Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Atlas V's Maiden Launch a Success 155

Posted by michael from the who-cares-where-they-come-down dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Atlas V's Maiden Launch a Success More

Atlas V's Maiden Launch a Success

Comments Filter:

  • The only good part about living in Orlando... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drunkmonk ( 241978 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @06:47AM (#4117572) Homepage
    ... 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...
    • >... 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.

      Agreed.. I watched it from the window of the UCF library before my Calculus class. Always fun to watch. It's at least a small part of why I chose my major (Aerospace Engineering).

    • ... is being able to walk about to your backyard and watch launches.

      you lucky, lucky, lucky son of a b*&$

      Not quite like the Shuttle beautiful, but beautiful nonetheless.

      aaaaaarrrggghhhhh stop it! Have you no heart?
      • Heh, I actually live in Cape Canaveral. The Atlas V launch was beautiful, and the sound hit me just as the rocket passed behind a very large cloud. Good show.

        And btw:
        http://www.geocities.com/loosechanj/STS-99/v abme.j pg
        http://www.geocities.com/loosechanj/Tour/FD801 003. JPG

        Na na, na na NA!
  • 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?
    • Hmmm... Well until we figure out a way to create lift-via-Bernoulli effect in a vacuum... our space program will most likely continue on with the rocket boosters... though they are about as efficient as a 59 Ford with a worn carburator. From what I hear, work is being done on a superman-the-ride type of launch pad. The vehicle is hoisted to the top of a large hyperbole, and using Earth's gravity, begins it's ascent into the atmosphere, without wasting the large amount of fuel it takes to get the damn things moving... This is also known as the "Rosie O'Donnell momentum theory"

    • Re:I wonder... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.
      • I always thought the first (booster) stage fell into the ocean (doesn't burn up, too low) and got salvaged and reused?
        • It depends on the launch architecture. The only reusable architecture I know of is the shuttle (unless you count the plane lifting a Pegasus), and in all cases but one so far, the upper stages are recovered, as well as the boosters.
          • On the shuttle,

            The SRB (solid rocket boosters) are recovered and re-used in most cases ... There were a few that sunk early in the program, and the challenger units where destroyed by range safety.

            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.
            • The ET (external tank), big orange external gas (H2) and oxidizer tank (O2) is not recovered. This is a big waste.

              There was walk once upon a time about carrying the ET into orbit along with the Orbiter and using it(several of them) for building up a space-station... you've got 2 quite air-tight (and large) vesssels in each one.

              Does anyone know what happened to this idea? Too economical?
  • what's the mileage? ;)

    • Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)

      by speleo ( 61031 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:15AM (#4117613) Homepage
      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.
      • She should have pointed out that that was only while boosting. Automobile mileage is not measured just for accelleration. Coasting is part of the trip too, and once you're out of the atmosphere, you can coast for a long, long way. Look at voyager - Not a drop of fuel used in 20some years. They're squeezing every mile out of that fuel, or how about that Saturn V second-stage from an Apollo shot that gave us all a scare a few years ago, looking like an asteroid.
        The only important measure of rocket engine efficiency is specific impulse - (force * time)/mass_expended.

  • Tech tree (Score:3, Funny)

    by flonker ( 526111 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:03AM (#4117593)
    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.

  • This is good... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SpiffyMarc ( 590301 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:10AM (#4117605)
    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.

    • Re:This is good... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why oh why must you americans keep mentioning
      the 11th of September like it was the dawning of time?

      It was not when the world woke up to terrorism it was when you did.
      • You know, as a Yank, I'm glad you said that. I've lived in three different locations outside the U.S. and in every location the existence of terrorism had already made its mark: being patted down and scanned on entry to shopping malls and other public facilities; huge lines at airports and manual searches of all baggage; delayed public transportation everytime someone leaves a briefcase in a subway station (e.g., London's Tube); being barred from a large portion of the central city because a bomb has just gone off; etc.

        Those are trivial and superficial complaints compared to those who die at the hands of terrorists, but an indication of how long the U.S. has escaped the sad reality that the rest of the world has faced for years.
      • (* Why oh why must you americans keep mentioning
        the 11th of September like it was the dawning of time? *)

        It certainly is the dawn of huge government defecits. (Not the first one, perhaps, but another big dawn.)

        Terrorism tended to ramp up slowly in other countries, so the adjustment was not sudden. 9/11 was a giant spike where 3K citizens died in one day.
    • 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
      • 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.

        Of course it's already happened. I just watched this documentary about the Shuttle landing on the moon. Where have you been?
    • While I'm glad to have a heavier lifter added to our toolbox, I don't see how you can call this an advancement, any more than my shoehorning a 340 racing motor into my old Duster was a great innovation (it was a great ride, though).
      • Most of the advancements are in ease of building the rocket and manufacturing costs. IIRC, the Delta 4 and that Atlas 5 are both redesigns looking to simplify the building and assembling the rockets. There is a lot of added technology in smart sensors (for "health monitoring") and such. It's also supposed to be much, much simpler to assemble (and faster to assemble too.) There was an articel at http://www.space.com that talked about the advances in the new ELVs.
    • Funny thing is ...

      Atlas V (and Delta 4) was funded through the DOD's eelv program to give it assured access to space.

      If you check nasawatch [nasawatch.com] they have an article about the military taking the X-34 bird back from NASA.

      Now if they would only expand the HomeLand defense program to include targeting of spammers ...
  • It seems from the article, as well as from many other economic indicators, that the launches will not start becoming more frenetic. Telecommunications is the main use for satellites, and most telcos can't even get their more recent birds into profitability. I had a guy from PanAmSat come to desperately try to sell me satellite bandwidth that I clearly didn't need. 10 minutes into the meeting he knew I didn't need it either, but went on for an hour before I found a polite way to get him to go home and worry by himself about how to sell space on his network.

    Sometimes I think we should stop making everything go faster and just get in less of a hurry... bigger, faster, more... why?

    • The two big economic issues are "What's the cost to deliver a given weight into LEO or GEO?" and "Can you sell enough of these to pay for the development costs?" - they're related. If it's substantially cheaper, they'll find some demand for it, but if it's too similar to its competition, they probably won't. I was recently rereading "The Third Industrial Revolution", a wildly optimistic ~1975 book about how reduced costs of space travel will make it possible to do industry up there which will pay for more launches which amortize development costs and give us economies of scale that will bring down the costs even further which will lead to more industry...., kind of like the Internet boom ca. 1995-1999. While it didn't happen (:-), the Moore's Law effect in the computer industry means that low-weight satellites can do interesting things - at $100/pound, hobbyists, student groups, etc. can launch the occasional CanSat satellite-in-a-coke-can [stanford.edu] and other Picosats [google.com] (defined as you can launch picosats just for the fun of it. Remailer-in-the-sky? Radio transmitter playing "Happy Birthday" for your Mom? Whatever - it's not just for OSCAR the Ham Radio Dude [amsat.org] any more. But at $1000/pound, you'd need to be a bit more serious about the application (i.e. probably commercial), or *much* better at miniaturization.

      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.

  • 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.
    • All the Gemini flights were on Atlas rockets.

      Errr. No. The Gemini's lifted on Titan II's. Atlas didn't have enough thrust to loft the capsule. That's why the official NASA history of the Gemini program is titled On The Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini [nasa.gov].

      Atlas was used to loft the Agena upper stage used as docking target in the latter Gemini missions though.

      • Oops (Score:2)

        by wiredog ( 43288 )
        Got my boosters (or programs) confused. Mercury used Redstone, and then Atlas. Ah well, at least I know that Apollo used the Delta 1 booster.

        Err, I mean it used the Saturn 6.

        • Oh c'mon. Apollo used an Estes kit. After all, they faked that program anyway, didn't they?

          Sadly, I feel compelled to add that this is a joke, of course. Some people are way too literal minded...

    • Gemini used the Titan II as a booster, but did use Atlas to launch an Agena upper stage for orbital docking tests.

      Idiot/Savant
  • 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.

    • 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.
      • The quote is from the article blurb on the Slashdot homepage.

      • Re:The Russians must have built more powerful rock (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PyroMosh ( 287149 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @08:34AM (#4117793) 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.

      • 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

    • Re:The Russians must have built more powerful rock (Score:4, Informative)

      by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:49AM (#4117674)
      Energia [astronautix.com] was actually launched and could carry 22000 kg to Geosynchronous orbit or 88000 kg to LEO. The Atlas V [astronautix.com] has about one fifthteenth the payload capacity in its most fully decked-out configuration (551).

      See also this page [astronautix.com] for nuclear propulsion mods to Saturn V's.

      • > 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.
    • In out-lifting any rocket built, they must have really taken a subset of available rockets. It doesn't outperform the Ariane 5 [arianespace.com] 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.
      • > In out-lifting any rocket built, they must have
        > really taken a subset of available rockets. It
        > doesn't outperform the Ariane 5 [arianespace.com]
        > either.

        Well, duh. They just leave out the word "american", and all sorts of press releases start looking better.
    • 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 [boeing.com] 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.

  • 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...
  • ...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
    • Why is this such a big deal?

      When they can lift this payload with a fully reusable SSTO (single stage to orbit) vehicle, that will be newsworthy. What we see here is merely the next gradual refinement of a technology that is basically unchanged since the 1940s.
    • No, we can't go metric. That would deprive American engineers of the masochist joys of using dual measurement systems. Then, without that mental exercise, we would lose our technological edge... leaving innovation to the unwashed masses in the EU.
    • (can't you Americans bloody go metric like the rest of the planet)

      Some engineers tried to go metric before, but remember what happened? =)

      Asking us to go metric is like asking us to upgrade the MFM hard drives in the shuttle to IDE or SCSI - we have an obsolete system, but we have to trust it.
    • Actually an entire generation of American youth living primarily in the inner cities has already learned the metric system quite well thanks to the "War on Drugs". Many can even discern quantities of weight as low as half a gram by hand. (-8
    • The senators and congressmen are all in their 60's so they are a bit too old to learn the metric system. See you can't teach old dogs new tricks so we're stuck with lbs and miles.

      enjoy...
    • can't you people give up on that stupid metric system like Americans?

      you seemed to think it was necessary to make a taement that had nothing to do with your point, Si I did to.
  • 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...

    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. ..but we have a new rocket, guess that's better than nothing.
    • 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!!
    • 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.

    • Re:The Queen is dead! Long live the Queen! (Score:5, Informative)

      by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <.gro.tensad. .ta. .divad.> on Thursday August 22, 2002 @08:45AM (#4117840)
      More Thruster, more lift... We need new ideas and bold steps in propulsion if we're ever going to graduate from the rocket age into bonafide space travel.

      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 [spaceflightnow.com] (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:

      We need new ideas and bold steps in propulsion if we're ever going to graduate from the rocket age into bonafide space travel.

      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:

      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.

      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.

      • The problem with space-related start ups devoted to launching vehicles is that there are significant barriers to entry imposed by the US government bureaucracy. After all, a new launch vehicle would be a military threat as well as an economic threat to NASA and its stable of pet corporations.

    • Re:The Queen is dead! Long live the Queen! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.
    • I fully agree, which is why I'm glad that a company in my own city [space.com] is working on a space elevator that should cost around $10 billion - which is less than we're looking to spend to replace an earthquake-damamged viaduct.

  • Maiden Launch (Score:3, Funny)

    by saihung ( 19097 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:34AM (#4117648)
    You wouldn't call it that if you saw what the Atlas V was doing with the Ariane II out behind the launch pad.

  • Energia with more than double payload (Score:3, Informative)

    by 4im ( 181450 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @07:56AM (#4117689)

    As usual, the Slashdot blurb over-does it. While this puppy is quite strong, it is still far from russian-built Energia [russianspaceweb.com] 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!

  • saturn 5 had 10X the lifting capacity (Score:4, Informative)

    by gonar ( 78767 ) <sparkalicious@@@verizon...net> on Thursday August 22, 2002 @08:27AM (#4117769) Homepage
    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 biggest problem with the Space Shuttle is that it is completely useless to launch anything into a geosynchrous orbit, unless said object had a boosting rocket of its own. For inexpensive artifical sattelites, this is not an option.

      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.

      • 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?

  • An interesting tidbit about the RD-180 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @08:38AM (#4117814)
    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.
    • (* 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; *)

      Well, if it blew up and killed hundreds of people, then dictatorships can hush and suppress. Democracies usually can't.

  • Not a "Heavy Lifter": Exaggerated payload claims (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @09:25AM (#4118009)
    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
    • 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.
    • _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.
      • 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/
  • 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. [pratt-whitney.com]
  • "This next generation heavy lifter can out-lift any rocket built since the Saturn V 'Moon rocket', including the shuttle."


    So the RIAA can finally send a couple fatass execs out to catch all our TV and radio signals before ETs can "pirate" them.
  • From CNN:
    In the future, more robust Atlas 5s are expected to take almost two times the payload of past Atlas 3s, or slightly more than four tons of cargo into geostationary orbit, which is about 22,241 miles (35,786 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.
    From Lockheed-Martin:
    The Atlas V family is designed to lift payloads up to 19,000 pounds (nearly 8,700 kg) to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO).
    So which is it? Let me guess. Someone at CNN saw 8700kg and thought that was 4 tons...

  • 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?

  • Cheaper Spaceflight? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Skarn ( 600715 )
    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.
    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/n0208/21incacit y/
    • 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.

  • What has happened here? (missing cluemeter) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Smilodon ( 66992 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @02:14PM (#4120455)
    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.

  • Payload manuals (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caffiend666 ( 598633 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @04:57PM (#4122035) Homepage
    Space and tech [spaceandtech.com] has information on a lot of production and experimental spacecraft. Including payload user manuals in the expendable launch vehical [spaceandtech.com] section. The Soyuz payload user manual [starsem.com] 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 [nasa.gov]. 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close