Author Topic: Boeing Submits Proposal for NASA Commercial Crew Transport System  (Read 36959 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
I suspect the Boeing vehicle might be a scale up of the X37.
This actually would be sensible as the X37 should be launched early next year.
 It would allow them to reuse a lot of flight test data from the USAF project and from the shuttle.
« Last Edit: 09/24/2009 04:54 am by Patchouli »

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
The X-37 certainly does come to mind, especially with an orbital version with avionics/TPS/Propulsion is already built and awaiting launch.

Ironically it is being launched on an Atlas. 

How much bigger than an X-37 would a four person OSPish vehicle be and could you launch it in a shroud to avoid some of the issues of a winged vehicle on top of an EELV?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
I suspect the Boeing vehicle might be a scale up of the X37.
This actually would be sensible as the X37 should be launched early next year.
 It would allow them to reuse a lot of flight test data from the USAF project and from the shuttle.

That makes no sense.  Just uninformed conjecture.  It would be too costly to develop and compete with the others.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

Ironically it is being launched on an Atlas. 


How is that ironic?  Many Boeing spacecraft have flown on Atlas

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

How much bigger than an X-37 would a four person OSPish vehicle be and could you launch it in a shroud to avoid some of the issues of a winged vehicle on top of an EELV?

The current X-37 wings barely fit in the existing fairings.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Istanbul was Constantinople.  Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to They Might Be Giants in a space-related discussion before, ever.  :)
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Istanbul was Constantinople.  Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to They Might Be Giants in a space-related discussion before, ever.  :)

Wasn't that the title of a series of articles about the Nova program in "Spaceflight History" (as well as a contemporary rock group [this specific reference] and a 1971 movie starring George C. Scott, from which the group supposedly got its name...)?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Istanbul was Constantinople.  Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to They Might Be Giants in a space-related discussion before, ever.  :)

Other than the "The Four Lads'" first sang it first ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Lads ) ...

But I've never seen "The Four Lads'" reference in a space flight forum ;)
« Last Edit: 09/24/2009 04:05 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
I try to throw in Statistically Improbable Phrases that might steer a completely unrelated Google search over to NSF - both as business for NSF and outreach for space in general.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I suspect the Boeing vehicle might be a scale up of the X37.
This actually would be sensible as the X37 should be launched early next year.
 It would allow them to reuse a lot of flight test data from the USAF project and from the shuttle.

That makes no sense.  Just uninformed conjecture.  It would be too costly to develop and compete with the others.
Actually the issue would be scaling - not very cost effective for the desired payload. Nor would the design be conducive to a no fairing approach necessitated by wingspan increase - too unstable, was never designed for that .

Nor would the TPS scale on return. You'd end up recapitulating Hermes, which was borderline 2-3 man economics/safety. You need 4-6 at a minimum.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Istanbul was Constantinople.  Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to They Might Be Giants in a space-related discussion before, ever.  :)

By rocket to the moon.. by airplane to the rocket.. by taxi to the airport.. by front door to the taxi
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
I understand that a manned version of an X-37 derived vehicle would be too big for a shroud and thus cause issues with its wings. But I don't understand why the durable TPS wouldn't be scalable.  I mean isn't the point of the X-37 to test key systems for use in future vehicles, including the TPS?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
I understand that a manned version of an X-37 derived vehicle would be too big for a shroud and thus cause issues with its wings. But I don't understand why the durable TPS wouldn't be scalable.  I mean isn't the point of the X-37 to test key systems for use in future vehicles, including the TPS?

It may have to do with vehicle frame/substructure materials and systems costs. All of the 'durable' TPS materials I've read about will transfer a percentage of heat that would need to be absorbed by the vehicle itself in some way (titanium frame, liquid cooling system substructure, or a combination). That makes a larger vehicle much more costly and complex to build and operate.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
...

c) Any guesses for Group C?

LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?

I wish:  HMX with "Phoenix Redux"

I may have tilted at a few windmills in my day, but I'm not stupid.

;)


So I probably shouldn't start a "NASA should just give Gary Hudson a billion dollars..." thread? :)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
...

c) Any guesses for Group C?

LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?

I wish:  HMX with "Phoenix Redux"

I may have tilted at a few windmills in my day, but I'm not stupid.

;)


So I probably shouldn't start a "NASA should just give Gary Hudson a billion dollars..." thread? :)

Hey, it's probably more realistic than a "give CxP $5B more per year because there was nothing wrong with it other than that evil GAO bringing them down and not giving them enough money" thread...

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
But getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities.  I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space.  I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
But getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities.  I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space.  I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.

Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Is there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpg

Nope.  This concept has been in work for some time.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Is there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpg

Nope.  This concept has been in work for some time.
{sarcasm mode}
We're too stupid, cheap, and incompetent an aerospace industry to do anything but a capsule. After we wipe off the drool for several decades, maybe there may be residual engineering engineering gene fragments that may breed back into the culture to in a hundred years try something thats both safe and a little more developed than falling (with style!) into an ocean. At least Soyuz does land, unlike POR Orion.{/sarcasm mode}
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
But getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities.  I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space.  I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.

Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.

People keep repeatedly missing the point on what this about.  What was just described above is the standard contracting business.  In many cases the government agency awards development contracts to multiple companies until a final down select decision is made and the real DDT&E and production contracts are awarded.

What this whole concept has at its core, is very little government money is available (even less if it goes to multpile companies) and it is up to them to bring the rest of the money roll.  NASA would be a customer just as any one else could be a customer for this vehicle.  Customer, very important word, because in this context it does not mean the same as having ultimate contract authority where every move made is at the blessing of the agency who pays for everything you do.  Do you think it is coincidence that Boeing has partnered with Bigelow? 

If this really continues to gain traction, I expect the FAA to enter into the mix here soon, more so than they are already, and there will be a standardized set of requirements crewed vehicles must achieve in order to get certification.  NASA will have input into that but I doubt they will be the ultimate authority.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1