Author Topic: ULA and Boeing Unveil the Atlas V Configuration for the CST-100 Starliner  (Read 30433 times)

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16953
  • Liked: 1054
  • Likes Given: 476
FWIW:
https://twitter.com/barbegan13/status/824855767593259010
Quote
@BonhommeJerome @KSpaceAcademy Starliner is N22. No fairing, 2 solids, 2 RL10s. To launch crew, no fairing for safety/abort

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Any update on when ULA will fly the first  dual engine Centaur on Atlas V?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
Any update on when ULA will fly the first  dual engine Centaur on Atlas V?
A potential TBD LEO flight next year is last I've heard. No word if its an NROL, NASA or Commercial payload and which range it fly from. If another Cygnus flight on Atlas occurs it would be a great test method as OA have said CRS-2 can fly in all 4-metre configs and a launch would be to ISS on same trajectory.

Offline ethan829

Right, I got the picture. However, according to ULA the first digit refers to the fairing diameter, not if the Centaur is encapsulated or not (which is a natural byproduct of the fairing variant used of course). So if they use no fairing at all it's kind of misleading to designate the variant 422 imho.

"N22" is also used.

https://twitter.com/barbegan13/status/787351995078152192

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • USA
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 9
5XX means fairing that encapsulates the whole centaur, 4XX means fairing on top centaur, exposing Centaur.

In the Starliner configurtion, the Centaur is not inside a failring, so 4XX.

Nope. There used to be an Atlas V 300 configuration as well (would've been used both for narrow payloads on Atlas V-Centaur, and all payloads for Atlas V Lite (Atlas V-Agena 2000). 400/500 just means the fairing diameter

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
5XX means fairing that encapsulates the whole centaur, 4XX means fairing on top centaur, exposing Centaur.

In the Starliner configurtion, the Centaur is not inside a failring, so 4XX.

Nope. There used to be an Atlas V 300 configuration as well (would've been used both for narrow payloads on Atlas V-Centaur, and all payloads for Atlas V Lite (Atlas V-Agena 2000). 400/500 just means the fairing diameter
and there was also early option that would have been called AV-200 for DII class payloads, but was dropped in favor of would have been called AV-300 config that ended up being named AV-401 config.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2017 10:02 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • United States
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 75
Some clarification:
There was never a AV-200 or AV-300.

The names during EELV development were:
MLV-D:  The Common Core Booster with SUS (Storable Upper Stage with Athena-based engine), 11 ft PLF.  The "D" was for Delta-class payloads.
MLV-A:  The Common Core Booster with Centaur (Stretched Centaur II with RL10A-4), LPF, EPF, and maybe the 11 ft PLF if needed.

HLV-D:  CCB Heavy with SUS for LEO missions
HLV-G:  CCB Heavy with Centaur for GSO missions

When SUS went away, MLV-G appeared.  This was the additional of solids and the 5-meter PLF.

Then the Atlas V name was chosen.
MLV-A became 401 with only LPF, EPF, and eventually an XPF.   The 11 ft PLF was already off the table.
Then 4xx came to be.
MLV-G became the 5xx series
HLV-G just became Atlas HLV or Atlas HVY

Edit:  Thinking a little more about this, HLV-D might have actually been called HLV-L (L for LEO).
« Last Edit: 05/30/2017 08:58 PM by Newton_V »

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • USA
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 9
There definitely WAS an Atlas V 300. Specific reference to it exists in several regulatory and development documents. It wasn't abandoned until sometime after 2000, the last document I can find that mentions it is https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/eelvSEis.pdf and thats after the Atlas V name was finalized. As best as I can tell, CUS was still planned to use RL10E-1 up until very shortly before the name change to Atlas V as well.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • United States
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 75
There definitely WAS an Atlas V 300. Specific reference to it exists in several regulatory and development documents. It wasn't abandoned until sometime after 2000, the last document I can find that mentions it is https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/eelvSEis.pdf and thats after the Atlas V name was finalized. As best as I can tell, CUS was still planned to use RL10E-1 up until very shortly before the name change to Atlas V as well.

That's interesting, because when Lockheed ceded the small payload market to Delta II (mostly NASA missions segment) the plan was to just use the 401 for the GPS, DMSP, and DSCS, and other MLV-II class payloads.  It was cheaper to just use the 401 than have another smaller/cheaper upper stage.  At that same time, the decision was made to eliminate the 3-m PLF as well, because it's expensive to produce another diameter PLF, but not to add plugs or remove plugs form the 4-m PLF if need be.
Now I'm wondering if Lockheed ever used the 300 naming convention, or just the government.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299

That's interesting, because when Lockheed ceded the small payload market to Delta II (mostly NASA missions segment) the plan was to just use the 401 for the GPS, DMSP, and DSCS, and other MLV-II class payloads. 


That wasn't a Lockheed call.  The USAF eliminated both EELV-S configurations from both contractors.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463

Now I'm wondering if Lockheed ever used the 300 naming convention, or just the government.

Both did for about 2 years until EELV-S was officially dropped by USAF. AV-200 was mere proposal before merged into AV-300 as a new configuration and then abandoned with EELV-S.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4496
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3049
  • Likes Given: 1017
Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 26m26 minutes ago

Very exciting!  Mighty #Atlas Booster for OFT, the first  #Starliner test flight, (uncrewed). @BoeingDefense #LaunchAmerica #Boeing

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/918416260819329025

Edit to add: new thread started for Atlas V for first starline flight
« Last Edit: 10/12/2017 10:48 AM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Tags: