Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion  (Read 713662 times)

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1160 on: 01/22/2013 04:02 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.
I don't think we should get to far off topic...but Li ion battery failure rates, like all batteries are complex, small units in cell phones and lap tops are on the order of 1 in 200,000. That being said, larger units for air borne applications typically have higher mortality rates, usually caught in testing at the factory.  Bad cells do get out and many are caught in the receive testing process, I have seen this personally, considering the testing requirements for space-based applications, I find it difficult to believe that bad cells or packs will be a big issue.

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1161 on: 01/22/2013 04:14 pm »
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.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1162 on: 01/22/2013 04:33 pm »
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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1163 on: 01/22/2013 04:55 pm »
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.
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?

Dream-liner batteries are off topic, but I don't think this post is, but if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll move my post.

« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 04:56 pm by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1164 on: 01/23/2013 01:23 am »
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.
Splinter thread-
Boeing 787 lithium batteries problem
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30926.new#new

Offline Fuji

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Japan
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1165 on: 01/23/2013 02:02 am »

Question:  What is normal for VVs with respect to integration of the power systems when docked?


FYI. HTV has two type of Li-ion battery.
One is rechargable primary Li-ion battery (1).
The other are non-rechargable secondary Li-ion battery (7).

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1166 on: 01/23/2013 02:24 am »
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?

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?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1167 on: 01/24/2013 07:01 pm »
What did Shuttle draw when they used the power strap? That's probably the highest drain visiting vehicle so far.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1168 on: 01/24/2013 10:46 pm »
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.

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1169 on: 01/25/2013 01:14 am »
I don' know enough about the technical details of any of the three programs to know what you mean. Could you humor me and give some examples of things that CST-100 lacks (or has) that make it less Apollo-like?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1170 on: 01/25/2013 01:17 am »
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?

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?

Yes that is still the case.  ISS will recharge VV batteries.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1171 on: 01/25/2013 06:08 am »
Both Gemini and Apollo (and Shuttle) used hydrogen fuel cells. If you really wanted to extend the free-flight time of CST adding solar arrays would make the most sense.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2013 06:09 am by simonbp »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1172 on: 01/25/2013 06:16 am »
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.

Depends on how one defines staying power. CST-100 is designed to last 7 months in space when docked to the ISS(or a space station). It does not have a long duration on it's own but a LEO taxi does not need that much duration to get to the ISS.   

Apollo had to be modified for Skylab to last for thoose missions(and it too used Skylab's power to charge batteries for thoose missions). If they were forced to use Skylab's unpowered backup docking port the mission would only last a few days(three I think as they short loaded Skylab CM to save mass). 

Solar panels would increase the free flight time of the capsule but for a LEO taxi that isn't a huge problem.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2013 06:47 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1173 on: 01/26/2013 02:49 pm »
Solar 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.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1174 on: 01/26/2013 05:03 pm »
Solar 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.

Thanks, good points.  My first thoughts were that the CST-100 battery-only approach might be at a disadvantage vs. solar arrays, but on reflection not so clear given commercial crew requirements.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1175 on: 01/26/2013 05:16 pm »
I think that this is a clear example of the difference in design objective between Dragon and CST-100 leading to different solutions.

Dragon was designed from the outset to have a long-duration free-flying mode (DragonLab and possibly a BEO Exploration Dragon derivative).  On the other hand, CST-100 was designed from the outset to only be a ETO crew taxi.  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.

Of course, any longer-haul derivative of CST-100 would need a different SM with a different power system.  However, that's very much a topic for a different thread.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1176 on: 01/26/2013 09:24 pm »
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.

Point taken.  Yet Soyuz still uses solar arrays.  Would be interesting to see the trades.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1177 on: 01/26/2013 11:32 pm »
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.

Point taken.  Yet Soyuz still uses solar arrays.  Would be interesting to see the trades.

The battery design for Soyuz is not robust enough to power the spacecraft  independently for several days. It is designed to provide a reservoir of electrical power that is supplied by solar arrays and make power available while in the earth's shadow. A good example of using what is known to work well at the time of design, then sticking with that proven design and not seriously entertaining a design change unless really needed. 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1178 on: 01/26/2013 11:50 pm »
cough **Chernobyl** cough
DM

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1179 on: 01/27/2013 12:03 am »
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.

I think the more accurate description is that they favor systems that they have already developed and don't need to spend any extra money on. They have developed and almost used several replacements to Soyuz (including the current PPTS), not to mention the billions they spent on Buran...

And I should point out that several versions of Soyuz have been battery-only, including the original Salyut/Almaz ferry version (7K-T).
« Last Edit: 01/27/2013 12:07 am by simonbp »

Tags:
 

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