This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After comparing the pricing for all of the Atlas V configurations on [1], the pricing of the 431 configuration isn't correct. Updating that in the main doc. Since I'm a paid contributor I wanted to flag the change. ULA christa ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
References
I have heard of studies for Atlas V evolution from several documents, ultimately ending up as a super heavy. If I'm not mistaken, they were just studies in 2003 or 2004, but are in several recent documents ( http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/AV_product_card.pdf, http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf (pages 349?-352), http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6479.0 (first post), and a few more ). Why not add that detail? 66.67.22.212 ( talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Weight as listed on page is not found on any configuration. Altered for the basic 401 configuration as found in http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm and http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf. Corrected to the manufacturers listed specifications. Since there are 11 versions of the Atlas, each with their own weight, thrust, and capability, what is the wiki policy for listing specifications in such cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 ( talk) 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The reference for highest fraction of propellant was called out as not specific enough. However, the cited article contains "The Centaur has the highest propellant mass fraction yet demonstrated", on the second page, which supports the claim. Looking through many featured articles (presumably the best ones) I could not find even one case where a specific page number was called out for when any short (<20 page) article was referred to. (Page numbers are common for books and long articles). So the non-specific tag is not called for, IMO. LouScheffer ( talk) 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an Atlas 554 mentioned in
this ULA paper presented at the AIAA Space 2010 conference last fall. I don't see a 554 in the versions table of the article, and the AIAA paper mentioned it only obliquely, saying that a couple of Atlas 554 launches would be required to launch two
ACES73 propellant tankers to LEO. Don't see any specs for the 554. Anyone know of a source on the 554 model? Or if it is even in the ULA plan vs. a pure concept vehicle?
N2e (
talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added a new section to summarize progress, plans, and expected completion date (2014) for human rating the Atlas V, with three sources. Would appreciate review and improvement by others. N2e ( talk) 05:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that Atlas V costs 187M per launch in the most basic configuration. This is completely wrong. The 187M figure is the cost of a total launch services contract for MAVEN mission, which, as far as I can tell, includes telemetry and tracking the spacecraft for two years, and possibly also the cost of a Centaur upper rocket stage. According to [1], "Under the previous NLS contract, in effect between 1999 and 2010, the cost to launch an Atlas 5 rocket was between $100 million and $125 million." -- Itinerant1 ( talk) 03:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There are four Atlas V launches, scheduled for 2014/2015 per the sources given in the | future list of Atlas launches article, that are considerably larger in diameter than the standard 5-metre fairing of the standard 5xx model Atlas V's. (diameters were obtained from the Wikipedia articles on Sundancer (6.3 m diameter) and BA 330 (6.7 metres (22 ft) diameter).) My question is, what does this do to the in-atmosphere flight dynamics of the launcher? What sort of testing needs to be done to ensure the vehicle control system can handle it? Has this variance beyond 5m been discussed in the literature anywhere, so we might improve the article with information on the design validation effort (in CFD simulation or on a flight test)? N2e ( talk) 22:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please explain why the Payload to LEO is 9,750–29,420 kg? Is this for the 1 to 5 Aerojet boosters? And why has a HLV with 3 cores only 25 tons payload?-- 92.225.93.242 ( talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/AV_product_card.pdf -- Craigboy ( talk) 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Russian rocket engine export ban could halt US space program." (August 27, 2013) Source: http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Just an update. The Russian Engine was banned and did make things pretty dicey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicFlow ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Atlas derivative rocket, with a now-under-development methane-engine booster from Blue Origin, was announced by ULA yesterday. I'm sure there will be a lot of space press coverage about it in many media outlets, as well as statements by the company, in the coming weeks. From what I can see, it does not appear that ULA has been explicit about what they are going to name the new rocket, which will use two of the BE-4 engines on the new booster stage, replacing the Russian-made RD-180 used today. But it does seem to be an "Atlas" derivative, at least in name, although it sounds like a lot of trade studies will be completed between now and the end of the year before ULA knows how Atlas-y or Delta-y this rocket is going to be.
So where should this "next-generation rocket" "Atlas 5 successor" (or "Atlas V rocket") be covered in Wikipedia? N2e ( talk) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like most major rockets on Wikipedia have separate Launches pages, as they are separate information from the vehicle itself. Should the information be moved? UnknownM1 ( talk) 06:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |