Jump to content

Talk:SM-65 Atlas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk

[edit]

User:Roadrunner's recent edit deletes, without comment "The Atlas V is an Atlas in name alone as it contains little Atlas technology." I don't particularly care, but this seems like a deletion of a true and relevant statement without comment, which seems odd to me. -- Jmabel 03:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not overly happy with the deletion, as I added the comment in question. I believe it is worthwhile content, as it points out that LM has basically abandoned the Atlas line of technology. Audin

"Mercury-Atlas Three" chronology - incorrect launch date

[edit]

It looks like the date listed for the Mercury-Atlas Three chronology is incorrect. The Atlas launch that occured on April 25, 1961 was aborted and the vehicle was detonated 40 seconds after liftoff. For which Atlas launch is this the correct chronology?

Could some specs be added? Length, width, weight, etc?


Clarification needed

[edit]

"with three engines producing 1,590 kN of thrust." Each, or in total? -- Rogerborg 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's there at the bottom of the article where it talks more about the powerplants in general. That number is total, it has 1x 254 and 2x 670. Evand 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent Error

[edit]

The article begins: 

"The Atlas, first tested in 1959, was the United States' first successful ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile)".....

However one of the captions of a picture is:

"Atlas missile launch from Cape Canaveral in 1957"

One of these things is not like the other.....

Rename to SM-65 Atlas

[edit]
Resolved
 – Renamed. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article should be renamed to SM-65 Atlas. This conforms with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Naming conventions. Any disagreement? (sdsds - talk) 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Gage Correction

[edit]

I think the skin gages quoted in the design section are incorrect. They should read, ".010 to .040 inch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skytrainii (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

development Notes

[edit]

I will add some development notes Saltysailor (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There should be some mention of the missile gap which led to the Atlas being built.

Building the launchers was a challenge also. New technology was developed and the USSR used different techniques. Saltysailor (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Prose

[edit]

Under "survivors" (and elsewhere) "This nose cone actually stood alert in defense of the United States" Did it ACTUALLY!? Perhaps a medal of some sort is in order for it's alert defense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.138.149 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of SM-65D/E/F articles into this one

[edit]

Recommend merger of those three articles into this, as they are essentially stubs and can be consolidated into this. Generally for variants of the same weapons system, subsections are created for them to expand on the differences within the article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. For variants of rockets this distinction is much less clear, many large rockets do have articles for individual variants. And just because they're stubs at the moment doesn't mean they can't be expanded. --GW… 09:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we'll just leave them as stub articles Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other rockets have separate articles for individual variants is not a good reason to get carried away. Atlases D, E, and F were all just ICBMS. I can see having separate articles for Atlas Agena and Atlas Centaur because they have significant distinct histories. If I were researching the Atlas ICBM I would certainly not want to have to bounce back and forth among three different articles to compile information for 3 variants of the same thing. It's just a big, unnecessary inconvenience. Magneticlifeform (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance computer

[edit]

The Air Force Space & Missile Museum has an Atlas guidance computer on display in the LC-26B firing room (from which Atlas was never fired), apparently built in 1957. Does anyone know where it was moved from? Was this unit the first AN/GSQ-33 installed at the Cape (according to [1], in June 1957)? 121a0012 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Convair X-12 Specifications" require explanation

[edit]

Near the end of the SM-65 Atlas article there is a photo labeled "Convair X-12 being launched" followed by "Convair X-12 specifications". The photo is an Atlas B with the blunt RV, which is 75 feet tall and 10 feet in diameter. Yet the "Convair X-12 specifications" describe it as 103 feet tall and 12 feet in diameter. This is clearly nonsense. I don't know if this is a practical joke or some kind of mistake, but it needs to be fixed or an explanation given. Otherwise I'm going to remove it in the near future.Magneticlifeform (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO such 103 ft tall by 12 ft diameter vehicle was ever built and flown during the Atlas program. There was, however, a 103 ft by 12 ft diameter mock-up of the MX1593 made prior to the Atlas redesign which resulted in the smaller 10 ft diameter Atlas design.(A photo of the "MX1593" mock-up can be found online.) X-11 then became Atlas A and X-12 became Atlas B. I have deleted the incorrect "X-12 specifications". Please don't put it back without correction to the 10 ft diameter, etc. The "X-11" photo is an Atlas A flight, which is okay, but the photo identified as "X-12" is an Atlas B, which is NOT 103 ft tall and 12 ft in diameter.Magneticlifeform (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)166.70.15.248 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of X-11/X-12 (in French) is available at http://jpcolliat.free.fr/x11/x11-8.htm Magneticlifeform (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Importance

[edit]

Atlas was the single most important rocket development program in U.S. history and laid the groundwork for all the major launch vehicle developments which followed in the United States. For that reason the SM-65 Atlas article should be rated as being of top importance in the Wiki Rocketry Project. The current article has progressed to the point that with a few minor tweaks it should be ready to be considered for GA status. I am curious why the article's status and importance have yet to be evaluated. Can anyone enlighten me as to why that is the case or what can be done to move it along.166.70.15.248 (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

There are some great books on the history of the Atlas, so it is a little surprising that the history section is pretty poor. People looking for better information should consult some of these:

Chapman, John L., Atlas: The Story of a Missile, Harper, New York, 1960.
Beard, Edmund, Developing the ICBM, Columbia Univ. Press, NY, 1976.
Hughes, Thomas P., Rescuing Prometheus, Pantheon, 1998.
York, Herbert, Race to Oblivion, Simon and Shcuster, NY, 1970.
Neufeld, Jacob, The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force, 1945-1960, Office of Air Force History, Washington, 1990.
Walker, Chuck, Atlas: The Ultimate Weapon, Apogee, 2005.
DonPMitchell (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"survivors"

[edit]

At the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama there is also an Atlas SM-65 of some variety in the rocket garden, near the redstone rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BF4:61F0:B443:CAAE:B6D8:7E3D (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X-11/X-12

[edit]

NASA AMERICAN X-VEHICLES says X-11&X-12 no bulid.

Before 1953, X-11('single' engine)---X-12(three engine)---XB-65(90 ft long & 'five' engine) Encyclopedia Astronautica - Atlas A

After 1954, Atlas A(76 ft long & 'two' engine)--Atlas B(three engine)--XB-65/SM-65(75 ft(type D) long & three engine) . --Los688 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SM-65 Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

Currently, there's a phrase in the introduction of this article that reads "...was 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped over Nagasaki". Part of this phrase points to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Shouldn't it point to "Fat man"?

Thanks, Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 20:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F-1 loosely based on Atlas engines, uncited information

[edit]

Uncited statement made that the F-1 engine was loosely based on Atlas engines, but a) Wikipedia article on F-1 does not say this, and b) I have never heard this despite decades as an aerospace geek. F-1 thrust was roughly a factor 10-15 times larger as well. Besides, "loosely based" is kinda wishywashy; to some, the F-1 could be called loosely based on the V2/A4 engine (both liquid fuel rocket engines) or even loosely based on Congreve's early 19th century rockets (both reaction rocket motors). And, while the Atlas did have engine problems, I don't think they were combustion instabilities as in the F-1, fixed by injector baffles. If anyone feels strongly about reverting, go ahead, but maybe justify it. And I'm still learning how the editing process works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SM-65_Atlas&oldid=1206334414"