-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Subjectively I've also always been partial to the shape, side boosters, and copper center core, but that's just me...
Regardless, its actually pretty well thought out considering its a 25 year old design. The side boosters are configurable (from 0 to 5 sticks) to enable a wide range of performance, then on top of that the fairing comes in two diameters and the upper stage comes with one or two motors. Setting aside the State Funded Execution element to the vehicle (and all the self-evident downsides that don't bear repeating), this configurability allows the customer to tailor the vehicle to their mission and only pay for as much performance as they need. Its very similar to the commercial aircraft industry; an operator doesn't just go buy a 737 or a 787 or whatever--they have the option to choose variants that best serve their needs when it comes to fuselage length, engines, etc.
What HAS always bothered me about Atlas 5's SRBs is their asymmetry. I know its fine and all, but it doesn't hurt my brain any less. I'm pretty sure the layout options are really just a function of some stubborn senior engineer proving a nuanced engineering point to all the marketing people that would prefer something more symmetrical...but even the engineer in me is in Camp Marketing on this one. (Note that Vulcan has opted for a symmetrical set of SRB options, either 0, 2, 4, or 6).
Barely related, ULA actually had a concept to make a suborbital payload canister that bolted on just like one of the SRBs. Pretty clever idea...if not rather limited by demand. (And, I assume, why it never came to be)
Finally, a bit of story time here, I have a 30" Atlas 5 model in my kid's room that's on a shelf too high for him to reach. He wants to play with it; I want him to potty train. So I've told him that as soon as he goes poopy in the toilet I'll bring it down for him.
Takeaways from this story:
1) You're welcome for my completely inadvertent association between the Atlas V program and taking a dump
2) That was two weeks ago and clearly a sweet Atlas V model isn't enough incentive to hop on the pot--he's just as happy to dook in his diaper while playing with the random Starship swag I have lying around.
Due to the low trajectory, the aerodynamic resistance is higher longer, so they delay separation.
This thread:
From some YouTube inverview, it's that way due to preexisting external raceways and connection points.
It's been awhile since I saw it, maybe there was opportunity to improve symmetry during design...
Looks like a successful Docking, glad it worked finally. Hopefully the rest of the mission will go well
Hatch opened and ISS crew checked out the capsule interior. Watching the livestream, the video from the interior capsule cameras frequently broke up. But it was good to see people in there. It appears that the inner hatch cover completely detaches and then has to be stowed inside a special protective cover so the edges don’t get damaged.
Earlier today I watched Scott Manley’s latest video about Starliner, made just before this mission launched. In the video he compares Starliner to Crew Dragon and while I cannot remember the numbers right now, I think that Starliner has a bit more interior volume. It is significantly wider. However, it’s control panel is fixed, and when the Crew Dragon panel is moved out of the way I suspect its interior would feel more spacious than Starliner.
In Scott Manley’s video above, he goes into some good detail. Starliner is actually a bit larger internal volume than Dragon and Boing plans on using the 5th seat during missions as well to hopefully get more revenue. Their instruments don’t move out of the way like they do for Dragon and therefore moving around inside is more cumbersome. The controls are more physical compared to Dragon’s touch screen.
Also based on where the solar panels are located, starliner needs the rear end facing the sun and therefore crew cannot see the sun rises out the window.
Starliner’s engines are more powerful than Dragons for maneuvering upon re-entry which allows them to spend I think 10 minutes less time than Dragon to slow down. But what I found most interesting is that those engines on starliner are actually in a separate module underneath the capsule and are jettisoned before they capsule lands and are lost each time. Dragon’s engines are of course built into the capsule and re-usable.
I was stunned to learn that from Scott’s video. What a waste.
Yet another example of old space failing to understand that full and rapid reusability is essential to make space exploration affordable and our future reality.
No vision, no guts, no glory.
That's a little harsh. Until June 2020, NASA required SpaceX to only provide new capsules. SpaceX had looked at conversion to cargo version, but it wasn't worth it.
Similar threads
