Here's one for the flat earthers. Ironic that a rocket which started out as an ICBM, would now be powered by a Russian engine.
Do not use Wikipedia as a source if you expect any credibility. The Atlas V bears no relationship to the Atlas ICBM except it uses the name of a family of launch vehicles. Do some research.
When I wrote "started out as", I was obviously referring to the first variant of the Atlas rocket. Not THAT particular Atlas rocket. I didn't think that would need to be spelled out to anyone on this forum. With so many variants in between, the Atlas V is obviously a completely different rocket. But without the original Atlas and the other variants, there would likely be no Atlas V. So yes, there is a relationship. Wikipedia contains a lot of good information. I know the operators are "left leaning" politically. But I don't think that's a reason to completely discredit it. There are many other sources that describe the original Atlas rocket variant use as an ICBM.
Obviously. About the only similarity between the Atlas ICBM and the Atlas V is the name, as mentioned above. Wikipedia is not a good source for technical information. More like a Reader's Digest of folks' opinions with data sprinkled around. Their Ferrari section is rife with errors, as an example. Anything you find in Wikipedia needs to be cross-checked with authoritative sources. Then quote those sources, not Wikipedia.
There was an Atlas ICBM. It had no relationship to the Atlas V except Convair/General Dynamics/Lockheed/L-M used the name on all their large launch vehicles. I have no idea what you are arguing about. The Atlas V and (Boeing) Delta IV were the winners of the EELV program for DOD satellite launches.
Flat earth is awesome... we put some flat earth maps up at work and are just waiting for some media wonk to notice and ask questions. We had a media team from the Smithsonian flying with us in a hurricane a couple years ago and I sorta steered the conversation off to something about hurricanes and flat earth. The one guy just kept getting a weirder and weirder look on his face until I could keep from laughing. Got a challenge coin and a letter of appreciation out of that. I really am a big “evangelist “ for our mission and it’s great when we get some real sciency people flying with us who want to know more. Atlas aside our reliance on the Russians has been ironic enough, thank goodness for Elon Musk helping spur change.
Spur change, and file suit. With the prevalence of these high altitude videos, the flat Earthers are claiming it's a disc. So it just looks round. lol
You know that before it was the SM-65, it was actually designated B-65, as in "B-for-Bomber"! The Matador, Snark, Rascal, Navaho, Crossbow and Titan were all briefly "bombers", though the Titan changed from B-68 to SM-68 so quickly that the B-68 designation was used again.
I believe SM "Standard Missile" is a NATO acronym. I knew that Cape Canaveral was called Cape Kennedy for a number of years. The Floridians didn't like it, and changed it back.
This "SM" was a DoD designation for "Strategic Missile". The B-61 Matador became TM-61 for "Tactical Missile".
Too many acronyms and abbreviations. That's the problem with the military. I like the "B for Bomber" though. That was a good one !
If we had an Atlas rocket, and it hen was made with a russian engines is it still an atlas rocket. Is the rest of the rocket not just a fuel tank? Why cant we just use old ICBM's to launch satelites, must be much cheaper?
Amazing to see Ike land ina 707 and then get in a car that is technicaly antique in comarison. I always remind myself what people were driving when the B58 came out, hard to believe theyre products of the same era..
Atlas is now a family of launch vehicles just like Delta. Both Atlas and Delta were derived from ICBM/IRBMs. I worked on Delta, Delta II, Delta III, Programs which have evolved to Delta IV. Atlas V and Delta IV have very little in common with their earlier counterparts. A far as using old ICBMs to launch satellites, there are agreements between the government and Boeing (Delta), and I assume Lockheed (Atlas), that prevents the government from competing with private companies as both companies have invested a significant amount of their own money in order developing their family of launch vehicles.
We still use the solid rocket motors from the Peacekeeper ICBMs, and their civilian derivatives, to launch satellites and test vehicles like HTV-2. The Minutemen ICBMs are actually underpowered for most satellite launches, but motors have been used as part of a launch vehicle. The Titan IIs did numerous satellite launches after their decommissioning. Eventually, you run out of old ICBMs, and their lift capability does not match the designed for satellite launch systems.
Just in case somebody did not know, ICBMs are designed to get out of their silos and above the blast pattern from an incoming nuke as quickly as possible. This means they initially pull a boat-load of G to get away from the ground. Boat-loads of G and most satellites are not compatible.
Bob- They can exceed 10 Gs. Most I have pulled is 9 in an F-16. The Castor 120 civilian version of the Peacekeeper solid rocket motor is poured to cut way down on initial G load. Some payloads can take a lot of G, but it costs a lot of money to make satellites tolerate a lot of G.
The extreme G that one experiences is accumulative. It causes damage every time it occurs. Not only to the brain but to the body as well. Betty Skelton had to quit her aerodynamic shows because her internal organs were suffering continual damage, I read. I have known several jet pilots , male, who have suffered the same damage from long exposure to high G. I might be subject to the same thing from high G, too. As in hight Gin.