-
#120
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 04 Aug, 2011 21:26
-
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.
-
#121
by
peter-b
on 04 Aug, 2011 21:33
-
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
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.
-
#122
by
renclod
on 04 Aug, 2011 21:43
-
...
Boeing owes 1/2 of ULA.
To whom ?!
lol
-
#123
by
douglas100
on 04 Aug, 2011 21:46
-
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?
-
#124
by
Lurker Steve
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:03
-
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.
-
#125
by
corrodedNut
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:19
-
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?
-
#126
by
Prober
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:27
-
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
-
#127
by
xyz
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:33
-
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.
-
#128
by
Lars_J
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:39
-
Does anyone know what the timeline is for ULA to bring the dual-engine Centaur into service?
-
#129
by
xyz
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:41
-
2015 of course
-
#130
by
Prober
on 04 Aug, 2011 22:56
-
You must say one thing about Boeing, they are back in the game. Someone has started doing some much needed PR work.
-
#131
by
Danderman
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:21
-
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.
-
#132
by
Danderman
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:23
-
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.
-
#133
by
rsnellenberger
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:35
-
...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.
-
#134
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:45
-
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.
-
#135
by
edkyle99
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:45
-
"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
-
#136
by
Rocket Science
on 04 Aug, 2011 23:52
-
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
-
#137
by
jongoff
on 05 Aug, 2011 00:14
-
...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
-
#138
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Aug, 2011 00:31
-
...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.
-
#139
by
kevin-rf
on 05 Aug, 2011 00:32
-
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
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.
