Quote from: erioladastra on 01/25/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Quote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Because they are all trying to market tourists for the ISS and possible vehicles for trips like bigelow.Not a holdover from lifeboat/acrv days?
Quote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Quote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Because they are all trying to market tourists for the ISS and possible vehicles for trips like bigelow.
No, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz.
My research says "SSF" and "ISS" versions of the current station were manned based on CRV (old designation ACRV) lifeboats, period! The X-38 was the precursor project to the lifeboat implementation.
Quote from: erioladastra on 01/25/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Quote from: Pipcard on 01/25/2015 05:37 pmNo, my question is about commercial crew vehicles, asking why all of the CCtCap candidates have a 7 crew member capacity when the ISS already has 6 crew members and is already being serviced by at least one Soyuz. Because they are all trying to market tourists for the ISS and possible vehicles for trips like bigelow.Before Commercial Crew, when the ISS was a destination for Orion, the max crew for an Orion was seven.
Is the ISS capable of supporting more than six crewmembers, probably with more resupply missions?
Quote from: Pipcard on 01/15/2015 02:41 amSince the ISS only supports a crew of six, are they really anticipating the availability of destinations such as small commercial space hotels?The ISS program is intended to support a crew of seven.Six has been the interim guideline while the station's lifeboat count minimum is two Soyuz capsules (with three crew each). With a 4-person commercial crew capsule attached, and one Soyuz attached, the station can support seven safely. NASA suggested a bonus capability in decisionmaking would be a 7-person capsule to evacuate the whole station, in order to provide contingency lifeboat access if zero Soyuz capsules are operational for some reason connected to the evacuation. In routine operation, that extra space will be filled with non-human downmass, and I doubt Russia would voluntarily go without a single Soyuz capsule attached for any length of time.
Since the ISS only supports a crew of six, are they really anticipating the availability of destinations such as small commercial space hotels?
While we're picking nits, the ECLSS in the USOS is, almost to a "T," the very same ECLSS designed for Space Station Freedom, which was baselined for a crew of 8 - two independent ARS racks and two independent WRM system racks, each planned to support a nominal 4-person metabolic load, with capacity to handle 8 if necessary (during repairs, contingencies, etc). While the module locations for some of the racks and support equipment have changed, the basic guts of the systems haven't.That said, the crew sizes for commercial vehicles are based on the general consensus of what's the best overall compromise between mass, cost and capability.
Most of the commercial crew vehicles seem to have a normal capability of three to four passengers with seven is mostly for emergencies.
If my knowledge is correct, a single Bigelow module can support seven crew, while it takes all of the ISS modules combined to support seven crew. So joining multiple Bigelow modules can produce some serious crew capacity.
Yep, it's not just the size of the modules. It's the size of the solar panels you'd need. And the heat radiators.
Quote from: llanitedave on 05/01/2015 03:43 amYep, it's not just the size of the modules. It's the size of the solar panels you'd need. And the heat radiators.And the ECLSS, and the supply runs, and the rack space for experiments, and then you have experiments that affect other experiments, and tourists jumping around ruin the microgravity environment of the crystallization experiments, etc.
Quote from: baldusi on 05/01/2015 01:50 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 05/01/2015 03:43 amYep, it's not just the size of the modules. It's the size of the solar panels you'd need. And the heat radiators.And the ECLSS, and the supply runs, and the rack space for experiments, and then you have experiments that affect other experiments, and tourists jumping around ruin the microgravity environment of the crystallization experiments, etc.I suspect that the tourist spacestation and the microgravity labratory will be separate spacestations. A long term lease of a BA-330 is not that expensive.