Author Topic: Atlas Q&A (Read 4614 times)

DaveJ576 · « **on:** 04/30/2022 10:37 pm »

If Atlas Able had been completely successful, how much would it have been used by NASA? I know that it had been intended as an interim launch vehicle, and it seems as if it was quickly eclipsed in capability by Atlas Agena. Was it really only destined to be a stopgap for a handful of launches or would it have seen wider use if it had been successful?

edkyle99 · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/01/2022 03:17 am »

Atlas-Able was meant to be an interim solution while the more-capable Atlas-Vega (later Atlas-Agena) and Atlas-Centaur were developed. If Atlas-Able had succeeded, it probably would only have flown for a year or two longer at most. Then again, Thor-Able modified to Thor-Delta was also supposed to be an interim effort, until the darn thing kept succeeding!

- Ed Kyle

DaveJ576 · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/01/2022 01:49 pm »

I found a technical manual that showed that the Atlas F had two guide rails attached to either side of the sustainer to keep the booster section from impacting the sustainer during booster separation. Was the two rail configuration common across the Atlas B,C,D, and E models as well? I have seen one non-official reference that showed four rails.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/01/2022 03:56 pm »

Quote from: DaveJ576 on 05/01/2022 01:49 pm

I found a technical manual that showed that the Atlas F had two guide rails attached to either side of the sustainer to keep the booster section from impacting the sustainer during booster separation. Was the two rail configuration common across the Atlas B,C,D, and E models as well? I have seen one non-official reference that showed four rails.

Yes, right through to Atlas 2A and 2AS I'm pretty sure. Here are images of the rails on Atlas 47F and AC-60. These were called "Jettison Tracks". There were "Slides" mounted to the booster package that ran inside the "Tracks", two Slides (Fore and Aft) per Track.

- Ed Kyle

DaveJ576 · « **Reply #4 on:** 11/21/2022 08:00 pm »

A question concerning the Atlas Centaur LV-3C vs the SLV-3C: were the main stage tanks the same length? I know that the SLV-3C had the upgraded -7 sustainer and booster engines, but did the SLV-3C have longer tanks?

Vahe231991 · « **Reply #5 on:** 11/21/2022 08:19 pm »

Quote from: DaveJ576 on 11/21/2022 08:00 pm

A question concerning the Atlas Centaur LV-3C vs the SLV-3C: were the main stage tanks the same length? I know that the SLV-3C had the upgraded -7 sustainer and booster engines, but did the SLV-3C have longer tanks?

Since the Atlas SLV-3C was longer than the LV-3C, I would suppose that it had a slightly longer first stage fuel tank compared to that of the LV-3C.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 11/29/2022 04:24 pm »

Quote from: DaveJ576 on 11/21/2022 08:00 pm

A question concerning the Atlas Centaur LV-3C vs the SLV-3C: were the main stage tanks the same length? I know that the SLV-3C had the upgraded -7 sustainer and booster engines, but did the SLV-3C have longer tanks?

DaveJ576 · « **Reply #7 on:** 08/26/2023 10:54 pm »

Were the fairings on the Atlas Agena B's that launched the P-102 Heavy Ferrets and the OGO two piece split fairings or a one piece nose cone type?

edkyle99 · « **Reply #8 on:** 08/30/2023 02:13 pm »

Quote from: DaveJ576 on 08/26/2023 10:54 pm

Were the fairings on the Atlas Agena B's that launched the P-102 Heavy Ferrets and the OGO two piece split fairings or a one piece nose cone type?

The OGO shrouds appear to have been "Nimbus Type" shrouds, which were two-piece shrouds. They were of fiberglass and aluminum.

SAMOS shroud details are still unknown to me. Peter Hunter collected good photos of them on the launch stand, etc., but the resolution is just not definitive. These were shorter than the Nimbus shrouds. My guess would be two-piece.

- Ed Kyle