Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Space Flight / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Asymmetry of the Atlas V

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Proponent!!!N0_SP@M!!!@gmx.net - 20 Jan 2006 08:57 GMT
Watching the NH launch reminded me of a something that's been bothering
me for a while: why is the arrangement of SRBs on the Atlas V
asymmetric?  How is the asymmetry of the SRB thrust compensated for?
By gimballing the RD-180s?  By offsetting the RD-180s?  In the former
case, isn't this inefficient?  In the latter case, how does a 40x or
50x model manage to fly straight?
Jim Davis - 21 Jan 2006 04:25 GMT
> Watching the NH launch reminded me of a something that's been
> bothering me for a while: why is the arrangement of SRBs on the
> Atlas V asymmetric?  

The arrangement is assymetric because there are two external fittings
on the Atlas V common booster core, an avionics pod and an LO2
feedline. These are at about the 10:30 and 1:30 positions. Two of the
solids are between these fittings at about the 11:30 and 12:30
positions. The other 3 are on the opposite side at the 5, 6, and 7
o'clock positions.

> How is the asymmetry of the SRB thrust
> compensated for? By gimballing the RD-180s?

Presumably.  

> ...isn't this inefficient?

Not really. The shuttle does exactly this. Another possibility is
canting the solid booster nozzles differently to compensate for the
assymetry.

Jim Davis  
Damon Hill - 21 Jan 2006 05:54 GMT
> Watching the NH launch reminded me of a something that's been bothering
> me for a while: why is the arrangement of SRBs on the Atlas V
> asymmetric?  How is the asymmetry of the SRB thrust compensated for?
> By gimballing the RD-180s?  By offsetting the RD-180s?  In the former
> case, isn't this inefficient?  In the latter case, how does a 40x or
> 50x model manage to fly straight?

The asymmetry IS interesting, but apparently the offset
isn't severe and the RD-180 has excellent control
authority.  The Atlas V comes with any number of solids
from 0 to 5, but you'll note that the offset is never
more than one motor unit.  Possibly the solids' nozzles
could also be individually adjusted, although they are
non-steerable.

--Damon

Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home) - 22 Jan 2006 21:10 GMT
Am 20 Jan 2006 00:57:43 -0800 schrieb
"Proponent!!!N0_SP@M!!!@gmx.net":

>Watching the NH launch reminded me of a something that's been bothering
>me for a while: why is the arrangement of SRBs on the Atlas V
>asymmetric?  How is the asymmetry of the SRB thrust compensated for?
>By gimballing the RD-180s?  By offsetting the RD-180s?  In the former
>case, isn't this inefficient?  In the latter case, how does a 40x or
>50x model manage to fly straight?

The booster nozzles are simply canted a bit outwards, so that their
thrust vectors go through the launcher's center of gravity. The
tradeoff os a slight decrease in effective thrust compared to a thrust
vector in movement direction, but it is the easiest method of using
even asymmetrical arrangements. Another well known example of
asymmetrical booster arrangements are the Delta-II 7420/7425 boosters,
that use the very same concept.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL

Signature

Gib mir die Zahlen die Du hast,
und gib mir die Zahlen die Du brauchst -
Und ich suche dann die richtigen Tests raus,
um aus den einen die anderen Zahlen zu machen.

Ed Kyle - 10 Feb 2006 00:42 GMT
> Watching the NH launch reminded me of a something that's been bothering
> me for a while: why is the arrangement of SRBs on the Atlas V
> asymmetric?

The Atlas V booster was originally designed with the idea that
it would fly in only Medium and Heavy versions without SRBs.
At that point, the booster was configured with an external LOX
feedline on one side of the tank and an external avionics bay
on the other side, but not in 180 degree symmetry probably
due to the physical configuration of ground launcher equiment.
When the solids were added to the design (this occurred
well before the first launch), there were only certain places
where they could be positioned.  

- Ed Kyle
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.