Atlas v

[lilevan]

I can't believe that they are sending a rocket to pluto. The Atlas five will be ther in 9 years. I will be 22! Thats amazing. It will get the first official picture of Pluto. Has anyne heard about the Atlas V yet..........................?

 

[jschaef5]

The Atlas V has been in service since 2002... And its not traveling to Pluto. The rocket gets it out of Earth's gravity and then its using a nuclear powered system to propel it to Pluto. And the probe, not rocket, that is going to Pluto is called New Horizons.<br /><br />But yah the speed that it will be traveling at is crazy. 9 years to get to Pluto is pretty good... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

Opps, I'm not sure what I was thinking. It took what like 9 hours to get to the moon? The Atlas V definitly got it up to a pretty good speed. I still don't fully understand the gravity pull thing from Jupiter other than that it curves the path adding to one of its velocity vectors as it passes, I'm guessing which in turn speeds it up. But that makes me think that on the way away from Jupiter it would slow it down just as much as it sped it up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Less a fair percentage of Jupiters' velocity around the sun.<br /><br />It really works.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[comga]

"I still don't fully understand the gravity pull thing from Jupiter .... But that makes me think that on the way away from Jupiter it would slow it down just as much as it sped it up."<br /><br />It is a matter of changing reference frames. From the standpoint of Jupiter, the spacecraft leaves at the same speed it comes in. As it leaves it does lose the speed it picked up coming in. But from the vantage point of the stars, a fixed reference frame if you will, it picks us some speed.<br /><br />Imagine a spacraft flying straight from the Sun towards Jupiter, which orbits the Sun at about 13 km/sec. Let's also imagine that Jupiter is so dense that the spacecraft can make a right angle turn via gravity. (In reality, this tight a turn would probably take you inside Jupiter's clouds, which would be unfortunate.) From the perspective of Jupiter, the spacecraft comes down the sun-line, picking up speed, roars around the planet, and the loses speed heading off in the "orbit forward" direction, until it is going at its original speed.<br /><br />From a perspective above the Solar System the spacecraft is cruises towards Jupiter, picks up speed, whips around the back side of Jupiter and leaves, having turned ninety degrees, but moving away from Jupiter at its origninal velocity towards Jupiter. However it will have added 13km/sec to its velicity so that it continues to move away from Jupiter.<br /><br />New Horizons will make a much shallower turn, and pick up 4 km/sec. While it would have picked up more speed if it was launched last year or the year before, the fly-by would have been closer in, and the radiation enviornment much worse.<br /><br />As for the Atlas going to Pluto, it ceratinly won't. I don't know the final orbit of the Centaur upper stage. It may leave Earth orbit, although I'm pretty sure it doesn't get to the orbit of Jupiter. The spent third stage, the Star 48 solid rocket, had the same ultimate velocity leaving Earth as the New Horizons spacecraft (36,25

 

[lilevan]

Once it gets far enough out of earth's attmisphere it will break up. It broke up already. When t breaks up it wil turn into a satilite dish. This dish will travel in plutos orbit. Yes, it is using nuclear stuff. It is going at an average of 25,000 miles per hour. Thats fast man!

 

[rubicondsrv]

"Once it gets far enough out of earth's attmisphere it will break up. It broke up already. When t breaks up it wil turn into a satilite dish."<br /><br />It is clalled staging and it occurs throughout the launch .<br />first the SRB's are dropped and then the first stage is dropped. this continues for the second and third stages.<br />the spacecraft is more than a dish. the dish is an antenna. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

Atlas V can be thought of as a child of Energiya/Buran Soviet Space Shuttle. Instead of SRBs, the Energiya HLLV used liquid-fueled strap-ons also used independantly as the first stage of the single core Zenit booster--now used by Boeing's Sea Launch.<br /><br />This rocket uses a single (four-nozzle) engine called RD-170, which has more thrust than the single nozzle Saturn V F-1 engine.<br /><br />Atlas V uses a half-strength version of this motor--the two nozzle RD-180--making Atlas V in effect a half-strength Zenit--though the pluto shot--with its solids, had about as much thrust as a single core RD-170 Zenit, if not a bit more.<br /><br />The stock Atlas V with its RD-180 and NO solids has about twice the thrust of the old Atlas IIAS even with its solids!<br /><br />American rockets have been underpowered for years. Without the Energiya HLLV--there would be no Atlas V.

 

[john_316]

<font color="yellow"><b>"American rockets have been underpowered for years. Without the Energiya HLLV--there would be no Atlas V."</b></font><br /><br /><br />Well I think our under powered rockets are pretty darn good and until recent memory the F-1 was the worlds most powerful rocket engine.<br /><br />I preferr the RS-68 of Boeings Delta IV to Atlas's use of Russian technology. Sorry I just prefer the Boeing products. I guess its because they did it all in house and didnt subsidize alot to outside markets and kept the majority of the Delta American made or rather with American components. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[lilevan]

Yeah Thats what I heard. It turns in to a Satilite dish. I also heard that it is running on a nuclear material once it gets into Pluto's orbit. They use this because it supposedly gets more miles per Gallon. It is also alot cheaper.

 

[drwayne]

"American rockets have been underpowered for years."<br /><br />Actually, "power" is not what I see as the best aspect of Russian engines.<br /><br />The are very well engineered, wonderfully robust, reliable and highly producible.<br /><br />The Russian aerospace industry has not gotten nearly the credit they deserve over the years for some brilliant work.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Its funny, as one tends to associate elegance with complexity - its a trap, I know.<br /><br />Simple, elegant, it works.<br /><br />That's what you want.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[davf]

I just recently read another example of the elegance of many of their solutions: the An-124 wing. When it was first rolled out, there were many cries of it being a C-5 copy. There were some pretty amazing differences, though. The wing, for instance, is designed with a higher sweep (32 to 35 degrees) than the C-5 (25 degrees). Normally that would require a stronger structure. Despite the An-124 wing being larger than the C-5 wing (6760 sqft vs 6200 sqft), they have almost the exact same structural weight. Higher sweep, almost 10% more area, and the same structural weight. Pretty elegant solution. And with none of the C-5 wing structure issues.

 

[davf]

F-1 was the most powerful flown engine until the development of the RD-170 in the early-to-mid 80's. In terms of time wearing the 'most powerful' crown, the RD-170/171 has actually held it longer than the F1 (21 yrs vs 18 yrs based on first flights of '67 for F1 and '85 for RD-171). <br /><br />The RD-170/171 has a higher Isp than the F-1 and a tremendously higher chamber pressure. Designed for 10 flights (reusable) and proven through 20 in testing. A pretty impressive performance. Soviet rocket engine tech. was the best there was in the 80's and 90's thanks to US development dying off post Apollo (and only recently picking up). <br /><br />None of which, IMHO, detracts from just how amazing the F1 is. Hell, they named an entire racing leaque after it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Another cool thing about the AN-124. The Flight Engineer can route fuel into the hydraulic system if there is a loose of hydraulic fluid in flight. Of course this would only be done in an extreme emergency, and only gives partial control, but it sure beats crashing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

The Energia engines are what is called close cycle staging. Previous US engines would burn some fuel and oxidizer on the power side of the turbopumps in order to power them. These combustion gasses would need to be vented outside the engine (as is the case with SpaceX's Merlin engine) because the exhaust pressure is lower than the pressure of the combustion chamber of the engine. The Russian technology kept all these gasses in the engine, thus increasing Isp and thrust of the engine, as well as T/W ratio. Moreover, they did it in a way that was relatively simple, compared to the nightmarishly complex and expensive SSME.

 

[davf]

Wow! That boggles the mind. I had no idea. Masters of pragmatism!

 

[mikejz]

I have always wondered why a mix of Gas-Generator Cycle and Staged Combustion Cycle designs have been used.<br /><br />It seems to me that it would be beneficial to take the exhaust of the Gas-Cen cycle, and burn it (with added fuel/ox) in a second auxiliary combustion chamber. <br /><br />

 

[lilevan]

I watched a rocket launch to space. The rocket itslef isn'y going to space, I know that. Igt broke up and went to Pluto. The Atlas that has been up in space since 2002 isn;'t going to Pluto. A different Atlas is going. A new one!

 

[edkyle98]

"I preferr the RS-68 of Boeings Delta IV to Atlas's use of Russian technology. Sorry I just prefer the Boeing products. I guess its because they did it all in house and didnt subsidize alot to outside markets and kept the majority of the Delta American made or rather with American components."<br /><br />Sorry for the late response to this. I wanted to note that Boeing no longer owns RS-68 since it sold Rocketdyne to United Technologies Pratt & Whitney (now called Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, or PWR). I also wanted to point out that Mitsubishi builds Delta 4 second stage tankage. <br /><br />As for Delta 4 being underpowered, the biggest problem with the rocket seems to be its high cost. Boeing has recently had to quash rumors that it was planning to shut the program down once Atlas 5 production moves to the Decatur plant. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle