[X] My Assistant

[Guest_Sedna_*]

Hi guys,

I think that tonight Ariane 5 ECA has shown again to be the most powerful orbiting "artifact" in the planet...

Don't you agree?

[Toma B]

Beautifull Rocket...isn't she???

[edstrick]

How does this payload carry with the demonstrated (1 test flight) and theoretical capability of Delta-IV Heavy and the theoretical ability of the (on paper) Atlas-V-Heavy? And for that matter with SpaceX's conceptual Falcon-9-heavy?

[RNeuhaus]

Hi guys,

I think that tonight Ariane 5 ECA has shown again to be the most powerful orbiting "artifact" in the planet...

Don't you agree?

The following are the rockets capabilities:
Shuttle Space -> 28,800 kg for LEO
Saturn V -> 118,000 kg for LEO
Energia -> 175,000 kg for LEO
Saturn V -> 47,000 kg to Moon
Ariane V ECA -> 12,000 kg for GTO
Delta 4 Heavy -> 13,100 kg for GTO
Atlas V -> 13,605 kg for GTO
Atlas V -> 25,000 kg for LEO

Rodolfo

[ugordan]

The following are the rockets capabilities:
Shuttle Space  -> 28,800 kg for LEO
Saturn V        -> 118,000 kg for LEO
Energia          -> 175,000 kg for LEO
Saturn V        -> 47,000 kg to Moon
Ariane V ECA  -> 12,000 kg for GTO
Delta 4 Heavy -> 13,100 kg for GTO
Atlas V          -> 13,605 kg for GTO
Atlas V          -> 25,000 kg for LEO

Rodolfo

That Energia figure seems to me to be on the high side. In any case, that's the projected payload capacity of Energia's most powerful configuration, Vulkan - with 8 liquid strap-on boosters. Needless to say, that configuration was never actually flown so the above figure is purely academic.

@edstrick: The Falcon 9 heaviest configuration (which, btw, looks an awful lot like a Delta IV Heavy) supposedly can lift some 25 tons into LEO while the Delta Heavy just under that. The other thing is that Delta itself can lift a heavier payload to a GTO orbit, probably because it uses LOX/LH2 engines as opposed to the cheaper RP/LOX Falcon 9 engines

[RNeuhaus]

the cheaper RP/LOX Falcon 9 engines

ugordan, thank you for the correction. I didn't catch Energia well. About the combustible RP, I know it is also used by Saturn V in the first stage S-1C (engine F-1). However, I haven't heard of it. How is it like? Similar to kerosene or not?

Rodolfo

[ugordan]

ugordan, thank you for the correction. I didn't catch Energia well. About the combustible RP, I know it is also used by Saturn V in the first stage S-1C (engine F-1). However, I haven't heard of it. How is it like? Similar to kerosene or not?

RP (actual name might be RP-1) stands for Refined Petroleum and, as I understand, it is kerosene.

[edstrick]

RNeuhaus: Thanks for the numbers. I didn't have time and energy to try to dig them up. Atlas 5 Heavy exists only on paper till a demonstration flight is funded, but the numbers should be good. Clearly Ariane 5 and the Heavy EELV's are comparable, but Delta-4 Heavy has a bit more "oomph"

Judging from the test flight pics.... wish I had a DVD of Boeing's test flight online video.... it's a booster with a serious "cool" look, for WHATEVER that counts!

Meanwhile... GO FALCON!

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Yep, RP-11 is one variety of kerosene.

[dvandorn]

Some of those numbers are a little off, I think. For example, the heaviest payload that a Saturn V ever put into LEO was, IIRC, the Apollo 17 TLI stage (the half-fueled S-IVB, the SLA, the LM and the CSM). That package weighed on the order of 145,000 kg (or roughly 320,000 lbs). Granted, that was a *very* low Earth orbit, a roughly circular 150-km (95 mile) orbit. But it was LEO.

I also think it would be far more helpful to give comparable metrics on each of the launchers. For example, I bet you could easily come up with kgs to LEO numbers for all of them.

-the other Doug

[edstrick]

One other historic vehicle worth tossing into the comparison mix is what I call the "Saturn IV".... the 2-stage Saturn that put Skylab (zero-propellant S-IVB) in orbit. I assume the single largest thing ever put in orbit at one throw was the S-II second stage (and the stack before Skylab separated, for quibbles) Mass including stages may have been a bit below a lunar Apollo mission.

[ugordan]

Judging from the test flight pics.... wish I had a DVD of Boeing's test flight online video.... it's a booster with a serious "cool" look, for WHATEVER that counts! 

Well, there was a webcast archived and it runs for over an hour and a half, IIRC, and it's 200 megabytes. The quality certainly isn't DVD-like, though, and the framerate has been halved so it's not very smooth...
...but, you do have a point, it's one cool looking vehicle. Probably very loud, too!

[Toma B]

... Probably very loud, too!

Loud you say...
What would I give if I can hear that loudness...AND NOT SOME #$%&^ COMENTATOR'S VOICE "LIFTOFF" and "IT"S THE BLA BLA BLA FLIGHT OF BLA BLA BLA ROCKET"...
I hate that voice from some uninterested narator or whoever I JUST WANT TO HEAR ROCKET ENGINE ROARRRR and they allways talk all the time!!!!!!!

[ugordan]

I hate that voice from some uninterested narator or whoever I JUST WANT TO HEAR ROCKET ENGINE ROARRRR and they allways talk all the time!!!!!!!    

Well, most of the time the sound on the live video feed doesn't nearly do it justice, it doesn't capture the big dynamic range of loudness and bass such an event delivers. There are a couple of videos of some rocket launches on the Spacearium site, I especially like the one where SIRTF (Spitzer) is launched on a Delta II - it's a nighttime launch so there's not much to see, but the sound turned out quite nicely, close to what I imagine would be like if you were actually there. Also, the video clip nicely demonstrates the delay from the sound travelling several kms to the observers and also the Doppler effect, especially noticeable with a fast-accelerating rocket, which a Delta II w/ SRBs is.

[edstrick]

I audiotaped TV coverage of the Apollo missions with direct connections to the TV speaker wires so the fidelity's pretty decent, though not true high fidelity. Starting with Apollo 14, I had a stereo recorder, and used 2 TV's with different channels on the left and right. Unfortunately, either one network's microphone would DIE, HORRIBLY as the Saturn V sound reached the press stand, or they wouldn't have an external mike, or one network would use landline and one would use a Sat link, so there'd be a 1/4 second delay between channels.. (fixable, nowdays)...

But on Apollo 16, everything worked... Walter Crankcase <grin> on one channel, NBC or ABC on the other.. Mission control and the crew in the "center" channel, and the Saturn in ***STEREO***.... ooooooooh....

I also have Saturn 501 in mono.. the first test flight.. as Walter said, at t +15 seconds.. "MY GOD! THE BUILDING'S SHAKING! THE BUILDING'S SHAKING HERE!"
It's mono... it's low-fi... but it's pretty damn decent... I gotta digitize the reel-to-reel tapes one of these millenia.