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.
Back in the 70's, during a public tour I was on at the Marshall Space Flight Center, someone asked this of the Saturn V.
They thought they were being quite funny. The tour guide--without missing a beat--said it depended upon what part of the flight you're talking about, but the average was about 6-inches to the gallon.
All these type rockets are ELV's. expendable lauch vehicles. Expendable- non-reusable. Basically the stages burn up falling back to earth after the payload is deployed.
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!
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.
True. But this isn't just about "more lift." The EELV (Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicle) program (of which Atlas 5 is the first product) is designed to make rocket launches better, faster, cheaper. Certainly it's not a quantum leap to laser-powered boosters, but it's still much better than before.
From what I understand, some of the Atlas 5's benefits include:
- Increased resistance to winds while on the pad and during launch (useful in hurricane-prone Florida)
- Faster setup time on the pad (half-day for final setup and fueling, versus weeks) (no, I don't understand this one, but I heard it on the news last night)
- Decreased reliance on complex launch gantry (look at the shuttle pad. Or the titan pad. then look at the atlas -- it's just got a little tower next to it, not a huge superstructure).
- Modular design. If I recall correctly, current (Titan, Delta, and older Atlas) rockets require significant mission-specific construction details. Like, "oh, you're going to this orbit? Then we need to make the booster a little lighter. We'll have that booster ready in, oh, 18 months?" Now the core is the same for all payloads and all orbits, so it's "Ok, you'll need two strap-ons. How's next Friday?"
I will agree that we're not spending enough on research for alternative methods of accessing space. But that's not to say that the research isn't progressing -- the recent SCRAMJET tests are very promising for runway-to-LEO prospects, and several other projects are underway to develop alternate vertical heavy-lift systems. They're just still very far out.The EELV program has been ongoing for several years (they were building out the pad when I was last on the Cape about 3 years ago -- and that was *after* all the heavy design work had been done). The "very radical ideas" that have come out in the last decade came far too late to influence EELV. "Oh, that's the New Paradigm Launch Vehicle. They're down the hall."
Anyway, this page (on the referenced Spaceflight Now site) gives a lot of high-level technical info on the Atlas 5. And talks about how it's almost "Dial-A-Rocket," and how they've even got an Atlas 5 Heavy planned that uses THREE of the common-core boosters. Imagine three of those rockets, plus additional strap-ons, bundled together. Way cool, even if there aren't any lasers (or microwaves or scramjets or
So, no, it's not the holy grail. But it's a damned sight better than what we've had to date.
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...
On the shuttle,
... There were a few that sunk early in the program, and the challenger units where destroyed by range safety.
The SRB (solid rocket boosters) are recovered and re-used in most cases
The ET (external tank), big orange external gas (H2) and oxidizer tank (O2) is not recovered. This is a big waste.
The shuttle and it's engines are recovered.
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken