Author Topic: Save Atlas 5A (56-6742) rocket from being scrapped - Campaign and Fundraiser  (Read 81296 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
I suppose we'll never know why NASA Glenn didn't get to inspect this Atlas before it was yanked down and bent.   

 - Ed Kyle
My theory is that they want to initiate construction on that land as the spring begins, hence the rush. We’ll see if it proves true...

My theory is that this had to do with their insurance company telling them they had a liability they had to deal with. "Fix it and make it safe or we won't insure it. Or tear it down. Your choice."

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
I contacted them about us raising money to save the Atlas; they did not ask if the could have the money to restore the missile and keep it there.

IMHO, they had made a tough decision and did not want to open old wounds, so to speak.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
I contacted them about us raising money to save the Atlas; they did not ask if the could have the money to restore the missile and keep it there.

IMHO, they had made a tough decision and did not want to open old wounds, so to speak.

Yeah, and that's a valuable point. We on the outside don't know what factors went into their decision-making. But we also don't know what their process is. They might have a board meeting twice a year, and at the last board meeting they decided to get rid of the Atlas. The next meeting might be five months away and they have no procedure for calling an earlier meeting (because maybe the members are all volunteers who agree to meet only twice a year). So unless somebody says "I'll give you a million dollars to reverse the decision," they don't want to deal with it. The decision was made, they have many other things to deal with, and that's that.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I'm going to say this again for the last time... If the public was at risk a safety fence would have been put up immediately...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
I'm going to say this again for the last time... If the public was at risk a safety fence would have been put up immediately...

Yeah, and that's an overly simplistic way to look at it. If their insurance company said "this thing is dangerous and if you don't do something about it by X date we will not insure you" then that doesn't require them to immediately erect a fence. It does require them to decide to either put up a fence by that date, risk going without insurance, or tear it down. Just because they took it down instead of erecting a fence doesn't prove it was not risky.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7680
I'm going to say this again for the last time... If the public was at risk a safety fence would have been put up immediately...

Yeah, and that's an overly simplistic way to look at it. If their insurance company said "this thing is dangerous and if you don't do something about it by X date we will not insure you" then that doesn't require them to immediately erect a fence. It does require them to decide to either put up a fence by that date, risk going without insurance, or tear it down. Just because they took it down instead of erecting a fence doesn't prove it was not risky.


Our governments in Canada act no different that in the USA: They drag their feet and then go and do something completely extreme, and we just look back and ask: why?

In the end it doesn't matter I suppose - the damage is done.
Had they cared one iota, this would have been handled differently (although as I think about it: probably with the same result).

Online Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Liked: 773
  • Likes Given: 1126
Well, even in its current condition, the Atlas 5A is still in better shape than the WRESAT Redstone.  :o

AT least that flew, which is why it's in bad shape.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Ronpur50

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Brandon, FL
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 1884
Does anyone know what ended up happening to this Atlas?  I never heard it got moved so I assume it was scrapped.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
I'm in the same boat as you.

Offline eeergo

-DaviD-

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Could it be one of these? https://twitter.com/FarryFaz/status/1187070744775274497

Those are D-series Atlases as you can clearly see the sustainer engine and detachable nose cone. One of them looks partially collapsed and is missing its booster section. Test articles maybe? Or flight article missiles that were never used--I know several Atlases built for Mercury were never flown, there could well be more from other programs.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 03:06 pm by WallE »

Offline JoeFromRIUSA

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Rhode Island USA
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 600
Uh oh, WallE...better brace yourself

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
The un-collapsed Atlas might be a B or C - or even an A modified to host a fake sustainer engine for display, if it has equal-length side pods - its hard to tell from the photos.  My guess is that these used to be USAF displays at PAFB and/or at CCAFS that were taken down or damaged.  There used to be two Atlases at the CCAFS Museum, then there was one (I saw it during the 1990s - it was an E so isn't the un-collapsed one here), now I believe there is none.

Here is my spotter "cheat sheet" for these things.  :)
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas-ICBM.jpg

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 05:10 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
The un-collapsed Atlas might be a B or C - or even an A modified to host a fake sustainer engine for display, if it has equal-length side pods - its hard to tell from the photos.  My guess is that these used to be USAF displays at PAFB and/or at CCAFS that were taken down or damaged.  There used to be two Atlases at the CCAFS Museum, then there was one (I saw it during the 1990s - it was an E so isn't the un-collapsed one here), now I believe there is none.

Since one of the missiles has a missing booster section and you can see the sustainer hardware, it's obviously not an A. The other one isn't an A either as it has a detachable nose cone. It could be a B or C but it's hard to tell from such small pictures. One of the reasons I suggested a D was because there were bazillions of those while only a small number of the A/B/Cs were made so it's more likely some test articles or unflown flight article missiles have survived. The equipment pods were different lengths on the D, yes, but we can't see the other side of the missile. If we could, it would be easily identified.

I do have to wonder what happened to the unused Mercury boosters. For example 77D was supposed to launch MA-2 and was withdrawn after the postflight findings from MA-1 came out. I have never heard anything about its fate after that. Most likely scrapped and the hardware used in some other Atlas, but who knows? Other Atlas LV-3Bs were being worked on when Project Mercury terminated in June 1963, some of those apparently in a state of partial completion. There was talk of using them for GATV but NASA decided to just buy newer SLV-3 Atlases instead.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 06:43 pm by WallE »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Here's a thread where we discussed displayed Atlas missiles a few years ago, including input from the late, great Art LeBrun.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16540.0

One of my posts included this photo, which shows a long-ago displayed Atlas that was at the CCAFS Museum.  Looks kinda familiar....

As for the A missile design, it did not have a flight-separable nose cone, but it did have a nose cone that had to be attached to the adapter section before flight.  See drawing below.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 06:44 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
I can't find a photo of an Atlas A without the nose but on most later Atlases there was this support ring in the adapter section. You can't see anything like that in the photos but again they're very small.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
The last memory I have from the Save the Atlas campaign was the Atlas was moved to an Ottawa scrap yard.

Tags:
 

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