-
#280 by Jim on 06 Nov, 2006 11:46
-
Quote
bombay - 6/11/2006 1:11 AM
1. If anyone is spouting BS it's you. We already covered in detail on previous pages of this thread what the Atlas III was capable of delivering when the Atlas V came on line. Perhaps you should go back and read the posted information to jog your short memory.
2. We also covered the "Titanization" of the Atlas program, which defines ULA - so I won't bore people with that topic.
3. I stand by what I said. The Titan, or should I say - Atlas - influence will run amock over the Delta IV team upon the formation of ULA. Denver will promote Atlas to the nth degree and treat the Delta like a stepchild. In fact, Denver will act and sound no different than you do when talking this subject.
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings. -
#281 by Dexter on 06 Nov, 2006 23:24
-
Quote
lmike - 5/11/2006 10:02 PM
The Atlas V *is* a "better rocket" The rest is neither here nor there. You can argue 'till you turn blue. If the dollar dispensing department likes it, don't blame it on anything else...
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Of course, the Atlas V defenders will say it has to be American but don't address the lethargic rate that Lockheed has taken to Americanize the RD-180 which was promised in 1997.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Saturn V development took less time for clean sheet design than the excercise to copy someone else's technology.
When there is an American RD-180 powering an Atlas V and all the costs are based on actual expenditures I might be able to agree with this assertion. -
#282 by Dexter on 06 Nov, 2006 23:45
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
-
#283 by Jim on 06 Nov, 2006 23:53
-
Quote
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:07 PM
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Wrong again. The Atlas has a better success record.
The Proton is more subsidized. Russian conscript soldiers are part of the launch team and the rest of the team is paid lower wages than US workers. -
#284 by Dexter on 07 Nov, 2006 00:00
-
They continue to sell commercial launches. That in essence is a vote by the launch industry.
Conscript soldiers? Why don't we do that?
Lower wages? Wonder what Proton executives make in relation to Lockheed executives? Not to mention the number of executives needed.
Didn't touch the RD-180 issue (again). -
#285 by Jim on 07 Nov, 2006 00:17
-
Quote
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
QuoteJim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother. -
#286 by bombay on 07 Nov, 2006 00:29
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:36 PM
Don't even go there with the Atlas success record. The true Atlas (stainless balloon) including I, II, IIAS, III flew 570 with a 97% success rate. The phony Atlas V (rigid aluminum) flew 8 times.QuoteDexter - 6/11/2006 7:07 PM
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Wrong again. The Atlas has a better success record.
The Proton is more subsidized. Russian conscript soldiers are part of the launch team and the rest of the team is paid lower wages than US workers.
The Proton flew over 300 times with a 96% success rate.
The simple fact is the Proton was the preferred choice of ILS for commercial missions because of reliability and pricing. The Proton could compete commercially, Atlas V couldn't.
Of course Atlas III would have run neck and neck commercially with Proton in pricing and reliability, but I guess there was no real interest by Lockheed to compete commercially. -
#287 by Jim on 07 Nov, 2006 00:42
-
Quote
bombay - 6/11/2006 8:12 PM
Of course Atlas III would have run neck and neck commercially with Proton in pricing and reliability, but I guess there was no real interest by Lockheed to compete commercially.
Constantly wrong again
As posted before A-III is too small for current comsats -
#288 by Jim on 07 Nov, 2006 00:51
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 8:00 PM
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Forgot to include two of the missions were 5m fairings also. These also had 2 solids when no solids could have got them to GTO. Bus size doesn't matter if the payload package is larger -
#289 by bombay on 07 Nov, 2006 04:52
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:00 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.QuoteDexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
QuoteJim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
-
#290 by Dexter on 07 Nov, 2006 05:03
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:00 PM
QuoteDexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
QuoteJim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.Thats not what Gus said. It was because Lockheed wanted to truncate Atlas 3.
Which ones were GTO and which ones were supersynchonous?
Which Facts did I make that are false. I simply posted some spacecraft masses in relation to Atlas 3 advertised capability. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't give me an absolute statement that Atlas 3 could not have done any of the missions flown on V because all we have to do is go back to your EELV manifest post and look at all the NAVSTAR 2F sattelites that are 1545 kg.
Another attempt to supress ideas and opinions not in line with yours.
Do I need to practice the goosestep and my "Zieg Heils"?
? -
#291 by Dexter on 07 Nov, 2006 05:15
-
Quote
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:34 PM
QuoteJim - 6/11/2006 8:00 PM
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Forgot to include two of the missions were 5m fairings also. These also had 2 solids when no solids could have got them to GTO. Bus size doesn't matter if the payload package is larger
Both missions used A2100AX satellites. According to Gunter's space page:
"The company has standardized on this bus. Much of the R&D is directed toward increasing the power available on the satellite and the A2100 bus, which is capable of generating 15 kW in its standard configuration. This involves work on the integration of new, higher efficiency solar cells, onto the innovative solar "pleated shades," the use of high efficiency, radiation cooled TWTAs, the design of more efficient heat pipes and fold out radiators and improved design for thermal dissipation. Company engineers make extensive use of CAD tools and claim that they can deliver a satellite that uses the A2100 bus in 18 months after receipt of the order.
The A2100 series is modular and can be configured in three different sizes:
A2100A = 1 to 4 kW
A2100AX =4 to x kW
A2100AXX =x to y kW "
Look at all the A2100AX missions again according to Gunter's Space page.
A2100AX
AMC 14 2007 Proton-M Briz-M
AMC 15 14.10.2004 Proton-M Briz-M 4021
AMC 16 17.12.2004 Atlas-5(521) 4065
Astra 1KR 20.04.2006 Atlas-5(411) 4332
Astra 1L 2007 Ariane-5ECA 4300
Echostar 3 06.10.1997 Atlas-2AS 3674
Echostar 4 07.05.1998 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3478
Echostar 7 21.02.2002 Atlas-3B-DEC 4026
Echostar 10 15.02.2006 Zenit-3SL 4333
GE 1A -> AAP 1 -> Worldsat 1 01.10.2000 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3593
GE 4 -> AMC 4 13.11.1999 Ariane-44LP H10-3 3895
GE 6 -> AMC 6 (Rainbow 2) 21.10.2000 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3909
JCSat 9 12.04.2006 Zenit-3SL 4401
JCSat 10 11.08.2006 Ariane-5 4048
JCSat 11 2007 Proton-M Briz-M 4500
LMI 1 -> ABS 1 26.09.1999 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3740 1730
Nimiq 1 (Telesat-DTH 1) 20.05.1999 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3600
Nimiq 2 (Telesat-DTH 2) 30.12.2002 Proton-M Briz-M 3600
N-Sat 110 (JCSat 110, Superbird 5, Superbird D) 06.10.2000 Ariane-42L H10-3 3531
NSS 6 17.12.2002 Ariane-44L H10-3 4700
NSS 7 16.04.2002 Ariane-44L H10-3 4692
Rainbow 1 -> Echostar 12 17.07.2003 Atlas-5(521) 4328
Why would Lockhed build a standardized satellite and then have it not fit into a 4 meter fairing when a lot of the other ones appear to fit 4m fairings including Echostar 7?
-
#292 by yinzer on 07 Nov, 2006 06:30
-
Quote
bombay - 6/11/2006 9:35 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III. -
#293 by Jim on 07 Nov, 2006 11:34
-
Quote
Dexter - 7/11/2006 12:46 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't give me an absolute statement that Atlas 3 could not have done any of the missions flown on V because all we have to do is go back to your EELV manifest post and look at all the NAVSTAR 2F sattelites that are 1545 kg.
You are wrong
I said FLOWN. NAVSTAR 2F has yet to fly. NAVSTAR 2F is part of the EELV buy. It was never considered for A-III. The manifesting of it on EELV is an USAF decision. For that matter, they could still fly on Delta II's. And if you don't understand why it is not flying on Delta II, don't bother posting. -
#294 by Jim on 07 Nov, 2006 11:53
-
Dexter and Bombay
obviously, you both aren't in the industry or you wouldn't be having such a hard time understanding rocket science. Know something about a subject before posting again.
"Why would Lockhed build a standardized satellite and then have it not fit into a 4 meter fairing when a lot of the other ones appear to fit 4m fairings including Echostar 7"
The bus is not the only thing flying, there is a payload section (the part the customer really wants in space). The payload section is sometimes larger than the bus. There was a reason for the use of the 5m fairing, otherwise it could have flown on a 421 or 411. Either way, they still couldn't have flown on a A-III
-
#295 by edkyle99 on 07 Nov, 2006 15:26
-
Quote
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Another way to compare Atlas III and Atlas V is to look at their capabilities to standardized orbits. A common standardized theoretical orbit from Cape Canaveral is a geosynchronous transfer orbit with a 27 degree-ish inclination (something like 185 x 35786 km x 27 deg), which leaves the payload 1,800 meters per second short of its operational geostationary orbit. To this transfer orbit, the two Atlas models could/can do the following. I've left out the 500-series Atlas V models because Atlas III did not have a 5-meter fairing.
Model Payload to GTO (GEO-1,800 m/s)
Atlas IIIA 4,110 kg
Atlas IIIB SEC 4,190 kg
Atlas IIIB DEC 4,610 kg
Atlas V-401 4,950 kg
Atlas V-411 6,075 kg
Atlas V-421 7,000 kg
Atlas V-431 7,800 kg
- Ed Kyle -
#296 by yinzer on 07 Nov, 2006 19:21
-
I don't think anyone doubts that the Atlas V 401 can lift more to pretty much any orbit than any Atlas III. But some people seemed to think that some Atlas V missions could have been flown on an Atlas III based on standardized GTO payload figures. To determine the truth of that statement, you need to know the actual delivery orbit of the Atlas V mission and then look up the payload capacity to that orbit.
Admittedly, with a moderate knowledge of how space launch works, one would see that the propellant-limited lifetimes of geostationary communications satellites means that excess launch vehicle performance can almost always be put to good use, so no one would fly the same GTO mission on an Atlas V 401 that they'd fly on an Atlas III. The US government is an exception here, as the DSCS III satellites were designed to fly straight to GTO with an IUS, and then had a separate apogee kick stage added on so they could fly on the Atlas II. -
#297 by Nick L. on 07 Nov, 2006 20:08
-
Put it this way: If someone wanted to launch a satellite on an Atlas family vehicle, he or she would certainly choose the Atlas V. Even if Atlas III could lift the satellite into the same orbit, Atlas V could use its excess performance to raise the perigee of the transfer orbit, thus reducing the amount of propellant that must be expended to raise the orbit to the proper geosynchronous orbit.
This is the same logic Boeing is using with the GOES-N/O/P satellites. They were originally sized and built to fit on a Delta III. When Delta III died, Boeing could have just put the GOES sats on a plain-Jane Delta IV Medium (which has roughly similar capacity) and shot them off to the same orbit. Instead they decided to put it on a M+(4,2), which could push the satellites into a GTO with a higher perigee. By doing this, certainly you are increasing the cost compared to launching on a Medium. But these costs are outweighed by the increased propellant reserves, and by association the longer life of the satellite.
It works the same way with Atlas. Sure, the Atlas V costs more. But putting your satellite on A-V increases the life and return on investment versus launching on A-III, and that compensates for the higher launch costs. And of course, there are issues where satellites launched on 500-series A-Vs couldn't have fit into the A-III payload fairing.
In all, Atlas V is the better vehicle. Sure, people cried over the demise of the balloon-tank Atlas. But such is progress.
Oh and regarding "elimination of internal competition": Should we accuse Boeing of trying to do the same thing LM did by killing Delta III, with its 33% success rate, and supplanting it with Delta IV, which is much better, more capable and more reliable, even if it is a bit more expensive? Of course not, it's just progress. Same thing with Atlas. Atlas V is more capable all around than Atlas III. Why spend the money to keep a less capable vehicle around?
I know you're going to pull out the Delta II as an example, but two things work against this. First, Delta II is in an entirely different payload class, and second, Delta II will be no more soon.
Nick
-
#298 by bombay on 08 Nov, 2006 00:33
-
Quote
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
Well, I guess I had that coming! My apologies to all!Quotebombay - 6/11/2006 9:35 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Admittedly, I'm weak in the Keplerian elements, but here goes for argument sake using the AV-001 launch listed above in the discussion.
The SV was 3905 kg and was placed in the transfer orbit mentioned on Atlas V. You claim that The Atlas III would not be able to place the 3905 kg SV in the same orbit. Here's my spin on things:
Lets assume the booster could only travel at max speed of 5300 mph as maximum dynamic pressure on the SV is achieved. After about T+4.5 minutes into flight, booster separation occurs and the Centaur then takes over for the duration of the T+30-35 minute flight.
Now, given that the Atlas III could handle a SV mass of 3905 kg and can travel at 5300 mph at Max-Q, upon separation at T+4.5, the Centaur and payload would be in the same relative location in space as with the Atlas V.
So the Centaur, not the Atlas, is the x-factor in achieving the perigee, apogee, and inclination that you listed.
-
#299 by Jim on 08 Nov, 2006 00:44
-
The booster on an A-V burns longer than a A-III providing more energy to the Centaur
