Atlas 5 Rocket Set to Launch Pluto Probe 80
tmerrill writes "An unprecedented mission to the outer edges of our solar system is set to launch in 4 days, despite a launch delay. From the article: 'NASA's first spacecraft to visit the planet Pluto is set to launch no earlier than Jan. 17 atop an Atlas 5 rocket on a decade-long trip to the fringe of the Solar System ... In order to reach Pluto by 2015, the $650 million New Horizons mission must lift off this month in order to swing by Jupiter for a gravity boost. The probe's 35-day launch window, however, stretches until Feb. 14. The launch window opens on Jan. 11. Inspections of the probe's Atlas 5 booster prompted mission managers to push their launch target to no earlier than Jan. 17, NASA officials said.'" The New York Times has details as well.
More Links to Click (Score:5, Informative)
The article gave a link to www.space.com but if you want the source of this information, you should go to Spaceflight Now [spaceflightnow.com] for their informative diagrams. You can get an idea of how the vehicle actually breaks apart to deliver its payload. You can read about how they plan to retrieve the boosters from the ocean [spaceflightnow.com], the simulated views of onboard cameras [spaceflightnow.com], or previous Atlas launches [spaceflightnow.com]. This site contains for more information than the one listed in the article.
If you're interested in payload sizes, check out Wikipedia's entries on this topic [wikipedia.org] or the International Launch Service's documentation of preparation for Atlas V launches [wikipedia.org].
Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh... were the Moon landings a technological feat, never to be duplicated?
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:3, Interesting)
The moon landings were primarily a result of a Cold War need to upstage the Soviets, and not some great fascination with technology and engineering on the part of the White House. Now that the USSR is history, there's no longer that same justification for moon shots or s
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:4, Insightful)
With a SaturnV you coud send a rover big enough that it wouldn't get hung up in 6" of sand like one of the Mars Rovers did. You could send a lot more instrumentation up to examine more aspects of whatever you are looking at.
There are other uses for big rockets than just sending humans into space.
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2, Interesting)
It is to be regretted that 40 years ago we had a rocket more powerful than any of the ones we got now. Actually I've been quite surprised to hear that we had nothing as powerful as a Saturn V, it's like, going technologically backwards, although if you look at the problem from close, we were lucky not to have any problem with Saturn V's and the context was much different (and allowed such gigantic rockets to be invested in).
And yeah as you said, big rockets like Saturn V ain't all about man
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
What's the biggest launcher out of Russia? Doesn't Energia have something close to the capability of an S-V?
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Comparatively, Atlas V at the maximum only could place up to 25 metric tons to LEO
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Is there a part where it's easy to call AAA or someone to tow you out? No. Kinda dumb complaining that it might still get stuck somewhere. That's obvious. It could still go many many many places a smaller rover could not.
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
We did Viking 1 and Viking 2 ages ago. Then, we go back with something modern, and we try out a neat new landing system. Cool. We crash a polar lander.
Then what? Do we try the polar lander again? No. We wimp out. We send two more rovers (been there, done that...) and plan to send many more. Arrrgh!!!! Elsewhere in our Solar system...
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Well, the USSR made something work. Just cloning that with a better radio and better imager would be wonderful. Landing in some other places, like the high areas that are highly radar reflective, would be very useful.
For long-term survival, might I suggest a nuclear-powered air conditioner?
Having an astronaut walk around should even be doable, using phase-change materials to keep him cool for trips away from t
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:1)
http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Venus.htm [mentallandscape.com]
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:3)
There was no great technological achievement. The saturn V is a demonstration that if you throw enough money at it, you can usually do what you want. Price/performance the atlas has it beat by probably an order of magnitude.
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2, Informative)
The balloon tanks were cool, but they're not used on the Atlas V [wikipedia.org]:
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
Yeah, 'cause we all know that in order for something to be more technically advanced, it has to be bigger. That's how come modern computers are so much more primitive than the ENIAC.
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
I'm a SI units guy, but isn't a pound about 0.5kg?
According to the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], it could lift more like 120 tons (metric) to orbit, i.e. the double amount(!)
Re:Atlas V is a p*ssy rocket (Score:2)
and my name is on it! (Score:1, Funny)
I hope they get this one right, because last time my name was on a CD, they messed up Metres/Miles.
ObFuturama (Score:2)
The mission (Score:5, Informative)
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ [jhuapl.edu]
Re:Where's the obvious reply? (Score:2, Funny)
One word: (Score:1)
Re:Where's the obvious reply? (Score:2, Funny)
And bring on the Futurama quotes now...
You call THAT a rocket, Gringo? (Score:5, Interesting)
While an impressive vehicle, it's size is dwarfed by the Saturn V. [apollosaturn.com]
I called in sick to my job and flew down to Cape Kennedy to see the last launch of this monster. The last launch was used to put Skylab in orbit.
I got no closer than about Titusville, (I think this was about 10 miles from the launch pad) but when that sucker was lifting off, I felt a sonic impact that felt like someone slammed my chest!
Re:You call THAT a rocket, Gringo? (Score:2)
The simple answer is that the Saturn V was manned and there is only so fast you can accelerate before killing everyone onboard.
Re:You call THAT a rocket, Gringo? (Score:1)
Simple, but wrong. The real answer is because they had to slow down again to enter the moon's orbit. Building up excess speed would just require a longer braking maneuver and more fuel mass to do it. The food and breathing oxygen for a couple of extra days weighed less than that fuel would have. This Pluto probe is not going to be making any kind of stop at the the earth's moon, s
Re:You call THAT a rocket, Gringo? (Score:2)
I agree with what you said, but you missed my point. The Saturn could go a lot faster but was limited to about 4-5 Gs. To go any faster would have probably killed the astronauts.
Sure but we were taking about getting to the moon in 9 hours. To do that, with the two burns the Atlas was doing would mean exceeding 17 6's during launch. Definitely fat
Re:You call THAT a rocket, Gringo? (Score:2)
You mean you weren't sick?!?! (Score:1)
Re:You mean you weren't sick?!?! (Score:1)
The rocket? That's how they light them, you know.
Re:You mean you weren't sick?!?! (Score:1)
Probe lucky to be. Race against time. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Probe lucky to be. Race against time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Probe lucky to be. Race against time. (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, spending 800 million USD to figure out how to classify a body is probably not worth it by iself. However, knowing if and why there is a difference between Pluto and other Kuiper objects is definitely a worthy goal.
Here is more info on the probe's problematic political history:
http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_041004.
http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/advoca
The stolen "nuke tape" fiasco at the Los Alamos National Laboraty almost delayed or reduced the delivery of the radioactive power cell. I've read later that they met their goal eventually.
Why Pluto? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Pluto? (Score:1)
Re:Why Pluto? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I am not a rocket scientist, and I don't think you are either. All the planets in the solar system are pretty damn interesting if you look at each one individually.
Re:Why Pluto? (Score:2)
Re:Why Pluto? (Score:2)
Those moons have been visited by a handful of probes already (The two Pioneers, the two Voyagers, Galileo (to Jupiter's moons), and Cassini. The Huygens probe even landed on Titan. That's not to say there's not a lot more to learn about those moons, but no spacecraft has ever flown by Pluto.
Re:Why Pluto? (Score:2, Informative)
1. Pluto's atmosphere is going to freeze into ground snow pretty soon due to its odd orbit and we won't get another chance for 200 or so years to study the atmosphere. Europa won't be different any time soon.
2. We've never had a probe explore pluto before, unlike the moons you mentioned.
3. The probe is planned to explore other Kuiper-belt objects a
$650M to go to Pluto? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:$650M to go to Pluto? (Score:2, Informative)
Examples:
Cassini/Hyugens - About 3 billion USD, some of it by Europe.
MER Mars rovers - $850 million total
Viking landers - 2 billion total, probably 4 billion adjusted for inflation.
It is generally on the low-end of probe costs. However, NASA has cut back of late and most planetary missions are between about $400 million to $800 million these days. The reasoning given is that technology and experience has allowed for less expensive probes.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't want to start a holy war here, but (Score:2)
Han
RTG on-board - just got final approval from WH (Score:2)
Plutonium isn't really poisonous (Score:2)
Outer Solar system exploration (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Outer Solar system exploration (Score:1)
My understanding is that the design of the craft has to be carefully tailored to detect the anomaly. The Pioneer crafts just happened to be that way. I doubt New Horizons is. For one, the Pioneers did not rely heavily on thrusters for instrument positioning while newer craft do, and thrusters muck up calculations.
ESA is tentatively pl
won't orbit Pluto? (Score:2)
Re:won't orbit Pluto? (Score:1)
Re:won't orbit Pluto? (Score:1)
Indeed. You have to use more fuel to *launch* the weight of the slow-down fuel. Most orbiters take a slow path so that they don't have to spend as much time or fuel to slow down. This probe will be one of the fastest ever. It may take something like 30 years instead of 9 if it was to be an orbiter.
Pluto's atmosphere is not thick enough to be very useful fo
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Space Shuttles? (Score:1)