Slashdot Mirror
Atlas V's Maiden Launch a Success
PyroMosh writes "The next generation expendable heavy lifting rocket, the Atlas 5, lifted off today from Cape Canaveral Air Station. The American rocket, built by Lockheed Martin, sporting Russian RD-180 engines carried the Eutelsat Hotbird 6 telecommunications satellite into orbit. This next generation heavy lifter can out-lift any rocket built since the Saturn V 'Moon rocket', including the shuttle." Spaceflightnow has extensive coverage.
... is being able to walk about to your backyard and watch launches. It happened on our first not-rainy afternoon in quite a while and was beautiful. Not quite like the Shuttle beautiful, but beautiful nonetheless.
To me, air flight doesn't seem very special anymore because it is so common... but I don't think I'll stop watching the rockets, even if it does become an everyday occurence...
Oops. There goes an area of quickly depleting ozone the size of Texas.
How long they will be using these vertical lifting rockets to send cargo into space. Isn't there a more efficient way?.. and are these rockets reusable?
The Good Life
Arrrriane waves its private parts at your aunties ! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries ! We fart in your general direction !
what's the mileage? ;)
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Anyone know where I can get some good Tang round here?
Heavy Lifter? Great! Now to get the extraterrestrial mining science science advance, all we need is to research the low orbit freighter.
Or whatever. It's been so long since I played Outpost.
I am glad that in the post-9/11, terror-stricken world that we seem to live in now, advancements in travel to space are (albeit slowly) continuing to be made. With projects like the Space Shuttle replacement project being cancelled to fund "Homeland Defense" after coming so far along, one can sometimes begin to wonder if any of us will ever get to see things like the manned Mars missions during our lifetime.
Sometimes I think we should stop making everything go faster and just get in less of a hurry... bigger, faster, more... why?
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
That's a system with a long lineage. John Glenn went into orbit strapped onto the front of an Atlas 1. All the Gemini flights were on Atlas rockets.
Best Slashdot Co
The statement:
This next generation heavy lifter can out-lift any rocket built since the Saturn V 'Moon rocket', including the shuttle.
can't be true, can it? Surely the Russians have built more powerful rockets than this new Atlas in the years since the Apollo program.
As much as I enjoy watch us launch anything into space, it seems to me that rocket design is nearing the point of diminishing returns. The Atlas 5 is undoubtably better than the previous versions, but does it really add something new to our launch capability? Maybe if that R&D money had been dumped into something a little more unconventional we might have a fesible rail-gun launcher or some progress towards a space elevator. Maybe it's just me wanting to see life a little more like B5 and less like reality...
-------------------------------END--COMMUNICATION
...was lifting 15 times that payload into orbit in 1968! (and about 5 times as much to the Moon)
Why is this such a big deal?
Ok, maybe it's cheaper per kilo (can't you Americans bloody go metric like the rest of the planet),
but the boasts of the payload weight seem a bit pointless.
Or did I get the numbers wrong?
- Muggins the Mad
I tried to surf the sites to find information on the cargo. Any pointers?
Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but I'm no rocket fan...
..but we have a new rocket, guess that's better than nothing.
More Thruster, more lift... great *insert golf clap*
We need new ideas and bold steps in propulsion if we're ever going to graduate from the rocket age into bonafide space travel.
We've been hooked on rockets as the ultimate in propulsion since WWII and though ideas have come forward, some very radical ideas even in the last decade, NASA is hesitant to pursue these ideas due to concerns of cost and even more so, concerns of failure due to high Gov't scrutiny.
It's sad that the US Gov't, being the only body with enough power to really do something for our future in space keeps things on such a short leash. Perhaps they should just kick back and play the "grant-daddy" and let private companies work hand in hand with them to speed things up a bit and share in the risk.
Damn, do something to get capital interests involved... Even if it's just to mine rocks on the moon, I'd volunteer to work there for a lunar year.
You wouldn't call it that if you saw what the Atlas V was doing with the Ariane II out behind the launch pad.
Not sure where that quote is from, no the Atlas V cannot outlift the Saturn V or the Shuttle. Look at the info taken from www.astronautix.com. The LEO (Low earth orbit) payload is how much mass the rocket can lift to low earth orbit.
Atlas V
LEO Payload: 12,500 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 5,000 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 875,900 kgf. Total Mass: 546,700 kg. Core Diameter: 5.4 m. Total Length: 58.3 m. Launch Price $: 77.00 million. in 1998 price dollars.
Saturn V
LEO Payload: 200,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Payload: 67,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 6,056,370 kgf. Total Mass: 5,172,820 kg. Core Diameter: 10.1 m. Total Length: 124.0 m.
Shuttle
LEO Payload: 24,400 kg. to: 204 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 12,500 kg. to a: space station orbit, 407 km, 51.6 deg inclination trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 2,625,932 kgf. Total Mass: 2,029,633 kg. Core Diameter: 8.7 m. Total Length: 56.0 m.
See also this page for nuclear propulsion mods to Saturn V's.
As usual, the Slashdot blurb over-does it. While this puppy is quite strong, it is still far from russian-built Energia rocket - the one that lifted Buran, the shuttle copy, into orbit. While Atlas 5 can lift 8.7 metric tons into geostationary orbit, Energia did 18 tons!
RED FACTION anyone?
Yes, I know that was set on Mars, 'Gray Faction' doesn't sound as good and 'Lunatic Faction' just sounds, well, mad!!
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
So, in conclusion, the post is wrong by a factor of 15.
Editors, I believe that means you need to Edit it.
All they need to add is "currently in production" or "commercially available". Even that last one is barely true; the Atlas V wouldn't exist if not for military customers.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
the apollo orbital stack was on the order of 150,000 lbs to Moon Transfer Orbit, this thing can get 15,000 lbs to Geosynchronus Transfer Orbit, 1/10th the weight and an easier orbit.
the space shuttle drags 65,000 pounds of cargo, plus 6 people and the whole orbiter thing to LEO, still MUCH more than Atlas-5 which is just a new generation commo sattelite launcher.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
The quote is from the article blurb on the Slashdot homepage.
First of all, I claimed that it's the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V. It's not more powerful than the Saturn V.
Though those numbers don't match NASA's for the space shuttle, nor do the Atlas V's match what I've read for any varient (highest is 20,050 KG for the Atlas V 552) you are correct about the Shuttle outlifting the new Atlas series. I read one of the press releases wrong. Sorry for any confusion.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
From what I've read, the RD-180 is essentially an uprated version of the RD-170 rocket that was designed for the now-shelved Energia rocket.
Here's an interesting tidbit: the Russians literally fooled everyone about the location of the rocket motor factory and rocket motor test stands! Normally in Western practice, we would put the test stands for rocket motors far away from population centers (Aerojet, Rocketdyne, etc. have their test stands built in these locations due to the loud noise and huge exhaust plumes of rocket motors in general). Well, the Russians carefully built a rocket motor factory and rocket test stand in a Moscow suburb, using an ingenious design that effectively muffled the engine noise and dissipated the exhaust plumes; it was so well-designed that on first inspection visually you'd think it was just another of the many factories that surround Moscow! No wonder why Western intelligence agencies were puzzled about the lack of rocket motor test stands near their launch sites in Baikanour and Pletesk, because we were looking in all the wrong locations. I believe this factory is where the RD-180 rocket is currently being assembled.
In out-lifting any rocket built, they must have really taken a subset of available rockets. It doesn't outperform the Ariane 5 either.
The heaviest on the Atlas V list only takes 8,2 tonnes in geosynch transfer, while the Ariane 5 ECS-A that's already flown, is already well over 10 tonnes. And next year it will add quite a bit of extra tonnage capacity to that.
Energia, like the Saturn V, is no more.
Back in 1989 I told a guy about a painting I'd like to see. An astronaut and cosmonauht holding hands and stepping off the planet together.
He said, "it will never happen".
That was in 1989.
Err, I mean it used the Saturn 6.
Best Slashdot Co
The claims about this being the heaviest lift rocket "since the Saturn V" are exaggerated. The Saturn V had over 12 times the payload capacity of the top end Atlas 5 (which hasn't actually flown, yet).
Comparatively, the top end Russian heavy lifter is very nearly the equal of the Saturn V (the Saturn V could lift 2% more weight, assuming we could even build one again).
Here are various payload capacities for all the Atlas 5 series, and a number of other currently in service rockets, as well as the Saturn V, in US pounds:
__8,752 Atlas 5 501
_11,618 Atlas 5 511
_13,117 Atlas 5 411
_13,856 Atlas 5 521
_15,057 Atlas 5 421
_15,873 Atlas 5 531
_16,843 Atlas 5 431
_17,593 Atlas 5 541
_19,114 Atlas 5 551
_28,950 Delta IV
_39,600 Ariane V
_45,320 Proton K
_47,800 Titan IV
_63,500 Space Shuttle
231,000 Energia SL17
236,000 Saturn V
Looks like if you're planning a 1969-style trip to the moon, you better learn Russian... it also explains just what it is the Russians bring to the ISS that the U.S. could not provide on their own (since the U.S. would have a difficult time even building anything close these days).
Sorry: I don't have numbers on the Chinese or Japanese launch vehicles.
-- Terry
A slight correction on the national aerospace plane project...
The engine was a liear aerospike, which the design had being fueled by a Hydrogen slurry tank. The tank was not buildable with current material science, after a number of tries. *THAT*, NOT September 11th, was why it was cancelled (yes, I know they could have used a different fuel tank technology; they didn't).
Personally, I think some non-Berne signatory country should build a DC-X with a linear aerospike, and screw the U.S. patents.
The (unfortunately) winning contractors design called for a runway, which meant building additional hardware, if you ever wanted to go any place interesting. A DC-X ("Delta Clipper") could have, with 3 launced for orbital refueuling on the
way in any out, put us back on the moon very quickly (and once in orbit is halfway to anywhere in the Solar system). You're not going to the moon in something that lands like an airpane, ever... no runways, gas stations, or air to hold the wings up.
-- Terry
Vertical launch is the most efficient way.
Wings are massy, and the small benefit they might give on take-off and landing is far outweighed by their 'weight'.
Delta Clipper was an example of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket that would have the efficiency of a BDB and the cost and turn-around time of an airline jet.
Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, NASA killed it, as they did ROTON via contacting the venture capitalists and urging them not to invest in ROTON's embarrassingly cheap and effective shuttle-replacement.
That is pride fuckin' with me
I must point out that my employer, the American company, Pratt & Whitney, has been very involved in the development and manufacture of the RD-180; the RD-180 is the product of collaboration between P&W and the Russian company NPO Energomash. It is derived from the entirely Russian RD-170 though, read more about it here.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
If the Lord Jesus Christ didn't use the metric system, then there's no reason that Americans should have to use it, either.
Inch by inch!
Everybody knows that we are the evil boys, making noise with deadly toys.
So the RIAA can finally send a couple fatass execs out to catch all our TV and radio signals before ETs can "pirate" them.
Careful investigation proved that a _second_ rocket was blasted into space ever since the traffic control teams got into a fight on who crancked up the Texan airconditioning, freezing the coffee machine.
Apparently one team didn't know of the launch of the previous shift.
On a related note, the publishing of news on the slashdot site seems be become more and more troublesome ever since Moderaters stubbornly refuse to read the news themselves.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
Most of the current US launch fleet wouldn't exist without the military. Their need to loft satellites with the latest technology for the Pentagon and for the various intelligence agencies gives a reason for the aerospace companies to push new designs on them frequently, some of which have improvements in thrust or modularity, and some of which are little more than repackaged versions of what's been in use for years, with minimal hardware changes. Launches used by NASA or for commercial purposes are often sort of side thoughts in the design process.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
RED FACTION anyone?
You couldn't do that in the US today.
<ANTI-SPACE-SENATOR>
Those who are supporting space are members of the RED FACTION. They are obviously Communist terrorist infiltrators!
</ANTI-SPACE-SENATOR>
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
The Atlas V numbers are to GTO and I suspect the others are to LEO. I don't know exactly what difference that makes, but it's significant.
Those are indeed hefty numbers, but in modern commercial service, the numbers that really matter are mass to geostationary transfer orbit, because that's how you launch communications satellites, and that's where the money is.
Rockets don't lift satellites directly to a 40,000 km orbit. Instead, they launch to an elliptical orbit whose apogee (the highest point in the orbit) is about the right height. At apogee they fire the rockets again to increase the perigee (lowest point of the orbit), achieving a circular orbit.
The minimum orbital inclination is always achieved by launching due east, and is then equal to the launch site latitude. Inclination changes require lots of fuel, which is why folks like Arianespace (who have updated their web page to lock out all but Internet Explorer and Netscape, so I will not post the URL) set up shop so close to the equator. The best the U.S. could do was Florida, a long way north.
...laura
_19,114 Atlas 5 551
_28,950 Delta IV
_39,600 Ariane V
_45,320 Proton K
_47,800 Titan IV
_63,500 Space Shuttle
231,000 Energia SL17
236,000 Saturn V
Well, Enerigia doesn't exist anymore than Saturn. Although I do wonder how it can claim to be the heaviest EELV with the others higher on the list.
[smacks forehead] Atlas V ELV carries that much to Geostationary Orbit. Duh.
The Space Shuttle can't go to GEO. And Proton isn't a GTO either, IIRC. What could an Atlas V put to LEO? Probably siginificantly higher payload than the others.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
I'm trying to figure out what they lifted. The article called it "Hot Bird 6".
After all, they needed a rocket that could lift almost 130 tons! What bigass cargo did they carry?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I am constantly amazed at how much hype goes into every new, expensive conventional rocket, when the DC-X & DC-Y (the Delta Clipper) experimental SSTO's were canned because they were TOO INEXPENSIVE and had a ground crew that was TOO SMALL.
So why don't they lift the satalites into orbit? You can get high enough with the ballon you don't need that much fuel to go on into space.t y/
On another note, did anyone read the Inca city story on the same page? Those rectangular structures look like farm fields.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0208/21incaci
With a possiblily of a triple booster with strap on solid rocket boosters. They don't list what that one can lift to GEO, but I would assume it is very heavy indeed.
They have little breakdown of the model number. Up to two Centaurs and five solid rocket boosters.
If I had to guess, I say that the triple booster, two centaur and five+ SRB configuration would probably boost about 17,000 lbs into GEO. And 90,000 (45 Tons!) to LEO.
Yeah, I think Lockheed/Martin can say this is the heaviest current ELV.
http://www.ilslaunch.com/stories/AtlasVUpdates/
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
I was going to make a half-hearted attempt to respond to some of the more absurd comments here (the "f*cking Americans" one is particularly goofy and baseless), but the motivation is slipping away. There was a day when I used to learn something from reading the responses to an issue here (or at least get angry and/or think). But this is pathetic. Now, people respond with the same answers, regardless of the subject!
I'm not talking about the usual penisbird, goatsex trolls, but stuff that actually get's modded up. I think most of the ongoing posters here are becoming "one trick ponies".
Standard responses:
1 Stupid Americans, anti-American, wasteful Americans, violent Americans (and of course no one else has these problems).
2 Ecology, Kyoto agreement, SUV's, American pollution.
3 RIAA, copyright, etc.
4 Teleporters, Anime, Power Armor, Star Wars, etc.
5 Whatever you mentioned is bad, bad, bad. No real reason, it just is.
Nothing wrong with any of this stuff in context, but responding to everything with the same answers and seeing most of them marked "interesting 3" is making a farce of the opportunity to respond (or is that the point?).
I know these "Slashdot falling apart" posts are starting to be a standard response too, but this is certainly the first time I've felt the need to post one, so it's new to me.
If you aren't interested in the Atlas V (or whatever, good or bad), try not to post your standard screed just to hear yourself "talk". It's really dull (Yeah, I know, this is as well)...
The only thing that seems to get genuine response is a new version of a game or a Linux software release. That's fine, because it is the core of Slashdot (which still seems to be there), but it used to be so much more...
Sad Really.
> Energia [astronautix.com] was actually launched
> and could carry 22000 kg to Geosynchronous orbit or
> 88000 kg to LEO.
It's a damned shame it only flew once. And don't even think about possibly suggesting it might again.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
As far as currently operational systems go, maybe yes ...
They are talking about the Atlas V Heavy, not the Atlas V 4xx and 5xx configuration. The first stage is three Common Core boosters strapped together (ie three Atlas 501's strapped together, a two engine centuar upper stage and a 5 meter dia. payload shroud). The Heavy has not yet flown, but should have the same abilities as the Delta IV heavy which can do 23,000 Kg To LEO and 13,000 Kg to GTO.
This is more than the Proton, ~3000 Kg to GTO
This is more than the Ariane V, 6800 Kg to GTO
Similar to the shuttle, 24400 Kg to LEO
btw. The Delta IV heavy is scedualed to fly before the Atlas V heavy.
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
How's it goin', most royal ugly dudes?"
"Put them in the iron maiden!"
"Iron Maiden, Excellent!"
"Execute them!"
"Bogus..."
The Atlas-V is definitely a refinement of previous ELVs (the Saturn V is really only meant for really big payloads) and is a cheaper solution on the price per pound ratio.
OK, here's a silly question: Why not send up a bunch of satellites on a honkin' Saturn V and give them each little rockets to maneuver into their proper orbits? Isn't it a bunch easier to change orbits than to get into orbit in the first place?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I've been launching Atlas V's for a while now. Typically at walls or out the window.
How the world has changed.
The USAF paid for a good third of the Atlas 5 design project, so its inevitable that it will be used to launch DoD birds up.
Remember, its called GNU/Linux, but pronounced "Linux".
Space and tech has information on a lot of production and experimental spacecraft. Including payload user manuals in the expendable launch vehical section. The Soyuz payload user manual makes great three AM reading :) According to the documentation there, the Atlas V is in the same category as the Proton and the older Shuttle configurations. IE, roughly 20 tons to LEO, including the Colombia. The Atlas V is just barely more powerful for LEO than the Proton (45238 lbs vers 44035). But, is not as powerful as the current shuttles for LEO, at 65000 lbs. FYI, Columbia has a limited LEO capability. In it's original configuration, it was limited to around 10000 lb payloads. And, granted, GSO is a different ball game.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
That is a pretty bird.
According to astronautix.com, those are the LEO numbers for the Atlas V. They quote a lower number for the DIV-Heavy to Leo at 25,800kg.
The big difference between the DIV and the Atlas V comes when you compare other variants. The Atlas V 401 can lift 12,000kg to LEO while a DIV-Medium can only lift 8600kg to LEO.
You have some of your numbers in lbs and some in kg. See astronautix.com for all of the numbers in kg.
Ever hear of the Apollo-Soyuz mission? Picture
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Why the hell doesn't NASA start building the Saturn V rockets again?? They were made and tested in the 1960s when materials and electronic technology were far less advanced than they are now.
Surely, NASA can make the Saturn V much better now and bring the glory back to the U.S. space program? Saturn V is like the Chevy Suburban of rockets and given the American fascination with extremely large SUVs (my SUV is bigger than your SUV), surely, the Saturn V would appeal to the American public.
I suspect NASA would indeed pay someone to build Saturn-5 class boosters if Congress would fund it. The problem is that the only reasonable things to do with that much lift capability is to return to the Moon, go to Mars, and put a real space station in orbit, not the little mini-station we've got now.
No one in a leadership position in the U.S. has the vision and political will to commit to this, so don't hold your breath.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The point of the eevl program is just that ...
... no need for the extra capacity.
A low cost dumb booster.
The trick here is if you need more payload you strap on extra boosters.
That's why lockmartin has been calling it 'dial a booster'
Atlas V XXX
First X, payload fairing Diameter (4 or 5 meters)
Second X, number of solid strap ons (max 5)
Third X, number of LOX/LH2 engines in the second stage (1 for GTO insertion, 2 for LEO insertion). The second LOX/LH2 actually hurts GTO insertion performance (extra unneeded weight), but the extra thrust is needed for LEO insertion.
Of course the Atlas V heavy does not quite fit into this, two strap on common core boosters (Saturn 1B concept). The only customer will probally be the DOD. I don't think they ever sold a single Titan III/IV to a comercial customer
And to make sure that the system is robust, two manufactures, LockMartin (Atlas V), Boeing (Delta IV). Both who can sell excess capacity to the comercial launch industry (higher volume helps keep the costs down). Remember this a military vehicle that they will allow civilian users to use to keep DOD's costs down.
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
The article says Despite Air Force hopes that the Atlas 5 would slash space travel costs, its debut takes place during a prolonged slump in commercial satellite launches. A glut of other new-generation rockets completed or in the works, along with a weak satellite launch market in the coming years, could mean fewer Atlases are built to recoup development costs, according to commercial aerospace officials.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks