Talk:Atlas V/Archive 1

Boosters?

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

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 rocket → Atlas V – Unnecessary disambiguation GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

Support. In the disambiguation page, there's only two links, and only one exist, so it should be a good idea. Big top 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's a more general naming issue here, see Talk:Delta IV rocket. Andrewa 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Closing RM after a week. I'd relist with this few opinions, but seems like the same matter as Delta IV rocket which did not have consensus to move, so not moving this either with only 1 support/1 oppose -Goldom ‽‽‽⁂ 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Atlas V rocket → Atlas V –

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

Survey

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

Support. The name of the subject of the article is "Atlas V", not "Atlas V rocket". --Serge 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and earlier requested move. David Kernow 03:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Slitting the Atlas V article

The proposal is to split away the past & planned launches in to a seperate article to clear away large amounts of technicla data.--aceslead 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

SUPPORT The article has gotten to long with technical facts about past and planed launches. That information should be split off into a seperate article with all that technical data of past, present and future launches.--aceslead 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but support alternative proposed below --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support When there'll be more launches, the article will really become stuffed. I like the way it was solved on the Delta II page.--Xdado 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Perhaps ALL the "Atlas launches" for Atlas (missile), Atlas II, Atlas III, & Atlas V.--aceslead 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer all launches for all the rockets as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy configuration

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs)

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

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)

I suggest leaving the planned launches or something so the section is not bare. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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	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]

Transfer of production

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

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. --G W… 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]

Florida Today link is broken

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

alt-diameter

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]

[nasasched-1] "Launch Schedule". NASA.

[2] rum.nasaspaceflight.com

[3] rum.nasaspaceflight.com

[1]

[2]

[3]