Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/22/2013 03:09 pm...As with all new and glitchy technology, we're still at the stage where the engineers are working out exactly how it is used in such a way that it remains safe....No, we aren't. It's not new, and it's not glitchy. We know how to use them safely. Just like we know how to drive cars safely, but some of them crash and some even catch fire. Mostly due to abuse and neglect or outright criminal behavior by a car company or drivers.
...As with all new and glitchy technology, we're still at the stage where the engineers are working out exactly how it is used in such a way that it remains safe....
Can we close the talk about the boeing airplane lithium problems in this CST-100 update thread? I'm sure boeing will find a solution, if needed, for their CST-100 batteries.
I think that's a good call apace. It looks like a good conversation, so maybe someone would like to start a splinter thread, link back to here and continue the conversation on the new thread, allowing this one to be more specific to the CST-100.
Question: What is normal for VVs with respect to integration of the power systems when docked?
CST-100 can not charge its batteries, which seems to be the dangerous step, so problem solved(?).Question: Is my statement above true? When the CST docks with ISS, it will be up there for a while, and presumably using station power. What is normal for VVs with respect to integration of the power systems when docked?
Quote from: LegendCJS on 01/22/2013 04:55 pmCST-100 can not charge its batteries, which seems to be the dangerous step, so problem solved(?).Question: Is my statement above true? When the CST docks with ISS, it will be up there for a while, and presumably using station power. What is normal for VVs with respect to integration of the power systems when docked?COTS VV requirement was (is?) max draw from ISS of 500W continuous, with peak up to 1kW for 2hrs once/week. Not sure if that is still the case or if it applies to crew vehicles?
I am sure this is a blinding flash of the obvious, but CST-100 pretty much strikes me as a Gemini with an Apollo outer mold line, but does not have the staying power of Gemini, although with solar panels or maybe an equipment module it could get there.
Solar panels would increase the free flight time of the capsule but for a LEO taxi that isn't a huge problem.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/25/2013 06:16 amSolar panels would increase the free flight time of the capsule but for a LEO taxi that isn't a huge problem. And solar panels, while tried and true, add cost and failure modes as well as constraints (e.g., structural) to ISS operations.
I think that this is a clear example of the difference in design objective between Dragon and CST-100 leading to different solutions. ... Like some models of Soyuz, it doesn't have to do anything but carry its crew from the ground to the destination vehicle and then back down again, really no more than two or three days free-flight time maximum. So, any other capability would just add complexity for no real operational advantage.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/26/2013 05:16 pmI think that this is a clear example of the difference in design objective between Dragon and CST-100 leading to different solutions. ... Like some models of Soyuz, it doesn't have to do anything but carry its crew from the ground to the destination vehicle and then back down again, really no more than two or three days free-flight time maximum. So, any other capability would just add complexity for no real operational advantage.Point taken. Yet Soyuz still uses solar arrays. Would be interesting to see the trades.
Unlike the Americans, our Russian friends highly value systems that have proven themselves for many years and do not change things just because they can.