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.
Quote from: peter-b on 08/04/2011 09:19 pmCapsule 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.
... Boeing owes 1/2 of ULA.
QuoteIt'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?
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.
Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:05 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 02:44 pmQuote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 01:55 pmAtlas 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 400Any 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.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:05 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 02:44 pmQuote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 01:55 pmAtlas 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 400Any 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.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 02:44 pmQuote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 01:55 pmAtlas 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 400Any 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.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 01:55 pmAtlas 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
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.
Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...
Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:10 pmAs 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
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.
Quote from: renclod on 08/04/2011 05:23 pmQuote from: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:13 pm...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. TLYFb. It can't be flown empty c. it can't be flown with different fluidd. too much engineering to do the above
Quote from: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:13 pm...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.
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.
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.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:49 pm"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.
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2011 11:21 pmThinking 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.
Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2011 05:26 pmQuote from: renclod on 08/04/2011 05:23 pmQuote from: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:13 pm...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. TLYFb. It can't be flown empty c. it can't be flown with different fluidd. too much engineering to do the aboveIf 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.
Quote from: rsnellenberger on 08/04/2011 11:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/04/2011 05:26 pmQuote from: renclod on 08/04/2011 05:23 pmQuote from: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:13 pm...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. TLYFb. It can't be flown empty c. it can't be flown with different fluidd. too much engineering to do the aboveIf 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
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