Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Transportation

ULA Is Livestreaming An Atlas V Rocket Launch (upi.com) 59

United Launch Alliance -- a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Boeing -- is livestreaming tonight's launch of an Atlas V rocket. UPI reports: The rocket is set to blast-off at 7:13 p.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida... The primary payload is the Continuous Broadcast Augmenting SATCOM, or CBAS, a geostationary communications satellite... Behind the CBAS payload is EAGLE, a platform capable of releasing several secondary payloads into space. According to Gunter's Space Page, EAGLE is carrying five additional payloads, all experimental satellites.
Here's a good overview of the mission: Saturday's mission will begin with ignition of the Atlas Common Core Booster's RD-180 engine, 2.7 seconds before the countdown reaches zero... Five Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-60A solid rocket motors will augment the CCB at liftoff, igniting about T+1.1 seconds as the rocket lifts off. Climbing away from Cape Canaveral, AV-079 will begin a series of pitch and yaw maneuvers 3.9 seconds into its mission, placing the rocket onto an 89.9-degree azimuth -- almost due East -- for the journey into orbit. Atlas will reach Mach 1, the speed of sound, 34.4 seconds after liftoff, passing through the area of maximum dynamic pressure -- Max-Q -- eleven-and-a-half seconds later.
Long-time Slashdot reader Zorro also shares an interesting remark by the CEO of Boeing when asked if Boeing's cancelled Sonic Cruiser might be making a comeback. "'Something better,' teased the Boeing boss, promising point-to-point connectivity anywhere on Earth in a matter of hours."

And when asked whether Boeing might launch a car into space, he replied instead that "We might pick up the one that's out there and bring it back."

ULA Is Livestreaming An Atlas V Rocket Launch

Comments Filter:
  • It's Ralphie doing the commentary!

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      I did a screenshot of him and then punched it into Google reverse image search. Google identified the image as "Bowtie" and suggested the website "How to tie a bow tie".

      Of the people it thought he looked like: link [tumblr.com]

    • It's Ralphie doing the commentary!

      Yeah there was some resemblance.

      I would say though, that ULA has it all over SpaceX's coverage.

      Disclaimer - I am a fan of SpaceX, not it's launch coverage.

      ULA has a lot of information on how they do their launches. It was enjoyable t watch, and l'm a slut for rh sound and fury of the take-off.

      Then there was the Falcon Heavy launch. Much hype. Many we are awesome. Very cheer.

      More like a mutant science/reality/college football game show.

      It was a little obvious that someone at a mixer was bringi

      • I'd disagree. The production values on the ULA program were laughable. Camera menus on screen? Please.

        Both ULA and SpaceX can be faulted (when I'm in Aspie mode) for silliness and fluff, at least SpaceX gave us the technical broadcasts. Sometimes. But I'm glad ULA is moving into the Modern World. It was nice to see some of the details of the launch. And to be fair, it's hard to pace a rocket launch. Has about as much internal excitement as an NFL game.

        But the bow tie? Now, that's just not playing fa

        • I'd disagree. The production values on the ULA program were laughable. Camera menus on screen? Please.

          Both ULA and SpaceX can be faulted (when I'm in Aspie mode) for silliness and fluff, at least SpaceX gave us the technical broadcasts. Sometimes. But I'm glad ULA is moving into the Modern World. It was nice to see some of the details of the launch. And to be fair, it's hard to pace a rocket launch. Has about as much internal excitement as an NFL game.

          But the bow tie? Now, that's just not playing fair.

          Well, production values are one thing. But it is pretty obvious that SpaceX has decided that hearing people cheer is much more important than the roar of a rocket engine.

          And those cheers and their fade-in and out could have been the same thing played over and over again. There were also surprisingly few views of the SpaceX Falcon9 Heavy. I'm perhaps not alone in preferring to hear the roar of the barely contained explosion of rocket engines.

          I get it. Getting people interested in STEM. But only a few e

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            "Studio audience"? Cheers "played over and over again"? Are you kidding?

            The latest Slashdot conspiracy theory: SpaceX uses prerecorded cheering during launches.

            • "Studio audience"? Cheers "played over and over again"? Are you kidding?

              The latest Slashdot conspiracy theory: SpaceX uses prerecorded cheering during launches.

              Whooshies! But I'll give it a pass because it's kinda funny.

  • by Rei ( 128717 )

    Sad to see those SRBs when they jetison them. After seeing so many SpaceX launches, I automatically expect to see them orient themselves and then do a boostback burn. Then I have to remind myself... no, there's nothing about this craft that's going to be landing, it's all disposable.

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      And now it's just narration while we stare at some bored-looking men in suits in mission control.

      • But it's competition, and competition makes every player better.

      • Somebody is going to put up a split picture view of a SpaceX launch and a ULA event. A lot of the shots will look remarkably similar.

        And then there will the the mission control sequences. A more succinct visual of the differences between the two approaches could not be made.

  • A message to ULA: Don't bother; you're not interesting.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      Meh, they're trying. Belatedly.

      But yeah... this isn't exactly on par with watching a SpaceX launch. Even if they seemed more excited about their work, the fact that they don't seem to be trying to really achieve anything meaningful, pushing envelopes on what can be done... that sort of guarantees that they're not going to make as interesting of a webcast.

      But again... at least they're trying.

    • I will say this for this particular launch, with all those strap on SRBs, that rocket got up and went when it left the launch pad. The Falcons and other launches I've watched lately kind of lazily climbed off the pad. This one looked like an Estes rocket in comparison.
      Otherwise, I agree with your general sentiment. Even the quality of the in-flight video wasn't as good as Space-X and we didn't get to see the staging.

      • Those five strap on SRBs do help don't they! Strap three F9 boosters together to make a Falcon Heavy and you'll get a similar thrust to weight ratio at liftoff. For GEO missions, it's all about minimizing the gravity losses to have as much fuel available in space as possible.
  • by hey! ( 33014 )

    They brought Patrick Moore back from the dead to narrate.

  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @07:20PM (#56438805)

    Thanks Slashdot. Amazing.

  • by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @07:22PM (#56438813)
    If anybody wants to watch 7:13 ET is apparently 23:13 (UTC) so adjust for your own time zone... aaand you've missed it.
  • The processes that drive developers to your pet project haven't changed any. Go and publish your langauge spec, and get cracking on your parser.

    If your design is actually good, people will work on it. Nobody gives a shit what you feel - your feelings can go get fucked. Developers care about what actually is good, not what someone feels is good.

  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @07:58PM (#56438927)
    Wake me up when they livestream the landing
  • Atlas V thrust (2018): 3,827 kN [wikipedia.org]
    Saturn V thrust (1967): 35,100 kN [wikipedia.org]

    • And your point would be what, exactly? To launch a payload that can go on a moderately-sized rocket on the most capable rocket ever made, just to you would find it more "cool", for some reason?

              The interesting and important end of the rocket is in the nose, not the tail.

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        What the heck is wrong with commenters on this Slashdot article? It's like people are just searching for some reason to dig into other commenters.

        Tough Love said nothing about "this should have been launched on a Saturn V". They were pointing out that is impressive as this rocket may be, it's nothing compared to what the US was achieving in the 1960s.

        Please try to learn not to interpret reflective comments as demands.

    • Actually, it's around 12 MN for the 551 version.
  • My wife and I were there and got to watch from the beach where they were filming shortly after liftoff. It was cool. You should go see one sometime.
  • This is great! I wish all launches were live streemed. I am still amazed that many people are fixated on minimizing rocket fuel cost. The move to purchase an air breathing engine for rockets is going to turn out to be a big financial mistake. It is fool hardy to think you can put an O2 liqifacation plant on a rocket. The physics are way way harder than landing a rocket vertically. And talk about carrying useless mass around... condensing coils, wings, full surface heat shielding for wings not only the ineff
    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The monetary cost of the oxidizer is not the issue. If it was, the launch company would just build their own land based plant to liquify oxygen.

      The issue is that the LOX and associated insulated tank and vent system is heavy. They'd like to replace that weight with payload that they'll get paid for. A close second is that holding all that LOX in close proximity to all that fuel is dangerous.

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        The GP never said nor implied that the cost of LOX is the issue (they argued just the opposite). Their main point was that putting the mass of a O2 liquefaction plant on a rocket, so large that it can liquefy a whole first stage's worth of oxygen in a matter of minutes - and having that be mass that you then have to land if you want the vehicle to be reusable - is not a reasonable approach. They're probably right.

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          OP said

          I am still amazed that many people are fixated on minimizing rocket fuel cost.

          The rest was just an odd speculation about a "solution" that nobody is considering. Air breathing first stages have NEVER included an oxygen liquification mechanism. They operate more akin to a jet. Or, in cases like Space Ship One, the first stage IS a jet. The cost of fuel/oxidizer had nothing to do with that decision.

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...