Talk:Atlas V/Archive 2

Updated Atlas V 431 Pricing
After comparing the pricing for all of the Atlas V configurations on, 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)

Atlas V Phase Studies
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
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)

Mass fraction
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)

Atlas 554?
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)


 * The Atlas V 554 is actually the same as the -551 model, except that the Centaur stage was replaced with the ACES mentioned in the paper. It is actually part of the "Atlas V Phase I" evolution plan as planned by ULA (see e.g. this or this for examples). AFAIK, this is currently nothing but a paper rocket, however it seems that ULA are already planning for reference missions for it, including a lunar exploration architecture! (see this and this for how the plans work) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Great info.  We may want to work some of that into this article (say, add a line to the table, or a subsection to the Futures section, with sources, including clarifying it as a proposed Atlas V option, paper rocket, etc.  Moreover, some of that info could profitably be used to improve the Advanced Common Evolved Stage article, should anyone be interested in that.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Human-rating Atlas V
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)

Cost per launch
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, "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)

6 to 7 metre diameter fairings
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 m 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)
 * If you read the pages on those payloads, you will see that both of them are inflatable modules, their stowed diameter is considerably smaller, and will fit easily in the existing fairings. Fgf10 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Capacity?
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)


 * Fixed. Please confirm this yourself using the (now current) cited source. If you would like to improve the article by working these values into the text, please feel free to do so. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 03:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Info
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/AV_product_card.pdf --Craigboy (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Russian engine ban?
"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)
 * Non-story. Something like this comes up every year, usually turns out to be either a reporter misunderstanding a proposal, the Russians bluffing to try and raise the price, or just political posturing. -- W.  D.   Graham  14:42, 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)

New Atlas derivative rocket, with methane-engine booster
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.


 * Here are a few news accounts, where I've bolded what the press is referring to the new rocket as:
 * "Atlas 5 successor" in this Space News story: ULA To Invest in Blue Origin Engine as RD-180 Replacement. (I'll try to add other descriptors as I find the time to read more stories in the next few days.)
 * "ULA's next-generation rocket" in a Space.com story: Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to Build New Rocket Engine for US Launch Provider.
 * "Atlas V rocket" in a Washington Post story: Jeff Bezos is taking on SpaceX with a new rocket engine. How does it stack up?  (I don't think this is quite right; no methane engine, with different thrust/Isp/etc., is going plug and play into an Atlas V; but it does show an example of the name "out there" in reliable source media.)

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)


 * Good question. The Spaceflight Now article I read describes the BE-4 as an RD-180 replacement, without specifically mentioning how that will impact the Atlas V (though obviously it will). So for now, I'd keep the focus on the engines: maybe add a sentence or two to this article stating that a replacement for the RD-180 engine is under development, and wait til more details are announced before getting more specific? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur. That makes good sense.  So I stubbed out a new section to describe the RD-180 engine replacement effort.  Feel free to improve, add other sources, etc.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Now at Vulcan (rocket) - Rod57 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Move Launches to Separate Page?
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)


 * Much, if not all, of the information probably already exists at List of Atlas Launches (2000-2009) and List of Atlas Launches (2010-2019). That being said, seems like a reasonable thing to me to just point the reader towards those pages instead of repeating the list here. Only advantage of the list in this article is that it's consolidated. I don't really have a strong opinion either way though. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think launches of Atlas V should remain listed separately, because this rocket is markedly different from previous-generation Atlas versions. Probably the chronological lists should then point here for Atlas V, to avoid repeats and double updates. — JFG talk 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)