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...
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.
See also this page for nuclear propulsion mods to Saturn V's.
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.
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.
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
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