marathag
Banned
Real KSP at workwere real proposals for SRB-X and Atlas proposal using the NASA launch complex 39
Moar Boosters need moar Struts
Real KSP at workwere real proposals for SRB-X and Atlas proposal using the NASA launch complex 39
I knew about SRB-X, it's just that Atlas III seems to be spaced even wider apart.were real proposals for SRB-X and Atlas proposal using the NASA launch complex 39
There's five engines in an Atlas III or Shuttle LRB pod, arranged in a cruciform pattern like Saturn V, hence looking from the side you see three in a line.The Atlas 3 looks like a beast! I love it!
Am I to assume that the Atlas uses the same trimotor group as the Shuttle C? Are those engines likewise in a triangle formation and not in-line?
It'd certainly mean you could arrange things closer together if you could have all the engine bells lined up in rows like the 'III' in the Atlas' own name instead of like so:🔺🔻🔺
With all due respect, those are awesome illustrations, but whoever came up with the idea of attaching SRBs with those struts should be shot for crimes against humanity.
That isn’t enough. I’d recommend the Dementor’s Kiss. 😏With all due respect, those are awesome illustrations, but whoever came up with the idea of attaching SRBs with those struts should be shot for crimes against humanity.
It’s so they can use the same MLP as the shuttle. The outrigger SRBs are in the same place as the shuttle stack’s.With all due respect, those are awesome illustrations, but whoever came up with the idea of attaching SRBs with those struts should be shot for crimes against humanity.
acronym of Manufacturer Company, today they called Alliant Techsystems Inc.Question: Why it is labeled ATK?
Considering the launch rate NASA already has going at LC-39 and SLC-6, why would anyone want to pack any more flights onto those pads? There are dozens of other LCs that could be rebuilt from Titan/Atlas/whatever to support these LVs, and they aren't going to be flying anything but EELVs (and maybe a few Deltas) after the missile-derived Titan and Atlas rockets are retired.It’s so they can use the same MLP as the shuttle. The outrigger SRBs are in the same place as the shuttle stack’s.
Looking in Launch history of LC-39 most went from 39A with 128 launches, while 39B, with 54 is almost neglectedConsidering the launch rate NASA already has going at LC-39 and SLC-6, why would anyone want to pack any more flights onto those pads?
The USAF has allot of those on "CCAFS" (not part of NASA Kennedy Space Center)There are dozens of other LCs that could be rebuilt from Titan/Atlas/whatever to support these LVs
VAB space is the bigger issue, unless you want to add on to the building or build more integration bays in a new building. Additionally, the added Shuttle-C flights for the moon missions will take up a lot of the slack in the overall flow for LC-39.Looking in Launch history of LC-39 most went from 39A with 128 launches, while 39B, with 54 is almost neglected
If the Air Force is dumping the Titan, its replacement will be at LC-40 and LC-41 in the north. The Titans used huge solid motors so there's little difference between handling those and handling the Thiokol motor segments. It would have nothing to do with LOX/LH2 infrastructure. They would need new ground tanks at any pad they those. When Boeing showed up with an all-LH2 launcher, they went to LC-37, which hadn't launched anything since a Saturn IB in 1968.ITTL USAF would demolish Launch complex for new EELV
but it will differently from OTL
While now Martin Marietta Atlas III will use the Launch complex north close to LC-39
for using that Lox Hydrogene infrastucture
ATK Solid will be far South of CCAFS, 10 miles (16 km)
near LC-46 (SLBM test site), also move the SRB installation from LC-39 to here
With large Separation between that and it's launch pad
in case of problem or another explosive happing the Atlas III complex is safe.
yes, butIf the Air Force is dumping the Titan, its replacement will be at LC-40 and LC-41 in the north. The Titans used huge solid motors so there's little difference between handling those and handling the Thiokol motor segments
TTL's Atlas III - I've never seen a multi-core launcher design with the boosters spaced that far from the central core.
I knew about SRB-X, it's just that Atlas III seems to be spaced even wider apart.
With all due respect, those are awesome illustrations, but whoever came up with the idea of attaching SRBs with those struts should be shot for crimes against humanity.
Because a working station and lunar program isn't going to slow down the 1990s defense industry mergers. OTL Alliant bought Thiokol in 2001, here it probably happens a bit earlier.Question: Why it is labeled ATK?
Considering the launch rate NASA already has going at LC-39 and SLC-6, why would anyone want to pack any more flights onto those pads? There are dozens of other LCs that could be rebuilt from Titan/Atlas/whatever to support these LVs, and they aren't going to be flying anything but EELVs (and maybe a few Deltas) after the missile-derived Titan and Atlas rockets are retired.
I still think that this kind of "Atlas III" using the boosters as a first-stage vehicle would be a bad idea because of the TWR management issues through the flight (giant spy satellites don't like going over 4 or 5 G).
They are further apart. On Heimdall the center-to-center distance between the core and the outrigger boosters is about 1.7 times the diameter of the booster. On Altas III however it's 2.1 times the diameter of the booster. This is needed because of the size of the common P/A modules, which are 30 feet wide.
Blame 1980s NASA and the desire to launch SRB-X on the same pads as the shuttle.
Because a working station and lunar program isn't going to slow down the 1990s defense industry mergers. OTL Alliant bought Thiokol in 2001, here it probably happens a bit earlier.
And because I used the 2000+ era labels. It's why the Atlas III is labeled "Lockheed Martin" and not "General Dynamics."
Post 1992/3 the SLC-6 Shuttle flight rate is zero (and there were only about three or four polar flights post RTF). NASA doesn't like the demands of a polar launch, and the manifest of payloads that would be expensive to convert is relatively short.
As Titan IV is flying (there is no Titan IVB program here, thus OTL Titan IVA is just Titan IV) out of the other Titan pads (SLC-4E/W) on the Western Test Range, Heimdall thus gets SLC-6 to itself, and as an act of expediency the rocket is designed to fit on the existing pad. While it can launch out of LC-39, east coast launches will result in a dedicated pad at SLC-41. There are existing rail lines that can link to that pad area, even if you have to build a siding around the Titan facilities that will service LC-40 as the Titans are flown out.
This configuration is yet another example of "Technical Debt" that this timeline accrues.
Atlas III has five engines that can throttle down to 65% of thrust regularly. Beyond that it can turn engines off. Moreover, some of the SSME testing ran the engines at 40, 25, and 17% of rated thrust without damage to the engines. There will be room to keep the payloads from being over-thrusted. It is the danger of building a 'Medium' rocket out of the boosters for a heavy.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debtWould be interested to know more about the concept of ‘technical debt’ @TimothyC