Author Topic: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles  (Read 19674 times)

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #40 on: 11/11/2006 10:51 PM »
Quote
Jim - 11/11/2006  4:41 PM

Quote
bombay - 11/11/2006  12:30 PM

Quote
kevin-rf - 11/11/2006  10:17 AM

So is a Titan I in the same family as a Titan IV? The heritage is there just like the heritage that goes from the MX-774 all the way to the ATLAS 5.

If the move to the RD-180 occured while the ATLAS was still an ICBM (now that would be bizzare) would we be argueing the herittage?

No one is argueing the heritage of the Thor/Delta. A Delta IV is deffinately not a Thor derived vehicle.
The Titan from inception consisted of a welded structurally stable aluminum structure with two internal and physically separate propellant tanks.  That "core" design never changed.  So the Titan I to Titan IV heritage remained intact.

As mentioned, steel balloons and Atlas are analogous.  The pressure stabalized concept was the most profound differentiator when comparing Atlas to the rest.  The Atlas V has a structurally stable aluminum structure as the Titan did.  Based on this principal change, the lineage between Atlas V and and what preceded has been broken.



Stucture is not the only thing that defines a vehicle   A change in propellant, especially cryogenic to hypergolic is just as different the structural changes of Atlas I-III to Atlas V and therefore, Titan I is not the same as the Titan II-IV.  Every system of the Titan II was different than the Titan I.  There even was a change in diameter of the second stage.  

The naming of Titan II is the same as the naming of Atlas V

There are many things that define a vehicle and I'm not saying that the structure is the only thing.  As was stated, the 1 and 1/2 stage sustainer/booster main engines also defined the Atlas as did gimbaled main engines for steering, as did radio controlled guidance systems, as did jettisonable payload fairings.  All of these things and more defined an Atlas and obviously over time configurations changed and improvement were made just as they were done to Titan.  
But none of what was stated represents the concept most associated with the Atlas, that being the thin walled stainless steel monocoque tank.  There's really no denying this!

The propellant change might be expected in the initial phases of development as more is tested and understood.  The MX-774 burned alcohol and LO2 prior to switching to RP-1 and LO2.


Offline Dexter

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #41 on: 11/11/2006 11:12 PM »
Why don't we compare the Atlas V with the Titan IV flying a Centaur upper stage.

Booster - Structurally stable on both
Solids strapped on both
Centaur upper stage on both
Large payload fairing enclosing the Centaur on both (500 series)

Then there is all that nonsense about station planes probably more in common with with a Titan IV since the Centaur was designed and supplied by GD.

So the references to Titan V are not so childish.  If the legacy is so close to Atlas, then why not Atlas 4?? (See thread by same name).

Offline bombay

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #42 on: 11/11/2006 11:26 PM »
Quote
Dexter - 11/11/2006  5:55 PM

Why don't we compare the Atlas V with the Titan IV flying a Centaur upper stage.

Booster - Structurally stable on both
Solids strapped on both
Centaur upper stage on both
Large payload fairing enclosing the Centaur on both (500 series)

Then there is all that nonsense about station planes probably more in common with with a Titan IV since the Centaur was designed and supplied by GD.

So the references to Titan V are not so childish.  If the legacy is so close to Atlas, then why not Atlas 4?? (See thread by same name).
Come to think of it, they referred to the Centaur on the Titan as the Titan-Centaur.

Maybe a more appropriate name for the Atlas V would have been the Titan-Atlas I.

Now that's catchy!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32479
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11253
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #43 on: 11/11/2006 11:27 PM »
The solids are not the same.  The Titan solids are a stage in themselves (Stage 0), the Titan core did not burn in parallel.  Altas V solid are for 1st stage thrust augmentation.

Titan IV core had two stages, Atlas is one
Titan IV core is hypergolic, Atlas is RP-1
Titan IV use a Shuttle derived Centaur
The Altas V uses Atlas legacy systems
Let's not use the 500 series as an example but the 400 which is the same as the other Atlas

In all, the only thing that the Atlas V has in common with the Titan IV is the structurally stable airframe.  But it also has thing in common with the Delta II and the Saturn V.  Is is related to these?

I have tweeked your comparison:
Booster - Structurally stable on both
Solids strapped on both
LH2 upper stage on both
Large 5m payload  fairing

So a Atlas 541 is the same as a Delta IV M+ (5,4).  Must have come from the same design

Offline Dexter

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #44 on: 11/11/2006 11:45 PM »
Good Points.

I still go back to what Gus said about station planes and drawing numbers.  You yourself argued in the Atlas 4 thread that there is a Titan influence on the design which Gus verified in this thread, hence Atlas 5 instead of Atlas 4.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32479
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11253
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #45 on: 11/11/2006 11:48 PM »
Never said that there wasn't Titan influence, just that Atlas V is more Atlas than Titan

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12985
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4084
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #46 on: 11/12/2006 12:51 AM »
Another thing that Atlas V has in common with previous Atlas models is its use of an external equipment pod in a nacelle type fairing located not far from the propulsion section.  This provides much better access to electrical equipment and wiring harnesses than on Titan.  Difficult access for repair work may have contributed to the loss of Titan IV A-20 in 1998.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Nick L.

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3860
  • A unique little aerospace company
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #47 on: 11/12/2006 01:27 AM »
Quote
Dexter - 11/11/2006  6:28 PM

Good Points.

I still go back to what Gus said about station planes and drawing numbers.  You yourself argued in the Atlas 4 thread that there is a Titan influence on the design which Gus verified in this thread, hence Atlas 5 instead of Atlas 4.

Well of course there would be some slight influence. Atlas 5 (and EELV in general) in part was designed to replace Titan IV. Therefore there is bound to be some overlap, especially within the same company that made Titan IV. It doesn't make Atlas 5 a bad vehicle if the drawings are numbered the same way as Titan's.

Atlas systems - the ones that made Atlas II/III the rocket we know and love - are numbered the same way as before, and still live on in Atlas 5.

Nick
"Now you may leave here for four days in space, but when you return it's the same old place..."

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #48 on: 11/12/2006 06:14 AM »
Quote
Jim - 11/11/2006  4:41 PM

Quote
bombay - 11/11/2006  12:30 PM

Quote
kevin-rf - 11/11/2006  10:17 AM

So is a Titan I in the same family as a Titan IV? The heritage is there just like the heritage that goes from the MX-774 all the way to the ATLAS 5.

If the move to the RD-180 occured while the ATLAS was still an ICBM (now that would be bizzare) would we be argueing the herittage?

No one is argueing the heritage of the Thor/Delta. A Delta IV is deffinately not a Thor derived vehicle.
The Titan from inception consisted of a welded structurally stable aluminum structure with two internal and physically separate propellant tanks.  That "core" design never changed.  So the Titan I to Titan IV heritage remained intact.

As mentioned, steel balloons and Atlas are analogous.  The pressure stabalized concept was the most profound differentiator when comparing Atlas to the rest.  The Atlas V has a structurally stable aluminum structure as the Titan did.  Based on this principal change, the lineage between Atlas V and and what preceded has been broken.



Stucture is not the only thing that defines a vehicle   A change in propellant, especially cryogenic to hypergolic is just as different the structural changes of Atlas I-III to Atlas V and therefore, Titan I is not the same as the Titan II-IV.  Every system of the Titan II was different than the Titan I.  There even was a change in diameter of the second stage.  

The naming of Titan II is the same as the naming of Atlas V


General Dyanamics designed and named the early Atlas vehilces
Therefore Atlas I to Atlas II was a no brainer
Martin Marietta designed and named the Titan vehicles
Therefore Titan I to Titan II was a no brainer
Martin bought the Atlas program, and then Lockheed merged with Martin
so when EELV was designed and named they had a choice which legacy to keep?
It is a new company it could choose whatever even a new name.
I believe Atlas was chosen because of reliability associated with the name, not because of the systems or any thing else, Mangement thought Atlas was a better name.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32479
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11253
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #49 on: 11/12/2006 02:20 PM »
"Therefore Atlas I to Atlas II was a no brainer "

This wasn't because of the GD, this was because the USAF called the "new" Delta 6925 a "Delta II".  So when the USAF let the MLV-II contract to GD, it was called Atlas II and the Atlas Centaur G upgrade (which would have been an "I" also) was called Atlas I

"I believe Atlas was chosen because of reliability associated with the name, not because of the systems or any thing else, Mangement thought Atlas was a better name."

It has all Atlas systems. It is an Atlas.  From a customers point of view, it is an Atlas.  Same interfaces, same ground processing flows, same processes, same  analytic integration.

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #50 on: 11/13/2006 12:46 AM »
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  9:03 AM

"Therefore Atlas I to Atlas II was a no brainer "

This wasn't because of the GD, this was because the USAF called the "new" Delta 6925 a "Delta II".  So when the USAF let the MLV-II contract to GD, it was called Atlas II and the Atlas Centaur G upgrade (which would have been an "I" also) was called Atlas I

What does GD have to do with Delta, that was a McD product?  Are you saying the USAF renamed the Delta?  If they did maybe it was because GD was naming their entry into MLVII an Atlas II, or maybe McD chose the name Delta II.  I know that the USAF did not name the Atlas II the Atlas II that was done by GD (see continuation below)


Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  9:03 AM

"I believe Atlas was chosen because of reliability associated with the name, not because of the systems or any thing else, Mangement thought Atlas was a better name."

It has all Atlas systems. It is an Atlas.  From a customers point of view, it is an Atlas.  Same interfaces, same ground processing flows, same processes, same  analytic integration.



The Customer does not determine the name of the product, the company determines that. Wham-O did not go to the public and ask what should we call this hoop we designed, Wham-O detemined that it should be a Hula Hoop, no one else did that.  GD named the Atlas back in the 50's during the ICBM days just as MM name the Titan.  The Atlas I became that when GD went commercial with its product, AC69 was the first Atlas I, the USAF did not pick the name GD did, prior to that it was an Atlas G (chosed by GD which followed the Atlas E and Atlas F [imagine that alphabetical order] with a Centaur D1A upper stage.  Atlas II was different because the Centaur Insulation system changed from jetisonable panels to "fixed foam" foam bond on to the tank.  The USAF had nothing to do with the naming of the Atlas and I seriously doubt they had anything to do with the naming of the Titan or the Delta.  From a customer point of view they do not care about the name only the quality of the product.  LM chose to keep the Atlas name because it infers better quality than the Titan name.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32479
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11253
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #51 on: 11/13/2006 01:11 AM »
I was there.  The USAF coined the name Delta II and did the same for Atlas II .  If it weren't for the name Delta "II", there wouldn't be a Atlas "II".  At time, GD was using the designations "J" and "K" for stretched versions of the Atlas booster.   "I" as in  "eye" was was skipped.  During the same time frame, "Atlas II" was a 14-17 foot diameter Atlas booster with 5 H-1's engines.  

What GD proposed for the MLV-II contract was not the "Atlas II", they propose what ended up as "Atlas IIA".  The USAF did not want the extendible nozzles on the RL-10.  Either way, what ever version the USAF was going buy was going to be called the Atlas II.  It was the USAF that also cause "Centaur" to be dropped from the name.

The USAF wanted new designations with the rebirth of the ELV fleet, hence Delta II , Atlas II  and   Titan IV  (vs Titan 34D7)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12985
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4084
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #52 on: 11/13/2006 01:39 AM »
Quote
skywalker - 12/11/2006  7:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  9:03 AM

"Therefore Atlas I to Atlas II was a no brainer "

This wasn't because of the GD, this was because the USAF called the "new" Delta 6925 a "Delta II".  So when the USAF let the MLV-II contract to GD, it was called Atlas II and the Atlas Centaur G upgrade (which would have been an "I" also) was called Atlas I

What does GD have to do with Delta, that was a McD product?  Are you saying the USAF renamed the Delta?  If they did maybe it was because GD was naming their entry into MLVII an Atlas II, or maybe McD chose the name Delta II.  I know that the USAF did not name the Atlas II the Atlas II that was done by GD (see continuation below)

The MLV-I contract was won by McDonnell Douglas, with that company's Delta 692x and 792x models being branded "Delta II" even though the manufacturer continues to use its original model numbers.  The MLV-II contract, offered a couple of years later, was won by General Dynamics, with that company's stretched Atlas Centaur G (I think they called it "Super G" at one point) being named Atlas II while a slightly modified Atlas Centaur G (bigger fairing, etc.) was named Atlas I.

Both of these contracts represented effective transfer of control of both programs from NASA to the Air Force, although the launch services were provided on a commercial basis.  NASA had actually shut the production lines down during the mid-80s.  With MLV-I and MLV-II, the big new money for restarting production essentially flowed from the Pentagon.

Details are here:  http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/cape/cape1-7.htm

 - Ed Kyle

Offline skywalker

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #53 on: 11/13/2006 02:22 AM »
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  7:54 PM

I was there.  The USAF coined the name Delta II and did the same for Atlas II .  If it weren't for the name Delta "II", there wouldn't be a Atlas "II".  At time, GD was using the designations "J" and "K" for stretched versions of the Atlas booster.   "I" as in  "eye" was was skipped.  During the same time frame, "Atlas II" was a 14-17 foot diameter Atlas booster with 5 H-1's engines.  

What GD proposed for the MLV-II contract was not the "Atlas II", they propose what ended up as "Atlas IIA".  The USAF did not want the extendible nozzles on the RL-10.  Either way, what ever version the USAF was going buy was going to be called the Atlas II.  It was the USAF that also cause "Centaur" to be dropped from the name.

The USAF wanted new designations with the rebirth of the ELV fleet, hence Delta II , Atlas II  and   Titan IV  (vs Titan 34D7)

Did you work for either the USAF or GD at the time?  I was there for Atlas II and GD named it not the USAF!  Centaur was dropped when Atlas I was named which GD also named (that did upset some of the Atlas/Centaur floks but they got over it).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32479
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11253
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #54 on: 11/13/2006 11:12 AM »
USAF

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Atlas, Saturn Launch Vehicles
« Reply #55 on: 12/22/2006 08:17 PM »
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  7:54 PM

  During the same time frame, "Atlas II" was a 14-17 foot diameter Atlas booster with 5 H-1's engines.  

That sounds a lot like what the original Atlas was going to be.

Tags: