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...
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
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.
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.
...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?
You wouldn't call it that if you saw what the Atlas V was doing with the Ariane II out behind the launch pad.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Fortunately. NASA is involved in some new propulsion techniques. For example, DS1 used ion propulsion. It's engine push was very weak, about as mush as a paper pushes your palm as you hold it. But the experiment was successful.
DS1 was an experimental probe. At the end of the mission NASA landed it on Eros (one of the largest near Earth asteroid). DS1 was also capable of navigating on its own with its build-in software. The reference point for navigation was the second brightest star, Canopus.
A plasma engine is also in the development process. According to calculations, with this engine you can get to Mars in half the time compared to a traditional rocket.
In the long term this kind of propulsion is useless in space. What I mean is that it is quite primitive to shoot out hot gas or ions or hot plasma in a direction just to achive a relativly gentle acceleration in the other direction. Not to mention it is highly unefficient. You can fine tuning this technologie as mush as you want, but you cannot expect wonders from it. It is the same with car engines. They have been fine tuned during a whole century but the physics is the same.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
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.
Yeah, but it used a Russian engine... Never mind, I don't understand what you're whining about anyway. What does a launch have to do with anything? Yes, the DOD funds a lot of research. So what?
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.
l0ungeb0y wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not. What we actually need is cheap, reliable transportation to low earth orbit now. This could very well mean taking existing technology and modifying and using it in known ways to reduce costs. The shuttle, for example, is a horridly complex machine designed to meet conflicting goals. The Keep It Simple Stupid rule was grossly violated during the planning stages. The automotive equivalent of the shuttle would be a vehicle that could haul 20 tons across the United States, transport 50 people simultaneously and then be driven to the Indianapolis 500 where it would be the fastest thing on the track during the race.
But the aerospace bureacracy likes it that way. They're in the business of selling things to the government, not opening up space.
l0ungeb0y also wrote:
There's a grain of truth in this. Unfortunately, this might also mean substantial reform of existing aerospace companies. They're not limber, independently acting entitites any more. Reform may be possible. Then again, it might be necessary to fund the handful of fairly new startups decently. There's also the problem that subsidizing the startups might just turn them into sluggish government dependents as well. We might do better to get people with some money to invest in the startups. Hey, didn't people put money into things as dumb as pets.com? The money spent foolishly on dot bombs could have made a major impact on space transportation.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
and this site is not up to date, considering that this version(8 tons for GTO) and this version(10.5 tons to GTO) of Ariane 5 now exists, and that this one will be there soon too, this last one being able of 23 tons max payload into GTO for dual launch.
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
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...
Inch by inch!
Everybody knows that we are the evil boys, making noise with deadly toys.
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
They would have to kick back farther than the US population (not to mention that of the world) would allow. In short, the only reasonable way to get to outer space efficiently right now would be nuclear rockets. They could be made clean, safe, reusable, and efficient. But the public would fear them because they have the word "nuclear" in them, and most people are irrational when it comes to heating water or other hydrogen or other propellant with certain types of warm rocks.
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.
The have nots always hate the haves, no matter how many WW's we pull them out of.
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.
By God, you're right! We need to the US government to devise new, revolutionary forms of propulsion by fiat, because that exactly how science works...Moron.
Like the anti-gravity research going on.
Perhaps us computer geeks are just spoiled by Moore's law, and don't see the same in rockets (unless the doubling is every 200 years).
Short of politically risky nuclear power, it looks like we are stuck with chemical rockets for a good while. It just simply takes tons of fricken energy to get up there.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
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
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)
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....
Balloons only work in the atmosphere. Maximum altitude is around 20 miles. Even if a balloon could reach an altitude safe for orbital flight -- say, 100 miles -- it would fall right back to Earth because it has no propulsion system capable of reaching orbital speed.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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