Jump to content

Talk:Atlas V/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boosters?

[edit]

What is the cost of the Atlas boosters? I'd like to compare the cost per pound to low earth orbit for the various boosters.Wrwhiteal 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Atlas V rocketAtlas V – Unnecessary disambiguation GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

During the AFD nomination of the Atlas V (disambiguation) page, the consensus was that the disambig should be deleted, and this page should be moved to Atlas V. I am therefore relisting it at RM. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Atlas V rocketAtlas V

  1. Atlas V redirects to Atlas V rocket.
  2. Per AFD nomination of applicible disambiguation page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlas V (disambiguation)
  3. Lack of other articles called Atlas V (totalling 2 - This article and an orphan).
  4. Keeping naming in line with Atlas II and Atlas III which do not append the term rocket.
  5. The proposed WP:ICBM naming convention
    GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

The move has been made. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slitting the Atlas V article

[edit]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

Heavy configuration

[edit]

This article (and the Common Core Booster article) leave the reader confused about the "heavy" offering. Is it two CCBs, or three? Was there a design change regarding this? Or does this article count one CCB as the first stage and two CCBs as boosters? Does the "heavy" configuration even deserve mention, since there haven't been any and there aren't any customers for it? Sdsds 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of lead

[edit]

Is the lead section of this article too long? Reading it through, I'm not sure if there's a logical place to start with article sections....Sdsds 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

With the failure of the latest Altas V launch to put the payload into correct orbit, the sentence

All ten Atlas V launches to date have been successful.

seems quite misleading. I propose removing it altogether.

In the same way, I propose modifying the status for flight AV-009 from "Partial success" to "Partial failure". This will be more consistent with the wording present in other wikipedia rocket articles, such as Delta 2, Delta 4 or Ariane 5.

195.115.92.134 13:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Remove the sentence entirely. Or replace it with something like, "Nine of the ten launches to date have been completely successful. On the tenth, the centaur upper-stage shut down prematurely." Either would be better than leaving it as is. (sdsds -talk) 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization into sections

[edit]

The division of the article into sections was done quite arbitrarily. The "History" section includes lots of info that should be in a section called something like, "Design", etc. Comments? (sdsds - talk) 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Government as only customer

[edit]

Is it correct that Atlas V is only offered to the US government? If so, the article should say that! (sdsds - talk) 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not correct. Regarding the ICO G1 launch, "Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services, Inc. to provide launch services on an Atlas V launch vehicle". (sdsds - talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian engine

[edit]

I am adding that it uses russan made RD-180 engine.

Here is source:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av010/051102atlas5rocket.html —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 74.98.216.68 (talkcontribs)

Atlas V today uses de facto Russian-built RD-180 engines, even though Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the US:

http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Press+Releases/Russian-American+RD-180+Rocket+Engine+Achieves+100+Percent+Mission+Success —Preceding unsigned comment added by94.41.81.37 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launches

[edit]

The linked page (List of Atlas V launches) has the same information, albeit a bit more clean, etc...

Should this section just be removed, keeping the link intact? Markp93 (talk)

This article and the list article certainly didn't need to duplicate the planned launches information, which is difficult to keep up-to-date. So there's now just a link to matching section of the list page for that. For convenience the table entries removed from this article were:
Date Type Serial-no. Startplace Payload Kind of payload Orbit Outcome Remarks
2008-07-02 401 AV-017 VAFB SLC-3E DMSP-5D3 F18 Military weather satellite
2008-10-28[1] 401 AV-020 CC LC41 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) Lunar orbit and Lunar impactor Press release
NET 2008-12-01[1] Solar Dynamics Observatory Solar Observatory
2009-10-27 541 CC LC41 Mars Science Laboratory Mars rover Press release
July 2011 401 VAFB SLC-3E Landsat DCM [2]
August 2011 551 CC LC41 Juno Jupiter mission [3]
  1. ^ a b "Launch Schedule". NASA.
  2. ^ forum.nasaspaceflight.com
  3. ^ forum.nasaspaceflight.com

Transfer of production

[edit]
  • Could it be possible to clarify when production was transferred from Littleton Colorado to Decatur Alabama. Which flight model was the final one produced in Littleton ? Hektor (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of centaur engines

[edit]

Article says

Single-engine Centaurs (SEC) are typically used for satellites going to geostationary transfer orbit or reaching escape velocity. Dual-engine Centaurs (DEC) are typically used for satellites reaching low Earth orbit.

This is counterintuitive to the layman (me). Explaining why a lower orbit wants two engines and a higher orbit wants one (lower orbit, heavier payload?) would be an improvement.

--Danpritts (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To my knowledge he DEC isn't even in production. Certainally none have been ordered. The advantage of a single engine for higher orbits is that it is more fuel efficient. Two engines would consume the same amount of fuel twice as fast. --GW 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why LEO is shown for DEC versions, and GTO for single. SEC (the only in production currently) is used for LEO, too.66.67.22.212 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link to the Florida Today article is dead. Njerseyguy (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt-diameter

[edit]

What sources supports "alt-diameter = 12.49 ft" as given in the infobox? Surely the Atlas core diameter is exactly 144 + 6 = 150 inches, i.e. 12.50 ft? (sdsds - talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]