New smallsat launcher start-up.

In article ,
says...
I still don't see any evidence that the Titan II first stage is capable
of orbit.

OMFG, it's the late '80s, early '90s, calling... I can see in your mind
that the only thing which would satisfy you is actually flying an
expendable SSTO to LEO. No point in debating this. Been there, done
that a quarter of a century ago. We heard the same back then about
rapid turn-around of rocket engines isn't possible along with vertical
landing using rockets isn't possible, and etc. until DC-X proved that it
could be done. Yet the nay-sayers kept moving the goal posts with each
"first" that was proven.

The bottom of the line is that SSTO hasn't been definitively proven by
an actual vehicle flying to LEO because no one has tried. Quite
frankly, no one is going to try anytime soon due to NASA's X-33 debacle.
NASA's official line about that massive failure is that the technology
wasn't ready, which is utter b.s. considering they deliberately chose
the most technically challenging of the three proposals, setting
themselves up for failure.

Today, there are no less than three companies/government agencies
working on reusable rocket stages which would be part of a partially
reusable TSTO. Re-flight of a reusable, liquid rocket powered, first
stage will be the next big "first" in aerospace, IMHO. This is yet
another area where I hear the "old guard" saying it can't be done, even
in the face of mounting empirical evidence that it will be done, and
quite possibly will be done within the next two years, which is
relatively "soon" in terms of history.

And once a reusable first stage is proven, the nay-sayers will no doubt
point out the obvious that reusing an upper stage is much harder and
can't be done for this reason or that.

Fine. I've waited more than 25 years for a sanely designed reusable
launch vehicle. I can wait a bit more for history to catch up with the
vision of a world where we have cheap access to space despite it being
"hard".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...
I still don't see any evidence that the Titan II first stage is capable
of orbit.

OMFG, it's the late '80s, early '90s, calling... I can see in your mind
that the only thing which would satisfy you is actually flying an
expendable SSTO to LEO. No point in debating this. Been there, done
that a quarter of a century ago. We heard the same back then about
rapid turn-around of rocket engines isn't possible along with vertical
landing using rockets isn't possible, and etc. until DC-X proved that it
could be done. Yet the nay-sayers kept moving the goal posts with each
"first" that was proven.

The bottom of the line is that SSTO hasn't been definitively proven by
an actual vehicle flying to LEO because no one has tried. Quite
frankly, no one is going to try anytime soon due to NASA's X-33 debacle.
NASA's official line about that massive failure is that the technology
wasn't ready, which is utter b.s. considering they deliberately chose
the most technically challenging of the three proposals, setting
themselves up for failure.

Today, there are no less than three companies/government agencies
working on reusable rocket stages which would be part of a partially
reusable TSTO. Re-flight of a reusable, liquid rocket powered, first
stage will be the next big "first" in aerospace, IMHO. This is yet
another area where I hear the "old guard" saying it can't be done, even
in the face of mounting empirical evidence that it will be done, and
quite possibly will be done within the next two years, which is
relatively "soon" in terms of history.

And once a reusable first stage is proven, the nay-sayers will no doubt
point out the obvious that reusing an upper stage is much harder and
can't be done for this reason or that.

Fine. I've waited more than 25 years for a sanely designed reusable
launch vehicle. I can wait a bit more for history to catch up with the
vision of a world where we have cheap access to space despite it being
"hard".

And you have still presented no evidence that the Titan II first stage
is capable of achieving orbit. I don't _care_ if Delta Clipper or DC-X
or Orion or the Starship Enterprise is capable of achieving orbit. My
question is about the Titan II first stage. If you cannot present
evidence in the form of either an actual test or a full 3DOF trajectory
model taking into consideration the actual properties of the actual
vehicle then you are not providing anything other than arm-waving.

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I still don't see any evidence that the Titan II first stage is capable
of orbit.

The bottom of the line is that SSTO hasn't been definitively proven by
an actual vehicle flying to LEO because no one has tried.

Project Score came close. The only thing the Atlas dropped on the way
up were the two booster engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite)

(Yes, it's Wikipedia. But the caption under the picture is still correct.)

--
Kathy Rages

In article merica,
says...

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
I still don't see any evidence that the Titan II first stage is capable
of orbit.

The bottom of the line is that SSTO hasn't been definitively proven by
an actual vehicle flying to LEO because no one has tried.

Project Score came close. The only thing the Atlas dropped on the way
up were the two booster engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite)

(Yes, it's Wikipedia. But the caption under the picture is still correct.)

There's no question that Atlas can achieve orbit, but "all it dropped on
the way up were the two booster engines" ignores the fact that those two
engines are nearly half the dry mass of the entire vehicle.

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 9:49:23 AM UTC+12, J. Clarke wrote:
In article merica,

says...



In article ,

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,

says...

I still don't see any evidence that the Titan II first stage is capable

of orbit.



The bottom of the line is that SSTO hasn't been definitively proven by

an actual vehicle flying to LEO because no one has tried.



Project Score came close. The only thing the Atlas dropped on the way

up were the two booster engines.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite)



(Yes, it's Wikipedia. But the caption under the picture is still correct.)



There's no question that Atlas can achieve orbit, but "all it dropped on

the way up were the two booster engines" ignores the fact that those two

engines are nearly half the dry mass of the entire vehicle.

Those engines could have been recovered with a modest effort. Of course that's the older Atlas design.

The modern orbital launch vehicle the Atlas V launch vehicle system is a completely new design that succeeded the earlier Atlas series.

Atlas V vehicles were based on the 3.8-m (12.5-ft) diameter Common Core Booster (CCB) powered by a single Russian RD-180 engine. These could be clustered together, and complemented by a Centaur upper stage, and up to five solid rocket boosters at launch, to achieve a wide range of performance.

When combined with a standard Atlas payload fairing, the configuration was designated as the Atlas V 400 series. The Atlas V 500 series combined the CCB with a larger 5 m diameter payload fairing derived from that used on the Ariane 5 vehicle

The Atlas V 500 series could also tailor performance by incorporating from zero to five solid rocket boosters (SRB).

Both Atlas V 400 and 500 configurations incorporated a stretched version of the Centaur upper stage (CIII), which could be configured as a single-engine Centaur (SEC) or a dual engine Centaur (DEC). The Atlas V family of launch vehicles could be launched from either Cape Canaveral Air Station Launch Complex 41 or Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 3W.

A three-digit naming convention was developed for the Atlas V launch vehicle system to identify it's multiple configuration possibilities, as follows: the first digit identified the diameter class (in meters) of the payload fairing (4 or 5 m); the second digit indicated the number of solid rocket motors used (zero for Atlas V 400 and zero to five for Atlas V 500); the third digit represented the number of Centaur engines (one or two). Payload performance of the possible variants were as follows (payloads over 9,050 kg would require structural modification to the basic vehicle):

Atlas V Payload in kg - Configuration x Orbit

Configuration LEO 2 LEO Pol GTO GEO

Atlas V 401 12,500 10,750 5,000 N/A
Atlas V 501 10,300 9,050 4,100 1,500
Atlas V 511 12,050 10,200 4,900 1,750
Atlas V 521 13,950 11,800 6,000 2,200
Atlas V 531 17,250 14,600 6,900 3,000
Atlas V 541 18,750 15,850 7,600 3,400
Atlas V 551 20,050 17,000 8,200 3,750

Success Rate: 100.00%.
Launch Price $: 138.000 million

Stage Data - Atlas V

Stage 0. 5 x Atlas V SRB. Gross Mass: 40,824 kg (90,001 lb). Empty Mass: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,270.000 kN (285,500 lbf). Isp: 275 sec. Burn time: 94 sec. Isp(sl): 245 sec. Diameter: 1.55 m (5.08 ft). Span: 1.00 m (3.20 ft). Length: 17.70 m (58.00 ft). Propellants: Solid. No Engines: 1. Engine: Aerojet SRB. Status: In production. Comments: New SRB boosters in development for Atlas V. Empty mass, vacuum thrust, sea level Isp estimated.

Stage 1. 1 x Atlas CCB. Gross Mass: 306,914 kg (676,629 lb). Empty Mass: 22,461 kg (49,518 lb). Thrust (vac): 4,151.998 kN (933,406 lbf). Isp: 338 sec. Burn time: 253 sec. Isp(sl): 311 sec. Diameter: 3.81 m (12.49 ft). Span: 3.81 m (12.49 ft). Length: 32.46 m (106.49 ft). Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. No Engines: 1. Engine: RD-180. Status: In production. Comments: Common Core Booster uses Glushko RD-180 engine and new isogrid tanks. Used in Atlas IV/USAF EELV, Atlas V. Includes 272 kg booster interstage adapter and 1297 kg Centaur interstage adapter.

Stage 2. 1 x Centaur V1. Gross Mass: 22,825 kg (50,320 lb). Empty Mass: 2,026 kg (4,466 lb). Thrust (vac): 99.194 kN (22,300 lbf). Isp: 451 sec. Burn time: 894 sec. Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Span: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Length: 12.68 m (41.60 ft). Propellants: Lox/LH2. No Engines: 1. Engine: RL-10A-4-2. Status: In production. Centaur is powered by either one or two Pratt & Whitney RL10A-4-2 turbopump-fed engines burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. For typical, high-energy mission applications, Centaur will be configured with one RL10 engine. For heavy payload, low earth orbit missions, Centaur will use two RL10 engines to maximize boost phase mission performance. Guidance, tank pressurization, and propellant usage controls for both Atlas and Centaur phases are provided by the inertial navigation unit (INU) located on the Centaur forward equipment module.


Gross mass: 546,700 kg (1,205,200 lb).
Payload: 12,500 kg (27,500 lb).
Height: 58.30 m (191.20 ft).
Diameter: 3.81 m (12.49 ft).
Span: 5.40 m (17.70 ft).
Thrust: 8,590.00 kN (1,931,100 lbf).
Apogee: 185 km (114 mi).
First Launch: 2000.05.24.
Last Launch: 2008.04.14.
Number: 18