockets through the military’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. The Launch Services Agreements will be announced in the next few months to fund continued work on up to three launch vehicles, followed by a down-select to two providers in late 2019.

Laidley recently spoke with Spaceflight Now about the NGL program’s history, its business prospects and technical design.

Q: How long has the Next Generation Launch system been in development?

A: “We started working on this activity as part of the Air Force’s RD-180 replacement program. The Air Force was directed by Congress to go develop replacement options for the RD-180. The propulsion systems group put together a proposal for a solid first stage and second stage propulsion system to support RD-180 replacement … that are based on our shuttle-era heritage. The old segmented shuttle design was updated, and we’ve developed designs that are segmented, but have composite cases, and have new manufacturing processes to improve the efficiency of the overall production of the motors and motor segments.

In 2015, we were selected to move forward with those designs and the actual contract was signed, the Broad Agency Agreement was signed in January of 2016. But the team has been working since 2015 to put together the design for the propulsion element for this EELV program.

About the same time, on the launch vehicle side, we started working using our own internal funds to determine how we could use these propulsion products in a launch system that would support all the EELV mission requirements. The Air Force publishes requirements documents on the capability needs for all the payloads that are required by the Air Force, for both their own internal missions and the national security missions that they launch for others in the government.

We’ve been working to develop a launch system that would support those EELV mission requirements — all the different launch payload types and orbits. So we’ve been working on that now for about two-and-a-half years. Last year, that culminated in the Air Force’s Request for Proposals for the Launch Services Agreement phase of the development program. It’s what was previously called Step 3. It’s the LSA phase now. We submitted that proposal for that activity in November,  and we were notified in February that we were in the competitive range. We continue to work with the Air Force to negotiate and refine our proposal to support this next phase.

The LSA phase would cover the full launch vehicle devleopment for both the intermediate configuration and the heavy configurations, extending all the way through certification flights for both the intermediate and heavy configurations. The Air Force has told us their plan is to bring three partners into the LSA phase, and then in late 2019, there will be an LSP phase, a Launch Services Procurement phase, and in that procurement phase they will down-select to two providers to award missions to for future launch services.

We’ve been working to put together our designs for both the vehicle and the propulsion. We’ve made good progess on the propulsion side. We’ve been winding motor cases, and I think there’s been some photos of those released publicly. As we start through this process, we built these segmented cases so we can do loads testing, burst testing, and use them to devleop our manufacturing processes for winding insulation and ultimately pouring the overall motors. All of this is leading up to static fire testing of the first two stages of the intermediate class, what we’re calling the Castor 600, which is a two-segment first stage, and the Castor 300, a single-segment second stage. Those motors will static fire in 2019.”

Q: What does it mean for the NGL proposal to be considered in the competitive range by the Air Force?

A: “What that means is that they’ve completed their initial evaluation of our proposal. What that meant from our perspective is that our investments on the launch system can now count towards our contribution share ratio. We’ve been working this continuously, since we’ve been using a lot of our own money over 2016 and 2017, certainly all our own money on the launch vehicle side, to make sure that the propulsion products that are being developed under Rocket Propulsion Systems will have a launch vehicle family that will support the Air Force’s mission requirements.

We’ve invested a lot of our money to date, so it was important for the Air Force to evaluate our proposal and say that it’s adequate, and now any money we spend can ultiamtely be counted toward the cost share investment in the Launch Services Agreement. That’s the big feature of that notification for us, the ability to count our investments toward the cost share.”

Artist’s concept of Orbital ATK’s Next Generation Launch system in flight. Credit: Orbital ATK

Q: Is the composite case something new for NGL?

A: “Orbital ATK is a leading provider of composite motor cases. We fly composite motor cases on our Pegasus vehicles, our Minotaur uses the Orion products, and also the Antares uses the Castor 30XL, which is a composite wound second stage for the Antares vehicle. The propulsion systems group part of Orbital ATK has a solid history of building composite motor cases. Those cases are very reliable, and have functioned well for us over the years in Pegasus, Taurus, Minotaur and Antares, and also on our interceptor programs that we do for GMD, they use those same motor cases. The key here is that there’s some automated winding equipment that’s going to make it more efficient for us, and it’s an opportuniy to refine our processes and build these large 12-foot diameter segmented designs in a very efficient manner compared to the metal cases that were used in the shuttle era.”

Q: What’s the composite material?

A: It’s a special fiber and resin mix, but it’s basically a composite fiber.

Q: How confident are you going into the down-select this summer by the Air Force?

A: “We’re very confident that we’re going to receive selections for the next phase. We think that we offer the Air Force a good opportunity to maintain their prime directive of assured access to space. We think solid motor propulsion has a place in this market, and we’re anxious to provide that. We also think that we’ve got a diverse business base. We’re the only offer that has the kind of diversiy in the business base that we have. That provides the Air Force an opportunity, in a sense, that we’re able to better handle the changing launch rate. The peaks and valleys that the Air Force encounters over the years as the launch rate fluctuates we think we’ve got a good industrial base that allows us to move folks on or off and more flexibly handle changing launch rates.

We’re also designing this vehicle with a lot of common components and constituents compared to our other launch vehicle offerings. We’ve got avionics that we’ve developed in-house in our launch vehicle division, and those avionics fly in all of our launch vehicle products, from our small targets that we sell to the Navy, all the way up to Antares. As part of the NGL effort, we’re developnig a fault-tolerant version of those avionics, which basically involves taking multiple sets of software voting logic. That will be used for NGL, but certainly the components and constituents, from the flight computer to the flight termination system and batteries, are common between all our avionics. That gives the Air Force a lot of confidence that we have a system that’s got a solid flight history. We’re experienced at developing new launch vehicles. On average, we do a new launch vehicle every couple of years. So we think we’ve got a good offering for the Air Force, and we’re anxious to move forward into this next phase.”

Q: Do you plan to use the funding you would receive from the Launch Services Agreement to help pay for development of the entire launch vehicle?

A: “The Rocket Propulsion Systems money was restricted to primary propulsion usage. That was restricted to developing primary propulsion products that would support the RD-180 replacement. The LSA money, we need to use it for the launch system or the launch system infrastructure. It’s geared toward putting together an overall launch system. It’s not restricted to the use of any particular stage. We will use the cost-share money to fund the entire system.”

Q: So if you want a Launch Services Agreement, that covers NGL all the way through test flights?

A: “What the Air Force plans to do is once they award the LSP contracts, they would terminate the remaining LSA. They do have the opportunity to end the LSA agreement at any point in time, so it’s a cost share agreement between industry and government, and either party has the opportunity, if conditions change, to back out of the agreement. The proposal we submitted gives the government a firm cost and cost-share proposal all the way through the intermediate and heavy certification flights. The intermediate certification flights are planned for 2021, and the heavy certification flights are in 2024. We agreed in submitting the proposal what it takes to go do the job. The Air Force will have the opportunity, if we’re not selected for LSP, to terminate that agreement.”

Artist’s concept of the NGL system on launch pad 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Orbital ATK

Q: How much have you spent on the NGL program to date? I saw a $200 million number that combines the Air Force and Orbital ATK investments, but it’s a few months old.

A: “That’s the latest number, but we can’t divulge more financial information at this point in time.”

Q: How much funding is coming from Orbital ATK, and how much from the government?

A: “We’re providing more than the minimum, but it’s competitive, so we’re not prepared to talk about our negotiation strategy.”

Q: And the minimum is one-third from internal funds?

A: “Yes.”

Q: Are there any other funding streams for the NGL system outside of the Air Force and Orbital ATK’s internal capital?

A: “We’re a publicly traded company. We are actively pursuing other commercial and other government launch opportunities to support our business base. We are out actively marketing NGL for our future launch activities. At this point in time, our board of directors has given us the approval for the funding we need to move forward. Our corporate team is committed and has given us the support we need, so I think we’re in good shape. It is one of the top initiatives for the company. It’s a major undertaking, and Orbital ATK is anxious to move into this market. Over the years, we’ve steadily progressed from small launch systems and targets up through medium-class and Antares with our space station cargo delivery vehicle, and now we’re ready to enter this EELV market.”

Q: Do you expect that Orbital ATK’s new ownership at Northrop Grumman will be supportive of the NGL program, once their acquisition of the company is complete?

A: “We firmly believe the new ownership is committed. As they work through this, they’ve expressed their interest in this as well. I think this is a program area that they would use as a growth area.”

Q: When are your first flights of the intermediate and the heavy vehicles?

A: “The Launch Services Agreement includes the complete design activities. We’ll wrap up our solid propulsion. We’ve got a liquid liquid oxygen/hydrogen third stage that we’re developing and putting together. All of that will go through design review activities over the next year-and-a-half. Our initial flight timeline for the intermediate configuration is early 2021. We’re currently planning for the first quarter of 2021 for an initial flight of the intermedite configuration, and then we’ll follow up with a second certificaiton flight in mid-2021 to complete our certification activities in the government fiscal year 2021. Our vision is that by the October 2021 timeframe, we’ve got a certified launch system that’s ready to compete.”

Q: The Air Force only requires two successful missions for NGL to be certified?

A: “That’s right. The path we’ve chosen under the certification activities involves giving the government a significant amount of insight into our design activties and our design details. As we go through these design reviews over the next couple of years, we’re working very closely with the Air Force and their certification subcontractors to give them full insight into the the requirements and our verification methodologies for various components and systems. That path allows us to certify with two successful flights.

The heavy configuration will then go through certification flights in 2024. We need two certification flights of each configuration. In 2021, we’ll do two intermediate class certification flights, and then in 2024, we’ll do two heavy. The difference between the heavy and the intermediate is the heavy has a Castor 1200 first stage, which is a four-segment solid motor design, and then it’s got a little bit larger liquid oxygen/hydrogen second stage. On the intermediate, we’re sizing that stage at about 70,000 pounds of propellant. For the heavy, we’ll be at about 110 or 115,000 pounds.

There are a lot of similarities. It’s a scalable design between our intermediate and our heavy. We think it’s a low-risk path from flying the intermediate and then progressing into the heavy flight.”

Q: Do you plan your first test flights from Florida?

A: ‘The intermediate flights we’re planning out of the Cape. I think we will probably also fly our heavy certification flights out of the Cape, although we are workng on putting together a West Coast launch capability as well. But from the perspective of marketing those heavy vehicles, there’s probably a bigger market for flights out of the East Coast compared to the West Coast on the commercial side.”

Q: Still looking at pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center?

A: “We have an agreement with NASA that we’re working the final details on now to support our use of High Bay 2 in the Vehicle Assembly Building, and co-use of pad 39B with the Space Launch System. We’re working out the details of that agreement now. We’ll have our own mobile launch platform that we’ll modify to support NGL, and we’ll integrate vertically in the VAB, and then roll out and spend a small amount of time on the pad, probably on the order of a few days prior to the launch, so the conflict at pad 39B will be pretty low. We’ve gotten an agreement to use Mobile Launch Platform No. 3, which is an old shuttle-era MLP. There are some pretty extensive modifications required to customize it for our applications, but it’s a good reuse of that asset.”

Q: When will you begin preparing the high bay and the mobile launch platform?

A: “Design activities will begin this summer. The design work will start, and then we anticipate modifications will start late next year.”

Q: What options do you have for a West Coat launch pad?

A: “We’ve got some different options on the West Coast that we’re still considering. We’re working with the Vandenberg (Air Force Base) team to identify different alternatives. SLC-2 (the Delta 2 pad) is one alternatives. We also understand that once Delta 4 retires, it’s ULA’s plan to vacate SLC-6, so we’re looking at that as well.”

Q: SpaceX and ULA have given ballpark figures for their prices for a Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, or Vulcan flight. Can you share Orbital’s projection, even an approximation, for how much NGL will cost per mission?

A: “We’re not prepared to share a ballpark figure. We will certainly be competitive. We took a hard look at what those missions have sold for historically, and we can be competitive in that marketplace. We’re in this competitive environment where we’re trying to win the next phase, and ultimately the Launch Services Procurement, so we’re not ready to disclose dollar values yet.

One of the opportunties we’ve got that others don’t is we do have our own in-house supply of customers. We produce our own satellites. We buy launch services. We’ve historically bought launch services from both of these competitors that are currently in play. We have an in-house opportunity to capture work from our own team, and that makes us unique as well.”

Q: Are you close to an upper stage selection?

A: “We are. We spent a lot of time first on the (Blue Origin) BE-3U, and then we brought in the (Aerojet Rocketdyne) RL10 and the Vinci engine from Ariane Group and spent the better part of a year doing an exhaustive analysis of how those will fit into our overall launch system, and looking at how they affected our cost and how they affected our ability to support turnaround times and the launch times that the Air Force is mandating, and all the advantages and disadvantages of the various engine options.”

Q: Who is building the NGL fairing?

A: “Our flight systems group has a launch vehicle division, it has the propulsion systems division, and it also has an aerospace structures division. That division produces hardware for Atlas and Delta 4 out of our Iuka, Mississippi plant. We are working closely with them and have come up with a five-meter fairing design that we’re going to construct at our facility in Iuka, Mississippi. We’ll produce all the composite structures of the vehicle at that facility.”

Q: You’re building the solid rocket boosters in-house, correct? How many will fly on NGL?

A: “The solid rocket boosters, we’re going to fly anywhere from 0 to 6, and we don’t need to fly them in pairs. We can add them individually as requirements demand. Those are GEM 63XLs. Right now, the propulsion systems group is going through the design of that strap-on booster to support one of their other customers, and we’re going to leverage that design and use that booster to support NGL. So anywhere from 0 to 6 on both the intermediate and the heavy. It looks like on the intermediate, they will not need to separate, so the strap-on boosters will fly the same basic burn timeline as the Castor 600, and that whole first stage will separate together. On the heavy-class, they will separate.”

Q: How many boosters will fly on the certification flights?

A: “Right now, we’re planning the first test flight with a single stick core, and the second intermediate test flight will fly with probably two SRBs. We can hit most of the Air Force’s mission requirements with the single stick configuration. We’ll put a couple of strap-ons on to verify our ability to fly those. The heavy configuration will be similar, but we’ll need to show large capabilities.”

Q: How many NGL missions do you need to fly per year to make the program sustainable?

A: “Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case. A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due ot the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures. We feel very confident that we can make this profitable with a reasonable number of launches per year. We don’t need all the Air Force’s missions.”

Q: Did you look at reusability when you were designing NGL?

A: “We did look at reusability. We’ve done reusability on the space shuttle with the solid rocket boosters. We think the economics better lend themselves toward sharing resources and components and designs with our other product lines. At the launch rate we’re aiming for, we think that’s really where you see the maximum efficiency. We’re not planning any reusability in this vehicle. We’re really focusing on commonality with our other product lines and getting as efficient as we can that way.”

Q: How significant was the Orbital Sciences/ATK merger in making a program like this feasible?

A: “I think that merger made this possible. In essence, without the merger, it would have been very difficult to pull this together, with hardware coming from different companies. It would have been very difficult for us to be competitive. We think NGL is the first major offering that allows us to leverage all the capabilities of the company that our corporate leaders envisioned.”

Q: Where will the composite motor casings for NGL be produced?

A: “They’re going to be constructed in our Promontory, Utah, facility.”

Q: How much thrust will the Castor 600 and Castor 1200 core motors produce at liftoff?

A: “The Castor 600 max thrust is about 2.1 million pounds. Castor 1200 has a maximum thrust of about 3.1 million pounds.”

About the author

Leave a Reply