Author Topic: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011  (Read 128142 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

In other news, the Pope is Catholic.  I don't think anybody should have been surprised by this decision.

First of all it is ULA, which is half owned by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin.  Atlas V was originally a Lockheed LV and Delta IV was Boeing's LV, so don't know what you are getting at here. Atlas was clearly the winner in a technical stand point.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

In other news, the Pope is Catholic.  I don't think anybody should have been surprised by this decision.
First of all it is ULA, which is half owned by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin.  Atlas V was originally a Lockheed LV and Delta IV was Boeing's LV, so don't know what you are getting at here. Atlas was clearly the winner in a technical stand point.
It was entirely obvious to me that Boeing would select a launcher in which they have a financial interest, which would mean either Delta IV, Atlas V or ;D SLS. Of the three, the only sane option was Atlas V, especially in the light of the recent announcement that ULA would look into human-rating it.

So I stick by my assertion that this announcement was a complete no-brainer.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
...
 Boeing owes 1/2 of ULA.


To whom ?!

lol

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105

Quote
It's still not terribly safe. If engine-out capability is available, better to take advantage of it. Keep the abort as a last resort.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe the Centaur has engine out capacity. If you know otherwise, could you post a link please?
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 09:47 pm by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.


Why wouldn't the 5XX be used?
Or a thicker Centaur can be used.

The difference between the 4xx and 5xx series is the payload fairing used for the 5xx series - but the Boeing capsule cannot be accommodated inside the payload fairing; ergo, Boeing has already decided on using the 4xx series.

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

I guess I don't understand about a "thicker" Centaur. Is the second stage on the 5xx series also 5 meters wide, or do all Atlas V models use the same-sized structure second-stage ?

I thought with the ULA consolidation, I thought that they wanted to eventually eliminate the 4XX series, and go with the common 5M core size that Delta uses.


Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...

Sounds like there's going to be 4 test flights, including an off-the-pad abort, without a booster. Somewhere else, like White Sands? Or actually off *the* pad at LC-41?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

yes, it can.  The skin gage for it and the old Atlas were changed at will to suit mission requirements in the past
the fun Jim is back
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 10:54 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline xyz

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Does anyone know what the timeline is for ULA to bring the dual-engine Centaur into service?

Offline xyz

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
2015 of course

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
You must say one thing about Boeing, they are back in the game.  Someone has started doing some much needed PR work.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723

I guess I don't understand about a "thicker" Centaur. Is the second stage on the 5xx series also 5 meters wide, or do all Atlas V models use the same-sized structure second-stage ?

I thought with the ULA consolidation, I thought that they wanted to eventually eliminate the 4XX series, and go with the common 5M core size that Delta uses.



The Centaur for the 5xx series and the 4xx series are identical - the difference is the payload fairing.

As for the Delta IV and the Atlas V 5xx, they both use "common cores", but the common cores are different.

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 55
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.


If DoD really wanted 2 engine Centaur they would have already paid for it.  2 engine Centaur is mostly for LEO, ISS orbit.  As well the second VIF is only really needed for commercial crew, DoD would only benefit from a second MLP.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.


In a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure, the skin is very much structural.  In aircraft, that skin is often only a few thousands of an inch thick. 

So in a nutshell, yes it can.

Absolutely it can.  All one has to do is look back at Atlas III.  Some of those "balloon tank" Atlas vehicles were topped by Centaur stages weighing nearly 23 tonnes (50,700 pounds), plus payloads plus fairings, etc..  Balloon tank Atlas used pressurized stainless steel tanks just like Centaur, though likely thicker gauge.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.


If DoD really wanted 2 engine Centaur they would have already paid for it.  2 engine Centaur is mostly for LEO, ISS orbit.  As well the second VIF is only really needed for commercial crew, DoD would only benefit from a second MLP.
Nice pics... :)
Edit: Dual Centaur on Atlas III for reference
« Last Edit: 08/05/2011 01:30 am by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon
Now that would be a potential public relations problem. You'd have every news station report about an unexpected explosion... and then forget to ever correct (or at least, never on the first page) that it was expected by the Red Team.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon

I would put one constraint on the red team though, it has to be far enough from the pad so the chances of pad damage are zero ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1