Apparently, ATK planned for today to be the big debut in the press of the design of their COTS/Delta II vehicle, which doesn't have an official name yet. Here are several more articles about the vehicle (links mostly via
spacetoday.net):
/--
Rocket could bring hundreds of jobs to Fla. : Seed money would help fund freighter service - Florida Today - Jan.21.08
/-
PICTURE: ATK releases first image of PlanetSpace COTS bid launch vehicle hardware - Flightglobal.com
/--
ATK's new vehicle to provide multi-access options - NASA SpaceFlight.com
/--
NASA Funding Competition Sparks Rival Plans for Two New Rockets - Wall Street Journal
In the WSJ article, the second rocket referred to in the title is the
Taurus II from Orbital Sciences, which is also a finalist in the COTS competition. The Taurus II would also use a solid rocket propulsion system and has been aimed at the Delta II market. The project is still in an early stage of development and the company has not yet decided whether to build it or not.
I'll note that WSJ reporter Andy Pasztor once again portrays the Rocketplane-Kistler COTS agreement termination as a general failure of the whole COTS program and just briefly mentions
SpaceX as a company that "previously received NASA funding for its proposed cargo rocket." Of course, SpaceX is in fact getting on-going funding as it continues to pass the milestones required under the agreement.
He talks about the purported four year gap in US access to the ISS "during which the U.S. would have to depend on Russian or European space systems to reach the Space Station". He doesn't justify the implicit assumption that the SpaceX effort will fail.
He also mentions Griffin's comments about Russia, China and India getting manned missions to the Moon before the US. In the face of such worries, NASA continues to push commercial space projects. But the agency appears to be moving away from its initial concept of identifying and subsidizing entrepreneurs or startups as primary engines of technology change. Instead, industry officials said, the focus has shifted to helping finance established aerospace suppliers with the hope of eventually developing breakthrough systems and technologies. Both Orbital and Alliant have to convince NASA they can raise private capital, and that their business plans for the new rockets aren't entirely dependent on federal dollars.
Referring to NASA's unsuccessful bid last year to kick-start a rocket project proposed by startup Rocketplane Kistler Inc., Al Simpson, a veteran Lockheed Martin space official, last week said agency officials "can't afford another failure."I think the LM official's attitude extends to much of NASA management as well. However, I don't know how an R&D agency, if that's what NASA still claims to be, can ever succeed at developing (or, in this case, supporting the development of) anything new and improved if it cannot afford any failures.
I'll also note that while a particular solid rocket systems might offer a minor reduction in cost over current ELVs and the Shuttle, they offer no route to RLVs and substantial decreases in space access costs on the long term. Not making the lowering of launch costs its top priority has been the real NASA failure.