I’m never one to miss a chance at big-guy bashing, but really?
“Legacy” is the word they used. I think they can claim a “legacy” of Atlases, no? It’s like if I claimed a legacy coming down from my Great-Grandfather and you said I was claiming to BE him? I’d say your two cars are “related” in exactly the way the rockets are, and thus a “legacy”.
Now, whether one should brag nowadays about being the “legacy” provider, that’s another matter.
Atlas was a nuclear icbm built by Convair in San Diego. It was a single stage to orbit engineering marvel. Atlas 5 is a political football with a Russian engine that reliably puts thing in orbit. The second stage is common. The first stages have nothing in common.
I think you should edit the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…. It seems to think that there’s such a thing as the Atlas rocket family. I guess I was mistaken that each version of Atlas was an updated version of the previous one.
There is very little in common between the first Atlas and today’s Atlas V. For starters, the engines are made in different countries and have nothing in common. The structural design of the stage is completely different with the original Atlas using stainless steel “balloon tanks” which had to remain pressurized even during ground handling where Atlas V first stage tanks are an isogrid aluminum design which is far stronger (to handle strap-on SRBs and far higher payloads).
That doesn’t mean they aren’t related. One was modified to make the next. Same can be said for cars. Significant changes are made every few years so that a new one may bear little resemblance to a much older one. They’re still considered to be from the same family.
Not really. This is why Keith posted a pic of an original Beetle (air cooled flat four cylinder engine in the back, points ignition, RWD, manual transmission, bias belted tires) beside a picture of the latest model New Beetle (water cooled inline four cylinder engine in the front, electronic fuel injected, FWD, automatic transmission, radial belted tires).
I know about these beasts. My dad had a ’73 Beetle when I was growing up and today I maintain my daughter’s 2004 New Beetle Convertible. Other than the vaguest of similarities (four wheels, two doors, similar shape) the two cars really have nothing in common in terms of engineering.
I’ve never looked up the Atlas design history, but it’s possible to go from one design to a completely different one in steps. VW did not. They discontinued the old Beetles and then, many years later, designed the new one from scratch (or without reference to the old design.)
A hypothetical car, starting out just like an old Beetle, could (again hypothetically) been redesigned to be more or less the same, but have an automatic transmission. A later redesign could shift to water cooling (that would be a big step). A still later redesign could change something else. And, after enough iterations, you’d have a design with no resemblance at all to the original one.
Of course, that isn’t what VW did. But I’m not sure whether or not that’s true of the Atlas designs. Did they throw out everything and start over when they went from Atlas-Agena to the Atlas-Centaur? (I know the answer to that one.) What about going to the Atlas II, or Atlas III or Atlas V?
There were incremental changes from Atlas to Atlas II and the same from Atlas II to Atlas III and yet again from Atlas III to Atlas V.
But the point is that Atlas V really has nothing in common with the original Atlas other than the name. They are completely different now.
Say my grandfather owned an axe, and replaced the handle once before giving it to my father. My father replaced the handle once, but also had to replace the head once as well before giving it to me. Is it reasonable to say that my axe the same one that my grandfather used?
It’s the same thing with Atlas. The original Atlas had no upper stage. Later iterations used Agena and then Centaur upper stages along with first stage tank stretches and improved versions of the original engines. Then the original engines and “stage and a half” first stage design was ditched in favor of using Russian RD-180 engines. Then the original balloon tanks were ditched in another redesign so that larger solids could be used. Now, Atlas V bears absolutely no resemblance to the original Atlas.
Actually, that was my point. Although the Atlas V has no resemblance to the original Atlas, the Atlas V did build on the earlier designs. The changes depended, in part, on flight experience with earlier designs. Even though the current Atlas does not resemble the original, it would not have evolved into its current form without the experience provided by all the earlier versions.
Mr Spencer mentioned biological evolution. I don’t look much like a 65 million year old species of a vaguely mouse-like animal. But humans are an evolutionary result of just such an animal. I don’t see a problem with claiming an evolutionary legacy, even if the original and current versions have almost nothing in common. It’s about a continuous chain of development.
As an engineer I believe in incremental changes like this. But I disagree with giving the new end product the same name when it bears absolutely no resemblance to the original product.
Again, this is no different than the old Beetle versus the New Beetle. VW car designs evolved over many decades to the point that today’s VW New Beetle has absolutely nothing in common with the WW-II era Beetle. The name is all “sales and marketing”.
As an engineer, I tend to despise “sales and marketing” since it is quite often misleading.
The original Atlas ICBM/launch vehicle was a stage and a half design. It dropped its two booster engines on the way up, which was a huge amount of unnecessary mass once they weren’t needed anymore. Later in the first stage burn, you had to reduce thrust to limit the Gs during launch. Dropping those two engines once they were shut down was smart, for an ICBM design.
For those of your keeping score a home, the consumer H2 Hummer SUV sold by General Motors has about as much engineering DNA from its military namesake built by AM General as today’s Lockheed -ULA Atlas rocket resembles it’s grandpa Convair Atlas ICBM of the 1950’s. The consumer H2 Hummer puts a cosmetically similar HMMWMV body on a standard Suburban -Yukon-Tahoe SUV chassis. It only looks like a war wagon
But I guess ULA’s public relations people had to put out something to earn their pay this month . Not much else happening over there to write about.
Wow, this is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read here, so I just had to register to comment. “Legacy” implies more than just mechanicals; how about all those early Atlas engineers who trained the next generation of Atlas engineers, who trained the next, and the next? Nope, no legacy there; ULA just sprang forth from the forehead of Zeus with absolutely no history behind it. Same goes for Delta; no legacy whatsoever. Sheesh, talk about being intentionally obtuse.
So, Keith, do you know the ULA social media person? I do, and I know she’s a very conscientious, hard-working individual who doesn’t deserve your disdain. I’m curious, do you have the courage to bitch about this to her face? I’m sure you know Jessica Rye; contact her to set something up with Christa and report back to us. I eagerly await hearing the details of your face-to-face admonishment and how you stuck it to ULA.
True, the current Atlas is not anything like the early Atlas ICBM. Similarly the current “Soyuz” has and is evolving from the early R-7. However, I actually think that evolving and upgrading a proven design IS a good way to work on many things, including rockets. http://www.robert-w-jones.com
I’m never one to miss a chance at big-guy bashing, but really?
“Legacy” is the word they used. I think they can claim a “legacy” of Atlases, no? It’s like if I claimed a legacy coming down from my Great-Grandfather and you said I was claiming to BE him? I’d say your two cars are “related” in exactly the way the rockets are, and thus a “legacy”.
Now, whether one should brag nowadays about being the “legacy” provider, that’s another matter.
I am glad you are calling them on this hyperbole Keith. The only thing ‘Atlas’ those two boosters share is the name.
Atlas was a nuclear icbm built by Convair in San Diego. It was a single stage to orbit engineering marvel. Atlas 5 is a political football with a Russian engine that reliably puts thing in orbit. The second stage is common. The first stages have nothing in common.
I think you should edit the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…. It seems to think that there’s such a thing as the Atlas rocket family. I guess I was mistaken that each version of Atlas was an updated version of the previous one.
There is very little in common between the first Atlas and today’s Atlas V. For starters, the engines are made in different countries and have nothing in common. The structural design of the stage is completely different with the original Atlas using stainless steel “balloon tanks” which had to remain pressurized even during ground handling where Atlas V first stage tanks are an isogrid aluminum design which is far stronger (to handle strap-on SRBs and far higher payloads).
That doesn’t mean they aren’t related. One was modified to make the next. Same can be said for cars. Significant changes are made every few years so that a new one may bear little resemblance to a much older one. They’re still considered to be from the same family.
There is no commonality whatsoever between John Glenn’s Atlas and today’s Atlas.
Not really. This is why Keith posted a pic of an original Beetle (air cooled flat four cylinder engine in the back, points ignition, RWD, manual transmission, bias belted tires) beside a picture of the latest model New Beetle (water cooled inline four cylinder engine in the front, electronic fuel injected, FWD, automatic transmission, radial belted tires).
I know about these beasts. My dad had a ’73 Beetle when I was growing up and today I maintain my daughter’s 2004 New Beetle Convertible. Other than the vaguest of similarities (four wheels, two doors, similar shape) the two cars really have nothing in common in terms of engineering.
I’ve never looked up the Atlas design history, but it’s possible to go from one design to a completely different one in steps. VW did not. They discontinued the old Beetles and then, many years later, designed the new one from scratch (or without reference to the old design.)
A hypothetical car, starting out just like an old Beetle, could (again hypothetically) been redesigned to be more or less the same, but have an automatic transmission. A later redesign could shift to water cooling (that would be a big step). A still later redesign could change something else. And, after enough iterations, you’d have a design with no resemblance at all to the original one.
Of course, that isn’t what VW did. But I’m not sure whether or not that’s true of the Atlas designs. Did they throw out everything and start over when they went from Atlas-Agena to the Atlas-Centaur? (I know the answer to that one.) What about going to the Atlas II, or Atlas III or Atlas V?
There were incremental changes from Atlas to Atlas II and the same from Atlas II to Atlas III and yet again from Atlas III to Atlas V.
But the point is that Atlas V really has nothing in common with the original Atlas other than the name. They are completely different now.
Say my grandfather owned an axe, and replaced the handle once before giving it to my father. My father replaced the handle once, but also had to replace the head once as well before giving it to me. Is it reasonable to say that my axe the same one that my grandfather used?
It’s the same thing with Atlas. The original Atlas had no upper stage. Later iterations used Agena and then Centaur upper stages along with first stage tank stretches and improved versions of the original engines. Then the original engines and “stage and a half” first stage design was ditched in favor of using Russian RD-180 engines. Then the original balloon tanks were ditched in another redesign so that larger solids could be used. Now, Atlas V bears absolutely no resemblance to the original Atlas.
An argument often made by creationists searching for ‘transition’ bones.
Actually, that was my point. Although the Atlas V has no resemblance to the original Atlas, the Atlas V did build on the earlier designs. The changes depended, in part, on flight experience with earlier designs. Even though the current Atlas does not resemble the original, it would not have evolved into its current form without the experience provided by all the earlier versions.
Mr Spencer mentioned biological evolution. I don’t look much like a 65 million year old species of a vaguely mouse-like animal. But humans are an evolutionary result of just such an animal. I don’t see a problem with claiming an evolutionary legacy, even if the original and current versions have almost nothing in common. It’s about a continuous chain of development.
As an engineer I believe in incremental changes like this. But I disagree with giving the new end product the same name when it bears absolutely no resemblance to the original product.
Again, this is no different than the old Beetle versus the New Beetle. VW car designs evolved over many decades to the point that today’s VW New Beetle has absolutely nothing in common with the WW-II era Beetle. The name is all “sales and marketing”.
As an engineer, I tend to despise “sales and marketing” since it is quite often misleading.
The original Atlas ICBM/launch vehicle was a stage and a half design. It dropped its two booster engines on the way up, which was a huge amount of unnecessary mass once they weren’t needed anymore. Later in the first stage burn, you had to reduce thrust to limit the Gs during launch. Dropping those two engines once they were shut down was smart, for an ICBM design.
Well let’s see, so both Volkswagen and first US ICBM can trace their lineage back to certain popular episode in german engineering history ?
For those of your keeping score a home, the consumer H2 Hummer SUV sold by General Motors has about as much engineering DNA from its military namesake built by AM General as today’s Lockheed -ULA Atlas rocket resembles it’s grandpa Convair Atlas ICBM of the 1950’s.
The consumer H2 Hummer puts a cosmetically similar HMMWMV body on a standard Suburban -Yukon-Tahoe SUV chassis. It only looks like a war wagon
But I guess ULA’s public relations people had to put out something to earn their pay this month . Not much else happening over there to write about.
Wow, this is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read here, so I just had to register to comment. “Legacy” implies more than just mechanicals; how about all those early Atlas engineers who trained the next generation of Atlas engineers, who trained the next, and the next? Nope, no legacy there; ULA just sprang forth from the forehead of Zeus with absolutely no history behind it. Same goes for Delta; no legacy whatsoever. Sheesh, talk about being intentionally obtuse.
So, Keith, do you know the ULA social media person? I do, and I know she’s a very conscientious, hard-working individual who doesn’t deserve your disdain. I’m curious, do you have the courage to bitch about this to her face? I’m sure you know Jessica Rye; contact her to set something up with Christa and report back to us. I eagerly await hearing the details of your face-to-face admonishment and how you stuck it to ULA.
True, the current Atlas is not anything like the early Atlas ICBM.
Similarly the current “Soyuz” has and is evolving from the early R-7.
However, I actually think that evolving and upgrading a proven design IS a good way to work on many things, including rockets.
http://www.robert-w-jones.com