Author Topic: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles  (Read 22840 times)

Offline Dexter

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #20 on: 11/10/2006 05:52 am »
And some here would insist that the author is wrong, getting back to the original topic.

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #21 on: 11/10/2006 06:11 am »
Quote
meiza - 7/11/2006  4:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  3:07 AM
Other than structure, Atlas V CCB stage has many of the same systems as the Atlas II and III.   The ballon tank is not the only thing that defined Atlas.

Interesting. What major systems and approaches for Atlas V came from old Atlas? And what came from Titan? And what were built from scratch?

Edit: I realize maybe this is more of a subject for a book rather than a newspost... :)

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  6:41 AM

As far as sytems, they all came from Atlas.  The avionics came from Atlas.

Structure is not a system it just carries the systems, but the structure came from Titan.  The systems came from Atlas for a reason (they were simly the best available and proven on Atlas III the best rocket ever designed) same as the structure came from Titan for a reason, someone wanted to "Remember the Titan", GX proved that the balloon tank was cheaper to build, how did that happen.  By the way the GX trades were basically commercial and needed to be accurate and the lowest cost.

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #22 on: 11/10/2006 06:23 am »
Atlas III the best rocket ever designed

Gus stated on another thread that the original AIII was to use solids.  He is correct and after production had begun and once EELV people realized that the AIII with soilds would compete with Titan V 401 411 and maybe even 421 it was ordered that the solid version be removed from the design (to eliminate internal competition?).  I believe that three vehicles were produced (with solid capability) before Management could have the design changed.

Atlas III was a great vehicle, it was originally the flag ship of the Atlas family and was scheduled initially for 18 vehilces (this would have grown given the chance).  Atlas III was designed and some production was done before EELV was a twinkle.  Once EELV became a reality the decision to remove the solid capabiltiy came down and even later the decision to cut to 6 came down all hiding behind a scheme to say it was only a pathfinder.  A very unfortunate end to the Best Rocket ever designed.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #23 on: 11/10/2006 12:49 pm »
If the A-III solids were only Castors and not the Aerojet SRM's, it couldn't compete with A-V

The Titan V reference is childish, since only the structure is Titan, and the rest of the rest of the systems are Atlas.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #24 on: 11/10/2006 10:34 pm »
Quote
skywalker - 10/11/2006  12:54 AM

Quote
meiza - 7/11/2006  4:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  3:07 AM
Other than structure, Atlas V CCB stage has many of the same systems as the Atlas II and III.   The ballon tank is not the only thing that defined Atlas.

Interesting. What major systems and approaches for Atlas V came from old Atlas? And what came from Titan? And what were built from scratch?

Edit: I realize maybe this is more of a subject for a book rather than a newspost... :)

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  6:41 AM

As far as sytems, they all came from Atlas.  The avionics came from Atlas.

Structure is not a system it just carries the systems, but the structure came from Titan.  The systems came from Atlas for a reason (they were simly the best available and proven on Atlas III the best rocket ever designed) same as the structure came from Titan for a reason, someone wanted to "Remember the Titan", GX proved that the balloon tank was cheaper to build, how did that happen.  By the way the GX trades were basically commercial and needed to be accurate and the lowest cost.

The original GX was to be powered by a single NK-33 engine.  Lockheed Martin got the design changed to something it was already building (the Atlas III "Single Stage Atlas"  powered by an RD-180) by investing in the Galaxy Express company.  But GX has slipped four or more years behind schedule and the cost of the LPG upper stage engine has more than tripled, leaving Lockheed Martin in the lurch with a promise to supply a stage that it now no longer builds.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/blog019.html  (GX Story)

- Ed Kyle


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #25 on: 11/10/2006 10:45 pm »
Quote
skywalker - 10/11/2006  1:06 AM

Atlas III the best rocket ever designed

Atlas III was pretty good, but I think that Sea Launch Zenit has a pretty good case for "best rocket ever".  It is the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and just one type of fuel/oxidizer.  It almost launches itself - so automatic that Sea Launch has been able to launch the things steadily using small crews - while at sea a gazillion miles from anywhere.   And it flies often.  This year, Sea Launch Zenit has been the second most-flown launch vehicle in the world after R-7/Soyuz.  Launch Platform Odyssey is tied with Gagarin's Baikonur pad as world's busiest in 2006 to date.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #26 on: 11/11/2006 01:39 am »
"The Titan V reference is childish, since only the structure is Titan, and the rest of the rest of the systems are Atlas."

The Atlas people are clearly very proud of the Atlas heritage and well they should be given how great the old Atlas booster was and the Centaur still is.

The technological concept most frequently associated with Atlas will always be the thin walled pressure stabalized steel tanks. It was Bossart's brilliance that thought of this and it was this concept that remained as the integral and "unique" part of the rocket design from the MX-774 in the late 40's through the Atlas III into the early 2000's.

The unique aspect of the Atlas had nothing to do with the CCAPS, GSE, PYC, INU, DAU, payload fairing, engine gimbaling capability, or anything else that you care to mention. The thin walled monocoque tank design, which was and is (for the Centaur) totally and completely unique in the rocket industry is what defined and separated the Atlas (and Centaur) from everything else.


Offline Dexter

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #27 on: 11/11/2006 03:19 am »
Here is another point to consider in the apparent historical revisionism of the Atlas III.

In a published Lockheed paper,

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

Figure 2 on page 3 of the pdf has a nice little chart on launch cost ($/lb) comparing Atlas V to legacy Atlas vehices.

Can anyone guess which Atlas vehicle is missing from the chart??

Offline Dexter

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #28 on: 11/11/2006 03:28 am »
Here is another one;

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13345.pdf

Figure 1, page 3 of the pdf.

Same Question.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #29 on: 11/11/2006 03:34 am »
Quote
bombay - 10/11/2006  8:22 PM

The technological concept most frequently associated with Atlas will always be the thin walled pressure stabalized steel tanks. It was Bossart's brilliance that thought of this and it was this concept that remained as the integral and "unique" part of the rocket design from the MX-774 in the late 40's through the Atlas III into the early 2000's..... The thin walled monocoque tank design, which was and is (for the Centaur) totally and completely unique in the rocket industry is what defined and separated the Atlas (and Centaur) from everything else.

Along with the balloon tank, the one-and-a-half stage design with the separable booster package was a hallmark of Atlas.  On Atlas III, the single-stage RD-180 replaced the one-and-a-half stage Rocketdyne propulsion system, which is why I don't compile anything that flew after Atlas IIA(S) in the original "Atlas" category.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #30 on: 11/11/2006 04:26 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/11/2006  10:17 PM

Quote
bombay - 10/11/2006  8:22 PM

The technological concept most frequently associated with Atlas will always be the thin walled pressure stabalized steel tanks. It was Bossart's brilliance that thought of this and it was this concept that remained as the integral and "unique" part of the rocket design from the MX-774 in the late 40's through the Atlas III into the early 2000's..... The thin walled monocoque tank design, which was and is (for the Centaur) totally and completely unique in the rocket industry is what defined and separated the Atlas (and Centaur) from everything else.

Along with the balloon tank, the one-and-a-half stage design with the separable booster package was a hallmark of Atlas.  On Atlas III, the single-stage RD-180 replaced the one-and-a-half stage Rocketdyne propulsion system, which is why I don't compile anything that flew after Atlas IIA(S) in the original "Atlas" category.  

 - Ed Kyle
Yes, very good point.  The 1 and 1/2 stage sustainer/booster engines were derived from the MX-1593 ballistic missile contract from the 50's.

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #31 on: 11/11/2006 04:47 am »
Here are a few talking points.

Station planes-
Atlas legacy was similar to aircraft design. Station lines start at 0 the front of the plane and increase moving aft. This practice was used by the Atlas legacy programs. On Atlas V CCB, the station plane value is zero at the bottom of the rocket and increase as you move up the vehicle or forward.

I've been thinking about why this would be. Intuition would tell me that the Atlas III was built-out fwd to aft and the Atlas V (and Titan) were built-out from aft to fwd. This way your assembly starting point is at station 0 for both vehicles. Is this the case?

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #32 on: 11/11/2006 05:41 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/11/2006 5:28 PM

Quote
skywalker - 10/11/2006 1:06 AM

Atlas III the best rocket ever designed

Atlas III was pretty good, but I think that Sea Launch Zenit has a pretty good case for "best rocket ever". It is the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and just one type of fuel/oxidizer. It almost launches itself - so automatic that Sea Launch has been able to launch the things steadily using small crews - while at sea a gazillion miles from anywhere. And it flies often. This year, Sea Launch Zenit has been the second most-flown launch vehicle in the world after R-7/Soyuz. Launch Platform Odyssey is tied with Gagarin's Baikonur pad as world's busiest in 2006 to date.

- Ed Kyle

You make a good point, but I feel that the A III never really got the chance to prove itself because its life was cut short, this also kept it from evolving. It obviously was the best traditional Atlas. I also enjoyed your use of gazillion.

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #33 on: 11/11/2006 05:45 am »
Quote
Dexter - 10/11/2006  10:02 PM

Here is another point to consider in the apparent historical revisionism of the Atlas III.

In a published Lockheed paper,

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

Figure 2 on page 3 of the pdf has a nice little chart on launch cost ($/lb) comparing Atlas V to legacy Atlas vehices.

Can anyone guess which Atlas vehicle is missing from the chart??

Quote
Dexter - 10/11/2006  10:11 PM

Here is another one;

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13345.pdf

Figure 1, page 3 of the pdf.

Same Question.

Dexter makes some interesting points, why was the A III left off?

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #34 on: 11/11/2006 05:55 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/11/2006  5:17 PM

Quote
skywalker - 10/11/2006  12:54 AM

Quote
meiza - 7/11/2006  4:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  3:07 AM
Other than structure, Atlas V CCB stage has many of the same systems as the Atlas II and III.   The ballon tank is not the only thing that defined Atlas.

Interesting. What major systems and approaches for Atlas V came from old Atlas? And what came from Titan? And what were built from scratch?

Edit: I realize maybe this is more of a subject for a book rather than a newspost... :)

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  6:41 AM

As far as sytems, they all came from Atlas.  The avionics came from Atlas.

Structure is not a system it just carries the systems, but the structure came from Titan.  The systems came from Atlas for a reason (they were simly the best available and proven on Atlas III the best rocket ever designed) same as the structure came from Titan for a reason, someone wanted to "Remember the Titan", GX proved that the balloon tank was cheaper to build, how did that happen.  By the way the GX trades were basically commercial and needed to be accurate and the lowest cost.

The original GX was to be powered by a single NK-33 engine.  Lockheed Martin got the design changed to something it was already building (the Atlas III "Single Stage Atlas"  powered by an RD-180) by investing in the Galaxy Express company.  But GX has slipped four or more years behind schedule and the cost of the LPG upper stage engine has more than tripled, leaving Lockheed Martin in the lurch with a promise to supply a stage that it now no longer builds.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/blog019.html  (GX Story)

- Ed Kyle


My understanding is that LM did NOT want to be a partner originally, that they only wanted to be a sub-contractor, they did not want to invest.

What was the designed changed from?  The only design LM put out was an A III, but only after a trade study was done to prove it was best cost option.

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #35 on: 11/11/2006 06:04 am »
Quote
bombay - 10/11/2006  8:22 PM

"The Titan V reference is childish, since only the structure is Titan, and the rest of the rest of the systems are Atlas."

The Atlas people are clearly very proud of the Atlas heritage and well they should be given how great the old Atlas booster was and the Centaur still is.

The technological concept most frequently associated with Atlas will always be the thin walled pressure stabalized steel tanks. It was Bossart's brilliance that thought of this and it was this concept that remained as the integral and "unique" part of the rocket design from the MX-774 in the late 40's through the Atlas III into the early 2000's.

The unique aspect of the Atlas had nothing to do with the CCAPS, GSE, PYC, INU, DAU, payload fairing, engine gimbaling capability, or anything else that you care to mention. The thin walled monocoque tank design, which was and is (for the Centaur) totally and completely unique in the rocket industry is what defined and separated the Atlas (and Centaur) from everything else.


I really think this goes back to the car analogy, a VW body with what ever in it / under it is a VW and a Jag with what ever in it / under it is a Jag.   Speaking of Jaguars how would the designers of that car like them being called a Ford, and for the oposite I bet the Ford people would mind, much less, if Fords were changed to Jaguars.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #36 on: 11/11/2006 03:20 pm »
Quote
skywalker - 11/11/2006  12:38 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 10/11/2006  5:17 PM

Quote
skywalker - 10/11/2006  12:54 AM

Quote
meiza - 7/11/2006  4:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  3:07 AM
Other than structure, Atlas V CCB stage has many of the same systems as the Atlas II and III.   The ballon tank is not the only thing that defined Atlas.

Interesting. What major systems and approaches for Atlas V came from old Atlas? And what came from Titan? And what were built from scratch?

Edit: I realize maybe this is more of a subject for a book rather than a newspost... :)

Quote
Jim - 7/11/2006  6:41 AM

As far as sytems, they all came from Atlas.  The avionics came from Atlas.

Structure is not a system it just carries the systems, but the structure came from Titan.  The systems came from Atlas for a reason (they were simly the best available and proven on Atlas III the best rocket ever designed) same as the structure came from Titan for a reason, someone wanted to "Remember the Titan", GX proved that the balloon tank was cheaper to build, how did that happen.  By the way the GX trades were basically commercial and needed to be accurate and the lowest cost.

The original GX was to be powered by a single NK-33 engine.  Lockheed Martin got the design changed to something it was already building (the Atlas III "Single Stage Atlas"  powered by an RD-180) by investing in the Galaxy Express company.  But GX has slipped four or more years behind schedule and the cost of the LPG upper stage engine has more than tripled, leaving Lockheed Martin in the lurch with a promise to supply a stage that it now no longer builds.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/blog019.html  (GX Story)

- Ed Kyle


My understanding is that LM did NOT want to be a partner originally, that they only wanted to be a sub-contractor, they did not want to invest.

What was the designed changed from?  The only design LM put out was an A III, but only after a trade study was done to prove it was best cost option.

The original plans, as I understand them, called for Lockheed Martin to supply stainless steel "balloon" type tanks, and that was about it.  The first stage would be LOX/kerosene powered by a single NK-33 engine from Aerojet.   The original second stage was to be powered by a new liquid natural gas (LNG)/liquid oxygen (LOX) pressure-fed engine developed by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. (IHI).

The project was originally intended to produce a low-cost alternative to the too-expensive J-1 launcher.  Cost drove the decision to adapt the already-existing Atlas III stage, eliminating a lot of development expenditure.  Unfortunately, the plan to develop from scratch an all-new upper stage propellant combination seems to have been a costly error.  It isn't so much that the LNG is impossible to solve, but that the plan also called for all-new cutting-edge aluminum/composite tanks and pressure-fed engines.  JAXA/IHI may have had to scrap both ideas now.  If low-cost was the true driver all along, GX should have developed a more proven LOX/kerosene stage type - or perhaps have licensed production of something like the Delta II second stage.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #37 on: 11/11/2006 03:34 pm »
So is a Titan I in the same family as a Titan IV? The heritage is there just like the heritage that goes from the MX-774 all the way to the ATLAS 5.

If the move to the RD-180 occured while the ATLAS was still an ICBM (now that would be bizzare) would we be argueing the herittage?

No one is argueing the heritage of the Thor/Delta. A Delta IV is deffinately not a Thor derived vehicle.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #38 on: 11/11/2006 04:47 pm »
Quote
kevin-rf - 11/11/2006  10:17 AM

So is a Titan I in the same family as a Titan IV? The heritage is there just like the heritage that goes from the MX-774 all the way to the ATLAS 5.

If the move to the RD-180 occured while the ATLAS was still an ICBM (now that would be bizzare) would we be argueing the herittage?

No one is argueing the heritage of the Thor/Delta. A Delta IV is deffinately not a Thor derived vehicle.
The Titan from inception consisted of a welded structurally stable aluminum structure with two internal and physically separate propellant tanks.  That "core" design never changed.  So the Titan I to Titan IV heritage remained intact.

As mentioned, steel balloons and Atlas are analogous.  The pressure stabalized concept was the most profound differentiator when comparing Atlas to the rest.  The Atlas V has a structurally stable aluminum structure as the Titan did.  Based on this principal change, the lineage between Atlas V and and what preceded has been broken.

I mentioned on another thread awhile back that the Atlas name was hijacked and applied to the Atlas V for marketing reasons.  The Atlas name equated to success at competitive rates in both the commercial and gov't markets.  Titan on the other hand equated to gov't specific launches at out-of-control prices.  You really can't blame Lockheed for making that decision because it was the smart thing to do.    



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #39 on: 11/11/2006 09:58 pm »
Quote
bombay - 11/11/2006  12:30 PM

Quote
kevin-rf - 11/11/2006  10:17 AM

So is a Titan I in the same family as a Titan IV? The heritage is there just like the heritage that goes from the MX-774 all the way to the ATLAS 5.

If the move to the RD-180 occured while the ATLAS was still an ICBM (now that would be bizzare) would we be argueing the herittage?

No one is argueing the heritage of the Thor/Delta. A Delta IV is deffinately not a Thor derived vehicle.
The Titan from inception consisted of a welded structurally stable aluminum structure with two internal and physically separate propellant tanks.  That "core" design never changed.  So the Titan I to Titan IV heritage remained intact.

As mentioned, steel balloons and Atlas are analogous.  The pressure stabalized concept was the most profound differentiator when comparing Atlas to the rest.  The Atlas V has a structurally stable aluminum structure as the Titan did.  Based on this principal change, the lineage between Atlas V and and what preceded has been broken.



Stucture is not the only thing that defines a vehicle   A change in propellant, especially cryogenic to hypergolic is just as different the structural changes of Atlas I-III to Atlas V and therefore, Titan I is not the same as the Titan II-IV.  Every system of the Titan II was different than the Titan I.  There even was a change in diameter of the second stage.  

The naming of Titan II is the same as the naming of Atlas V


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0