NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section => Topic started by: thomson on 06/27/2010 05:30 pm
-
I've tried to find suitable topic, but searching for CST-100 does not return any posts.
The CST-100 capsule, being built by Being, is going to carry seven crew members. It is being built for short missions to the space station. Bigelow Aerospace is interested in CST-100 and they are working closely with Boeing.
Source: [1]
Also, according to [2], it will be able to launch on Atlas, Delta (that would be Atlas V and Delta IV, I suppose) and Falcon 9.
1. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html)
2. http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf (http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf)
Please post additional information to this topic as they become available.
-
Richest info source is the CCDev Space Act agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf
-
Any info on how long this capsule will be able to stay in space? So far it looks like it lacks solar panels which means it is either powered by battery or fuel cell. And the quote that “it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time” in the space.com article suggests that a CRV may be needed if Boeing’s capsule is selected.
-
From space.com:
-
Any info on how long this capsule will be able to stay in space? So far it looks like it lacks solar panels which means it is either powered by battery or fuel cell. And the quote that “it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time” in the space.com article suggests that a CRV may be needed if Boeing’s capsule is selected.
Looks like fuel cells so maybe the same amount of time as a Space shuttle. But I think its closer to 5-10 days.
-
And the quote that “it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time” in the space.com article suggests that a CRV may be needed if Boeing’s capsule is selected.
Free flight time isn't necessarily related to docked time (see Soyuz). It's not entirely clear which they are talking about, and even if the first versions are only capable of brief docked missions, extending that may not be a big deal. I'd be surprised if they designed it in a way to make this very difficult.
Cryogenic fuel cells would hurt long docked missions, but switching power sources later isn't out of the question.
-
I've tried to find suitable topic, but searching for CST-100 does not return any posts.
The CST-100 capsule, being built by Being, is going to carry seven crew members. It is being built for short missions to the space station. Bigelow Aerospace is interested in CST-100 and they are working closely with Boeing.
Source: [1]
Also, according to [2], it will be able to launch on Atlas, Delta (that would be Atlas V and Delta IV, I suppose) and Falcon 9.
1. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html)
2. http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf (http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf)
Please post additional information to this topic as they become available.
Sounds like Boeing might want to use it as part of the manned COTS program, so wouldn't that mean it would have to be able to be docked for six months?
-
I've tried to find suitable topic, but searching for CST-100 does not return any posts.
The CST-100 capsule, being built by Being, is going to carry seven crew members. It is being built for short missions to the space station. Bigelow Aerospace is interested in CST-100 and they are working closely with Boeing.
Source: [1]
Also, according to [2], it will be able to launch on Atlas, Delta (that would be Atlas V and Delta IV, I suppose) and Falcon 9.
1. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html)
2. http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf (http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf)
Please post additional information to this topic as they become available.
Sounds like Boeing might want to use it as part of the manned COTS program, so wouldn't that mean it would have to be able to be docked for six months?
From the looks of it NASA commercial crew has not nailed down that requirement. They might. Dragron has a two year lifespan because the company wanted that ability. Dreamchaser I am unsure of. Boeing most likely will not do anything to endanger the possibility of six month stays, but I can see them temporally cutting that requirement to field the product faster or cheaper.
-
I've tried to find suitable topic, but searching for CST-100 does not return any posts.
The CST-100 capsule, being built by Being, is going to carry seven crew members. It is being built for short missions to the space station. Bigelow Aerospace is interested in CST-100 and they are working closely with Boeing.
Source: [1]
Also, according to [2], it will be able to launch on Atlas, Delta (that would be Atlas V and Delta IV, I suppose) and Falcon 9.
1. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html)
2. http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf (http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf)
Please post additional information to this topic as they become available.
Sounds like Boeing might want to use it as part of the manned COTS program, so wouldn't that mean it would have to be able to be docked for six months?
From the looks of it NASA commercial crew has not nailed down that requirement. They might. Dragron has a two year lifespan because the company wanted that ability. Dreamchaser I am unsure of. Boeing most likely will not do anything to endanger the possibility of six month stays, but I can see them temporally cutting that requirement to field the product faster or cheaper.
I think only DragonLab has a two year lifespan, not sure if it applies to a crew version. With Dreamchaser it's hard to find much recent info on it, and the only video demonstration I could find was inaccurate (in the video it was a SSTO craft).
-
... With Dreamchaser it's hard to find much recent info on it, and the only video demonstration I could find was inaccurate (in the video it was a SSTO craft).
It was probably a video of the original sub-orbital version, using it's internal hybrid propulsion. The orbital version would launch on an Atlas V, and use it's internal propulsion for OMS.
-
And the quote that “it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time” in the space.com article suggests that a CRV may be needed if Boeing’s capsule is selected.
Free flight time isn't necessarily related to docked time (see Soyuz). It's not entirely clear which they are talking about, and even if the first versions are only capable of brief docked missions, extending that may not be a big deal. I'd be surprised if they designed it in a way to make this very difficult.
Of course they won't design themselves into a short on orbit lifetime trap. But there is a lot more to long-term on-orbit capability (180days at station, e.g.) than power requirements.
-
... With Dreamchaser it's hard to find much recent info on it, and the only video demonstration I could find was inaccurate (in the video it was a SSTO craft).
It was probably a video of the original sub-orbital version, using it's internal hybrid propulsion. The orbital version would launch on an Atlas V, and use it's internal propulsion for OMS.
I didn't know there was ever a sub-orbital version planned.
-
... With Dreamchaser it's hard to find much recent info on it, and the only video demonstration I could find was inaccurate (in the video it was a SSTO craft).
It was probably a video of the original sub-orbital version, using it's internal hybrid propulsion. The orbital version would launch on an Atlas V, and use it's internal propulsion for OMS.
I didn't know there was ever a sub-orbital version planned.
No, but the capsules design does lend itself to BEO operations as well, if you tied it to a bigger SM, or the SM to another handler, like a Cygnus or ACES.
-
But there is a lot more to long-term on-orbit capability (180days at station, e.g.) than power requirements.
Care to elaborate on that? I thought that once capsule is attached to the station, it can disable its ECLSS. Assuming there's no living payload stored, the capsule on its own won't use any oxygen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm a software engineer, not a rocket scientist.)
-
There was a discussion about this a while ago in the Shuttle Q&A thread. If the capsule uses cryogenic fuel cells those will limit time on orbit even if no power is drawn from them. You still need power to land. Maybe you could use a separate power source like the batteries used in launch vehicles for landing? Or maybe noncryogenic fuel cells.
-
But there is a lot more to long-term on-orbit capability (180days at station, e.g.) than power requirements.
Care to elaborate on that? I thought that once capsule is attached to the station, it can disable its ECLSS. Assuming there's no living payload stored, the capsule on its own won't use any oxygen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm a software engineer, not a rocket scientist.)
No rocket scientist either but from reading, I would say heat shields, propellant, and parachutes can be affected by long stays. Some heat shields are not suitable for long stay, some propellants can either breakdown or react with valves and other stuff within engines\thrusters and the likelihood of parachute failure increases with time stored. Also some power sources(cryogenic fuel cells) are not good for long term storage.
I also expect that some materials and parts must be subjected to certification before staying in orbit for 6 months which is probably involves 6 months in a simulated space environment.
-
Don't forget thermal considerations. A docked spacecraft is at the mercy of the ISS attitude wrt the sun and deep space
-
I think it is interesting that we are still speculating on the power source, i.e., fuel cell, etc. Why so little detail provided on this? Would it be giving too much away to the competition? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that solar cell deployment and power generating technology has had enough progress over the past few decades to make it the preferred source in this application. I mean, fuel cells? Give me a break. What are their advantages, given their added complexity and weight? I am probably missing something here.
-
I think it is interesting that we are still speculating on the power source, i.e., fuel cell, etc. Why so little detail provided on this? Would it be giving too much away to the competition? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that solar cell deployment and power generating technology has had enough progress over the past few decades to make it the preferred source in this application. I mean, fuel cells? Give me a break. What are their advantages, given their added complexity and weight? I am probably missing something here.
You could possible reuse the fuel cells easier than solar panels. With solar panels you would need to figure out how to stow and un- stow them in a manner that allows reentry or dump them. Solar panels require batteries and so the total mass of needing solar panels, plus batteries, plus oxygen and water for the crew and\or cooling needs of the craft could be higher.
The water generated could be used by the ISS for life support needs. The ISS used water to generate oxygen. The shuttle provides water to the ISS on shuttle missions.
I am not sure how much better solar panels are today. I know in the past that the space shuttle generated more electricity than the MIR space station. Solar’s advantage over fuel cells is in long term power. Fuel cells will eventually run out of consumables while solar can keep going.
Also for all we know this craft could be battery powered.
-
There was a discussion about this a while ago in the Shuttle Q&A thread. If the capsule uses cryogenic fuel cells those will limit time on orbit even if no power is drawn from them. You still need power to land. Maybe you could use a separate power source like the batteries used in launch vehicles for landing? Or maybe noncryogenic fuel cells.
Well what if you use two different set of batteries, one pack is activated for takeoff and the second is activated for landing.
I think it is interesting that we are still speculating on the power source, i.e., fuel cell, etc. Why so little detail provided on this?
I don't think the design has been finalized.
-
As long as everyone is speculating, I'll say it's actually powered by a small matter/anti-matter reactor developed out at Area 51.
-
Also for all we know this craft could be battery powered.
I can see the commercial now...
**a Boeing crew, hustling around the new capsule** Ok folk, time to turn it on!
**they back away, and behind the capsules battery door... the Energizer Rabbit**
-
Depending on average power requirement, they could probably just use batteries up to maybe 3 or 4 days. If they can draw power from the ISS when docked, then power wouldn't be a factor limiting their stay there.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
From the reports that have come out, its primary job is to go to and from a Bigelow spacestation, positioned either in LEO or EML1. Just guessing tho.
-
Depending on average power requirement, they could probably just use batteries up to maybe 3 or 4 days. If they can draw power from the ISS when docked, then power wouldn't be a factor limiting their stay there.
But won't the batteries decompose over those six months?
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
From the reports that have come out, its primary job is to go to and from a Bigelow spacestation, positioned either in LEO or EML1. Just guessing tho.
This is a LEO craft so you can rule out EML1. The only questions is if battery technology has advanced to the point where it could be used for this kind of craft. Or if they go with the old stand by fuel cells.
-
Depending on average power requirement, they could probably just use batteries up to maybe 3 or 4 days. If they can draw power from the ISS when docked, then power wouldn't be a factor limiting their stay there.
But won't the batteries decompose over those six months?
Probably not if they are kept within tempurature limits.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
From the reports that have come out, its primary job is to go to and from a Bigelow spacestation, positioned either in LEO or EML1. Just guessing tho.
The only questions is if battery technology has advanced to the point where it could be used for this kind of craft.
Well do you mean just lithium ion batteries?
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
From the reports that have come out, its primary job is to go to and from a Bigelow spacestation, positioned either in LEO or EML1. Just guessing tho.
The only questions is if battery technology has advanced to the point where it could be used for this kind of craft.
Well do you mean just lithium ion batteries?
No I was thinking battery technology of all kinds. I know lithium ion can store a lot of power and be lightwieght. I don't know if they can store enough power to support a craft holding 7 people for 2-3 days to get to the ISS.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Bigelow has stated that he wants the first LEO station in a 350 mile orbit. That is what this craft will have to do.
I doubt it will see much creep until after it has done this a few times.
Eventually Bigelow will want something capable of a Lunar surface access, but not until he's ready to drop a complex on the Moon.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
From the reports that have come out, its primary job is to go to and from a Bigelow spacestation, positioned either in LEO or EML1. Just guessing tho.
The only questions is if battery technology has advanced to the point where it could be used for this kind of craft.
Well do you mean just lithium ion batteries?
No I was thinking battery technology of all kinds. I know lithium ion can store a lot of power and be lightwieght. I don't know if they can store enough power to support a craft holding 7 people for 2-3 days to get to the ISS.
Fuel cell technology has about 4 times the specific energy density that lithium-ion batteries or lithium-ion polymer batteries or LiPF6 batteries etc. have. The only battery technology that can challenge fuel cell technology would be lithium-air batteries and we are unfortunately at least a decade away from getting that technology into any type of application.
-
But there is a lot more to long-term on-orbit capability (180days at station, e.g.) than power requirements.
Care to elaborate on that? I thought that once capsule is attached to the station, it can disable its ECLSS. Assuming there's no living payload stored, the capsule on its own won't use any oxygen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm a software engineer, not a rocket scientist.)
If the propellants for re-entry cannot be stored for 180 days, the vehicle will have problems getting home.
-
Good idea creating this thread. There has been a lot of talk on Boeing's capsule since CCDev was announced but it was in various threads. It's nice to have a centralized thread on this topic.
Some of the prior discussion on the CCDev announcement (including Boeing's proposal) can be found here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20268.0
Here is Boeing's press release when CCDev was announced:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1054
Some pictures of the capsule can be found here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/pictures-boeingbigelow-aerospa.html
-
Richest info source is the CCDev Space Act agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf
Here is a first quarter update on their progress under CCDev:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
-
The only battery technology that can challenge fuel cell technology would be lithium-air batteries and we are unfortunately at least a decade away from getting that technology into any type of application.
Is that true for a closed system?
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
And there you go.....
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Yeah but up to 3 months could be a reasonable time for that and like the`ISS a Bigelow facility could have a CRV(either Orion CRV or dedicated version of CST100 or one of the other commerical carriers).
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
And there you go.....
OV, you are probably thinking an LEO capsule, how dull. Anyway what makes this one interesting is the fact that this will be a capsule optimized for cost esp. cost of refurbishment over performance. This leads to something quite different than the shuttle or putting my hatred of Cxp aside Orion. With the Shuttle or Orion the mission was set in stone. With commercial crew the mission is just get the crew safely to the ISS. Wither you do it by rocket, large rubber band, or astral projection does not matter.
With the commercial systems the question are how long is a reasonable on orbit lifetime? How specialized does a crew taxi get? Does it get so specialized it can’t carry cargo? Does it get so specialized it can’t stay in space for 6 months?
What sorts of comprises do you make to reduce costs? There is something fascinating about a minimalist vehicle. The one thing I like most about commercial crew is the fact that no one company thinks exactly the same.
For Dragon, will it find a market as dragon lab? For Dream chaser, is landing on a runway worth the expense? For CST100, what does an old experienced aerospace company think makes a commercial crew?
I find it amazing to live at a time when so many LEO craft are being developed at once.
-
OV, you are probably thinking an LEO capsule, how dull.
Quite honestly, I did not understand anything about what you were trying to say.
All of these vehicles, including this one, are LEO "taxis". Don't over-complicate it.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says in the opening post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg611823#msg611823), isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says in the opening post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg611823#msg611823), isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
People speculating on how long it will be able to stay in space, or whether or not (and for that matter why it would be "required") it will have long duration capability.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says in the opening post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg611823#msg611823), isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
Yes, this is what was said in the space com article:
The capsule is being built for short missions to the space station, meaning it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time.
Although, if Dragon is able to stay 6 months in space and Boeing's capsule is only able to stay for short missions, Dragon will have the advantage if NASA eventually has to choose between the two.
-
Although, if Dragon is able to stay 6 months in space and Boeing's capsule is only able to stay for short missions, Dragon will have the advantage if NASA ever has to choose between the two.
As was already pointed out, there's a difference between months in space and months at the ISS. That requirement isn't even decided yet, and if NASA goes ahead with the Orion CRV it wouldn't likely ever be exercised for crew taxi s/c. The latter would also simplify the commercial taxi operator's life so they're not involved in day-to-day ISS operations.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
And there you go.....
I find it amazing to live at a time when so many LEO craft are being developed at once.
I'll be amazed when they're built, I read a lot of magazines as a kid about what they were going to build and what the future was going to be that I got turned into a bit of a hardened realist.
-
From the article ...
"It's a little smaller than Orion, but a little bigger than Apollo," Reiley said of the CST-100 spacecraft. "It carries seven, but it's fairly small – it's not as large or as spacious as the Orion."
John Young (among others) had a study which suggested just that in the pre-Orion days. Can anybody find a link to that document.
Thanks
-
There ! klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/NASA_Reports/apollo_hw_crv_ctv.htm
Young, Myers and others said that a 8% - 10 % upscale of Apollo would be fine. That's roughly 4.50 m in diameter (Apollo was 3.90 m, Orion is 5 m)
-
There ! klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/NASA_Reports/apollo_hw_crv_ctv.htm
Young, Myers and others said that a 8% - 10 % upscale of Apollo would be fine. That's roughly 4.50 m in diameter (Apollo was 3.90 m, Orion is 5 m)
Thanks :)
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
Barring the whole does it make sense to use orion as crv, having a crv is not as bad an idea as you think. If you hate Orion CRV imagine say Dragon CRV.
From a logistical view point being tied to your craft is not a good idea. In order to do a crew rotation you would need two craft. With a CRV you only need one craft. That craft could drop off the new crew and pick up the old one. The CRV would remain in space. This means Boeing can have fewer craft and simply turn them around faster. If the craft stays with it’s crew then Boeing will be unable to service it until it lands. With a CRV and a reusable capsule Boeing could use one or two craft for ISS crew taxi service. Without it two or three may be required.
There may also be savings in design and certification. Three months or less in space is more than enough to exchange crew. This means you could choose propellants, heat shields, and other items with shorter shelf life. This can led to reduced costs through relaxed requirements.
Finally should your craft get damaged on the way to the station and be unable to return to earth there is a way off the station via the CRV.
-
I don't think the Orion CRV plan is crappy. In fact, I was disappointed when FY2011 originally got rid of Orion and happy when it returned (hopefully it survives this ADA political posturing). In the long run, it's better to have a commercial capability with two or more providers and no NASA crew launch capability (but keeping Orion CRV) rather than a NASA crew launch capability and no commercial. Then again, just about everyone supports commercial crew capability, including Griffin.
Anyways, here's a better place to discuss whether Orion CRV is a good idea or not: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21784.msg612401#msg612401
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows to ISS from KSC/CCAFS.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
-
...
No I was thinking battery technology of all kinds. I know lithium ion can store a lot of power and be lightwieght. I don't know if they can store enough power to support a craft holding 7 people for 2-3 days to get to the ISS.
As an indicator of power requirements, DragonLab specs indicate an average power supply of 2 kW with a peak of 4 kW. 2 kW for 3 days is 144 kWh. Using Li-Po batteries at 150 Wh/kg gives just under 1 t of batteries. Quite a lot for a small capsule, but not impossible.
I suspect power requiments could be designed to be a lot less too.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Yeah but up to 3 months could be a reasonable time for that and like the`ISS a Bigelow facility could have a CRV(either Orion CRV or dedicated version of CST100 or one of the other commerical carriers).
The Shuttle never went to ISS & waited for the crew to complete their 6 month assignment. But IIRC it could have.
I just can't see Bigelow paying to have an empty capsule sent up to use as a ride home. They'll be all capable of that duty in order to keep the cost down. Making 1 capable of a months long mission & 3 that can only go up & come right back down doesn't make good business sense.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
A more useful answer (but still non-trivial, and definitely cheating) is if you do an air-launch vehicle you can move your actual launch position around enough to get frequent (I imagine daily?) 1st orbit rendezvous opportunities. But building an airlauncher that can carry more than 1-2 people to orbit is as I said, relatively non-trivial...
~Jon
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
A more useful answer (but still non-trivial, and definitely cheating) is if you do an air-launch vehicle you can move your actual launch position around enough to get frequent (I imagine daily?) 1st orbit rendezvous opportunities. But building an airlauncher that can carry more than 1-2 people to orbit is as I said, relatively non-trivial...
~Jon
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
Of course, air-launch provides the possibility of everyday flight day 1 launch windows for *multiple* inclinations, which can be an advantage in a market that actually has multiple destinations.
-
....
The Shuttle never went to ISS & waited for the crew to complete their 6 month assignment. But IIRC it could have.
...
No it couldn't. There was a discussion about this very point on another forum yesterday, and apparently Columbia's 17 days in 1996 (STS-80) was stretching it to about the limit.
There are many systems that aren't designed or qualified for longer duration. From the air pressure in the tires to fuel cell propellant, to the pilots not having flown a simulator for too long.
-
....
The Shuttle never went to ISS & waited for the crew to complete their 6 month assignment. But IIRC it could have.
...
No it couldn't. There was a discussion about this very point on another forum yesterday, and apparently Columbia's 17 days in 1996 (STS-80) was stretching it to about the limit.
There are many systems that aren't designed or qualified for longer duration. From the air pressure in the tires to fuel cell propellant, to the pilots not having flown a simulator for too long.
That was because Columbia routinely flew the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet. It was a group of extra PRSD tanks that were installed in the aft payload bay and were also lost on STS-107
Today, we use the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS). Essentially the power is parasitically drawn from the station in a load sharing situation to maintain the voltages on the busses. This allows the fuel cells to "throttle down" and produce much less power, hence stretching out the consumables.
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
A more useful answer (but still non-trivial, and definitely cheating) is if you do an air-launch vehicle you can move your actual launch position around enough to get frequent (I imagine daily?) 1st orbit rendezvous opportunities. But building an airlauncher that can carry more than 1-2 people to orbit is as I said, relatively non-trivial...
~Jon
What ever happened to t/space? As I recall, they proposed an air-launched capsule. Is that just a non starter?
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
A more useful answer (but still non-trivial, and definitely cheating) is if you do an air-launch vehicle you can move your actual launch position around enough to get frequent (I imagine daily?) 1st orbit rendezvous opportunities. But building an airlauncher that can carry more than 1-2 people to orbit is as I said, relatively non-trivial...
~Jon
What ever happened to t/space? As I recall, they proposed an air-launched capsule. Is that just a non starter?
Not so much a technical non-starter. It's just that a lot of this stuff costs a lot of money. And you can almost never prove in advance how big a new market really is (without some risk), or that a new technology will really work (without some risk), etc. So convincing someone to fork out the several hundred million dollars it takes to finance a project of this complexity is really hard. It's even harder when you realize that there are very few groups in the world that even *could* finance a project that big. The nice thing about suborbital projects like Masten is that if you're only trying to raise $1-2M at a time, there a lot more people you can talk with, and people can tolerate more risk at that level than they can at the $200M+ level.
~Jon
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
Barring the whole does it make sense to use orion as crv, having a crv is not as bad an idea as you think. If you hate Orion CRV imagine say Dragon CRV.
From a logistical view point being tied to your craft is not a good idea. In order to do a crew rotation you would need two craft. With a CRV you only need one craft. That craft could drop off the new crew and pick up the old one. The CRV would remain in space. This means Boeing can have fewer craft and simply turn them around faster. If the craft stays with it’s crew then Boeing will be unable to service it until it lands. With a CRV and a reusable capsule Boeing could use one or two craft for ISS crew taxi service. Without it two or three may be required.
I might support it if the annual costs weren't so high and if it could stay onboard for a year or two (maybe kevlar shielding that would burn off on re-entry?). And when you said cost saving did you mean for Boeing or NASA? And when launching the CRV will they at leas use it to launch some supplies?
I don't think the Orion CRV plan is crappy. In fact, I was disappointed when FY2011 originally got rid of Orion and happy when it returned (hopefully it survives this ADA political posturing). In the long run, it's better to have a commercial capability with two or more providers and no NASA crew launch capability (but keeping Orion CRV) rather than a NASA crew launch capability and no commercial. Then again, just about everyone supports commercial crew capability, including Griffin.
Anyways, here's a better place to discuss whether Orion CRV is a good idea or not: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21784.msg612401#msg612401
It didn't really survive, it's more or less a shell of a shell (BEO -> LEO Taxi -> CRV).
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
Challenger was a management failure and not due to cold weather.
Also, cold has no effect on other launch vehicles. See Russian launches
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it
would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
They aren't talking shuttle
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
Kodiak is just a bit north of that iirc.
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it
would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
They aren't talking shuttle
Well that had been the only manned American orbital vehicle for the past 30 years so when he asked if there had been any studies done I thought he meant on the Shuttle. Plus the rocket would have to be designed to be able to launch in the cold.
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
With or without SRB joint heaters?
-
That was because Columbia routinely flew the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet. It was a group of extra PRSD tanks that were installed in the aft payload bay and were also lost on STS-107
Today, we use the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS). Essentially the power is parasitically drawn from the station in a load sharing situation to maintain the voltages on the busses. This allows the fuel cells to "throttle down" and produce much less power, hence stretching out the consumables.
Of course with Freedom there were going to be long terms shuttle-station stays by utilizing both the EDO and something like SSPTS before a CRV was added in assembly, would have been about a 30 day mission.
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
Kodiak is just a bit north of that iirc.
yes, at about 57.5 degrees, i.e. 6 degrees more north.
The states of Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota and Montana all have latitudes withing 3 degrees of 51.6 degrees.
Of course, this is all off topic now, so my apologies.
-
That was because Columbia routinely flew the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet. It was a group of extra PRSD tanks that were installed in the aft payload bay and were also lost on STS-107
Today, we use the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS). Essentially the power is parasitically drawn from the station in a load sharing situation to maintain the voltages on the busses. This allows the fuel cells to "throttle down" and produce much less power, hence stretching out the consumables.
Of course with Freedom there were going to be long terms shuttle-station stays by utilizing both the EDO and something like SSPTS before a CRV was added in assembly, would have been about a 30 day mission.
Actually, the 30-day missions would have been accomplished with a double-EDO pallet called the LDO pallet. Endeavour was equipped to support the LDO pallet from the start.
-
....
The Shuttle never went to ISS & waited for the crew to complete their 6 month assignment. But IIRC it could have.
...
No it couldn't. There was a discussion about this very point on another forum yesterday, and apparently Columbia's 17 days in 1996 (STS-80) was stretching it to about the limit.
There are many systems that aren't designed or qualified for longer duration. From the air pressure in the tires to fuel cell propellant, to the pilots not having flown a simulator for too long.
That was because Columbia routinely flew the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet. It was a group of extra PRSD tanks that were installed in the aft payload bay and were also lost on STS-107
Today, we use the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS). Essentially the power is parasitically drawn from the station in a load sharing situation to maintain the voltages on the busses. This allows the fuel cells to "throttle down" and produce much less power, hence stretching out the consumables.
I wondered what happened to the EDO, was that the only one?
Still, no Shuttle has used the ISS to extend it's flight for more than 17 days. Maybe they could, but it wouldn't be for anywhere near 6 months.
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
So if it were to scratch it they would be sunk?
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
So if it were to scratch it they would be sunk?
It is quality control inspected before it is sealed. Once sealed nothing can touch it.
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
Not really. TPS is quite obviously exposed on orbiter and we have been doing that for 30 years out of the 50 years we have been flying into space. It was also exposed on Mercury with the retro-pack strapped to the back.
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
Not really. TPS is quite obviously exposed on orbiter and we have been doing that for 30 years out of the 50 years we have been flying into space. It was also exposed on Mercury with the retro-pack strapped to the back.
I was talking in rarity as a comparison between projects, since manboy seemed to think it was normal to have to inspect your heatshield prior to your reentry. Obviously it is used by the shuttle, but that is, as a project, an exemption ( next to mercury, which I didnt realise had an (semi) exposed TPS aswell ).
Lets just say that for the vast majority of launch systems the TPS isnt exposed, and it thus isnt normal to have to inspect your TPS on orbit.
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
Kodiak is just a bit north of that iirc.
Sorry, launch site latitude is more like "The Price Is Right" rules. As close as possible to inclination without going over.
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it
would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
They aren't talking shuttle
Well that had been the only manned American orbital vehicle for the past 30 years so when he asked if there had been any studies done I thought he meant on the Shuttle. Plus the rocket would have to be designed to be able to launch in the cold.
Context, manboy, context.
The topic was commercial crew taxis to LEO, not shuttle.
-
Everyday flight day 1 launch windows are possible even from a fixed launch site, provided the launch site latitude is "close to" (within LV yaw steering capability of) the target inclination. That widens the planar launch window so that a wider range of phasing situations can be accommodated. There's a definite shortage of US launch sites near 51.6 degrees latitude, alas.
As far as I can make out, there is no US territory at 51.6 degrees latitude, apart from the Alaskan Aleutian islands (e.g. Tanaga island). Have they ever been considered for launching orbital craft? Probably a logistical nightmare?
Kodiak is just a bit north of that iirc.
Sorry, launch site latitude is more like "The Price Is Right" rules. As close as possible to inclination without going over.
*starts to play "On the Franches Mountains"**
1) I wonder who will get it the first time
2) I wonder who will google that
Good to know tho.
-
In regards to a CRV does Russian inspect the heat shields before re-entry?
of a soyuz? they cant, it is hidden behind the service part of the module ( and also protected )
It is actually really rare to fly up with your heat shield exposed.
Not really. TPS is quite obviously exposed on orbiter and we have been doing that for 30 years out of the 50 years we have been flying into space. It was also exposed on Mercury with the retro-pack strapped to the back.
I was talking in rarity as a comparison between projects, since manboy seemed to think it was normal to have to inspect your heatshield prior to your reentry. Obviously it is used by the shuttle, but that is, as a project, an exemption ( next to mercury, which I didnt realise had an (semi) exposed TPS aswell ).
Lets just say that for the vast majority of launch systems the TPS isnt exposed, and it thus isnt normal to have to inspect your TPS on orbit.
Still not sure you can say that. The only "systems" currently are shuttle and Soyuz. Shuttle doesn't "need" to have it's system inspect to work properly it is something we "choose" to do operationally to give us the most confidence we have.
Future spacecraft that are not capsules with protected shields could potentially benefit from this operation as well depending on the way it is launched, the time spent on-orbit and the type of materials that make up the TPS.
-
Well seeing as the cause of the Challenger disaster, I doubt it.
What, you think they'd do the same mistake twice?
How often do you think it
would be warm enough for a Shuttle launch?
They aren't talking shuttle
Well that had been the only manned American orbital vehicle for the past 30 years so when he asked if there had been any studies done I thought he meant on the Shuttle. Plus the rocket would have to be designed to be able to launch in the cold.
Context, manboy, context.
The topic was commercial crew taxis to LEO, not shuttle.
We're not too on topic here
-
Still not sure you can say that. The only "systems" currently are shuttle and Soyuz. Shuttle doesn't "need" to have it's system inspect to work properly it is something we "choose" to do operationally to give us the most confidence we have.
Future spacecraft that are not capsules with protected shields could potentially benefit from this operation as well depending on the way it is launched, the time spent on-orbit and the type of materials that make up the TPS.
The TPS is only part of the airframe. Damage to other parts may not be as critical but can still effect operations. For instance Aerials, CRS thrusters and windows can all be damaged by bird strikes, lightning and hail stones. Hitting a bit of the rubbish in LEO could puncture a spacecraft's airframe producing a slow leak.
So airframe inspection may be a standard service provided to incoming spacecraft by spacestations.
-
Still not sure you can say that. The only "systems" currently are shuttle and Soyuz. Shuttle doesn't "need" to have it's system inspect to work properly it is something we "choose" to do operationally to give us the most confidence we have.
Future spacecraft that are not capsules with protected shields could potentially benefit from this operation as well depending on the way it is launched, the time spent on-orbit and the type of materials that make up the TPS.
The TPS is only part of the airframe. Damage to other parts may not be as critical but can still effect operations. For instance Aerials, CRS thrusters and windows can all be damaged by bird strikes, lightning and hail stones. Hitting a bit of the rubbish in LEO could puncture a spacecraft's airframe producing a slow leak.
So airframe inspection may be a standard service provided to incoming spacecraft by spacestations.
Huh?
-
For instance Aerials, CRS thrusters and windows can all be damaged by bird strikes, lightning and hail stones.
So airframe inspection may be a standard service provided to incoming spacecraft by spacestations.
More random blabbering.
Wrong again, all are covered for launch and ascent. After storms, vehicles are inspected before launch.
Bigelow stations wouldn't do this. Nor would the ISS for non shuttle missions.
Also, we are talking in the now, the present, the near term, not 50-100 years from now.
-
I am talking 5 years away with damage during launch.
-
How robust or otherwise is an ablative shield on a capsule compared to the shuttle tiles when it comes to MMOD damage?
-
Anyone know if this vehicle is targeting land or sea for landing?
-
Anyone know if this vehicle is targeting land or sea for landing?
That's an interesting question. Assuming there is going to be some sort of NASA commercial crew competition... Sierra Nevada proposes Dream Catcher which lands on runways, and SpaceX proposes Dragon Crew which Elon Musk claims may have propulsive dry landing, can Boeing or LockMart really propose Orion-derived solutions that are limited to splashdown landings?
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
Barring the whole does it make sense to use orion as crv, having a crv is not as bad an idea as you think. If you hate Orion CRV imagine say Dragon CRV.
From a logistical view point being tied to your craft is not a good idea. In order to do a crew rotation you would need two craft. With a CRV you only need one craft. That craft could drop off the new crew and pick up the old one. The CRV would remain in space. This means Boeing can have fewer craft and simply turn them around faster. If the craft stays with its crew then Boeing will be unable to service it until it lands. With a CRV and a reusable capsule Boeing could use one or two craft for ISS crew taxi service. Without it two or three may be required.
I might support it if the annual costs weren't so high and if it could stay onboard for a year or two (maybe kevlar shielding that would burn off on re-entry?). And when you said cost saving did you mean for Boeing or NASA? And when launching the CRV will they at leas use it to launch some supplies?
I don't think the Orion CRV plan is crappy. In fact, I was disappointed when FY2011 originally got rid of Orion and happy when it returned (hopefully it survives this ADA political posturing). In the long run, it's better to have a commercial capability with two or more providers and no NASA crew launch capability (but keeping Orion CRV) rather than a NASA crew launch capability and no commercial. Then again, just about everyone supports commercial crew capability, including Griffin.
Anyways, here's a better place to discuss whether Orion CRV is a good idea or not: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21784.msg612401#msg612401
It didn't really survive, it's more or less a shell of a shell (BEO -> LEO Taxi -> CRV).
Don't want to get too far off topic so here is my responce: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21784.msg612968#new
-
I am talking 5 years away with damage during launch.
and in that case, your point is meaningless. Inspection is not a standard service. Soyuz doesn't do it. Apollo didn't. Shuttle is unique.
And 5 years is near term.
-
CST-100 looks to be sea landing from the CC Dev activities.
-
How robust or otherwise is an ablative shield on a capsule compared to the shuttle tiles when it comes to MMOD damage?
Almost all capsule designs have the ablative shield covered by the Service Module until after the re-entry burn. So opportunity for MMOD damage is very small.
Also, MMOD damage is likely to be much smaller in scale than the Columbia foam strike, and ablative heat shields more robust than an RCC leading edge.
Don't forget, Shuttles have often re-entered with missing tiles. A small exposed area is not a problem. The underlaying structure can absorb and conduct the heat away with only superficial damage.
-
Anyone know if this vehicle is targeting land or sea for landing?
Which one makes the best business case? Bigelow will insist on the one that promises the best chance of success for the lowest price.
If SpaceX is offering a ride to orbit for $20m & you land on a pad or even at an airport & Boeing sells you a lift for $22m to $30m & you get dunked in the drink on your way home which would you take?
Ain't competition great?
I do seem to remember reading that Boeing was looking at a powered or semi powered landing. I'll see if I can find it.;D
-
Anyone know if this vehicle is targeting land or sea for landing?
That's an interesting question. Assuming there is going to be some sort of NASA commercial crew competition... Sierra Nevada proposes Dream Catcher which lands on runways, and SpaceX proposes Dragon Crew which Elon Musk claims may have propulsive dry landing, can Boeing or LockMart really propose Orion-derived solutions that are limited to splashdown landings?
Orion was to be a land lander so Boeing might not have give up on that. It was with the ares 1 did LockMart have problems with land landing.
-
Anyone know if this vehicle is targeting land or sea for landing?
Which one makes the best business case? Bigelow will insist on the one that promises the best chance of success for the lowest price.
If SpaceX is offering a ride to orbit for $20m & you land on a pad or even at an airport & Boeing sells you a lift for $22m to $30m & you get dunked in the drink on your way home which would you take?
Ain't competition great?
I do seem to remember reading that Boeing was looking at a powered or semi powered landing. I'll see if I can find it.;D
I am tempted to think that Bigelow will choose the Orion/Bigelow capsule over the crewed Dragon capsule since his company is involved in the development of the Boeing capsule.
In any event, to the extent that ULA has a longer flight record than SpaceX does, I suspect that some people (including NASA) will want to pay the additionnal costs for this safety track record.
Furthermore, recently Bolden has said that he wanted two commercial crew providers for ferrying astronauts to the ISS. I think that he changed his mind on this as he originally said that he only wanted one spacecraft provider to ferry crew to the ISS.
-
CST-100 looks to be sea landing from the CC Dev activities.
For other people's benefit, kkattula is referring to the milestones for the landing sytem demonstratation on pages 36 and 37 of the Boeing Space Act Agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf
One other interesting point on page 31 of the Boeing Space Act Ageement is that they haven't decided between a tractor LAS and a pusher LAS. If they opt for a pusher system, perhaps this would allow them to also have landings on land.
-
I am tempted to think that Bigelow will choose the Orion/Bigelow capsule over the crewed Dragon capsule since his company is involved in the development of the Boeing capsule.
Bigelow has already stated that he wants *at least two* methods of getting to his station, preferably at least two domestic alternatives. It's totally in his interest to help make sure there's enough market that he has both a backup, and the startings of competition.
Furthermore, recently Bolden has said that he wanted two commercial crew providers for ferrying astronauts to the ISS. I think that he changed his mind on this as he originally said that he only wanted one spacecraft provider to ferry crew to the ISS.
Yeah, that "only one" statement was silly. The whole reason why A-com suggested the $3B for commercial crew was to increase the odds of getting multiple viable providers, so we'd never get stuck in a situation again like we are in now, where we don't have a domestic backup when something has to stand down. And also to hopefully spur competition (so long as there's enough market for both), and to attract investment into even better ways in the future by demonstrating a market.
~Jon
-
I am tempted to think that Bigelow will choose the Orion/Bigelow capsule over the crewed Dragon capsule since his company is involved in the development of the Boeing capsule.
Bigelow has already stated that he wants *at least two* methods of getting to his station, preferably at least two domestic alternatives. It's totally in his interest to help make sure there's enough market that he has both a backup, and the startings of competition.
~Jon
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that but that makes a lot of sense.
-
A bottom line:
This vehicle, based on the conceptual images from boeing, willl most liklely be: a STS mission length duration LEO crew taxi Capcity will be 6-7 people.
Thats all this appears to be designed for. But we will know more when the project gets underway and specs are released.
-
Houston, we've got video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ&feature=player_embedded)
-
Houston, we've got video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_gXEK5XmQ&feature=player_embedded)
SpaceX's video is better, that proves it, SpaceX is better.
;)
-
The CST-100 capsule in the video uses airbags in order to land on land. Interesting.
-
The CST-100 capsule in the video uses airbags in order to land on land. Interesting.
Is it me or does that second stage look like a DEC?
-
Yep. With two engines, I don't see how it could be depicting a standard Atlas V SEC.
Then again, this is just a visualization so not too much should be read into it.
-
SpaceX's video is better, that proves it, SpaceX is better.
;)
Maybe, but I bet SpaceX isn't offering a space station as part of the package!
-
Bigelow is on record as wanting multiple taxi's for redundancy.
-
A question: In the video, the CST-100's SM is shown with golden insulation. Would this double as a sun-shade?
-
Article on Space.com.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-cst100-commercial-crew-spacecraft-100719.html
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
-
Article on Space.com.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-cst100-commercial-crew-spacecraft-100719.html
From that article:
... the "100" in the name stands for 100 kilometers (62 miles) – the distance from the ground to low-Earth orbit that it will travel
Doesn't really make much sense, does it? 100 km is the Karman line, not LEO. And the ISS is around 350 km up. There must be another reason for using the number "100"?
-
Article on Space.com.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-cst100-commercial-crew-spacecraft-100719.html
From that article:
... the "100" in the name stands for 100 kilometers (62 miles) – the distance from the ground to low-Earth orbit that it will travel
Doesn't really make much sense, does it? 100 km is the Karman line, not LEO. And the ISS is around 350 km up. There must be another reason for using the number "100"?
Probably its only relevance is as a model number. I think that the Delta-IV is the Boeing Delta model 9600 or something similar. So, the capsule is the model 100 and there are subvariants (105, 110, etc) that will refer to various upgrades and optional capabilities.
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
I wanna be on the top row.;)
-
Probably its only relevance is as a model number. I think that the Delta-IV is the Boeing Delta model 9600 or something similar. So, the capsule is the model 100 and there are subvariants (105, 110, etc) that will refer to various upgrades and optional capabilities.
9600 is not the model number for Delta IV. It was an attempt of a marketing numerical vehicle description, much like the Delta II 7925 number. CST-100 is marketing tool
-
This AvWeek article has I think the first indication I've seen that the CST-100 would have a pusher escape system and could be designed for longer durations (i.e. potential CRV capability), contrary to earlier reports that it would be specifically short-duration:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/07/20/14.xml&headline=Commercial%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Plan%20Unveiled
The CST-100 vehicle, which would be larger than an Apollo but smaller than NASA’s Orion, is being designed to be flown on any of three launch vehicles: Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9. An abort system would involve a “pusher” system, rather than the traditional arrangement of small rockets that pull a manned vehicle away from a launcher in distress, Boeing officials say. The advantage is that if the abort system is not used, the fuel would then be available for maneuvering in orbit.
The CST-100 could stay on orbit as long as seven months. After returning to Earth via ballistic re-entry while protected by an ablative shield, it would be slowed by parachutes to settle on dry land. The capsule could then receive a new heat shield and be refurbished to fly again. The CST-100 is being designed for a life of up to 10 missions for each vehicle.
I believe a study between a push-based escape system and a tractor-based escape was part of their CCDev contract.
-
Wow, they also want it to be able to fly on Falcon 9 (in addition to Delta IV and Atlas V)! Very interesting. I like that very much.
I also really like that it is reusable.
This is great. This is exactly the sort of game-changer that NASA needs. I also like that it's a pusher-based system.
We live in a very exciting time! I really hope NASA learns to leverage the commercial crew capsules (both Dragon and CST-100... alike in many ways!).
Very exciting. It's a Dragon capsule by a company with a proven long-term track-record (and a finger in every political pie...).
Similarities to Dragon:
Around the same crew capacity (7).
Pusher escape system.
Capsule. (different shapes, though...)
Reusable.
Can fly on Falcon 9.
Will be flying to ISS and/or Bigelow before we know it!
-
Will be flying to ISS and/or Bigelow before we know it!
Only if commercial crew gets funded. Or if Bigelow starts with Dragon (or even Soyuz) and is wildly successful with it.
-
This is probably unlikely due to these companies' past history of independence, but if there's a budget crunch due to insufficient commercial crew funding from NASA I wonder if Blue Origin, Boeing, and SpaceX might be able to consolidate their work on push-based escape systems somehow. The escape system seems to be the long-pole and most budget-intensive item in commercial crew development.
-
This AvWeek article has I think the first indication I've seen that the CST-100 would have a pusher escape system and could be designed for longer durations (i.e. potential CRV capability), contrary to earlier reports that it would be specifically short-duration:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/07/20/14.xml&headline=Commercial%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Plan%20Unveiled
The CST-100 vehicle, which would be larger than an Apollo but smaller than NASA’s Orion, is being designed to be flown on any of three launch vehicles: Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9. An abort system would involve a “pusher” system, rather than the traditional arrangement of small rockets that pull a manned vehicle away from a launcher in distress, Boeing officials say. The advantage is that if the abort system is not used, the fuel would then be available for maneuvering in orbit.
The CST-100 could stay on orbit as long as seven months. After returning to Earth via ballistic re-entry while protected by an ablative shield, it would be slowed by parachutes to settle on dry land. The capsule could then receive a new heat shield and be refurbished to fly again. The CST-100 is being designed for a life of up to 10 missions for each vehicle.
I believe a study between a push-based escape system and a tractor-based escape was part of their CCDev contract.
It is intersting that most commercial companies are opting for a pusher abort system and land landing. Makes you wonder why Orion couldn't do the same.
Incidentally, you are right that Boeing had a study of pusher vs tractor LAS as one of its first milestones. They have probably concluded on this issue.
-
This AvWeek article has I think the first indication I've seen that the CST-100 would have a pusher escape system and could be designed for longer durations (i.e. potential CRV capability), contrary to earlier reports that it would be specifically short-duration:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/07/20/14.xml&headline=Commercial%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Plan%20Unveiled
The CST-100 vehicle, which would be larger than an Apollo but smaller than NASA’s Orion, is being designed to be flown on any of three launch vehicles: Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9. An abort system would involve a “pusher” system, rather than the traditional arrangement of small rockets that pull a manned vehicle away from a launcher in distress, Boeing officials say. The advantage is that if the abort system is not used, the fuel would then be available for maneuvering in orbit.
The CST-100 could stay on orbit as long as seven months. After returning to Earth via ballistic re-entry while protected by an ablative shield, it would be slowed by parachutes to settle on dry land. The capsule could then receive a new heat shield and be refurbished to fly again. The CST-100 is being designed for a life of up to 10 missions for each vehicle.
I believe a study between a push-based escape system and a tractor-based escape was part of their CCDev contract.
It is intersting that most commercial companies are opting for a pusher abort system and land landing. Makes you wonder why Orion couldn't do the same.
NASA had Ares-1 tied round their necks and lunar requirements tied round their feet. Not to mention attempting to redo Apollo with as little inovation as possible.
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
With that amount of leg room, passengers will really be hoping for a first-orbit rendezvous and docking!
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
Interesting... I guess it is hard to compare without knowing the exact size of the capsule (and its outer moldline), but it seems like Dragon is a bit more optimized for internal pressurized volume.
But then again Dragon probably has a smaller maximum diameter - so the internal volume may end up being very similar.
7 crew will be a tight fit in either capsule - but no worse than Soyuz, probably.
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
With that amount of leg room, passengers will really be hoping for a first-orbit rendezvous and docking!
Did you notice in the picture that the person sitting on closest to the right side on the bottom is smaller than the other passengers? Looks like their definition of "seating 7" is the same as for a Mini Van. The "seventh person" is usually a 6 year old child.
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
With that amount of leg room, passengers will really be hoping for a first-orbit rendezvous and docking!
Did you notice in the picture that the person sitting on closest to the right side on the bottom is smaller than the other passengers? Looks like their definition of "seating 7" is the same as for a Mini Van. The "seventh person" is usually a 6 year old child.
What they are showing is a 95 percentile female, and a 95 percentile male. Its fairly standard to do this.
-
not to much new but it does have a image of the internal setup with 7 people
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=boeing-cst100-space-capsule-100719-02.jpg&cap=Boeing%27s+CST-100+capsule+design+can+carry+a+crew+of+seven+and+is+designed+to+support+the+International+Space+Station+and+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+Orbital+Space+Complex.+Credit%3A+Boeing
With that amount of leg room, passengers will really be hoping for a first-orbit rendezvous and docking!
Did you notice in the picture that the person sitting on closest to the right side on the bottom is smaller than the other passengers? Looks like their definition of "seating 7" is the same as for a Mini Van. The "seventh person" is usually a 6 year old child.
I still think there should be a Little People Astronaut Corp.
-
Another article:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/07/boeing-bigelow-team-up-on-commercial.html
Would start operations in 2015 according to Boeing. I am liking this Boeing capsule more and more.
-
Incidentally, you are right that Boeing had a study of pusher vs tractor LAS as one of its first milestones. They have probably concluded on this issue.
I really hope the results of the study are published in some form eventually, as I'm quite curious about what the trade-offs are. I think I remember hearing about how pusher-style was considered back in the 60s, but tractor-style was decided as better at that time.
-
Would start operations in 2015 according to Boeing. I am liking this Boeing capsule more and more.
Really? Considering Orion/MCV is about to be legally required to be operational by the end of 2016, and that projects always slip, Orion may first fly around the same time as CST-100. So much for closing the gap!
-
Would start operations in 2015 according to Boeing. I am liking this Boeing capsule more and more.
Really? Considering Orion/MCV is about to be legally required to be operational by the end of 2016, and that projects always slip, Orion may first fly around the same time as CST-100. So much for closing the gap!
Yeah, so a mostly-completed capsule with at least three times the budget can launch within about the same timeframe as a mostly-powerpoint commercial one? Yeah, you're right, socialist-space is so much more efficient!
EDIT:Also, remember that there are supposed to be 4 test-flights of the CST-100 in 2014.
-
Would start operations in 2015 according to Boeing. I am liking this Boeing capsule more and more.
Really? Considering Orion/MCV is about to be legally required to be operational by the end of 2016, and that projects always slip, Orion may first fly around the same time as CST-100. So much for closing the gap!
The fact that it is legally required to be ready by a certain date makes no difference. Ares I and Orion were behind schedule despite the fact that they were not supposed to be. It's largely a question of how well funded the project is.
-
Yeah, so a mostly-completed capsule with at least three times the budget can launch within about the same timeframe as a mostly-powerpoint commercial one? Yeah, you're right, socialist-space is so much more efficient!
1) There's nothing any less "socialist-space" about the government funding the development of CST-100 than the government funding the development of Orion. The money just goes to the loser of the Orion competition (Boeing), rather than the winner (Lockheed-Martin).
2) Orion can go to ISS, as well as other places. CST-100 can only (barely) reach ISS or a speculative Bigelow station, and can only survive a very limited time in-space before/after docking.
The point being, CST-100 will neither close the gap, nor is it any way capable of being a replacement for Orion, nor is it any more "commercial" than any other NASA spacecraft...
-
Yeah, so a mostly-completed capsule with at least three times the budget can launch within about the same timeframe as a mostly-powerpoint commercial one? Yeah, you're right, socialist-space is so much more efficient!
1) There's nothing any less "socialist-space" about the government funding the development of CST-100 than the government funding the development of Orion. The money just goes to the loser of the Orion competition (Boeing), rather than the winner (Lockheed-Martin).
2) Orion can go to ISS, as well as other places. CST-100 can only (barely) reach ISS or a speculative Bigelow station, and can only survive a very limited time in-space before/after docking.
The point being, CST-100 will neither close the gap, nor is it any way capable of being a replacement for Orion, nor is it any more "commercial" than any other NASA spacecraft...
Look. We're talking about an order of magnitude different funding levels. One can be used by non-NASA customers (commercial crew, which includes at least Dragon and/or CST-100) and the other can't. Stimulating commercial crew can actually help grow a domestic space industry that won't need to rely on NASA. Funding commercial crew would help jump-start this industry. Or, we could squander the money on a 10% increase to HLV/Orion.
It's also up for competition. LM could bid on commercial crew if they wanted to.
-
Boeing should approach this as they do when they develop Commercial planes. They release the plane specs based on airline market needs, they get orders in the que, knowing they will make money with those purchase commitments, they invest and build the planes. If Boeing & Bigelow have enough customers lined up, then Boeing should build the CST 100 with their own investments. I have no problem if NASA wants to throw in a few million, but that would be it. Unless of course, Boeing would like to kick-back some profits to NASA...To put towards a future lander....
However. I must admit to also agreeing with the premise of the previous post, that now is the time to help get commercial fully up and running. It's just that Boeing is so big and well established with huge financial and engineering resources that I'd rather see that kind of seed money go to a Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser project...
-
Boeing should approach this as they do when they develop Commercial planes. They release the plane specs based on airline market needs, they get orders in the que, knowing they will make money with those purchase commitments, they invest and build the planes. If Boeing & Bigelow have enough customers lined up, then Boeing should build the CST 100 with their own investments. I have no problem if NASA wants to throw in a few million, but that would be it. Unless of course, Boeing would like to kick-back some profits to NASA...To put towards a future lander....
A big question is if NASA actually cares about the spaceflight "gap" or not. Funding commercial crew will help close that gap. Without funding, no one has said that commercial crew would close the gap. All sorts of folks were whining and complaining about the gap and being able to properly access Station. I have a feeling that was mostly just about trying to get Congress (et al) to choose their project (whatever that was) instead of actually closing a gap.
Also, why would Boeing design their capsule to be compatible with ISS if NASA were not going to fund commercial crew? They already have a commitment from one customer (Bigelow), why would they bother designing CST-100 around ISS for NASA if Congress keeps thumbing its nose at commercial crew?
(I understand the final bill will have some commercial crew funding, but I'm just sayin'.)
-
Would start operations in 2015 according to Boeing. I am liking this Boeing capsule more and more.
Really? Considering Orion/MCV is about to be legally required to be operational by the end of 2016, and that projects always slip, Orion may first fly around the same time as CST-100. So much for closing the gap!
The fact that it is legally required to be ready by a certain date makes no difference. Ares I and Orion were behind schedule despite the fact that they were not supposed to be. It's largely a question of how well funded the project is.
And how well the engineering is. Orion would have been ready by 2012 if the design revisions did not have to occur to compensate for Ares I.
-
Boeing should approach this as they do when they develop Commercial planes. They release the plane specs based on airline market needs, they get orders in the que, knowing they will make money with those purchase commitments, they invest and build the planes. If Boeing & Bigelow have enough customers lined up, then Boeing should build the CST 100 with their own investments. I have no problem if NASA wants to throw in a few million, but that would be it. Unless of course, Boeing would like to kick-back some profits to NASA...To put towards a future lander....
A big question is if NASA actually cares about the spaceflight "gap" or not. Funding commercial crew will help close that gap. Without funding, no one has said that commercial crew would close the gap. All sorts of folks were whining and complaining about the gap and being able to properly access Station. I have a feeling that was mostly just about trying to get Congress (et al) to choose their project (whatever that was) instead of actually closing a gap.
Also, why would Boeing design their capsule to be compatible with ISS if NASA were not going to fund commercial crew? They already have a commitment from one customer (Bigelow), why would they bother designing CST-100 around ISS for NASA if Congress keeps thumbing its nose at commercial crew?
(I understand the final bill will have some commercial crew funding, but I'm just sayin'.)
I hear you. Ok, so we have Dragon, CST, Dreamchaser etc, all positioned to offer commercial crew to ISS. Excellent point about the gap. I wasn't thinking about that. So if I am going to bid out a project that is time and money sensitive, I would set up a very clear RFP, send it out to all those interested and select the company that offered the best price and timing and get going....Like right now. If you want redundancy, then select 2. One that closes the gap the quickest and maybe one that can come on-line a bit later but offers something different, like runway landing like the Dreamchaser....
-
is it any more "commercial" than any other NASA spacecraft...
Wrong, commercial is not defined by the source of the money. Commercial is defined by the contracting method, i.e. not the arsenal method or the program office partnership.
-
Some information from a Spaceflight Now article:
"Boeing executives pulled back the curtain on their concept for a commercial human space capsule this week at the Farnborough International Airshow, saying the CST-100 spacecraft could be ready for operational space station flights by 2015 if NASA awards contract money next year. "
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/
-
2) Orion can go to ISS, as well as other places. CST-100 can only (barely) reach ISS or a speculative Bigelow station, and can only survive a very limited time in-space before/after docking.
That may mostly be a limitation of the block I service module on the CST-100.
With a larger service module and a mission module the vehicle may be capable of BEO operations.
It also should be noted even Orion is very limited in independent operation when compared to it's predecessor the shuttle.
-
Question for Jim: How much will it cost Boeing to launch CST-100? (I am thinking method of payment realizing an actual number is likely proprietary.) Will they get a break on launch vehicle cost from ULA? After all they have to pay for EELV infrastructure and personnel regardless of how many rockets are built. Can't Boeing get a cheap EELV for just the cost of the material and labor? Thanks
-
Question for Jim: How much will it cost Boeing to launch CST-100? (I am thinking method of payment realizing an actual number is likely proprietary.) Will they get a break on launch vehicle cost from ULA? After all they have to pay for EELV infrastructure and personnel regardless of how many rockets are built. Can't Boeing get a cheap EELV for just the cost of the material and labor? Thanks
Bigelow said $25M per passenger, and 75% of his revenue goes for transportation. If every seat is filled by a paying passenger (unrealistic, I presume) the revenue would be $175M and the launch bill would be $130M. I frankly don't think he'll be able to get an Atlas 402 for that price in 2015, but perhaps he will.
-
Delta IV might be at cost though ;).
-
Question for Jim: How much will it cost Boeing to launch CST-100? (I am thinking method of payment realizing an actual number is likely proprietary.) Will they get a break on launch vehicle cost from ULA? After all they have to pay for EELV infrastructure and personnel regardless of how many rockets are built. Can't Boeing get a cheap EELV for just the cost of the material and labor? Thanks
that is unknown, CST-100 is going to need some non standard services to integration the spacecraft with the launch vehicle and pad. Boeing won't get a break, it has pay its share.
-
If (big if) Boeing and Bigelow end up attracting large numbers of customers, couldn't they expect a volume discount?
-
How would they attract large numbers of customers?
(Other than announcing the Earth is about to perish in an asteroid collision)
Could they offer to send up astronauts for undeveloped countries, and take pictures of them with their flags?
I'm not sure what market Bigelow is hoping to cash in on. There's always the danger that China or Russia will do it cheaper.
-
How would they attract large numbers of customers?
(Other than announcing the Earth is about to perish in an asteroid collision)
Could they offer to send up astronauts for undeveloped countries, and take pictures of them with their flags?
I'm not sure what market Bigelow is hoping to cash in on. There's always the danger that China or Russia will do it cheaper.
I doubt anyone will trust china to do it. China has only launched twice.
I don't expect a huge market, but at 25 million he is undercutting russia atm. He has room to increase his prices. He also has a space station where tourists can stay where as the ISS is a research one(might be fun to vistist not fun to stay). I think his goal is to get down to 25 mill, but he might have to start higher to make a profit.
-
Space stations are expensive to maintain - and increasingly easy to damage, given the growing amount of orbital debris out there.
-
Space stations are expensive to maintain - and increasingly easy to damage, given the growing amount of orbital debris out there.
There are several ways to protect against MMOD damage and other impacts such as active tracking of debris and doing collision avoidance maneuvers, designing redundancy into your station and having shielding, etc. With respect to shielding it was shown during TransHab development, which the Bigelow modules are directly based off of, that they withstand impact damages better than their metal counterparts.
As for Bigelow and prices and a market. I'm quite sure he has done his homework on this being a self-made billionaire and all. What has been consistently their problem is transportation.
-
He also has a space station where tourists can stay where as the ISS is a research one(might be fun to vistist not fun to stay).
Oh, I think I'd have fun staying on the ISS for a while! (Well, 6 months might be too much for me, but a couple of weeks, no problem!) ;)
-
Here is another article with lots of info on the Boeing capsule:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/
I previously posted this as #144.
-
Bigalow's biggest problem is still an STS. He doesn't have one yet. I'd bet he's got customers now but without an cost-effective STS, he's not going anywhere hence the delay to his program.
Several LVs are available that could be modified so that's not a problem but a crew capsule is.
Boeing aren't going to develop the CST-100 on their own - they've stated that they need the NASA seed money to close the business case which doesn't sound like Bigalow are going to cough up unless they're waiting on the outcome of the NASA bill.
The only ones to come out and say they don't need NASA to do the crew capsule is SpaceX and that they are going to do it regardless. The NASA money apparently would be useful (naturally) but mainly to the extent that it reduces the development timeline. I haven't seen one for SpaceX-only development - anyone? It'll be beyond 2014 which is when I think Bigalow wants to launch Sundancer on F9. I think that's what the placeholder on the SpaceX manifest is anyway.
And Orion is too expensive and too far out to be of any use.
Just my take :)
-
Looks like Boeing just had a press conference where they discussed CST-100 progress:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015
Highlights:
* planning four flight tests in late 2013, 2014
* completed 22 of 36 CCDev milestones so far as part of $18M contract
* started drop tests a week ago, using rendezvous system from Orbital Express mission
* hopes to get to market first, and see significant flight rate from Bigelow
* capsule reused up to 10 times, landing at White Sands
* pusher-abort system using hypergolic propellant (MMH/NTO, like the Shuttle) , both high-thrust engines for abort and low-thrust for orbital maneuvering
* cost competitive with Soyuz (which is $57M/seat)
* vehicle LEO-only, different vehicle would be used for deep space operations
-
Looks like Boeing just had a press conference where they discussed CST-100 progress:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015
Highlights:
* planning four flight tests in late 2013, 2014
* completed 22 of 36 CCDev milestones so far as part of $18M contract
* started drop tests a week ago, using rendezvous system from Orbital Express mission
* hopes to get to market first, and see significant flight rate from Bigelow
* capsule reused up to 10 times, landing at White Sands
* pusher-abort system using hypergolic propellant (MMH/NTO, like the Shuttle) , both high-thrust engines for abort and low-thrust for orbital maneuvering
* cost competitive with Soyuz (which is $57M/seat)
* vehicle LEO-only, different vehicle would be used for deep space operations
Emphasis mine. Question: how far are they with the deep space version of the CST-100? Would it be the CST-1000? How different will it be than the Orion? Old Orion? New Orion without weight limitations (and everything that gives you)?
Just wondering.
-
I interpret this as Boeing saying - pretty emphatically - that there are no beyond LEO plans at all for CST-100.
-
Could they offer to send up astronauts for undeveloped countries, and take pictures of them with their flags?
Intercosmos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercosmos)
-
Looks like Boeing just had a press conference where they discussed CST-100 progress:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015
Highlights:
* planning four flight tests in late 2013, 2014
* completed 22 of 36 CCDev milestones so far as part of $18M contract
* started drop tests a week ago, using rendezvous system from Orbital Express mission
* hopes to get to market first, and see significant flight rate from Bigelow
* capsule reused up to 10 times, landing at White Sands
* pusher-abort system using hypergolic propellant (MMH/NTO, like the Shuttle) , both high-thrust engines for abort and low-thrust for orbital maneuvering
* cost competitive with Soyuz (which is $57M/seat)
* vehicle LEO-only, different vehicle would be used for deep space operations
Emphasis mine. Question: how far are they with the deep space version of the CST-100? Would it be the CST-1000? How different will it be than the Orion? Old Orion? New Orion without weight limitations (and everything that gives you)?
Just wondering.
So is this the beginning of a 'space race'? 'Hopes to get to market first' as opposed to SpaceX Dragon?
Question is how much gov't money is required for them to do this? Will they go it alone? Will SpaceX respond by ramping up their development of Dragon Crew? Do they have the resources anyway?
Too many questions and not enough answers but be great to see a real competition for a crew capsule and it may completely demolish any arguments about a gov't alternative which would be a good thing IMO.
Also I understand the CST-100 is being designed to fly on several vehicles so even if SpaceX was beaten to the punch on the capsule, they may well pick up some of the launch business.
-
So is this the beginning of a 'space race'? 'Hopes to get to market first' as opposed to SpaceX Dragon?
The race has been on for a few years, the favourite deep space capsule is the Orion.
-
Did I understand correctly that they are not excluding the possibility of launching CST-100 on other, non-US launchers (Ariane being mentionned specifically)?
If so, this begs the question whether Boeing is considering to enter a yet-to-be-defined world civillian spaceflight market. Are we one day going to see European, Indian, Brazilian, Israeli, and maybe even Iranian, Russian and Chinese CST-100s?
-
The race has been on for a few years, the favourite deep space capsule is the Orion.
In what sense "favourite"? Most likely to get to BEO first, or preferred vehicle?
-Alex
-
Mine is a basic RV with a small Bigelow hab/hub for living space; better micrometeoroid/radiation shielding etc. than a tin can for starters. Propulsion? Like to see the specs on their propulsion bus before committing.
-
The race has been on for a few years, the favourite deep space capsule is the Orion.
In what sense "favourite"? Most likely to get to BEO first, or preferred vehicle?
-Alex
Orion is the favourite in the sense that it is the one getting the most government money.
-
Looks like Boeing just had a press conference where they discussed CST-100 progress:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015
Highlights:
* planning four flight tests in late 2013, 2014
* completed 22 of 36 CCDev milestones so far as part of $18M contract
* started drop tests a week ago, using rendezvous system from Orbital Express mission
* hopes to get to market first, and see significant flight rate from Bigelow
* capsule reused up to 10 times, landing at White Sands
* pusher-abort system using hypergolic propellant (MMH/NTO, like the Shuttle) , both high-thrust engines for abort and low-thrust for orbital maneuvering
* cost competitive with Soyuz (which is $57M/seat)
* vehicle LEO-only, different vehicle would be used for deep space operations
Emphasis mine. Question: how far are they with the deep space version of the CST-100? Would it be the CST-1000? How different will it be than the Orion? Old Orion? New Orion without weight limitations (and everything that gives you)?
Just wondering.
I don't think they are working one at all:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/06/04.xml
“In our view, NASA needs a bold exploration program,” Elbon told reporters in a conference call. “We need the capability to go beyond low Earth orbit. The capability ought to be put in place by developing the Orion capsule as a deep space vehicle that would fly on a heavy-lift [rocket].
I guess we could debate on what exactly they mean by "Orion", but if they had plans for using CST-100 I would think they would have called it out by name.
-
Looks like Boeing just had a press conference where they discussed CST-100 progress:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015
Highlights:
* planning four flight tests in late 2013, 2014
* completed 22 of 36 CCDev milestones so far as part of $18M contract
* started drop tests a week ago, using rendezvous system from Orbital Express mission
* hopes to get to market first, and see significant flight rate from Bigelow
* capsule reused up to 10 times, landing at White Sands
* pusher-abort system using hypergolic propellant (MMH/NTO, like the Shuttle) , both high-thrust engines for abort and low-thrust for orbital maneuvering
* cost competitive with Soyuz (which is $57M/seat)
* vehicle LEO-only, different vehicle would be used for deep space operations
Emphasis mine. Question: how far are they with the deep space version of the CST-100? Would it be the CST-1000? How different will it be than the Orion? Old Orion? New Orion without weight limitations (and everything that gives you)?
Just wondering.
I don't think they are working one at all:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/06/04.xml
“In our view, NASA needs a bold exploration program,” Elbon told reporters in a conference call. “We need the capability to go beyond low Earth orbit. The capability ought to be put in place by developing the Orion capsule as a deep space vehicle that would fly on a heavy-lift [rocket].
I guess we could debate on what exactly they mean by "Orion", but if they had plans for using CST-100 I would think they would have called it out by name.
In the OCRegister article, it says that the CST-100 is a LEO only capsule.
The new spaceship would only be for use in low-Earth orbit, or "LEO," and should be viewed as a complement, rather than a competitor, to NASA's proposed Orion spacecraft, which could be used for deep space exploration, the managers said.
"NASA ought to be doing the really hard stuff -- exploring beyond LEO," Elbon said. "So we see commercial access to LEO as a real enabler."
-
The comparison between CST-100 and SpaceX's Crewed Dragon isn't a precise one. Elon Musk has always had BEO ambitions independent of any involvement with NASA. So a BEO-capable Dragon or Dragon-heritage crew vehicle (even only as a CRV) is a logical extrapolation of the company's objectives.
However, Boeing/Bigelow seem to be content only for LEO applications for their projects not aimed at providing capabilities for NASA (for which NASA is developing their own crew taxi, as we know). So, at least in the immediate term, I find it unlikely that Boeing intends to develop a BLEO version of CST-100.
-
The comparison between CST-100 and SpaceX's Crewed Dragon isn't a precise one. Elon Musk has always had BEO ambitions independent of any involvement with NASA. So a BEO-capable Dragon or Dragon-heritage crew vehicle (even only as a CRV) is a logical extrapolation of the company's objectives.
However, Boeing/Bigelow seem to be content only for LEO applications for their projects not aimed at providing capabilities for NASA (for which NASA is developing their own crew taxi, as we know). So, at least in the immediate term, I find it unlikely that Boeing intends to develop a BLEO version of CST-100.
It's also worth noting that Boeing's relationship with Lockheed Martin is a rather complicated one, and I imagine things would be even more complicated if Boeing were explicitly working on a commercial BEO competitor to Orion.
-
Bigelow BEO craft.
-
So is this the beginning of a 'space race'? 'Hopes to get to market first' as opposed to SpaceX Dragon?
The race has been on for a few years, the favourite deep space capsule is the Orion.
No I wasn't considering a race for BEO, only LEO which would be Dragon and CST-100.
-
Bigelow BEO craft.
With Roscosmos crew return vehicle. That was the point that I'm making - Bigelow does not anticipate going BEO without the aid of a state space agency. SpaceX does seem to have that objective.
-
So is this the beginning of a 'space race'? 'Hopes to get to market first' as opposed to SpaceX Dragon?
The race has been on for a few years, the favourite deep space capsule is the Orion.
No I wasn't considering a race for BEO, only LEO which would be Dragon and CST-100.
Constellation planned to send Orion on Ares I to LEO, so it is (also) a LEO race.
For example "... Early Ares I configurations will support ISS re-supply missions."
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014071_2009013210.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014071_2009013210.pdf)
-
Bigelow BEO craft.
With Roscosmos crew return vehicle. That was the point that I'm making - Bigelow does not anticipate going BEO without the aid of a state space agency. SpaceX does seem to have that objective.
Actually, it's a marketing tool that displays Bigelow's intent.
It may have a reentry vehicle attached, it may not.
The intent of the tool is to show how a BA-330 can be used as crew quarters on a BEO craft.
-
Constellation planned to send Orion on Ares I to LEO, so it is (also) a LEO race.
For example "... Early Ares I configurations will support ISS re-supply missions."
That has be canceled for many years
-
Constellation planned to send Orion on Ares I to LEO, so it is (also) a LEO race.
For example "... Early Ares I configurations will support ISS re-supply missions."
That has be canceled for many years
Which part has been "canceled for many years", Jim?
I was working for NASA on Orion to ISS issues last week.
I would agree that there is no race. Didn't Boeing state that they won't compete with a NASA funded LEO vehicle like Orion? This was not because CST-100 wouldn't be a lower price but because Orion would take away the known part of the limited market for LEO traffic.
-
Constellation planned to send Orion on Ares I to LEO, so it is (also) a LEO race.
For example "... Early Ares I configurations will support ISS re-supply missions."
That has be canceled for many years
Which part has been "canceled for many years", Jim?
I was working for NASA on Orion to ISS issues last week.
Cargo Orion, ie resupply
-
Richest info source is the CCDev Space Act agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf
Here is a first quarter update on their progress under CCDev:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
Here is a second quarter update on their progress under CCDev:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIDSUR=99382&qtr=2010Q2
-
Here's one for the Boeing lurkers that I thought of while surfing boeingstore.com.
1) Why isn't there a model of CST-100 available, if you're serious?
2) When you make it available, put it in the commercial section and not the space section.
Boeing and its heritage companies have a long though (depressingly) decreasingly frequent history of presenting a product to market before the market is completely there for it.
I believe Boeing still has it in itself to create that product and do it for human spaceflight like you've done for every other big commercial aerospace market. Go figure out what is enough to sell seats (or racks or whatever) and figure out how to get it past the Board. I'll do my best to convince the govvies it's in their best interest to fund it (or someone else's). Grab some of your best BCAG guys and bring them over for a while and make something.
I'm sick of waiting for oldspace or newspace to win, and I count commercial Boeing in newspace. While the forces are wintering during Congressional recess, build the infrastructure and train your troops to win the war.
-
ILC Dover has delivered 6 air bags for landing tests....
Link.... (http://www.prlog.org/10917423-ilc-dover-delivers-six-airbags-to-the-boeing-company-for-upcoming-landing-tests.html)
-
This just in..... Boeing to sign deal with Space Adventures for CST-100 transport services. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/09/5081319-boeing-teams-up-with-space-tour-firm
-
This just in..... Boeing to sign deal with Space Adventures for CST-100 transport services. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/09/5081319-boeing-teams-up-with-space-tour-firm
I'm not sure this is really the "surprise" that is implied on the MSNBC article.
-
This just in..... Boeing to sign deal with Space Adventures for CST-100 transport services. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/09/5081319-boeing-teams-up-with-space-tour-firm
I'm not sure this is really the "surprise" that is implied on the MSNBC article.
Can't draw conclusions from such a speculative article but I'd say space Adventures will be signing up to be considered for any "empty" seats on the capsule.
-
Likely.
-
A question regarding CST-100 funding. Boeing got 18 mln USD from NASA. That is not nearly enough to design and develop fully functional space-worthy capsule. Is the plan for funding remaining development process known? Does Boeing expect further funding under CCDev from NASA? Will Boeing self-fund the rest? Or will the development halt after all CCDev money is spent?
-
I would expect them to build on their long spacecraft development history taking ideas from both the Mercury and Gemini capsules. This could shortcut development time as they have a history to draw from unlike Spacex who basically needs to start from scratch and build off the Dragon cargo capsule which has been completed and is undergoing final checkout before launch at the cape. I fully expect both the CST-100 and Dragon to recieve further funding from NASA. It is rumored that the first flight of Spacex's Falcon 9 and the qualification Dragon, which was successfully test launched into orbit, was funded by the DOD. I expect other means of support along this line to continue. In a way both projects could receive black project funding away from the eyes of congress and the public.
-
A question regarding CST-100 funding. Boeing got 18 mln USD from NASA. That is not nearly enough to design and develop fully functional space-worthy capsule. Is the plan for funding remaining development process known? Does Boeing expect further funding under CCDev from NASA? Will Boeing self-fund the rest? Or will the development halt after all CCDev money is spent?
Well, that's the real question with all of it. There are still many unknowns regarding all of this, one of the first and foremost being what general requirements is NASA/FAA going to mandate.
Boeing is willing to put "skin in the game". Boeing is also hoping/wanting/expecting additional funding. Yet, the financial function of all of this, going beyond just development, is far from clear.
This is the 100 lb gorilla in the room that, at least from where I sit, some are content to ignore.
-
A question regarding CST-100 funding. Boeing got 18 mln USD from NASA. That is not nearly enough to design and develop fully functional space-worthy capsule. Is the plan for funding remaining development process known? Does Boeing expect further funding under CCDev from NASA? Will Boeing self-fund the rest? Or will the development halt after all CCDev money is spent?
Boeing expects funding under the Commercial Crew line-item. Boeing officials have stated publicly that the business case does not close if they have to self-fund a significant portion of development.
-
I would expect them to build on their long spacecraft development history taking ideas from both the Mercury and Gemini capsules.
No. There is practically no one from Mercury/Gemini still at Boeing (there were very few left when Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas, which had actually developed Mercury/Gemini). Ditto Apollo CSM (developed at North American, later Rockwell, later bought by Boeing).
Boeing's existing manned spacecraft experience is largely from Shuttle (again via Rockwell), ISS, and their losing CEV bid, the last of which is what CST-100 is largely based on.
-
Jorge, I don't understand your logic. The plans for Mercury and Gemini certainly exist in Boeing files and they can draw something from those plans along with the shuttle and their previous bid on Orion in the construction of their new capsule. As far as needing someone who was there when those capsules were developed and constructed, are you saying that Thomas Edison needs to be around for someone to make a lightbulb today?
-
Would there be any proprietary information from the sixties in Boeing archives anyway? Isn't much of that information in the public domain? It is logical enough that Boeing would mention its activities and that of the companies it has since acquired, but Shuttle & ISS could be expected to have some real impact. Boeing also mentions Orbital Express heritage in its promotional material.
-
Jorge, I don't understand your logic. The plans for Mercury and Gemini certainly exist in Boeing files and they can draw something from those plans along with the shuttle and their previous bid on Orion in the construction of their new capsule.
Here is what you need to understand in order to understand my logic:
1) Experience resides in individuals, not institutions
2) Experience is perishable - use it or lose it
3) Reading files is no substitute for actual experience
Put bluntly, the fact that Boeing inherited a bunch of Mercury/Gemini archives when they bought MDAC does not mean that those archives will be remotely useful in designing CST-100. They might review those archives for useful lessons-learned but it will largely not be the basis for the vehicle. CST-100 is clearly based on NG/Boeing's losing CEV bid, and will be largely informed by the Boeing folks who experienced shuttle and ISS. Keith Reiley, the CST-100 program manager, used to work in ISS program integration.
http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/
As one of the leading suppliers of human space systems and services, Boeing already has a strong heritage in the industry. [Video: Boeing's New Spacecraft]
"It was an enormous advantage," Reiley told SPACE.com. "A lot of the equipment we're looking at has ISS heritage. About half of our team were designers that came from ISS and had experience with the flight hardware. The other half were space shuttle designers."
As far as needing someone who was there when those capsules were developed and constructed, are you saying that Thomas Edison needs to be around for someone to make a lightbulb today?
No, but someone needs to be around who has hands-on experience with making lightbulbs. If we had stopped making lightbulbs in 1965 and all that existed on the process was written archives, then no one would be able to build one now.
-
Boeing PAO:
Boeing and Space Adventures will host a press briefing with regards to a unique agreement between the two companies on commercial crew transportation services on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 beginning at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Boeing vice president and general manager Brewster Shaw and co-founder and chairman of Space Adventures Ltd. Eric Anderson will provide opening remarks and address questions.
Under a NASA Space Act Agreement, Boeing is designing a spacecraft that will ferry up to seven people to the International Space Station and other Low Earth Orbit (LEO) destinations. Space Adventures has been marketing and selling orbital spaceflights for the last 10 years.
The company successfully contracted and flown seven spaceflight participants on eight missions to the International Space Station.
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
-
In a way both projects could receive black project funding away from the eyes of congress and the public.
Congress has insight into black funding
-
The plans for Mercury and Gemini certainly exist in Boeing files and they can draw something from those plans
Anyone in aerospace who reads that would get a laugh out of it. "Files, we don't need no steenking files".
Seriously, the art of archiving is not one of the strong points of US aerospace.
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
??? Maybe it is an joke I missed, but in theory the cst-100 could have 2-3 seats for tourists per flight. The US crew of the ISS is currently 3 but could go up to 4 and the CST-100 needs a pilot so that is five at most.
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
??? Maybe it is an joke I missed, but in theory the cst-100 could have 2-3 seats for tourists per flight. The US crew of the ISS is currently 3 but could go up to 4 and the CST-100 needs a pilot so that is five at most.
It would make logistical sense to rotate non-US crew at the same time (ESA and JAXA personnel). The Russians might be a bit sensitive about their people flying anything but Soyuz but, as they've swapped crews by shuttle before, there is no reason why not to do it with a third-party vehicle so long as they have input on safety and training.
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
??? Maybe it is an joke I missed, but in theory the cst-100 could have 2-3 seats for tourists per flight. The US crew of the ISS is currently 3 but could go up to 4 and the CST-100 needs a pilot so that is five at most.
It would make logistical sense to rotate non-US crew at the same time (ESA and JAXA personnel). The Russians might be a bit sensitive about their people flying anything but Soyuz but, as they've swapped crews by shuttle before, there is no reason why not to do it with a third-party vehicle so long as they have input on safety and training.
It is a money issue. We didn't charge Russia to rotate their crewmembers on shuttle but Boeing would charge them to fly on CST-100. They'll stick with Soyuz.
-
Ah I had counted the ESA and JAXA personal within the US count. Russia isn’t likely to let their personal fly on anything but Soyuz (which is a good thing). They may be open to letting them depart on third party if it gives them some sort of advantage. However a new twist of commercial crew is that countries that lack manned craft can get their own transportation.
-
Ah I had counted the ESA and JAXA personal within the US count.
In terms of obligations for crew rotation, that's right. The US is responsible for rotating ESA, JAXA, and CSA personnel.
-
I'd heard that the US was responsible for anyone working in the USOS, strictly speaking. Is that accurate? I.e. that if an IP crew were to work on the Russian side that the US would not pay for the transportation.
-
I'd heard that the US was responsible for anyone working in the USOS, strictly speaking. Is that accurate? I.e. that if an IP crew were to work on the Russian side that the US would not pay for the transportation.
That I don't know about, but the IP's "pay for crew" with contributions in kind. It is just that the US was going to supply the IP's with transportation. Unfortunately budget cuts to the ISS meant that the crew was reduced from 7 to 6 and the shuttle disaster(and outcome) made\is making the US more dependent on Soyuz.
Basically we are buying seats from the Russians to send other country astronauts up to free the shuttle to get the ISS construction done faster and to allow the ISS to have lifeboat capacity for our crew and once it retires we will be buying seats from the russians just to get to the ISS! If someone had told me in 1986 that the US would be buying soyuz flights from russia I wouldn't have belived them.
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
Of course, Boeing could simply lift some cargo at the same time and get money from CRS. For some reason I think paying personal customers to the USOS side is prohibited, as it would compete with the private side (Bigelow)
-
The seventh seat is technically 'spare' if the descending crew have been rated on the CST-100. Okay, so you'll probably be stuck in Tranquility for most of your stay, but I can think of worse ways to spend a couple of days than looking out of the cupola. :)
Of course, Boeing could simply lift some cargo at the same time and get money from CRS. For some reason I think paying personal customers to the USOS side is prohibited, as it would compete with the private side (Bigelow)
At the price NASA is paying SpaceX, the cargo weight of a crewman would generate only $10-15M of revenue, while a living human being would produce up to $50M. Boeing would also have to win an on-ramp award to CRS.
And there is no Bigelow side to ISS...
-
At the price NASA is paying SpaceX, the cargo weight of a crewman would generate only $10-15M of revenue, while a living human being would produce up to $50M. Boeing would also have to win an on-ramp award to CRS.
And there is no Bigelow side to ISS...
Right, meaning no paying customers on CST-100 to the ISS unless it goes to the Russian segment.
-
And there is no Bigelow side to ISS...
Right, meaning no paying customers on CST-100 to the ISS unless it goes to the Russian segment.
Either that or they are going to announce a timeline to the first Sundancer-based single-module tourist hab. :D
-
At the price NASA is paying SpaceX, the cargo weight of a crewman would generate only $10-15M of revenue, while a living human being would produce up to $50M. Boeing would also have to win an on-ramp award to CRS.
And there is no Bigelow side to ISS...
Right, meaning no paying customers on CST-100 to the ISS unless it goes to the Russian segment.
I know laws preventing NASA from launching payed cusotmers but somehow I don't think they would apply to the ISS as NASA didn't do the launching.
-
Wan't it said last year that the current Bigelow modules, Sundancer & BA-330, are too large to be berthed at ISS without interfering with other structures? If so then a sub-Sundancer sized module or some other docking module (or extension) would be necessary.
-
Ah I had counted the ESA and JAXA personal within the US count.
In terms of obligations for crew rotation, that's right. The US is responsible for rotating ESA, JAXA, and CSA personnel.
For Canada, the US is only obligated to provide one more flight to a CSA astronaut (Chris Hadfield) in November 2012. After 2012, Canada is on its own unless some other arrangement is made with NASA:
http://spaceref.ca/missions-and-programs/canadian-space-agency/canadian-space-agency-in-negotiations-for-future-astronaut-access-to-the-iss.html
-
Wan't it said last year that the current Bigelow modules, Sundancer & BA-330, are too large to be berthed at ISS without interfering with other structures? If so then a sub-Sundancer sized module or some other docking module (or extension) would be necessary.
I would say that things are too massively uncertain at NASA right now. If Bigelow are smart, they'll test Sundancer with a Salut-style free-flyer, maybe with the node on the front for later expansion.
-
Here is the press release from both companies:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1421
http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.viewnews&newsid=809
Is there a webcast for this press briefing?
-
Jeff Foust tweeted the highlights of the Boeing-Space Adventures press conference:
http://twitter.com/jeff_foust
See also:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?blogid=1
-
Here is a few good articles on the September 15 press conference:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1009/15boeingtourism/
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/f6026f057cfe8e2e4d5df55135443b32-69.html
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/15/5115437-boeing-aims-for-space-tours-by-2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091506375.html
-
Here is a couple of good articles on Today's press conference:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1009/15boeingtourism/
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/f6026f057cfe8e2e4d5df55135443b32-69.html
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule and it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
-
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule or it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
That's a good question. But I believe that their logic is that NASA might be interested to go along with this plan as it would reduce their price for the commercial crew flight accordingly. For example, instead of charging NASA $313 million for a CST-100 flight (the HEFT2 estimated cost for a commercial crew flight), Boeing would charge NASA only $238 million (assuming that each of the three spaceflight participants paid $25 million for their seat). At least that's how I understood it from reading the articles.
-
Here is a couple of good articles on Today's press conference:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1009/15boeingtourism/
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/f6026f057cfe8e2e4d5df55135443b32-69.html
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule or it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
You are seeing things that aren't there.
Why does it have 7 seats you think?
If it goes to ISS, how many crew are on there at one time?
If they don't sell those extra seats, who gets to pay for them?
This is the "commercial" world everyone has wanted. Now when one starts to see signs of it, Boeing is accused of unethical behavior. Very strange is the space community at times.
-
I don't know about the ethical side of things, didn't think that really was a problem anyway but does anyone have any idea of just how far along the CST-100 is? Have they built any hardware yet or is it all just design and planning work at this stage?
-
Too early for hardware
-
One of the articles mentioned they're already doing pressure tests in Las Vegas. Presumably that means they've built the CM pressure shell, although I seriously doubt it's flight quality...
-
So they're like 18-24 months behind SpaceX, and they'll stop working at the end of this year if they don't get additional funding from Congress?
-
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule or it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
That's a good question. But I believe that their logic is that NASA might be interested to go along with this plan as it would reduce their price for the commercial crew flight accordingly. For example, instead of charging NASA $313 million for a CST-100 flight (the HEFT2 estimated cost for a commercial crew flight), Boeing would charge NASA only $238 million (assuming that each of the three spaceflight participants paid $25 million for their seat). At least that's how I understood it from reading the articles.
It doesn't quite work that way. Companies are not allowed to charge the government more than a commercial customer for an equivalent good or service. If the commercial customer pays $25 million per seat, so does NASA. (Granted, much depends on details and Boeing may be able to justify a higher price based on *additional services* to the government. But they *do* need to justify it.)
-
The govt vs private passengers arrangement has various ways it could go.
Govt could buy the whole ride and say no one else comes.
Govt could pay full price while the contractor retains the right to fill the extra seats.
Govt could pay full price and be reimbursed if the contractor sells seats to someone else. Similar to what happens if ULA sells a commercial launch - USAF gets to pay less on the ELC contract.
All (and more) are possible within government procurement rules.
-
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule or it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
That's a good question. But I believe that their logic is that NASA might be interested to go along with this plan as it would reduce their price for the commercial crew flight accordingly. For example, instead of charging NASA $313 million for a CST-100 flight (the HEFT2 estimated cost for a commercial crew flight), Boeing would charge NASA only $238 million (assuming that each of the three spaceflight participants paid $25 million for their seat). At least that's how I understood it from reading the articles.
It doesn't quite work that way. Companies are not allowed to charge the government more than a commercial customer for an equivalent good or service. If the commercial customer pays $25 million per seat, so does NASA. (Granted, much depends on details and Boeing may be able to justify a higher price based on *additional services* to the government. But they *do* need to justify it.)
That makes sense. Although I was thinking that the spaceflight participant would get some kind of discount because it is an extra seat and their training for the capsule would likely be more basic than an astronaut. A bit like the Russians charging $40 million to spaceflight participants but $56 million to NASA.
P.S. I picked $25 million per seat because that is the price that was mentionned by Bigelow for a flight to his station. But perhaps a flight to the ISS would be closer to $40 million (which was the price paid by the last Space Adventures customer).
-
Here is a couple of good articles on Today's press conference:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1009/15boeingtourism/
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/f6026f057cfe8e2e4d5df55135443b32-69.html
Thanks for the links. One small concern I have is the fact that they expect NASA astronauts to fly it. My concern is that it muddles the relationship between NASA and Boeing. IF NASA is flying the thing then how can Boeing rent the extra seats? I would prefer that either NASA “rent” the capsule or it is fully theirs for the period of time for the rental or that Boeing provide pilot and fly the capsule for NASA.
Boeing is trying to have its cake and eat it too. NASA provides the flight, but we rent the extra seat cleared.
You are seeing things that aren't there.
Why does it have 7 seats you think?
If it goes to ISS, how many crew are on there at one time?
I thought the seven seats was a hint that they were going to increase the crew size to seven (the original planned number before the CRV was canceled) for the American launched expeditions.
-
I thought the seven seats was a hint that they were going to increase the crew size to seven (the original planned number before the CRV was canceled) for the American launched expeditions.
No the idea of commercial crew is that NASA would either rent the capsule or have astronauts be taken to the ISS by boeing. If the latter is taken the extra seats can be sold.
Now as for CRV function Dragon was offered to be an ISS CRV and Boeing is smart enough to design it’s system to be capable of CRV but commercial was not going to provide CRV in and of itself(unless you go with the rental model). Orion might provide the CRV function. The CRV function really has not be set in stone.
The US would only have a crew of 5 at most on the ISS so to provide lifeboat function and handle extra ISS crew you only need five seats(hence LEO Orion’s six seat capacity). Having 7 seats provides the option to evacuate whole the station (if rental or by a CRV contract) or sell the extra seats.
In addition Bigeloew’s station will hold 5-7. So being able to carry 7 is rather important.
-
(hence LEO Orion’s six seat capacity).
The 6-seat capacity of Orion didn't have anything to do with ISS. It was specifically sized to be able to lift and return a full Mars crew to/from the MTV. The Mars DRMs all called for a crew of 6, and Orion was designed for that capacity. It's in the ESAS.
-
(hence LEO Orion’s six seat capacity).
The 6-seat capacity of Orion didn't have anything to do with ISS. It was specifically sized to be able to lift and return a full Mars crew to/from the MTV. The Mars DRMs all called for a crew of 6, and Orion was designed for that capacity. It's in the ESAS.
Yikes talk about putting the cart BEFORE the horse. Mars missions wouldn't happen till the 2030ies at best!
-
(hence LEO Orions six seat capacity).
The 6-seat capacity of Orion didn't have anything to do with ISS. It was specifically sized to be able to lift and return a full Mars crew to/from the MTV. The Mars DRMs all called for a crew of 6, and Orion was designed for that capacity. It's in the ESAS.
Yikes talk about putting the cart BEFORE the horse. Mars missions wouldn't happen till the 2030ies at best!
You have to remember what Orion was for. It was NOT intended to go to LEO at all except for docking before BEO departure. The architecture defined in the ESAS pretty much *ignored* LEO. It started with the moon, developed the necessary off-world experience and then left for Mars. That was the entire push of the ESAS, even though most of the detail shown involved the LV and the lunar elements. The goal was Mars and everything was sized for that.
-
You have to remember what Orion was for. It was NOT intended to go to LEO at all except for docking before BEO departure. The architecture defined in the ESAS pretty much *ignored* LEO. It started with the moon, developed the necessary off-world experience and then left for Mars. That was the entire push of the ESAS, even though most of the detail shown involved the LV and the lunar elements. The goal was Mars and everything was sized for that.
And instead of Mars it was going nowhere fast and even now has to be redesigned to be loftable by an EELV. The goal should have been to get to LEO first then have a system extendable to lunar\BOE missions not Mars on a budget that doesn't really support BOE exploration period. So you have Orion at an odd ball size.
-
You have to remember what Orion was for. It was NOT intended to go to LEO at all except for docking before BEO departure. The architecture defined in the ESAS pretty much *ignored* LEO. It started with the moon, developed the necessary off-world experience and then left for Mars. That was the entire push of the ESAS, even though most of the detail shown involved the LV and the lunar elements. The goal was Mars and everything was sized for that.
And instead of Mars it was going nowhere fast and even now has to be redesigned to be loftable by an EELV. The goal should have been to get to LEO first then have a system extendable to lunarBOE missions not Mars on a budget that doesn't really support BOE exploration period. So you have Orion at an odd ball size.
We are not discussing "should have beens". The question was about why Orion had 6 seats. That question is not open to debate. All it needs is an answer. It had 6 seats because it was designed that way to transport a full Mars crew of 6 to and from the MTV. It was clearly spelled out in the ESAS.
-
And instead of Mars it was going nowhere fast and even now has to be redesigned to be loftable by an EELV. The goal should have been to get to LEO first then have a system extendable to lunar\BOE missions not Mars on a budget that doesn't really support BOE exploration period. So you have Orion at an odd ball size.
There is no redesign taking place as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy can lift more than Ares I. The oddball size was the original ESAS 5.5m not the far more useful 5m it is now which allows it to be lifted by existing EELV Heavies without further development. The reduction in crew size to 4 was an attempt to regain margin on LEO/Lunar initial versions as you suggest they do in terms of goals because that's all they need for those missions.
-
And instead of Mars it was going nowhere fast and even now has to be redesigned to be loftable by an EELV. The goal should have been to get to LEO first then have a system extendable to lunar\BOE missions not Mars on a budget that doesn't really support BOE exploration period. So you have Orion at an odd ball size.
There is no redesign taking place as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy can lift more than Ares I. The oddball size was the original ESAS 5.5m not the far more useful 5m it is now which allows it to be lifted by existing EELV Heavies without further development. The reduction in crew size to 4 was an attempt to regain margin on LEO/Lunar initial versions as you suggest they do in terms of goals because that's all they need for those missions.
Delta IV is not ready for human flights as of yet, however. The Atlas V Heavy, on the other hand, is qualified for human flights. There is an irony in this.
-
And instead of Mars it was going nowhere fast and even now has to be redesigned to be loftable by an EELV. The goal should have been to get to LEO first then have a system extendable to lunar\BOE missions not Mars on a budget that doesn't really support BOE exploration period. So you have Orion at an odd ball size.
There is no redesign taking place as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy can lift more than Ares I. The oddball size was the original ESAS 5.5m not the far more useful 5m it is now which allows it to be lifted by existing EELV Heavies without further development. The reduction in crew size to 4 was an attempt to regain margin on LEO/Lunar initial versions as you suggest they do in terms of goals because that's all they need for those missions.
Delta IV is not ready for human flights as of yet, however. The Atlas V Heavy, on the other hand, is qualified for human flights. There is an irony in this.
The main reason AJAX went with the Atlas vs. Delta. We needed the LRB's to be human rated as an independant CLV.
-
Delta IV is not ready for human flights as of yet, however. The Atlas V Heavy, on the other hand, is qualified for human flights. There is an irony in this.
LOL, and Atlas V Heavy although 95% ready hasn't been launched as far as I recall. What is it with Orion? She has no luck with launchers...
-
Well, Orion's first flight almost surely won't be manned and will be on a Delta IV Heavy. Who knows? It may never be launched manned if commercial crew spacecraft like the CST-100 really take off (heh).
EDIT:That certainly doesn't mean it won't be manned, just not launched that way.
-
The *only* valid reason not to launch the astronauts in their own spacecraft is if that spacecraft is designed to never enter an atmosphere. In other words it's a pure "space" craft.
Launching astronauts in a manned spacecraft just so the astronauts will not have to be launched in their own manned spacecraft is stupid.
-
CST 100 is a good idea. I hope it flies. It appears it could certainly be ready prior to Orion, thus reducing the gap.
-
The *only* valid reason not to launch the astronauts in their own spacecraft is if that spacecraft is designed to never enter an atmosphere. In other words it's a pure "space" craft.
Launching astronauts in a manned spacecraft just so the astronauts will not have to be launched in their own manned spacecraft is stupid.
Being cheaper is just as valid of a reason. It's not established that it's cheaper, but neither is it established that it'd be more expensive to use an already-existing commercial crew service to get your crew to the Orion spacecraft stack in LEO. If the spacecraft stack is assembled at LEO (even at a space station), using commercial crew would be an obvious choice.
Anything which allows us to get exploring beyond LEO as soon as possible safely for the least cost.
-
The *only* valid reason not to launch the astronauts in their own spacecraft is if that spacecraft is designed to never enter an atmosphere. In other words it's a pure "space" craft.
Launching astronauts in a manned spacecraft just so the astronauts will not have to be launched in their own manned spacecraft is stupid.
Being cheaper is just as valid of a reason. It's not established that it's cheaper, but neither is it established that it'd be more expensive to use an already-existing commercial crew service to get your crew to the Orion spacecraft stack in LEO. If the spacecraft stack is assembled at LEO (even at a space station), using commercial crew would be an obvious choice.
Anything which allows us to get exploring beyond LEO as soon as possible safely for the least cost.
Think about it Chris.
Under what set of circumstances would launching and consuming two (2) rockets and (2) spacecraft and using the man-hours of (2) sets of ground support crews and facilities ever be cheaper than launching one (1) rocket and (1) spacecraft and using the man-hours of (1) set of ground support crew and facilities?
-
The *only* valid reason not to launch the astronauts in their own spacecraft is if that spacecraft is designed to never enter an atmosphere. In other words it's a pure "space" craft.
Launching astronauts in a manned spacecraft just so the astronauts will not have to be launched in their own manned spacecraft is stupid.
Depends. You would gain up mass on the Orion because it could be launched without the escape system and you could reduce the usage of consumables if for some reason the crew needed to hang out in space until the time they need to leave. It could be cheaper or a better use of budget if you launch it with a non man rated launcher and time the mission to coincide with a space station crew transfer(i.e. you were going to launch two rockets anyway).
One of the nice things about having commercial crew will be new options for how to conduct all space missions.
Finally if you had propellant transfer on a large enough scale (not likely) you could reuse the capsule by returning it to LEO via chemical rockets. You would keep the option to return to earth directly in an emergancy.
The CST100 might not be a good choice in that respect because it only has 48 hours worth of flight time but some of the other commercal ones might have longer crew times.
-
The *only* valid reason not to launch the astronauts in their own spacecraft is if that spacecraft is designed to never enter an atmosphere. In other words it's a pure "space" craft.
Launching astronauts in a manned spacecraft just so the astronauts will not have to be launched in their own manned spacecraft is stupid.
Being cheaper is just as valid of a reason. It's not established that it's cheaper, but neither is it established that it'd be more expensive to use an already-existing commercial crew service to get your crew to the Orion spacecraft stack in LEO. If the spacecraft stack is assembled at LEO (even at a space station), using commercial crew would be an obvious choice.
Anything which allows us to get exploring beyond LEO as soon as possible safely for the least cost.
Think about it Chris.
Under what set of circumstances would launching and consuming two (2) rockets and (2) spacecraft and using the man-hours of (2) sets of ground support crews and facilities ever be cheaper than launching one (1) rocket and (1) spacecraft and using the man-hours of (1) set of ground support crew and facilities?
Answer:
If the commercial rocket is regularly launching crew. That is basic economics, division of labor. That doesn't automatically mean that it will be cheaper... to really know one way or the other you'd need real numbers.
How much would it cost extra to human-rate an HLV, both in development time and per-flight? How about adding a LAS, development time and per-flight? Testing for high altitude aborts with the Orion? Building a large HLV pad tower to support crew versus no crew? Ground equipment supporting crew at the HLV launch site, including the crazy roller-coaster or whatever? Plus maintaining the capability for all of these things? Etc, etc. Heck, because a commercial crew spacecraft would be launched with greater frequency, there's a good chance it'd also be safer, in spite of the need to rendezvous and dock. It's already basically a given that commercial crew will happen. If commercial crew fails, we will know it far before we send anyone beyond LEO.
EDIT: If you build your spacecraft at a space station, that would definitely be a scenario where commercial crew would make more sense.
-
EDIT: If you build your spacecraft at a space station, that would definitely be a scenario where commercial crew would make more sense.
This is just about the only condition I agree on. For all the others it is to be assumed that the (SLS) LV is already human rated and all the facilities already exist. You cannot arbitrarily add them to the SLS launch every time any more than you would do that for every commercial launcher.
-
EDIT: If you build your spacecraft at a space station, that would definitely be a scenario where commercial crew would make more sense.
This is just about the only condition I agree on. For all the others it is to be assumed that the (SLS) LV is already human rated and all the facilities already exist. You cannot arbitrarily add them to the SLS launch every time any more than you would do that for every commercial launcher.
If what you bolded is true, then I think the argument is swayed towards your side. But it's not yet true. There isn't a human-rated SDHLV already built. The facilities that would be necessary don't all exist, yet. Heck, it hasn't even been decided whether Ares I or a more DIRECT-like rocket will be built (though that likely will change within an hour from now). Just saying. Your position may end up being what actually happens (I would say it's more likely, actually), but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better or cheaper.
-
This is just about the only condition I agree on. For all the others it is to be assumed that the (SLS) LV is already human rated and all the facilities already exist. You cannot arbitrarily add them to the SLS launch every time any more than you would do that for every commercial launcher.
By the time commercial crew is ready commercial will either add those facilities or use NASA's faculties(i.e. Buss the crew to the commercial pad from KSC). Not man rating SLS could allow SLS to be developed cheaper and faster and SLS can carry more if it isn't forced to use a trajectory safe for crew. Finally SLS will not be a rocket that launches often, that could lead to safety issues. It is just a different way of doing business.
Now I don’t think that the Boeing craft would be my first choice for a transfer craft due to its lack of on orbit lifetime separate from a station(i.e. this could be limiting) . Dragon could be better in that regard.
-
EDIT: If you build your spacecraft at a space station, that would definitely be a scenario where commercial crew would make more sense.
This is just about the only condition I agree on. For all the others it is to be assumed that the (SLS) LV is already human rated and all the facilities already exist. You cannot arbitrarily add them to the SLS launch every time any more than you would do that for every commercial launcher.
If what you bolded is true, then I think the argument is swayed towards your side. But it's not yet true. There isn't a human-rated SDHLV already built. The facilities that would be necessary don't all exist, yet. Heck, it hasn't even been decided whether Ares I or a more DIRECT-like rocket will be built (though that likely will change within an hour from now). Just saying. Your position may end up being what actually happens (I would say it's more likely, actually), but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better or cheaper.
I think you and I are close enough on this that any further differences are lost in the margins.
-
EDIT: If you build your spacecraft at a space station, that would definitely be a scenario where commercial crew would make more sense.
This is just about the only condition I agree on. For all the others it is to be assumed that the (SLS) LV is already human rated and all the facilities already exist. You cannot arbitrarily add them to the SLS launch every time any more than you would do that for every commercial launcher.
If what you bolded is true, then I think the argument is swayed towards your side. But it's not yet true. There isn't a human-rated SDHLV already built. The facilities that would be necessary don't all exist, yet. Heck, it hasn't even been decided whether Ares I or a more DIRECT-like rocket will be built (though that likely will change within an hour from now). Just saying. Your position may end up being what actually happens (I would say it's more likely, actually), but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better or cheaper.
I think you and I are close enough on this that any further differences are lost in the margins.
Agreed. :)
-
I thought the seven seats was a hint that they were going to increase the crew size to seven (the original planned number before the CRV was canceled) for the American launched expeditions.
No the idea of commercial crew is that NASA would either rent the capsule or have astronauts be taken to the ISS by boeing. If the latter is taken the extra seats can be sold.
Now as for CRV function Dragon was offered to be an ISS CRV and Boeing is smart enough to design it’s system to be capable of CRV but commercial was not going to provide CRV in and of itself(unless you go with the rental model). Orion might provide the CRV function. The CRV function really has not be set in stone.
The US would only have a crew of 5 at most on the ISS so to provide lifeboat function and handle extra ISS crew you only need five seats(hence LEO Orion’s six seat capacity). Having 7 seats provides the option to evacuate whole the station (if rental or by a CRV contract) or sell the extra seats.
In addition Bigeloew’s station will hold 5-7. So being able to carry 7 is rather important.
As of today is seems like Orion is not being used as a CRV and Dragon and CST-100 would likely be made to fill that role.
The only three things that I see preventing them from increasing the crew to seven would be the life support systems, the fact that there are currently only six crew quarters and having launch more supplies.
I don't know much about the life support and whether or not it can currently accomodate a crew of seven astronautes for long duration or not.
In regards to the crew quarters, another one could be launched above a resupply craft.
I'm not sure why they wouldn't want to increase the crew to seven, it would return them to the original number, allow them to conduct more science and they would still be able to evacuate the entire crew in one ship. It may also provide a permanent position for a non-NASA/RKA member.
Also, I know I'm rambling but I thought NASA was still against the whole idea of allowing tourists onto the ISS.
-
Or dream chaser as CRV. However I think dragon could be the best one in terms of shelf life if the 2 year dragon lab lifetime applies to the manned dragon.
The CST only has 7 months of in space life docked but 48 hours in space time undocked. I would love to know what limits it to 48 hours? Is it power(i.e. recharge the batteries and the craft has 48 more hours?)?
One of the FTD missions was to add an inflatable mission module to the ISS. Not sure about funding level. There is also a plan in the very early phases to launch Node 4.Not sure about the funding for either.
The station was designed with 7 in mind the US is short 1 person due to having no CRV. The shuttle and Soyuz were to provide crew transfer but the shuttle lacks the ability to remain in space thus the CRV module was needed. When the CRV was canceled the station was limited to 6 due to lifeboat not life support reasons(i.e. Soyuz only holds 3). The life support can probably handle 7.
Not sure about the crew quarters(I know that each crew has their own booth, not sure if the launched the 7th booth or just put more equipment in. The booths are relocatable. In theory if they add node 4 they could add a 5th sleeping area with it. Not sure if the ISS racks fit into any commcercail cargo craft.
At the moment NASA has contracts for Soyuz for a couple of years so increasing the crew at this point might have to wait until we get the ability to launch people into space again.
From what I have heard NASA does not like the idea of tourist on board (understandable) but that is policy which can be change. I think a limit of no more than 2 for no more than days could be an effective way to manage the distraction while still promoting commerce. NASA does not bar tourist, but tourist can not touch anything in the US module. You may enter and look just doesn’t touch. What has kept tourist out is that NASA is unable to launch paying customers.
Another idea would be locating commercial tourist space stations close enough to the ISS that a capsule could travel from one to the other.
-
To all: Some danger of this thread going off on a tangent. No need for a trim back, just try and keep in mind that the posts need to be on topic of the thread title.
-
You know, what I'd really like to see is a copy of that AIAA paper that was supposed to come out recently.
I'm kind curious about the seating arrangements, propulsion, and power-generation systems.
I'd like to see some schematics or something.
-
You know, what I'd really like to see is a copy of that AIAA paper that was supposed to come out recently.
I'm kind curious about the seating arrangements, propulsion, and power-generation systems.
I'd like to see some schematics or something.
Me too. From what I have seen the CST does not show people wearing spacesuits inside the capsule. It is probably just a omission from the drawings but I don't think any manned spacecraft should launch without crew in space suits due to the danger of depressurization.
I also would like to know it's limits. I know it is supposed to have 48 hours on orbit and storable 7 months but is that due to power? I would also like to know how much delta V this thing has. There is an drawing and photo of an mock up showing the interior on cst100 thread at space.com.
-
You know, what I'd really like to see is a copy of that AIAA paper that was supposed to come out recently.
I'm kind curious about the seating arrangements, propulsion, and power-generation systems.
I'd like to see some schematics or something.
Me too. From what I have seen the CST does not show people wearing spacesuits inside the capsule. It is probably just a omission from the drawings but I don't think any manned spacecraft should launch without crew in space suits due to the danger of depressurization.
I also would like to know it's limits. I know it is supposed to have 48 hours on orbit and storable 7 months but is that due to power? I would also like to know how much delta V this thing has. There is an drawing and photo of an mock up showing the interior on cst100 thread at space.com.
From what little I've seen so far, consider CST-100 to be super-Gemini.
There really isn't much room in the cabin for anyone to move around, although as this is just a ETO taxi, that isn't much of a problem. It also lacks any kind of power generators, so its batteries are its only power source. I imagine in docked ops, it would suck power from the space station. It only has an RCS system with some orbital manoeuvring capability, no significant delta-V though.
-
You know, what I'd really like to see is a copy of that AIAA paper that was supposed to come out recently.
I'm kind curious about the seating arrangements, propulsion, and power-generation systems.
I'd like to see some schematics or something.
Me too. From what I have seen the CST does not show people wearing spacesuits inside the capsule. It is probably just a omission from the drawings but I don't think any manned spacecraft should launch without crew in space suits due to the danger of depressurization.
I also would like to know it's limits. I know it is supposed to have 48 hours on orbit and storable 7 months but is that due to power? I would also like to know how much delta V this thing has. There is an drawing and photo of an mock up showing the interior on cst100 thread at space.com.
From what little I've seen so far, consider CST-100 to be super-Gemini.
There really isn't much room in the cabin for anyone to move around, although as this is just a ETO taxi, that isn't much of a problem. It also lacks any kind of power generators, so its batteries are its only power source. I imagine in docked ops, it would suck power from the space station. It only has an RCS system with some orbital manoeuvring capability, no significant delta-V though.
Yeah I figured that. Thoose are all things you don't need and cost a lot if you are just doing LEO.
-
I'm not so sure about the low delta-V, what about the liquid propellant 'pusher' LAS? That would have to have a considerable amount of thrust I would have thought, although it would only need to provide it for a short time. Could it be used in a low thrust mode to provide more manoeuvring capability?
-
I'm not so sure about the low delta-V, what about the liquid propellant 'pusher' LAS? That would have to have a considerable amount of thrust I would have thought, although it would only need to provide it for a short time. Could it be used in a low thrust mode to provide more manoeuvring capability?
A lot depends on the nature of the beast. Can the engines be throttled or restarted in space? What will be their Isp (as higher thrust seems to generally require lower Isp for some reason)? What is their fuel capacity? A rocket that is only capable of burning once for five seconds is of little use for other functions.
For example, SpaceX's LAS will actually be an integrated part of the Dragon spacecraft. So, hypothetically, its engines could be used for certain maneouvres (although that would use up its RCS fuel a lot more quickly). However, I suspect that they will be intended to be used only once, either for an abort or to cushion the Dragon's landing.
I have not yet seen any details about the CST-100's abort motor. Much depends on its specific engineering. If it is nothing other than a high-thrust rocket that will burn itself dry to get the capsule clear of the LV, then utilising it for other functions would be difficult and risky.
-
The pusher escape system looks like it's going to be added on to the outside of the ship.
-
So it looks like the thrusters under the SM can be used for either abort or the de-orbit burn. Obviously they wouldn't need both on the same flight, so why not?
-
I really think the requirements for the abort motors and thrusters are very different. There's like a factor of 100 difference in thrust needed. And likely a quite large difference in efficiency, considering the abort motors have to be optimized for sea-level, while the thrusters are vacuum-optimized. And abort motors only need to fire for a handful of seconds. Pretty rough on the crew.
-
If you have the abort motors 'strapped' to the side (and therefore out of the way in orbit), it would be more complicated to jettison them on the way to orbit than to just keep them around while your in orbit.
Simpler and Safer. No dual use needed.
-
Here is Boeing's reaction to the passage of the NASA Authorization bill. This was actually issued last week but I don't think that anybody posted it:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1449
-
So it looks like the thrusters under the SM can be used for either abort or the de-orbit burn. Obviously they wouldn't need both on the same flight, so why not?
Well, those "thrusters" have extremely high thrust in order to still make the abort in the worse case dynamic pressure environment. Likely overkill for deorbit, and may actually induce other system complications, but time will tell I suppose.
-
From what little I've seen so far, consider CST-100 to be super-Gemini.
There really isn't much room in the cabin for anyone to move around, although as this is just a ETO taxi, that isn't much of a problem. It also lacks any kind of power generators, so its batteries are its only power source. I imagine in docked ops, it would suck power from the space station. It only has an RCS system with some orbital manoeuvring capability, no significant delta-V though.
Or think of it like the proposed Apollo block IV CSM which also was battery powered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
Though looking at that SM I wonder if a stretched version with more fuel and landing gear could actually land on the moon and take off from it.
Of course this would be with the help of a crasher stage as having one just makes everything easier.
-
Though looking at that SM I wonder if a stretched version with more fuel and landing gear could actually land on the moon and take off from it.
Of course this would be with the help of a crasher stage as having one just makes everything easier.
At the time that the contract was let for the Apollo CSM, the direct and EOR approaches were the ones under serious consideration. As a result, the SM and its engine were designed with lunar take-off in mind.
-
From what little I've seen so far, consider CST-100 to be super-Gemini.
There really isn't much room in the cabin for anyone to move around, although as this is just a ETO taxi, that isn't much of a problem. It also lacks any kind of power generators, so its batteries are its only power source. I imagine in docked ops, it would suck power from the space station. It only has an RCS system with some orbital manoeuvring capability, no significant delta-V though.
Or think of it like the proposed Apollo block IV CSM which also was battery powered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
Though looking at that SM I wonder if a stretched version with more fuel and landing gear could actually land on the moon and take off from it.
Of course this would be with the help of a crasher stage as having one just makes everything easier.
A manned Venus flyby would be interesting. Given the lack of scientific interest in such an endeavour, I wonder if a commercial flight would be the first... a topic for another thread, perhaps.
-
A manned Venus flyby would be interesting. Given the lack of scientific interest in such an endeavour, I wonder if a commercial flight would be the first... a topic for another thread, perhaps.
What exactly is the commercial market for trips to Venus?!? Plus, the radiation exposure on such a trip would be twice that of a Mars flyby, and CST-100 is only designed for LEO-level of shielding. Plus, CST-100 isn't designed for escape+ velocity reentries (recall that heating is proportional to the square of entry velocity, so much worse than LEO).
If flown, CST-100 will be used for LEO. Period. Any other purpose will require CST-200, or CST-400, etc., and is thus beyond the scope of this thread.
-
...
If flown, CST-100 will be used for LEO. Period. Any other purpose will require CST-200, or CST-400, etc., and is thus beyond the scope of this thread.
I disagree. I mean, Boeing doesn't have any kind of real plans for a BEO CST-100, but I don't think it necessarily means it will be CST-200 or something.
If someone is discussing using a CST-100 variant for a BLEO mission, it'd clearly (tautologically) be a modified version of a CST-100, so no reason it'd be off-topic to discuss such a BEO-version of a CST-100 in this thread.
In fact, what modifications would be necessary to allow CST-100 to be a BEO-capable capsule, assuming it had a (pressurized) mission module? Could the CST-100 can receive power (and dump waste heat?) through its docking interface, so it wouldn't necessarily need its own solar panels? Obviously, it'd probably need its heatshield to be thicker and/or requalified for the higher reentry velocity.
How does the CST-100 dump waste heat? Does it have its own solar panels?
-
...
If flown, CST-100 will be used for LEO. Period. Any other purpose will require CST-200, or CST-400, etc., and is thus beyond the scope of this thread.
I disagree. I mean, Boeing doesn't have any kind of real plans for a BEO CST-100, but I don't think it necessarily means it will be CST-200 or something.
If someone is discussing using a CST-100 variant for a BLEO mission, it'd clearly (tautologically) be a modified version of a CST-100, so no reason it'd be off-topic to discuss such a BEO-version of a CST-100 in this thread.
In fact, what modifications would be necessary to allow CST-100 to be a BEO-capable capsule, assuming it had a (pressurized) mission module? Could the CST-100 can receive power (and dump waste heat?) through its docking interface, so it wouldn't necessarily need its own solar panels? Obviously, it'd probably need its heatshield to be thicker and/or requalified for the higher reentry velocity.
How does the CST-100 dump waste heat? Does it have its own solar panels?
This thing probably needs a lot. It is only supposed to support a crew for 48 hours. It does not have much delta V(probably around 400 M/S).
I am pretty sure that if this thing LEO only it will be built for LEO only. It has Apollo's shape but that might be the only BEO thing it has. It is sortable for 7 months(1 month longer than Orion).
-
...
If flown, CST-100 will be used for LEO. Period. Any other purpose will require CST-200, or CST-400, etc., and is thus beyond the scope of this thread.
I disagree. I mean, Boeing doesn't have any kind of real plans for a BEO CST-100, but I don't think it necessarily means it will be CST-200 or something.
If someone is discussing using a CST-100 variant for a BLEO mission, it'd clearly (tautologically) be a modified version of a CST-100, so no reason it'd be off-topic to discuss such a BEO-version of a CST-100 in this thread.
In fact, what modifications would be necessary to allow CST-100 to be a BEO-capable capsule, assuming it had a (pressurized) mission module? Could the CST-100 can receive power (and dump waste heat?) through its docking interface, so it wouldn't necessarily need its own solar panels? Obviously, it'd probably need its heatshield to be thicker and/or requalified for the higher reentry velocity.
How does the CST-100 dump waste heat? Does it have its own solar panels?
This thing probably needs a lot. It is only supposed to support a crew for 48 hours. It does not have much delta V(probably around 400 M/S).
I am pretty sure that if this thing LEO only it will be built for LEO only. It has Apollo's shape but that might be the only BEO thing it has. It is sortable for 7 months(1 month longer than Orion).
If you have, say, a Mars Transfer Vehicle, and the capsule is only really used for reentry when you get back to Earth, then a small, relatively lightweight capsule with few frills like the CST-100 (modified for a more capable TPS and longer storable in-space time) would be just about perfect. I don't know if 400m/s delta-v would be enough, but such a reentry-pod shouldn't need as much as a full Orion.
-
The best way to theorize what the future capabilities of an upgraded CST-100 will be is to look at what Bigelow has publicly said he wants to do.
He wants [multiple] LEO stations at around 350 miles altitude, the ability to assemble a Lunar Surface Station at EML-1 & to place that station on the lunar surface.
I very seriously doubt a modified CST-100 is going to be able to access all 3 destinations economically, & cost is up there at the top of Bigelow's priorities.
IMO the CST-100 will only be used to access LEO. An SEP or VASIMR powered reusable/refuel-able tug will travel between LEO & EML-1 & reusable/refuel-able surface access vehicle will be used from there.
The initial investment would certainly be higher to build all 3, but they would be safer & make better economic sense in the long run.
-
This article has some cool artist images of the CST-100 on top of various rockets:
http://onorbit.com/node/2509
P.S. There is a typo in one of the images. The "Delta 402" image is obviously an image of the Atlas 402.
-
Nice. Visually, it looks like Delta is the nicest fit to its mold line even though it appears to be the only configuration with solids.
-
Interesting that the Delta launch tower has crew access arms but SpaceX and Atlas don't. I'm assuming this is an "artifact" of the artists rendering, rather than conveying information on crew access plans.
Also the first time I've seen the four thrusters on the back. I must assume that is for the LAS/OMS. If that's right, then any ideas on how they would be actually used in LAS mode? Would the adapter/fairing be ejected first, then the thruster light? Are there trap doors in that adapter/fairing to act as mini flame trenches? I haven't yet seen any details on operation of the LAS.
-
Interesting that the Delta launch tower has crew access arms but SpaceX and Atlas don't. I'm assuming this is an "artifact" of the artists rendering, rather than conveying information on crew access plans.
That isn't a crew access arm. Delta IV has 3 arms that are standard:
1. 1st stage intertank
2. 2nd stage
3. payload ECS
-
This article has some cool artist images of the CST-100 on top of various rockets:
http://onorbit.com/node/2509
P.S. There is a typo in one of the images. The "Delta 402" image is obviously an image of the Atlas 402.
There are other things odd about this image. There is plumbing missing.
Also the "402" does not exist yet, IIRC. Does it really need two second stage engines?
-
This article has some cool artist images of the CST-100 on top of various rockets:
http://onorbit.com/node/2509
P.S. There is a typo in one of the images. The "Delta 402" image is obviously an image of the Atlas 402.
There are other things odd about this image. There is plumbing missing.
Also the "402" does not exist yet, IIRC. Does it really need two second stage engines?
The Dual-Engine Centaur increases IMLEO in exchange for a greatly reduced payload mass to GTO. Using DEC on a crewed launcher makes sense because:
a) You're not going to be sending anything to GTO;
b) The alternative is using the monolithic solids, something that may yet be ruled unsafe by fiat;
c) There is a certain degree of engine out redundancy (although RL-10A-4 is very reliable).
-
Interesting that the Delta launch tower has crew access arms but SpaceX and Atlas don't. I'm assuming this is an "artifact" of the artists rendering, rather than conveying information on crew access plans.
That isn't a crew access arm. Delta IV has 3 arms that are standard:
1. 1st stage intertank
2. 2nd stage
3. payload ECS
Would it be practical to outfit the payload ECS arm as a crew access arm? Or would adding something like a white room interfere with the ECS systems?
-
Would it be practical to outfit the payload ECS arm as a crew access arm? Or would adding something like a white room interfere with the ECS systems?
It is at an angle, there is no walkway on it.
-
Would it be practical to outfit the payload ECS arm as a crew access arm? Or would adding something like a white room interfere with the ECS systems?
It is at an angle, there is no walkway on it.
Which in itself wouldn't keep me from building a walkway, since man is capable of walking on slopes.
However, it does look a little steep for astronauts to evacuate from, and too light to add a walkway and a white room.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_IV_Medium_4,2%2B_launch_with_GOES-N.jpg
-
This article has some cool artist images of the CST-100 on top of various rockets:
http://onorbit.com/node/2509
P.S. There is a typo in one of the images. The "Delta 402" image is obviously an image of the Atlas 402.
There are other things odd about this image. There is plumbing missing.
Also the "402" does not exist yet, IIRC. Does it really need two second stage engines?
The Dual-Engine Centaur increases IMLEO in exchange for a greatly reduced payload mass to GTO. Using DEC on a crewed launcher makes sense because:
a) You're not going to be sending anything to GTO;
b) The alternative is using the monolithic solids, something that may yet be ruled unsafe by fiat;
c) There is a certain degree of engine out redundancy (although RL-10A-4 is very reliable).
Yes, it may "make sense" but is it necessary? Does the CST-100 need the DEC to get to the ISS? Is it an either/or choice with the solids? DEC doesn't exist and so would represent another hurdle, but so would using solids.
"Better is the enemy of good enough."
-
I can't help think the CST-100 on top of the various boosters looks like an NAR Competition Egg Booster. :)
-
This article has some cool artist images of the CST-100 on top of various rockets:
http://onorbit.com/node/2509
P.S. There is a typo in one of the images. The "Delta 402" image is obviously an image of the Atlas 402.
There are other things odd about this image. There is plumbing missing.
Also the "402" does not exist yet, IIRC. Does it really need two second stage engines?
The Dual-Engine Centaur increases IMLEO in exchange for a greatly reduced payload mass to GTO. Using DEC on a crewed launcher makes sense because:
a) You're not going to be sending anything to GTO;
b) The alternative is using the monolithic solids, something that may yet be ruled unsafe by fiat;
c) There is a certain degree of engine out redundancy (although RL-10A-4 is very reliable).
RL-10s are cheap enough you might as well use two for more IMLEO payload and better engine out scenarios.
-
The Dual-Engine Centaur increases IMLEO in exchange for a greatly reduced payload mass to GTO. Using DEC on a crewed launcher makes sense because:
a) You're not going to be sending anything to GTO;
b) The alternative is using the monolithic solids, something that may yet be ruled unsafe by fiat;
c) There is a certain degree of engine out redundancy (although RL-10A-4 is very reliable).
RL-10s are cheap enough you might as well use two for more IMLEO payload and better engine out scenarios.
Developing the DEC stage will not be cheap even if "RL-10s are cheap enough".
Cheap, maybe but are is a second one absolutely necessary, a trade-off to solid motors, or neither?
-
Cheap, maybe but are is a second one absolutely necessary, a trade-off to solid motors, or neither?
I suspect that the issue is 'margin'. The SEC can probably manage it, but with very little room for error.
In the event of any problems during the ascent, a DEC could probably correct with a second burn after an ATO. SEC would not. So, yes, it is an either/or issue; The extra upper stage performance is needed and those are the only ways to get it.
-
CCDev-1 third quarter update for Boeing/Bigelow Aerospace:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
-
CCDev-1 third quarter update for Boeing/Bigelow Aerospace:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
During this quarter, CCDev program progressing as planned.
Completed 26 SAA milestones on schedule (72% of program milestones)
continuing re-plan of Abort System Hardware Demo resulting from the LAS down select decision
installed honeycomb core and thermal ablator (BLA) onto BHS carrier structure
installed completed CM Pressurized Structure proof pressure and pressure cycle testing
completed Landing System Demo uprighting tests and
initiated landing air bag drop testing
successfully completed integration of Huntington Beach VENUS lab with the Houston ASIF lab for the integrated GN&C simulation,
completed the ASIF stand-alone Demo,
delivered CM Mockup to Boeing Houston facility and
performed evaluations with NASA Crew Office and
held a third Interim Design Review.
Planning is completed and preparations are underway for Systems Definition Review (SDR) in October.
Jobs Created 84.80
-
What is the collective feeling regarding the potential for exporting Dragon and/or CST-100? ESA and JAXA would seem to be logical candidates. But what about nations like India and Brazil? If the geopolitical issues will permit perhaps even China? Possibly even nongovernmental organizations?
-
What is the collective feeling regarding the potential for exporting Dragon and/or CST-100? ESA and JAXA would seem to be logical candidates. But what about nations like India and Brazil? If the geopolitical issues will permit perhaps even China? Possibly even nongovernmental organizations?
The conop would be to sell rides/launches and not hardware.
Also, ITAR would probably limit the sales to most.
-
What is the collective feeling regarding the potential for exporting Dragon and/or CST-100? ESA and JAXA would seem to be logical candidates. But what about nations like India and Brazil? If the geopolitical issues will permit perhaps even China? Possibly even nongovernmental organizations?
The conop would be to sell rides/launches and not hardware.
Also, ITAR would probably limit the sales to most.
In the case of JAXA, ESA and CSA, I would imagine that the ISS barter system will continue. For example, ESA will provide certain ISS hardware or services in exchange for transportation from NASA to the ISS. NASA then purchases ISS rides for ESA astronauts from commercial companies such as Boeing or SpaceX.
-
A neat gallery of images of the Boeing CST-100:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/15/GA2010091505170.html
Edit: fixed broken link.
-
Your link is broken... Even when I combine the two lines I get a bad link.
-
Your link is broken... Even when I combine the two lines I get a bad link.
THIS worked for me ( after googling the 2nd partial link etc....)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/15/GA2010091505170.html
-
Interesting images. Thanks for sharing!
-
Your link is broken... Even when I combine the two lines I get a bad link.
THIS worked for me ( after googling the 2nd partial link etc....)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/15/GA2010091505170.html
Oops. Sorry. I have now fixed it.
I don't know if this video of the CST-100 has already been posted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091504961.html?sid=ST2010091505419
-
Interesting, it looks like Boeing thinks manned Delta IV flights will take place on LC-39 and not from the LC-36 complex. Also, i thought SRB's were prohibitive for manned launches?
-
Interesting, it looks like Boeing thinks manned Delta IV flights will take place on LC-39 and not from the LC-36 complex. Also, i thought SRB's were prohibitive for manned launches?
That's probably just artistic license... It would seem to make no sense to support Delta IV ops at LC 39 for launches that the existing dedicated pad should be able to support.
-
Interesting, it looks like Boeing thinks manned Delta IV flights will take place on LC-39 and not from the LC-36 complex. Also, i thought SRB's were prohibitive for manned launches?
That's probably just artistic license... It would seem to make no sense to support Delta IV ops at LC 39 for launches that the existing dedicated pad should be able to support.
unless of course you want to show how the new MLP is not junk (political capital), and oh btw we can launch astronauts 2 not just tourist
-
Small presentation on CST-100, with shiny graphics. It's not the AIAA paper we're waiting on but it'll do for now. Enjoy!
http://www.ispcs.com/files/tiny_mce/file_manager/presentations/reiley.pdf
-
Very nice! That seems to be the most detailed drawings of the CST-100 yet.
It definitely looks like Boeing has leveraged all their Orion proposal work into this.
-
Small presentation on CST-100, with shiny graphics.
Bent metal and mockups too. It seems as if SpaceX has been setting a trend.
-
Looks like Spacex's Dragon will soon have some competition which is great. We will soon have at least 2 commercial vehicles (Dragon and the CST-100) ready for manned LEO operations in a few years. I don't count Dreamchaser as that will probably be far off into the future.
-
Looks like Spacex's Dragon will soon have some competition which is great. We will soon have at least 2 commercial vehicles (Dragon and the CST-100) ready for manned LEO operations in a few years. I don't count Dreamchaser as that will probably be far off into the future.
The dreamchaser is in late development, further ahead of the CST-100. Check out that craft thread rather than derail this one, where they have pictures of the pressure hull already there.
-
Downix, Dreamchaser being "late in development" and "further along than CST" is doubtful at best given publicly available data. (unless you have insider info)
A couple of shots of an incomplete prototype composite pressure vessel is all we have seen from SNC.
-
Downix, Dreamchaser being "late in development" and "further along than CST" is doubtful at best given publicly available data. (unless you have insider info)
A couple of shots of an incomplete prototype composite pressure vessel is all we have seen from SNC.
They've met the goals set for them under the NASA contract, and I've paid attention to those goals. The steps they've had to take puts them in a very solid position.
Combined with the fact that the Dreamchaser already had many design features worked out before SNC ever got ahold of it, I'd classify it as a late-stage, or mid-to-late stage of development.
But again, this is off-topic. The CST-100 is, by all accounts and details, at a very good point for operation by 2015 or 2016.
-
Small presentation on CST-100, with shiny graphics. It's not the AIAA paper we're waiting on but it'll do for now. Enjoy!
http://www.ispcs.com/files/tiny_mce/file_manager/presentations/reiley.pdf
What are they using for a heat shield? It looks like it's segmented somehow, but still ablative. Are they using PICA?
EDIT:Also, it looks like they very likely are further than SpaceX on the abort motors (i.e., they've actually test-fired them). I'd say the race is pretty even, right now!
-
It is an interesting layout... So the abort motors double as SM propulsion, it seems like. The abort system looks integrated with the SM.
I am a bit surprised with the lack of solar panels, which limits it to very short mission durations, similar to Soyuz TM/TMA I would imagine.
EDIT: Much shorter, actually, it seems. Soyuz spends 2 days on average before docking to ISS, but CST-100 plans to do it in 8 (!) hours.
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
The PDF slides do show some remarkable progress for a relatively recently announced project. I'm wondering if aspects of the project (such as abort motor testing) was grandfathered in from previous efforts/contracts from CxP and other programs, which now are folded into the CST-100 project.
-
I'm actually pretty impressed with the progress on the CST-100, it took me by surprise how far it has come. The combination of components makes the CST-100 a limited range vehicle, which is something that will keep it's cost to operate down. Well done Boeing.
-
Small presentation on CST-100, with shiny graphics. It's not the AIAA paper we're waiting on but it'll do for now. Enjoy!
http://www.ispcs.com/files/tiny_mce/file_manager/presentations/reiley.pdf
Thanks for the link!
Yes, they really have come along quite a ways. Impressive.
-
Looks like Spacex's Dragon will soon have some competition which is great. We will soon have at least 2 commercial vehicles (Dragon and the CST-100) ready for manned LEO operations in a few years. I don't count Dreamchaser as that will probably be far off into the future.
The dreamchaser is in late development, further ahead of the CST-100. Check out that craft thread rather than derail this one, where they have pictures of the pressure hull already there.
DC had it's hybrid propulsion tested which apparently also is the LAS.
I can't think of any other reason for it to have a thrust of around 100,000lbs.
Back on topic I think the CST-100 may have been under development for much longer then the project has been publicly disclosed.
Other surprises no solar wings and the style of TPS.
-
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
.
Fuel cell servicing is not something every pad is equipped to handle
-
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
.
Fuel cell servicing is not something every pad is equipped to handle
To answer the question, it's battery powered. It is a true "space taxi" with these inagural flights, meant for relatively short times on orbit. Battery tech has come quite a way in just a decade but the CST will not be for "long duration". This is part of keeping to scope and minimizing recurring costs as well and as the design being as simple as possible.
-
Back on topic I think the CST-100 may have been under development for much longer then the project has been publicly disclosed.
Other surprises no solar wings and the style of TPS.
It was. It is based on Boeing's failed bid for Orion. Bigloew had originally wanted to use Lockhead martin's Orion for transport but the price/availibality of it drove him off and so he turned to Boeing.
Boeing has probably been doing small amounts of work on the system for quite some time to be in place should Lockhead Martin mess up with Orion. And Boeing can benifit from some of the idea/testing done for Orion.(Like the landing bags)
-
Back on topic I think the CST-100 may have been under development for much longer then the project has been publicly disclosed.
Other surprises no solar wings and the style of TPS.
It was. It is based on Boeing's failed bid for Orion. Bigloew had originally wanted to use Lockhead martin's Orion for transport but the price/availibality of it drove him off and so he turned to Boeing.
Boeing has probably been doing small amounts of work on the system for quite some time to be in place should Lockhead Martin mess up with Orion. And Boeing can benifit from some of the idea/testing done for Orion.(Like the landing bags)
You can tell that this is based on the Orion proposal, altho the SM of the CST-100 is quite different, better suited to it's role as a taxi.
-
I've been speaking with a few of the team designing the CST-100 and it is actually a fairly clean-sheet design.
During the initial stages they certainly looked closely at their Orion designs for hints (which was also a clean-sheet -- and that's why there are many similarities, what worked well then still works well now), but there is hardly anything that got 'copied' across.
There are mature designs for a number of sub-systems that Boeing has designed and built over the years, and the CST-100 design has been put together around some of those elements. But it is a fairly clean-sheet approach, because the original Orion designs would have resulted in something far more expensive and Boeing are specifically targeting this at the low-cost end of the market in order to compete with Dragon, not Orion.
Ross.
-
Thanks for the info, Ross.
It would be interesting to see a detailed comparison between CST-100 and Orion "lite". (although I suspect the "lite" version was not fully designed, now that the full Orion looks like it will be funded) But I have a feeling they would have a lot of similarities.
One thing seems certain, though. Presuming CST-100 flies (and Boeing certainly has put quite a bit of effort into it), and Dragon in service - The rationale for keeping Orion will be harder and harder to justify. LM probably needs to produce a flying vehicle, and soon.
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
-
Small presentation on CST-100, with shiny graphics. It's not the AIAA paper we're waiting on but it'll do for now. Enjoy!
http://www.ispcs.com/files/tiny_mce/file_manager/presentations/reiley.pdf
Thanks, indeed.
Two questions: how do they figure "Nominal 8 hours launch to dock", when shuttle usually docks on day#3 or #4? Isn't Soyuz usually 2 days or so for orbital phasing?
Also, if the diameter is 4.5m, why is the base launcher an AV402 rather than a 502? Is it the case that, since the payload is not fully encapsulated by a standard shroud to allow for abort, such capsules really represent a different kind of payload that's not quite fish or fowl; in this case, built on the 4m payload adapter?
-Alex
-
1. Two questions: how do they figure "Nominal 8 hours launch to dock", when shuttle usually docks on day#3 or #4? Isn't Soyuz usually 2 days or so for orbital phasing?
Also, if the diameter is 4.5m, why is the base launcher an AV402 rather than a 502? Is it the case that, since the payload is not fully encapsulated by a standard shroud to allow for abort, such capsules really represent a different kind of payload that's not quite fish or fowl; in this case, built on the 4m payload adapter?
-Alex
1. Because it has the necessary delta V and is more "agile". Again, the shuttle paradigm is not applicable to everything. Gemini did a first orbit rendezvous. Look back at Skylab.
2. 4m or 5m is just the size of the fairing. Adapters are independent of fairing size.
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
One may be surprised to here just how much thrust each of those engines produce.
-
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
.
Fuel cell servicing is not something every pad is equipped to handle
To answer the question, it's battery powered. It is a true "space taxi" with these inagural flights, meant for relatively short times on orbit. Battery tech has come quite a way in just a decade but the CST will not be for "long duration". This is part of keeping to scope and minimizing recurring costs as well and as the design being as simple as possible.
Perhaps now this will put to rest those silly notions that the "LEO taxi" could be "upgraded" to be an Orion replacement for BEO missions. It's not even structurally possible, as I have said many times.
-
1. Two questions: how do they figure "Nominal 8 hours launch to dock", when shuttle usually docks on day#3 or #4? Isn't Soyuz usually 2 days or so for orbital phasing?
Also, if the diameter is 4.5m, why is the base launcher an AV402 rather than a 502? Is it the case that, since the payload is not fully encapsulated by a standard shroud to allow for abort, such capsules really represent a different kind of payload that's not quite fish or fowl; in this case, built on the 4m payload adapter?
-Alex
1. Because it has the necessary delta V and is more "agile". Again, the shuttle paradigm is not applicable to everything. Gemini did a first orbit rendezvous. Look back at Skylab.
In addition, shuttle is an independed platform capable of vast amounts more than CST, Dragon, etc. When shuttle enters orbit, the crew is activating payloads, configuring the vehicle as necessary, etc and we now obviously do the TPS inspections.
-
CST-100 only has a free-flying 48 hour lifespan because it is not intended to do anything except deliver its passengers to a destination. It will make its rendezvous in 8 hours because it can, and given its short lifespan, should. It is literally just a taxi that requires a quick arrival at its destination in order to keep its passengers alive.
-
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
.
Fuel cell servicing is not something every pad is equipped to handle
To answer the question, it's battery powered. It is a true "space taxi" with these inagural flights, meant for relatively short times on orbit. Battery tech has come quite a way in just a decade but the CST will not be for "long duration". This is part of keeping to scope and minimizing recurring costs as well and as the design being as simple as possible.
Perhaps now this will put to rest those silly notions that the "LEO taxi" could be "upgraded" to be an Orion replacement for BEO missions. It's not even structurally possible, as I have said many times.
Maybe not CST-100 or Dream Chaser, but Dragon has solar panels even in the LEO taxi role.
-
Does anyone know if the spacecraft has fuel cells or is purely battery powered?
.
Fuel cell servicing is not something every pad is equipped to handle
To answer the question, it's battery powered. It is a true "space taxi" with these inagural flights, meant for relatively short times on orbit. Battery tech has come quite a way in just a decade but the CST will not be for "long duration". This is part of keeping to scope and minimizing recurring costs as well and as the design being as simple as possible.
Perhaps now this will put to rest those silly notions that the "LEO taxi" could be "upgraded" to be an Orion replacement for BEO missions. It's not even structurally possible, as I have said many times.
Maybe not CST-100 or Dream Chaser, but Dragon has solar panels even in the LEO taxi role.
That's because like Orion Dragon was not designed from inception as a LEO taxi. Both spacecraft, Dragon and Orion, are designed for BLEO HSF and while both spacecraft *can* function in LEO taxi mode, neither spacecraft *is* a "LEO Taxi".
-
Also, if the diameter is 4.5m, why is the base launcher an AV402 rather than a 502? Is it the case that, since the payload is not fully encapsulated by a standard shroud to allow for abort, such capsules really represent a different kind of payload that's not quite fish or fowl; in this case, built on the 4m payload adapter?
2. 4m or 5m is just the size of the fairing. Adapters are independent of fairing size.
Yes, but a 4.5m capsule probably won't fly with a 4m fairing! Reading The Book, I'm guessing the answer something simple like: Centaur flies unencapsulated, with some lower fairing portion derived from the Atlas 4m fairing, enclosing only the lower end of CST-100?
1. Two questions: how do they figure "Nominal 8 hours launch to dock", when shuttle usually docks on day#3 or #4? Isn't Soyuz usually 2 days or so for orbital phasing?
1. Because it has the necessary delta V and is more "agile". Again, the shuttle paradigm is not applicable to everything. Gemini did a first orbit rendezvous. Look back at Skylab.
In addition, shuttle is an independed platform capable of vast amounts more than CST, Dragon, etc. When shuttle enters orbit, the crew is activating payloads, configuring the vehicle as necessary, etc and we now obviously do the TPS inspections.
Sure, but rendezvous were still on FD#3 even before -103, and weren't there some STS flights (blue suit?) where they punched out the payload pretty quickly, like on the first orbit not long after getting the doors open? That's not the same as rendezvous, but Shuttle was obviously (famously!) intended to be ready for orbital ops pretty quickly. Ignoring the TPS inspections, is it orbital checkout procedures that were developed later, more cautiously in the program, that lead to delayed rendezvous? Or is it that flying fully heavyweight and using OMS assist, etc., limits the phasing flexibility?
Thanks for the pointer on Skylab, Jim -- orbit#5 for SL-2! Had no idea. But I'm not trying to apply the Shuttle paradigm to everything! Why does Soyuz take two days, also? Did it always, to Salyut & Mir? What's the limiting factor on both those vehicles? What kind of "agility" did Apollo CSM have -- even launching at the limits of Saturn IB -- and CST-100 will have, that Soyuz doesn't? Is it just a simple matter of spare propellant -> spare delta-v?
-Alex
-
Perhaps now this will put to rest those silly notions that the "LEO taxi" could be "upgraded" to be an Orion replacement for BEO missions. It's not even structurally possible, as I have said many times.
There's nothing silly about it. Dragon was designed for beyond LEO and would be an excellent LEO taxi. Perhaps CST-100 cannot be upgraded so easily. If true, that is an extra selling point for Dragon.
-
That's because like Orion Dragon was not designed from inception as a LEO taxi. Both spacecraft, Dragon and Orion, are designed for BLEO HSF and while both spacecraft *can* function in LEO taxi mode, neither spacecraft *is* a "LEO Taxi".
Fair enough, given that reasonable definition of "LEO taxi". I thought you were repeating an argument you made recently that seemed to include Dragon among the vehicles that would be inherently unsuitable for BEO. But I guess you've since come around on that.
On this note, however, it would be nice if CST-100 and "Orion" have as much commonality as practical, with CST-100 being more or less a subset of Orion and Orion being essentially a tricked-out CST-100 with a different SM.
I'm assuming your comment about this sort of thing not being "structurally possible" is mostly about the SM rather than the capsule, right?
-
Sure, but rendezvous were still on FD#3 even before -103, and weren't there some STS flights (blue suit?) where they punched out the payload pretty quickly, like on the first orbit not long after getting the doors open? That's not the same as rendezvous, but Shuttle was obviously (famously!) intended to be ready for orbital ops pretty quickly. Ignoring the TPS inspections, is it orbital checkout procedures that were developed later, more cautiously in the program, that lead to delayed rendezvous? Or is it that flying fully heavyweight and using OMS assist, etc., limits the phasing flexibility?
I believe you are looking at it wrong. There is nothing preventing shuttle from getting there ASAP. Operationally, it isn't feasible because they are preparing the vehicle for operations once it arrives. It is as simple as that.
-
That's because like Orion Dragon was not designed from inception as a LEO taxi. Both spacecraft, Dragon and Orion, are designed for BLEO HSF and while both spacecraft *can* function in LEO taxi mode, neither spacecraft *is* a "LEO Taxi".
Fair enough, given that reasonable definition of "LEO taxi". I thought you were repeating an argument you made recently that seemed to include Dragon among the vehicles that would be inherently unsuitable for BEO. But I guess you've since come around on that.
On this note, however, it would be nice if CST-100 and "Orion" have as much commonality as practical, with CST-100 being more or less a subset of Orion and Orion being essentially a tricked-out CST-100 with a different SM.
I'm assuming your comment about this sort of thing not being "structurally possible" is mostly about the SM rather than the capsule, right?
I've always excluded Dragon from the LEO-taxi definition. I thought I had made that clear before. In any case, Dragon was designed from inception to be a BLEO spacecraft, not a LEO taxi. Elon made that clear when he first announced Dragon. He said Dragon could, and would, serve in the LEO mode, but that it was intended and designed for lunar and beyond operation.
As to the "structurally possible" comment, it was aimed at the CM, not the SM. Structurally, the Orion CM is designed to handle the loads of re-entry at interplanetary speeds while CST-100 is not. CST-100 would likely break up if it attempted a re-entry like that. While the load paths are similar, the load dissipation is different. CST-100 does not have sufficient mass in its structure to dissipate those kinds of loads resulting in the smaller structural members exceeding their yield strengths and would likely experience fatal structural compression in some of its primary systems and substructures under those loads.
-
Sure, but rendezvous were still on FD#3 even before -103, and weren't there some STS flights (blue suit?) where they punched out the payload pretty quickly, like on the first orbit not long after getting the doors open? That's not the same as rendezvous, but Shuttle was obviously (famously!) intended to be ready for orbital ops pretty quickly. Ignoring the TPS inspections, is it orbital checkout procedures that were developed later, more cautiously in the program, that lead to delayed rendezvous? Or is it that flying fully heavyweight and using OMS assist, etc., limits the phasing flexibility?
I believe you are looking at it wrong. There is nothing preventing shuttle from getting there ASAP. Operationally, it isn't feasible because they are preparing the vehicle for operations once it arrives. It is as simple as that.
yes, there is, plume impingement. The shuttle can't approach the station as fast as other vehicles.
-
Sure, but rendezvous were still on FD#3 even before -103, and weren't there some STS flights (blue suit?) where they punched out the payload pretty quickly, like on the first orbit not long after getting the doors open? That's not the same as rendezvous, but Shuttle was obviously (famously!) intended to be ready for orbital ops pretty quickly. Ignoring the TPS inspections, is it orbital checkout procedures that were developed later, more cautiously in the program, that lead to delayed rendezvous? Or is it that flying fully heavyweight and using OMS assist, etc., limits the phasing flexibility?
I believe you are looking at it wrong. There is nothing preventing shuttle from getting there ASAP. Operationally, it isn't feasible because they are preparing the vehicle for operations once it arrives. It is as simple as that.
yes, there is, plume impingement. The shuttle can't approach the station as fast as other vehicles.
Plume impingment? That is a function of prox ops once you are essentially already there.
-
Something I don't understand. How can either CST-100 or Dreramchaser even be built or conduct prototype testing when NASA has not even come out with safety standards for vehicles. It seems like Spacex is taking the wiser path waiting for the report to come out. I hear they are starting development this spring as reported by Spacex with development headed by Ken Bowersox. How the report will affect CST-100 development is anyones guess.
-
Something I don't understand. How can either CST-100 or Dreramchaser even be built or conduct prototype testing when NASA has not even come out with safety standards for vehicles. It seems like Spacex is taking the wiser path waiting for the report to come out. I hear they are starting development this spring as reported by Spacex with development headed by Ken Bowersox. How the report will affect CST-100 development is anyones guess.
They have already released a human rating standards draft.
-
Something I don't understand. How can either CST-100 or Dreramchaser even be built or conduct prototype testing when NASA has not even come out with safety standards for vehicles. It seems like Spacex is taking the wiser path waiting for the report to come out. I hear they are starting development this spring as reported by Spacex with development headed by Ken Bowersox. How the report will affect CST-100 development is anyones guess.
huh? Just the opposite if you want to talk 'wiser'. Dragon is basically complete, spacex would have to undo alot more if the requirements dictate it.
This post is just blatant fanboi gushing.
-
As to the "structurally possible" comment, it was aimed at the CM, not the SM. Structurally, the Orion CM is designed to handle the loads of re-entry at interplanetary speeds while CST-100 is not. CST-100 would likely break up if it attempted a re-entry like that. While the load paths are similar, the load dissipation is different. CST-100 does not have sufficient mass in its structure to dissipate those kinds of loads resulting in the smaller structural members exceeding their yield strengths and would likely experience fatal structural compression in some of its primary systems and substructures under those loads.
Forgive me if you have already explained this elsewhere, but if you are saying that the CST-100 isn’t structurally strong enough to cope with the stresses of BLEO re-entry, how can it be expected to withstand the stresses from its pusher abort system?
-
As to the "structurally possible" comment, it was aimed at the CM, not the SM. Structurally, the Orion CM is designed to handle the loads of re-entry at interplanetary speeds while CST-100 is not. CST-100 would likely break up if it attempted a re-entry like that. While the load paths are similar, the load dissipation is different. CST-100 does not have sufficient mass in its structure to dissipate those kinds of loads resulting in the smaller structural members exceeding their yield strengths and would likely experience fatal structural compression in some of its primary systems and substructures under those loads.
Forgive me if you have already explained this elsewhere, but if you are saying that the CST-100 isn’t structurally strong enough to cope with the stresses of BLEO re-entry, how can it be expected to withstand the stresses from its pusher abort system?
Good point.
-
The idea that the CST-100 CM is structurally incapable of a BEO reentry seems speculative at best, clongton. Do you have *any* evidence to back it up?
After all, it is based on Boeings Orion proposal, it has the same moldline as Apollo.
And even IF it was true, a hypothetical block-II of CST could easily be strengthened, have a thicker heatshield, and other mods to give it such capability, it would seem.
-
1. Two questions: how do they figure "Nominal 8 hours launch to dock", when shuttle usually docks on day#3 or #4? Isn't Soyuz usually 2 days or so for orbital phasing?
Also, if the diameter is 4.5m, why is the base launcher an AV402 rather than a 502? Is it the case that, since the payload is not fully encapsulated by a standard shroud to allow for abort, such capsules really represent a different kind of payload that's not quite fish or fowl; in this case, built on the 4m payload adapter?
-Alex
1. Because it has the necessary delta V and is more "agile". Again, the shuttle paradigm is not applicable to everything. Gemini did a first orbit rendezvous. Look back at Skylab.
...
I am a big fan of early or first orbit R&D, and have used the Gemini 11 example routinely in my pitches. But the problem Boeing (and all of us looking at commercial taxis) have is that NASA says in their draft crew standard that they want two days for SAS mitigation prior to a dock. This maybe goes away if the docking or berthing is autonomous, except if NASA take the position that the crew must be ready to be backup (in which case, why go AR&D in the first place?).
-
Plume impingment? That is a function of prox ops once you are essentially already there.
Not when the vehicle would need large amount of thrusting to arrive to start prox ops.
-
Plume impingment? That is a function of prox ops once you are essentially already there.
Not when the vehicle would need large amount of thrusting to arrive to start prox ops.
Is that just because of vehicle mass?
cheers, Martin
-
As to the "structurally possible" comment, it was aimed at the CM, not the SM. Structurally, the Orion CM is designed to handle the loads of re-entry at interplanetary speeds while CST-100 is not. CST-100 would likely break up if it attempted a re-entry like that. While the load paths are similar, the load dissipation is different. CST-100 does not have sufficient mass in its structure to dissipate those kinds of loads resulting in the smaller structural members exceeding their yield strengths and would likely experience fatal structural compression in some of its primary systems and substructures under those loads.
Forgive me if you have already explained this elsewhere, but if you are saying that the CST-100 isn’t structurally strong enough to cope with the stresses of BLEO re-entry, how can it be expected to withstand the stresses from its pusher abort system?
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
-
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
That seems unlikely, given the need for an LAS to put distance between the crew and the booster as rapidly as possible. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an Orion LAS dragging an Orion CM exceeds 15 (per astronautix.com). The peak load during interplanetary re-entry can't be much higher than that.
-
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
That seems unlikely, given the need for an LAS to put distance between the crew and the booster as rapidly as possible. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an Orion LAS dragging an Orion CM exceeds 15 (per astronautix.com). The peak load during interplanetary re-entry can't be much higher than that.
Not only that, but splashdown has just as great of a load as reentry, and the splashdown load (to a first order estimate) is the same for either LEO or BLEO reentry. And the load path of splashdown also goes through the heatshield, like reentry.
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
-
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
That seems unlikely, given the need for an LAS to put distance between the crew and the booster as rapidly as possible. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an Orion LAS dragging an Orion CM exceeds 15 (per astronautix.com). The peak load during interplanetary re-entry can't be much higher than that.
Not only that, but splashdown has just as great of a load as reentry, and the splashdown load (to a first order estimate) is the same for either LEO or BLEO reentry. And the load path of splashdown also goes through the heatshield, like reentry.
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
CST-100 uses an ablator (from the AIAA paper 2010-8841 given at Space 2010):
"Base Heat Shield (BHS) Fabrication Demonstration. Boeing has previously demonstrated Boeing Lightweight Ablator (BLA) installation procedures on a 5 ft diameter carrier structure that includes forming and bonding reinforcing honeycomb to the heat shield carrier structure, mixing large batches of BLA and filling large areas of honeycomb in a single application. The CCDev BHS demonstration task is fabricating a near full scale (4.2m vs. 4.5m to allow curing in an existing autoclave) heat shield carrier structure with monolithic honeycomb reinforced BLA."
-
Forgive me if you have already explained this elsewhere, but if you are saying that the CST-100 isn’t structurally strong enough to cope with the stresses of BLEO re-entry, how can it be expected to withstand the stresses from its pusher abort system?
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
Sorry, can you explain more fully why this should be so? It doesn't seem to have been the case for Apollo. The worst case was Apollo 16, where max g during reentry was around 7g. This compares to around 16 (-1 + 3)g for a launch abort.
Source:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch5.htm
Edited for clarity
-
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
(AIUI) That seems unlikely, given the need for an LAS to put distance between the crew and the booster as rapidly as possible. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an Orion LAS dragging an Orion CM exceeds 15 (per astronautix.com). The peak load during interplanetary re-entry can't be much higher than that.
It depends on the load paths, not just total load. LAS loads will go through the rim and walls of the CM, whereas reentry loads are distributed over the TPS, with an offset peak load right where the base meets the angle of attack. Whole different scenario, as I understand it.
Atmo entry from interplanetary space can also have much higher g-loading than from cislunar; I think one of the big arguments against opposition-class missions was the 10g+ atmospheric entries.
Atmospheric entry is also bumpy, there are those peak loads to consider, as well as off-nominal ballistic entry (aiieee!!)
-
Assuming a post-Lunar entry velocity of 10.4 km/s, and a mean ISS orbital velocity of 7.7 km/s, the kinetic energy difference between the two is a factor of 1.8. That's sufficient that the TPS would need to be different, but not necessarily the structure.
Also, I'd really recommend reading the CEV chapter of the ESAS report. It has a pretty good explanation as to why the Apollo shape (60 deg cone) is actually the optimal for high-velocity reentry, with minimal sidewall heating and maximum structural strength (per given interior volume). If anything, CST-100 should therefore be easier to adapt to hypervelocity entry than Dragon. Either one, however would need considerable modifications....
-
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
Yeah, it does look like PICA. IIRC, the reason for the move from PICA to AvCoat on Orion was that you needed less overall mass for Lunar entry with AvCoat...
-
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
Yeah, it does look like PICA. IIRC, the reason for the move from PICA to AvCoat on Orion was that you needed less overall mass for Lunar entry with AvCoat...
Actually, based on the info that HMXHMX posted (a few posts up) - "filling large areas of honeycomb in a single application", it sounds more like some kind of Avcoat type heatshield instead of PICA. But it could be some sort of hybrid approach, or something different.
-
It depends on the load paths, not just total load. LAS loads will go through the rim and walls of the CM, whereas reentry loads are distributed over the TPS, with an offset peak load right where the base meets the angle of attack. Whole different scenario, as I understand it.
CST-100 has a pusher LAS, so the loads won't be as different as with an Orion-style tractor, but I see you're point that the load paths are still not exactly the same.
Atmo entry from interplanetary space can also have much higher g-loading than from cislunar; I think one of the big arguments against opposition-class missions was the 10g+ atmospheric entries.
Still human physiology won't allow loads too much larger than what the LAS already generates.
-
It depends on the load paths, not just total load. LAS loads will go through the rim and walls of the CM, whereas reentry loads are distributed over the TPS, with an offset peak load right where the base meets the angle of attack. Whole different scenario, as I understand it.
CST-100 has a pusher LAS, so the loads won't be as different as with an Orion-style tractor, but I see you're point that the load paths are still not exactly the same.
Atmo entry from interplanetary space can also have much higher g-loading than from cislunar; I think one of the big arguments against opposition-class missions was the 10g+ atmospheric entries.
Still human physiology won't allow loads too much larger than what the LAS already generates.
The range of load-paths for splashdown are also similar to reentry (i.e. through the TPS). And the (momentary) loads of splashdown are greater than reentry.
-
The range of load-paths for splashdown are also similar to reentry (i.e. through the TPS). And the (momentary) loads of splashdown are greater than reentry.
True, so I wonder about Chuck's comment about loads. Load onset (N/s) would also be higher for both LAS and splashdown. IIRC there was a pre-Apollo proposal for Gemini to be used for lunar missions, so perhaps it's not too hard?
-
Bigelow is serious about his desire to put stations at EML-1/2. Is the CST-100 capable of round trips to these [hypothetical] stations in its current design? If not, what changes need to be made, or will an entirely new vehicle need to be designed?
-
Here is Boeing press release concerning their CCDev-2 proposal:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1557
-
Bigelow is serious about his desire to put stations at EML-1/2. Is the CST-100 capable of round trips to these [hypothetical] stations in its current design?
No. The CST-100 has a lifespan of only 48 hours (2 days). EML-1 is a 4-day trip each way. EML-2 is a 9-day trip each way. It would probably be less expensive to design the spacecraft from the ground up to be capable of reaching these destinations than to try to upgrade this one. You would actually need an Orion-class spacecraft.
-
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
Yeah, it does look like PICA. IIRC, the reason for the move from PICA to AvCoat on Orion was that you needed less overall mass for Lunar entry with AvCoat...
Actually, based on the info that HMXHMX posted (a few posts up) - "filling large areas of honeycomb in a single application", it sounds more like some kind of Avcoat type heatshield instead of PICA. But it could be some sort of hybrid approach, or something different.
Could it be Aleastrasil?
-
Bigelow is serious about his desire to put stations at EML-1/2. Is the CST-100 capable of round trips to these [hypothetical] stations in its current design?
No. The CST-100 has a lifespan of only 48 hours (2 days). EML-1 is a 4-day trip each way. EML-2 is a 9-day trip each way. It would probably be less expensive to design the spacecraft from the ground up to be capable of reaching these destinations than to try to upgrade this one. You would actually need an Orion-class spacecraft.
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
-
Bigelow is serious about his desire to put stations at EML-1/2. Is the CST-100 capable of round trips to these [hypothetical] stations in its current design?
No. The CST-100 has a lifespan of only 48 hours (2 days). EML-1 is a 4-day trip each way. EML-2 is a 9-day trip each way. It would probably be less expensive to design the spacecraft from the ground up to be capable of reaching these destinations than to try to upgrade this one. You would actually need an Orion-class spacecraft.
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
No, probably would need a bigger service module akin to Orion for more fuel, electrical generation ect.
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Hab or airlock? (judging from the picture...)
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Hab or airlock? (judging from the picture...)
Oops. Wrong picture. That was the airlock. I will edit my post in order to attach the right image of the habitat.
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Nah. It would massively increase the mission cost and turn it into a two-launch mission. It would be easier to simply build a BEO version with a service module and restrict crew sizes to four or less.
In the long-term, I'd expect to see something like a crewed ATV being used to shuttle crews from LEO to EML rather than there being direct ascent crew transfer to EML.
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Nah. It would massively increase the mission cost and turn it into a two-launch mission. It would be easier to simply build a BEO version with a service module and restrict crew sizes to four or less.
In the long-term, I'd expect to see something like a crewed ATV being used to shuttle crews from LEO to EML rather than there being direct ascent crew transfer to EML.
Why crewed ATV?
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Nah. It would massively increase the mission cost and turn it into a two-launch mission. It would be easier to simply build a BEO version with a service module and restrict crew sizes to four or less.
In the long-term, I'd expect to see something like a crewed ATV being used to shuttle crews from LEO to EML rather than there being direct ascent crew transfer to EML.
Why crewed ATV?
Something like a crewed ATV, not necessarily a crewed ATV in particular. It would just look a lot like an ATV at first glance.
To wit: a solar array-equipped service module attached to a microgravity-optimised crew module (possibly Node or MPLM-derived). Likely a storable propellent MPS designed to refuel in LEO in between flights. I believe that Buzz Aldrin came up with a similar idea for an ISS-to-LLO shuttle and I'm sure lots of other theorists have too.
-
Would it help if you added a habitat module to the CST-100 similar to the one proposed for Orion (see image below).
Nah. It would massively increase the mission cost and turn it into a two-launch mission. It would be easier to simply build a BEO version with a service module and restrict crew sizes to four or less.
In the long-term, I'd expect to see something like a crewed ATV being used to shuttle crews from LEO to EML rather than there being direct ascent crew transfer to EML.
Why crewed ATV?
Something like a crewed ATV, not necessarily a crewed ATV in particular. It would just look a lot like an ATV at first glance.
To wit: a solar array-equipped service module attached to a microgravity-optimised crew module (possibly Node or MPLM-derived). Likely a storable propellent MPS designed to refuel in LEO in between flights. I believe that Buzz Aldrin came up with a similar idea for an ISS-to-LLO shuttle and I'm sure lots of other theorists have too.
Why not Dragon with a service module?
-
Why not Dragon with a service module?
What he is describing is an hab plus some sort of service module. One of the scifiish dreams of spaceflight would be a spacecraft that was built for inspace use only, was resuable, and boardable from LEO.
If you had large scale propellant transfer up you could travel back and foward from any desintation to LEO. You could then use a spacecraft adapted for space rather than a capsule which is adapted for renetry and landing.
In this context the cst100 or the dragon are not ideal.
However the reality of both moving large amounts of propellants as well as the cost dictate that whatever craft goes BEO will return via direct reentry rather than be refueled/restocked.
The only way around it would be to use areocapture and the technology needed to do that is currently lacking.
On intresting comprimise could be a spacecraft that uses electric propulsion, or areobraking, or an electrodynamic teather to return to LEO unmanned. Theese methods are generally too slow and expose the crew to too much radiation to be practical for manned return trip. In this case the crew could depart via a capsule(a BEO capable CST100 or dragon) and the craft could bring itself to the ISS(or other station) for restocking. However if this is worth it is debateable.
-
{snip}
On intresting comprimise could be a spacecraft that uses electric propulsion, or areobraking, or an electrodynamic teather to return to LEO unmanned. Theese methods are generally too slow and expose the crew to too much radiation to be practical for manned return trip. In this case the crew could depart via a capsule(a BEO capable CST100 or dragon) and the craft could bring itself to the ISS(or other station) for restocking. However if this is worth it is debateable.
A modified version of this may be viable. The empty SEP tanker tows the empty EDS back from EML1 to the LEO depot. Manned capsule makes a direct re-entry from EML1. Manned reusable MTV and lunar landers return to EML1 depot.
A mission would look something like:
* launch vehicles (LV) take propellant to the LEO propellant depot (Option - use reusable launch vehicles RLV)
* reusable solar electric propulsion (SEP) tug takes propellent from the LEO depot to the Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1/2 (EML1/2) depot
* LV lifts manned capsule to LEO depot where it rendezvous with the reusable manrated Earth Departure Stage (EDS)
* the EDS is refuelled and flies the capsule and astronauts to the EML1/2 depot
* at the EML1/2 depot the astronauts transfer to the lunar lander or Mars Transfer Vehicle which is refuelled
* the capsule is parked
* the manned spacecraft then goes to the Moon or Mars
* the empty SEP tug tows the EDS back to the LEO depot
* at the end of the mission the manned spacecraft returns to EML1 and the astronauts transfer to the capsule
* the spacecraft is parked
* the astronauts return to Earth in the capsule by direct re-entry
* repeat.
-
Fourth quarter update for CCDev-1 for the Boeing CST-100:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
-
Some random tweets from FAA Commercial Space Transportation meeting, #astconf:
Keith Reiley, Boeing talking about their CST-100 capsule, no solar arrays just batteries, reuse for 10 flights, had SDR in Aug 2010
Boeing CST-100 ready by 2015 operational, will uses APAS, DARPA orbital express tech, airbags from Orion, using existing tech
Boeing's John Elbon says they've started to look at selling the CST-100 to other countries to launch on their own vehicles.
Boeing CST-100 slide now includes new Liberty launch vehicle alongside Atlas 5, Delta 4, and Falcon 9 as compatible launchers.
-
APAS? Why not LIDS or something similar?
-
APAS? Why not LIDS or something similar?
I imagine to leverage existing assets (hardware, certifications / qualifications, maintanence, ground, and flight crew experience).
Not that starting with an APAS limits them to an APAS forever though.
-
Boeing's John Elbon says they've started to look at selling the CST-100 to other countries to launch on their own vehicles.
Now who could that be?
ESA, JAXA, and ISRO all have "their own vehicles", but no extant manned spacecraft. ESA may be tricky politically, and ISRO is already developing their own capsule, so JAXA?
-
APAS? Why not LIDS or something similar?
Because Europe (and others) are locked in to APAS. They see Soyuz as a rival for the same business.
Plus consider your footprint for ITAR in foreign "situations". It looks like they can't depend on US-only business.
-
APAS is not a biggie, I would think. It looks like the planned docking adapters on ISS (post-Shuttle) will be compatible with both APAS and IDSS/LIDS. (but I could be wrong)
-
An interesting update on the CST-100:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/10cst100/
Pad and ascent abort tests are scheduled for 2013 and 2014, followed by an automated unmanned orbital demo mission. A two-person team of Boeing test pilots will ride the ship to orbit on the first manned mission in 2015, Elbon said.
-
An interesting update on the CST-100:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/10cst100/
Pad and ascent abort tests are scheduled for 2013 and 2014, followed by an automated unmanned orbital demo mission. A two-person team of Boeing test pilots will ride the ship to orbit on the first manned mission in 2015, Elbon said.
Also found that part to be very interesting. Imagine being those test pilots...probably signed up thinking the would be flying fighter aircraft / commercial aircraft and now have the opportunity to become astronauts. This of course is assuming Boeing is going to look to its existing test pilots. I guess they could also hire former / current NASA astronauts for the job as well.
-
I guess they could also hire former / current NASA astronauts for the job as well.
That I find more likely; with the retirement of shuttle, there is going to a glut of highly-trained astronauts on the market, and Boeing can have the pick of the litter.
Also interesting in the article that they seem to be focusing on India as their first potential foreign customer. It would make sense, in that ISRO's core competency is launches, and buying/licensing CST-100 would allow a jump from their current Gemini-class program to a 7-person, station-dockable spacecraft (putting them ahead of the Chinese)...
-
Also interesting in the article that they seem to be focusing on India as their first potential foreign customer. It would make sense, in that ISRO's core competency is launches, and buying/licensing CST-100 would allow a jump from their current Gemini-class program to a 7-person, station-dockable spacecraft (putting them ahead of the Chinese)...
IMO, India will only be interested if they there is a clear path to domestication of the technology, not just off-the-shelf capsules. Even with relaxed restrictions, I would expect significant political opposition from the US side to this.
This is what they tried to do with the GSLV upper stage, only to be thwarted US pressure on Russia. It is also what they did with Viking/Vikas hypergolic engines, and is what they do with many of the high value defense contracts with Russia.
Given their experience with GSLV, I would expect them to be quite reluctant to put the whims of US export regulations in the critical path of their space program.
-
Also interesting in the article that they seem to be focusing on India as their first potential foreign customer. It would make sense, in that ISRO's core competency is launches, and buying/licensing CST-100 would allow a jump from their current Gemini-class program to a 7-person, station-dockable spacecraft (putting them ahead of the Chinese)...
IMO, India will only be interested if they there is a clear path to domestication of the technology, not just off-the-shelf capsules. Even with relaxed restrictions, I would expect significant political opposition from the US side to this.
This is what they tried to do with the GSLV upper stage, only to be thwarted US pressure on Russia. It is also what they did with Viking/Vikas hypergolic engines, and is what they do with many of the high value defense contracts with Russia.
Given their experience with GSLV, I would expect them to be quite reluctant to put the whims of US export regulations in the critical path of their space program.
Or maybe this is not a new idea and they are not just saying it to the press just to say it. ....
-
Also interesting in the article that they seem to be focusing on India as their first potential foreign customer. It would make sense, in that ISRO's core competency is launches, and buying/licensing CST-100 would allow a jump from their current Gemini-class program to a 7-person, station-dockable spacecraft (putting them ahead of the Chinese)...
IMO, India will only be interested if they there is a clear path to domestication of the technology, not just off-the-shelf capsules. Even with relaxed restrictions, I would expect significant political opposition from the US side to this.
This is what they tried to do with the GSLV upper stage, only to be thwarted US pressure on Russia. It is also what they did with Viking/Vikas hypergolic engines, and is what they do with many of the high value defense contracts with Russia.
Given their experience with GSLV, I would expect them to be quite reluctant to put the whims of US export regulations in the critical path of their space program.
It seems to be too good of a deal to pass up even with the export regulations.
The CST-100 would pretty much put ISRO far ahead of the Chinese almost over night.
They would get a 7 place vehicle that will have been flight tested that has easy evolution paths to a lunar vehicle.
I can see India eventually licensing parts of the CST-100 design for their own domestically produced capsule.
Much like how they licensed production of Su-30K fighter from Russia.
-
Europe, Japan, India, Brazil (soon more) have considerable pressure to accomplish HSF. Bigelow would sell own "mini ISS" habs into that quite nicely.
At some point you get too far behind to play "catch up". So you may do like Korea and acquire from outside certain systems to "jump ahead".
-
Europe, Japan, India, Brazil (soon more) have considerable pressure to accomplish HSF. Bigelow would sell own "mini ISS" habs into that quite nicely.
At some point you get too far behind to play "catch up". So you may do like Korea and acquire from outside certain systems to "jump ahead".
If this happens (with multiple countries, each wanting their own space station, crew capsule, etc.), it'd be a game-changer.
-
Or maybe this is not a new idea and they are not just saying it to the press just to say it. ....
It doesn't matter if it's new or not, the political hurdles are real. I'm not claiming it *couldn't* happen, all I'm saying is
1) Buying the capsule without a path to domesticating the technology would be out of character for the Indian side, and would face serious political opposition there.
2) Technology transfer would face difficulties on the US side.
Boeing obviously knows this, but they have motive to give the impression of potential customers beyond NASA. That doesn't mean they are lying: no doubt they would like to make the sale, and even if they believe the odds are low, they are under no obligation to say so.
From the Indian side, this could be a way of squeezing a better deal out of the Russians for some kind of joint development.
The CST-100 would pretty much put ISRO far ahead of the Chinese almost over night.
Difference is Chinese have actual capability, while without technology transfer, the Indians would just be dumping money into a foreign company and putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign government.
I can see India eventually licensing parts of the CST-100 design for their own domestically produced capsule.
The question is whether the US government would allow this, and if so, whether the Indians would be comfortable trusting the US keep it's word. ISRO in particular has been burned quite badly by US export control policy (not just on GSLV, it was reportedly a major headache for Chantrayaan I).
-
Or maybe this is not a new idea and they are not just saying it to the press just to say it. ....
It doesn't matter if it's new or not, the political hurdles are real. I'm not claiming it *couldn't* happen, all I'm saying is
1) Buying the capsule without a path to domesticating the technology would be out of character for the Indian side, and would face serious political opposition there.
2) Technology transfer would face difficulties on the US side.
Boeing obviously knows this, but they have motive to give the impression of potential customers beyond NASA. That doesn't mean they are lying: no doubt they would like to make the sale, and even if they believe the odds are low, they are under no obligation to say so.
From the Indian side, this could be a way of squeezing a better deal out of the Russians for some kind of joint development.
I seriously doubt Boeing, certainly at this stage, would consider licensing them anything.
I also doubt Boeing would say anything publically unless there were certain indications that this is a possibility and discussions have already taken place somehow and someway.
-
Europe, Japan, India, Brazil (soon more) have considerable pressure to accomplish HSF. Bigelow would sell own "mini ISS" habs into that quite nicely.
At some point you get too far behind to play "catch up". So you may do like Korea and acquire from outside certain systems to "jump ahead".
One country that comes to mind is Germany: a financial powerhouse. Seeing how few of their citizens/astronauts make it to the ISS, they may wish to persue a parallel path. And as you say, 'mini ISS' labs helps to distance themselves from other nations for commercially unique/sensitive technology development.
It's also a great bio lab possibility.
-
With regard to India using the CST-100 wouldn't the plan be the same for all customers, including NASA? Ie launch astronauts on a US vehicle from a US launchpad possibly with a Boeing crew and the capsule and systems be owned by the company and not the US or India government?
-
With regard to India using the CST-100 wouldn't the plan be the same for all customers, including NASA? Ie launch astronauts on a US vehicle from a US launchpad possibly with a Boeing crew and the capsule and systems be owned by the company and not the US or India government?
I would think there are multiple ways to do it. NASA in theory could purchase the vehicle for "one trip" placing all NASA astronauts on board who are certified on that vehicle.
NASA (or Bigelow or whoever) could purchase "seats" and have Boeing-employed astronauts take them wherever.
A country, like India or someone else, could purchase the entire vehicle and retain ownership and custody of that vehicle performing all operations with only engineering support from Boeing.
I would personally expect to see a combination of all these things.
-
Difference is Chinese have actual capability, while without technology transfer, the Indians would just be dumping money into a foreign company and putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign government.
The Chinese got a lot of help from the Russians and stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
A licensed CST-100 would not be too different of a situation esp if they eventually produce a variant themselves.
But the main advantage is it would allow them to leap frog over the early stages and their first truly domestic vehicle could be something more along the lines of Dragon or DreamChaser vs something that is already outdated as far as manned spacecraft go.
But I will agree ITAR does need reformed India should not be on the restricted list and in fact should be given technology to counter the influence of destabilizing powers in the region.
OT but I think a strong India would be in our best interests as far as stability in the region is concerned and as a counter to China's influence.
-
The Chinese [...] stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
Evidence?
-
Difference is Chinese have actual capability, while without technology transfer, the Indians would just be dumping money into a foreign company and putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign government.
The Chinese got a lot of help from the Russians and stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
A licensed CST-100 would not be too different of a situation esp if they produce their variant themselves.
But the main advantage is it would allow them to leap frog over the early stages and their first truly domestic vehicle could be something more along the lines of Dragon or DreamChaser vs something that is already outdated as far as manned spacecraft go.
Shenzhou is a very limited design compared to just about every commercial vehicle out there.
But I will agree ITAR does need reformed India should not be on the restricted list and in fact should be given technology to counter China's influence in the region.
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
-
The Chinese [...] stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
Evidence?
"Stole" is a rather strong word. Let's just say that Chinese industry doesn't respect intellectual property or proprietary data. However, in the case of their space industry, a lot of that information was actually given to them by the US government in exchange for a favourable trade relationship.
-
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
-
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
Really? I was unaware that Soyuz used an organic base for their heatshield. I understood they used a metalic base instead.
-
The Chinese [...] stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
Evidence?
"Stole" is a rather strong word. Let's just say that Chinese industry doesn't respect intellectual property or proprietary data. However, in the case of their space industry, a lot of that information was actually given to them by the US government in exchange for a favourable trade relationship.
I remember reading the YF -20B may have been based loosely off the LR-87 from stolen documents on the Titian vehicle.
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
Really? I was unaware that Soyuz used an organic base for their heatshield. I understood they used a metalic base instead.
I never heard of a metallic heat shield on a capsule except for the beryllium heat shield on early mercury flights.
I as far as I know Soyuz's heatshield was phenolic resin based which is an organic compound.
The sides and uppers I think is polydimethylsiloxane like on the Discoverer capsules.
Though wood specifically oak was used on the Chinese FSW reentry vehicle and I think cork was used on some very early US MIRVs.
In either case it's probably highly processed wood that has been impregnated with some sorta epoxy resin.
Cork in a highly processed form also found use in the MER rovers aeroshell.
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_edl_aeroshell.html
-
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
Really? I was unaware that Soyuz used an organic base for their heatshield. I understood they used a metalic base instead.
I thought Soyuz's heatshield was phenolic resin based which is an organic compound.
Though wood specifically oak was used on the Chinese FSW reentry vehicle and cork some very early US MIRVs.
Right, I knew about the oak, did not know about the resin. Learn something new every day.
-
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
Really? I was unaware that Soyuz used an organic base for their heatshield. I understood they used a metalic base instead.
I thought Soyuz's heatshield was phenolic resin based which is an organic compound.
Though wood specifically oak was used on the Chinese FSW reentry vehicle and cork some very early US MIRVs.
Right, I knew about the oak, did not know about the resin. Learn something new every day.
I suspect Shenzhou may have an Avcoat TPS as seen in these photos.
I don't have a photo of the main heat shield but the side wall looks a lot like Avcoat.
I also wonder will the CST-100 use Avcoat as well or will it use PICA.
I do suspect the ballistic coefficient of the CST-100 would be too high for ceramic tiles like the Shuttle.
Though with the Apollo shape the side wall heating is not too bad and they probably could get away with LSI ceramic blankets on the upper.
-
I remember reading the YF -20B may have been based loosely off the LR-87 from stolen documents on the Titian vehicle.
The only time I've heard about China stealing Titan technology was in the 1990s when a report compiled under the leadership of Rep. Cox of California claimed that Tsien Hsue-shen (Qian Xuesen in the more modern Pinyin transcription) had stolen Titan secrets. Since Tsien left the US in 1950 and Titan didn't begin until 1955 (and that was the Titan I, not the Titan II, which bears more resemblance to China's rockets), the claim seems ridiculous. Add in the fact that Cox was the very same person who was caught asleep at the wheel of the SEC as the credit markets imploded circa 2007, and I'm inclined to believe that the claims of Chinese theft of Titan technology are little more than careless scaremongering.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to fall into confirmation bias; because we suspect the Chinese of stealing technology, our minds tend to transform unsubstantiated suggestions that they may have done so into the belief that such theft is an established fact.
P.S. I assume you refer to the "Titan" rocket; if Renaissance artist Titian was building launch vehicles, I'd like to hear more about it! :):):)
-
I also wonder will the CST-100 use Avcoat as well or will it use PICA.
I do suspect the ballistic coefficient of the CST-100 would be too high for ceramic tiles like the Shuttle.
Though with the Apollo shape the side wall heating is not too bad and they probably could get away with LSI ceramic blankets on the upper.
Niether Avcoat nor PICA:BLA heat shield. I think it stands for Boeling Lightweight Abalive. I have lost the link with the info but is is made to need less labor to create.
-
Difference is Chinese have actual capability, while without technology transfer, the Indians would just be dumping money into a foreign company and putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign government.
The Chinese got a lot of help from the Russians and stole a lot of stuff from the US to accomplish what they did.
How they obtained it is irrelevant. The important point is they gained the capability, rather than just buying very expensive black boxes from a foreign supplier who can cut them off if the political winds change. Simply buying spacecraft doesn't make you a space capable nation.
If India past behavior is anything to go on (again, see Vikas, KVRB, Su-30MKI, Brahmos...) they will require the same. Any sales plan that doesn't take this into account is likely doomed in India.
Your allegation the Chinese stole substantial US technology for Shenzhou is unsubstantiated. They bought Soyuz tech from the Russians fair and square, and did significant development of their own.
-
I also wonder will the CST-100 use Avcoat as well or will it use PICA.
I do suspect the ballistic coefficient of the CST-100 would be too high for ceramic tiles like the Shuttle.
Though with the Apollo shape the side wall heating is not too bad and they probably could get away with LSI ceramic blankets on the upper.
Niether Avcoat nor PICA:BLA heat shield. I think it stands for Boeling Lightweight Abalive. I have lost the link with the info but is is made to need less labor to create.
Would be interesting to see some of the vague performance specs on it along with arcjet testing of samples.
Hard numbers are probably ITAR restricted if not that company proprietary information.
Spacx's PICA-X seems to require significant cleaning of the vehicle between flights.
Though Dragon still looked pretty clean compared to an Apollo,Soyuz or Shezhou.
-
Would be interesting to see some of the vague performance specs on it along with arcjet testing of samples.
Hard numbers are probably ITAR restricted if not that company proprietary information.
Spacx's PICA-X seems to require significant cleaning of the vehicle between flights.
Though Dragon still looked pretty clean compared to an Apollo,Soyuz or Shezhou.
My guess not BEO capable. Given the LEO focus of CST100 and given that NASA did not evaluate the material for Orion.
-
Would be interesting to see some of the vague performance specs on it along with arcjet testing of samples.
Hard numbers are probably ITAR restricted if not that company proprietary information.
Spacx's PICA-X seems to require significant cleaning of the vehicle between flights.
Though Dragon still looked pretty clean compared to an Apollo,Soyuz or Shezhou.
My guess not BEO capable. Given the LEO focus of CST100 and given that NASA did not evaluate the material for Orion.
Regarding the heatshield: It's an ablative. It'd probably be fine for BEO... probably as-is (being a little conservative for the first few flights is probably wise) but certainly if you made it thicker.
There are other things that may need to be different, though:
*structural loads are different... (CST-100 structurally may be just fine for BEO reentry, but we don't know since we aren't Boeing)
*other parts of the vehicle exterior may need more protection from heating
-
My guess not BEO capable. Given the LEO focus of CST100 and given that NASA did not evaluate the material for Orion.
According to this post, John Elbon says it's aimed at LEO only: http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=27126
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the basic design couldn't be upgraded for other missions. How difficult it would be depends on details we don't know about CST-100 and details of the chosen mission.
As things currently stand, it's definitely less capable than Shenzhou in some respects, since it has very limited endurance in free flight.
-
My guess not BEO capable. Given the LEO focus of CST100 and given that NASA did not evaluate the material for Orion.
According to this post, John Elbon says it's aimed at LEO only: http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=27126
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the basic design couldn't be upgraded for other missions. How difficult it would be depends on details we don't know about CST-100 and details of the chosen mission.
As things currently stand, it's definitely less capable than Shenzhou in some respects, since it has very limited endurance in free flight.
It most likely would need an upgraded SM with solar panels for BEO missions and the crew cut down to four.
Other issues the window placement and design may or may not need tweaking and the structure may need reinforcement.
If you look at the Shenzhou DM pic I posted you'll see significant plasma burns to the window and even some erosion to the bezel.
This may need to be addressed before it can fly a lunar mission safely.
-
Sidewall heating is much less on the Apollo mouldline, and the Chinese are new to the game. I don't think that much modification would be required.
-
I do not see how Shenzhou is limited, honestly. It looks, from a design standpoint, to be at least as capable as Soyuz, which is lunar capable. I'll admit, their heatshield idea was quite inventive.
It seem pretty much the same as Soyuz's heat shield even down to jettisoning it before landing.
I will admit the free flying orbital module was clever though maybe a little risky as you have to jettison the BO before retro fire.
As far as calling it limited how does it compare to Dragon, Orion , or even the CST-100?
Really? I was unaware that Soyuz used an organic base for their heatshield. I understood they used a metalic base instead.
I thought Soyuz's heatshield was phenolic resin based which is an organic compound.
Though wood specifically oak was used on the Chinese FSW reentry vehicle and cork some very early US MIRVs.
Right, I knew about the oak, did not know about the resin. Learn something new every day.
I suspect Shenzhou may have an Avcoat TPS as seen in these photos.
I don't have a photo of the main heat shield but the side wall looks a lot like Avcoat.
I also wonder will the CST-100 use Avcoat as well or will it use PICA.
I do suspect the ballistic coefficient of the CST-100 would be too high for ceramic tiles like the Shuttle.
Though with the Apollo shape the side wall heating is not too bad and they probably could get away with LSI ceramic blankets on the upper.
Shenzhou doesn't use Avcoat, it's an American made product that has never been used on a non-American vehicle. If Shenzhou was using Avcoat we would know.
The CST-100 will use an ablative heat shield but from the stories I've read it doesn't sound like the CST-100 will use either Avcoat or PICA, if anyone knows differently than post it here.
"The capsule could then receive a new heat shield and be refurbished to fly again."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/07/20/14.xml&headline=Commercial%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Plan%20Unveiled (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/07/20/14.xml&headline=Commercial%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Plan%20Unveiled)
Would be interesting to see some of the vague performance specs on it along with arcjet testing of samples.
Hard numbers are probably ITAR restricted if not that company proprietary information.
Spacx's PICA-X seems to require significant cleaning of the vehicle between flights.
Though Dragon still looked pretty clean compared to an Apollo,Soyuz or Shezhou.
My guess not BEO capable. Given the LEO focus of CST100 and given that NASA did not evaluate the material for Orion.
I believe a PICA heat shield is both lighter than Avcoat and can survive higher velocity re-entries.
-
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Successfully Hot-Fire Tests Launch Abort Demonstration Engine for Boeing's CST-100 Spacecraft:
http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Press+Releases/Pratt+%26+Whitney+Rocketdyne+Successfully+Hot-Fire+Tests+Launch+Abort+Demonstration+Engine+for+Boeing%27s+CST-100+Spacecraft
-
Nice to see old hardware for new vehicles ;-)
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs88.htm
-
The press release mentions using the leftover abort propellant to reboost ISS, but wouldn't CST-100 be docked at the wrong side?
-
The press release mentions using the leftover abort propellant to reboost ISS, but wouldn't CST-100 be docked at the wrong side?
The station can rotate, just as it does now for shuttle reboosts.
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
Apparently Boeing's been saying they can use that LAS propellant to reboost the ISS. Something I don't think Dragon can do.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/
-
Direct re-entry from interplanetary space will stress the vehicle structure considerably more than the pusher LAS engines.
That seems unlikely, given the need for an LAS to put distance between the crew and the booster as rapidly as possible. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an Orion LAS dragging an Orion CM exceeds 15 (per astronautix.com). The peak load during interplanetary re-entry can't be much higher than that.
Not only that, but splashdown has just as great of a load as reentry, and the splashdown load (to a first order estimate) is the same for either LEO or BLEO reentry. And the load path of splashdown also goes through the heatshield, like reentry.
And, it looks to me (based on color, ablativeness, and segmentedness) that CST-100 is using PICA, which is certainly capable of BLEO reentry (with the right thickness, of course). I am not 100% certain it's PICA, but it sure looks like it.
I think Boeing plans for a land touchdown, according to that slideshow reference a few pages back. Not sure if that'd be harder or softer on the structure than a splashdown.
-
I think Boeing plans for a land touchdown, according to that slideshow reference a few pages back. Not sure if that'd be harder or softer on the structure than a splashdown.
Everything depends on the contact speed. If the capsule just makes a direct parachute descent followed by lithobraking (ramming into the ground without shock absorbers), then the stresses are a lot worse than splashdown. If, like Dragon and Soyuz, you use rockets to slow your final descent or, if like the original Orion, you use airbags, then the force can be significantly reduced.
-
Or maybe this is not a new idea and they are not just saying it to the press just to say it. ....
It doesn't matter if it's new or not, the political hurdles are real. I'm not claiming it *couldn't* happen, all I'm saying is
1) Buying the capsule without a path to domesticating the technology would be out of character for the Indian side, and would face serious political opposition there.
2) Technology transfer would face difficulties on the US side.
Boeing obviously knows this, but they have motive to give the impression of potential customers beyond NASA. That doesn't mean they are lying: no doubt they would like to make the sale, and even if they believe the odds are low, they are under no obligation to say so.
From the Indian side, this could be a way of squeezing a better deal out of the Russians for some kind of joint development.
I seriously doubt Boeing, certainly at this stage, would consider licensing them anything.
I also doubt Boeing would say anything publically unless there were certain indications that this is a possibility and discussions have already taken place somehow and someway.
Maybe they can do somethign like selling seats, or the whole mission, to a foreign government, but still retain operation control over the CST-100 and the launch facility. Basically, it'd still launch from wherever Boeing is launching it from, just that all the seats on a capsule would be reserved for whoever or whatever India wanted to put on it. Other countries may eventually want heir own in house launch system, but in the interim, they can send their astronauts into space, to the ISS or to a Bigelow station, or two a station they launched on their own cargo lifter, etc, they'd just do it from Whatever LC is launching the CST-100 in the US. I think they'd want to do this so another country didn't just tear it apart and reverse engineer their own capsule, or another country didn't get "sloppy" on their integration and mission control, and a crew of humans goes down burning up form orbit. YEa, it'll come out that it wasn't Boeing's fault, but I'm sure they wouldn't even want the bad press that it was their capsule that crashed. They'd probably want to control that themselves to minimize the risk of that.
-
Bigelow is serious about his desire to put stations at EML-1/2. Is the CST-100 capable of round trips to these [hypothetical] stations in its current design?
No. The CST-100 has a lifespan of only 48 hours (2 days). EML-1 is a 4-day trip each way. EML-2 is a 9-day trip each way. It would probably be less expensive to design the spacecraft from the ground up to be capable of reaching these destinations than to try to upgrade this one. You would actually need an Orion-class spacecraft.
I'd imagine that an L-point station would be well down the road with Bigelow. I'm sure they want to get a LEO station up and running and generating revenue before he start's tacking L-points. However, down the road at that time, if Dragon is designed for BLEO use, then perhaps a Dragon outfitted for BLEO service, with probably an upgraded SM and upper stage, could be used. Probably launched on an F9H?
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
Apparently Boeing's been saying they can use that LAS propellant to reboost the ISS. Something I don't think Dragon can do.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/
It could in theory, but the cosine losses would be awful.
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
Apparently Boeing's been saying they can use that LAS propellant to reboost the ISS. Something I don't think Dragon can do.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/
It could in theory, but the cosine losses would be awful.
Where the Dragon berths, the torques would be the worse problem. CST-100 could at least thrust through the CG.
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
Apparently Boeing's been saying they can use that LAS propellant to reboost the ISS. Something I don't think Dragon can do.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/
It could in theory, but the cosine losses would be awful.
Where the Dragon berths, the torques would be the worse problem. CST-100 could at least thrust through the CG.
True for the cargo Dragon berthing to a CBM, but the crew vehicle will dock to the same LIDS port the CST-100 would use.
-
Besides, I think the point for Dragon is to use the leftover LAS prop to do a propulsive landing. So, the prop probably isn't available for reboost with Dragon, but would just be thrown away otherwise with CST-100.
-
Only true if it comes down on land. Is there any reason that a crew Dragon couldn't do a water touchdown, allowing the remaining fuel to be used for reboost if one were due?
-
For what it's worth, I really don't think the main abort motors double as service module engines, though it looks like the LAS pitch/yaw/roll thruster housing also do double for housing the service module thrusters. The large abort motors look rather inefficient (throat to exit area ratio) for vacuum service module thrusters, and unless you do deep throttling (which usually greatly lowers Isp at low throttle), you're going to be giving the astronauts quite a jolt just for a nominal service module burn. No, the abort motors aren't used as service module thrusters.
Apparently Boeing's been saying they can use that LAS propellant to reboost the ISS. Something I don't think Dragon can do.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/
It could in theory, but the cosine losses would be awful.
Don't know that it would matter much. The propellent would just be jettisoned and lost anyway before reentry. So even if it's not an efficient boost, might as well get what you can out of it.
-
Only true if it comes down on land. Is there any reason that a crew Dragon couldn't do a water touchdown, allowing the remaining fuel to be used for reboost if one were due?
Sure they could do a water landing, and they will at first I'm sure. I doubt propulsive landing will be how the first few crews come home. However, if and when they get that dialed in, I'm sure they wouldn't want to do a water landing any more, which means the Dragon propellent wouldn't be available for reboosts. Unless there was an emergency situation or something. Then they could use the LAS propellant for a reboost and then do a backup water landing. I'm sure they could do that as a contingency, but it wouldn't be what SpaceX wants to do if they get their propulsive landings dialed in.
Besides, if CST-100 is flying you can just reboost with that, and with ATV.
-
I'm sure they'll try the powered landing several times with returning cargo only vehicles before they think about trying it on crewed vehicles.
-
I'm sure they'll try the powered landing several times with returning cargo only vehicles before they think about trying it on crewed vehicles.
If they're only transporting crew than how would they test it with cargo?
-
Then they could use the LAS propellant for a reboost and then do a backup water landing. I'm sure they could do that as a contingency, but it wouldn't be what SpaceX wants to do if they get their propulsive landings dialed in.
Besides, if CST-100 is flying you can just reboost with that, and with ATV.
Are you aware of the amount of thrust required for an abort and what consequences that would have on ISS? (assuming all the other potential issues were already resolved)
-
Then they could use the LAS propellant for a reboost and then do a backup water landing. I'm sure they could do that as a contingency, but it wouldn't be what SpaceX wants to do if they get their propulsive landings dialed in.
Besides, if CST-100 is flying you can just reboost with that, and with ATV.
Are you aware of the amount of thrust required for an abort and what consequences that would have on ISS? (assuming all the other potential issues were already resolved)
It would be much more logical to do a reboost with a cargo Dragon and not with a crew dragon.
-
Then they could use the LAS propellant for a reboost and then do a backup water landing. I'm sure they could do that as a contingency, but it wouldn't be what SpaceX wants to do if they get their propulsive landings dialed in.
Besides, if CST-100 is flying you can just reboost with that, and with ATV.
Are you aware of the amount of thrust required for an abort and what consequences that would have on ISS? (assuming all the other potential issues were already resolved)
It would be much more logical to do a reboost with a cargo Dragon and not with a crew dragon.
No, it would not, due to the off-axis torque generated on ISS. Cargo Dragon will be berthed to the nadir and/or zenith CBMs on Node 2 and the moment arms would be quite large.
-
Are you aware of the amount of thrust required for an abort and what consequences that would have on ISS? (assuming all the other potential issues were already resolved)
Well, both Dragon and CST-100 use multiple cross-fed chambers to produce the thrust necessary for abort. In a reboost case, they'd likely just use one of the chambers (of 8 on Dragon and 4 on CST-100).
What's the thrust-to-weight when Shuttle does a reboost?
-
Shuttle uses 24-pound verniers (not even primary RCS (~860lbs) or OMS) to do station reboosts.
If Dragon or CST-100 did reboosts, they'd use the manuevering thrusters, using the same propellant tanks as used for aborts. Most definitely not the same thrusters.
-
What's the thrust-to-weight when Shuttle does a reboost?
Very low, they frequently use the verniers (I believe primary RCS has also been used, never OMS.) The last reboost took 26 minutes for a dV of 1.1 m/s
Progress reboosts are also frequently done with small maneuvering thrusters rather than the main engines.
-
What's the thrust-to-weight when Shuttle does a reboost?
Very low, they frequently use the verniers (I believe primary RCS has also been used, never OMS.) The last reboost took 26 minutes for a dV of 1.1 m/s
Progress reboosts are also frequently done with small maneuvering thrusters rather than the main engines.
Shuttle hasn't done primary RCS reboosts in a long time (since the truss was built, IIRC). ISS is just too big and loads-sensitive now for that.
-
Then they could use the LAS propellant for a reboost and then do a backup water landing. I'm sure they could do that as a contingency, but it wouldn't be what SpaceX wants to do if they get their propulsive landings dialed in.
Besides, if CST-100 is flying you can just reboost with that, and with ATV.
Are you aware of the amount of thrust required for an abort and what consequences that would have on ISS? (assuming all the other potential issues were already resolved)
Boeing is claiming CST-100 can reboost the ISS with it's unused LAS propellent. If you think that's a problem, I'd recommend taking it up with them...
I assume since it's a liquid engine and they've already hot-fired it, it is capable of being throttled so that it wouldn't jolt the ISS too much when ignited, and/or they could just ignite one engine (of the 4) throttled down to do a more gentle reboost.
I think they are using the RS-88 engine?
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs88.htm
But I don't know really anything for sure about the engine myself.
-
A bit of an update:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/04/04/01.xml&headline=Boeing%20Targets%20Key%20Space%20Systems
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOv1ew1GPKc
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOv1ew1GPKc
That was cool. :)
-
I figure this needs to go here.
http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/110413-boeing-nears-selection-cst100.html
-
Elbon said Boeing has designed the 13-metric-ton CST-100 to be capable of launching to the international space station and other low Earth orbit destinations atop a variety of rockets, including United Launch Alliance’s Delta 4 and Atlas 5, the Space Exploration Technologies-built Falcon 9, the European Ariane 5 and the proposed Liberty rocket that would be built by Minneapolis-based ATK and Les Mureaux, France-based Astrium Space Transportation.
“But we need to select one so we can do a point solution, build a launch vehicle adapter and do the test flights,” Elbon said, adding “we have to work with the launch vehicle provider to make sure that the launch pad is capable of human access and that sort of thing.”
Predict that the LV will be an Atlas V 400, and probably will be the only one used.
-
More interesting news on the CST-100 it may be an export item.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/13/boeing-discussions-launching-cst100-ariane-5-hii/
Not sure how they'll pull it off but then Boeing has a lot of clout in Washington and if anyone could navigate the ITAR mess they could.
-
More interesting news on the CST-100 it may be an export item.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/13/boeing-discussions-launching-cst100-ariane-5-hii/
Not sure how they'll pull it off but then Boeing has a lot of clout in Washington and if anyone could navigate the ITAR mess they could.
That'd be good news!
-
More interesting news on the CST-100 it may be an export item.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/13/boeing-discussions-launching-cst100-ariane-5-hii/
Not sure how they'll pull it off but then Boeing has a lot of clout in Washington and if anyone could navigate the ITAR mess they could.
That'd be good news!
Yes indeed. It may help ESA on its next step into space.
-
Predict that the LV will be an Atlas V 400, and probably will be the only one used.
Isn't 13t outside of the 402's payload range? If so, is there any fundamental reason why the 422 or 432 can't be used instead as appropriate, other than this groupthink assumption that monolithic solids can't be used for crew launch?
FWIW, if PWR are building a 1.25Mlbf kerolox engine for the kerosene Delta derivative, as rumoured, then replacing the RD-180 with that might push the 402 into the required payload range for CST-100.
-
if PWR are building a 1.25Mlbf kerolox engine for the kerosene Delta derivative, as rumoured
Rumored where?
-
if PWR are building a 1.25Mlbf kerolox engine for the kerosene Delta derivative, as rumoured
Rumored where?
By Chris in his report about the NASA heavy lift deliberations. He mentioned that there is apparently a seperate DoD initiative (which is being kept out of the HLV discussions for some reason), of which this is a part.
-
Why would they size a short-duration crew taxi at 13mt? Seems more likely that's an article error than they are making it too big for an Atlas V 402?
-
Why would they size a short-duration crew taxi at 13mt? Seems more likely that's an article error than they are making it too big for an Atlas V 402?
It could be a rounding error as well. The 402 can lift just over 12.5mT. So, if the CST-100 were 12.501, and the 401 can lift that, but they rounded up, viola, 13mT.
-
Don't forget that CST-100 has its own propulsion. I suspect that it could do the last bit of orbit insertion, lowering the dV requirement for Atlas a little. The CST-100 would then provide only a little push, but it might be just enough to get it up there.
edit: like the OMS-2, or maybe even OMS-1 burn.
-
More interesting news on the CST-100 it may be an export item.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/13/boeing-discussions-launching-cst100-ariane-5-hii/
Not sure how they'll pull it off but then Boeing has a lot of clout in Washington and if anyone could navigate the ITAR mess they could.
Does ITAR apply when dealing with ESA or JAXA?
Also, it's a good move to be compatible with a robust family of launch vehicles. Lets say you have an incident that is tied to the LV and not the capsule. You still have the ability to fly your capsule while the LV issue is resolved.
Secondarily, if Bigelow follows through on leasing stations to other agencies, like JAXA or ESA, then they would (for prestige reasons) surely prefer to launch their station crews on a vehicle that is mostly theirs, even if the capsule was foreign purchased.
-
Don't forget that CST-100 has its own propulsion. I suspect that it could do the last bit of orbit insertion, lowering the dV requirement for Atlas a little.
Hmm, wouldn't the end result be a wash (or even worse), given Centaur's superb Isp and dry mass and 13 tons of CST-100 with substantially worse Isp propulsion?
-
Don't forget that CST-100 has its own propulsion. I suspect that it could do the last bit of orbit insertion, lowering the dV requirement for Atlas a little.
Hmm, wouldn't the end result be a wash (or even worse), given Centaur's superb Isp and dry mass and 13 tons of CST-100 with substantially worse Isp propulsion?
This is not in place of the Centaur you realize.
-
This is not in place of the Centaur you realize.
Huh?
-
Huh?
The CST-100 can give an extra push, when Centaur has used all its propellant.
-
Look at it this way. If CST-100 *needs* to burn propellant to reach a stable orbit every time because it's overweight for Atlas 402, why not just offload that prop and have Centaur boost it directly.
Centaur is what, about 3 tonnes dry? The point I was making is 13+3 tonnes (1.23x greater mass than bare CST) being pushed by an engine with ~1.4 better specific impulse still seems to tip the scale in Centaur's favor for every kg of burned propellant.
Unless the issue is Centaur disposal, in which case subortbital injection would I guess make sense.
-
Look at it this way. If CST-100 *needs* to burn propellant to reach a stable orbit every time because it's overweight for Atlas 402, why not just offload that prop and have Centaur boost it directly.
Centaur is what, about 3 tonnes dry? The point I was making is 13+3 tonnes (1.23x greater mass than bare CST) being pushed by an engine with ~1.4 better specific impulse still seems to tip the scale in Centaur's favor for every kg of burned propellant.
Unless the issue is Centaur disposal, in which case subortbital injection would I guess make sense.
Also, it depends if the propellant load is driven by abort requirements. If abort needs so much propellant, you can't offload it to fit in the IMLEO capability of a launcher, but you can use that propellant to reach your final orbit.
-
Look at it this way. If CST-100 *needs* to burn propellant to reach a stable orbit every time because it's overweight for Atlas 402, why not just offload that prop and have Centaur boost it directly.
Centaur is what, about 3 tonnes dry? The point I was making is 13+3 tonnes (1.23x greater mass than bare CST) being pushed by an engine with ~1.4 better specific impulse still seems to tip the scale in Centaur's favor for every kg of burned propellant.
Tempting for cargo, but does not work if you have to lug that hydrazine anyway for LAS.
-
Unless the issue is Centaur disposal, in which case subortbital injection would I guess make sense.
Well, any CST-100 mission is going to be to a space station that won't want large upper stages on intersecting orbits, so disposal is definitely an issue.
Also, CST-100 only needs a little bit of the abort prop for deorbit, so if the excess prop isn't used for a circularization burn, it's just going to be dumped overboard anyways...
-
Well, any CST-100 mission is going to be to a space station that won't want large upper stages on intersecting orbits, so disposal is definitely an issue.
What does "intersecting orbit" mean in this context? Any orbit to chase ISS would be lower than ISS altitude for phasing purposes so disposal should not be an issue.
-
What does "intersecting orbit" mean in this context? Any orbit to chase ISS would be lower than ISS altitude for phasing purposes so disposal should not be an issue.
However over time the ISS orbit drops. There could be times when you want to Operate the ISS at a lower Orbit.
-
Surely a Centaur would drop faster than ISS, unless ISS orients its solar arrays in an unopportunate direction. Centaur really is an alloy balloon with incredibly thin skin. If it's already in a lower orbit, there's no chance for it to get to station.
-
Predict that the LV will be an Atlas V 400, and probably will be the only one used.
Isn't 13t outside of the 402's payload range? If so, is there any fundamental reason why the 422 or 432 can't be used instead as appropriate, other than this groupthink assumption that monolithic solids can't be used for crew launch?
FWIW, if PWR are building a 1.25Mlbf kerolox engine for the kerosene Delta derivative, as rumoured, then replacing the RD-180 with that might push the 402 into the required payload range for CST-100.
That might be part of the drive behind use of the F-1A on SLS.
A detuned F-1 may be a good replacement for the RD-180 though they'd have to change to size of the lox and fuel tanks as the engine has different mixture requirements.
But with the higher thrust engine they could eliminate the need for the SRBs for some payloads.
-
Predict that the LV will be an Atlas V 400, and probably will be the only one used.
Isn't 13t outside of the 402's payload range? If so, is there any fundamental reason why the 422 or 432 can't be used instead as appropriate, other than this groupthink assumption that monolithic solids can't be used for crew launch?
FWIW, if PWR are building a 1.25Mlbf kerolox engine for the kerosene Delta derivative, as rumoured, then replacing the RD-180 with that might push the 402 into the required payload range for CST-100.
That might be part of the drive behind use of the F-1A on SLS.
A detuned F-1 may be a good replacement for the RD-180 though they'd have to change to size of the lox and fuel tanks as the engine has different mixture requirements.
More likely an AR-1000 would be looked at:
http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresources/Development%20of%20Reusable%20Engines.pdf
-
I must have missed, when did this rumor of PWR working on its own 1.25 Mlbf RP-1 engine start?
-
I must have missed, when did this rumor of PWR working on its own 1.25 Mlbf RP-1 engine start?
In the early part of the last decade, under the name RS-84.
-
I must have missed, when did this rumor of PWR working on its own 1.25 Mlbf RP-1 engine start?
In the early part of the last decade, under the name RS-84.
Well, yes. I was reacting to Ben's comment, which implied something in active development.
-
I must have missed, when did this rumor of PWR working on its own 1.25 Mlbf RP-1 engine start?
Most recently, in the SLS interim report a few months ago, there was language that indicated USAF was interested in a domestic RP-1 engine to replace RD-180 in Atlas. Specifically, this was cited as the largest potential NASA-DoD crossover for SLS.
-
Linking up the thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24849.msg725804#msg725804
Boeing gets $92.3M under CCDev2
edit to add media release:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1710
-
Linking up the thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24849.msg725804#msg725804
Boeing gets $92.3M under CCDev2
edit to add media release:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1710
Here is their CCDev-2 Space Act Agreement:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS03S_Boeing_SAA_Combined_Redacted.pdf
-
Linking up the thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24849.msg725804#msg725804
Boeing gets $92.3M under CCDev2
edit to add media release:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1710
Here is their CCDev-2 Space Act Agreement:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS03S_Boeing_SAA_Combined_Redacted.pdf
From the selection document:
"use of non-toxic propellant for crew module"... Interesting.
-
From the selection document:
"use of non-toxic propellant for crew module"... Interesting.
I was fully expecting NOFBX from SpaceX. And I've seen the video of the PWR Bantam engine test for Boeing that uses Nitrogen Tetroxide and Monomethyl Hydrazine. That means that they have their propulsion module as a different part. So they use some storable monopropellant for manouvering.
-
I know NOFBX sounds really sexy, but I kind of doubt it'll be used very soon for any critical part of human spacecraft. It's just not that well understood by the aerospace community, yet.
-
I know NOFBX sounds really sexy, but I kind of doubt it'll be used very soon for any critical part of human spacecraft. It's just not that well understood by the aerospace community, yet.
But it offers so much, I think it has a good future, and worth the investment NASA has been giving it.
http://www.firestar-engineering.com/NOFBX-MP.html
Here's the company's 'contracts' page: http://www.firestar-engineering.com/Contracts.html
Note some good contracts they have been awarded by NASA.
-
I don't believe this has been posted
Boeing at Space Symposium
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo (http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo)
-
I don't believe this has been posted
Boeing at Space Symposium
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo (http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo)
"Uniquely, it's a pusher abort system."
Not so unique, anymore. :) (Still cool, though!)
-
I don't believe this has been posted
Boeing at Space Symposium
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo (http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo)
"Uniquely, it's a pusher abort system."
Not so unique, anymore. :) (Still cool, though!)
You know, it is rather amusing to hear how "unique" the pusher and integral abort (using OMS propellant) is. See attached.
-
Boeing PAO with some images and video linkage:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=23
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space_exploration/CST_to_ISS_1080_32kb.mov
My article on CCDEV-2 seen as I'm here ;)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/four-companies-win-nasas-ccdev-2-awards/
-
I don't believe this has been posted
Boeing at Space Symposium
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo (http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Commercial-Space-Flight-with-Bo)
"Uniquely, it's a pusher abort system."
Not so unique, anymore. :) (Still cool, though!)
You know, it is rather amusing to hear how "unique" the pusher and integral abort (using OMS propellant) is. See attached.
Interesting... So, basically you guys own the patent on it. You filed in 2004, and were awarded the patent in 2009.
-
Really looking forward to a CST-100 on top of an Atlas V in a few years. Nothing but good can happen from this.
VR
TEA
RE327
-
ANyone know where CST-100 would be processed? I know that Boeing will be acquiring OPF-3, but from what I hear that is not for this program. Could it share the same facilities as Orion, or would Boeing build new ones?
Also interesting how the CST-100 video shows it utilizing a Delta IV off of LC-39B, but it probably is just a notional configuration.
-
Also compare the layout of the pad today versus in the video
-
ANyone know where CST-100 would be processed? I know that Boeing will be acquiring OPF-3, but from what I hear that is not for this program. Could it share the same facilities as Orion, or would Boeing build new ones?
Also interesting how the CST-100 video shows it utilizing a Delta IV off of LC-39B, but it probably is just a notional configuration.
There are a couple of areas under consideration right now.
I agree, really looking forwrd to seeing the CST-100 on top of a Delta in a few years.....
-
Also interesting how the CST-100 video shows it utilizing a Delta IV off of LC-39B, but it probably is just a notional configuration.
Particularly interesting that the Delta IV carrying the CST-100 is shown with two GEM60 SRBs. That pusher abort system might need to push really hard! Also interesting that the simulated video doesn't show a fireball from the RS-68 chilldown hydrogen flow. (These observations are from a big fan of Delta IV, BTW. I would ride that rocket tomorrow given a chance.)
-
ANyone know where CST-100 would be processed?
There is Astrotech, MPPF, SSPF, OPF's, O&C, etc.
-
Also interesting that the simulated video doesn't show a fireball from the RS-68 chilldown hydrogen flow.
It was my understanding that the fireball was a solved problem in Florida. It still happens in Vanderberg because the hydrogen burners are expensive. I may be wrong about it though.
-
I agree, really looking forwrd to seeing the CST-100 on top of a Delta in a few years.....
Me too, especially considering how many times I've been told off for suggesting RS-68 could be man-rated... ::)
That pusher abort system might need to push really hard!
Recall that they were also talking about launching it on Liberty; that driving case probably means lots of margin for Delta IV.
-
Isn't the Delta IV more expensive. If so, why would Boeing choose it over the Atlas V 402 as its baseline vehicle?
-
Isn't the Delta IV more expensive. If so, why would Boeing choose it over the Atlas V 402 as its baseline vehicle?
Boeing designed the Delta.
-
Isn't the Delta IV more expensive. If so, why would Boeing choose it over the Atlas V 402 as its baseline vehicle?
Boeing designed the Delta.
Perhaps but today they own 50% of ULA. If the Atlas V 402 is cheaper, they should use it as a baseline vehicle.
-
Isn't the Delta IV more expensive. If so, why would Boeing choose it over the Atlas V 402 as its baseline vehicle?
Boeing designed the Delta.
Perhaps but today they own 50% of ULA. If the Atlas V 402 is cheaper, they should use it.
Maybe they know something we don't? (I don't know, just speculating)
-
Again folks, "launch vehicle agnostic". Why does it surprise people so that they see graphics on top of different rockets?
-
Isn't the Delta IV more expensive. If so, why would Boeing choose it over the Atlas V 402 as its baseline vehicle?
I would not give that much credit to a video.
Things change over time.
There are several reason I can think of for choosing Delta IV:
1) The 2 engine upper stage has not yet been built. This could cause delays.
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
3) The Atlas 402 has a 9mt Maximum Capability without “Mission Analysis or LV Mods”
In other words 12.5 mt may require changes causing delays.
4) Delta is less busy making booking easier.
5) Because Boeing owns Delta it may be cheaper for them.
-
Regarding the use of a Delta IV in the video, I suspect it may be as simple as it being much easier for Boeing's CGI people to get permission to use a computer model of a Delta IV in a video than an Atlas V or Falcon 9.
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
-
So my question still stands. How is your 2) an argument in favor of picking Delta over Atlas?
-
Another argument (paraphrasing from a ULA document on their website) is that USAF may veto launching crew off of either of the current Atlas or Delta pads. In that case, the Delta site (SLC-37B) is most easily extended to a second pad (SLC-37A), as the two are right next to each other. Atlas, on the other hand would use either an entirely new VIF and MLP (but on the same pad) or the Ares I MLP on LC-39...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
-
Another argument (paraphrasing from a ULA document on their website) is that USAF may veto launching crew off of either of the current Atlas or Delta pads. In that case, the Delta site (SLC-37B) is most easily extended to a second pad (SLC-37A), as the two are right next to each other. Atlas, on the other hand would use either an entirely new VIF and MLP (but on the same pad) or the Ares I MLP on LC-39...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
I posted this in the CCDev2 Live Thread but when I saw this post, thought perhaps it is slightly relevant here as well. If not, please ignore...
On Pg. 16, paragraph 3, The selection Statement Final pdf states:
"ULA did not adequately describe the commercial market(s) to which it will provide products and services and the plan for marketing and selling company products and services, all key business considerations."
I find this very odd. Does ULA not have plans beyond providing launch services to Boeing/Bigelow and SNC? Do they need one beyond that? It worries me they provided no such guidance. If/when F9H competes for Gov't launch contracts, won't ULA need an additional business case for launch services?
Additionally, will US DOD require ULA to separate crew Vs. Sat launch services so as to mitigate any future DOD launch risk with regards to evolving Atlas V for crewed launch?
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
But adds the risk of flying a crewed spacecraft on a vehicle with solids that can't be terminated except by explosives, which then increases the safe separation distance. DreamChaser has the same issue, and as the selection statement notes, concerns about safe abort. Of all selected CCDEV2 options, only SpaceX will now fly on an all liquid booster (unless Blue Origin plans to use a 402, which doesn't currently exist).
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
But adds the risk of flying a crewed spacecraft on a vehicle with solids that can't be terminated except by explosives, which then increases the safe separation distance. DreamChaser has the same issue, and as the selection statement notes, concerns about safe abort. Of all selected CCDEV2 options, only SpaceX will now fly on an all liquid booster (unless Blue Origin plans to use a 402, which doesn't currently exist).
Dream Chaser also intends to use the Atlas 402. I don't think that the Selection Statement meant the abort risks related to the Atlas since those are the same for all spacecrafts using the Atlas 402 (Boeing, Blue Origin and Dream Chaser).
-
Wasn't there something about a F9 with Merlin 1D & the FH core stretch lofting 16 mT? Seems that would cover the issue.
EDIT: page 2 in this SpaceX PDF. (http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-brochure.pdf)Also check the images - they show the stretch.
-
Wasn't there something about a F9 with Merlin 1D & a stretch lofting 16 mT? Seems that would cover the issue.
Yes, but it would be one skinny-a$$ rocket. It also has the same problem as Atlas 402 - doesn't exist yet.
-
IIRC the difference in F9 and Atlas V core diameter is <4%: 3.66m vs. 3.81m, and Boeing shows F9 as an option in their own literature & imagery.
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
But adds the risk of flying a crewed spacecraft on a vehicle with solids that can't be terminated except by explosives, which then increases the safe separation distance. DreamChaser has the same issue, and as the selection statement notes, concerns about safe abort. Of all selected CCDEV2 options, only SpaceX will now fly on an all liquid booster (unless Blue Origin plans to use a 402, which doesn't currently exist).
Dream Chaser intends to also use the Atlas 402. I don't think that the Selection Statement meant the abort risks related to the Atlas since those are the same for all spacecrafts using the Atlas 402 (Boeing, Blue Origin and Dream Chaser).
I've seen everything from a (presumed) 402 (w/o solids) to the 431. At NSS last week, I'm pretty sure the DC model had solids. Maybe somebody from SNC who is in the know can comment.
-
IIRC the difference in F9 and Atlas V core diameter is <4%: 3.66m vs. 3.81m
Skinny in the sense of height/diameter, a.k.a. fineness ratio.
-
I've seen everything from a (presumed) 402 (w/o solids) to the 431.
I wonder if the 431 would be an interim solution. About how long would re-developing a DEC take, anyway?
-
I've seen everything from a (presumed) 402 (w/o solids) to the 431.
I wonder if the 431 would be an interim solution. About how long would re-developing a DEC take, anyway?
All I can say is not too long and not too much. Maybe somebody from ULA can elaborate.
-
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
There's no difference between 421 and 521 for commercial crew purposes because the standard payload fairings are unnecessary.
-
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
There's no difference between 421 and 521 for commercial crew purposes because the standard payload fairings are unnecessary.
It all depends on the spacecraft. DC, unlike CST-100, was (at one point) using the 5M aft structure to mitigate the bending loads. But your basic point is valid; in fact, we need to subtract the fairing cost from launch price estimates when we make comparisons to F9 or other LVs.
-
2) Atlas 402 has not flown yet The Delta IV 4,2 will approach a dozen launches by 2014.
So if the choice is an SRB-less Atlas and Delta with 2 SRMs, what's preventing them from going with let's say Atlas 421? If anything, Atlas SRBs don't need TVC so there are fewer failure points.
Not that Delta is a bad choice, I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that point.
Atlas 421 solves many of the minor problems with 402 and 521 solves even more.
But adds the risk of flying a crewed spacecraft on a vehicle with solids that can't be terminated except by explosives, which then increases the safe separation distance. DreamChaser has the same issue, and as the selection statement notes, concerns about safe abort. Of all selected CCDEV2 options, only SpaceX will now fly on an all liquid booster (unless Blue Origin plans to use a 402, which doesn't currently exist).
Dream Chaser intends to also use the Atlas 402. I don't think that the Selection Statement meant the abort risks related to the Atlas since those are the same for all spacecrafts using the Atlas 402 (Boeing, Blue Origin and Dream Chaser).
I've seen everything from a (presumed) 402 (w/o solids) to the 431. At NSS last week, I'm pretty sure the DC model had solids. Maybe somebody from SNC who is in the know can comment.
According to ULA, all CCDev-1 companies intend to use an Atlas Dual Engine Centaur as their baseline:
2. Atlas Dual Engine Centaur (DEC) – DEC offers significant LEO performance improvements over our current design, and has been baselined by all CCT Companies that we are currently working with.
See page 5:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
I think that the confusion results form the fact that an earlier version of the Dream Chaser was supposed to use the Atlas V 431 but that has since been changed to an Atlas V 402:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser_(spacecraft)
See also page 13 of this NASA publication:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/475795main_rendezvous_v4n3.pdf
In other words, the image that you saw was likely an old image of the Dream Chaser.
-
Wasn't there something about a F9 with Merlin 1D & the FH core stretch lofting 16 mT? Seems that would cover the issue.
EDIT: page 2 in this SpaceX PDF. (http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-brochure.pdf)Also check the images - they show the stretch.
That PDF appears to show the standard length F9. Where is the stretch?
-
According to ULA, all CCDev-1 companies intend to use an Atlas Dual Engine Centaur as their baseline:
<snip>
I think that the confusion is that an earlier version of the Dream Chaser was supposed to use the Atlas V 431 but that has since been changed to an Atlas V 402:
That makes sense. I guess we know what will be part of ULA's CCdev 3 proposal...
-
That makes sense. I guess we know what will be part of ULA's CCdev 3 proposal...
CCDEV3 will be for actual flight demonstrations, so ULA wouldn't receive any money directly, only as a subcontractor of one the spacecraft manufactures.
-
Wasn't there something about a F9 with Merlin 1D & the FH core stretch lofting 16 mT? Seems that would cover the issue.
EDIT: page 2 in this SpaceX PDF. (http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-brochure.pdf)Also check the images - they show the stretch.
The brochure shows the stretched Falcon 1e (as designed for the 125Klbf Merlin), but does not show any stretched Falcon 9 rockets. The dimensions shown are for the Block 1 Falcon 9, even the drawing for the Heavy.
Here's my drawing showing my best estimates at the stretched Falcon 9 appearance.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/f9-growth.jpg
- Ed Kyle
-
That makes sense. I guess we know what will be part of ULA's CCdev 3 proposal...
CCDEV3 will be for actual flight demonstrations, so ULA wouldn't receive any money directly, only as a subcontractor of one the spacecraft manufactures.
Are you sure about that? I am not sure why ULA could not receive funds under CCDev3. The NASA Authorization bill allocates funding for commercial crew capabilities but it says little else about it. I don't see anything in the NASA Authorization Act prohibiting ULA from receiving CCDev-3 money for its EDS or for other human rating work. I imagine that the Dual Engine Centaur could also be funded under CCDev-3.
I believe that some of the 21st century complex funding could be used to build new launch facilities or to make launch site modifications for a crewed Atlas V.
-
The impression I got from the NASA Commercial Office presentation to Space Access was that CCDEV3 would only be demonstration flights. Maybe that will change.
-
So my question still stands. How is your 2) an argument in favor of picking Delta over Atlas?
It does not answer Delta vs Atlas in general.
The original question was an Atlas 402 vs a Delta IV 4,2.
Answers 1 and 2 only apply to a DEC Atlas.
Answer 3 is for 400 series Atlas only.
Boeing wants to fly in under 35 months eliminating anything that could slow that down may be important to them.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2T_1WHm7ss
-
Has anybody estimated the pressurized volume of the CST 100?
After looking at http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Keith_Reiley.pdf
Especially pages 6 and 12.
I came up with 18-20 cubic meters being moderately conservative.
Well over 50% more then Dragon.
Two numbers given in PDF :
Capsule max diameter 4.56 meters or 179 inches.
Total length including service module 199 inches 5.05 meters.
Estimate Capsule top to bottom over 3 meters.
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
As far as capsules go the Soyuz is about as volume efficient as you get.
-
There's a little issue I've not quite grasp. Can the CST-100 double as a pressurized payload delivery robot. I.e. can it fly fully automatic?
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
As far as capsules go the Soyuz is about as volume efficient as you get.
Agreed. It is a pretty good approximation to a sphere, which is the most efficient pressure-vessel shape.
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
As far as capsules go the Soyuz is about as volume efficient as you get.
Agreed. It is a pretty good approximation to a sphere, which is the most efficient pressure-vessel shape.
I agree which is why the picture surprised me.
Based on image on page 12 top left:
Diameter 3.5 meters at base. 3.2 near top.
Average 3.4 meters.
Height 1.8 to 2 meters
16 to 18 cubic meters
Tube at top estimate about 2 meters cubed.
They guy in the picture could be short or the angle could be deceiving.
That is why I hoped someone else had tryied figuring it out.
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
OTOH, the Apollo shape has much lower sidewall heating and better hypersonic L/D than the Dragon shape, and much better than Soyuz shape (which was actually invented by GE for their Apollo proposal). The CEV section of ESAS has a really good overview of this tradespace.
-
An Apollo-like shape is generally less volume-efficient for a given diameter compared to a capsule like Dragon, remember.
OTOH, the Apollo shape has much lower sidewall heating and better hypersonic L/D than the Dragon shape, and much better than Soyuz shape (which was actually invented by GE for their Apollo proposal). The CEV section of ESAS has a really good overview of this tradespace.
Yes, it's not entirely one-sided from a design stand-point. But the issue here was comparing the volumes for a given diameter.
(And actually, overall, I think that the more spherical approaches like Soyuz and Dragon are better... too much conservatism is leading to the continued use of the Apollo shape, not really a strongly convincing argument from first principles, IMO. And actually, I think that GE co-invented it... Based on the evidence, I don't think the Russians stole the design, just that they both thought of roughly the same idea at about the same time.)
-
[T]he Apollo shape has much lower sidewall heating and better hypersonic L/D than the Dragon shape, and much better than Soyuz shape (which was actually invented by GE for their Apollo proposal).
Emphasis added.
That the Soviets took the Soyuz design from GE been alleged; is there any supporting evidence?
-
And actually, I think that GE co-invented it... Based on the evidence, I don't think the Russians stole the design, just that they both thought of roughly the same idea at about the same time.)
Which is how things usually happen. (I'm just reading a book titled "Where Good Ideas Come From" by Steven Johnson which talks about how, when you look back in history, simultaneous discovery is the rule rather than the exception.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_discovery
- Mike
-
I think it depends more on the application. The Soyuz shape obviously works fine for LEO entry, but (as Zond showed) not so great at lunar entry velocities. The ESAS CEV actually originally started out with more Dragon-like shape (with an asymmetrical heatshield), but reverted to the 60-deg cone for reasons of mass: equilateral triangles are stronger (less structure mass) and have lower sidewall heating (less insulation mass). IMHO, if Falcon 9 had been a bit wider, Dragon would have been a 60-deg cone.
Personally, I've always liked the M-1 shape used in Martin's Apollo Model 401, complete with steerable parachutes...
-
I think it depends more on the application. The Soyuz shape obviously works fine for LEO entry, but (as Zond showed) not so great at lunar entry velocities. The ESAS CEV actually originally started out with more Dragon-like shape (with an asymmetrical heatshield), but reverted to the 60-deg cone for reasons of mass: equilateral triangles are stronger (less structure mass) and have lower sidewall heating (less insulation mass). IMHO, if Falcon 9 had been a bit wider, Dragon would have been a 60-deg cone.
Personally, I've always liked the M-1 shape used in Martin's Apollo Model 401, complete with steerable parachutes...
Do you mean this vehicle?
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoin410.htm
-
Not to get too OT, but yes.
-
Not to get too OT, but yes.
Nice.... we'll keep it a secret, thanks:)
-
Has anyone come across (even ballpark) numbers on the mass of propellant that the CST-100 will be carrying onboard? Or has anyone seen lift off vs. landing weights?
-
There's a little issue I've not quite grasp. Can the CST-100 double as a pressurized payload delivery robot. I.e. can it fly fully automatic?
It is supposed to fly with 0-7 crew.
NASA for example wants 4.
So yes it could deliver cargo.
Also even when manned because of the way the abort system works it may end up delivering fuel as well as crew.
-
Has anyone come across (even ballpark) numbers on the mass of propellant that the CST-100 will be carrying onboard? Or has anyone seen lift off vs. landing weights?
Only info 13mt total.
-
Thought I would post this link from Space Transport News here as well.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2011/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf
On page 11:
Vehicle Mass: 30,430 lbs
Delta SDR May 2011
PDR April 2012
Capacity Summary
kg/Flt Max Crew
1,164 kg 7
Mass is up by about 800 kg but now delivers 1164 kg as well as 7 crew.
I am guessing most of that 1164 kg is fuel.
-
Equals 13.8 tonnes, requiring an Atlas 552 or Delta IV M+(5,4) (with 0.45 tonnes less cargo).
-
It requires an Atlas 412 according to the same presentation.
-
Equals 13.8 tonnes, requiring an Atlas 552 or Delta IV M+(5,4) (with 0.45 tonnes less cargo).
Neither rev10 or rev11 of the Atlas V Payload Planner's Guide give LEO figures for the AV412, but judging from the 402 and the 4[0,1,2]1, the 412 should do 13.8mT very comfortably. In fact, removing the fairing, the 402 might do it.
Besides, BOE sanity check: the AV552 and DIV541 shouldn't come out similarly -- Delta's generally quite inferior to Atlas performance at any orbit for the same nominal config, much less the engine disparity.
The 552 lists 20.5mT, getting towards the old DIVH.
-Alex
-
Equals 13.8 tonnes, requiring an Atlas 552 or Delta IV M+(5,4) (with 0.45 tonnes less cargo).
Holy overkill batman. The 552 is a 20+ tonnes launcher.
You only would need the 412 based on my estimation.
-
That's what I get for typing fast; 522, I meant. And 421 (or 412) would seem to make more sense, unless the drag/lift from DC is bad enough to be comparable to the 5-meter faring.
-
Boeing Completes Delta System Definition Review of Crew Space Transportation Design
HOUSTON, June 13, 2011 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] on May 19 completed the Delta System Definition Review (SDR) of the company's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 space capsule design. The milestone follows NASA’s award of a Commercial Crew Development Phase 2 (CCDev2) contract to Boeing in April.
The daylong review included representatives from NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and independent consultants. They examined the changes made to the CST-100 design since the initial SDR, which was conducted in October under the original CCDev agreement.
"This review allowed the Boeing team to incorporate changes in the design since the last review and to update the overall baseline requirements," said Keith Reiley, deputy program manager of Commercial Crew Programs for Boeing. "We brought in outside experts, who reviewed the vehicle design from an overall integrated system perspective to ensure that we are designing and building a safe and affordable system."
Boeing engineers reviewed major spacecraft subsystems -- including structures, thermal, electrical, propulsion, life support, software and avionics -- as part of the Delta SDR, and reached agreement during the review on a single integrated, consolidated baseline design. The Boeing team also was able to show strong alignment between the current design and NASA's draft Commercial Crew Program Requirements.
The Delta SDR enables a common understanding of the design baseline as the team progresses toward a system-level Preliminary Design Review (PDR), which will further mature the system design and ensure it meets all requirements. Under the second round of NASA's Commercial Crew Development Space Act Agreement, Boeing expects to complete its System PDR no later than early spring 2012.
Boeing is preparing to gather performance data on the spacecraft's launch abort system and service module fuel tank; evaluate vehicle ascent performance in wind tunnel testing; and build on earlier landing air bag and parachute demonstrations with more in-depth investigations.
With firm requirements and adequate funding, Boeing plans to conduct test flights in 2014 and 2015 to support operations beginning in 2015.
Boeing's Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) includes the CST-100 spacecraft, launch services and ground systems. The CST-100 is a reusable capsule-shaped spacecraft that has a crew module and service module. The CST-100 relies on proven materials and subsystem technologies and can transport up to seven people, or a combination of people and cargo.
The CCTS will provide safe, affordable access to the International Space Station and other destinations in low Earth orbit, and will enable NASA to focus on deep space exploration missions. In addition to its support to NASA, Boeing also plans to supply the CST-100 to Bigelow Aerospace for that company’s inflatable space station. Boeing will also work with Space Adventures to sell unused seats.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 65,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1776
-
Nice. Will really be interesting to see how the orbital tourism market materializes, or if it will stay at it's existing low level. Will also be interesting how Boeing will sell its extra seats.
-
I am not sure that NASA has any intention of allowing tourists on its flights.
-
I am not sure that NASA has any intention of letting tourists on its flights.
If it helps them make their business case than I see it as at least possible.
-
NASA won't be the only customer for CST-100; Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
-
Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
Nope. CST-100 is very much based off the Boeing design for Orion. Bigelow is a *potential* major customer and partner.
-
Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
Nope. CST-100 is very much based off the Boeing design for Orion. Bigelow is a *potential* major customer and partner.
Doesn't it go back even further, to OSP?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3541478/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/changing-shape-spacecraft-come/
-
Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
Nope. CST-100 is very much based off the Boeing design for Orion. Bigelow is a *potential* major customer and partner.
Doesn't it go back even further, to OSP?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3541478/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/changing-shape-spacecraft-come/
Not really, at least according to Boeing CST managment. The work performed during the Orion competition (and based on initial NASA CEV requirements) was directly the jump off point for CST-100.
-
NASA won't be the only customer for CST-100; Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
There is the possibility that the demand for commercial spaceflight doesn't materialize and NASA will be basically the only customer. It won't be the first time something like this has happened.
-
Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
Nope. CST-100 is very much based off the Boeing design for Orion. Bigelow is a *potential* major customer and partner.
Doesn't it go back even further, to OSP?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3541478/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/changing-shape-spacecraft-come/
Not really, at least according to Boeing CST managment. The work performed during the Orion competition (and based on initial NASA CEV requirements) was directly the jump off point for CST-100.
The initial CEV was based on OSP and began a year before ESAS and Orion. I have the Boeing proposal artwork on my computer from that proposal.
-
NASA won't be the only customer for CST-100; Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
There is the possibility that the demand for commercial spaceflight doesn't materialize and NASA will be basically the only customer. It won't be the first time something like this has happened.
Only if Bigelow's effort goes seriously pear-shaped. Boeing and Bigelow have an agreement of some sort already in place for crew transportation. Mind you, he also wants a minimum of 2 providers. Don't think the Russians are factored as one of these but might be wrong on that.
-
NASA won't be the only customer for CST-100; Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
There is the possibility that the demand for commercial spaceflight doesn't materialize and NASA will be basically the only customer. It won't be the first time something like this has happened.
If this happens then I am going to have to find a new hobby because there truly is no hope. NASA is fine as a means of priming the pump in the early stages to help the real thrust get started, but it isn't something that can be relied on for anything beyond that. If cheaper launches (FH), crewed vehicles (CCDev competitors), and destinations (LEO & cislunar Bigelow modules) are not enough to kickstart a private space industry then I think we need to face the probability that space aside from occasional science missions and satellites space just isn't in humanities future the way we've all been envisioning. We can't be relying on a space program to be making things happen indefinitely.
-
Bigelow is actually who they originally designed it for....
Nope. CST-100 is very much based off the Boeing design for Orion. Bigelow is a *potential* major customer and partner.
Doesn't it go back even further, to OSP?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3541478/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/changing-shape-spacecraft-come/
Not really, at least according to Boeing CST managment. The work performed during the Orion competition (and based on initial NASA CEV requirements) was directly the jump off point for CST-100.
The initial CEV was based on OSP and began a year before ESAS and Orion. I have the Boeing proposal artwork on my computer from that proposal.
I dug out the artwork. This is Boeing's original OSP proposal, which was then turned into their CEV proposal in 2004/2005, before the re-do under Griffin to the current Orion specification. You can clearly see the CST-100's lines in here. The orbital module could be set up for the mission at hand. That module is missing from the CST-100, of course. I could imagine it reappearing for longer duration missions.
-
If this happens then I am going to have to find a new hobby because there truly is no hope.
Same thing happened with EELV and the commercial sector, a few flights materialized but the market dried up after an economic bubble which eventually left only the US govt as the only consumer. Very easily could happen with commercial crew, as shown before optimistic projections for commercial markets usually flounder in reality, best to plan for the worst (ie NASA only consumer) If that does happen, then only one or two max providers will be needed, but Boeing would still be the best choice.
-
If this happens then I am going to have to find a new hobby because there truly is no hope.
Same thing happened with EELV and the commercial sector, a few flights materialized but the market dried up after an economic bubble which eventually left only the US govt as the only consumer. Very easily could happen with commercial crew, as shown before optimistic projections for commercial markets usually flounder in reality, best to plan for the worst (ie NASA only consumer) If that does happen, then only one or two max providers will be needed, but Boeing would still be the best choice.
Boeing and SNC would be my choice out of them all, Boeing for the pragmatism and SNC because of the PR strength. "See, we still have a Shuttle!"
-
If this happens then I am going to have to find a new hobby because there truly is no hope. NASA is fine as a means of priming the pump in the early stages to help the real thrust get started, but it isn't something that can be relied on for anything beyond that. If cheaper launches (FH), crewed vehicles (CCDev competitors), and destinations (LEO & cislunar Bigelow modules) are not enough to kickstart a private space industry then I think we need to face the probability that space aside from occasional science missions and satellites space just isn't in humanities future the way we've all been envisioning. We can't be relying on a space program to be making things happen indefinitely.
Better start looking for that new hobby, then. That is very probably what is going to happen, judging by past experience, you know.
I have very serious doubts about the viability of a commercial human spaceflight market. There just is no money to be made in human spaceflight (space tourism is a fad IMO, only affordable by a select few ultra-rich who will do it once for the novelty and prestige before moving on to the next fad... not sustainable at all IMO)
-
I have very serious doubts about the viability of a commercial human spaceflight market. There just is no money to be made in human spaceflight (space tourism is a fad IMO, only affordable by a select few ultra-rich who will do it once for the novelty and prestige before moving on to the next fad... not sustainable at all IMO)
Doubting is your right, but your statement is demonstrably wrong. Charles Simonyi (http://www.charlesinspace.com/*) went twice. It is also unlikely that he did it for the prestige. You and I can't imagine spending that much on a week's vacation, but it appears people can. It didn't take long to find a replacement for Dice K when he was disqualified. The limited supply has caused the price to rise, not fall, even as it becomes less and less pioneering. It is hard for me to see, but I wouldn't write it off.
-
I have very serious doubts about the viability of a commercial human spaceflight market. There just is no money to be made in human spaceflight (space tourism is a fad IMO, only affordable by a select few ultra-rich who will do it once for the novelty and prestige before moving on to the next fad... not sustainable at all IMO)
Doubting is your right, but your statement is demonstrably wrong. Charles Simonyi (http://www.charlesinspace.com/*) went twice. It is also unlikely that he did it for the prestige. You and I can't imagine spending that much on a week's vacation, but it appears people can. It didn't take long to find a replacement for Dice K when he was disqualified. The limited supply has caused the price to rise, not fall, even as it becomes less and less pioneering. It is hard for me to see, but I wouldn't write it off.
Also, Bigelow's initial target market is not space tourism. It's national governments wanting their own orbital facilities. Possibly some large corporations too.
-
Same thing happened with EELV and the commercial sector, a few flights materialized but the market dried up after an economic bubble which eventually left only the US govt as the only consumer.
That's not what happened. The EELV's were priced at such a high level that they could no longer compete in the commercial market. The only customer willing to pay the high prices of EELVs was the US government, who had no choice of launch provider.
-
I dug out the artwork. This is Boeing's original OSP proposal, which was then turned into their CEV proposal in 2004/2005, before the re-do under Griffin to the current Orion specification. You can clearly see the CST-100's lines in here. The orbital module could be set up for the mission at hand. That module is missing from the CST-100, of course. I could imagine it reappearing for longer duration missions.
How would the orbital module get on to the capsule? Would the capsule turn around and dock to it in orbit? If not, how would an abort work?
-
I dug out the artwork. This is Boeing's original OSP proposal, which was then turned into their CEV proposal in 2004/2005, before the re-do under Griffin to the current Orion specification. You can clearly see the CST-100's lines in here. The orbital module could be set up for the mission at hand. That module is missing from the CST-100, of course. I could imagine it reappearing for longer duration missions.
How would the orbital module get on to the capsule? Would the capsule turn around and dock to it in orbit? If not, how would an abort work?
IIRC, it was to be launched on the capsule. The abort would have been done similar like Soyuz - the Escape rocket would pull both the capsule and the orbital module away. Then the capsule would have separated. This would have required of course a much more powerful escape system.
-
I dug out the artwork. This is Boeing's original OSP proposal, which was then turned into their CEV proposal in 2004/2005, before the re-do under Griffin to the current Orion specification. You can clearly see the CST-100's lines in here. The orbital module could be set up for the mission at hand. That module is missing from the CST-100, of course. I could imagine it reappearing for longer duration missions.
How would the orbital module get on to the capsule? Would the capsule turn around and dock to it in orbit? If not, how would an abort work?
IIRC, it was to be launched on the capsule. The abort would have been done similar like Soyuz - the Escape rocket would pull both the capsule and the orbital module away. Then the capsule would have separated. This would have required of course a much more powerful escape system.
The other way to make this work is the way that the Russians (yes, them again) propose to do this with their next-generation CV. The orbital/mission module rides behind the CV during ascent and then, after orbital insertion, the CV turns around and pulls the O/MM out of the upper stage payload bay.
The only significant engineering issue is that the O/MM would have to partly support the weight of the CV (and the SM, if included) during ascent accelerations. Internal fittings would also need to be able to handle sustained accelerations in both directions along the long axis. However, I don't thing that there are any red flags.
-
Same thing happened with EELV and the commercial sector, a few flights materialized but the market dried up after an economic bubble which eventually left only the US govt as the only consumer.
That's not what happened. The EELV's were priced at such a high level that they could no longer compete in the commercial market. The only customer willing to pay the high prices of EELVs was the US government, who had no choice of launch provider.
Ronsmytheiii is right, that is exactly what happen.
-
I have very serious doubts about the viability of a commercial human spaceflight market. There just is no money to be made in human spaceflight (space tourism is a fad IMO, only affordable by a select few ultra-rich who will do it once for the novelty and prestige before moving on to the next fad... not sustainable at all IMO)
Doubting is your right, but your statement is demonstrably wrong. Charles Simonyi (http://www.charlesinspace.com/*) went twice. It is also unlikely that he did it for the prestige. You and I can't imagine spending that much on a week's vacation, but it appears people can. It didn't take long to find a replacement for Dice K when he was disqualified. The limited supply has caused the price to rise, not fall, even as it becomes less and less pioneering. It is hard for me to see, but I wouldn't write it off.
Also, Bigelow's initial target market is not space tourism. It's national governments wanting their own orbital facilities. Possibly some large corporations too.
I am not sure what the motive for national governments is to actually do this. I would have thought that developing a space-faring capability shows off the ingenuity and level of development of indigenous industry. NASA buying a module makes a great deal of sense because it allows to expand its current facility, the ISS and props up US industry.
-
I am not sure what the motive for national governments is to actually do this. I would have thought that developing a space-faring capability shows off the ingenuity and level of development of indigenous industry. NASA buying a module makes a great deal of sense because it allows to expand its current facility, the ISS and props up US industry.
Bigelow has MOUs with at least six countries. As you pointed out, countries would really love to develop an indigenous space-faring capability, but most don't have the funds. Building a launch vehicle family, manned transfer vehicle, and space station from scratch can cost tens of billions; the majority of countries don't have this much to spare. Instead, they'll pay Bigelow $30 million per astronaut, or rent modules for a few hundred million.
-
I am not sure what the motive for national governments is to actually do this. I would have thought that developing a space-faring capability shows off the ingenuity and level of development of indigenous industry. NASA buying a module makes a great deal of sense because it allows to expand its current facility, the ISS and props up US industry.
Bigelow has MOUs with at least six countries. As you pointed out, countries would really love to develop an indigenous space-faring capability, but most don't have the funds. Building a launch vehicle family, manned transfer vehicle, and space station from scratch can cost tens of billions; the majority of countries don't have this much to spare. Instead, they'll pay Bigelow $30 million per astronaut, or rent modules for a few hundred million.
At least some of the hardware and technology these nations are going to be putting space must be local. Maybe it will be the experiments performed on board. There are few space agencies in the world that could afford even to rent bigelow's modules.
-
I dug out the artwork. This is Boeing's original OSP proposal, which was then turned into their CEV proposal in 2004/2005, before the re-do under Griffin to the current Orion specification. You can clearly see the CST-100's lines in here. The orbital module could be set up for the mission at hand. That module is missing from the CST-100, of course. I could imagine it reappearing for longer duration missions.
How would the orbital module get on to the capsule? Would the capsule turn around and dock to it in orbit? If not, how would an abort work?
IIRC, it was to be launched on the capsule. The abort would have been done similar like Soyuz - the Escape rocket would pull both the capsule and the orbital module away. Then the capsule would have separated. This would have required of course a much more powerful escape system.
Right, of course understand that this was a far lighter system than Orion, at 13mT including the OM. So even with the OM, this is still a less powerful escape system than what we have now. In addition, it was to be launched on the Delta IV, which did not need as powerful an abort motor either due to being liquid.
-
Building a launch vehicle family, manned transfer vehicle, and space station from scratch can cost tens of billions;
It can, but it certainly doesn't have to. It depends on who's doing it.
SpaceX's development of the Falcon launch vehicle family and Dragon manned transfer vehicle, plus Bigelow's development of the Sundancer station, will certainly end up costing less than two billion total. Probably closer to one billion.
Still a lot of money to you and me, of course, but compared to what is typically spent on such projects it's really not very much.
-
Building a launch vehicle family, manned transfer vehicle, and space station from scratch can cost tens of billions;
It can, but it certainly doesn't have to. It depends on who's doing it.
SpaceX's development of the Falcon launch vehicle family and Dragon manned transfer vehicle, plus Bigelow's development of the Sundancer station, will certainly end up costing less than two billion total. Probably closer to one billion.
Still a lot of money to you and me, of course, but compared to what is typically spent on such projects it's really not very much.
That was my point. These companies have a substantial experience base, mostly gained by NASA decades ago. That's why a country starting from absolute scratch could expect it to cost orders of magnitude more.
-
I have very serious doubts about the viability of a commercial human spaceflight market. There just is no money to be made in human spaceflight (space tourism is a fad IMO, only affordable by a select few ultra-rich who will do it once for the novelty and prestige before moving on to the next fad... not sustainable at all IMO)
Doubting is your right, but your statement is demonstrably wrong. Charles Simonyi (http://www.charlesinspace.com/*) went twice. It is also unlikely that he did it for the prestige. You and I can't imagine spending that much on a week's vacation, but it appears people can. It didn't take long to find a replacement for Dice K when he was disqualified. The limited supply has caused the price to rise, not fall, even as it becomes less and less pioneering. It is hard for me to see, but I wouldn't write it off.
Also, Bigelow's initial target market is not space tourism. It's national governments wanting their own orbital facilities. Possibly some large corporations too.
I think this starts getting to the heart of it. Boeing is a conservative company and I think if they are going to do the CST-100 they are going to want a fairly fault tolerant business case to help mitigate the risk of fielding it. I think they are willing to give it a shot (in competition with 3 other players) only because there is a mixture of different market possibilities which provide redundancy if any single market does not work out for them.
-NASA ISS servicing
-Future non-ISS NASA missions (if Orion never flies)
-Sovereign Clients to Bigelow stations
-Tourism to Bigelow stations
-Private research to Bigelow stations
This last one is something which I think is often overlooked and which could be bigger than people think because I think many people ask "How many companies would have both the big $$$ and the research needs to rent a module and fly their own astronaut?". I think this question makes some fundamental assumptions that are probably wrong and consequently leads to the answer (not very many) which causes this type of demand to be sidelined in the discussion.
The more likely scenario is the rise of some companies that act as middleman human tended in space lab operators. These companies are the ones holding the leases with Bigelow and flying the astronauts, and then they turn around and provide a turnkey, low hassle, cost effective, user friendly way for companies and universities to get their research projects flown. Because the projects are paying for only what they need and not having to personally manage astronaut staffing & station leasing, the market is open to a much broader set of users than might otherwise be possible.
Because of the commercial nature of things, I am sure Bigelow and these middleman companies will be happy to keep CCDev craft flight rates and station facility sizing in line with the demand from the market so there won't be long waits in line for research projects to fly like you've seen with ISS and other options which have been available historically. Potientially this could cause what has historically been a fairly minor market to bloom into a much larger one.
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
But they are most likely thinking of Bigelow as a major business opportunity right
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
But they are most likely thinking of Bigelow as a major business opportunity right
As I recall from the CCDev news conference a few days prior to Endeavour's launch, when asked about the business case, Boeing said that it expected CST-100 to be profitable solely on providing crew transport to the ISS.
So providing transport for Bigelow would be gravy.
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
But they are most likely thinking of Bigelow as a major business opportunity right
As I recall from the CCDev news conference a few days prior to Endeavour's launch, when asked about the business case, Boeing said that it expected CST-100 to be profitable solely on providing crew transport to the ISS.
So providing transport for Bigelow would be gravy.
Of course it would. They just pass all their costs on to NASA. The purpose here is to have other customers beyond NASA, so NASA is just not paying for the entire program.
-
CCDev-2 bi-monthly update:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/563409main_201106_Commercial_60day_Report_508.pdf
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
who said dragons pusher system is reusable?
-
Its built into the side walls of the pressure vessel instead of the disposable service module.
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
Depends what you mean; there was some talk up on this thread of using it for station reboosts. Other than that, no.
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
It may be, I have no idea, but there are finer engineering details to it than, "it is reusable because it comes back". It really depends on the total burn time of the engine and how long it is rated, what the nozzles see and how they perform, etc. I would be surprised if that was not the ultimate goal but getting there on the first go and incrementally getting there are two different animals.
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
Reusable after a nominal flight or reusable after a LAS activation?
-
Is the pusher escape system on this CST-100 reusable like the Dragon?
Reusable after a nominal flight or reusable after a LAS activation?
After a nominal flight, the SM burns up in the atmosphere. After a LAS activation, the SM separates and falls into the sea while the CM descends under parachute. So no either way.
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Bigelow in a partnership with Boeing in developing the CST-100? If so, doesn't that imply their intent to work together with their businesses?
-
Boeing is not going to bet on Bigelow; you can be sure that Boeing will simply pursue whatever NASA money is available, until the world should change.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Bigelow in a partnership with Boeing in developing the CST-100? If so, doesn't that imply their intent to work together with their businesses?
Partnership yes, but Boeing would not make the CST100 just for Biglow. NASA is the dog wagging this tail for now. Boeing also has an hand in the Dreamchaser. Boeing is just spreading its bets atm.
-
This is my first post. Nice to meet you everyone.
I am interested in LAS activation reaction time issue.
Considering about the severe requirement of warning time,
Does liquid fuel based LAS motor has sufficient rapid reaction time ?
In my understanding, CST-100's motor is gas generator cycle.
Including fault detection, manual/automatic activation and reaction time of motor, warning time would be 1500 msec. But difficult point is this problem is highly depending on the vehicle's size such as propellant mass.
-
This is my first post. Nice to meet you everyone.
I am interested in LAS activation reaction time issue.
Considering about the severe requirement of warning time,
Does liquid fuel based LAS motor has sufficient rapid reaction time ?
In my understanding, CST-100's motor is gas generator cycle.
Including fault detection, manual/automatic activation and reaction time of motor, warning time would be 1500 msec. But difficult point is this problem is highly depending on the vehicle's size such as propellant mass.
I think that's a part of the reason why they're using hypergols. Less components to start up or charge before they can be used - Just open the pressure valves and let rip.
-
This is my first post. Nice to meet you everyone.
I am interested in LAS activation reaction time issue.
Considering about the severe requirement of warning time,
Does liquid fuel based LAS motor has sufficient rapid reaction time ?
In my understanding, CST-100's motor is gas generator cycle.
Including fault detection, manual/automatic activation and reaction time of motor, warning time would be 1500 msec. But difficult point is this problem is highly depending on the vehicle's size such as propellant mass.
I think that's a part of the reason why they're using hypergols. Less components to start up or charge before they can be used - Just open the pressure valves and let rip.
Thank you for your reply.
I think four RS-88's total thrust (104 tonf) is not sufficient to escape from blast wave, fragmentation and fireball. Does Anybody know where the requirement of abort motor comes from ?
-
This is my first post. Nice to meet you everyone.
I am interested in LAS activation reaction time issue.
Considering about the severe requirement of warning time,
Does liquid fuel based LAS motor has sufficient rapid reaction time ?
In my understanding, CST-100's motor is gas generator cycle.
Including fault detection, manual/automatic activation and reaction time of motor, warning time would be 1500 msec. But difficult point is this problem is highly depending on the vehicle's size such as propellant mass.
I think that's a part of the reason why they're using hypergols. Less components to start up or charge before they can be used - Just open the pressure valves and let rip.
Thank you for your reply.
I think four RS-88's total thrust (104 tonf) is not sufficient to escape from blast wave, fragmentation and fireball. Does Anybody know where the requirement of abort motor comes from ?
Um, the RS-88 was designed to be an Abort motor. The total thrust is greater than the escape tower for Apollo, in fact it could loose one of it's thrusters and still be greater.
Apollo's escape tower produced 147,000 lbf, compared to the four RS-88's combined 220,000 lbf. Apollo was a bit lighter, mind you, but not dramatically. The combined capsule + tower for Apollo was a bit over 9,000 kg. CST-100 with all systems is supposed to be around 11,000 kg. So, even with the extra two metric tons, the LAS on the CST-100 is more capable than that on the Apollo.
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0
-
This is my first post. Nice to meet you everyone.
I am interested in LAS activation reaction time issue.
Considering about the severe requirement of warning time,
Does liquid fuel based LAS motor has sufficient rapid reaction time ?
In my understanding, CST-100's motor is gas generator cycle.
Including fault detection, manual/automatic activation and reaction time of motor, warning time would be 1500 msec. But difficult point is this problem is highly depending on the vehicle's size such as propellant mass.
I think that's a part of the reason why they're using hypergols. Less components to start up or charge before they can be used - Just open the pressure valves and let rip.
Thank you for your reply.
I think four RS-88's total thrust (104 tonf) is not sufficient to escape from blast wave, fragmentation and fireball. Does Anybody know where the requirement of abort motor comes from ?
Um, the RS-88 was designed to be an Abort motor. The total thrust is greater than the escape tower for Apollo, in fact it could loose one of it's thrusters and still be greater.
Apollo's escape tower produced 147,000 lbf, compared to the four RS-88's combined 220,000 lbf. Apollo was a bit lighter, mind you, but not dramatically. The combined capsule + tower for Apollo was a bit over 9,000 kg. CST-100 with all systems is supposed to be around 11,000 kg. So, even with the extra two metric tons, the LAS on the CST-100 is more capable than that on the Apollo.
Thank you.
If it is assumed hat Apollo has sufficiently enough abort motor thrust in terms of the reliability and difference of the design is minor, you are correct.
I think this kinds of issue should be discussed based on the quantitative risk analysis, such as studied in AIAA 2006-1177.
This problem includes many failure modes, such as structural failure due to blast wave , aerodynamic instability and so on.
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0
But MLAS was still solid rockets, and bitterly resisted by JSC, not least because of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.
Again, not one of four CCCDEV2 capsules uses either solids or a Faget-style escape tower. They all have competent engineers who all did this trade, and none of them went with an escape tower, or saw the need for solids (SNC's in-house hybrids being the closest). That says to me that the issue isn't problems with integrated liquid escape systems, but rather the current NASA culture of minimal-to-zero innovation...
-
The new Russian capsule does appear to use a solid based LAS. Of course that they adhere to the doctrine of minimum change from "whatever works".
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0
But MLAS was still solid rockets, and bitterly resisted by JSC, not least because of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.
Again, not one of four CCCDEV2 capsules uses either solids or a Faget-style escape tower. They all have competent engineers who all did this trade, and none of them went with an escape tower, or saw the need for solids (SNC's in-house hybrids being the closest). That says to me that the issue isn't problems with integrated liquid escape systems, but rather the current NASA culture of minimal-to-zero innovation...
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort. The Apollo SM, with fuel for LOI and TEI burns, was much more massive, comparitively, than the SM for any of the LEO CCDev proposals. Similar calculations were probably run for Orion, and with similar results (although Orion was not supposed to perform LOI, it still had the TEI burn to deal with.)
The trade may have just been different.
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0
But MLAS was still solid rockets, and bitterly resisted by JSC, not least because of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.
Again, not one of four CCCDEV2 capsules uses either solids or a Faget-style escape tower. They all have competent engineers who all did this trade, and none of them went with an escape tower, or saw the need for solids (SNC's in-house hybrids being the closest). That says to me that the issue isn't problems with integrated liquid escape systems, but rather the current NASA culture of minimal-to-zero innovation...
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort. The Apollo SM, with fuel for LOI and TEI burns, was much more massive, comparitively, than the SM for any of the LEO CCDev proposals. Similar calculations were probably run for Orion, and with similar results (although Orion was not supposed to perform LOI, it still had the TEI burn to deal with.)
The trade may have just been different.
Dragon, for instance, isn't going to take its trunk along with during an abort.
-
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort.
No American spacecraft abort of any kind takes the Service Module with it.
-
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort.
No American spacecraft abort of any kind takes the Service Module with it.
The CST-100 would, but it's service module is far simpler and for the most part *is* the abort system with an RCS system. (the abort system doing double duty as orbital engines)
-
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort.
No American spacecraft abort of any kind takes the Service Module with it.
The CST-100 would, but it's service module is far simpler and for the most part *is* the abort system with an RCS system. (the abort system doing double duty as orbital engines)
I guess it depends on how you define Service Module. All the functions of a standard SM are built into the CST-100 itself except the abort/orbital engine, which by definition must be exterior. I don't call that a SM.
-
All of the main propellant tanks and orbital maneuvering thrusters are in the SM. I'm not sure about other consumables, though. Those prop tanks and thrusters would be used during an abort, true, but it's still an SM.
-
Please let me know about this !
I think abort from the detonation is most severe situation. Is the detaination situation considered to design LAS. If yes (I know it is considered in Saturn), what kind of situation is assumed ?
I think detonation in stage adaptor and commanded destruction.
-
One of the advantages of a tower-style escape system in a CM/SM configuration is that you don't have to take the SM with you on an abort.
(snip)
Dragon, for instance, isn't going to take its trunk along with during an abort.
The comparison isn't completely accurate. Dragon is almost fully-integrated with almost all service module fuctions except solar arrays and radiators integrated with the re-entry vehicle. So, Dragon does take its 'service module' with it. It's just that its' SM is its lower SIM bay.
I think that the objective with Dragon was to create a fully-reusable capsule-type crew vehicle, including a re-usable LAS.
-
But, unlike Apollo's escape system, the CST-100's (and Dragon's for that matter) have no impact on the aerodynamics of the vehicle, and weigh considerably less.
The fact that NASA spent so much time/money on the solid LAS for Orion without ever seriously considering liquid abort options speaks volumes about the worst of NASA culture...
1. Orion will be heavier than CST-100 or Dragon, due to itsBEO design emphasis
2. The large LAS was needed to outrun the solid first stage of the Ares I design. CST/Dragon use liquid first stages.
So it is not fair to compare the three apples to apples due to different designs.
-
I guess it depends on how you define Service Module.
How about "the bit that doesn't survive re-entry" ?
-
I guess it depends on how you define Service Module. All the functions of a standard SM are built into the CST-100 itself except the abort/orbital engine, which by definition must be exterior. I don't call that a SM.
Well, you might not Chuck, but Boeing does. :)
-
Please let me know about this !
I think abort from the detonation is most severe situation. Is the detaination situation considered to design LAS. If yes (I know it is considered in Saturn), what kind of situation is assumed ?
I think detonation in stage adaptor and commanded destruction.
That is an extremely difficult question. Since there is no standard way to calculate it, the detonation or blast wave is not considered or modeled. Instead, a value of distance over time to prevent recontact with the launch vehicle us used. For example, the spacecraft needs to be X feet away from the booster in Y seconds. For Saturn I think it was something like X = 1/2 length of the second stage and Y = 3 seconds. So that is what the commercial teams are working to.
-
Please let me know about this !
I think abort from the detonation is most severe situation. Is the detaination situation considered to design LAS. If yes (I know it is considered in Saturn), what kind of situation is assumed ?
I think detonation in stage adaptor and commanded destruction.
That is an extremely difficult question. Since there is no standard way to calculate it, the detonation or blast wave is not considered or modeled. Instead, a value of distance over time to prevent recontact with the launch vehicle us used. For example, the spacecraft needs to be X feet away from the booster in Y seconds. For Saturn I think it was something like X = 1/2 length of the second stage and Y = 3 seconds. So that is what the commercial teams are working to.
Overpressure due to the detonation definitely is considered. Attached is a calculation of the warning time needed to allow an Apollo spacecraft to survive explosion of the launch vehicle.
-
Please let me know about this !
I think abort from the detonation is most severe situation. Is the detaination situation considered to design LAS. If yes (I know it is considered in Saturn), what kind of situation is assumed ?
I think detonation in stage adaptor and commanded destruction.
That is an extremely difficult question. Since there is no standard way to calculate it, the detonation or blast wave is not considered or modeled. Instead, a value of distance over time to prevent recontact with the launch vehicle us used. For example, the spacecraft needs to be X feet away from the booster in Y seconds. For Saturn I think it was something like X = 1/2 length of the second stage and Y = 3 seconds. So that is what the commercial teams are working to.
Overpressure due to the detonation definitely is considered. Attached is a calculation of the warning time needed to allow an Apollo spacecraft to survive explosion of the launch vehicle.
Sorry for the delay, been on vacation.
I wasn't very clear. This looks like the source data that led to the apollo program coming up with a rule of escaping X feet in T seconds. I am not aware (but easily could be) that the CM/SM was designed to withstand a certain level of over pressure but I believe the design was to just be far enough away. That was part of what I was trying to get at. Second issue is that the blasts are usually modeled as a TNT explosion. NASA has been doing some data review of previous explosions and this appears to be VERY much above reality. There are many examples of pad explosions were the launch tower or payload were hardly damaged. Anyway, due to the complexity what I was trying to say is that there is no hard and fast requirement for the CCDev vehicles so I would guess that the apollo rule of thumb for distance/time will be adopted.
-
From @Jeff_Foust via Twitter:
Boeing is planning an announcement at noon EDT Thursday on the launch vehicle it plans to use for its CST-100 comm'l crew vehicle.
http://twitter.com/jeff_foust
-
From @Jeff_Foust via Twitter:
Boeing is planning an announcement at noon EDT Thursday on the launch vehicle it plans to use for its CST-100 comm'l crew vehicle.
http://twitter.com/jeff_foust
Does it have a "V" in it? :D
-
Yeah, I'd say there's pretty low odds on Atlas V DEC.
-
Does it have a "V" in it? :D
Well both Delta IV and Atlas V both have "V"'s in them so that is not much help :P
With the recent ULA announcement of Atlas V Space act agreement, would be extremely surprised if it were not base-lined.
-
This update from Jeff Foust via twitter...
"No, while Atlas 5 may be the favorite, Boeing has made clear they are compatible with Delta 4, Falcon 9, and Liberty"
I think it would be a shocker if they choose the Falcon 9 but, at this point, why not?
-
This update from Jeff Foust via twitter...
"No, while Atlas 5 may be the favorite, Boeing has made clear they are compatible with Delta 4, Falcon 9, and Liberty"
I think it would be a shocker if they choose the Falcon 9 but, at this point, why not?
Because it does not have a significant flight history.
It makes absolute sense to design and certify against all of them (if one is not a major driver of requirements, testing, cert, etc) for a multitude of reasons but I think the prudent choice is what is the best overall bet.
-
I think it would be a shocker if they choose the Falcon 9 but, at this point, why not?
SpaceX will use Dragon/F9. If Boeing goes with CST-100/F9, F9 would represent a single critical choke point. NASA would probably frown on that. My money is on Atlas V.
-
Me too, too bad we can't a la carte selectively pay taxes.
Oh jeez, did I just go political?
Seriously though, I'd like to see D-IV with uprated RS-68 or 2xRS-25E, but realize that's a long shot for human rating for any number of reasons.
SpaceX will use Dragon/F9. If Boeing goes with CST-100/F9, F9 would represent a single critical choke point. NASA would probably frown on that. My money is on Atlas V.
-
Me too, too bad we can't a la carte selectively pay taxes....
Tragedy of the commons, my friend. If it's all voluntary... no defense against wars, no electric grid or railroads or highways (need right of ways... necessarily a gov't is needed for that), we'd still have polio and smallpox and other such diseases (couldn't be eradicated entirely voluntarily), no police (well, we'd have armed thugs ala Somalia), and definitely no NASA (or NACA).
Gov't is required, and it wouldn't work with only voluntary taxes. Of course, to a certain extent, taxes are voluntary, since you can move to another country with a different tax structure (or no central gov't like Somalia) if you so choose.
-
I think it would be a shocker if they choose the Falcon 9 but, at this point, why not?
SpaceX will use Dragon/F9. If Boeing goes with CST-100/F9, F9 would represent a single critical choke point. NASA would probably frown on that. My money is on Atlas V.
Since the other CCDev spacecraft (Dreamchaser and Blue Origin) are planning to use Atlas V, there will be two LVs regardless of what Boeing chooses. Just a matter of whether the split is 3-1 or 2-2.
-
Since the other CCDev spacecraft (Dreamchaser and Blue Origin) are planning to use Atlas V, there will be two LVs regardless of what Boeing chooses. Just a matter of whether the split is 3-1 or 2-2.
It would be useful if the Falcon 9 and manrated Atlas V use compatible payload adaptors and similar abort trigger interfaces. That way spacecraft can be moved between the two launch vehicles. Three LV if Falcon Heavy is manrated.
-
Because it does not have a significant flight history.
That's all relative; Atlas had a "significant flight history" but ~50% failure rate when John Glenn was strapped to one and shot into orbit...
It should also be noted that nearly every presentation on the Boeing CST-100 also shows it on the Boeing-designed Delta IV Medium...
-
Because it does not have a significant flight history.
That's all relative; Atlas had a "significant flight history" but ~50% failure rate when John Glenn was strapped to one and shot into orbit...
It should also be noted that nearly every presentation on the Boeing CST-100 also shows it on the Boeing-designed Delta IV Medium...
On that first statement, are you kidding me? Aren't you one of the people running around here saying we have all these proven rockets? Tell me what would possibly motivate Boeing to select Falcon 9, a rocket that has flown twice, over a more proven one right now?
And.....there are pictures of it being on every rocket. That's kind of the point of them being "launch vehicle agnostic". But if that is not good enough, is ULA working anything right now to "man-rate" (hate that phrase) the Delta? What about EDS? All their effort seems to be concentrated on Atlas and as a consequence of that (and the fact that others are looking at it too for launch, which could in theory lower the price if others do show up) I expect them to select Atlas.
-
Since the other CCDev spacecraft (Dreamchaser and Blue Origin) are planning to use Atlas V, there will be two LVs regardless of what Boeing chooses. Just a matter of whether the split is 3-1 or 2-2.
Who guarantees SpaceX will get a commercial crew contract? I would not at this point.
However, still think Boeing will select Atlas V since it has synergy with the ULA CCDev 1 and the recent space act agreement.
-
Since the other CCDev spacecraft (Dreamchaser and Blue Origin) are planning to use Atlas V, there will be two LVs regardless of what Boeing chooses. Just a matter of whether the split is 3-1 or 2-2.
...Three LV if Falcon Heavy is manrated.
Is CST-100 adaptable to BEO? If it's in the eventual plan, then being able to throw it on a Falcon Heavy one day could factor in.
-
Since the other CCDev spacecraft (Dreamchaser and Blue Origin) are planning to use Atlas V, there will be two LVs regardless of what Boeing chooses. Just a matter of whether the split is 3-1 or 2-2.
...Three LV if Falcon Heavy is manrated.
Is CST-100 adaptable to BEO? If it's in the eventual plan, then being able to throw it on a Falcon Heavy one day could factor in.
For the near term no. Boeing has no plans for BEO, but I suspect it could be evolved for BEO work. FH imho is too much for these craft(they don't mass that much) unless you wanted to throw the capsule to EML1/2 and I am not sure CST100 has the endurance for the mission as they were only planning to support a crew for 48 hours.
-
It would be useful if the Falcon 9 and manrated Atlas V use compatible payload adaptors
Huh, that doesn't make sense. CST is going to have a mechanical interface and it is not going to change for different boosters. The booster will have to have an adapter that can mate with it. Falcon 9 and Atlas V don't have to use the same one.
-
Three LV if Falcon Heavy is manrated.
No, 2. Falcon Heavy is the same as a F9
-
It would be useful if the Falcon 9 and manrated Atlas V use compatible payload adaptors
Huh, that doesn't make sense. CST is going to have a mechanical interface and it is not going to change for different boosters. The booster will have to have an adapter that can mate with it. Falcon 9 and Atlas V don't have to use the same one.
No it makes total sense. It is called complying with an interface standard. The terrestrial equivalent is the coupling between tractor units on trucks and trailers. Different makes work together the first time they meet.
-
It would be useful if the Falcon 9 and manrated Atlas V use compatible payload adaptors
Huh, that doesn't make sense. CST is going to have a mechanical interface and it is not going to change for different boosters. The booster will have to have an adapter that can mate with it. Falcon 9 and Atlas V don't have to use the same one.
No it makes total sense. It is called complying with an interface standard. The terrestrial equivalent is the coupling between tractor units on trucks and trailers. Different makes work together the first time they meet.
wrong, as usual you don't know how things work.
a. It is nowhere equivalent to the tractor trailer hitch
b. payload adaptors are not compatible between launch vehicles, an adapter for one launch vehicle can not be used on another. They are compatible between spacecraft.
c. CST is not a standard spacecraft and is going to have a unique interface. Each launch vehicle will have to develop an adapter for it.
d. There are standard payload interfaces, such as 47 and 66 inch rings but each launch vehicle has a unique adapter to provide such interface. The front end of the adapter looks the same to the spacecraft but the back end is different depending on the launch vehicle.
-
Did you all forget about Liberty? ;)
New thread for the decision.
-
New thread here for the decision:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26303.0
-
Did you all forget about Liberty? ;)
I don't think so, Chris. I'm forced to conclude that no-one actually thinks it is a realistic option.
-
I don't think Dragon could easily fly on anything but a Falcon 9. Looking at the trunk, it's lower part is concave, just enough to go over the US tank. This should save the interstage, if I'm not mistaken. It's very efficient and optimized for the Falcon 9. But in an Atlas V, it might be difficult to adapt. Here the CST-100 seems more "agnostic".
-
Well, it's official. At least for the first flights, it's going to be CST-100/Atlas-V-412.
Follow the link in the stub Chris has left on this forum to join the discussion!
-
*Cue joke* Cue press release from ATK declaring Liberty was too good of a launch vehicle for Boeing to use for CST-100? ;) *End joke*
Looks like the Atlas V is going to be getting a lot of work in the post-Shuttle world.
-
Cue press release from ATK declaring Liberty was too good of a launch vehicle for Boeing to use for CST-100? ;)
I'm no fan of Liberty but I'm sure that, if ATK and EADS Astrum complete the development and are then able to sell seats to someone who wants to fly on Stick Redux, Boeing would be pleased to sell them CST-100s to use as crew vehicles.
Capitalism! Ain't it wonnerful? ;)
-
Cue press release from ATK declaring Liberty was too good of a launch vehicle for Boeing to use for CST-100? ;)
I'm no fan of Liberty but I'm sure that, if ATK and EADS Astrum complete the development and are then able to sell seats to someone who wants to fly on Stick Redux, Boeing would be pleased to sell them CST-100s to use as crew vehicles.
Capitalism! Ain't it wonnerful? ;)
Oh yes. Of course I only wish them the best.
-
Cue press release from ATK declaring Liberty was too good of a launch vehicle for Boeing to use for CST-100? ;)
Looks like the Atlas V is going to be getting a lot of work in the post-Shuttle world.
This is a silly comment. The anti-ATK dogma on here, even permiating a thread that really has nothing to do with ATK, has become out of control.
Boeing has said that they are evaluating Liberty for a possible launch vehicle. We'll see if that happens because Boeing is not ever going to select a launch vehicle, or qualify CST's systems for that launch vehicle, if the requirements from a particular LV drive the design (and hence cost).
But, again, they have said they are evaluating it. But of course Liberty does not yet exist so it would be unwise for them to select that LV don't you think?
-
It was just a joke playing off the release after NASA had rejected Liberty. Meant no disrespect by it.
Like I already said, I only wish ATK the best.
-
Cross linking the article for continuation. Will move the announcement thread into the commercial section, but this thread will continue.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/
-
Boeing pilots to make space trip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14417634
Assuming these demonstration flights go well, the third mission will see Boeing test pilots take the CST-100 all the way to the International Space Station.
The CST-100 would then be ready for commercial service starting in 2016.
Boeing says the two pilots it plans to use on the manned mission in 2015 will emerge from a selection process that is already under way
"We're actually interviewing now for the first one," said Mr Elbon. "I would like to get one on board so that they can be part of the design process and influence it from an operator's perspective."
-
From the selection document:
"use of non-toxic propellant for crew module"... Interesting.
I was fully expecting NOFBX from SpaceX. And I've seen the video of the PWR Bantam engine test for Boeing that uses Nitrogen Tetroxide and Monomethyl Hydrazine. That means that they have their propulsion module as a different part. So they use some storable monopropellant for manouvering.
Is this video what you were referring to?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxKq6hvB4yM&feature=channel_video_title
-
Regarding Liberty, it will only push a Crony capsule. commercial version of this misguided malenge and it's suddenly 1/4 the price?
About BEO capsules, the debate is ridiculous. No 2 or 3 astronauts are going to live on a capsule for 3 months. Until we invent a diaper that recycles waste to food, it won't work. You'll need some sort of Bigelow or other long duration habitation module.
-
Space Capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)
In the Mojave Desert in southeast California, Boeing and teammate Bigelow Aerospace recently conducted a series of successful air bag drop tests for the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 mock capsule, which, like airbag tests done in cars, will help ensure that the seven crew members inside the capsule land safely after reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. Boeing is one of four companies competing to develop a commercial crew transportation system that will restore the United States' capability to provide access to the International Space Station by 2016.
After reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.
-
Space Capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)
In the Mojave Desert in southeast California, Boeing and teammate Bigelow Aerospace recently conducted a series of successful air bag drop tests for the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 mock capsule,
I wonder if the 12 new airbags to be tested in October are all for the same capsule (more but smaller) or if they will be similar to the drop tests shown in the link you provided.
Either way, it's nice that they have land-landing and airbags look like a reasonable solution. Did they go this route to avoid hypergolics/toxic pollution (unlike Soyuz and dragon)? Or are airbags generally thought to be more reliable than rockets?
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
Are the airbags and heatshield a significant part of the production cost (thinking in terms of partial reusability)?
-
Regarding Liberty, it will only push a Crony capsule. commercial version of this misguided malenge and it's suddenly 1/4 the price?
About BEO capsules, the debate is ridiculous. No 2 or 3 astronauts are going to live on a capsule for 3 months. Until we invent a diaper that recycles waste to food, it won't work. You'll need some sort of Bigelow or other long duration habitation module.
Get your facts straight
Liberty is not for Orion
Orion has never been planned to fly solo For BEO missions
-
Did they go this route to avoid hypergolics/toxic pollution (unlike Soyuz and dragon)?
The US ASTP crew experienced the disadvantages of this first hand. Doesn't apply to Soyuz though: The DM uses H2O2 for entry guidance and solids for "soft" landing. Neither one is a big toxic risk, but they have other inconveniences. Pretty much all the rocket options involve ugly trades.
The description makes it sounds like CST-100 inflates the airbags with compressed gas. I would have expected a chemical gas generator like car airbags. Could just be glossed over by PAO though.
-
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
The thing seemed to almost tip over because the video explained it was landing with less air bags to simulate an off nominal landing test. Dont know about the wind, but it seemed to be very robust about not tipping over due to lack or landing bags. Nice tests.
-
Space Capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)
In the Mojave Desert in southeast California, Boeing and teammate Bigelow Aerospace recently conducted...
What role would Bigelow have in these tests? Is this gloss on a PR blurb or are Bigelow engineers actually tasked with some development of the cst 100 relating to the airbags?
-
Space Capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)
In the Mojave Desert in southeast California, Boeing and teammate Bigelow Aerospace recently conducted...
Thank you for that. I was always wondering about the landing mode for CST-100. Now I know: land landing with airbags (like Orion originally, and what I was hoping for).
Also, from the comment in the video it sounds as if a manned test flight in 2015 is a given? Does that mean that Boeing is now producing CST-100 regardless of what happens?
-
What role would Bigelow have in these tests? Is this gloss on a PR blurb or are Bigelow engineers actually tasked with some development of the cst 100 relating to the airbags?
According to the video, Bigelow engineers built the drop rig shown. The airbags themselves are made by ILC Dover. So to a slight extent, Bigelow seem to be involved in the development.
-
Did they go this route to avoid hypergolics/toxic pollution (unlike Soyuz and dragon)?
The US ASTP crew experienced the disadvantages of this first hand. Doesn't apply to Soyuz though: The DM uses H2O2 for entry guidance and solids for "soft" landing. Neither one is a big toxic risk, but they have other inconveniences. Pretty much all the rocket options involve ugly trades.
The description makes it sounds like CST-100 inflates the airbags with compressed gas. I would have expected a chemical gas generator like car airbags. Could just be glossed over by PAO though.
Nope - compressed gas.
-
The description makes it sounds like CST-100 inflates the airbags with compressed gas. I would have expected a chemical gas generator like car airbags. Could just be glossed over by PAO though.
Nope - compressed gas.
Well, the airbags have a lot more time to inflate than in a car.
-
I think they would have been better off with a steerable parafoil and shock absorbing skids ala X-38. The technology is out there, why not use it…
Regards
Robert
-
They're landing in the desert. Why would they need to steer the capsule?
-
I think they would have been better off with a steerable parafoil and shock absorbing skids ala X-38. The technology is out there, why not use it…
Why is it better? More advanced does not always mean better. It is unneeded if both concepts arrive at the same end result, landing in the desert. X-38 parafoil was not piloted and therefore not used for obstacle avoidance.
Simpler is cheaper and better in this case.
-
I think they would have been better off with a steerable parafoil and shock absorbing skids ala X-38. The technology is out there, why not use it…
Why is it better? More advanced does not always mean better. It is unneeded if both concepts arrive at the same end result, landing in the desert. X-38 parafoil was not piloted and therefore not used for obstacle avoidance.
Simpler is cheaper and better in this case.
Hey Jim!
My thoughts on a reusable vehicle… IIRC there were control motors for the parafoil. Both work...
Robert
-
My thoughts on a reusable vehicle… IIRC there were control motors for the parafoil. Both work...
Robert
GPS steered and not pilot steered
-
My thoughts on a reusable vehicle… IIRC there were control motors for the parafoil. Both work...
Robert
GPS steered and not pilot steered
I never said piloted...
-
The base of the heat shield drops away at 5000 ft. I know this is landing in the desert, but I wonder how far away from the capsule does it land ? Obviously, it doesn't get re-used, since it can't be expected to be in great condition after falling 5000 ft without a parachute.
-
They're landing in the desert. Why would they need to steer the capsule?
Because deserts aren't nearly as uniform/flat as you might expect. Most deserts in the Southwest US are pretty rocky, if not mountainous (the dunes of White Sands are an exception). The last thing you want is for the wind to blow you into the side of a rocky outcrop.
-
Steering could be important as a CRV event and in landing in unplanned locations or in heavy weather conditions which could be avoided. The unknown, unknowns…
Edit: The X-38 parafoil could be remotely piloted or in manual overide as tested in the "Vomit Van"...
http://kjeldvandruten.3sc.nl/x38.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2001/01-73.html
-
Is it possible that part of the airbag idea is for staying afloat in the event of a water landing?
-
Is it possible that part of the airbag idea is for staying afloat in the event of a water landing?
Seems as likely to make them flip over in the water...
-
Is it possible that part of the airbag idea is for staying afloat in the event of a water landing?
Seems as likely to make them flip over in the water...
Form page 11:
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Keith_Reiley.pdf
CST-100 looks like it wont use the airbags on a water landing, at least initially.
-
Is it possible that part of the airbag idea is for staying afloat in the event of a water landing?
Base heat shield and airbags will not be deployed on water landings. Can act like a sea anchor or keep you upside down if you flip.
-
They're landing in the desert. Why would they need to steer the capsule?
Because deserts aren't nearly as uniform/flat as you might expect. Most deserts in the Southwest US are pretty rocky, if not mountainous (the dunes of White Sands are an exception). The last thing you want is for the wind to blow you into the side of a rocky outcrop.
That is why you have a few very large desert/lake bed combinations and then use the water if need be.
-
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
The thing seemed to almost tip over because the video explained it was landing with less air bags to simulate an off nominal landing test. Dont know about the wind, but it seemed to be very robust about not tipping over due to lack or landing bags. Nice tests.
Tipped up, but not even close to tipping over. Part of the point of the tests is to define the capabilities.
-
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
The thing seemed to almost tip over because the video explained it was landing with less air bags to simulate an off nominal landing test. Dont know about the wind, but it seemed to be very robust about not tipping over due to lack or landing bags. Nice tests.
Harumph. The airbags were out because they tore them on earlier drops. Normally I would not say anything, but that is spin.
-
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
The thing seemed to almost tip over because the video explained it was landing with less air bags to simulate an off nominal landing test. Dont know about the wind, but it seemed to be very robust about not tipping over due to lack or landing bags. Nice tests.
Harumph. The airbags were out because they tore them on earlier drops. Normally I would not say anything, but that is spin.
Are you saying that I am naive and fell for a spin in the story? LOL you maybe right. Well anyway you lose bags, its fair to use that loss in a later test. Take lemons and make lemonade.
-
I wonder what windspeed touch-down would cause it to flip over or roll. The video didn't mention whether that defined the upper limit.
The thing seemed to almost tip over because the video explained it was landing with less air bags to simulate an off nominal landing test. Dont know about the wind, but it seemed to be very robust about not tipping over due to lack or landing bags. Nice tests.
Harumph. The airbags were out because they tore them on earlier drops. Normally I would not say anything, but that is spin.
Are you saying that I am naive and fell for a spin in the story? LOL you maybe right. Well anyway you lose bags, its fair to use that loss in a later test. Take lemons and make lemonade.
Not spin. It was a valid test to gain very useful data. Bonus that it helped show extreme limits.
-
Here are the optional CCDev2 milestones that were picked up by NASA today:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SAA-Amendment-Boeing.pdf
-
Here are the optional CCDev2 milestones that were picked up by NASA today:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SAA-Amendment-Boeing.pdf
The link timesout.
-
Here are the optional CCDev2 milestones that were picked up by NASA today:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SAA-Amendment-Boeing.pdf
The link timesout.
Here is the document:
-
Here are the optional CCDev2 milestones that were picked up by NASA today:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SAA-Amendment-Boeing.pdf
The link timesout.
Here is the document:
Thank you.
-
What Boeing plant is the CST-100 primarily based at?
-
A bit of an update:
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/10/bds_cst100_windtunnel_10_10_11.html
-
What Boeing plant is the CST-100 primarily based at?
Design is primarily out of Houston and Huntington Beach.
-
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20111026/NEWS02/310260005/Boeing-s-spaceship-assembled-Kennedy-Space-Center
CST-100 will be assembled in OPF3 :)
-
Written statement (http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/102611_Elbon.pdf) from Mr. John Elbon - Vice President and General Manager, Space Exploration Division, The Boeing Company, for today's House Hearing on Commercial Crew. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27138.0)
-
Written statement (http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/102611_Elbon.pdf) from Mr. John Elbon - Vice President and General Manager, Space Exploration Division, The Boeing Company, for today's House Hearing on Commercial Crew. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27138.0)
Seems like Boeing are quite happy with the ongoing arrangements even if they include traditional approach (FAR) contracting. Don't think that's going to reduce cost somehow although to be fair, they did mention reduced oversight requirements and property ownship by the commercial companies. IMO the only way to continue cost reduction / efficiency increase is to continue on the path adopted for the first 2 rounds. No question in my mind.
-
Also interesting that they way he describes it, CST-100 was designed from the outset for Atlas V and only Atlas V. That's a rather different than the "launch vehicle agnostic" line they kept saying before they got the CCDEV money...
-
Also interesting that they way he describes it, CST-100 was designed from the outset for Atlas V and only Atlas V. That's a rather different than the "launch vehicle agnostic" line they kept saying before they got the CCDEV money...
Remember, they down selected to Atlas for CCDev.
-
Also interesting that they way he describes it, CST-100 was designed from the outset for Atlas V and only Atlas V. That's a rather different than the "launch vehicle agnostic" line they kept saying before they got the CCDEV money...
It's called evolution. There are certainly things that can be, and have been, done to make it "launch vehicle agnostic".
However, all of this is very much about cost. If Boeing has chosen a launch vehicle (Atlas) and there is no reason to be on multiple launch vehicles for the forseeable future, there is no reason to qualify and certify all your systems right now for the different environments that may be expected, which of course saves time and money.
If and when the day arrives CST launches on something else, then depending on what the "something else" is, then perhaps they just need to run a few delta-quals for things if there are any "poke-outs" for the environments of that particular launch vehicle.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45082073/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Boeing to sign lease for NASA's space shuttle hangar
Space taxis to be manufactured at Kennedy Space Center, sources say
-
My article on OPF-3 for CST-100. Will have a specific thread...
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/boeings-cst-100-opf-3-nasa-agreement-space-florida/
-
Great to see some future-directed activities already! But... how can this be before the CST-100 is actually selected as the vehicle for commercial crew?
-
Great to see some future-directed activities already! But... how can this be before the CST-100 is actually selected as the vehicle for commercial crew?
Simple. Put some cancellation remarks into your leasing contract.
-
Collectspace posted a new video on youtube of the CST-100, but what is interesting is the last slide, as they went out of their way tp put a shuttle MLP in the picture rather than the Atlas one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPs6zfslkvk
now I know a few of you will state that it is only artwork, but why go out of the way to use a LC-39 shot, rather than just add the CST-100 to a shot of an Atlas launching from LC-41? Seems like a contradiction of KISS
-
Because sometimes politics mandates a non-optimal technical solution.
-
What caught my eye more was the Centaur-Service Module adapter, which looks much longer than in previous renderings. I wonder if that is just for aerodynamics or if they actually plan to carry external payload back there (in a similar manner to Dragon)...
-
What caught my eye more was the Centaur-Service Module adapter, which looks much longer than in previous renderings. I wonder if that is just for aerodynamics or if they actually plan to carry external payload back there (in a similar manner to Dragon)...
I doubt it unless they've radically re-designed their LAS. It's a pusher and has bottom-mounted nozzles so a cargo container would get in the way.
-
Well, you wouldn't abort with the external cargo attached, but rather have the same quick-release connections between the cargo and SM as you'd otherwise have between the SM and launch vehicle. That would not require any changes to the LAS, and (AFAIK) only the LAS engines are enclosed. The rest of the RCS is external and would not be impinged by the presence of a "trunk".
Besides, what other plausible reason for that massive adapter? It's not covering any of the Centaur, and it's certainly not saving any weight.
-
Not to jump in mid conversation, but the large adapter is curious... I suspect that it could contain “blow-out” panels at an abort scenario…
Robert
-
Is there any chance they might have payload mass to spare and are preparing to accommodate secondary payloads? :)
-
Is there any chance they might have payload mass to spare and are preparing to accommodate secondary payloads? :)
Cheese? ;D
-
What caught my eye more was the Centaur-Service Module adapter, which looks much longer than in previous renderings. I wonder if that is just for aerodynamics or if they actually plan to carry external payload back there (in a similar manner to Dragon)...
Aero and loads - no additiona payloads.
-
Interesting, thanks! Should I take that to mean the longer adapter is stronger to compression loads, but also reduces the aero compression loads (due to the longer hammerhead)? Is there much of a mass penalty, or does the reduced drag make up for that?
-
A good article on the CST-100:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/111125-boeing-heritage-space-taxi-design.html
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
It's CST.
-
Boeing completed a CCDev2 milestone-a review of plans for a simulation to test spacecraft responses to a launch vehicle initiated abort
https://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
It's CST.
But where are the LAS pitch/yaw thrusters?
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
It's CST.
But where are the LAS pitch/yaw thrusters?
They are in the 4 protrusions around the service module.
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
It's CST.
But where are the LAS pitch/yaw thrusters?
It's an artist's impression; a not very detailed artist's impression. Not everyone wants to (or needs to) render a detail-perfect image. ;)
-
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
I don't think the second image is the CST-100, but instead is just some generic spacecraft design.
It's CST.
But where are the LAS pitch/yaw thrusters?
They are in the 4 protrusions around the service module.
The four large thrusters on the back of the SM are the LAS motors. Stacked on teh rocket you don't see them at all, even as protrusions (they are covered by the LVA). The OMACs and RCS are used for control durign the LAS burn.
-
Wind tunnel work:
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/november-2011/daily-planet---november-23-2011/#clip572949
-
Wind tunnel work:
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/november-2011/daily-planet---november-23-2011/#clip572949 (http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/november-2011/daily-planet---november-23-2011/#clip572949)
Cool.
I'm pretty sure that was the NASA Ames Unitary wind tunnel.
I got a tour of that tunnel back around 2000 when we did our test in the 80x120. There were a few mind-blowing things about it.
As I recall, it has the largest single-shaft axial flow air compressor (like the front of a jet engine) in the world. The thing was huge. I don't know the diameter but standing next to it the center line was way above my head. It was driven by four 65,000HP wound-rotor induction motors on one shaft each started by a 6-story-tall water rheostat. It's cooled by 6 enormous evaporative coolers. I think this (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ames+Research+Center,+Mountain+View,+CA&hl=en&ll=37.416865,-122.061131&spn=0.002931,0.001499&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=66.193728,49.130859&vpsrc=6&hnear=Ames+Research+Center,+Mountain+View,+California+94043&t=h&z=19) is it.
-
Wind tunnel work:
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/november-2011/daily-planet---november-23-2011/#clip572949
Sweet, thanks for the link!
I love the Discovery Channel. :)
-
A paper about the CST-100:
Design considerations for a commercial Crew Transportation System (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/Space_2011_Boeing.pdf)
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
-
A paper about the CST-100:
Design considerations for a commercial Crew Transportation System (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/Space_2011_Boeing.pdf)
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
Thanks for the links
-
a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
An interesting thing on page 6 of that PDF... The service module has an empty cylindrical space in the middle. Will that be filled up by something, or is it intended to be for unpressurized cargo?
There also appears to be some sort of roll-bar that is extended around the NDS adapter during landing - presumably to prevent the parachute lines from being snagged in (or cut off by) the docking ring petals?
-
There also appears to be some sort of roll-bar that is extended around the NDS adapter during landing - presumably to prevent the parachute lines from being snagged in (or cut off by) the docking ring petals?
I think that is the docking tunnel without part of the forward structure present... just for the test. You'll see it exposed in other development shots as well.
-
a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
An interesting thing on page 6 of that PDF... The service module has an empty cylindrical space in the middle. Will that be filled up by something, or is it intended to be for unpressurized cargo?
There also appears to be some sort of roll-bar that is extended around the NDS adapter during landing - presumably to prevent the parachute lines from being snagged in (or cut off by) the docking ring petals?
Q1: Empty - not carrying cargo in the SM.
Q2: That is the bucket handle that will swing out and maintain the proper parachute hang angle for landing.
-
Thanx for the pdf. Amazing to see the progress of Boeing. But if I see how much space they need for the launch abort system and the propellant tanks, I have my questions how SpaceX can integrate this fully in their limited space.
By the way, for me, it looks like Boeing and SpaceX use the same idea for their thrusters and launch abort system (special engines for launch abort but same propellant and tanks).
-
1000 psi... That's got to be a lot higher than the ACS/RCS thrusters normally operate at. That means that although it shares the same propellant, the abort capability makes the tanks a lot heavier.
-
Interesting... So, basically you guys own the patent on it. You filed in 2004, and were awarded the patent in 2009.
Heh, note that the patent references Jim's favourite aerospace source...
-
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space_exploration/CST_to_ISS_1080_32kb.mov
Did anyone save this? It appears not to work anymore.
-
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
Slide 12 (the one about schedule) is very interesting. They anticipate that milestones will be completed faster the farther they are now, in a roughly exponential manner. Is it plausible to have Orbital Flight Test, Ascent Abort Test, Two-crew flight test, and Crew Transport flight all within a single year (2015)?
-
Did anyone save this? It appears not to work anymore.
This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HHXKDDvJBk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HHXKDDvJBk)
-
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
Slide 12 (the one about schedule) is very interesting. They anticipate that milestones will be completed faster the farther they are now, in a roughly exponential manner. Is it plausible to have Orbital Flight Test, Ascent Abort Test, Two-crew flight test, and Crew Transport flight all within a single year (2015)?
Yes but only if there are no problems or anomolies that have to be corrected prior to the next flight, something that rarely happens. A significant problem could easily cause as much as a year delay to the last test date.
-
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
Slide 12 (the one about schedule) is very interesting. They anticipate that milestones will be completed faster the farther they are now, in a roughly exponential manner. Is it plausible to have Orbital Flight Test, Ascent Abort Test, Two-crew flight test, and Crew Transport flight all within a single year (2015)?
That would be four flights within a calendar year - it sounds implausible. ULA could probably manage, but scheduling around other Atlas V payloads with different schedule limitations would be problematic. (Assuming another Atlas V pad and/or integration building isn't built)
-
And a presentation about the CST-100:
Boeing CST-100 august 2011 (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf)
Slide 12 (the one about schedule) is very interesting. They anticipate that milestones will be completed faster the farther they are now, in a roughly exponential manner. Is it plausible to have Orbital Flight Test, Ascent Abort Test, Two-crew flight test, and Crew Transport flight all within a single year (2015)?
That would be four flights within a calendar year - it sounds implausible. ULA could probably manage, but scheduling around other Atlas V payloads with different schedule limitations would be problematic. (Assuming another Atlas V pad and/or integration building isn't built)
I don't think they'd have a problem for that, as long as they know far enough ahead of time. The longer NASA (or Congress) waits to decide who to give full funding, the more difficult it would be.
But I agree that that many development flights seems unrealistic so close together... What is the point of the multiple flights in increasing capability if not to allow lessons from earlier flights to affect later ones? With 4 flights in a year, there would need to be a lot of parallel work done on the flights, giving less opportunity for lessons learned to be applied to the later flights. I'm definitely not saying they can't do it, just that it seems pretty quick to me.
-
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/162/virgin-galatic-spacex-boeing-xcor-armadillo-aerospace
What is attached to the CST-100? I wasn't aware of plans for a mission module.
-
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/162/virgin-galatic-spacex-boeing-xcor-armadillo-aerospace
What is attached to the CST-100? I wasn't aware of plans for a mission module.
Boeing's capsule for OSP/CEV had a mission module, but it was deleted for CST-100
-
Lori Garver tweeted out a pic from the CST-100 mockup:
http://yfrog.com/kjnt8ypj?f=1
-
Lori Garver tweeted out a pic from the CST-100 mockup:
http://yfrog.com/kjnt8ypj?f=1
Going for a trip, Lori? ;)
-
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/162/virgin-galatic-spacex-boeing-xcor-armadillo-aerospace
What is attached to the CST-100? I wasn't aware of plans for a mission module.
Boeing's capsule for OSP/CEV had a mission module, but it was deleted for CST-100
In the end, it was deleted for OSP
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
I think that the previous firings where of an almost the definitive engine. And this was the definitive engine. Which of course was much less risky than going from Dracos to SuperDracos.
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
I think that the previous firings where of an almost the definitive engine. And this was the definitive engine. Which of course was much less risky than going from Dracos to SuperDracos.
I would argue that SuperDraco shares only a name and propellant combination with Draco, otherwise being essentially a clean-sheet design. Still got it done a little quicker than PWR. ;)
-
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
I think that the previous firings where of an almost the definitive engine. And this was the definitive engine. Which of course was much less risky than going from Dracos to SuperDracos.
I would argue that SuperDraco shares only a name and propellant combination with Draco, otherwise being essentially a clean-sheet design. Still got it done a little quicker than PWR. ;)
Probably not the pacing item, and they weren't to invest the money themselves without some help from NASA. After all, it was more like adjusting an existing design.
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
it is evolution. Last year under CCDev1 they fired a prototype. This version is more evolved. Will evolve a little bit more but this is pretty close to the final.
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
Not really in "living memory," and SpaceX would have insight into that (and the results from Stardust, etc).
-
The CST-100 launch abort engine was successfully test fired yesterday
http://www.facebook.com/PWRocketdyne
A little after SpaceX's SuperDraco test. :)
Good to see everyone progressing.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the first firing of the CST-100 launch abort engine. (Unless the previous firing were of another engine has now been derived for use on CST-100)
From http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a4997cb7e-5daf-42c5-99f6-5219e0aa2fed&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
The Bantam engine was “heavyweight and not optimized for performance, but rather for cost. So to adopt it to this application we need to improve performance a little and reduce the weight. So this is an incremental test along the way,” he adds. “We’ll take the data from these tests and the next step will be a flightweight engine.”
Not really in "living memory," and SpaceX would have insight into that (and the results from Stardust, etc).
I don't really see the relevance of "living memory" in either design, CST-100 is a program descendant of the Apollo CSM, and as such has much more data than Dragon and the stardust missions combined. Boeing has built many spacecraft and was lead for STS and ISS, they have much more going for them in a crewed spacecraft than SpaceX regardless of one or more reentries.
-
Not really in "living memory," and SpaceX would have insight into that (and the results from Stardust, etc).
I don't really see the relevance of "living memory" in either design, CST-100 is a program descendant of the Apollo CSM, and as such has much more data than Dragon and the stardust missions combined. Boeing has built many spacecraft and was lead for STS and ISS, they have much more going for them in a crewed spacecraft than SpaceX regardless of one or more reentries.
[/quote]
Well to counter all that, Dragon Cargo (essentially the same as Dragon Crew for these purposes) has successfully been to and made a return from leo. They have actual data from their on-board instrumentation as well as reviewing their actual heatshield performance which IIRC was well above expectations. In the next 12 months, it may have made 3 more flights to and from building up actual flight data. It's hard to counter that with powerpoint charts and ground experiments.
No one else has that for any of the vehicles. That puts them ahead on my scorecard. That said, I'm happy that any company is actually doing work and producing hardware.
The biggest issue will be, as usual, funding.
-
Not really in "living memory," and SpaceX would have insight into that (and the results from Stardust, etc).
Well to counter all that, Dragon Cargo (essentially the same as Dragon Crew for these purposes) has successfully been to and made a return from leo. They have actual data from their on-board instrumentation as well as reviewing their actual heatshield performance which IIRC was well above expectations. In the next 12 months, it may have made 3 more flights to and from building up actual flight data. It's hard to counter that with powerpoint charts and ground experiments.
No one else has that for any of the vehicles. That puts them ahead on my scorecard. That said, I'm happy that any company is actually doing work and producing hardware.
The biggest issue will be, as usual, funding.
Ditto to you Beancounter. Go Boeing and go SpaceX. On Funding hopefully SpaceX is cash flow positive with their proposed commercial launch manifest and ISS cargo contract to fund crew regardless of actual commercial appropriations. Low commercial funding may put them way out in front if they choose to stay on track for 2016 regardless of a fickle funding process.
Personally I'd like to see 3 teams in the next phase with two capsules and one space plane. A diverse platform foundation should help drive more innovation and long term benefit, as well as public interest.
-
Anyone know the area ratio of the CST-100 abort engine?
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
CST-100 isn't using Avcoat. Its using something called the Boeing Lightweight Ablator (BLA).
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
CST-100 isn't using Avcoat. Its using something called the Boeing Lightweight Ablator (BLA).
I would have to check my notes but believe this comes out of the X-37B program. Boeing has a few patents on some.
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
CST-100 isn't using Avcoat. Its using something called the Boeing Lightweight Ablator (BLA).
Last I heard, they abandoned that. At least for now anyway due to technical problems with the material and decided to focus on more proven materials in order to keep integrated progress on track.
-
Not really in "living memory," and SpaceX would have insight into that (and the results from Stardust, etc).
I don't really see the relevance of "living memory" in either design, CST-100 is a program descendant of the Apollo CSM, and as such has much more data than Dragon and the stardust missions combined. Boeing has built many spacecraft and was lead for STS and ISS, they have much more going for them in a crewed spacecraft than SpaceX regardless of one or more reentries.
Well to counter all that, Dragon Cargo (essentially the same as Dragon Crew for these purposes) has successfully been to and made a return from leo. They have actual data from their on-board instrumentation as well as reviewing their actual heatshield performance which IIRC was well above expectations. In the next 12 months, it may have made 3 more flights to and from building up actual flight data. It's hard to counter that with powerpoint charts and ground experiments.
No one else has that for any of the vehicles. That puts them ahead on my scorecard. That said, I'm happy that any company is actually doing work and producing hardware.
The biggest issue will be, as usual, funding.
[/quote]
I beg to differ with you. Boeing has the design advantage over several companies because they understand the art and skills of Ergonomics. It's a major advantage for them.
-
BTW, I this firing might have been more like "it's fine and within specs, given the slight mods we did", and SpaceX was more probably "Thanks God! It actually works!". Which is a long way from having a fully characterized and certified engine. So SpaceX might have fired first, but they need a lot more work than PWR. I'm sure the reentry test will be the other way around ;-)
Well the shape and avocoat for CST-100 have had about a decade of operational experience from Apollo including return from lunar orbit, plus testing for Orion.
CST-100 isn't using Avcoat. Its using something called the Boeing Lightweight Ablator (BLA).
Last I heard, they abandoned that. At least for now anyway due to technical problems with the material and decided to focus on more proven materials in order to keep integrated progress on track.
Sure you not thinking of the PICA material?
Edit: wrong name
-
It's PICA and no I am not thinking about that. I may be wrong ultimately, it's just what I remember thinking I heard.
-
It's PICA and no I am not thinking about that. I may be wrong ultimately, it's just what I remember thinking I heard.
Yeah I saw the same about the boeing lightwieght ablator material. They decided it would not work but likewise don't know what they switched to. If they switched to PICA that would be intresting.
-
I beg to differ with you. Boeing has the design advantage over several companies because they understand the art and skills of Ergonomics. It's a major advantage for them.
Since when does Boeing have a monopoly on hiring ergonomicists? I imagine Tesla has a bit of experience with that too (and at least 1 crucial common employee). Did you see those custom dragon crew seats on one of these threads a little while back? It isn't like they'll just toss them in there with some old crates to sit on and hope for the best.
Please forgive me if I misunderstood your post.
-
I beg to differ with you. Boeing has the design advantage over several companies because they understand the art and skills of Ergonomics. It's a major advantage for them.
Since when does Boeing have a monopoly on hiring ergonomicists? I imagine Tesla has a bit of experience with that too (and at least 1 crucial common employee). Did you see those custom dragon crew seats on one of these threads a little while back? It isn't like they'll just toss them in there with some old crates to sit on and hope for the best.
Please forgive me if I misunderstood your post.
No monopoly, just Boeing employees are "seasoned" in Ergonomics. Boeing does a great deal of work on Aircraft.
You will be sorry that you brought up the dragon crew seats etc. Sorry to say I was not impressed, more disapointed. IMHO, one look told me the Dragon design should pull two of the seats and rework it for 5 users.
-
I beg to differ with you. Boeing has the design advantage over several companies because they understand the art and skills of Ergonomics. It's a major advantage for them.
If Boeing has an advantage over anybody, I'd say it is NASA's "comfort" (for lack of a better word) in contracting with them. The relationship has deeper roots than that with SpX or others.
-
Boeing has the design advantage over several companies because they understand the art and skills of Ergonomics. It's a major advantage for them.
Seriously? "Ergonomics"? Out of the skill sets Boeing has, you feel *this* one is really the one worthy of singling out?
-
Besides which, have you ever actually been on a long-haul (>6 hour) flight in a Boeing airplane? I'm certainly not going to take any ergonomics lessons from whomever designed those seats! :P
-
Besides which, have you ever actually been on a long-haul (>6 hour) flight in a Boeing airplane? I'm certainly not going to take any ergonomics lessons from whomever designed those seats! :P
That's not Boeing. That's the airline that has provided requirements to Boeing on how many passengers and in what setting/arrangement they want to fly on a particular route.
That is why when a new-class plane is rolled out it sports all these incredible luxuries and accomodations. Then reality hits when you board one and see none of that because the airline is trying to fly the most people for the lowest cost.
-
Besides which, have you ever actually been on a long-haul (>6 hour) flight in a Boeing airplane? I'm certainly not going to take any ergonomics lessons from whomever designed those seats! :P
That's not Boeing. That's the airline that has provided requirements to Boeing on how many passengers and in what setting/arrangement they want to fly on a particular route.
That is why when a new-class plane is rolled out it sports all these incredible luxuries and accomodations. Then reality hits when you board one and see none of that because the airline is trying to fly the most people for the lowest cost.
And yet there is a market for luxury travel.
Just feast your eyes on all the private and corporate jets.
Companies like Gulfstream continue to work backorders.
-
Besides which, have you ever actually been on a long-haul (>6 hour) flight in a Boeing airplane? I'm certainly not going to take any ergonomics lessons from whomever designed those seats! :P
That's not Boeing. That's the airline that has provided requirements to Boeing on how many passengers and in what setting/arrangement they want to fly on a particular route.
That is why when a new-class plane is rolled out it sports all these incredible luxuries and accomodations. Then reality hits when you board one and see none of that because the airline is trying to fly the most people for the lowest cost.
And yet there is a market for luxury travel.
Just feast your eyes on all the private and corporate jets.
Companies like Gulfstream continue to work backorders.
FWIW, though in commercial transport, the maximum amount of cargo/passengers per flight is real issue. Finding the balance between healthy ergonomics and maximum volume utilisation is something that the airlines are still working on. Although their flight durations are several times longer, conceptually CST-100, Dragon, Dreamchaser and other similar vehicles are basically commuter vehicles, optimised for getting people to point B without causing too much irrepairable damage.
I think that how relatively unpleasant the various competitors are for crews during ISS taxi missions will be a major criterion for the final down-select of commercial crew competitors.
-
This is ridiculous. How luxurious the seats are for the astronauts is not going to be a major consideration, as long as it does the job safely without injuring the astronauts. They are only going to be sitting in the chairs under acceleration for a time measured in minutes (plus the time on the pad). And pretty much anything is an improvement over Soyuz (being curled into a ball for launch).
The idea that this is a major consideration is silly. Safety, cost, schedule, etc, are all far, far more important.
-
This is ridiculous. How luxurious the seats are for the astronauts is not going to be a major consideration, as long as it does the job safely without injuring the astronauts. They are only going to be sitting in the chairs under acceleration for a time measured in minutes (plus the time on the pad). And pretty much anything is an improvement over Soyuz (being curled into a ball for launch).
The idea that this is a major consideration is silly. Safety, cost, schedule, etc, are all far, far more important.
Ergonomics also include evacuation, easiness of handling emergency situations, and is specially critical for the pilot.
-
The idea that this is a major consideration is silly. Safety, cost, schedule, etc, are all far, far more important.
Ergonomics also include evacuation, easiness of handling emergency situations, and is specially critical for the pilot.
Ergonomics can be and is an aspect of safety. See 'Deep-Vein Thrombosis' for an example.
-
Besides which, have you ever actually been on a long-haul (>6 hour) flight in a Boeing airplane? I'm certainly not going to take any ergonomics lessons from whomever designed those seats! :P
That's not Boeing. That's the airline that has provided requirements to Boeing on how many passengers and in what setting/arrangement they want to fly on a particular route.
That is why when a new-class plane is rolled out it sports all these incredible luxuries and accomodations. Then reality hits when you board one and see none of that because the airline is trying to fly the most people for the lowest cost.
And yet there is a market for luxury travel.
Just feast your eyes on all the private and corporate jets.
Companies like Gulfstream continue to work backorders.
FWIW, though in commercial transport, the maximum amount of cargo/passengers per flight is real issue. Finding the balance between healthy ergonomics and maximum volume utilisation is something that the airlines are still working on. Although their flight durations are several times longer, conceptually CST-100, Dragon, Dreamchaser and other similar vehicles are basically commuter vehicles, optimised for getting people to point B without causing too much irrepairable damage.
I think that how relatively unpleasant the various competitors are for crews during ISS taxi missions will be a major criterion for the final down-select of commercial crew competitors.
+2
-
Give me a break, you guys. Boeing's extensive experience in spacecraft in general is far more important than the fracking seats.
-
Besides, these spacecraft will all ride on vehicles that pull off 4.5 Gs near first stage burnout and you wanna talk "unpleasantness"?
John Young put it nicely IMHO: "I don't think comfort is what you're looking for on the way uphill".
-
And pretty much anything is an improvement over Soyuz (being curled into a ball for launch).
It's what you think. Meanwhile, others cannot fathom why nobody but SpaceX uses Kazbek-style seats when they are clearly superior. It's one thing to use "flat" seats on Shuttle, which was plainly enormous, and another is to design around them in a capsule.
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
The real question is how serious those talks are, or whether it is just covering bases. Boeing did bill CST-100 as LV agnostic, so to continue selling that point would be logical to talk to other launch service providers to cover bases. I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer, and looks like Boeing is their best shot.
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
The real question is how serious those talks are, or whether it is just covering bases. Boeing did bill CST-100 as LV agnostic, so to continue selling that point would be logical to talk to other launch service providers to cover bases. I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer, and looks like Boeing is their best shot.
I don't think Liberty is really an option for CST. But all along they have said Atlas was just for initial tests. But after CCiCAP there will likely only be two man rated launchers - Atlas and Falcon 9. One can only be so agnostic in that market.
-
I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer
Wouldn't that depend on the price point?
Assuming they actually plan to build/operate the thing (a big 'if' since it may just be an attempt to soak up future CC funding and suck some of the air out of the room from other players like Spacex) they may be angling to cater to the domestic government payload market that is uncomfortable with working with SpaceX, but has difficulty justifying continued use of expensive ULA options in the face of increasing budget pressure. If they can come in at a price point solidly between the FH and the Atlas, they may be able to steal share that might otherwise go to one or the other. They certainly have the lobbyists and congressional/military contacts to at least make a play for the government market at the expense of ULA...the main question is can they build a rocket that makes the case for it an easy sell.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with familiarity between the USAF and ATK and everything to do with ATK's almost utter lack of experience in designing and building a launch vehicle.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with familiarity between the USAF and ATK and everything to do with ATK's almost utter lack of experience in designing and building a launch vehicle.
You appear to be dismissing the idea that politics, both from players outside the military as well as within the military procurement organizations themselves, will not play a significant role in the decision making. That 'professionalism' and the selection of the most objectively credible product/service, will be the dominating factor. Is that what you are saying?
I'm no expert on military procurement, but I seem to recall hearing that it is often an intensely political process. Am I wrong?
In any event, the military has produced a roadmap for how new providers can work their way up the payload scale and carry increasingly important payloads over time; at least theoretically a new provider might be eventually directly competing with ULA. The CC program is a pretty anemic market from the standpoint of a company the size of ATK, but it might work fine for them if they are treating it as a way of maturing their capabilities in preparation for competing for other markets that look bigger. I doubt they are entrepreneurial enough to bet on the nascent commercial market that none of us can even prove exists, so what does that leave, satellites, and the military. The commercial satellite market is a tough business and there is a lot of competition, but the military market has one incumbent player who has been reluctant to compete in the commercial space, and might struggle to adapt to new entrants on the military side.
I'd also point out that if both Liberty and FH manage to build some confidence with the military over the next decade or so, it enables the military to start designing much larger payloads because they now have multiple providers who can loft them. These payloads would only be open to those two launchers unless ULA invests in developing a much bigger variant, which they might also choose not to. Hmmm, now that I think of it, that could also be part of a strategy to compete in the commercial satellite market...basically create a new payload class with a very limited number of competitors well beyond what it is trivial for current players to evolve to, but with enough providers (them and SpaceX) that satellite companies would develop products around it.
EDIT: I should have checked sooner, Liberty is much smaller than I recalled, must have confused it with SLS. Makes most of my speculation regarding it invalid.
-
What part of Liberty or FH applies to CST100?
-
What part of Liberty or FH applies to CST100?
Good point, sorry. Looks like the appropriate thread is here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26773
...if anyone wants to respond to the Liberty speculation.
-
What part of Liberty or FH applies to CST100?
+1
Sorry, you're right. (But Liberty is one of the possible launch vehicles, as is Falcon 9.)
-
Woot! :)
Christopher Ferguson @Astro_Ferg
Three good chutes! Successful drop of the CST100! #Boeing http://yfrog.com/oc7nxcyj
-
A Sky crane does about 14K feet, right ?
Probably a lot less dramatic than being dropped out the back of an airplane on a pallet.
Hopefully we will get to see some better pictures or even video. Those chutes are barely visible in this twitter pic.
-
Wonder if they were testing the airbags as well.
-
Wonder if they were testing the airbags as well.
Maybe, but I also wouldn't be surprised if this is just a chute test leading up to a more integrated test. They have tested the bags previously though too. I imagine we'll hear more later.
-
Probably a lot less dramatic than being dropped out the back of an airplane on a pallet.
Well, the first Orion parachute test was certainly dramatic, but not in the right way! Sounds like this went much better.
-
Chutes look good! Hope we can get a video of the drop test soon. Looks like the two private designs, SpaceX and Boeing got the drop test right the first time out. ::) Congrats to Boeing staff great job!
-
Wonder if they were testing the airbags as well.
Maybe, but I also wouldn't be surprised if this is just a chute test leading up to a more integrated test. They have tested the bags previously though too. I imagine we'll hear more later.
That was the original plan, for an integrated test. Even with the chutes the vertical velocity would be around 30 fps.
From the twitter feed, it looks like they picked Delamar dry lake. It is about 2 hours drive from Las Vegas, off the route to Area 51. It is located at N 37° 20.195 W 114° 56.611. It is public access, but I would recommend a vehicle with good clearance once you leave highway 93.
-
Hopefully we will get to see some better pictures or even video. Those chutes are barely visible in this twitter pic.
http://t.co/D2OMxvT7
-
Hopefully we will get to see some better pictures or even video. Those chutes are barely visible in this twitter pic.
http://t.co/D2OMxvT7
Cool, you can clearly see the deployed airbags. :) Confirming that it was "The first test of our fully combined vehicle landing system" with a "CST simulator."
Christopher Ferguson @Astro_Ferg
Three good chutes! Successful drop of the CST100! #Boeing http://yfrog.com/oc7nxcyj
10h ago Christopher Ferguson Christopher Ferguson @Astro_Ferg
Erickson Sky Crane helicopter now airborne carrying CST simulator. Upon drop, will deploy parachutes to slow capsule during descent.
12h ago Christopher Ferguson Christopher Ferguson @Astro_Ferg
At Delmar Dry Lake Bed, near Alamo, Nevada... preparing for CST-100 drop test, The first test of our fully combined vehicle landing system.
(emphasis mine)
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The "CST simulator" is what is known as a boilerplate. It has some fidelity with respect to mass and c.g. and approximates the outer mold line (shape) but does not necessarily have any fidelity to the product structurally.
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The "CST simulator" is what is known as a boilerplate. It has some fidelity with respect to mass and c.g. and approximates the outer mold line (shape) but does not necessarily have any fidelity to the product structurally.
Bigelow built the test article, which was certainly interesting. From reading the Bigelow thread, I guess they have some practice in building models. I wonder how many CST-100 test articles they have built ?
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The "CST simulator" is what is known as a boilerplate. It has some fidelity with respect to mass and c.g. and approximates the outer mold line (shape) but does not necessarily have any fidelity to the product structurally.
Bigelow built the test article, which was certainly interesting. From reading the Bigelow thread, I guess they have some practice in building models. I wonder how many CST-100 test articles they have built ?
3
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The team is planning a second test later this month, following parachute inspection and re-packing. This second drop test will include a drogue parachute deployment sequence on top of the main parachute deployment, demonstrating the full, nominal parachute system performance.
Boeing has scheduled additional tests to be performed in 2012, including a landing air bag test series in May, a forward heat shield jettison test in June, and an orbital maneuvering/attitude control engine hot fire test in June -- all to gather additional data on key functional elements of the spacecraft design.
What do they mean by "forward heat shield"? is that like the Boost Protective Cover for Apollo and Orion?
-
The main heat shield is jettisoned before the airbags are deployed. I'm guessing that's what they mean.
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The team is planning a second test later this month, following parachute inspection and re-packing. This second drop test will include a drogue parachute deployment sequence on top of the main parachute deployment, demonstrating the full, nominal parachute system performance.
Boeing has scheduled additional tests to be performed in 2012, including a landing air bag test series in May, a forward heat shield jettison test in June, and an orbital maneuvering/attitude control engine hot fire test in June -- all to gather additional data on key functional elements of the spacecraft design.
What do they mean by "forward heat shield"? is that like the Boost Protective Cover for Apollo and Orion?
The forward heatshield on Apollo was the cover over the parachutes.
-
The forward heatshield on Apollo was the cover over the parachutes.
Yes, that's right. My mistake.
-
Boeing Successfully Completes Parachute Drop Test of Crew Space Transportation Spacecraft
1st test of fully combined vehicle landing system
HOUSTON, April 3, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] successfully completed a parachute drop test of the company's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft today at the Delmar Dry Lake Bed near Alamo, Nev. CST-100 is part of the Boeing Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS), which will provide the United States with the capability to transport people and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), the Bigelow Aerospace Complex and other destinations in low Earth orbit.
An Erickson Sky Crane helicopter lifted the CST-100 test article to about 11,000 feet and released it. Three main parachutes deployed to slow the capsule's descent before six airbags inflated, providing a smooth ground landing. The event was the first drop test of the fully combined vehicle landing system, including all elements.
"This successful test is a tremendous milestone that brings Boeing one step closer to completing development of a system that will provide safe, reliable and affordable crewed access to space," said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager, Boeing Commercial Programs.
Boeing is drawing on its significant knowledge, testing and experience gained from the Apollo missions as it develops and tests the CCTS. Leveraging re-entry and ocean landing data from the Apollo program, the rigorous CST-100 landing tests will reduce risk and validate the post re-entry landing and recovery capability of this system.
As part of the Boeing Commercial Crew team, Bigelow Aerospace played a key role by providing the capsule test article and associated electronics and supporting the test itself. Bigelow Aerospace is a Boeing customer, with plans to use the CCTS for transportation to and from Bigelow on-orbit platforms. Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace are partnering to advance the commercial space market by offering opportunities for integrated transportation and on-orbit platform capabilities and services to new customers.
The team is planning a second test later this month, following parachute inspection and re-packing. This second drop test will include a drogue parachute deployment sequence on top of the main parachute deployment, demonstrating the full, nominal parachute system performance.
Boeing has scheduled additional tests to be performed in 2012, including a landing air bag test series in May, a forward heat shield jettison test in June, and an orbital maneuvering/attitude control engine hot fire test in June -- all to gather additional data on key functional elements of the spacecraft design.
The Boeing Commercial Crew program includes the design, manufacture, test and evaluation, and demonstration of the CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle and mission operations -- all part of Boeing's Commercial Crew Transportation System -- for NASA's Commercial Crew Development program.
The CST-100 is a reusable capsule-shaped spacecraft based on proven materials and subsystem technologies that can transport up to seven people, or a combination of people and cargo. Boeing has designed the spacecraft to be compatible with a variety of expendable rockets. The company has selected United Launch Alliance's Atlas V launch vehicle for initial CST-100 test flights in 2015-16.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 62,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
-
-
Cool stuff, congrats to Boeing.
I wonder, in place of mass simulators, they will have representative human simulators (crash test dummies) to better judge the impact loads to the human body?
-
I wonder, in place of mass simulators, they will have representative human simulators (crash test dummies) to better judge the impact loads to the human body?
If it is just a bolierplate, and doesn't have any real fidelity to the actual vehicle structure as was implied, then landing load data may not really be accurate to what is expected on actual vehicles.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with familiarity between the USAF and ATK and everything to do with ATK's almost utter lack of experience in designing and building a launch vehicle.
Huh? We have fogotten the shuttle history.
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with familiarity between the USAF and ATK and everything to do with ATK's almost utter lack of experience in designing and building a launch vehicle.
Huh? We have fogotten the shuttle history.
Strapon boosters and launchers are not the same thing (as we learned with Ares-I, whose history you appear to have forgotten). By that logic, Aerojet should be trying to sell new launch vehicle designs...
But this is only marginally related to CST-100.
~Jon
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
The real question is how serious those talks are, or whether it is just covering bases. Boeing did bill CST-100 as LV agnostic, so to continue selling that point would be logical to talk to other launch service providers to cover bases. I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer, and looks like Boeing is their best shot.
I just have a hard time seeing how Liberty would make sense for CST-100. It's flight environment (even if they have the oscillations under control) is far worse than the liquid booster designs, so it would completely drive the launch escape system design requirements and structural requirements. The max-Q is going to be much higher as it was with Ares-I, without the ability to shut the first stage off, transonic aborts are going to be brutal (requiring much higher T/W ratio on the abort motors), and in order to clear the debris field you're going to need a lot higher total impulse. Not to mention you're going to have to design the structure to take the higher thrust loads of the abort system, will need bigger or more abort engines, etc. Unless I'm missing something, designing CST-100 for Liberty is going to result in it being pretty suboptimal for flying on other peoples boosters.
And that's why, in spite of actually admiring ATK's push to try to do this commercially, I just don't see how Liberty makes any technical or business sense for the other CCiCap providers.
~Jon
-
Further to jon's post above, I think that there is a reason why ATK's publicity imagry showed the Liberty topped with a MLAS - It is a tacit recognition that the CST-100's pusher LAS wouldn't be sufficient.
-
Here's a somewhat silly thought: how much would you need to upgrade Antares in order to be able to launch CST from Wallops to ISS? My WAG would be that with 2x AJ-26-500s, stretched first stage, and using the LAS as kick stage you could just do it, but I haven't done the math...
It's not a likely thing, but IMHO much more viable than Liberty...
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
The real question is how serious those talks are, or whether it is just covering bases. Boeing did bill CST-100 as LV agnostic, so to continue selling that point would be logical to talk to other launch service providers to cover bases. I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer, and looks like Boeing is their best shot.
Dream Chaser is another possibility that is being investigated for Liberty. See slide 12 of this presentation:
-
And you think that government customers would be MORE comfortable working with ATK? Now, THAT is laughable! We're talking about professionals in the Air Force, etc, not members of Congress, here.
Chris, you do realize that ATK make nearly all of its money off of the USAF (http://www.atk.com/CorporateOverview/corpover_missiongroup.asp), right? ;)
Not to say Liberty is likely, but ATK's strong relationship with the USAF has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with familiarity between the USAF and ATK and everything to do with ATK's almost utter lack of experience in designing and building a launch vehicle.
Huh? We have fogotten the shuttle history.
Strapon boosters and launchers are not the same thing (as we learned with Ares-I, whose history you appear to have forgotten). By that logic, Aerojet should be trying to sell new launch vehicle designs...
But this is only marginally related to CST-100.
~Jon
Also, shuttle SRBs were assembled and stacked by United Space Alliance, not ATK.
I'm not saying that ATK could NEVER make a launch vehicle, it's just that they haven't so far and so have not proved they're capable of it. They tend to team with other companies with a lot more launch vehicle experience, like Lockheed Martin, to integrate everything.
And yeah, this is kind of off-topic.
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
From the same article:
Boeing's CCiCap bid, if selected for the full, $500 million award, "gets us all the way through the two-crewed flight test, which would be our last certification milestone before we entered into the service phase", Mulholland adds.
I think that Flightglobal got a little bit confused here. The $300 million to $500 million CCiCap base period award does not include either the CCiCap optional milestones or the certification phase. Muholland of Boeing probably meant that CCiCap base period and the optional milestones phase "gets us all the way through the two-crewed flight test, which would be our last certification milestone before we entered into the service phase".
P.S. The following pre-proposal conference slide (which was provided by Brent Jett and Ed Mango on February 14th 2012) backups my corrections:
CCiCap consists of two parts:
Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple awards
Optional Milestones Period: Following the Base Period through orbital crewed demonstration flight, two sets of optional milestones should be proposed
1. Optimized Funding Profile (during optional period): An optimized schedule to achieve an orbital crewed demonstration flight
2. Fixed Funding (during optional period): A fixed funding amount of $400M/yr, per awarded SAA, available for optional milestones through orbital crewed demonstration flight
-
"Despite Boeing's relation to the Atlas - ULA is a joint Lockheed/Boeing business venture -- Mulholland confirms that discussions have been held with SpaceX and ATK for possible launches when CCiCap transitions to a services contract in 2016. Both SpaceX and ATK have submitted bids for CCiCap and compete with ULA for launch business".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-details-bid-to-win-nasa-shuttle-replacement-370213/
The real question is how serious those talks are, or whether it is just covering bases. Boeing did bill CST-100 as LV agnostic, so to continue selling that point would be logical to talk to other launch service providers to cover bases. I dont think Liberty could survive without a CC customer, and looks like Boeing is their best shot.
Dream Chaser is another possibility that is being investigated for Liberty. See slide 12 of this presentation:
One thing that I just noticed from that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
What does that matter? The point is that it is not going to remain that way. Plans will and have changed.
LM is replanning MPCV without them.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
Not for long. LM is replanning MPCV without them.
Honestly, what does that have to do with anything?
It is a fact that USA is still involved wth Boeing and SNC and all I did was provide clarification to a statement. It is a fact USA is still involved with LM on Orion since you brought it up.
It is not a secret that USA will be going away and things will obviously need to change.
-
I am curious as to what would be the cost differences for launching CST-100 on an Atlas V 412 vs. a Falcon 9.
-
I am curious as to what would be the cost differences for launching CST-100 on an Atlas V 412 vs. a Falcon 9.
We've got no idea, as noone has ever flown a manned Atlas V or F9. Also, most of the cost is independent of the launch vehicle, so it's not all down to that. It does sound more likely that F9 would be somewhat cheaper, by maybe 10-30% of the total mission cost. But nothing is certain.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
What does that matter? The point is that it is not going to remain that way. Plans will and have changed.
I would imagine that this commercial crew subcontracted work will now go to Boeing directly. Boeing is also an important subcontractor for Dream Chaser.
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
What was USA doing for Boeing / Dream Chaser ? Perhaps some studies on vehicle processing, finding suitable facilities such as the OPF, etc ? I assume some of those guys used to be Boeing employees, and may soon be Boeing employees again. How long ago was the joint venture formed ?
-
More information here:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2199
The team is planning a second test later this month, following parachute inspection and re-packing. This second drop test will include a drogue parachute deployment sequence on top of the main parachute deployment, demonstrating the full, nominal parachute system performance.
Boeing has scheduled additional tests to be performed in 2012, including a landing air bag test series in May, a forward heat shield jettison test in June, and an orbital maneuvering/attitude control engine hot fire test in June -- all to gather additional data on key functional elements of the spacecraft design.
What do they mean by "forward heat shield"? is that like the Boost Protective Cover for Apollo and Orion?
The forward heat shield covers the parachutes and various equipment housed in the forward end of the spacecraft, above the pressure hull. Given that it has to be deployed for the parachutes to deploy, the testing is important to show mitigation of a potentially catastrophic situation. See below for where it is located.
The attached image is from the 2011 AIAA paper that Boeing presented. (i.e. pulled from the public domain and not from proprietary presentation)
-
Cool stuff, congrats to Boeing.
I wonder, in place of mass simulators, they will have representative human simulators (crash test dummies) to better judge the impact loads to the human body?
I'm sure that they have instruments to judge the impact and shock loads, but loading on a human would be very dependent on the seats and seat pallets. If the seat pallet design is not finalized then it would require retesting anyway. Data from a test like this is very useful in validating the models that predict the seat loading though. Being able to show proven landing loads is a big deal, because there are large uncertainties in this area.
Have any other CCDev competitors gotten to the point where they can prove the landing environment?
-
I'm not saying that ATK could NEVER make a launch vehicle, it's just that they haven't so far and so have not proved they're capable of it.
ALV? (Counters your first point, affirms second. :D)
-
One thing that I just noticed form that presentation is that United Space Alliance is a subcontractor to both the Boeing and Dream Chaser CCDev-2 proposals.
That is a year old.
Yet still accurate.
What was USA doing for Boeing / Dream Chaser ? Perhaps some studies on vehicle processing, finding suitable facilities such as the OPF, etc ? I assume some of those guys used to be Boeing employees, and may soon be Boeing employees again. How long ago was the joint venture formed ?
Don't limit yourself to what USA did in Florida. Think Houston.
-
Have any other CCDev competitors gotten to the point where they can prove the landing environment?
I would have presumed that SpaceX would have measured the impact and shock loads during their splashdown tests and during the actual Dragon flight and reentry.
I'm assuming of course that their initial crew vehicle will land on water, which I understand to be the case.
Edit: I'm also assuming that the current Dragon design will be very similar to the final crew version.
-
Have any other CCDev competitors gotten to the point where they can prove the landing environment?
I would have presumed that SpaceX would have measured the impact and shock loads during their splashdown tests and during the actual Dragon flight and reentry.
I'm assuming of course that their initial crew vehicle will land on water, which I understand to be the case.
Edit: I'm also assuming that the current Dragon design will be very similar to the final crew version.
As the Crewed Dragon is intended for land recovery, if Garrett is right, then Cargo Dragon is probably a lot tougher than a capsule intended for water recovery would normally need to be. Why? Well, engines fail; there has to be a parachute-assisted lithobraking option which the crew can survive.
-
Have any other CCDev competitors gotten to the point where they can prove the landing environment?
I would have presumed that SpaceX would have measured the impact and shock loads during their splashdown tests and during the actual Dragon flight and reentry.
I'm assuming of course that their initial crew vehicle will land on water, which I understand to be the case.
Edit: I'm also assuming that the current Dragon design will be very similar to the final crew version.
As the Crewed Dragon is intended for land recovery...
Nope, the initial crewed Dragon model will be splashed, just like cargo Dragon. So, SpaceX has already essentially proven reentry and recovery.
-
Here's a somewhat silly thought: how much would you need to upgrade Antares in order to be able to launch CST from Wallops to ISS? My WAG would be that with 2x AJ-26-500s, stretched first stage, and using the LAS as kick stage you could just do it, but I haven't done the math...
It's not a likely thing, but IMHO much more viable than Liberty...
Antares first stage is an 85% of an Atlas V first stage. A dual AJ-500 would be a 116% of an Atlas V. Coincidentally, Zenit-2's first stage is about 116% of an Atlas V first stage (weight), so it would seem that it would be a very cheap development. Since the CST needs an Atlas V 412, from a first stage POV it should be pretty comparable.
The difference lies in the upper stage. The Antares US is roughly a 14tonnes solid with isp of 301s, and the Centaur x2 is a 23.3 tonnes H2/LOX with an isp of 450s. Fuel mass is 91% for Castor and 89% for Centaur x2, so they are pretty comparable in that sense. Both Atlas V and Antares use their fairing to enclose the US. But since the US gives something like 80% of total speed, that's quite a difference. But there's more, the Castor is a solid, so the flight environment is different. Not only weights 60% less than Centaur and has between 200% and 150% the thrust, but you can't stop it should the need arise.
You only have, then, two options. Or a high efficiency H2/LOX new upper stage. Or something less efficient, with 3 or 4 AJ-500. I.e. an even bigger LV. You'd end up with something as different as an Atlas II to an Atlas V. In other word, pure pipe dreaming.
Launching from Wallops isn't a problem, since it has the same performance for the ISS orbit.
A more interesting question is what sort of Falcon 9 should you need. I ignore the performance of an AV 412. I know that a 411 is 12.1tonnes to 200km x 28.5 orbit. And a 421 is about 14tonnes. I would be surprise if the 412 would have more than that performance to LEO.
On the Falcon Heavy presentation, they briefly put the improved Falcon 9 performance as 16tonnes to LEO (same 200km x 28.5deg). They have since taken down those numbers. But I'm assuming that 13 to 14 tonnes might very well be possible.
So it would seem that the Block 2 Falcon 9 could, very well, put the CST on the ISS orbit.
-
Seems like OV was right about Boeing switching the heatshield to AVCOAT.
"Pulling in proven technology, Mulholland said, includes utilizing Apollo-era heat shield and space shuttle thermal protection technology, as well as autonomous rendezvous and docking gear honed on the Pentagon's experimental satellite-refueling Orbital Express mission."
http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html
-
Cool stuff, congrats to Boeing.
I wonder, in place of mass simulators, they will have representative human simulators (crash test dummies) to better judge the impact loads to the human body?
I'm sure that they have instruments to judge the impact and shock loads, but loading on a human would be very dependent on the seats and seat pallets. If the seat pallet design is not finalized then it would require retesting anyway. Data from a test like this is very useful in validating the models that predict the seat loading though. Being able to show proven landing loads is a big deal, because there are large uncertainties in this area.
Have any other CCDev competitors gotten to the point where they can prove the landing environment?
IMUs were used to measure accelerations.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D9R4Wy4ZE0Y
"Boeing and partner Bigelow Aerospace dropped their Crew Space Transportation (CST-100) spacecraft from 11,000 feet and it successfully parachuted down to the Delamar Dry Lake Bed in Nevada on April 3rd, 2012."
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
-
WOW! That was quite a "bounce".
-
"Boeing and partner Bigelow Aerospace dropped their Crew Space Transportation (CST-100) spacecraft from 11,000 feet and it successfully parachuted down to the Delamar Dry Lake Bed in Nevada on April 3rd, 2012."
Is that a Mirage or did it land in water?
-
"Boeing and partner Bigelow Aerospace dropped their Crew Space Transportation (CST-100) spacecraft from 11,000 feet and it successfully parachuted down to the Delamar Dry Lake Bed in Nevada on April 3rd, 2012."
Is that a Mirage or did it land in water?
Mirage
-
WOW! That was quite a "bounce".
Wow indeed. That bounce indicates that some of the bags did not vent the way they are supposed to.
On a nominal landing, the bags should all vent, and there should be no rebound.
-
WOW! That was quite a "bounce".
Wow indeed. That bounce indicates that some of the bags did not vent the way they are supposed to.
On a nominal landing, the bags should all vent, and there should be no rebound.
Right. On a nominal landing the spacecraft should impact and immediately "settle", with almost no "bounce" at all. They have some serious work to do there.
-
Also, the initial bounce happened when the parachute lines still were under tension, which probably helped the bounce.
Looks safe enough to me, though. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
-
It seems likely that the vent pyro controllers failed to fire. I don't think it was due to tension in the chute lines. That is the kind of bounce from dropping 13000 lbs on unvented bags.
-
It seems likely that the vent pyro controllers failed to fire. I don't think it was due to tension in the chute lines. That is the kind of bounce from dropping 13000 lbs on unvented bags.
I'd rather have them fail to work at all than have them initiate too soon...
-
Also, the initial bounce happened when the parachute lines still were under tension, which probably helped the bounce.
Looks safe enough to me, though. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Which isn't to say they shouldn't still work on it ;). But, yeah, I'd ride it too!
-
WOW! That was quite a "bounce".
Wow indeed. That bounce indicates that some of the bags did not vent the way they are supposed to.
On a nominal landing, the bags should all vent, and there should be no rebound.
Thanks for the info.
-
"Houston, we have a whiplash....", and I'm only semi-kidding. Wondering about the forces on an unrestrained & helmeted head, especially around the peak of the bounce.
-
Next time, how about we try the “Wet” lake instead? ::)
-
I'm assuming they had accelerometers on board, but what about seats and crash dummies? This bag failure, or whatever it was, could provide very interesting data if they included them.
-
"Houston, we have a whiplash....", and I'm only semi-kidding. Wondering about the forces on an unrestrained & helmeted head, especially around the peak of the bounce.
Interesting quote from Mr Bigelow...
Company founder and president Robert Bigelow noted in a press statement: "If astronauts had been in the capsule during these drop tests, they would have enjoyed a safe, smooth ride… further proof that the commercial crew initiative represents the most expeditious, safest, and affordable means of getting America flying in space again."
http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html (http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html)
cheers, Martin
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf)
edit: The website has some annoying copy protections
I believer it should work if you first open the main page.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/
Otherwise links can be found under:
-> Dicussion forum
-> OT: Apollo capsule landing at Delamar Lake
-
Broken link.
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf)
edit: The website has some annoying copy protections
I believer it should work if you first open the main page.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/
Otherwise links can be found under:
-> Dicussion forum
-> OT: Apollo capsule landing at Delamar Lake
So it wasn't a CST-100 boilerplate but an Apollo boilerplate?
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf)
edit: The website has some annoying copy protections
I believer it should work if you first open the main page.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/
Otherwise links can be found under:
-> Dicussion forum
-> OT: Apollo capsule landing at Delamar Lake
So it wasn't a CST-100 boilerplate but an Apollo boilerplate?
No, this was CST-100 boilerplate - have no idea what theya re talking about.
-
WOW! That was quite a "bounce".
Wow indeed. That bounce indicates that some of the bags did not vent the way they are supposed to.
On a nominal landing, the bags should all vent, and there should be no rebound.
Right. On a nominal landing the spacecraft should impact and immediately "settle", with almost no "bounce" at all. They have some serious work to do there.
Serious? No, but this is why you test.
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf)
edit: The website has some annoying copy protections
I believer it should work if you first open the main page.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/
Otherwise links can be found under:
-> Dicussion forum
-> OT: Apollo capsule landing at Delamar Lake
So it wasn't a CST-100 boilerplate but an Apollo boilerplate?
No, this was CST-100 boilerplate - have no idea what they are talking about.
The report said:
On Tuesday, April 3, [2012] Boeing conducted an experiment at Delamar Dry Lake, one of the emergency landing locations for Area 51, by releasing a vintage NASA Apollo capsule from 8,000 feet above the dry lake bed by helicopter.
emphasis mine
Follow the attached link in the report. It takes you to the *same* photos displayed earlier in this thread.
-
That’ll knock the fillings out of your teeth!! :o
Thanks for posting the video
~Robert
wish we had a closeup of the airbags.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/temp/apollo_drop_5.pdf)
edit: The website has some annoying copy protections
I believer it should work if you first open the main page.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/
Otherwise links can be found under:
-> Dicussion forum
-> OT: Apollo capsule landing at Delamar Lake
So it wasn't a CST-100 boilerplate but an Apollo boilerplate?
No, this was CST-100 boilerplate - have no idea what they are talking about.
The report said:
On Tuesday, April 3, [2012] Boeing conducted an experiment at Delamar Dry Lake, one of the emergency landing locations for Area 51, by releasing a vintage NASA Apollo capsule from 8,000 feet above the dry lake bed by helicopter.
emphasis mine
Follow the attached link in the report. It takes you to the *same* photos displayed earlier in this thread.
The guy reporting it in the dreamlandresort forum is a local who probably took the photos himself or got the photos from another local. He had never heard about the CST-100 and for the non spaceflight geeks: capsule = apollo.
-
Boeing anticipates CST-100 orbital flight tests in 2016.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/11cst100/
-
Looking good and maybe getting better.
-
Boeing anticipates CST-100 orbital flight tests in 2016.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/11cst100/
Mulholland said Boeing plans to sign a firm contract for two Atlas 5 rockets soon after it hopes to receive a CCiCap award from NASA in August. The Atlas boosters will launch an uncrewed orbital flight test of the CST-100 capsule and a full-up demonstration mission with two Boeing astronauts on-board.
This quote kind of surprised me. Boeing will not know if the optional milestones are picked up by NASA until probably 2014. In other words, Boeing could get stuck with two Atlas flights which they would have to sell to other customers if the optional milestones are not picked up by NASA in 2014.
-
Boeing anticipates CST-100 orbital flight tests in 2016.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/11cst100/
Mulholland said Boeing plans to sign a firm contract for two Atlas 5 rockets soon after it hopes to receive a CCiCap award from NASA in August. The Atlas boosters will launch an uncrewed orbital flight test of the CST-100 capsule and a full-up demonstration mission with two Boeing astronauts on-board.
This quote kind of surprised me. Boeing will not know if the optional milestones are picked up by NASA until probably 2014. In other words, Boeing could get stuck with two Atlas flights which they would have to sell to other customers if the optional milestones are not picked up by NASA in 2014.
No it seems right.....how many firms want to use the Atlas V?
-
A Aviation week update on the Boeing's Seven-seater Spacecraft on Display
by Guy Norris shows a image of the CST-100 on top of a Atlas at a launch pad (I presume LC-41). The crew egress tower is shown - for me its the first time I've seen a plausible model of the rocket-crew layout.
-
A Aviation week update on the Boeing's Seven-seater Spacecraft on Display
by Guy Norris shows a image of the CST-100 on top of a Atlas at a launch pad (I presume LC-41). The crew egress tower is shown - for me its the first time I've seen a plausible model of the rocket-crew layout.
I wonder if the tower would also be able to service Dream Chaser...
-
A Aviation week update on the Boeing's Seven-seater Spacecraft on Display
by Guy Norris shows a image of the CST-100 on top of a Atlas at a launch pad (I presume LC-41). The crew egress tower is shown - for me its the first time I've seen a plausible model of the rocket-crew layout.
I wonder if the tower would also be able to service Dream Chaser...
I would image so, although the clocking of the DC to the Atlas and launch tower will probably be different as well as the egress hatch - can a single gantry handle both?
-
Boeing, NASA Sign Agreement On Mission Support For CST-100
HOUSTON, April 20, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] has signed an agreement with NASA's Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at Johnson Space Center to collaborate on mission planning, training and flight operations for the company’s Commercial Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft.
Under the new arrangement, which Boeing negotiated under its current Phase 2 NASA Space Act Agreement for Commercial Crew Development, Boeing will begin discussions with the MOD on integrating launch operations and the company's own mission control facility at Kennedy Space Center, Fla., with training and real-time operations at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
"Adding MOD to our team leverages NASA's experience in crewed space operations to ensure mission success for our CST-100 spacecraft," said Chris Ferguson, director of Crew and Mission Operations for the Boeing Commercial Crew Program. "As we continue to mature our spacecraft design, MOD technical support will ensure the CST-100 is built with the operators in mind."
Later this year, Boeing intends to enter into a larger agreement with the MOD to provide end-to-end flight operations from the command and control facility in the Mission Control Center at Johnson Space Center, the site where NASA managed the Apollo missions and all 135 flights of the space shuttle.
"Colocating initial CST-100 flight operations with the International Space Station flight control facility in the Mission Control Center will facilitate a seamless transition to regularly scheduled CST-100 operations with the space station," Ferguson said. "Working with MOD on Boeing's mission operations also will help NASA retain key proficiencies for future human spaceflight operations."
The CST-100 is a reusable capsule-shaped spacecraft based on flight-proven subsystems and mature technologies. The system can transport up to seven people, or a combination of people and cargo. Boeing has designed the spacecraft to be compatible with a variety of expendable rockets to enable competition and reduce cost over the program life cycle. The company has selected United Launch Alliance's Atlas V launch vehicle for initial test flights that will begin as early as 2015.
Boeing is continuing to develop the system design at its Houston and Huntington Beach, Calif., sites and is making preparations to manufacture, assemble and test the CST-100 spacecraft in the former Orbiter Processing Facility-3 at Kennedy Space Center.
Boeing's Commercial Crew Program includes the design, manufacture, test and evaluation, and demonstration of an integrated Commercial Crew Transportation System -- comprised of the CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations for NASA's Commercial Crew Development program. The Boeing system will provide crewed flights to the International Space Station and also support the Bigelow Aerospace orbital space complex. The program is based on Boeing's experience and innovation evolved from more than 50 years of human spaceflight and nearly 100 years of commercial aviation.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2228 (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2228)
-
Update: There will be one more test campaign for the launch abort engines.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
I don't think "outsourced" is the right word to describe the relationship between Boeing and Bigelow. They are partners on the CST-100, and Bigelow would be the biggest customer for CST-100 outside NASA.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
First off, by "test article" you are referring to a boilerplate system equipped with air bags. Bigelow does have considerable expertise in deployment of such things as air bags. What is not clear is whether Bigelow produced the entire boilerplate test article; his factory certainly has the machine tools to do so.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
I don't think "outsourced" is the right word to describe the relationship between Boeing and Bigelow. They are partners on the CST-100, and Bigelow would be the biggest customer for CST-100 outside NASA.
Hmmm, semantics. To me it's pretty indistinguishable from outsourcing.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
First off, by "test article" you are referring to a boilerplate system equipped with air bags. Bigelow does have considerable expertise in deployment of such things as air bags. What is not clear is whether Bigelow produced the entire boilerplate test article; his factory certainly has the machine tools to do so.
And it sure beats Robert Bigelow paying them to twiddle their thumbs (or shut down).
Commercial crew is the linchpin in Bigelow's plan (not the only one). Without it, Bigelow's plan won't work. Thus helping with CST-100 at or even below cost may make perfect sense to them. Also, it's wrong to talk about CST-100 as if it's ONLY Boeing's project. They've been cooperating for a very long time.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
I don't think "outsourced" is the right word to describe the relationship between Boeing and Bigelow. They are partners on the CST-100, and Bigelow would be the biggest customer for CST-100 outside NASA.
Hmmm, semantics. To me it's pretty indistinguishable from outsourcing.
Not merely semantics. If you outsource something to someone, generally they don't have "skin in the game." Bigelow clearly does. They're a co-partner with Boeing with manufacturing equipment (and a small crew) that is sitting very idle right now.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
First off, by "test article" you are referring to a boilerplate system equipped with air bags. Bigelow does have considerable expertise in deployment of such things as air bags. What is not clear is whether Bigelow produced the entire boilerplate test article; his factory certainly has the machine tools to do so.
Right. And the boilerplate only has to be representative of the mass properties, not high-fidelity. Boeing has built a high-fidelity CST-100 structural test article. They're not "outsourcing" the detailed engineering of the flight article, nor the manufacturing methods used to build it. But they recognize that Bigelow is competent to build boilerplates and airbag systems at a price far cheaper than Boeing can do themselves, and it's a good way to establish the personal and organizational interfaces needed to make the partnership work.
-
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
Try it the other way round. Bigelow outsourced the CST-100 capsule to aerospace company Boeing. Along the way they found a way of getting NASA to pay some of the money.
Mr. Bigelow has said that he wants at least two ways of getting people to his spacestations.
-
Am bringing the following discussion over from the Bigelow thread:
Maybe Bigelow can build the test articles cheaper than Boeing can internally ?
I hope that's not the reason as it would mean bad news for any internal engineering/manufacturing teams. The only good reason I can see for outsourcing is when it's not part of your core activity. Maybe the top brass at Boeing only want to commit project management resources and a small engineering team for the time being until they're sure that CST-100 will actually go ahead?
We were just wondering why Boeing outsourced construction of the CST-100 test article to Bigelow?
I don't think "outsourced" is the right word to describe the relationship between Boeing and Bigelow. They are partners on the CST-100, and Bigelow would be the biggest customer for CST-100 outside NASA.
Hmmm, semantics. To me it's pretty indistinguishable from outsourcing.
Not merely semantics. If you outsource something to someone, generally they don't have "skin in the game." Bigelow clearly does. They're a co-partner with Boeing with manufacturing equipment (and a small crew) that is sitting very idle right now.
I don't think Bigelow regards himself as anything but a contractor to Boeing. He was quite clear about that when speaking at Space 2011.
-
I don't think Bigelow regards himself as anything but a contractor to Boeing. He was quite clear about that when speaking at Space 2011.
Yeah, he previously described the relationship as a "partnership", and that was repeated to him in a Moon And Back interview.. His response was what I'd call backpedaling..
"We don't have a partnership, exactly, what are is a subcontractor to Boeing.. and on CCDev1 we fulfilled a number of contractual obligations to Boeing in building a number of things and performing a number of tests. We'll probably be involved with them on CCDev2 doing the same kinds of things as a subcontractor, conducting different tests, building different things for them, and we're very glad to be part of that process... but we're not exactly a partner per se. We.. we umm.. we do behave as a subcontractor and I think Boeing would agree with that."
http://moonandback.com/2011/11/29/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-2-space-stations-and-transport/
-
Interesting and contradicting replies on the Bigelow role in CST-100.
If the role of Bigelow is more of a sub-contractor role (as Bigelow himself alluded to in the quote above) then it still begs the question as to why? It was mentioned by some here that Bigelow could probably manufacture a boilerplate system cheaper than what Boeing could do internally, but I don't understand how that could be?
Wild speculation alert: Could it simply be a gesture by Boeing to keep a possible CST-100 customer cash-flow positive?
-
I think it is simply another example of the lack of support for CST-100 by the Boeing brass.
-
Interesting and contradicting replies on the Bigelow role in CST-100.
If the role of Bigelow is more of a sub-contractor role (as Bigelow himself alluded to in the quote above) then it still begs the question as to why? It was mentioned by some here that Bigelow could probably manufacture a boilerplate system cheaper than what Boeing could do internally, but I don't understand how that could be?
Wild speculation alert: Could it simply be a gesture by Boeing to keep a possible CST-100 customer cash-flow positive?
The drop test article was just that, a drop test article. Steel or aluminum frame, ballast, mold-line skin of fiberglass or aluminum sheet, etc. The airbags we 'real" but probably not flight quality. It is the same as what we built for the t/Space CEV drop test article in a few weeks time for a few thousand of dollars (excepting the chutes, which were flight items).
I just saw the one in their plant a few weeks ago. I didn't bother to pay much attention because I knew it wasn't a "CST-100." And I am sure Bob's people could build these articles for a lot less than Boeing's internal rate.
-
Interesting and contradicting replies on the Bigelow role in CST-100.
If the role of Bigelow is more of a sub-contractor role (as Bigelow himself alluded to in the quote above) then it still begs the question as to why? It was mentioned by some here that Bigelow could probably manufacture a boilerplate system cheaper than what Boeing could do internally, but I don't understand how that could be?
Wild speculation alert: Could it simply be a gesture by Boeing to keep a possible CST-100 customer cash-flow positive?
Bigelow built the structure of the boilerplate, some of the data acquisition, the inflation systems and performed the integration and logistics of the drop tests. Bags are from ILC.
Bigelow can build things cheaper than Boeing because he doesn't pay Boeing benefits.
IMO, Boeing seeks to maintain a relationship with Bigelow in order to show that they are involved with 'Commercial Space'.
No comment on the last statement. :-X
-
I think it is simply another example of the lack of support for CST-100 by the Boeing brass.
??? I'm interested to know why you say Boeing doesn't support CST-100. All the management I encountered was working very hard to make it work.
In this case, this was something that Boeing could easily farm out to Bigelow that was within their skill set.
-
I think it is simply another example of the lack of support for CST-100 by the Boeing brass.
That is just a silly statement. Subbing to someone who has the production line ready rather than spinning something up, someone who wants to help you succeed and can help you succeed makes a lot of sense.
-
Photo of the boilerplate:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/6989677782/
"CST-100 test article being prepared for parachute drop test"
-
Under 'chutes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/6992625476/
"The Boeing Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 test article descends smoothly with full airbag deployment during its parachute drop test over Nevada on May 2."
-
Federal rules on small business involvement for subcontractors don't apply to CCDev, do they? Under a more traditional procurement situation, you'd probably still see stuff like this just on the basis of Boeing having a quota to fill.
-
Federal rules on small business involvement for subcontractors don't apply to CCDev, do they? Under a more traditional procurement situation, you'd probably still see stuff like this just on the basis of Boeing having a quota to fill.
For FAR, they do.
For SAA, no
-
Short article on the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/boeings-cst-100-successful-full-landing-system-test/
-
Hi-res photos of the drop:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=59302
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=59301
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=59300
-
Don't think this has been posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfX7AU94bWM
-
Very cool!
-
Additional drop test video:
Published on Jun 5, 2012 by NASAKennedy
NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP)
The Boeing Company recently demonstrated the performance of its CST-100 landing system with a parachute drop test over the Delmar Dry Lake Bed near Alamo, Nevada. One of the test's goals was to prove the parachute system could be re-used on successive missions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3DAxVCymhQ
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
-
Boeing has never said anything about using jets for landing.
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
I presume that you are wondering if something like Dragon's powered landing capability might be used on CST-100? I seriously doubt that Boeing is considering thrusters for landing. CST-100 is designed *only* for landing on the earth's surface after descending thru the atmosphere on parachutes. Dragon, on the other hand, is designed to ultimately be capable of landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces, for which thrusters are required. Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
The chutes and bags are the final landing sequence. There is no need for a retro-propulsive burn.
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
I presume that you are wondering if something like Dragon's powered landing capability might be used on CST-100? I seriously doubt that Boeing is considering thrusters for landing. CST-100 is designed *only* for landing on the earth's surface after descending thru the atmosphere on parachutes. Dragon, on the other hand, is designed to ultimately be capable of landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces, for which thrusters are required. Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
Doesn't CST-100 discards the Service Module (with it's LAS) before reentry?
-
Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
Let's not muddy up another thread that has nothing to do with SpaceX and romantic ideals about Elon the individual.
I believe it is fair to say that CST-100 is designed for LEO only right now and as a transportation system to another spacecraft in orbit. There is nothing wrong with that and I personally see zero reason to make the systems more complex, and therefore more expensive, than necessary for that task at this point in time.
A true commercial endeavor is driven by the business case, and with so much question on if there is even one in LEO, it can be argued this approach is just as wise before evolving or moving to the next step.
-
Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
Let's not muddy up another thread that has nothing to do with SpaceX and romantic ideals about Elon the individual.
I believe it is fair to say that CST-100 is designed for LEO only right now and as a transportation system to another spacecraft in orbit. There is nothing wrong with that and I personally see zero reason to make the systems more complex, and therefore more expensive, than necessary for that task at this point in time.
A true commercial endeavor is driven by the business case, and with so much question on if there is even one in LEO, it can be argued this approach is just as wise before evolving or moving to the next step.
Context for the post, nothing more.
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
No jets. (I presume the basis of your question was from the Soyuz method) The parachutes are sized to provide a vertical velocity on the order of Apollo.
-
CST-100 is designed *only* for landing on the earth's surface after descending thru the atmosphere on parachutes.
[/quote]
CST-100 is also baselining water landing as a contingency. If you look at some of the CCDev-1 presentations, I believe the pictures show the boilerplate testing in the Bigelow 'pool' (aka test tank).
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
I presume that you are wondering if something like Dragon's powered landing capability might be used on CST-100? I seriously doubt that Boeing is considering thrusters for landing. CST-100 is designed *only* for landing on the earth's surface after descending thru the atmosphere on parachutes. Dragon, on the other hand, is designed to ultimately be capable of landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces, for which thrusters are required. Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
Doesn't CST-100 discards the Service Module (with it's LAS) before reentry?
Yes, it does. The separation and disposal burn is something that has to be taken into consideration with selection of nominal landing sites.
-
Under 'chutes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/6992625476/
"The Boeing Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 test article descends smoothly with full airbag deployment during its parachute drop test over Nevada on May 2."
-
Boeing has no wish to take their spacecraft beyond LEO while Elon's sights are set much higher and further away.
Let's not muddy up another thread that has nothing to do with SpaceX and romantic ideals about Elon the individual.
I believe it is fair to say that CST-100 is designed for LEO only right now and as a transportation system to another spacecraft in orbit. There is nothing wrong with that and I personally see zero reason to make the systems more complex, and therefore more expensive, than necessary for that task at this point in time.
A true commercial endeavor is driven by the business case, and with so much question on if there is even one in LEO, it can be argued this approach is just as wise before evolving or moving to the next step.
Right. There are supposed to be a CST-200 and/or CST-300 design for longer duration free-flying missions. No need to include the extra equipment / weight on a flight that is only going to the ISS or a Bigelow station.
-
Does the design plan on including jets to fire just before touchdown, or are the airbags the final landing?
The chutes and bags are the final landing sequence. There is no need for a retro-propulsive burn.
was thinking more like Soyuz.
-
Boeing with Pratt & Whitney LAS Hot Fire Test
Published on Jun 19, 2012 by NASAKennedy
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne successfully hot-fired the launch abort engine it is developing for The Boeing Company's CST-100 spacecraft in Canoga Park, California, on March 9.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VMiKodZ3ow
-
..and show it launched on a Delta IV Medium+ (4,2)...
-
..and show it launched on a Delta IV Medium+ (4,2)...
Well, of course they'll show it on a Boeing LV instead of a (choke) Lockheed-Martin rival! ;) That doesn't mean that the crew-rating issues around RS-68A have been fixed though!
-
..and show it launched on a Delta IV Medium+ (4,2)...
That animation was released long before Boeing down-selected to Atlas V for initial launches.
Both LV's are ULA products, Boeing transferred the Delta line after ULA was formed.
-
CCP Breakout Boeing
Published on Jun 25, 2012 by NASAKennedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNxssB26bo
-
RELEASE: 12-214
THRUSTER TESTS COMPLETE FOR NASA PARTNER BOEING'S CREW CAPSULE
CANOGA PARK, Calif. -- Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne has successfully
completed a series of tests on a thruster destined for Boeing's
Commercial Space Transportation spacecraft, designated CST-100.
Boeing is one of several companies working to develop crew
transportation capabilities under the Commercial Crew Development
Round 2 agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The goal of
the program is to help spur innovation and development of safe,
reliable and cost-effective spacecraft and launch vehicles capable of
transporting astronauts to low Earth orbit and the International
Space Station.
Twenty-four thrusters will be part of the spacecraft's orbital
maneuvering and attitude control system (OMAC), giving the CST-100
the ability to maneuver in space and during re-entry. The thrusters
also will allow the spacecraft to separate from its launch vehicle if
an abort becomes necessary during launch or ascent.
"Boeing and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne know what it takes to develop
safe systems and subsystems," said NASA Commercial Crew Program
Manager Ed Mango. "They're building on the successes of their past,
while pushing the envelope with next-generation ideas to create a
spacecraft for low Earth orbit transportation."
During tests conducted at the White Sands Space Harbor in Las Cruces,
N.M., an OMAC thruster was fired in a vacuum chamber that simulated a
space-like environment of 100,000 feet. The tests verified the
durability of the thrusters in extreme heat, evaluated the opening
and closing of its valves and confirmed continuous combustion and
performance.
"We're excited about the performance of the engine during the testing
and confident the OMAC thrusters will affordably meet operational
needs for safe, reliable human spaceflight," said Terry Lorier, Pratt
and Whitney Rocketdyne's Commercial Crew Development program manager.
All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet
their established milestones in developing commercial crew
transportation capabilities.
NASA also is developing the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System
(SLS), a crew capsule and heavy-lift rocket that will provide an
entirely new capability for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo
missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence beyond low Earth
orbit and enable new missions of exploration across the solar system.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
-
CCP Breakout Boeing
Published on Jun 25, 2012 by NASAKennedy
Along with the ones for SpaceX and SNC, this forms a trifecta of bad videos. Goofy musing and audio "features" and poorly spliced, out of date footage. This may be the least bad of the three, and actually included one second of the recent drop test.
Who makes these things?
edit: re the previous release, Why does every press release about CCP have to include a blurb about Orion and SLS? How is that relevant? Are they afraid that CCP milesones with hardware tests will make Orion with only brassboard hardware and design reviews seem interminable and uninteresting?
-
RELEASE: 12-214
THRUSTER TESTS COMPLETE FOR NASA PARTNER BOEING'S CREW CAPSULE
CANOGA PARK, Calif. -- Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne has successfully
completed a series of tests on a thruster destined for Boeing's
Commercial Space Transportation spacecraft, designated CST-100.
Boeing is one of several companies working to develop crew
transportation capabilities under the Commercial Crew Development
Round 2 agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The goal of
the program is to help spur innovation and development of safe,
reliable and cost-effective spacecraft and launch vehicles capable of
transporting astronauts to low Earth orbit and the International
Space Station.
Twenty-four thrusters will be part of the spacecraft's orbital
maneuvering and attitude control system (OMAC), giving the CST-100
the ability to maneuver in space and during re-entry. The thrusters
also will allow the spacecraft to separate from its launch vehicle if
an abort becomes necessary during launch or ascent.
"Boeing and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne know what it takes to develop
safe systems and subsystems," said NASA Commercial Crew Program
Manager Ed Mango. "They're building on the successes of their past,
while pushing the envelope with next-generation ideas to create a
spacecraft for low Earth orbit transportation."
During tests conducted at the White Sands Space Harbor in Las Cruces,
N.M., an OMAC thruster was fired in a vacuum chamber that simulated a
space-like environment of 100,000 feet. The tests verified the
durability of the thrusters in extreme heat, evaluated the opening
and closing of its valves and confirmed continuous combustion and
performance.
"We're excited about the performance of the engine during the testing
and confident the OMAC thrusters will affordably meet operational
needs for safe, reliable human spaceflight," said Terry Lorier, Pratt
and Whitney Rocketdyne's Commercial Crew Development program manager.
All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet
their established milestones in developing commercial crew
transportation capabilities.
NASA also is developing the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System
(SLS), a crew capsule and heavy-lift rocket that will provide an
entirely new capability for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo
missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence beyond low Earth
orbit and enable new missions of exploration across the solar system.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
image:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/pwr_omac.html
-
edit: re the previous release, Why does every press release about CCP have to include a blurb about Orion and SLS? How is that relevant? Are they afraid that CCP milesones with hardware tests will make Orion with only brassboard hardware and design reviews seem interminable and uninteresting?
I think NASA wants to say "Look everyone, we're making our own capsule too!" ;)
-
RELEASE: 12-214
THRUSTER TESTS COMPLETE FOR NASA PARTNER BOEING'S CREW CAPSULE
So, what are these thrusters?
-
A modified version of an existing engIne. That's all that really needs to be said
-
A modified version of an existing engIne. That's all that really needs to be said
Really? Because the adjective "modified" spans such radically different scales as the more recent AJ-10 derivatives vs., say, J-2X.
That one may not want to say more is quite different from whether more needs to be said in order to usefully answer Danderman's question.
-Alex
-
Like I said, it will have to do. Not everyone needs to know everything. Sorry
-
Like I said, it will have to do. Not everyone needs to know everything. Sorry
Maybe they're buying Draco thrusters from SpaceX and are too embarrassed to admit it? ;)
-
Like I said, it will have to do. Not everyone needs to know everything. Sorry
Maybe they're buying Draco thrusters from SpaceX and are too embarrassed to admit it? ;)
Funny, but no, not Draco's.
-
A modified version of an existing engIne. That's all that really needs to be said
Really? Because the adjective "modified" spans such radically different scales as the more recent AJ-10 derivatives vs., say, J-2X.
That one may not want to say more is quite different from whether more needs to be said in order to usefully answer Danderman's question.
-Alex
PWR's thruster technologies, at least on the Rocketdyne side, appear to trace back to Marquardt, who built R-40A 870lbf bipropellant thrusters for Shuttle RCS, as well as thrusters for Apollo, among many other applications. In recent years, PWR has worked on thrusters for THAAD/DACS, and something called "Mega Multi-Use Thruster", a 1,100 lbf high performance thruster experiment. The CST-100 thrusters are called "OMAC", and have a reported 1,500 lbf thrust, which seems high to me for this application. There are supposed to be 24 OMAC thrusters on each CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
-
... The CST-100 thrusters are called "OMAC" ...
I assumed OMAC was just a generic description, standing for "Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control" system, rather than an actual name.
-
Since the CST-100 appears to have 2 or 3 different sizes of thrusters (perhaps even 4 if the LAS engines are counted) - from the smallest to the largest - which thrusters were tested in these latest publicized tests? Judging scale is hard in the released images.
It is interesting to see how many thrusters CST-100 will have:
CM RCS: 12
SM RCS: 24
I'm not sure if the main 4 SM engines are included in that count, and if these 4 double as LAS engines.
-
A modified version of an existing engIne. That's all that really needs to be said
Really? Because the adjective "modified" spans such radically different scales as the more recent AJ-10 derivatives vs., say, J-2X.
That one may not want to say more is quite different from whether more needs to be said in order to usefully answer Danderman's question.
-Alex
PWR's thruster technologies, at least on the Rocketdyne side, appear to trace back to Marquardt, who built R-40A 870lbf bipropellant thrusters for Shuttle RCS, as well as thrusters for Apollo, among many other applications. In recent years, PWR has worked on thrusters for THAAD/DACS, and something called "Mega Multi-Use Thruster", a 1,100 lbf high performance thruster experiment. The CST-100 thrusters are called "OMAC", and have a reported 1,500 lbf thrust, which seems high to me for this application. There are supposed to be 24 OMAC thrusters on each CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
Rocketdyne was testing 1500 lbf thrusters back in the 1990's which ran on LOX/Kerosene as part of the "non-toxic RCS system" studies for the Shuttle. These were part of the writeups for the initial X-37 program as well as Boeings proposal for the CEV in 2005. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on those being either one and the same, or based on the same work.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
That's fine for a LAS - but the RCS also has to work after being docked to the station for 200(?) days. Not impossible, but it seems like a challenging task.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
That's fine for a LAS - but the RCS also has to work after being docked to the station for 200(?) days. Not impossible, but it seems like a challenging task.
Could use a different oxidizer, just was thinking.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
According to Launch Abort Testing in Mojave (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a4997cb7e-5daf-42c5-99f6-5219e0aa2fed), Aviation Week, March 2012... The CST-100 LAS uses an RS-88/BANTAM derivative, hypergolic NTO/MMH, pressure fed, ablatively cooled.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
According to Launch Abort Testing in Mojave (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a4997cb7e-5daf-42c5-99f6-5219e0aa2fed), Aviation Week, March 2012... The CST-100 LAS uses an RS-88/BANTAM derivative, hypergolic NTO/MMH, pressure fed, ablatively cooled.
Good info. I will check if that fuel was used for the high thrust maneuvering motors.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
According to Launch Abort Testing in Mojave (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a4997cb7e-5daf-42c5-99f6-5219e0aa2fed), Aviation Week, March 2012... The CST-100 LAS uses an RS-88/BANTAM derivative, hypergolic NTO/MMH, pressure fed, ablatively cooled.
Good info. I will check if that fuel was used for the high thrust maneuvering motors.
Good article, I found this quote from it interesting: "Tractor systems are ejected after launch, but pusher systems will remain with the vehicle to orbit and the unused propellant can be used for other portions of the mission say developers."
I would assume that to mean ISS reboost? The LAS thrusters would probably either need to throttle ( can they throttle?) to do that, or, if their propellant system is common with the SM RCS thrusters, they could use the LAS propellant to do a long, gentle burn from the RCS thrusters for reboost maybe?
-
Any reboost would be from RCS. LAS produces way too much thrust even assuming deep throttling.
-
Any reboost would be from RCS. LAS produces way too much thrust even assuming deep throttling.
Do you have a reference for that claim? IIRC Boeing said the CST100 would definitely be used for Station Reboost (ISS or Bigelow).
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
I've heard absolutely nothing on them using kerolox for thrusters, abort or otherwise. The abort thruster they just tested is hypergolic.
Hypergolic thrusters are simpler, more reliable, are industry-standard for storability, have high performance, and are fast (as far as start-up time and a very short minimum pulse length, which makes precision control a lot easier). Boeing also has a ton of experience with hypergolic thrusters. They are absolutely for sure using hypergols, no question about it (I believe they are sharing the propellant supplies for abort and RCS). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaVC3r8yw6g
-
everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
I've heard absolutely nothing on them using kerolox for thrusters, abort or otherwise. The abort thruster they just tested is hypergolic.
Yes, I was wrong. Thanks.
-
Any reboost would be from RCS. LAS produces way too much thrust even assuming deep throttling.
Do you have a reference for that claim? IIRC Boeing said the CST100 would definitely be used for Station Reboost (ISS or Bigelow).
As long as the LAS thruster propellant on the SM was common with the RCS propellant (and I don't see any reason they wouldn't be?) then there'd be no reason the RCS aft thrusters couldn't do the burn using the LAS propellant that's unused on a successful launch.
As an aside, would DRagon Rider's LAS propellant be common with it's RCS propellent? Or would they be separate systems? If common, Dragon Rider could do a station reboost too in the same manner with it's aft RCS thrusters, however that would mean the crew would have to do a water landing. Since propulsive landing is the goal for Dragon Rider, not sure if a Dragon Rider commercial crew mission would be desired to do a reboost. However, CST-100 would be well suited for it as it's LAS propellant isn't needed for landing.
As another aside, is there any way Dreamchaser could do ISS reboost, since it's docked aft to the station. So it could use forward RCS thrusters to reboost, but can Dreamchaser use it's unused LAS propellant in it's RCS system? I don't know if it uses common propellant for both LAS and RCS or not.
As another aside, what about Liberty? Pictures of it show some sort of actual SMME on the back. Not sure if that'd be the same one used on the Orion SM or not. Would such a SM likely be designed to hold enough propellant for station reboost? I don't think there'd be any reason it's SMME would be too powerful for reboost, since it's not being used for LAS? I suppose if they do get a commercial crew contract, and station reboost is something NASA would want a commercial crew vehicle to do, that they couldn't design their SM to have enough thrust and propellant to do it adequately. There would certainly be enough extra Liberty capacity to have a fair amount of propellant in a SM. They probably wouldn't need to use their RCS thrusters.
-
Any reboost would be from RCS. LAS produces way too much thrust even assuming deep throttling.
Do you have a reference for that claim? IIRC Boeing said the CST100 would definitely be used for Station Reboost (ISS or Bigelow).
I believe CST-100 will be used for reboost, just not by producing thousands of pounds of force that must be transmitted through the docking adapter and through the entire structure of the station.
-
You really think CST-100 will use KeroLox as RCS propellant? It seems doubtful.
I thought so too... but everywhere seems to be indicating that they intend to do so for the LAS and doesn't say anything about the RCS. Anyone who can shed light on that?
They are using it for the LAS, and the CST-100 only has a few days orbital duration, so I see no compelling reason why they wouldn't.
According to Launch Abort Testing in Mojave (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a4997cb7e-5daf-42c5-99f6-5219e0aa2fed), Aviation Week, March 2012... The CST-100 LAS uses an RS-88/BANTAM derivative, hypergolic NTO/MMH, pressure fed, ablatively cooled.
Good info. I will check if that fuel was used for the high thrust maneuvering motors.
Good article, I found this quote from it interesting: "Tractor systems are ejected after launch, but pusher systems will remain with the vehicle to orbit and the unused propellant can be used for other portions of the mission say developers."
I would assume that to mean ISS reboost? The LAS thrusters would probably either need to throttle ( can they throttle?) to do that, or, if their propellant system is common with the SM RCS thrusters, they could use the LAS propellant to do a long, gentle burn from the RCS thrusters for reboost maybe?
Well, I found out that it was used in the testing for those thrusters, although it was still toxic so was not labelled as acceptable for the purpose of the test, so was not on the final recommendation. So, looks like it may be the case here that, as the SM will be disposed of anyways, the toxicity of the RCS fuel type is not really important.
Thanks again, this makes a lot more sense to me.
-
As another aside, is there any way Dreamchaser could do ISS reboost, since it's docked aft to the station. So it could use forward RCS thrusters to reboost, but can Dreamchaser use it's unused LAS propellant in it's RCS system? I don't know if it uses common propellant for both LAS and RCS or not.
Only CST-100 plans to do Station reboost. Dragon plans to use the propellant for nominal landing and Dreamchaser probably does not have enough delta V or thrust for it as they plan to use less toxic propellants in the RCS. They originally were planning cold nitrogen thrusters, but looks like they will choose something else.
Dreamchaser's LAS is it's hybrid rocket motor which it plans to use for powered flight if needed during atmospheric flight.
Not sure how much NASA cares for such a system as both Progress and ATV both do rebosts and it can reboost itself if needed. The shuttle did do reboost, but that was more a while you are here thing. With reboost it is preferred that a visiting vehicle do it since it saves the ISS’s propellant and wear and tear on the engines, but that is that
The ISS's need for reboost has decreased since retirement of the shuttle. The ISS now flies higher and gets less drag. In order to accommodate the shuttle the ISS had to fly lower.
-
As another aside, is there any way Dreamchaser could do ISS reboost, since it's docked aft to the station. So it could use forward RCS thrusters to reboost, but can Dreamchaser use it's unused LAS propellant in it's RCS system? I don't know if it uses common propellant for both LAS and RCS or not.
Only CST-100 plans to do Station reboost. Dragon plans to use the propellant for nominal landing and Dreamchaser probably does not have enough delta V or thrust for it as they plan to use less toxic propellants in the RCS. They originally were planning cold nitrogen thrusters, but looks like they will choose something else.
interesting.....watch Liberty increase their propellant load as they have room to spare.
-
The first version of crewed Dragon won't be doing a propulsive landing.
-
As another aside, is there any way Dreamchaser could do ISS reboost, since it's docked aft to the station. So it could use forward RCS thrusters to reboost, but can Dreamchaser use it's unused LAS propellant in it's RCS system? I don't know if it uses common propellant for both LAS and RCS or not.
Only CST-100 plans to do Station reboost. Dragon plans to use the propellant for nominal landing and Dreamchaser probably does not have enough delta V or thrust for it as they plan to use less toxic propellants in the RCS. They originally were planning cold nitrogen thrusters, but looks like they will choose something else.
interesting.....watch Liberty increase their propellant load as they have room to spare.
Liberty would only have to design their SM with an appropriate SMME and prop load for reboost to do it. Be pretty easy for them to include I think. Interestingly, Liberty CSM might be the only one that could do much in the way of any ISS tug work, as they can have a SM with a relatively powerful SMME (but not too powerful like LAS thrusters), and a decent propellant capacity in the SM. Doesn't sound like Dreamchaser will be set up to do anything other than maneuver itself. Dragon/Dragon Rider's RCS system is internal to the capsule, so it has limited capacity to wrangle another mass, and no high powered thrusters. CST-100 could, but I I think it's loiter time is very limited because it runs on internal battery power I think. So it might not just have the operational time to go maneuver another mass.
Now, I don’t know if wrangling other masses will ever be needed for the ISS. But I was thinking if a Gateway was constructed at the ISS, launched on EELV (which the Liberty LV could possibly be included there too), if they put a module up into a chase orbit to the ISS. And then launched Liberty to rendevous with it, and then boost and maneuver it to the ISS in range of the robotic arm. Then the module itself wouldn’t need it’s own RCS system or a separate tug, and it could be done during a regularly scheduled crew rotation, so the commercial crew mission could be combined with the Gateway module launch. Although, if Orion’s SM is designed to be a stand alone kick stage, it might be able to serve that roll instead.
-
Only CST-100 plans to do Station reboost. Dragon plans to use the propellant for nominal landing and Dreamchaser probably does not have enough delta V or thrust for it as they plan to use less toxic propellants in the RCS. They originally were planning cold nitrogen thrusters, but looks like they will choose something else.
Dreamchaser's LAS is it's hybrid rocket motor which it plans to use for powered flight if needed during atmospheric flight.
Not sure how much NASA cares for such a system as both Progress and ATV both do rebosts and it can reboost itself if needed. The shuttle did do reboost, but that was more a while you are here thing. With reboost it is preferred that a visiting vehicle do it since it saves the ISS’s propellant and wear and tear on the engines, but that is that
The ISS's need for reboost has decreased since retirement of the shuttle. The ISS now flies higher and gets less drag. In order to accommodate the shuttle the ISS had to fly lower.
The problem with ATV and Progress, is with Progress, we are still reliant on the Russians for a critical function (which I'd assume NASA would rather not be?) and I think there's only a couple more ATV's scheduled? I thought I read there would only be 5 total or something? WHat after that?
And thanks for clearing Dreamchaser up. I thought it was something like that, where the LAS rockets were something different than the RCS system would be.
So Dream chaser is out, and Dragon Rider is probably out, as I don't know if it's RCS system is tied into it's LAS thrusters, or if they are separate systems. And even if they are tied in to each other, doing a reboost would deplete their landing propellant.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
-
Re: ISS reboost
So Dream chaser is out, and Dragon Rider is probably out, as I don't know if it's RCS system is tied into it's LAS thrusters, or if they are separate systems. And even if they are tied in to each other, doing a reboost would deplete their landing propellant.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
Crew Dragon RCS and LAS thrusters will share the same propellant tanks. So it could be used for ISS reboost, but it all depends on how much is left in the tanks, and how much margin is needed for deorbit + propulsive landing.
-
Re: ISS reboost
So Dream chaser is out, and Dragon Rider is probably out, as I don't know if it's RCS system is tied into it's LAS thrusters, or if they are separate systems. And even if they are tied in to each other, doing a reboost would deplete their landing propellant.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
Crew Dragon RCS and LAS thrusters will share the same propellant tanks. So it could be used for ISS reboost, but it all depends on how much is left in the tanks, and how much margin is needed for deorbit + propulsive landing.
And, as I just noted, the first Dragon crewed spacecraft will NOT use propulsive landing, so should have propellant to spare at the end of the mission (i.e. some unused margin).
-
Re: ISS reboost
So Dream chaser is out, and Dragon Rider is probably out, as I don't know if it's RCS system is tied into it's LAS thrusters, or if they are separate systems. And even if they are tied in to each other, doing a reboost would deplete their landing propellant.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
Crew Dragon RCS and LAS thrusters will share the same propellant tanks. So it could be used for ISS reboost, but it all depends on how much is left in the tanks, and how much margin is needed for deorbit + propulsive landing.
And, as I just noted, the first Dragon crewed spacecraft will NOT use propulsive landing, so should have propellant to spare at the end of the mission (i.e. some unused margin).
That's good to know, but what would you do once they start landing propulsively? YOu could have DRagon Rider do a reboost at first, but you probably couldn't baseline a long term plan on that. Although I suppose you could just plan on having the occasional Dragon Rider cargo or crew mission (as I think they'll be the same capsule once Dragon Rider is ready) plan a splashdown rather than a landing, and it could then burn it's LAS propellant on a reboost. Sounds like it's not needed as often now at the higher orbit, so it's not something that'd need done all that often anyway.
-
Re: ISS reboost
So Dream chaser is out, and Dragon Rider is probably out, as I don't know if it's RCS system is tied into it's LAS thrusters, or if they are separate systems. And even if they are tied in to each other, doing a reboost would deplete their landing propellant.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
Crew Dragon RCS and LAS thrusters will share the same propellant tanks. So it could be used for ISS reboost, but it all depends on how much is left in the tanks, and how much margin is needed for deorbit + propulsive landing.
And, as I just noted, the first Dragon crewed spacecraft will NOT use propulsive landing, so should have propellant to spare at the end of the mission (i.e. some unused margin).
That's good to know, but what would you do once they start landing propulsively? YOu could have DRagon Rider do a reboost at first, but you probably couldn't baseline a long term plan on that. Although I suppose you could just plan on having the occasional Dragon Rider cargo or crew mission (as I think they'll be the same capsule once Dragon Rider is ready) plan a splashdown rather than a landing, and it could then burn it's LAS propellant on a reboost. Sounds like it's not needed as often now at the higher orbit, so it's not something that'd need done all that often anyway.
Luckily, since they're going with multiple providers for both crew and cargo, NASA should be able to choose whichever way is cheapest for providing reboost. My main point is that Dragon /should/ be capable of reboost, even if (for whatever reason) it's not terribly cost-effective. But I don't think they've advertised that capability. Whereas Boeing apparently has (in an attempt to bring this back on track...).
-
Only CST-100 plans to do Station reboost. Dragon plans to use the propellant for nominal landing and Dreamchaser probably does not have enough delta V or thrust for it as they plan to use less toxic propellants in the RCS. They originally were planning cold nitrogen thrusters, but looks like they will choose something else.
Dreamchaser's LAS is it's hybrid rocket motor which it plans to use for powered flight if needed during atmospheric flight.
Not sure how much NASA cares for such a system as both Progress and ATV both do rebosts and it can reboost itself if needed. The shuttle did do reboost, but that was more a while you are here thing. With reboost it is preferred that a visiting vehicle do it since it saves the ISS’s propellant and wear and tear on the engines, but that is that
The ISS's need for reboost has decreased since retirement of the shuttle. The ISS now flies higher and gets less drag. In order to accommodate the shuttle the ISS had to fly lower.
So CST-100 is well suited for it, and Liberty -could- be easily made to be well suited for it, depending on how they design the SM.
Don't thik the thrusters on the ATV are that powerful.
I'm trying to piece together how much storage a launch to ISS needs (per contract) as the Liberty CM and prob CST-100 have room to spare from the first designs. That's not counting any space from the SM.
-
Don't thik the thrusters on the ATV are that powerful.
I'm trying to piece together how much storage a launch to ISS needs (per contract) as the Liberty CM and prob CST-100 have room to spare from the first designs. That's not counting any space from the SM.
Yeap ATV does do the reboost job. ATV last reboosted the station in March.
Ah there is no contract for that. With commercal crew they only need to be able to carry the equilent of a person in terms of cargo--i.e. no cargo pod needed. So instead of flying a full 7 they would fly fewer people and more cargo.
Only Space X and Orbital have a cargo contract and Liberty is trying to blur the lines between the two.
-
Don't thik the thrusters on the ATV are that powerful.
I'm trying to piece together how much storage a launch to ISS needs (per contract) as the Liberty CM and prob CST-100 have room to spare from the first designs. That's not counting any space from the SM.
Yeap ATV does do the reboost job. ATV last reboosted the station in March.
Ah there is no contract for that. With commercal crew they only need to be able to carry the equilent of a person in terms of cargo--i.e. no cargo pod needed. So instead of flying a full 7 they would fly fewer people and more cargo.
Only Space X and Orbital have a cargo contract and Liberty is trying to blur the lines between the two.
So turning this quesiton around, if one of the companies offers cargo inside the CM it might be a Plus and sway things?
-
So turning this quesiton around, if one of the companies offers cargo inside the CM it might be a Plus and sway things?
No, if it is not a requirement and therefore not part of the selection criteria, it can not be used as a discriminator.
-
No, if it is not a requirement and therefore not part of the selection criteria, it can not be used as a discriminator.
Would it be allowed as a tie-breaker?
-
So turning this quesiton around, if one of the companies offers cargo inside the CM it might be a Plus and sway things?
I should hope that the primary focus of commercail crew be it CST-100, Dragon, Blue Origin or Liberty is about getting a CREW delivery service up and ready quckest which imho Liberty is short on(at least the others are using exsising rockets first). Everything else, like CST-100's reboost is very secondary.
Anyway all of the companies are required to be able to carry cargo inside the capsule just at the cost of not carring a full 7-which NASA probably could live with most of the time as they only plan 4. Dragon could offer cargo outside in it's trunk. That also ignores that NASA's COTS contract allows NASA to purchase more launches if it needs.
However this thread is about the CST-100 not Liberty.
-
No, if it is not a requirement and therefore not part of the selection criteria, it can not be used as a discriminator.
Would it be allowed as a tie-breaker?
nope
-
nope
Interesting. What would be allowed as a tie-breaker? Flipping a coin? Of course, this presumes there is a tie to begin with.
-
nope
Interesting. What would be allowed as a tie-breaker? Flipping a coin? Of course, this presumes there is a tie to begin with.
The humor of the CEOs' tweets, of course.
-
Thrust level really doesn't matter much when it comes to reboost efficiency... Having TOO much thrust, however, does matter.
-
So turning this quesiton around, if one of the companies offers cargo inside the CM it might be a Plus and sway things?
I should hope that the primary focus of commercail crew be it CST-100, Dragon, Blue Origin or Liberty is about getting a CREW delivery service up and ready quckest which imho Liberty is short on(at least the others are using exsising rockets first). Everything else, like CST-100's reboost is very secondary.
agree this should be about a crew delivery service.
believe LV they might be equil, boeing might be able to ramp up quicker.
who can build the working spacecraft first?
-
So turning this quesiton around, if one of the companies offers cargo inside the CM it might be a Plus and sway things?
I should hope that the primary focus of commercail crew be it CST-100, Dragon, Blue Origin or Liberty is about getting a CREW delivery service up and ready quckest which imho Liberty is short on(at least the others are using exsising rockets first). Everything else, like CST-100's reboost is very secondary.
agree this should be about a crew delivery service.
believe LV they might be equil, boeing might be able to ramp up quicker.
who can build the working spacecraft first?
Liberty is behind all of them, because it uses a new launch vehicle which isn't even close to being completed. Dragon essentially already is a working spacecraft. Needs the important "accessories" (which constitute changes to the pressure vessel to accommodate the abort thrusters, etc...) that let it carry people, but it's already working. Falcon 9 has already flown three times, now, though it will be upgraded again soon. All the other providers other than Liberty and SpaceX use launch vehicles with a long and reliable flight history.
CST-100 is the second-furthest along as far as spacecraft (after Dragon). Then is probably DreamChaser (though its unique-for-orbital-use hybrid propulsion system is a question mark, still), then Blue Origin, then Excaliber (though it's a small company without many resources, it does have hardware that has flight experience), then Liberty. Arguably, Blue Origin might be at the back simply because the shape doesn't have any flight experience and we haven't seen much hardware for it.
-
Liberty is behind all of them, because it uses a new launch vehicle which isn't even close to being completed.
Liberty's first stage has been test fired, for all practical purposes, three times. A precursor of its upper stage has flown 38 times, 63 times if you count the "G" series with its Vulcain 1 engine.
Falcon 9 v1.1 has yet to be erected in a test stand. As far as I can tell, it has yet to be constructed. One of its first stage engines has completed a full scale test. I've heard no reports about testing its new second stage engine. Its launch site is under construction.
Atlas 411 (for CST-100) has only flown three times. A 412 model, if needed, has never flown.
Atlas 401 (for Dream Chaser) has flown 12 times with one failure. A 402 model, if needed, has never flown.
- Ed Kyle
-
Liberty is behind all of them, because it uses a new launch vehicle which isn't even close to being completed.
Liberty's first stage has been test fired, for all practical purposes, three times. A precursor of its upper stage has flown 38 times, 63 times if you count the "G" series with its Vulcain 1 engine.
Falcon 9 v1.1 has yet to be erected in a test stand. As far as I can tell, it has yet to be constructed. One of its engines has completed a full scale test. Its launch site is under construction.
Atlas 411 (for CST-100) has only flown three times. A 412 model, if needed, has never flown.
Atlas 401 (for Dream Chaser) has flown 12 times with one failure. A 402 model, if needed, has never flown.
- Ed Kyle
Please describe the failure of the Atlas 401 incident - I thought it was on the second stage and the mission was a success?
Is there a significant difference between the 401 and the 411, such as avionics and structure?
-
Are you suggesting Liberty is more mature than Falcon 9 v1.1 or Atlas V 402?
-
Unless you count several other Shuttle flights as failures (besides the two LOC flights), it makes no sense to count the Atlas V underperformance a failure. The mission succeeded, according to the customer.
-
Please describe the failure of the Atlas 401 incident - I thought it was on the second stage and the mission was a success?
Is there a significant difference between the 401 and the 411, such as avionics and structure?
On June 15, 2007, AV-009, an Atlas 5-401, suffered an early Centaur RL10 engine shut down during its second burn. An RL10 fuel inlet valve failed to seal after the first Centaur burn, allowing liquid hydrogen fuel to leak during the coast period, causing a propellant shortfall. The planned 1,000 x 1,200 km x 63.4 deg orbit was not achieved. The vehicle ended up in a 842 x 1186 km x 63.35 deg orbit. The launch vehicle suffered a hardware failure that prevented it from achieving its assigned mission goals, payload outcome regardless.
Atlas 411 has a single solid motor, which adds additional events to its mission compared to a 401.
- Ed Kyle
-
Unless you count several other Shuttle flights as failures (besides the two LOC flights), it makes no sense to count the Atlas V underperformance a failure. The mission succeeded, according to the customer.
I do count STS-51F as a launch vehicle failure.
- Ed Kyle
-
Are you suggesting Liberty is more mature than Falcon 9 v1.1 or Atlas V 402?
Did I?
- Ed Kyle
-
Please describe the failure of the Atlas 401 incident - I thought it was on the second stage and the mission was a success?
Is there a significant difference between the 401 and the 411, such as avionics and structure?
On June 15, 2007, AV-009, an Atlas 5-401, suffered an early Centaur RL10 engine shut down during its second burn. An RL10 fuel inlet valve failed to seal after the first Centaur burn, allowing liquid hydrogen fuel to leak during the coast period, causing a propellant shortfall. The planned 1,000 x 1,200 km x 63.4 deg orbit was not achieved. The vehicle ended up in a 842 x 1186 km x 63.35 deg orbit. The launch vehicle suffered a hardware failure that prevented it from achieving its assigned mission goals, payload outcome regardless.
Atlas 411 has a single solid motor, which adds additional events to its mission compared to a 401.
- Ed Kyle
Then, I suppose you also consider STS-51-F and STS-93 failures, as well.
No, the customer said it was a success. Thus it was a success.
-
Then, I suppose you also consider STS-51-F and STS-93 failures, as well.
As I noted above, I consider STS-51F a launch vehicle failure. STS-93 ended up only a few miles/kilometers from its planned orbit despite its series of technical issues on the way up.
No, the customer said it was a success. Thus it was a success.
A success for the customer, perhaps (AV-009 was a classified mission, so only the customer knows for sure), but not for the launch vehicle, which is what I track.
Here's where it matters for the topic at hand. CST-100, like Dragon and Dream Chaser and the other commercial crew entries, is a minimalist spacecraft compared to Shuttle, which had its myriad backup systems and extra delta-v. CST-100 and the others will be less able to tolerate "near misses" by launch vehicles.
- Ed Kyle
-
Then, I suppose you also consider STS-51-F and STS-93 failures, as well.
As I noted above, I consider STS-51F a launch vehicle failure. STS-93 ended up only a few miles/kilometers from its planned orbit despite its series of technical issues on the way up.
No, the customer said it was a success. Thus it was a success.
CST-100 and the others will be less able to tolerate "near misses" by launch vehicles.
- Ed Kyle
ouch, good point
-
A crew vehicle might be able to trade one attempt at approaching and docking the station for correcting its orbit in case of launch near miss. Actual engineers might be able to say how much launch vehicle under-performance can be mitigated by the amount of fuel reserved for one attempted docking. Or am I way off base?
-
...
Here's where it matters for the topic at hand. CST-100, like Dragon and Dream Chaser and the other commercial crew entries, is a minimalist spacecraft compared to Shuttle, which had its myriad backup systems and extra delta-v. CST-100 and the others will be less able to tolerate "near misses" by launch vehicles.
- Ed Kyle
What the? Space Shuttle OMS provided around 300 m/s delta v.
Dragon is around 400 to 600 m/s, depnding on payload.
IIRC, Dream Chaser is even more.
-
Liberty is behind all of them, because it uses a new launch vehicle which isn't even close to being completed.
Liberty's first stage has been test fired, for all practical purposes, three times. A precursor of its upper stage has flown 38 times, 63 times if you count the "G" series with its Vulcain 1 engine.
Falcon 9 v1.1 has yet to be erected in a test stand. As far as I can tell, it has yet to be constructed. One of its first stage engines has completed a full scale test. I've heard no reports about testing its new second stage engine. Its launch site is under construction.
Atlas 411 (for CST-100) has only flown three times. A 412 model, if needed, has never flown.
Atlas 401 (for Dream Chaser) has flown 12 times with one failure. A 402 model, if needed, has never flown.
- Ed Kyle
All 4X1 models can be counted together because hardwarewise, the core is the same.
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
wish granted....
Story with video http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416 (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416)
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
wish granted....
Story with video http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416 (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416)
Any particular reason that a 2 month old story is back?
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
wish granted....
Story with video http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416 (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416)
Any particular reason that a 2 month old story is back?
Is the link listed in another place?
Note: I kicked off an email to see if the video can be transfered to Utube.
The station doesn't wish to have the story on Utube.
edit: note changes
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
wish granted....
Story with video http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416 (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416)
Any particular reason that a 2 month old story is back?
Is the link listed in another place?
Maybe not that one, but I think a link like this one should suffice: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/boeings-cst-100-successful-full-landing-system-test/
And that one was posted a week before that 2 month old story was written.
-
I wish there had been something about CST-100 when I clicked on this thread today.
wish granted....
Story with video http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416 (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/18293032/i-team-space-capsule-test-brings-strange-sight-to-the-desert?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7214416)
Any particular reason that a 2 month old story is back?
Is the link listed in another place?
Maybe not that one, but I think a link like this one should suffice: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/boeings-cst-100-successful-full-landing-system-test/
And that one was posted a week before that 2 month old story was written.
shakes head...... Did you even look at the article and watch the video??
The video has a complete and different POV, showing assembly of the test spacecraft in the Bieglow factory.
-
shakes head...... Did you even look at the article and watch the video??
The video has a complete and different POV, showing assembly of the test spacecraft in the Bieglow factory.
I did take a look at it, saw some familiar stuff. Then I just assumed it was outdated ::)
-
shakes head...... Did you even look at the article and watch the video??
The video has a complete and different POV, showing assembly of the test spacecraft in the Bieglow factory.
I did take a look at it, saw some familiar stuff. Then I just assumed it was outdated ::)
try this, more prep for the test video stuff
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/may-2012/daily-planet---may-10-2012/#clip676745
-
An update on the CST-100 and CCiCap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOPhB5xQprc&feature=relmfu
-
Pulled a frame from the video....
-
What is interesting to note from the above picture, the RCS thruster design has evolved from pictures released late last year. The thrusters have changed from a 'six-pack' cluster higher on the cone, to a distributed arrangement closer to the periphery, and closer to the edge of the capsule.
-
What is interesting to note from the above picture, the RCS thruster design has evolved from pictures released late last year. The thrusters have changed from a 'six-pack' cluster higher on the cone, to a distributed arrangement closer to the periphery, and closer to the edge of the capsule.
Noticed that as well, if you look at some of the early pics in this thread and compare looks like at least 3 revisions, from my take.
-
maybe some real HW
-
Shots of CTS-100 inside OPF-3, doesnt seem too different from before:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2410
Boeing establishes CST-100 baseline design. This is a big milestone such that the design is now mature enough it requires more rigid configuration control. Any significant changes from here will be very carefully evaluated because of the potenial impacts to the integrated design.
-
Space show interviews with John Elbon and John Mulholland discussing the CST-100:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1852
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2410
Boeing establishes CST-100 baseline design. This is a big milestone such that the design is now mature enough it requires more rigid configuration control. Any significant changes from here will be very carefully evaluated because of the potenial impacts to the integrated design.
I'm a big fan of SNC DC, I'm a bigger fan of CCiCAP, and seeing the CST-100 move smartly forward gives me hope that we as a nation will go forward - congrats to the Boeing team
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2410
Boeing establishes CST-100 baseline design. This is a big milestone such that the design is now mature enough it requires more rigid configuration control. Any significant changes from here will be very carefully evaluated because of the potenial impacts to the integrated design.
(hitting the like button)!
-
Just started listening to the Elbon interview.
To me it seems like he's saying CST-100 will move to Falcon 9 without saying it.
Built for other launchers, looking to save cost.
He even said they will remain compatible with Liberty.
Would not compare to Orion though, made sure it stood apart as a much more capable vehicle.
Elbon plays the politics heavily. He's a smart man.
-
Just started listening to the Elbon interview.
To me it seems like he's saying CST-100 will move to Falcon 9 without saying it.
Built for other launchers, looking to save cost.
He even said they will remain compatible with Liberty.
Would not compare to Orion though, made sure it stood apart as a much more capable vehicle.
Elbon plays the politics heavily. He's a smart man.
If one booster costs $200 million and another is $80 million why would they stay locked into the expensive one? The issue might be that the cheaper one is made by a company with a competing capsule.
-
Just started listening to the Elbon interview.
To me it seems like he's saying CST-100 will move to Falcon 9 without saying it.
Built for other launchers, looking to save cost.
He even said they will remain compatible with Liberty.
Would not compare to Orion though, made sure it stood apart as a much more capable vehicle.
Elbon plays the politics heavily. He's a smart man.
If one booster costs $200 million and another is $80 million why would they stay locked into the expensive one? The issue might be that the cheaper one is made by a company with a competing capsule.
Even more importantly, SpaceX has yet to prove it can produce quickly enough to provide enough boosters for its own business and CST-100. ULA, on the other hand, can with some justification say that they can guarantee to deliver.
FWIW, this is something that SpaceX would want to follow as it guarantees a crew customer for Falcon-9 even if Crewed Dragon gets downselected. However, as I indicated above, I'm not sure that it is as sweet a deal for Boeing/Bigelow at this point.
-
Just started listening to the Elbon interview.
To me it seems like he's saying CST-100 will move to Falcon 9 without saying it.
Built for other launchers, looking to save cost.
He even said they will remain compatible with Liberty.
Would not compare to Orion though, made sure it stood apart as a much more capable vehicle.
Elbon plays the politics heavily. He's a smart man.
If one booster costs $200 million and another is $80 million why would they stay locked into the expensive one? The issue might be that the cheaper one is made by a company with a competing capsule.
An Atlas V cost less than $200M.
See:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26183.msg783237#msg783237
-
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2410
Boeing establishes CST-100 baseline design. This is a big milestone such that the design is now mature enough it requires more rigid configuration control. Any significant changes from here will be very carefully evaluated because of the potenial impacts to the integrated design.
(hitting the like button)!
Indeed! :)
-
Just started listening to the Elbon interview.
To me it seems like he's saying CST-100 will move to Falcon 9 without saying it.
Built for other launchers, looking to save cost.
He even said they will remain compatible with Liberty.
Would not compare to Orion though, made sure it stood apart as a much more capable vehicle.
Elbon plays the politics heavily. He's a smart man.
If one booster costs $200 million and another is $80 million why would they stay locked into the expensive one? The issue might be that the cheaper one is made by a company with a competing capsule.
Wild Speculation and interesting thought:
CTS down select to CST-100 flying on Falcon 9 from KSC as the primary provider. SpaceX gets a bone, Boeing is happy, and NASA gets a pretty inexpensive service provider not having to pay for the more expensive Atlas V. F9/Dragon continue CRS service, maybe with Cygnus, maybe without for CRS-2.
NASA pays for maybe two Dreamchaser vehicles to be built and qualified on Atlas V as ISS backup. They are fully reusable, and supposedly low overhead. So once a couple are built, the production could be shut down and they could be stored there at KSC to launch in a pinch off of Atlas V in case of a problem with F9 or CST-100. DoD supports Atlas V production, so that LV will always be available if needed.
So, Dreamchaser gets built and does fly occasionally, like how new Shuttles didn’t keep rolling off the assembly line once the originals were built. However SNC doesn’t get the single CTS supply contract, per se.
CST-100 does keep rolling off the assembly line (I don’t think the plan is to reuse them for ISS crew launches, is it?) and brand new ones are flown for crew to ISS.
If DC is needed for an ISS mission, it could fly off of LC-41 with that elevator modification to the Atlas UT that I see in the art.
With all of the government money flowing to SpaceX for CCiCAP awards, CRS missions, and CTS F9 launches, they finish development of crew dragon on their own dime (development would be mostly done and paid for by that point anyway), as it sounds like it’s part of Elon’s long term plans anyway. And that crew version replaces the current cargo version for CRS missions, and land propulsively as planned. The CRS contracts allow SpaceX to develop that landing technology to maturity before a crew ever flies on it to a Bigelow station or perhaps even some tourist flight to the ISS like the Russians have done. I’m not sure how all of that would work. I don’t think payments can go to NASA for tourist flights, but the Russians sold tourist flights and NASA agreed to it. Maybe a barter system could be done where SpaceX supplies some F9 launches to NASA for free, in return to being able to take tourist groups to the ISS for a couple of days. A pilot and 6 paying passengers on a trip to the ISS for a couple of days…actual orbit unlike Virgin Galactic, might get some rich folks to get in on that. A Bigelow module hotel/station could go up later.
Crew-dragon is built and flies, CST-100 is built and flies, DC is built and flies.
It probably could never come to pass, but the idea that sort of hit me was how DC doesn’t really need to get a contract for ISS crew service per se. If a few original ships are built, then like the shuttles, they are fully reusable and available as needed. There’s be some maintenance of them sure, but supposedly it’s not supposed to be much, especially if they are just stored and not being launched. So they probably wouldn’t cost much to have a couple of them on hand if/when needed.
Crew Dragon will be mostly developed and paid for under the commercial crew development contracts, depending on when final down-select is. And as long as SpaceX has the CRS contract to the ISS, that can really pay for Crew Dragon production, as it sounds like the plan would be to replace the current version of Dragon with the Crew Dragon for cargo flights once crew Dragon is ready for commonality, and for propulsive landings, even if the LAS system isn’t needed. (it’d probably just fly without the ECLSS system for cargo missions). There’ also an advantage to having the LAS/propulsive landing system on a cargo mission. If there’s a LOM failure of the F9, Dragon can still abort away and be recovered with it’s pressurized cargo in tact, and the capsule itself can be recovered. No human lives in the balance, but I can see the appeal in recovering high-dollar cargo and hardware in case of a launch failure.
And it sounds like Boeing has been repeating that CST-100 can fly on any LV, including Liberty. I would just guess there’s a reason they don’t seem to be locking themselves into Atlas V. Remember, CST-100 is Boeing’s capsule, but Atlas V is LM’s rocket. ULA was a bit of a shotgun marriage from what I understand, and Boeing seems to want to keep as much under the Boeing tent as they can. Original CST-100 art used the Delta 4 I believe, which is Boeing’s rocket. Once it became clear that man-rating it would be much more expensive than Atlas V, sounds like they switched to Atlas V? But I am guessing that F9 can be man rated pretty cheaply too, as Elon’s plan has always been for it to launch a crew? So, just as a wild guess, if Boeing were to get the only CTS contract, they might evaluate other launchers for the best price. But until then, SpaceX with crew Dragon and F9 is their competition. So they can’t very well approach SpaceX unless SpaceX looses the CTS competition. Otherwise SpaceX has no reason/need to talk to Boeing about providing launch services for CST-100. Until such a time, Boeing needs it’s own LV to compete.
-
An Atlas V cost less than $200M.
See:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26183.msg783237#msg783237
We're not talking about launching bricks. You're not going to get a manned launch for the same price.
-
I did not see this posted in the past two pages:
http://moonandback.com/2012/09/17/boeing-completes-first-ccicap-milestone/
Moon and Back got to me first - this is really good news.
-
An Atlas V cost less than $200M.
See:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26183.msg783237#msg783237
We're not talking about launching bricks. You're not going to get a manned launch for the same price.
Then your $80 million for SpaceX should also be increased. The price for launching Jason-3 on a Falcon 9 v. 1.0 is $82 million. You have to compare apples to apples. Anyways, it doesn't really matter. Your point is that the Atlas is almost double the price of the Falcon 9 which is true.
-
I did not see this posted in the past two pages:
http://moonandback.com/2012/09/17/boeing-completes-first-ccicap-milestone/
Moon and Back got to me first - this is really good news.
It was posted here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg953447#msg953447
-
An Atlas V cost less than $200M.
See:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26183.msg783237#msg783237
We're not talking about launching bricks. You're not going to get a manned launch for the same price.
Then your $80 million for SpaceX should also be increased. The price for launching Jason-3 on a Falcon 9 v. 1.0 is $82 million. You have to compare apples to apples. Anyways, it doesn't really matter. Your point is that the Atlas is almost double the price of the Falcon 9 which is true.
All very, very speculative as there is nothing to say ULA will not get their costs down in the mean time and Space X see their costs rise as paper vehicles become reality.
-
All very, very speculative as there is nothing to say ULA will not get their costs down in the mean time and Space X see their costs rise as paper vehicles become reality.
When the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the cost didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
IMHO it would be less speculative to say that ULA could get their costs up as the man rated Atlas V become reality while SpaceX can get their costs down.
-
When the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the cost didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Can't say that, cost is different than price.
-
When the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the cost didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Can't say that, cost is different than price.
SpaceX could be deliberately taking a loss on the crew side of things for the exposure it gets them.
-
When the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the cost didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Can't say that, cost is different than price.
As you wish: when the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the price didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Is that OK?
-
As you wish: when the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the price didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
It can't by design. It was a FFP contract.
Same applies to OSC CRS contract, and many others such as: NLS 1, REALMS, CMAM, SPOC, etc. It is not a big deal. That is why FFP contracts are good.
-
As you wish: when the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the price didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Is that OK?
You've turned it into an accurate statement, but you've lost your original point. SpaceX had no choice but to deliver at the obligated price; Jim is suggesting that their costs rose above what they thought, meaning that their profit margins are probably smaller than they expected. If their costs keep rising, at some point their prices will probably go up.
-
As you wish: when the $1.6 billion CRS contract was signed in december 2008 between NASA and SpaceX, Falcon 9/Dragon was a paper vehicle and the price didn't raise by a dime when it became reality.
Is that OK?
You've turned it into an accurate statement, but you've lost your original point. SpaceX had no choice but to deliver at the obligated price; Jim is suggesting that their costs rose above what they thought, meaning that their profit margins are probably smaller than they expected. If their costs keep rising, at some point their prices will probably go up.
Depending on how they do their accounting, such as how many flights they spread their development costs over, they could even be losing money on the contract. Though cost accounting can be quite creative. Margins sometimes are not as important as cash flow. There is an old joke in the accounting profession. When somebody is interviewing for a job you ask them, "What is two plus two?" The correct answer which should get the person the job is, "What would you like it to be?"
-
How is it that a thread about Boeing's vehicle has yet again turned into all about SpaceX?
-
How is it that a thread about Boeing's vehicle has yet again turned into all about SpaceX?
It always starts with valid, on-topic comparisons between Other COTS/CCiCAP Company and the one that we know the most about. There's useful stuff to talk about there.
...then it wanders off. (Sorry for my part in that.)
-
And let's get it back on to CST-100.....we can do that without trimming anything. Just noting to stop others jumping in with "ELON!!!" :D
-
How is it that a thread about Boeing's vehicle has yet again turned into all about SpaceX?
Because the CST-100 isn't going anywhere without a ride. Everybody was just talking about potential launchers. Launcher cost isn't a minor factor in it's chances of succeeding, and some people wouldn't mind hearing more about the technical aspects of interfacing to different rockets.
I didn't mean to derail things with my cost comment. I was just trying to point out that there could be a pretty good reason to pursue the option.
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/
Hmm.
Dear Mr New President,
Can we have some more money? Possibly disguised as tickets to the ISS.
Yours sincerely
Boeing
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/
More likely, this indicates that Boeing has gotten a good look at Bigelow's capabilities, and re-emphasized that they have to close the business case with ISS traffic. Boeing has stock holders and investors to satisfy, and they don't want to get stuck with a white elephant.
-
And there is the rub. Just thinking out loud here, without any real research behind it.
Currently, with a crew of 6 rotated in groups of 3 every six months, due to the capabilities of Soyuz, it looks like we get 4 crew launches per year. Assuming the Russians continue to fly and support the ISS, the best any new commercial or US government launcher can hope for is 2 flights per year. So, if you buy the assumption that NASA will let its station crew ride as passengers on CST, Dragon, or Dream Chaser, all that you really need is space for 5 people. Pilot, Co-pilot/flight attendent, 3 passengers, and some cargo space.
The Russians would like to extend the tour of duty to a year, which makes sense to me if we expect to really figure out how to live in space for long periods of time, that would reduce the crew rotation further.
Expanding the crew to 7 - 9, perhaps for short term experiments, could add a launch or two to the manifest for both crew and cargo requirements.
Cargo to ISS is not going to do it either. Progress every 60 or 90 days. An ATV and HTV once a year. There is probably room for another craft there that gets lajunched every 60-90 days, particularly when the ESA and NASDA (?) stops flying their cargo craft.
It looks to me like larger craft, capable of extended stays at the station, actually will depress the market, not enhance it.
So, trying to sum this up,here is what I think the maximum yearly ISS support manifest would look like:
Soyuz - 2x per year
US Commerical Crew - 2x per Year
Progress - 6x per year
ATV - 1x per year
HTV - 1x per year
US Commerical crew - 6x per year perhaps moving to 8 x per year as ATV/HTV phase out
Total = Minimum 12, most likely 18, Max 20 launches per year.
This launch market only exists till 2020 or maybe 2025. Of course ISS could be like the B-52 and fly for 100 years, but since its configuration is pretty set and does not appear to allow for module replacement or addition, service life extensions would seem to be pretty difficult. That is effectively only 7-12 years away, and judging from the development pace so far, these additional capabilities are going to come online closer to 2020 than to 2015.
There do not appear to be any plans for the replacement of the ISS. There is no financing available either, since the current US program cannot even effectively develop SLS, the Orion CM, Orion SM, much less a lander or the Deep Space Habitats simultaneously. The Russians, in spite of proclamations to the contrary, do not appear able to fund either a new booster or new spacecraft. Finally "Commercial" providers are all solely, at this time, dependent upon the ISS as the only customer, and partially to laregly dependent upon NASA funding for their development costs.
There is of course, some potential for tourism, restricted to the very rich, once again, at a guess:
Sub orbital tourism = 12 flights per year at a huge guess.
Orbital Tourism = 1 or 2 flights per year to a Bigelow Station? Would these stations have a permanent crew? If so, lets say 3 crewman , rotated every three months? Total = 4 - 6 flights, with the tourism merged with a crew rotation? What is the expected service duration of the Bigelow craft.
So, what is the follow on? As much as I am a Mars first guy, I don't think that is the answer in the medium term (50 years) anymore. Each of these missions should be designed that a capability is operational in periods of 4 - 8 years so that people can see immediate goals and it can be integrated into the US political cycle. The key here is to get the program up and running and into a condition where it requires continuous sustainment due to extended duration human crews that would then have a certain political value. Dare I say almost like hostages?
I can only think of three programs to further develop our space capabilities:
1. Combination Government/Commerical LEO rotating space station. The primary purpose of this is to learn how to generate artificial gravity, since we know that even 6 month weightless stays are not good for the crew. The station would also be designed to be easily expanded and would seek to be nearly independent in terms of water and air recyling, and some modest food production. The station would have to be designed to either have a weightless region or a free flyer to allow longer term studies of weightless countermeasures to be tested and for tourists. Needless to say, it would need other objectives and perhaps it could provide some other service, like low rate production of some manufactured good.
2. A surface moon base, again for government/commerical funding, to develop procedures for long term surface stays for the future such as ISRU and radation protection, somewhat based on Antarctic research stations. It would need of communication satellites to allow for robotic exploration of areas beyond the reach of the human crew. I judge, for no particular reason, this would need a crew of 15 - 30 people, once fully developed. Once it reaches a certain level of stability, it too could serve as a tourist destination for the filthy rich. Other commercial products may be developed providing other benefits to earth based customers.
3. An Earth-moon shuttle craft? Would this be more suitable than direct throw to the moon from Earth or for movement of crew/goods from the Moon to the Earth? Since it would never enter the atmosphere, it might even be sustainable, if there were services/goods that a lunar base could export to the LEO station. This then would be combined after it is in service, with a second space station, perhaps at the Lagrange Points, designed in such a way that is would serve as the basis for a Mission Module to mars or other destinations. This woud come relatively late, beyond 50 years, as we are able to isolate and solve the problems the other programs would offer.
Just some babbling on a Sunday morning. Perhaps it should go into its own thread, but the Boeing statement is what triggered it. I am sure we have talked about this before somewhere else, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up again, but I am not going to search for the topics.
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/
Hmm.
Dear Mr New President,
Can we have some more money? Possibly disguised as tickets to the ISS.
Yours sincerely
Boeing
Worse.....4.5 Billion dollars listed in the milestones.
"While Boeing stands to gain at least $460 million by completing all 19 milestones during the 21-month base period, which would bring the CST-100 through the critical design review stage, an undisclosed, but significant, amount of additional funding may be gained through accomplishing 33 optional milestones."
Boeing must have missed the Meeting before Congress. Where NASA said one or two of the milestones would be paid out.
-
Political storm brewing for all the vehicles NASA is building.
4 is too many. Something has to give.
I think the CST-100 is a fine spacecraft and isn't being shown the love it could be from NASA.
I gave a hint earlier on in this thread "was careful not to compare to Orion".
So the question on my lips is obvious.
Can CST-100 do what Orion can do?
-
Can CST-100 do what Orion can do?
The answer is 'no' and, of course, the answer to "Can Orion do what CST-100 can do?" is also 'no'.
-
Thanks Ben, fair enough answer I guess :D
-
Can CST-100 do what Orion can do?
The answer is 'no' and, of course, the answer to "Can Orion do what CST-100 can do?" is also 'no'.
It is symmetrical in that way, but note the requirements imposed on them are not so symmetrical. NASA only requires that commercial vehicles be capable of flying LEO missions to ISS. At the insistence of Congress, though, NASA imposes upon Orion both BEO and LEO capability requirements. (That is, in addition to its primary "exploration" capability, Orion must also be able to fly to ISS, thus providing the notorious "backup" capability.)
-
Can CST-100 do what Orion can do?
The answer is 'no' and, of course, the answer to "Can Orion do what CST-100 can do?" is also 'no'.
It is symmetrical in that way, but note the requirements imposed on them are not so symmetrical. NASA only requires that commercial vehicles be capable of flying LEO missions to ISS. At the insistence of Congress, though, NASA imposes upon Orion both BEO and LEO capability requirements. (That is, in addition to its primary "exploration" capability, Orion must also be able to fly to ISS, thus providing the notorious "backup" capability.)
What's "notorious" about providing a backup capability?
-
What's "notorious" about providing a backup capability?
I'm sorry but I can't find a response that stays on topic for this thread; I have thus stricken the questionable word from my previous reply.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
Current thinking by the Commercial Crew Program is that an ISS Services Contract would notionally be granted around Q3 FY2016 (Q2 CY2016) following a Request For Proposals at the beginning of FY2016 (~8 month process from start to final contract award). The attached chart (from August 8, 2012) shows that the CCiCap Optional Milestones period (if taken up by NASA) ends around the time the ISS Services Contract would start. This is all still notional at present.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
I've been struggling to understand how these kinds of statements help them. We know from the CCiCap rationale that their business case was the weakest part of their proposal. Even SNC had them beat here, even if they had less confidence. Boeing must have supreme confidence in the clear technical superiority of CST-100, if they'd be willing to undercut the rest of their proposal that way in the belief that doing so would increase investment, rather than the reverse.
-
Boeing having a Spinal Tap moment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-BYzaDwNoE
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
I've been struggling to understand how these kinds of statements help them. We know from the CCiCap rationale that their business case was the weakest part of their proposal. Even SNC had them beat here, even if they had less confidence. Boeing must have supreme confidence in the clear technical superiority of CST-100, if they'd be willing to undercut the rest of their proposal that way in the belief that doing so would increase investment, rather than the reverse.
Reality is reality. It does not help to spin the facts and pretend like something is there that is not just to temporarily please your potential customer and then hit them with the real price later.
If folks do the appropriate research then it can be seen they are working with Bigelow, Space Adventures and potentially a few other things in the fire. However, do you see any paying customers for any of these other things? And there is your answer.....
-
I can’t say I really find any fault with Boeing’s position. As a corporation it would be irresponsible to base the company’s assets on some “faith based vision” that a market for their vehicle will appear. There is nothing wrong with trying to test the waters with NASA giving them a firm contract for “X” number of flights or some form of block purchase knowing the pressure from the Hill to down select to one provider. Boeing’s knowledge base spans the entire history of human spaceflight and any vehicle they construct will be solid. Even though my preference would be for the Dream Chaser, I’m trying to be fair just and keep an open mind in these new waters…
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
Atlas V Costs ~ 100M (http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas5_specs.shtml) to 300M for a crew of 7 plus the cost of the capsule.
Falcon 9 cost is 54M to 133M (later is estimated cost for ISS cargo) divided by 7 plus the cost of the capsule. Others say costs higher.
Or would Boeing choose SLS at a cost of ?
So minimum of 8M/ride + profit, unless a significant increase in launch rate. Hence the objection to the word "commercial".
Maybe tax cuts to the upper 1% will increase the number of available customers, but not sure.
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
Or will it end up being a government subsidized aerospace consortium as what is done in other countries...Questions, questions, questions...
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
How much a seat will cost depends on a host of factors, not all of them up to Boeing or any other competitor for that matter.
In any case, price will not be less than cost, any business will simply not do it if that is the case for all the obvious reasons. There is nothing special about this program or contract mechanism with respect to that.
With NASA as the only customer then one could essentially fit this simple equation for an FFP contract:
Price = (Total Program Cost for X flights a year based on the contract) + Perceived Risk Factor* + Profit**
* Perceived risk factor will be a percentage based on total program cost to cover unknowns, changes requested by the customer, etc
** Profit will also be a percentage based on expected total program cost to give a worthwhile and nominal value.
The trick is to make that price fit into what NASA would be willing to spend each year. If that can be done, they succeed, as long as they are credible from an executable standpoint. Because then anything else just brings in more revenue and reduces the total cost to NASA below what they were willing to spend.
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
I think it is wrong to be comparing price per seat.
Sure, NASA has to pay the Russians per Astronaut prices, because they aren't contracting for the entire flight. With CCiCAP, the entire flight is dedicated to NASA astronauts. There may be room for 7, but only 4 seats will be occupied, unless the ISS gets expanded to handle larger crews, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Each launch will cost at least 200-250 million, including the LV and capsule. Sure, if 7 people were onboard the capsule, you could claim a cost per seat of only 30-40 million, but with only 4 astronauts onboard, you're already up to 60 million per seat.
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
I think it is wrong to be comparing price per seat.
Sure, NASA has to pay the Russians per Astronaut prices, because they aren't contracting for the entire flight. With CCiCAP, the entire flight is dedicated to NASA astronauts. There may be room for 7, but only 4 seats will be occupied, unless the ISS gets expanded to handle larger crews, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Each launch will cost at least 200-250 million, including the LV and capsule. Sure, if 7 people were onboard the capsule, you could claim a cost per seat of only 30-40 million, but with only 4 astronauts onboard, you're already up to 60 million per seat.
AFAIK there is no restriction on the commercial carrier selling the unused seats to interested parties.
-
If Boeing cannot make money on their capsule, they could withdraw. This could cause an uproar among the "usual suspects" demanding that we need an experienced company in the bidding, even if it means more money, even if it means downsizing sooner, and even if it means sole source. I'm not saying that this is what will happen, but Boeing might feel that it is worth a try.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
Boeing is notorious for starting to squeeze the government teat early in the game. It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay. I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
-
If Boeing cannot make money on their capsule, they could withdraw. This could cause an uproar among the "usual suspects" demanding that we need an experienced company in the bidding, even if it means more money, even if it means downsizing sooner, and even if it means sole source. I'm not saying that this is what will happen, but Boeing might feel that it is worth a try.
By "ususal suspects" do you mean people posting on the internet?
I say that because when there were rumors of SpaceX not participating in CCiCap it was to be celebrated because they were "going to do it on their own" and other great things.
Now if Boeing suggests ultimately they might not continue too and because they frame their program around only NASA business (where are all the other customers again?) in order to perhaps not set them or the custumer up, there are the claims of somewhat sinister motives.
-
I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
LMAO. Too funny (more like sad, but true)
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
I think it is wrong to be comparing price per seat.
Sure, NASA has to pay the Russians per Astronaut prices, because they aren't contracting for the entire flight. With CCiCAP, the entire flight is dedicated to NASA astronauts. There may be room for 7, but only 4 seats will be occupied, unless the ISS gets expanded to handle larger crews, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Each launch will cost at least 200-250 million, including the LV and capsule. Sure, if 7 people were onboard the capsule, you could claim a cost per seat of only 30-40 million, but with only 4 astronauts onboard, you're already up to 60 million per seat.
AFAIK there is no restriction on the commercial carrier selling the unused seats to interested parties.
Sure, there are no restrictions on them selling the un-unused seats. There may be restrictions on them entering the ISS. Will the commerical companies reimburse NASA for any and all expenses related to supporting their extra seats to "interested parties".
When the Russians were selling unused seats, their stay was relatively short. They arrived on 1 Soyuz capsule and left on another. Since the commerical vehicle will be staying at the ISS for 6 months, does that visitor get to stay for 6 months ? How else does he get home ?? Unless CCiCap results in a sole provider, a tourist can't fly up on a Dragon and fly home on a CST-100.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
Boeing is notorious for starting to squeeze the government teat early in the game. It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay. I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
Boeing has not made any such noise (that has been accurately reported). There is no possibility of them, or anyone, getting a contract earlier. Not enough progress has been made by either SpaceX or Boeing. Now, if partner A *and* B (allowing for the 3 iCAP folks) bows out (or something bad happens - hope not) then maybe but there will still be a competition - just not likely anyone could win if not along through icap.
-
It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay.
Wow, it's almost like there's some sort of system in place to ensure that this happens and it's the contractors who don't want to overcharge or underdeliver that have to swim upstream.
It's almost like anyone who becomes a government contractor is infected by a disease that makes them unfit for future non-government business.
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
I think it is wrong to be comparing price per seat.
Sure, NASA has to pay the Russians per Astronaut prices, because they aren't contracting for the entire flight. With CCiCAP, the entire flight is dedicated to NASA astronauts. There may be room for 7, but only 4 seats will be occupied, unless the ISS gets expanded to handle larger crews, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Each launch will cost at least 200-250 million, including the LV and capsule. Sure, if 7 people were onboard the capsule, you could claim a cost per seat of only 30-40 million, but with only 4 astronauts onboard, you're already up to 60 million per seat.
Could the extra seats be used by three other crew members for a short stay if the capsule was used for crew rotation like the space shuttle?
The extra one to three people could be used for EVA or other specialty work.
-
I see Boeings continuing to make noises about possibly not enough money to close business case for CST-100. Could this be angling for a contract prior to the next phase. Interested in views. Is it too early for a crew contract? Has sufficient risk been retired? My view is too early. There's still a lot of risk reduction to be done. I'd say end of this phase.
Boeing is notorious for starting to squeeze the government teat early in the game. It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay. I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
Perhaps one should explore Boeing's revenue stream and see where the majority comes from.
Something tells me Boeing understands the "commercial rate" far better than they are being given credit by the internet pundits, a refernce to my first sentance above. And because they are not jumping in and spending as much capital as the pundits would like to see when those same pundits cannot justify the need (where are the other paying customers again?) Boeing is accussed of being unscrupulous.
I thought better of you Chuck....
-
If Boeing cannot make money on their capsule, they could withdraw. This could cause an uproar among the "usual suspects" demanding that we need an experienced company in the bidding, even if it means more money, even if it means downsizing sooner, and even if it means sole source. I'm not saying that this is what will happen, but Boeing might feel that it is worth a try.
if Boeing wishes to withdraw then the backup DC would get a full share no?
-
It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay.
Wow, it's almost like there's some sort of system in place to ensure that this happens and it's the contractors who don't want to overcharge or underdeliver that have to swim upstream.
It's almost like anyone who becomes a government contractor is infected by a disease that makes them unfit for future non-government business.
just a bunch of over exaggeration
-
If Boeing cannot make money on their capsule, they could withdraw. This could cause an uproar among the "usual suspects" demanding that we need an experienced company in the bidding, even if it means more money, even if it means downsizing sooner, and even if it means sole source. I'm not saying that this is what will happen, but Boeing might feel that it is worth a try.
if Boeing wishes to withdraw then the backup DC would get a full share no?
We do not know what would happen.
Possibilities include:
Dream Chaser getting a full allocation.
ULA getting a partial grant to man rate the Atlas V.
Blue Origin getting a partial grant to modify its launch vehicle to take the Dream Chaser.
Orbital Sciences could get a partial grant to develop a man rated launch vehicle.
Boeing realising that its bluff will be called.
Or something even weirder.
-
We do not know what would happen.
Possibilities include:
ULA getting a partial grant to man rate the Atlas V.
Blue Origin getting a partial grant to modify its launch vehicle to take the Dream Chaser.
Orbital Sciences could get a partial grant to develop a man rated launch vehicle.
Yes, we do know what is not going to happen and that is the list above. None of those are remotely possible, 0% chance of happening. How many times does it have to be said, NASA is not funding the launch vehicle. It is funding the whole solution.
I can say those are never going to happen
-
just a bunch of over exaggeration
That particular rhetorical device requires it.
-
Wow, the noise-to-signal ratio has increased dramatically here. Not sure why but it seems like a bunch of people just want to hear themselves talk while making unfounded accusations.
It's sad
-
I thought better of you Chuck....
No cynicism involved. Just personal experience. It is what it is.
-
I guess the question is:
How much will a seat on the CST-100 cost Boeing, and what is the price of a seat. If the seat price is less then the cost...its not going to work. This is the point CCiCap - is there a vendor that can make a profit within the framework that NASA has developed
I think it is wrong to be comparing price per seat.
Sure, NASA has to pay the Russians per Astronaut prices, because they aren't contracting for the entire flight. With CCiCAP, the entire flight is dedicated to NASA astronauts. There may be room for 7, but only 4 seats will be occupied, unless the ISS gets expanded to handle larger crews, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Each launch will cost at least 200-250 million, including the LV and capsule. Sure, if 7 people were onboard the capsule, you could claim a cost per seat of only 30-40 million, but with only 4 astronauts onboard, you're already up to 60 million per seat.
It was my understanding that the number of seats was a NASA-set requirement? Not sure if this was the case or not. However if it was, then the price per seat is not relevant since the total cost of the ride to the ISS for NASA would be the same. NASA would simply purchase the whole ride. If they then wanted to on-sell seats, I guess they could or not as the case may be.
The difference between that and Soyuz is that Soyuz is limited to 3 seats max and if you buy the whole ride then 3 is what you get and no more. So in my mind, the correct basis for comparison is total ride for total ride, not cost per seat. Therefore if you have 2 Soyuz seats (and that's all you want) and it costs $120million, then what's the equivalent U.S. ride cost you. If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind, but if you want 4 seats, Soyuz can't do it and it's an irrelevant comparison.
In the end, I think that CiCCap is about developing a capability not just about a price per seat and should be viewed in that light.
-
If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind
Buying US flights is always "in front" from an overall cost-to-taxpayer perspective. No matter what the average seat price. As most (all?) of the flight hardware and salaries are US-based, then practically all of that money trickles back into the economy in some form or another.
Money for Russian flights is tax-payer money permanently lost from the economy.
-
Not to mention that if you have four empty seats, you'll be carrying four people-weight of cargo... for free, according to your logic.
-
If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind
Buying US flights is always "in front" from an overall cost-to-taxpayer perspective. No matter what the average seat price. As most (all?) of the flight hardware and salaries are US-based, then practically all of that money trickles back into the economy in some form or another.
Money for Russian flights is tax-payer money permanently lost from the economy.
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but the money DOES come back through international trade.
-
If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind
Buying US flights is always "in front" from an overall cost-to-taxpayer perspective. No matter what the average seat price. As most (all?) of the flight hardware and salaries are US-based, then practically all of that money trickles back into the economy in some form or another.
Money for Russian flights is tax-payer money permanently lost from the economy.
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but the money DOES come back through international trade.
Assuming that the Russians use the money they received from the United States for Soyuz to buy American products (which seems unlikely). In any event, the ISS works through barter. So the economic principles are somewhat different. Under these barter agreements, the United States must provide transportation for ESA, CSA and NASA. If they are not able to do so, they must purchase these services from Russia.
-
If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind
Buying US flights is always "in front" from an overall cost-to-taxpayer perspective. No matter what the average seat price. As most (all?) of the flight hardware and salaries are US-based, then practically all of that money trickles back into the economy in some form or another.
Money for Russian flights is tax-payer money permanently lost from the economy.
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but the money DOES come back through international trade.
Assuming that the Russians use the money they received from the United States for Soyuz to buy American products (which seems unlikely). In any event, the ISS works through barter. So the economic principles are somewhat different. Under these barter agreements, the United States must provide transportation for ESA, CSA and NASA. If they are not able to do so, they must purchase these services from Russia.
Yes, clearly the "multiplier effect" is miniscule when you export your money like that, but this is how economics works... Comparative advantage. Even so, free trade requires everyone to cooperate (doesn't always happen) and usually breaks down when you're talking about defense-related things...
-
If it costs the same or less you're in front, more and you're behind
Buying US flights is always "in front" from an overall cost-to-taxpayer perspective. No matter what the average seat price. As most (all?) of the flight hardware and salaries are US-based, then practically all of that money trickles back into the economy in some form or another.
Money for Russian flights is tax-payer money permanently lost from the economy.
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but the money DOES come back through international trade.
Assuming that the Russians use the money they received from the United States for Soyuz to buy American products (which seems unlikely). In any event, the ISS works through barter. So the economic principles are somewhat different. Under these barter agreements, the United States must provide transportation for ESA, CSA and NASA. If they are not able to do so, they must purchase these services from Russia.
Yes, clearly the "multiplier effect" is miniscule when you export your money like that, but this is how economics works... Comparative advantage. Even so, free trade requires everyone to cooperate (doesn't always happen) and usually breaks down when you're talking about defense-related things...
I'm not sure that having no other option but to buy seats on a Soyuz qualifies as being free trade. NASA doesn't really have any choice. It may be a form of trade, but it's trade in a straight-jacket*.
A free trade situation would be NASA being allowed to buy commercial services from any provider, domestic or foreign, without constraint. That is currently not the case as far I can see. Many countries force government agencies to buy domestically, or within a trade region (e.g. NAFTA, EU, etc.)
Sorry for bringing this thread OT.
* I've hi-jacked something Feynman once said: "science is imagination in a straight-jacket"
-
The CC Program is about meeting the technical and then competing on price. If you don’t meet the technical then no matter how cheap you are you will not get a services contract or anything else beyond CCiCAP. Boeing is waiting to see if SpaceX will meet the technical which will be known at the end of CCiCAP, also if they are still in business. If SpaceX meets the technical and is still a viable company then Boeing’s solution will not be able to compete on price and would lose the eventual competition for NASA services contract as well as any other customer contracts. Boeing sees that SpaceX is likely to achieve this but it is still not 100% certain. Hence Boeing is likely to ride out CCiCAP to see what happens while also putting as little skin in the game as possible.
-
The CC Program is about meeting the technical and then competing on price. If you don’t meet the technical then no matter how cheap you are you will not get a services contract or anything else beyond CCiCAP. Boeing is waiting to see if SpaceX will meet the technical which will be known at the end of CCiCAP, also if they are still in business. If SpaceX meets the technical and is still a viable company then Boeing’s solution will not be able to compete on price and would lose the eventual competition for NASA services contract as well as any other customer contracts. Boeing sees that SpaceX is likely to achieve this but it is still not 100% certain. Hence Boeing is likely to ride out CCiCAP to see what happens while also putting as little skin in the game as possible.
+1
The best summary of the situation.
-
The CC Program is about meeting the technical and then competing on price. If you don’t meet the technical then no matter how cheap you are you will not get a services contract or anything else beyond CCiCAP. Boeing is waiting to see if SpaceX will meet the technical which will be known at the end of CCiCAP, also if they are still in business. If SpaceX meets the technical and is still a viable company then Boeing’s solution will not be able to compete on price and would lose the eventual competition for NASA services contract as well as any other customer contracts. Boeing sees that SpaceX is likely to achieve this but it is still not 100% certain. Hence Boeing is likely to ride out CCiCAP to see what happens while also putting as little skin in the game as possible.
What you are implying is that Boeing (and everyone else) is intimidated and afraid of SpaceX because they are going to win it, and everything else, hands down. Therefore, they'll play along just in case SpaceX goes belly-up taking NASA's money all the while in order to make it look good.
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
-
In my opinion (humble or not) the argument, as I see it is:
1. Can Boeing production techniques produce a more affordable spacecraft then Dragon
if so,
Can the CST-100 use the Falcon LV, or
Can the Atlas be made affordable to compete with the Falcon
else
2. Can Boeing Production methods make the CST-100 more affordable then the reusable SNC DC.
This to me is the horse race; affordability includes parts, availability, man hours to get the vehicle to the pad, build time, logistics, certification etc.
The two LV's are not directly comparable - Atlas has heritage, in-place trained technical staff and launch statistics. Falcon has an aggressive build and launch strategy with in-house end-to-end construction and deployment.
-
The CC Program is about meeting the technical and then competing on price. If you don’t meet the technical then no matter how cheap you are you will not get a services contract or anything else beyond CCiCAP. Boeing is waiting to see if SpaceX will meet the technical which will be known at the end of CCiCAP, also if they are still in business. If SpaceX meets the technical and is still a viable company then Boeing’s solution will not be able to compete on price and would lose the eventual competition for NASA services contract as well as any other customer contracts. Boeing sees that SpaceX is likely to achieve this but it is still not 100% certain. Hence Boeing is likely to ride out CCiCAP to see what happens while also putting as little skin in the game as possible.
What you are implying is that Boeing (and everyone else) is intimidated and afraid of SpaceX because they are going to win it, and everything else, hands down. Therefore, they'll play along just in case SpaceX goes belly-up taking NASA's money all the while in order to make it look good.
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
Always the angry misrepresentation. Couldn't be that Boeing thinks that SpaceX probably won't be able to stick to those aggressive prices, and might go belly up in the process, or have to change so much their pricing structure that their pricing might be seen as unreliable?
Couldn't it be that SpaceX is seen as the price leader competitor and Boeing decides to play the low risk card, both on project and in own investment?
Have you ever done business in full and open competitions? You try to outbid your competitor leveraging your advantages. SpaceX has be trumping the low cost card, Boeing has traditionally been the quality and reliability leader, SpaceX couldn't do the sort of methodical approach that Boeing uses and NASA trusts so much, and still offer their significant lower prices. I see it more like SpaceX is trying to win in price over old and trusty Boeing than the other way around.
-
I’ve made this point on another thread, but I’ll put it here for this.
First, I think Boeing has a very good shot at a final contract. They have the most experience and the most political clout. It also looks like they have a pretty viable design. I think they’d want this contract, and they could really bid a cheap price as they are such a big company, they can absorb a low margin area if they want, to get the publicity of the “Boeing” spaceship taking crew back to the ISS for the US. There’s a certain amount of good PR in that.
To say they are afraid of SpaceX I think is a little generous. Maybe ULA is afraid of them being successful, because if they start accumulating a reliable track record, they might start sucking away their government missions, which would be really bad for ULA. Boeing, as it’s own company, will have the SLS core contract, the iCPS contract, and probably a CPS/Block 1B stage contract for SLS. So a low margin on CST-100 wouldn’t hurt them any.
But what I see as more and more likely as I think about it, is after CCiCap, you see maybe a merging of CTS and CRS2. Two suppliers that can do both. SpaceX obviously would be a strong runner for that. But Boeing would be too. CST-100 will already be crew capable, so making a cargo version of it wouldn’t be hard at all. Just a version with cargo racks instead of seats, no ECLSS, and no LAS system. Maybe a trunk in place of the service module for unpressurized cargo like Dragon. So NASA has two CTS/CRS contracts, and SpaceX and Boeing each get them. Then there’s full redundancy in both space craft and LV, in case of any problem with either. Heck, Boeing may want to launch a cargo CST-100 on their Delta 4, as it wouldn’t need to be man-rated. It is designed to launch on multiple LV’s after all.
I suppose this would leave OSC and SNC out. However, I could see a scenario where NASA maybe creates a special one-time award, for 2 or 3 Dreamchasers as backup crew spacecraft, and maybe a type of test vehicle for whatever. Since it will launch on Atlas, Boeing will be paying for man-rating Atlas with full their award. Since Dreamchaser is reusable, like the Shuttle, you don’t roll them off the assembly like continuously like Dragon or CST-100 capsules. Once you build a few, you don’t need to build more unless you loose one. And they don’t need to be refurbished unless they are flown. They can be stored at KSC in the OPF, and stacked and launched from there if CST-100 is on a modified MLP. NASA could launch them a couple of times to prove them out, and because it would give NASA a lot of good face to see a mini shuttle at the ISS and landing at the SLF. But once a few are built, there’s not really much more annual money that needs to go into them. SpaceX and Boeing would be getting the two real contracts to supply combined CRS/CTS services. I’m not sure about the legalities, but maybe NASA could buy them and own them, rather than just buying the services.
This would give NASA two different capsules, and two different LV’s for full redundancy, doing both Crew and Cargo services, rather than two just for cargo, and 2-3 more for crew. A good, safe and efficient down select I think. But they also get HL-20 built and flown and to have. And I would guess there’s a fair amount of NASA folks who’d like to see that happen.
Just my wild speculation.
-
Lobo: Not a terrible idea, and makes enough sense that I actually kind of expect it to be the final result.
Though it would be disappointing for SNC to be out of the running (not that I think it's somehow far superior, I just think it's a good, resourceful team that have worked hard on a concept that has some unique advantages--though not without its share of disadvantages).
-
The CC Program is about meeting the technical and then competing on price. If you don’t meet the technical then no matter how cheap you are you will not get a services contract or anything else beyond CCiCAP. Boeing is waiting to see if SpaceX will meet the technical which will be known at the end of CCiCAP, also if they are still in business. If SpaceX meets the technical and is still a viable company then Boeing’s solution will not be able to compete on price and would lose the eventual competition for NASA services contract as well as any other customer contracts. Boeing sees that SpaceX is likely to achieve this but it is still not 100% certain. Hence Boeing is likely to ride out CCiCAP to see what happens while also putting as little skin in the game as possible.
What you are implying is that Boeing (and everyone else) is intimidated and afraid of SpaceX because they are going to win it, and everything else, hands down. Therefore, they'll play along just in case SpaceX goes belly-up taking NASA's money all the while in order to make it look good.
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
Always the angry misrepresentation. Couldn't be that Boeing thinks that SpaceX probably won't be able to stick to those aggressive prices, and might go belly up in the process, or have to change so much their pricing structure that their pricing might be seen as unreliable?
Couldn't it be that SpaceX is seen as the price leader competitor and Boeing decides to play the low risk card, both on project and in own investment?
Have you ever done business in full and open competitions? You try to outbid your competitor leveraging your advantages. SpaceX has be trumping the low cost card, Boeing has traditionally been the quality and reliability leader, SpaceX couldn't do the sort of methodical approach that Boeing uses and NASA trusts so much, and still offer their significant lower prices. I see it more like SpaceX is trying to win in price over old and trusty Boeing than the other way around.
I don't think I "misrepresentend" anything. Somehow this thread keeps coming back to SpaceX, which I don't see in the title and what was said above to solicite my reply I just find silly that everyone is "just playing along" knowing that SpaceX somehow has it in the bag.
I really do not believe that what SpaceX is doing is playing into Boeing's strategy for this as significantly as some like to trumpet with assumptions.
I believe Boeing's strategy is probably to make the best vehicle that they know how to make and directly linking it to making sure NASA can afford the total program costs based on what they are willing to pay.
I believe Boeing clearly understands markets, the majority of the company's revenue comes from commercial aircraft for goodness sake. They understand theses markets and the cutomers and build products to satisfy those needs and spend all the capital funds necessary to do so when rolling out a new plane. Why? Because they have concluded the financial risk associated with that is small relative to the ROI based on that market. Hence the lack of major capital infusion because can anyone point me yet to any other paying customers?
And this whole thing about SpaceX trumpeting the low cost card is misleading. When factoring COTS and CCDev/CCiCap money together they have received essentially 1 billion from NASA, nearly twice as much as Boeing and about three times as much as SNC. That does not include the money they are getting for CRS, that essentially has NASA sustaining and keeping viable the baseline Dragon and Falcon.
-
I’ve made this point on another thread, but I’ll put it here for this.
First, I think Boeing has a very good shot at a final contract. They have the most experience and the most political clout. It also looks like they have a pretty viable design. I think they’d want this contract, and they could really bid a cheap price as they are such a big company, they can absorb a low margin area if they want, to get the publicity of the “Boeing” spaceship taking crew back to the ISS for the US. There’s a certain amount of good PR in that.
To say they are afraid of SpaceX I think is a little generous. Maybe ULA is afraid of them being successful, because if they start accumulating a reliable track record, they might start sucking away their government missions, which would be really bad for ULA. Boeing, as it’s own company, will have the SLS core contract, the iCPS contract, and probably a CPS/Block 1B stage contract for SLS. So a low margin on CST-100 wouldn’t hurt them any.
But what I see as more and more likely as I think about it, is after CCiCap, you see maybe a merging of CTS and CRS2. Two suppliers that can do both. SpaceX obviously would be a strong runner for that. But Boeing would be too. CST-100 will already be crew capable, so making a cargo version of it wouldn’t be hard at all. Just a version with cargo racks instead of seats, no ECLSS, and no LAS system. Maybe a trunk in place of the service module for unpressurized cargo like Dragon. So NASA has two CTS/CRS contracts, and SpaceX and Boeing each get them. Then there’s full redundancy in both space craft and LV, in case of any problem with either. Heck, Boeing may want to launch a cargo CST-100 on their Delta 4, as it wouldn’t need to be man-rated. It is designed to launch on multiple LV’s after all.
I suppose this would leave OSC and SNC out. However, I could see a scenario where NASA maybe creates a special one-time award, for 2 or 3 Dreamchasers as backup crew spacecraft, and maybe a type of test vehicle for whatever. Since it will launch on Atlas, Boeing will be paying for man-rating Atlas with full their award. Since Dreamchaser is reusable, like the Shuttle, you don’t roll them off the assembly like continuously like Dragon or CST-100 capsules. Once you build a few, you don’t need to build more unless you loose one. And they don’t need to be refurbished unless they are flown. They can be stored at KSC in the OPF, and stacked and launched from there if CST-100 is on a modified MLP. NASA could launch them a couple of times to prove them out, and because it would give NASA a lot of good face to see a mini shuttle at the ISS and landing at the SLF. But once a few are built, there’s not really much more annual money that needs to go into them. SpaceX and Boeing would be getting the two real contracts to supply combined CRS/CTS services. I’m not sure about the legalities, but maybe NASA could buy them and own them, rather than just buying the services.
This would give NASA two different capsules, and two different LV’s for full redundancy, doing both Crew and Cargo services, rather than two just for cargo, and 2-3 more for crew. A good, safe and efficient down select I think. But they also get HL-20 built and flown and to have. And I would guess there’s a fair amount of NASA folks who’d like to see that happen.
Just my wild speculation.
I don't think that there is any immediate plans to build more than one Dream Chaser. Certainly not if NASA only buys a couple of DC flights.
Incidentally, NASA's plans are somewhat similar to yours. They intend to select one provider for CTS but will still have a second provider that will be certified but that will not get a CTS contract. Given that certification should include one or more flights to the ISS, this second provider will end up with a working certified spacecraft that can be used for non-NASA purposes.
Here is my my wild speculation (I don't really expect it but I am kind of hoping for it):
-SpaceX will become the sole commercial crew provider for NASA ISS flights. NASA will not allow any spaceflight participants on its flights in order to encourage spaceflight participants to book their own separate flights.
-The CST-100 will be used for cargo only.
-DC will be used by NASA for special occasional missions that require its unique capabilities. Spaceflight participants would be allowed for the DC flights.
-
yg, your wild speculation is weird.
You say SpaceX will be the crew provider, but that variant does not yet exist.
You say CST will be cargo-only, something for which it is not being designed. But propose not using something for cargo only that semi-exists now
Finally you propose DC will just be used now and then but do not mention the funds required to keep it viable for these "now and then" uses.
All in all, I think this is the most expensive and money waisting sceario I've heard yet, no offense
-
My wild speculation has the problems, and costs defer to a new program with Orion.
This becomes a thrown together, quick lets get it done Orion to ISS on Delta or Atlas.
The new Orion redux takes on the Aries mission of the Constellation program. The heavy lifter becomes a scaled back main hardware launcher. The HLS is reborn.
-
Can the CST-100 be configured for cargo only if they wanted to make a cargo version?
-
yg, your wild speculation is weird.
You say SpaceX will be the crew provider, but that variant does not yet exist.
You say CST will be cargo-only, something for which it is not being designed. But propose not using something for cargo only that semi-exists now
Finally you propose DC will just be used now and then but do not mention the funds required to keep it viable for these "now and then" uses.
All in all, I think this is the most expensive and money waisting sceario I've heard yet, no offense
From what I remember of the CCDev-2 selection statements, Boeing and DC are going to offer cargo variants of their spacecraft. Incidentally, Orbital and cargo Dragon would still be used for cargo under my wild speculation scenario. You could probably also add DC to the cargo mix. As far as whether this would be affordable, I don't know. That's why I said that it was wild speculation...
-
I think there is still risk DC will not work.
I've seen capsules work and I've seen the shuttle work but this is different. It needs to do 3 burns to get to ISS and it can't use a solid. It carries wheels and control surfaces with it to do it's fancy runway landing trick too.
CST-100 bloated for good reason. They had to meet the requirements. Seats, abort system, orbital duration.
It is my wild speculation Boeing knew putting solids on wouldn't look good but they knew how risky it was to shoot for getting on top of an Atlas V 402.
There's no point in doing a cargo version. That leaves me scratching my head.
Cygnus PCM looks like the low cost way to go if the down mass isn't needed. Boeing could build hardware like this easily but they have no need because they're not getting a cargo contract.
SpaceX is likely to be the crew provider but they still have risks associated with building/designing/launching rockets that ULA has long since put behind them. I'm sure everybody will feel better once Falcon 9 v1.1 is launching reliably but until then what SpaceX is actually capable of delivering is still unknown.
Therefore it's my opinion the least risky way to get US astronauts to LEO is Atlas V 412 with an aluminium pressure vessel crew capsule using heritage thruster technology.
Dragon capsule could still be used for cargo down mass or possible BEO duties like gateway resupply.
-
yg, your wild speculation is weird.
You say SpaceX will be the crew provider, but that variant does not yet exist.
You say CST will be cargo-only, something for which it is not being designed. But propose not using something for cargo only that semi-exists now
Finally you propose DC will just be used now and then but do not mention the funds required to keep it viable for these "now and then" uses.
All in all, I think this is the most expensive and money waisting sceario I've heard yet, no offense
From what I remember of the CCDev-2 selection statements, Boeing and DC are going to offer cargo variants of their spacecraft. Incidentally, Orbital and cargo Dragon would still be used for cargo under my wild speculation scenario. You could probably also add DC to the cargo mix. As far as whether this would be affordable, I don't know. That's why I said that it was wild speculation...
It's *possible* for there to be cargo variants. Not that there will be. That design work costs money, money which would divert from the central task at hand. It is not uncommone for companies to ponder the possibilities of how a capability can be modified or evolve. That does not mean there is active work going into it.
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
-
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
What are the estimated fixed crew-specific annual costs per year?
-
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
What are the estimated fixed crew-specific annual costs per year?
I don't know. That is proprietary information to those projects and companies. However, whatever they are, if NASA is paying for Boeing, SpaceX, SNC and Orbital that becomes cost prohibitive. And NASA will be paying because they are likely to be the only customer, at best the vast majority customer, and contract mechanism does not change that.
-
I think they're discovering that no-one else wants the same product as NASA.
-
I think they're discovering that no-one else wants the same product as NASA.
Agreed. As I mentioned above, there's a whole bunch of risk reduction necessary to get to the end of this round. It will all be very much clearer as the companies go through their milestones as to possible successful outcomes. And the spanner in the works, as always, funding.
-
Like I said on a different thread - until there are additional destinations in addition to ISS we are likely to see a crew provider down-select. From what I saw of the Boeing business case I would be fearful of CST-100's continuance. After all, they have the SLS core and lots and lots of aircraft. They do not need the spacecraft.
-
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
What are the estimated fixed crew-specific annual costs per year?
I don't know. That is proprietary information to those projects and companies. However, whatever they are, if NASA is paying for Boeing, SpaceX, SNC and Orbital that becomes cost prohibitive. And NASA will be paying because they are likely to be the only customer, at best the vast majority customer, and contract mechanism does not change that.
What if it's just Boeing and SpaceX? Two providers doesn't seem to be too much for CRS, so why would it be too much for a combined CRS and commercial crew?
-
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
What are the estimated fixed crew-specific annual costs per year?
I don't know. That is proprietary information to those projects and companies. However, whatever they are, if NASA is paying for Boeing, SpaceX, SNC and Orbital that becomes cost prohibitive. And NASA will be paying because they are likely to be the only customer, at best the vast majority customer, and contract mechanism does not change that.
What if it's just Boeing and SpaceX? Two providers doesn't seem to be too much for CRS, so why would it be too much for a combined CRS and commercial crew?
Cargo is going to be cheaper than crewed flights. And cargo is required more than a crewed vehicle if the ISS ops tempo stays as is, so two, if they prove to be successful, will just begin to make up some of the short-fall from shuttle. So I would suggest we see how Orbital performs before everyone just says drop them,
-
And no, it would not be affordable for NASA to sustain all of those vehicles.
What are the estimated fixed crew-specific annual costs per year?
I don't know. That is proprietary information to those projects and companies. However, whatever they are, if NASA is paying for Boeing, SpaceX, SNC and Orbital that becomes cost prohibitive. And NASA will be paying because they are likely to be the only customer, at best the vast majority customer, and contract mechanism does not change that.
What if it's just Boeing and SpaceX? Two providers doesn't seem to be too much for CRS, so why would it be too much for a combined CRS and commercial crew?
Cargo is going to be cheaper than crewed flights. And cargo is required more than a crewed vehicle if the ISS ops tempo stays as is, so two, if they prove to be successful, will just begin to make up some of the short-fall from shuttle. So I would suggest we see how Orbital performs before everyone just says drop them,
Orbital definitely has an advantage in volume. But if what you say is correct, you seem to imply that there might be room for three (!) cargo providers… so three cargo providers with two of them capable of down mass and crew.
-
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
Because they have the only vehicle that's actually already flown to ISS and will again next week. It would be silly to not think SpaceX are the frontrunners, regardless of how good CST (or DC) are.
-
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
Because they have the only vehicle that's actually already flown to ISS and will again next week. It would be silly to not think SpaceX are the frontrunners, regardless of how good CST (or DC) are.
Whilst I'm not sure that the successful flight of Cargo Dragon is as significant with regard to the crewed variant as some think (especially with the new version of Falcon-9 shortly to be introduced), certainly having had flight experience with the spacecraft and its systems must be considered to be a significant step forwards.
IMO, CST-100's big advantage is the size of the organisation and the multi-generational experience Boeing can throw at the spacecraft and any problems. That said, I do get the impression that Boeing is not willing to unequivocally commit to the program without guaranteed NASA funding. Dragon, on the other hand, represents something of a personal objective for Elon Musk so it think it is on more solid ground than CST-100.
-
IMO, CST-100's big advantage is the size of the organisation and the multi-generational experience Boeing can throw at the spacecraft and any problems.
This is not necessarily an advantage. Especially the big size of the organization can slow down things painfully..
-
Whilst I'm not sure that the successful flight of Cargo Dragon is as significant with regard to the crewed variant as some think (especially with the new version of Falcon-9 shortly to be introduced), certainly having had flight experience with the spacecraft and its systems must be considered to be a significant step forwards.
There are only three new systems that Crew Dragon needs over Cargo Dragon: life-support, docking (rather than berthing) system, and escape rockets. Life-support rated for a few days is pretty standard and has no real technical risk. Likewise, the approach system for Crew Dragon is almost identical, except for the last phase. The prior phases (getting into ISS proximity without hitting it) are the most difficult, and SpaceX is able to test and iterate this with CRS Dragons well before Crew Dragons fly. The escape rockets, then are the real technical risk for Dragon. However, they are of equal risk to the (very similar) RS-88s on CST, so no real advantage there.
I'm not trying to be SpaceX fan here, but from an objective systems engineering point of view, Boeing has a heck of a lot more work to do than SpaceX, and only a very short amount of time to do it. I wish both Boeing and SNC all the best, but it's going to be a struggle to keep with SpaceX's massive head start.
P.S. There will be several CRS flights on Falcon 9v1.1 before the first manned Dragon flight. So again, CRS allows SpaceX to iterate where Boeing has to make one big jump.
-
IMO, CST-100's big advantage is the size of the organisation and the multi-generational experience Boeing can throw at the spacecraft and any problems.
Institutional memory/competence of large organizations tends to be over-estimated on these forums. (NASA being a prime example when it comes to launch vehicle development)
The knowledge is in the individual employees of the organization, not the organization itself. Some organizations handle knowledge transfer better than others, but if the people with the original experience are no longer there - and the intermediate generations have had no direct experience in the area, then that memory does not count for much.
-
IMO, CST-100's big advantage is the size of the organisation and the multi-generational experience Boeing can throw at the spacecraft and any problems.
Institutional memory/competence of large organizations tends to be over-estimated on these forums. (NASA being a prime example when it comes to launch vehicle development)
The knowledge is in the individual employees of the organization, not the organization itself. Some organizations handle knowledge transfer better than others, but if the people with the original experience are no longer there - and the intermediate generations have had no direct experience in the area, then that memory does not count for much.
Boeing has the advantage of having recent memory of a new reentry vehicle development in X-37b. If they didn't have such recent memory of new development, I'd be inclined to agree with you. (NASA, on the other hand, has not developed a new launch vehicle that has actually made orbit since STS, so their institutional knowledge on new launch vehicle development probably isn't as good as Boeing's is for new reentry vehicle development.)
-
That's a bunch of nonsense. I don't why so many think the "summary of the situation" always revolves around SpaceX.
Because they have the only vehicle that's actually already flown to ISS and will again next week. It would be silly to not think SpaceX are the frontrunners, regardless of how good CST (or DC) are.
And Boeing has people that worked on STS, ISS itself and X-37. One is flying and the other two have flown recently, and more than once.
-
That said, I do get the impression that Boeing is not willing to unequivocally commit to the program without guaranteed NASA funding. Dragon, on the other hand, represents something of a personal objective for Elon Musk so it think it is on more solid ground than CST-100.
Boeing has made it quite clear that NASA is required to close the business case. If the business case is 99% one customer at present, it is customary for the customer to pay.
Anyone else who says they will build the vehicle without NASA is bluffing, development will radically slow because the market/customer base is not there to support it or they go out of business.
Dragon has the advantage of talking a big game when the reality of the situation is Dragon is completely sustained by NASA and the CRS contract.
-
Companies that bluff for NASA funding are playing Russian roulette with their reputation.
-
Update on the CST-100:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p45-498001.xml
-
Update on the CST-100:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p45-498001.xml
Worth mentioning this...
Mulholland says his program's business case continues to close with the two flights per year to the ISS that NASA anticipated.
cheers, Martin
-
CST-100 tested at Bigelow facility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=orA33vVJfo0
-
That said, I do get the impression that Boeing is not willing to unequivocally commit to the program without guaranteed NASA funding. Dragon, on the other hand, represents something of a personal objective for Elon Musk so it think it is on more solid ground than CST-100.
Boeing has made it quite clear that NASA is required to close the business case. If the business case is 99% one customer at present, it is customary for the customer to pay.
Anyone else who says they will build the vehicle without NASA is bluffing, development will radically slow because the market/customer base is not there to support it or they go out of business.
Dragon has the advantage of talking a big game when the reality of the situation is Dragon is completely sustained by NASA and the CRS contract.
Doubtful at best regarding Dragon. They built it with the intent to be free flying as well. See DragonLab.
-
Update on CST-100 from NASA Commercial Crew Program:
NASA’s CCiCap Partners Off To A Fast Start
Commercial Spaceflight 60-day Report Issue 9 - October 18, 2012
The Boeing Company already has completed a major milestone—an Integrated Systems Review (ISR). “The rigor of our design and development process enabled a fast start on CCiCap. We completed an ISR in August, establishing the firm configuration baseline for our Commercial Crew Transportation System and completing our first CCiCap performance milestone,” said John Mulholland, Commercial Programs vice president and program manager for Boeing. The Boeing team is preparing to reach more milestones in October and November. These include a thorough safety review for the complete integrated transportation system, the preliminary design review (PDR) for ground software, and a production design review. The production design review will establish the baseline plan, equipment, and infrastructure for the CST-100 spacecraft. Demolition and construction have begun on facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, that will transform heritage buildings from the Space Shuttle Program into facilities for the CST-100. Boeing also recently completed component PDRs for flight and systems management computers, and conducted a crew evaluation of the CST-100’s internal layout.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698604main_October_2012_60_Day_Report.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698604main_October_2012_60_Day_Report.pdf)
Photo: CST-100 Crew Evaluation (click to enlarge)
-
Interesting article. It says that Boeing is considering increasing the funding of the CST-100:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121125/SPACE/311250044/US-clock-return-orbit?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CSpace%20News
We’re looking heavily into getting some additional Boeing investment to move that (late 2016) date to the left significantly, which we think we need to do to keep pace with SpaceX,” Ferguson said.
It also has some interesting details on the LC-41 pad modifications that will be made by ULA.
And then there are launch pad modifications. Engineers are designing a 220-foot tall crew access tower with an articulating swing arm that can reach the hatch of either a Boeing CST-100 or a Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser, which would also launch atop an Atlas V. It will rise up on the northwest side of the current clean pad, and construction will happen in stages. “This is an active launch pad, for national security space, and NASA. And so in order to build a new structure out here, while we’re launching off this facility, is going to be a trick,” Leinbach said. Modular components will be built off-site. “We’ll bring them in. We’ll stack them up like dominoes in between launches,” he said. “So you’ll see, in time, the construction of this tower. It’s going to be a permanent structure here, and we’re really excited about it.”
-
Update that shows how gutting is going on c3pf ( former OPF-3)
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121120/NEWS01/311200015/Former-KSC-shuttle-hangar-undergoes-massive-transformation
-
Interesting article. It says that Boeing is considering increasing the funding of the CST-100:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121125/SPACE/311250044/US-clock-return-orbit?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CSpace%20News
We’re looking heavily into getting some additional Boeing investment to move that (late 2016) date to the left significantly, which we think we need to do to keep pace with SpaceX,” Ferguson said.
It also has some interesting details on the LC-41 pad modifications that will be made by ULA.
And then there are launch pad modifications. Engineers are designing a 220-foot tall crew access tower with an articulating swing arm that can reach the hatch of either a Boeing CST-100 or a Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser, which would also launch atop an Atlas V. It will rise up on the northwest side of the current clean pad, and construction will happen in stages. “This is an active launch pad, for national security space, and NASA. And so in order to build a new structure out here, while we’re launching off this facility, is going to be a trick,” Leinbach said. Modular components will be built off-site. “We’ll bring them in. We’ll stack them up like dominoes in between launches,” he said. “So you’ll see, in time, the construction of this tower. It’s going to be a permanent structure here, and we’re really excited about it.”
So this would indicate that SpaceX is setting the pace for CiCap not Boeing. Another interpretation, SpaceX is in front unless Boeing inject additional company funds. NASA funding won't be sufficient for them to maintain contact with SpaceX progress.
Glad that's been cleared up. :)
-
Boeing / ULA have actual plans for the modifications needed to it's launch pad to support commerical crew. They also have plans on how to install these modifications at the pad without interrupting normal launch operations.
Has SpaceX announced equivalent plans for their crew access tower ?
-
Has SpaceX announced equivalent plans for their crew access tower ?
They have, for NASA. No need to announce something which is needed anyway.
-
Boeing is notorious for starting to squeeze the government teat early in the game. It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay. I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
:) You sound like you know your government contractors.
If Boeing are doing this would it not make sense for Spacex and SNC to start agitating for a similar deal?
-
Boeing is notorious for starting to squeeze the government teat early in the game. It's the nature of being a government contractor. It's that way with every government contractor I've ever dealt with. And the government is dumb enough to fall for that stupid ploy - every time. That's why the government will usually pay as much as 10 to 50 times the going commercial rate for the same product or service that a commercial consumer would pay. I had a date marked on my calendar stating when I expected to see the game begin. I was off by a week and 2 days.
:) You sound like you know your government contractors.
If Boeing are doing this would it not make sense for Spacex and SNC to start agitating for a similar deal?
Or they could be very careful not to ask for more money and remind NASA what happened to Rocketplane Kistler.
-
Or they could be very careful not to ask for more money and remind NASA what happened to Rocketplane Kistler.
That also is a strategy they might consider.
-
Removal of Legacy Hardware Leads to Modernization
Published on Dec 21, 2012
The Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida is going through major renovations to support the manufacturing of The Boeing Company's CST-100 spacecraft. Known throughout the space shuttle era as Orbiter Processing Facilty-3, the facility's orbiter-specific platforms were removed recently to make room for a clean-floor factory-like facility. The modernization will allow Boeing to process its new fleet of low-Earth-orbit bound spacecraft, which is under development in collaboration with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Boeing is leasing the excess government facility for next-generation commercial activities through a land-use agreement with Space Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo7PrNNmdkA
-
But there is a lot more to long-term on-orbit capability (180days at station, e.g.) than power requirements.
Care to elaborate on that? I thought that once capsule is attached to the station, it can disable its ECLSS. Assuming there's no living payload stored, the capsule on its own won't use any oxygen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm a software engineer, not a rocket scientist.)
Well there will still be a lot operating on the vehicle - heaters, sensors, caution and warning alarm system. You need fans for cooling and/or if the crew is in there. The docked vehicles ar required to be under 500W which is a very difficult level to reach (especially when you have requirements unlike the Soyuz where you have to be powered on to annunicnaite alarms). You may not need CO2 scrubbing generally but the fans may still need to run depending on the design.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
See also here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1001675#msg1001675
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
I doubt it. Atlas V costs alone would make that a very hard number to hit.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
That's unlikely as it would mean that a crewed Atlas V and Falcon 9 flight would be cheaper than a unmanned or cargo one. I am almost sure that Bigelow was calculating for 7 seats. If NASA doesn't use the extra 3 seats, it would still pay $257M for the extra cargo space that would be gained by not using these extra seats.
-
Dragon doesn't compete with Atlas V because Falcon 9 v1.1 doesn't exist at the same level of capability and reliability as of today.
In my opinion that translates into the future when any customer NASA or otherwise is going to be wanting seats to LEO.
The price of Atlas V means little if the competition doesn't pan out.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
That's unlikely as it would mean that a crewed Atlas V and Falcon 9 flight would be cheaper than a unmanned or cargo one. I am almost sure that Bigelow was calculating for 7 seats. If NASA doesn't use the extra 3 seats, it would still pay $257M for the extra cargo space that would be gained by not using these extra seats.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you meant here... presumably Falcon 9 should be CST-100? But then you mention cargo flights, and I'm not aware of any plans to use Atlas V for those, while Falcon 9 is....
I guess the point is that you're not going to be able to get a crew launch for less than a satellite launch, which is certainly true.
-
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you meant here...
A CST-100 flight on an Atlas V will be $36.75m x 7 = $257.25m regardless if there are 4 passengers + the equivalent weight of cargo or 7 butts in the seats.
-
One seat would have to be for a Boeing pilot, because I don't think NASA would agree to have its pilots be responsible for the lives of private citizens.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
That's unlikely as it would mean that a crewed Atlas V and Falcon 9 flight would be cheaper than a unmanned or cargo one. I am almost sure that Bigelow was calculating for 7 seats. If NASA doesn't use the extra 3 seats, it would still pay $257M for the extra cargo space that would be gained by not using these extra seats.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you meant here... presumably Falcon 9 should be CST-100? But then you mention cargo flights, and I'm not aware of any plans to use Atlas V for those, while Falcon 9 is....
I guess the point is that you're not going to be able to get a crew launch for less than a satellite launch, which is certainly true.
My sentence was poorly drafted. But I meant that it's unlikely that the prices are for 4 seats on a crewed Dragon because $104M (4 x 36M) is less than the price of the cargo Dragon which is $133M per flight. The same logic would also apply to Atlas since an Atlas V is about $180M for a satellitte launch.
Based on other articles, it seems that the price that is quoted is likely for 6 seats to the Bigelow station (not to the ISS). Based on these articles, Bigelow would use a taxi service (which should include a company pilot). As such an Atlas V crewed flight would cost $220M (6 x 36.75M). A Falcon 9 crewed flight would costs about $157M ($36.25M x 6 = 157M). Those prices might be assuming 3 to 6 flights per year since Bigelow is renting his stations at 2 months intervals.
-
Bob Bigelow says that a crewed CST-100 seat going to the ISS would cost $36.75M per round trip. I am assuming that he means the cost per seat if all 7 seats are filled up. The cost of a Boeing commercial crew flight going to the ISS would therefore be $257M (7 x $36.75M).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1001566#msg1001566
The commercial ISS flights would only have four NASA passengers, so 4 x $36.75M = $147M is probably closer to the real number.
That's unlikely as it would mean that a crewed Atlas V and Falcon 9 flight would be cheaper than a unmanned or cargo one. I am almost sure that Bigelow was calculating for 7 seats. If NASA doesn't use the extra 3 seats, it would still pay $257M for the extra cargo space that would be gained by not using these extra seats.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you meant here... presumably Falcon 9 should be CST-100? But then you mention cargo flights, and I'm not aware of any plans to use Atlas V for those, while Falcon 9 is....
I guess the point is that you're not going to be able to get a crew launch for less than a satellite launch, which is certainly true.
My sentence was poorly drafted. But I meant that it's unlikely that the prices are for 4 seats on a crewed Dragon because $104M (4 x 36M) is less than the price of the cargo Dragon which is $133M per flight. The same logic would also apply to Atlas since an Atlas V is about $180M for a satellitte launch.
Based on other articles, it seems that the price that is quoted is likely for 6 seats to the Bigelow station (not to the ISS). Based on these articles, Bigelow would use a taxi service (which should include a company pilot). As such an Atlas V crewed flight would cost $220M (6 x 36.75M). A Falcon 9 crewed flight would costs about $157M ($36.25M x 6 = 157M). Those prices might be assuming 3 to 6 flights per year since Bigelow is renting his stations at 2 months intervals.
Except that there really aren't any company "pilots". Since the CST-100 (or Dragon or Dreamchaser) will stay at the station for the same duration as it's passengers, the pilot seat will be occupied by an ISS astronaut.
I don't think Boeing or SpaceX would rely on Bob Bigelow to announce their prices, but if we are paying the Russians 50-60 million per seat, then I expect equivalent pricing (200-240 million) per flight for a crewed flight, regardless of how many passengers.
-
Bigelow announced the price to ferry crew to the Bigelow station (not to the ISS). But commercial companies cannot charge NASA more than they would charge private companies. So the prices should be similar.
-
But commercial companies cannot charge NASA more than they would charge private companies. So the prices should be similar.
I am pretty sure that they would be charging NASA more than private customers, since NASA has a whole lot of extra requirements.
-
But commercial companies cannot charge NASA more than they would charge private companies. So the prices should be similar.
I am pretty sure that they would be charging NASA more than private customers, since NASA has a whole lot of extra requirements.
Yep. The extra services/requirements cost money. Non-NASA commercial crew flights should be a bit cheaper. (but not significantly)
-
One seat would have to be for a Boeing pilot, because I don't think NASA would agree to have its pilots be responsible for the lives of private citizens.
Do you mean for ISS or to a Bigelow module? To a Bigelow station there will not be any NASA astronauts. For the ISS, it will be all NASA.
-
One seat would have to be for a Boeing pilot, because I don't think NASA would agree to have its pilots be responsible for the lives of private citizens.
Do you mean for ISS or to a Bigelow module? To a Bigelow station there will not be any NASA astronauts. For the ISS, it will be all NASA.
Pilots? Lol. Capsule spacecraft are all just robots now days.
In fact some of the closest brushes with space disaster occurred because they (the Russians) wanted to cut some corners on cost and not pay for some of the standard automatic system components (on the Progress), so they tried to get a human pilot (stationed on Mir) to docking the Progress by remote joystick control and almost destroyed the station in the process. Let the robots do the flying.
My post is not an argument against a highly trained spacecraft operator/ specialist present on every flight. But just the through that any of these craft actually need a pilot to function is pretty funny.
-
Pilots? Lol. Capsule spacecraft are all just robots now days.
The fact that it's a capsule makes no difference. DC will be just as much a robot, for the same reason.
But yeah, the whole PLT and CDR thing is just a Gemini/Apollo holdover that has little basis in modern spaceflight.
-
One seat would have to be for a Boeing pilot, because I don't think NASA would agree to have its pilots be responsible for the lives of private citizens.
Do you mean for ISS or to a Bigelow module? To a Bigelow station there will not be any NASA astronauts. For the ISS, it will be all NASA.
Pilots? Lol. Capsule spacecraft are all just robots now days.
In fact some of the closest brushes with space disaster occurred because they (the Russians) wanted to cut some corners on cost and not pay for some of the standard automatic system components (on the Progress), so they tried to get a human pilot (stationed on Mir) to docking the Progress by remote joystick control and almost destroyed the station in the process. Let the robots do the flying.
That's a horrible example. Poorly designed experiment, crew was fatigued and poorly trained, spacecraft c.g. was "out-of-box", lack of adequate range cues (which leads back to experiment design). The crew was (unintentionally) set up to fail.
The counterexamples are the handful of times in the 1970s when Soyuz-Salyut missions had to be aborted due to Igla failures and lack of adequate manual capability, and the dozen or so times since then where Soyuz crews took over manual control after Kurs failures and successfully docked to either Mir or ISS.
IIRC, those Salut-era failures were at least partly the origin of the infamous Mir/Progress failure. Roscosmos wasn't 100% confident in the auto-docking system and wanted a manual fall-back option, if required. The methods they used for a test of the procedures were... debatable to say the very least.
That said, I would imagine that most modern vehicles (this includes Orion) will dock on automatic as a first option with human intervention only if the autopilot fails or gets 'lost'. The only real requirement for a pilot (and even this is slowly fading) is for landings (especially on extremely irregular bodies like asteroids).
-
That said, I would imagine that most modern vehicles (this includes Orion) will dock on automatic as a first option with human intervention only if the autopilot fails or gets 'lost'. The only real requirement for a pilot (and even this is slowly fading) is for landings (especially on extremely irregular bodies like asteroids).
Manual docking or berthing in the event of automatic system failure is a vital requirement, and why a capable, well-trained pilot is needed. There have been plenty of aborted auto dockings at ISS on the Soyuz side, and look at the recent HTV abort after unberthing. The same goes for manual override in the event of problems at any point during the flight, especially during the entire reentry phase. Since CST-100 is battery-powered, manual back-ups are even more essential. There aren't going to be many second chances.
- Ed Kyle
-
Since CST-100 is battery-powered, manual back-ups are even more essential. There aren't going to be many second chances.
Not quite sure what you are referring to, but I seriously doubt that any of the new spacecraft can be flown without battery power. I am pretty sure that all that humans do is send commands to a computer that then controls the thrusters, etc.
-
Since CST-100 is battery-powered, manual back-ups are even more essential. There aren't going to be many second chances.
Not quite sure what you are referring to, but I seriously doubt that any of the new spacecraft can be flown without battery power. I am pretty sure that all that humans do is send commands to a computer that then controls the thrusters, etc.
It doesn't have solar cells so it has limited onorbit life. It can't extend the mission if there is an issue. See Soyuz in the late 70's
-
That's not what he's referring to. He means that limited battery lifetime translates to not a lot of troubleshooting time if the first rendezvous fails.
Ahh, that makes a lot more sense ;)
-
So solar panels could be added to the SM like Soyuz for a BEO CST-100.
Just add more solids to Atlas V to deal with the added weight.
Dock with DCSS and go TLI... :D
-
Since CST-100 is battery-powered, manual back-ups are even more essential. There aren't going to be many second chances.
Not quite sure what you are referring to, but I seriously doubt that any of the new spacecraft can be flown without battery power.
That's not what he's referring to. He means that limited battery lifetime translates to not a lot of troubleshooting time if the first rendezvous fails.
It doesn't have solar cells so it has limited onorbit life. It can't extend the mission if there is an issue. See Soyuz in the late 70's
Last (Oct 2011, out-of-date?) CCIDC requirements showed nominal launch-to-dock 24hr, with contingency for "24 hours rendezvous delay that includes two additional docking attempts beyond nominal". Then also there's mention of contingency "De-orbit Waive-off" of 12hr and 2hr for post-landing and a few other odds-and-ends.
If those requirements are still essentially the same, seems like worst case that's quite a long to operate on batteries?
edit: See Commercial Crew Program Requirements Workshop (http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=341), Oct 4 2011; relevant slide attached.
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_26_2012_p0-528782.xml
This article has a picture of the CST-100. I noticed that the four engines don't point straight back but at an angle.
What is the reason? Does it give more stability for a launch abort?
-
seems like worst case that's quite a long to operate on batteries?
It's OK. Boeing has lots of experience with batteries. On the 787 APU for example. :-[ :'(
Seriously, lithium ion batteries can be pretty impressive. And they don't usually burst into flame.
-
I noticed that the four engines don't point straight back but at an angle.
Engines thrust vector should be as far as possible through the centre of mass
-
seems like worst case that's quite a long to operate on batteries?
It's OK. Boeing has lots of experience with batteries. On the 787 APU for example. :-[ :'(
Seriously, lithium ion batteries can be pretty impressive. And they don't usually burst into flame.
Boeing didn't build the batteries for the 787, they contracted the work out to GS Yuasa.
-
Boeing didn't build the batteries for the 787, they contracted the work out to GS Yuasa.
GS Yuasa: battery manufacturing
Securaplane (subsidiary of Meggit): battery charger
Thales Group: electrical power conversion system
Boeing: integration
Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-over-charging-preceded-ana-787-battery-malfunction-381268/
Also worth reading:
http://aviationtroubleshooting.blogspot.it/
-
I noticed that the four engines don't point straight back but at an angle.
Engines thrust vector should be as far as possible through the centre of mass
I understand the situation if a single engine is firing.
But if an opposing pair are fired, the net of the pair would go through the centre of mass regardless of outward vectoring. Angling directly backwards would eliminate the cosine losses.
Is the implication, therefore, for single engines to be fired, or at least the capability to?
cheers, Martin
-
seems like worst case that's quite a long to operate on batteries?
It's OK. Boeing has lots of experience with batteries. On the 787 APU for example. :-[ :'(
Seriously, lithium ion batteries can be pretty impressive. And they don't usually burst into flame.
I only caught the tail end of a CNN report on Boeing supplied batteries for ISS last night. NASA claimed not to worry as theirs were rigorously tested... If anyone knows more please feel free to add to this...
-
I only caught the tail end of a CNN report on Boeing supplied batteries for ISS last night. NASA claimed not to worry as theirs were rigorously tested... If anyone knows more please feel free to add to this...
Found this in the ISS Solar Array Battery Changeout thread:
GS Yuasa Receives Lithium-ion Battery Order for International Space Station
http://www.gs-yuasa.com/us/attention/pdf/20121130e.pdf
Japanese medeia report that delivery schedule is as early as 2013.
(But, HTV4 EP manifest is already fixed ??? )
Edit: I think Japanese media could be misunderstanding, probably delivery to the US in 2013 ;D
Same lith-ion manufacturer as for the 787 :(
Perhaps lith-ion batteries in various space applications deserves a new thread...
-
Makes one wonder what anode / cathode materials they're using, some being more troublesome than others.
-
Makes one wonder what anode / cathode materials they're using, some being more troublesome than others.
Lithium cobalt oxide; many articles on this.
http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-787-dreamliner-uses-most-152159174.html
In this article is interesting the Tesla approach:
Brodd said that Tesla, for example, uses a nickel cobalt aluminum chemistry. “Tesla developed a sophisticated algorithm to measure voltage, current and temperature for each cell in their pack,” Brodd told me. “If one fails or acts up, it can disconnect that individual cell without interrupting the operation of the battery. That is what Boeing needs to do.”
-
That said, I would imagine that most modern vehicles (this includes Orion) will dock on automatic as a first option with human intervention only if the autopilot fails or gets 'lost'. The only real requirement for a pilot (and even this is slowly fading) is for landings (especially on extremely irregular bodies like asteroids).
Manual docking or berthing in the event of automatic system failure is a vital requirement, and why a capable, well-trained pilot is needed. There have been plenty of aborted auto dockings at ISS on the Soyuz side, and look at the recent HTV abort after unberthing. The same goes for manual override in the event of problems at any point during the flight, especially during the entire reentry phase. Since CST-100 is battery-powered, manual back-ups are even more essential. There aren't going to be many second chances.
- Ed Kyle
(My personal opinion here...) I disagree that a pilot is needed and that is mainly stories perpuated by, well pilots. If anything, ATV, HTV and Dragon have demonstrated that modern automated docking systems are quite safe and robost. Even some of the glitches on rendezvous of these missions were due to the human links built in because people were nervous about totally automated systems (as they probably should have been). In fact, your example of HTV demonstrates it - it did exactlyt what it was designe dto do and it did it very safely. You could argue that it was a bit over sensitive but it did fine. While you can get some historical benefit from Soyuz it is a very different case since it was essentially designed ages ago and has not really been modernized. it is a good example of a system that is pretty good but you definitely need manual backup. Now, would I put a manual backup system on CST, DC or Dragonrider? Well, I would say it is a nice to have - the systems will likely be pretty good and yet you are adding a HUGE amount of expense (software, hardware, training).
-
I noticed that the four engines don't point straight back but at an angle.
Engines thrust vector should be as far as possible through the centre of mass
I understand the situation if a single engine is firing.
But if an opposing pair are fired, the net of the pair would go through the centre of mass regardless of outward vectoring. Angling directly backwards would eliminate the cosine losses.
Is the implication, therefore, for single engines to be fired, or at least the capability to?
cheers, Martin
If you had a thrust mismatch between the engines (nothing is going to be exactly the same) if they were parallel, you'd be spiralling all around your center of mass! No good. You could use the ACS thrusters to counter this, but it becomes a sizing constraint pretty quickly. Suppose one thruster failed to fire? You'd be spinning out of control, perhaps right into the ground, and it'd be much too great thrust to counter with ACS. But if all you do is angle the nozzles to point in a line which goes through the center of mass, then you don't go spiralling out of control. Far safer to angle them than buy a couple percent of performance by avoiding the cosine losses.
-
Makes one wonder what anode / cathode materials they're using, some being more troublesome than others.
Lithium cobalt oxide....
Which can flame-on if overcharged or if there's a short circuit.
This should be interesting....
-
I noticed that the four engines don't point straight back but at an angle.
Engines thrust vector should be as far as possible through the centre of mass
I understand the situation if a single engine is firing.
But if an opposing pair are fired, the net of the pair would go through the centre of mass regardless of outward vectoring. Angling directly backwards would eliminate the cosine losses.
Is the implication, therefore, for single engines to be fired, or at least the capability to?
cheers, Martin
If all engines point through the CoM, you have a much better chance of surviving an engine out. You can lose any engine yet maintain proper attitude without having to compensate by gimballing or shutting down an opposite engine. When you deal with very high thrust like a launch abort (several G's), you really don't have much time for adjustments.
-
seems like worst case that's quite a long to operate on batteries?
It's OK. Boeing has lots of experience with batteries. On the 787 APU for example. :-[ :'(
Seriously, lithium ion batteries can be pretty impressive. And they don't usually burst into flame.
Boeing didn't build the batteries for the 787, they contracted the work out to GS Yuasa.
The problem doesn't necessarily have to be with the batteries themselves. It could be an issue with the charging system or with some other part of the electrical system. I believe that there have been problems with the routing of a wiring harness, for example, that connects to the battery. The harness gets too hot, its insulation fails, a short circuit occurs, and somehow the battery is not protected from the short. That's one possible example of how a battery could overheat due to a problem that does not originate with the battery itself.
The buck stops on Boeing's desk on all of this. Boeing alone is responsible, in the end, for the proper design, development, testing, and integration of all of these components into a complete system. To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
-
IIRC, lithium batteries still need oxygen to burn, so not exactly a problem for CST-100...
-
To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
Hardly, just a black eye
-
To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
Hardly, just a black eye
Indeed- I believe the same thing was said about the DC-10, which is still flying in all sorts of config.s. With 787 we're nat talking about doors blowing off and lots of body bags as a result (yet), we're talkin' about a few battery glitches. In aviation failure is best examined with a few decades of hindsight.
-
To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
Hardly, just a black eye
Indeed- I believe the same thing was said about the DC-10, which is still flying in all sorts of config.s. With 787 we're nat talking about doors blowing off and lots of body bags as a result (yet), we're talkin' about a few battery glitches. In aviation failure is best examined with a few decades of hindsight.
The same thing _was_ said about the DC-10. Look what happened to Douglas.
-
To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
Hardly, just a black eye
Indeed- I believe the same thing was said about the DC-10, which is still flying in all sorts of config.s. With 787 we're nat talking about doors blowing off and lots of body bags as a result (yet), we're talkin' about a few battery glitches. In aviation failure is best examined with a few decades of hindsight.
The A380 had it's own share of issues such as cracked wing ribs.
-
To date, 787 has been a big fat fail.
- Ed Kyle
Hardly, just a black eye
Indeed- I believe the same thing was said about the DC-10, which is still flying in all sorts of config.s. With 787 we're nat talking about doors blowing off and lots of body bags as a result (yet), we're talkin' about a few battery glitches. In aviation failure is best examined with a few decades of hindsight.
The same thing _was_ said about the DC-10. Look what happened to Douglas.
You mean McDonnell Douglas, the merger happened before DC-10's first flight.
-
So going back to the original topic....... what kind of batteries do previous manned spacecrafts use? (ignoring, of course, the Apollo CSM and the Shuttle)
-
So going back to the original topic....... what kind of batteries do previous manned spacecrafts use? (ignoring, of course, the Apollo CSM and the Shuttle)
Silver Iodide. even with fuel cells, Gemini and Apollo has batteries for entry. The short Gemini missions used all batteries. But that they were not really rechargeable. Spacecraft (unmanned) progressed to Nicad, NiH2 and now lithium.
-
So going back to the original topic....... what kind of batteries do previous manned spacecrafts use? (ignoring, of course, the Apollo CSM and the Shuttle)
IIRC, after the Apollo 13 LOM, the Apollo CM was supposed to get a new battery that could run a full 7-day trans-lunar flyby in the even the fuel cells were knocked out on a future flight. I don't know if this was implemented before the cancellation of the Apollo program though. However, it shows that it should be possible for a vehicle the size of CST-100 to have a battery system that can support a full three-day up-and-down flight to a space station, plus a >100% safety margin for docking or re-entry wave-offs.
-
I wouldn't want this battery on my crewed spacecraft!
Thermal runaway. Once it starts, there's no stopping it.
- Ed Kyle
-
As far as I am aware all the commercial vehicles and Orion will have batteries. CST-100 will use only batteries but it is not alone in using them. Additionally are we sure that Boeing will be using the same make or manufacturer of batteries for the 787 as they will for the CST-100?
-
Additionally are we sure that Boeing will be using the same make or manufacturer of batteries for the 787 as they will for the CST-100?
Has Boeing even announced the type or operating medium of the battery they'll use on CST-100? Lithium batteries are light and I can see the advantage there but I'm not sure if they have much of a space history and that might make the customer (Bigelow) a bit nervous.
-
I wouldn't want this battery on my crewed spacecraft!
Thermal runaway. Once it starts, there's no stopping it.
- Ed Kyle
But you'll happily carry it in your pocket!
Please, Ed.
-
I wouldn't want this battery on my crewed spacecraft!
Thermal runaway. Once it starts, there's no stopping it.
- Ed Kyle
But you'll happily carry it in your pocket!
Please, Ed.
If it's in your pocket, you take take it out and throw it away. You can also divest yourself of the burning garment if required. It's a lot more difficult to jettison burning material in space.
-
I wouldn't want this battery on my crewed spacecraft!
Thermal runaway. Once it starts, there's no stopping it.
- Ed Kyle
But you'll happily carry it in your pocket!
Please, Ed.
If it's in your pocket, you take take it out and throw it away. You can also divest yourself of the burning garment if required. It's a lot more difficult to jettison burning material in space.
Oh, seriously. You can frack up the engineering of a lithium cell, but doesn't mean there's nothing you can do to make it safe. Heck, we've made highly compressed hydrogen fuel cells safe enough for a manned spacecraft.
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
- Ed Kyle
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
- Ed Kyle
Well, clearly, everyone would die.
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
- Ed Kyle
Clearly the sky is falling. ::) If batteries truly are a concern to you, Ed, shouldn't you be more worried about the propellant combinations that got you to orbit in the first place? This is like worrying about a small water leak when there is a hurricane outside.
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
Clearly the sky is falling. ::) If batteries truly are a concern to you, Ed, shouldn't you be more worried about the propellant combinations that got you to orbit in the first place?
For the two situations to be comparable, wouldn't you need to store both propellants in the same tank and then hope not to have a spark to set them off?
cheers, Martin
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
Clearly the sky is falling. ::) If batteries truly are a concern to you, Ed, shouldn't you be more worried about the propellant combinations that got you to orbit in the first place?
For the two situations to be comparable, wouldn't you need to store both propellants in the same tank and then hope not to have a spark to set them off?
cheers, Martin
No, because Ed is far over-stating the risk of Lithium. It's not like it's some new technology straight out of the lab which no one ever uses. Boeing (and Boeing's sub) screwed up. Doesn't mean that everything about Lithium needs to be reevaluated all of a sudden.
-
I tried to fight a lithium battery fire once, and I've investigated a number of fires caused by these batteries. These things are nothing like normal batteries, nor should they be thought of as anything like normal batteries. They are aggressive incendiaries. There's a reason the FAA banned them in checked luggage. They're fine for use as long as the developers design for all of the dangers, which is not a trivial task, and as long as all of the maintenance people handle them like newborn babies, which is not a given.
- Ed Kyle
-
Does a crewed CST-100 operating on batteries for 48-72hr (without recharge) present significant challenges? Are there other similar examples?
-
Someone is still confident on lithium batteries:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk
-
Someone is still confident on lithium batteries:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk
You can bet he is. Without those, Tesla's roadsters are going to be ludicrously over their mass budget!
Let's break this issue down. Does Boeing need to use lithium batteries? I mean, Apollo managed quite well on older-style technology for a longer duration, as I've pointed out up-thread.
In fact, has Boeing even specified that they are going to use lithium at all? There's no point getting into an argument that will devolve into opinion wars leading to deep, personal animosities over something that isn't even going to happen!
-
It appears to me that Lithium-ion batteries are giving some trouble in their most news-notable aerospace applications:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266262/Dreamliner-battery-firm-provides-lithium-cells-International-Space-Station-probe-troubled-widens-Japan-UK.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.dailytech.com/NTSB+Says+Boeing+787+Battery+Fire+Not+Due+to+Overcharging+Quick+Fix+Unlikely/article29704.htm
I realize that the 787 battery problem wont be directly transferable, but it will be a interesting problem to see them solve.
-
All lithium batteries don't go up in flames. And, since I'm pretty sure that quantum uncertainty doesn't determine which ones do, there must be something different about the battery or environment of the ones that do. You figure out what that is, and make sure it doesn't happen.
They don't have to be handled like "newborn babies". There are several hundred million lithium batteries out there being abused like a buck private and a handful of problems. Failures are almost always a case of chronic disregard for established quality control standards on the manufacturers part, or users ignoring obvious physical damage. I wouldn't want to be a Yuasa stockholder right now.
-
AFAIK, all Lithium-ion battery failures can be traced back, in one form or another, to overheating. This is due to excess usage and/or poor ventilation/cooling of the power pack during use/charging. The design itself isn't inherently flawed but you do have to sit down and think carefully about thermal regulation.
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. Is there a limit to the amount of energy it can supply? Does the overheating problem mean that it needs a special cooling system as standard above a certain load level? These are the sort of questions that are probably being debated in cubicles from Tokyo to Moscow via Silicon Valley.
-
From what I understand the charging/discharging of large high power Lithium ion battery packs is computer controlled, so that charging times are fast and battery life is maximized. I assume that the quality of the software may have something to do with the overheating problems.
-
...
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.
-
From what I understand the charging/discharging of large high power Lithium ion battery packs is computer controlled, so that charging times are fast and battery life is maximized. I assume that the quality of the software may have something to do with the overheating problems.
Here are some physics for Li ion, a bit different than other batteries.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries
"Li-ion cannot absorb overcharge, and when fully charged the charge current must be cut off. A continuous trickle charge would cause plating of metallic lithium, and this could compromise safety. To minimize stress, keep the lithium-ion battery at the 4.20V/cell peak voltage as short a time as possible."
"The so-called miracle charger that promises to prolong battery life and methods that pump extra capacity into the cell do not exist here."
"Avoiding full charge has benefits, and some manufacturers set the charge threshold lower on purpose to prolong battery life"
"Li-ion does not need to be fully charged, as is the case with lead acid, nor is it desirable to do so. In fact, it is better not to fully charge, because high voltages stresses the battery."
http://www.powerstream.com/li.htm
The lithium ion battery is easy to charge. Charging safely is a more difficult. The charge cannot be terminated on a voltage. The capacity reached at 4.2 Volts per cell is only 40 to 70% of full capacity unless charged very slowly. For this reason you need to continue to charge until the current drops, and to terminate on the low current.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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?
-
What did Shuttle draw when they used the power strap? That's probably the highest drain visiting vehicle so far.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
cough **Chernobyl** cough
-
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).
-
They can operate in vacuum (have to in case of accident, or you put them in their own nitrogen pressurized container), so put them in the unpressurized portion. No oxygen to burn with.
Lithium reacts with nitrogen. It reacts with water too, which can lead to an explosion when exposed to oxygen. Flood it with Argon gas and the fire goes out, but when the Argon is removed, the fire starts again. It takes a Class D extinguisher, but even then there are limits to what can be accomplished.
So put it in vacuum, but then what happens when the capsule reenters, exposing the damaged battery to oxygen, nitrogen, and water?
- Ed Kyle
If you want to paranoid about it you can use silver oxide or silver zinc batteries instead, these provide about 130wh per kg.
But I think Boeing has been using lithium ion batteries on it's 702 series satellites without incident.
-
Point taken. Yet Soyuz still uses solar arrays. Would be interesting to see the trades.
Some of the 2nd generation Soyuz did not have solar arrays(for the 2nd gen. it was optional). The Russians ran into problems where the crew being forced to evacuate to the Soyuz or being unable to dock with the station had losses of mission due to running low on power (or propellant). In addition the Solar panels reduce the power draw on the station.
How this plays with commercial crew or the CST-100 is unknown as the 2nd generation Soyuz only had 2 days worth of free flight time with its batteries and the commercial crew craft are aiming to have more than that (from the looks of it an 73 hour requirement) and the ISS while far from perfect is less likely to have the kinds of problems that forced the evacuations. The current version of Soyuz has about 4 days worth of free flight time.
Plus given the fact that the CCREW do not have to support spacewalks, I would expect a rescue mission(in terms of space sation repair) to be mounted via Soyuz.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
-
They've said multiple times that the CST-100 capsule will be reused. That's part of the motivation for land-based recovery.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
Very interesting presentation. When asked about the lenght of time that the CST-100 could stay in space, he said that it was originaly 60 hours but that it has now increased (because of NASA requirements) to the point that it is now only limited by your consumables.
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
-
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
It will be interesting to see where this discussion goes; specifically whether regulation is introduced to force the use of pressure suits during ascent and descent. Remember that both Soyuz and the Shuttle were originally intended to have shirt-sleeve environments during all flight phases and both types have lost lives (in the case of Soyuz, the crew would definitely have survived if they had sealed pressure suits).
Of course, ultimately, the objective is for space travel to be a shirt-sleeve environment, just like airliners. However, I'm not convinced that the technology is at the necessary level yet.
-
Wait, I hadn't noticed before, but does CST-100 have a trunk cavity in the SM? It certainly looks from the CAD drawings that does.
Roughly measuring from the picture below, it's about 2.8 m (111 inch) in diameter, and about 1.3 m high, for a volume of almost precisely 8 cubic meters. For comparison, the largest cylinder than could fit in a standard Dragon trunk is 3.6 m diameter, 1.1 meter high, with a volume of 11 cubic meters.
This sounds like a pretty good selling point of CST that I've never heard discussed before.
-
Wait, I hadn't noticed before, but does CST-100 have a trunk cavity in the SM? It certainly looks from the CAD drawings that does.
Roughly measuring from the picture below, it's about 2.8 m (111 inch) in diameter, and about 1.3 m high, for a volume of almost precisely 8 cubic meters. For comparison, the largest cylinder than could fit in a standard Dragon trunk is 3.6 m diameter, 1.1 meter high, with a volume of 11 cubic meters.
This sounds like a pretty good selling point of CST that I've never heard discussed before.
Here's some better pictures of it
-
Weird to have a scoring feature and not advertise it...
-
Trunk upmass is not a requirement for the crewed capsule if I remember correctly.
-
It could make abort /slightly/ trickier, so I understand why they aren't blabbing about it.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
Very interesting presentation. When asked about the lenght of time that the CST-100 could stay in space, he said that it was originaly 60 hours but that it has now increase (because of NASA requirements) to the point that it is now only limited by your consumables.
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
A lot of NASA's own data, and many in the crew office who don't believe suits are warranted. In fact in many situations they make things worse and at best prolong the enevitable.
-
Weird to have a scoring feature and not advertise it...
Not a trunk. Open space just due to structural/shape needs and won't be used for anything.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
Very interesting presentation. When asked about the lenght of time that the CST-100 could stay in space, he said that it was originaly 60 hours but that it has now increase (because of NASA requirements) to the point that it is now only limited by your consumables.
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
A lot of NASA's own data, and many in the crew office who don't believe suits are warranted. In fact in many situations they make things worse and at best prolong the enevitable.
Hmm. Tell that to the crew of Soyuz 11.
-
It could make abort /slightly/ trickier, so I understand why they aren't blabbing about it.
That's a good point.
Weird to have a scoring feature and not advertise it...
Not a trunk. Open space just due to structural/shape needs and won't be used for anything.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
Very interesting presentation. When asked about the lenght of time that the CST-100 could stay in space, he said that it was originaly 60 hours but that it has now increase (because of NASA requirements) to the point that it is now only limited by your consumables.
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
A lot of NASA's own data, and many in the crew office who don't believe suits are warranted. In fact in many situations they make things worse and at best prolong the enevitable.
Hmm. Tell that to the crew of Soyuz 11.
Soyuz-11 was 42 years ago, and was a freak accident. No one can stay in suits continuously. The Orion requirements have added immensely to cost. As Burt Rutan said, if you can't design a reliable pressure cabin you have no business flying passengers.
-
Designing a sound pressure vessel is easy in theory but apparently not always so in practice. Airplanes develop holes in them not infrequently and for this reason have backup oxygen for passengers and crew. What's different about spaceflight that makes backup air less useful?
Edit: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Notable_decompression_accidents_and_incidents for examples.
-
The FISO CST-100 update is available:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
I wasn't sure if the CST-100 was going to be reused but the update is clear that the CM will be refurbished.
Very interesting presentation. When asked about the lenght of time that the CST-100 could stay in space, he said that it was originaly 60 hours but that it has now increase (because of NASA requirements) to the point that it is now only limited by your consumables.
There was also an interesting discussion about the need for spacesuits. Boeing didn't initially think that they were necessary. But NASA disagreed and made it a safety requirement. So the CST-100 will have them for NASA (but maybe not for Bigelow; depends if Bigelow requires it or not).
A lot of NASA's own data, and many in the crew office who don't believe suits are warranted. In fact in many situations they make things worse and at best prolong the enevitable.
Hmm. Tell that to the crew of Soyuz 11.
Soyuz-11 was 42 years ago, and was a freak accident. No one can stay in suits continuously. The Orion requirements have added immensely to cost. As Burt Rutan said, if you can't design a reliable pressure cabin you have no business flying passengers.
Not the best example seeing as how the passengers aboard SpaceShipTwo will be wearing pressure suits.
Are you certain of that?
http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/spaceshiptwo-flight-experience-121023.htm
>
For now, Virgin Galactic isn't planning to put its passengers in pressurized flight suits.
>
"Our customers will probably wear some from of coverall -- no doubt it'll be very trendy and very Virgin -- and possibly some type of protective headgear," [SS2 lead pilot David] Mackay said.
>
-
Designing a sound pressure vessel is easy in theory but apparently not always so in practice. Airplanes develop holes in them not infrequently and for this reason have backup oxygen for passengers and crew. What's different about spaceflight that makes backup air less useful?
Edit: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Notable_decompression_accidents_and_incidents for examples.
I suspect because spacecraft fly higher and can not dive. When an airplane develops a hole in flight the standard procedure is to dive below 8,000 feet and land at the nearest airport. For a spacecraft this isn't easy.
-
Also, at the elevation airplanes fly at, pure oxygen is sufficient for human survival for short periods. At the elevation spaceships travel, pure oxygen isn't sufficient and your blood would boil without a pressure vessel of some sort.
-
Also, at the elevation airplanes fly at, pure oxygen is sufficient for human survival for short periods. At the elevation spaceships travel, pure oxygen isn't sufficient and your blood would boil without a pressure vessel of some sort.
I've read the blood boiling is a myth. Work is being done on flexible spacesuits that aren't airtight and mainly serve to keep the heat in and to keep the astronaut from swelling up. See Space activity suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit) and BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/).
-
I've read the blood boiling is a myth. Work is being done on flexible spacesuits that aren't airtight and mainly serve to keep the heat in and to keep the astronaut from swelling up. See Space activity suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit) and BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/).
Skin is not going to maintain any appreciable pressure in the body for long. Blood will start boiling in a very short time in a vacuum. The dissolved O2 will bubble out first, followed by the liquid itself. What do you think "swelling up" means? It's the gasses bubbling out of blood and tissues and the liquid boiling.
Those suits are also nonsense. Keeping the body pressurized by mechanical pressure on the skin isn't remotely practical. There will always be some area that won't have equal pressure being applied by the suit, and you're back to air pressure taking up the slack.
-
Read the references.
-
I've read the blood boiling is a myth. Work is being done on flexible spacesuits that aren't airtight and mainly serve to keep the heat in and to keep the astronaut from swelling up. See Space activity suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit) and BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/).
You need to learn the difference between science and nonsense. Skin is not going to maintain any appreciable pressure in the body. Blood will start boiling in a very short time in a vacuum. The dissolved O2 will bubble out first, followed by the liquid itself. What do you think "swelling up" means? It's the gasses bubbling out of blood and tissues and the liquid boiling.
Those suits are also nonsense. Keeping the body pressurized by mechanical pressure on the skin isn't remotely practical. There will always be some area that won't have equal pressure being applied by the suit, and you're back to air pressure taking up the slack.
Personally, I think a mechanical counter pressure suit is quite feasible, so long as some form of conformal mechanical counter pressure system can be comfortably be applied to those regions of the anatomy that would other wise be at risk.
The solution is surprisingly simple, and I'm rather surprised that no one has thought of it before. Aerogel padding and padding, cast or formed into those areas that would otherwise require difficult and impractical feats of mechanical design. Those areas could likewise utilize limited pressurization, similar in principle to the air bladders found in G suits. Coolant can likewise be laced through the aerogel for comfort, as could a system for 'wicking' away built up moisture as needed.
Just a thought...
Jason
-
Nomadd thinks he knows better than MIT, NASA and the medical community.
Heck, even I know that most of what he states about the exposure of a human body to a vacuum is incorrect.
By training I'm a biologist. I know from my education that it has been confirmed since the 1970's that exposure to a vacuum does not cause the blood to boil. Skin-, muscle- and connective tissue are very much capable of keeping sufficient pressure on the major bodily fluid systems (blood, lymph and cellular fluid) to prevent those liquids from boiling. Only localized liquid-to-gas expansion occurs in the epidermis. And although that is sufficient to cause extensive damage to the epidermis, it won't kill you. It will not cause your blood to boil. The one thing that will kill you in a vacuum is the effects of suffocation. That is something the crew of Soyuz 11 found out the hard way.
Swelling of tissues occurs because of lack of ambient pressure. The swelling is almost entirely the result of expansion of gas already present in tissue, and not because liquid turns to gas. Side-effects of this gas expansion is localized rupture of capillaries and connective tissue, causing bruising and intense pain.
But, this thread has now gone OT far enough people. Let's stop this discussion about vacuum exposure effects and return to the topic of this thread: Boeing's CST-100 capsule. I'm quite sure Boeing will have a very sturdy and reliable pressure cabin for it's spaceship.
-
Also, at the elevation airplanes fly at, pure oxygen is sufficient for human survival for short periods. At the elevation spaceships travel, pure oxygen isn't sufficient and your blood would boil without a pressure vessel of some sort.
I've read the blood boiling is a myth. Work is being done on flexible spacesuits that aren't airtight and mainly serve to keep the heat in and to keep the astronaut from swelling up. See Space activity suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit) and BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/).
I was referring to the embolism, which is the swelling you're referring to. And you're right the "blood boiling" is a misnomer, but that's kind of what the swelling/embolism is... Air bubbles released from the blood because of the reduce in pressure (like the bends or opening a can of soda), though the vascular pressure helps keep the blood from boiling in the literal sense. But regardless, you can't survive without a pressure suit of some sort, you'll go unconscious very quickly (your blood out-gasses through your lungs, so it's much worse than just holding your breath at sea level).
-
I realize it's popular to try and throw the last word in and declare the topic is drifting. I never said the blood would boil while the subject was alive. I'm familiar with the jackasses who liked to subject chimps to vacuum to see what would happen. Mengele would have been proud. And, the published ones didn't run for more than 2 1/2 of minutes.
I was pointing out that the body is a lousy long term pressure vessel, and is going to lose containment before freezing solid. As soon as blood pressure is lost, the blood in the lung tissues will bubbling out CO2. The pressure from that gas will be the main thing keeping those vessels from boiling for a time.
A suit that could maintain perfect pressure on every square inch of the body and allow movement is not simple by a longshot. Surrounding the body with a layer of gas is far simpler in almost every respect.
Sorry about that cheap shot mmeijeri. You were referring to bad sci-fi movies and survival in vacuum, and were completely correct. I should have said I was talking about long term, after it didn't really matter to the subject. Obviously, once the body has lost pressure containment, the issue has long since ceased to matter to the vacuumee.
-
No problem Nomadd. But let's take this discussion to a new thread since it has little to nothing to do with CST-100, let alone CST-100 updates:
Mechanical counterpressure suits (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31445.msg1030037)
-
I can't split posts into a thread started after the off topic posts started, so use that thread from now on or the posts will be removed.
-
Also, at the elevation airplanes fly at, pure oxygen is sufficient for human survival for short periods. At the elevation spaceships travel, pure oxygen isn't sufficient and your blood would boil without a pressure vessel of some sort.
I've read the blood boiling is a myth. Work is being done on flexible spacesuits that aren't airtight and mainly serve to keep the heat in and to keep the astronaut from swelling up. See Space activity suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit) and BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/).
Blood boiling or "ebulism" most definitely occurs; the skin provides some counterpressure and the blood doesn't boil like water in a kettle, but bubbles form spontaneously in all the major veins and cause the heart pump to become ineffective. In dogs circulation totally stops and the animal loses consciousness.
You can demonstrate this with a beaker of water in a bell jar, Don't use your dog.
Flexible suits have been tested for many years but maintaining uniform counterpressure over the irregularly shaped body is difficult, the tightness of the fabric restricts movement, and wearing a pressure suit continuously for more than a few hours is impossible. The uniqueness of the Soyuz decompression incident (once in over 50 years, and due to an error in design and an extremely improbable event) suggests that it simply isn't feasible. Safety will be better served by simple and reliable pressure cabin systems.
-
The word is "embolism", not "embulism." It's anything that can block a vessel from a gas bubble to a fat globule, clump of cells or clot. Any intravascular mass.
-
Hmm. Tell that to the crew of Soyuz 11.
Remember Soyuz has separate it's orbital module for reentry this is one extra thing that can go wrong.
What failed was a pressure equalization valve between the DM and OM modules.
Ironically the shuttle probably did not really needs suits for reentry since it did not under go configuration changes for reentry.
There were not many scenarios where the vehicle could have lost pressure or would need to be abandoned at altitude that were still survivable.
The CST-100 should have even less such failure modes.
But things could still go wrong during docking operations and a pressure suit can be made to double as an ocean survival suit as the shuttle ACES suit did.
-
Shuttle, however, had lots of room and having pressure suits was probably a good idea anyway, since Shuttle started out life needing them (first couple flights had ejection seats, which although of limited value perhaps, needed pressure suits to be developed to be at ALL useful).
Just because Shuttle never had a situation where pressure suits during ascent/reentry made a difference between survival and non-survival on any flight doesn't mean it would've never occurred. Shuttle only flew ~150 times.
Also, what in case Shuttle had started to lose pressure in the middle of a mission? the crew would've definitely needed pressure suits for the emergency reentry. Which brings up a question: how long to don the ACES suit in an emergency?
-
Shuttle, however, had lots of room and having pressure suits was probably a good idea anyway, since Shuttle started out life needing them (first couple flights had ejection seats, which although of limited value perhaps, needed pressure suits to be developed to be at ALL useful).
Just because Shuttle never had a situation where pressure suits during ascent/reentry made a difference between survival and non-survival on any flight doesn't mean it would've never occurred. Shuttle only flew ~150 times.
Also, what in case Shuttle had started to lose pressure in the middle of a mission? the crew would've definitely needed pressure suits for the emergency reentry. Which brings up a question: how long to don the ACES suit in an emergency?
The shuttle had a fairly large pressurized volume about 74.3 cubic meters so catastrophic depressurization on orbit within minutes would be highly unlikely.
Instead it most likely would take several hours for the shuttle to leak down esp considering the ECLSS tanks can make up lost gases.
The CST-100 has a smaller volume so a loss of atmosphere would happen faster but again lost cabin air can be replaced to a point.
Perhaps Beoing is planning on carrying extra large O2 and N2 tanks and maybe self sealing walls as their safety margin.
The Soyuz DM pressurized volume is even smaller so a small leak can become dangerous much faster.
The Soyuz 11 crew tried to turn a manual valve to stop it but there just wasn't time.
-
Shuttle, however, had lots of room and having pressure suits was probably a good idea anyway, since Shuttle started out life needing them (first couple flights had ejection seats, which although of limited value perhaps, needed pressure suits to be developed to be at ALL useful).
Just because Shuttle never had a situation where pressure suits during ascent/reentry made a difference between survival and non-survival on any flight doesn't mean it would've never occurred. Shuttle only flew ~150 times.
Also, what in case Shuttle had started to lose pressure in the middle of a mission? the crew would've definitely needed pressure suits for the emergency reentry. Which brings up a question: how long to don the ACES suit in an emergency?
Think about the likely failures and you will see that more often than not the suit doesn't help and in certain cases (e.g., water landing) can hinder your survival. Careful study doesn't really support them and they may only prolong the inevitable. This is VERY much a case of an emotional reaction vice technical.
-
Comparisons to shuttle aren't really valid; it was unique in a great number of ways. Besides which, a serious loss of pressure scenario in an orbiter would render the ship itself uncontrollable in due course - the avionics were air-cooled.
-
Shuttle, however, had lots of room and having pressure suits was probably a good idea anyway, since Shuttle started out life needing them (first couple flights had ejection seats, which although of limited value perhaps, needed pressure suits to be developed to be at ALL useful).
Just because Shuttle never had a situation where pressure suits during ascent/reentry made a difference between survival and non-survival on any flight doesn't mean it would've never occurred. Shuttle only flew ~150 times.
Also, what in case Shuttle had started to lose pressure in the middle of a mission? the crew would've definitely needed pressure suits for the emergency reentry. Which brings up a question: how long to don the ACES suit in an emergency?
Think about the likely failures and you will see that more often than not the suit doesn't help and in certain cases (e.g., water landing) can hinder your survival. Careful study doesn't really support them and they may only prolong the inevitable. This is VERY much a case of an emotional reaction vice technical.
Again, I think your judgement would be quite different if there had been a western LOC event that involved loss of pressure as a primary cause.
EDIT:What is your view on the draconian materials restrictions for ISS? Is this also an emotional response?
-
Again, I think your judgement would be quite different if there had been a western LOC event that involved loss of pressure as a primary cause.
Would it? Isn't the correct response to design better valves and emergency repress systems? That solves the problem much more directly.
IIRC, Shuttle suits were really more about survival after a bailout than in the event of cabin pressure loss. I don't think anyone is planning on bailing out of CST...
-
Again, I think your judgement would be quite different if there had been a western LOC event that involved loss of pressure as a primary cause.
Would it? Isn't the correct response to design better valves and emergency repress systems? That solves the problem much more directly.
IIRC, Shuttle suits were really more about survival after a bailout than in the event of cabin pressure loss. I don't think anyone is planning on bailing out of CST...
Emergency repress... More mass.
But I do suspect you're right about the Shuttle suits.
-
The Shuttle suits used on STS 1-4 with the ejection suits were based on SR-71 suits and different from the ones used later in the program. Some of the shuttle electronics were air cooled so it isn't clear it could evan have done an entry under vacuum. Pressure seals are quite reliable, and if a major leak occurs there won't be time to get the suits on, whereas a minor leak can be made up from supply. There is no rationale for it, but NASA is requiring the CC vehicles to provide suits.
-
Emergency repress... More mass.
More than suits plus all the ancillary equipment to keep them going plus the larger/heavier seats to handle them? And more importantly, suits are probably more volume than repress, and that's more much more critical in a reentry vehicle.
It just boils down to: If you need to wear a suit in you pressure vessel, it's not a very good pressure vessel.
-
Emergency repress... More mass.
More than suits plus all the ancillary equipment to keep them going plus the larger/heavier seats to handle them? And more importantly, suits are probably more volume than repress, and that's more much more critical in a reentry vehicle.
It just boils down to: If you need to wear a suit in you pressure vessel, it's not a very good pressure vessel.
Might as well question the oxygen masks in jet liners. They serve the same purpose. It's just that jet liners don't travel above the Armstrong Limit (~19km).
-
I've started a thread on "Pressure Suits in Capsules". I think this is an interesting topic that pertains to more than just the CST-100.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31552.0
-
RELEASE : 13-098
April 5, 2013
NASA Commercial Crew Partner Boeing Completes Launch Vehicle Adapter Review
HOUSTON -- The Boeing Company of Houston, a NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner, has successfully completed a preliminary design review (PDR) of the component that would connect the company's new crew capsule to its rocket.
The review is one of six performance milestones Boeing has completed for NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, which is intended to make available commercial human spaceflight services for government and commercial customers. The company is on track to complete all 19 of its milestones during CCiCap.
Boeing is one of three U.S. companies NASA is working with during CCiCap to set the stage for a crewed orbital demonstration mission around the middle of the decade. Future development and certification initiatives eventually will lead to the availability of human spaceflight services for NASA to send its astronauts to the International Space Station.
The component that was reviewed is called the Launch Vehicle Adapter. The critical structure is being designed by United Launch Alliance (ULA) to join Boeing's Crew Space Transportation-100 (CST-100) spacecraft to ULA's Atlas V rocket, just above the rocket's second stage.
"Solid systems engineering integration is critical to the design of a safe system," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager. "Boeing and all of NASA's partner companies are working to build in proper systems integration into their designs. This review with Boeing and their partner ULA was a good review of the current state of these important design interfaces."
In recent weeks, teams from NASA, Boeing and ULA met at ULA's headquarters in Denver, Colo., to assess requirements and capabilities to safely launch people into low-Earth orbit from U.S. soil once again. The PDR was a culmination of early development and preliminary analysis to demonstrate the design is ready to proceed with detailed engineering.
"The PDR was an outstanding integrated effort by the Boeing, ULA and NASA teams," said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Boeing Commercial Programs. "The ULA design leverages the heritage hardware of the Atlas V to integrate with the CST-100, setting the baseline for us to proceed to wind tunnel testing and the Launch Segment-level PDR in June."
In addition to the Launch Vehicle Adapter PDR, Boeing recently completed two additional CCiCap milestones, including the Engineering Release (ER) 2.0 software release and the Landing and Recovery Ground Systems and Ground Communications design review.
The ER 2.0 software release was completed Jan. 25 in Boeing's Avionics and Software Integration Facility Lab in Houston. This test laid the foundation for the software structure to control and fly the spacecraft, as well as communicate with pilots and ground systems.
The landing and recovery ground systems and ground communications design review Jan. 16 to 18 in Titusville, Fla., established the baseline plan for equipment and infrastructure needed for CST-100 spacecraft ground communications and landing and recovery operations.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program and its aerospace industry partners, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
- end -
-
Boeing Completes Preliminary Design Review for Connection Between CST-100 Spacecraft and Rocket
3rd on-schedule Commercial Crew milestone of 2013
HOUSTON, April 5, 2013 – The structure that will join the Boeing [NYSE: BA] Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft to an Atlas V rocket has successfully completed a preliminary design review, another step toward the return of humans to space on a U.S. vehicle.
This is the third milestone under the company’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) agreement with NASA that Boeing achieved on schedule.
The structure, known as the Launch Vehicle Adapter, is being designed by United Launch Alliance (ULA), which also makes the Atlas V. Completion of this milestone means detailed engineering of the adapter can begin as progress toward the first two CST-100 test flights, as early as 2016, continues.
“This review was an outstanding integrated effort by the Boeing, ULA and NASA teams,” said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Boeing Commercial Crew Programs. “It sets the baseline for us to proceed to wind tunnel testing and the launch segment review in June.”
Boeing completed two additional CCiCap milestones earlier this year: the Engineering Release 2.0 software release, which lays the groundwork for spacecraft control and communications, and the Landing & Recovery Ground Systems and Ground Communications design review, which establishes a plan for the equipment and infrastructure needed for ground communications and landing and recovery operations.
Boeing's Commercial Crew Program includes the design, manufacture, test and evaluation, and demonstration of an integrated Commercial Crew Transportation System – comprised of the CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations – for NASA's Commercial Crew Development program. The Boeing system will provide crewed flights to the International Space Station and also support the Bigelow Aerospace orbital space complex. The program is based on Boeing's experience and innovation evolved from more than 50 years of human spaceflight and nearly 100 years of commercial aviation.
-
Do we have an up to date image of the whole CST-100/Atlas V stack? The only images I've seen running alongside this announcement are old.
-
RELEASE : 13-098
April 5, 2013
NASA Commercial Crew Partner Boeing Completes Launch Vehicle Adapter Review
HOUSTON -- The Boeing Company of Houston, a NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner, has successfully completed a preliminary design review (PDR) of the component that would connect the company's new crew capsule to its rocket.
The review is one of six performance milestones Boeing has completed for NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, which is intended to make available commercial human spaceflight services for government and commercial customers. The company is on track to complete all 19 of its milestones during CCiCap.
Boeing is one of three U.S. companies NASA is working with during CCiCap to set the stage for a crewed orbital demonstration mission around the middle of the decade. Future development and certification initiatives eventually will lead to the availability of human spaceflight services for NASA to send its astronauts to the International Space Station.
The component that was reviewed is called the Launch Vehicle Adapter. The critical structure is being designed by United Launch Alliance (ULA) to join Boeing's Crew Space Transportation-100 (CST-100) spacecraft to ULA's Atlas V rocket, just above the rocket's second stage.
"Solid systems engineering integration is critical to the design of a safe system," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager. "Boeing and all of NASA's partner companies are working to build in proper systems integration into their designs. This review with Boeing and their partner ULA was a good review of the current state of these important design interfaces."
In recent weeks, teams from NASA, Boeing and ULA met at ULA's headquarters in Denver, Colo., to assess requirements and capabilities to safely launch people into low-Earth orbit from U.S. soil once again. The PDR was a culmination of early development and preliminary analysis to demonstrate the design is ready to proceed with detailed engineering.
"The PDR was an outstanding integrated effort by the Boeing, ULA and NASA teams," said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Boeing Commercial Programs. "The ULA design leverages the heritage hardware of the Atlas V to integrate with the CST-100, setting the baseline for us to proceed to wind tunnel testing and the Launch Segment-level PDR in June."
In addition to the Launch Vehicle Adapter PDR, Boeing recently completed two additional CCiCap milestones, including the Engineering Release (ER) 2.0 software release and the Landing and Recovery Ground Systems and Ground Communications design review.
The ER 2.0 software release was completed Jan. 25 in Boeing's Avionics and Software Integration Facility Lab in Houston. This test laid the foundation for the software structure to control and fly the spacecraft, as well as communicate with pilots and ground systems.
The landing and recovery ground systems and ground communications design review Jan. 16 to 18 in Titusville, Fla., established the baseline plan for equipment and infrastructure needed for CST-100 spacecraft ground communications and landing and recovery operations.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program and its aerospace industry partners, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
- end -
LINK to similar page with an article: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/boeing_lva.html
-
Boeing Completes New Spacecraft, Rocket Milestones
May 31, 2013
The Boeing Company of Houston, a NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner, recently performed wind tunnel testing of its CST-100 spacecraft and integrated launch vehicle, the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket. The testing is part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.
Boeing and ULA also worked together to test a newly developed component of the Atlas V's Centaur upper stage. Boeing now has completed two of eight performance milestones under CCiCap and is on track to have completed all 19 of its milestones around mid-2014.
"The Centaur has a long and storied past of launching the agency's most successful spacecraft to other worlds," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "Because it has never been used for human spaceflight before, these tests are critical to ensuring a smooth and safe performance for the crew members who will be riding atop the human-rated Atlas V."
The wind tunnel testing, which began in March and wrapped up in May at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., were the first interface tests of Boeing's spacecraft, launch vehicle adaptor and launch vehicle. A scale model of the integrated spacecraft and rocket was placed in Ames' 11-foot diameter transonic wind tunnel. The data gathered provides Boeing with critical information it needs to ensure its system is safe for launching crews to low-Earth orbit.
The Centaur liquid oxygen-feed duct line was tested in March in Murrieta, Calif., to characterize how liquid oxygen moves from the stage's oxygen tank to its two engines where the propellant will be mixed with liquid hydrogen to create thrust. The Centaur, which takes over after the Atlas V first stage runs low on propellants, will push the spacecraft to its intended orbit. The Centaur has an extensive and successful history of delivering spacecraft to their destinations, including carrying NASA's Curiosity science rover to Mars.
"The CST-100 and Atlas V, connected with the launch vehicle adaptor, performed exactly as expected and confirmed our expectations of how they will perform together in flight," said John Mulholland, Boeing vice president and program manager for Commercial Programs.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/boeing_ula_lox.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/boeing_ula_lox.html)
Image Caption: Shown is the integrated model at NASA's Ames Research Center. The model is a 7 percent model of the Boeing CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle adaptor and launch vehicle. Image credit: Boeing
-
Boeing Completes New Spacecraft, Rocket Milestones
May 31, 2013
The Boeing Company of Houston, a NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner, recently performed wind tunnel testing of its CST-100 spacecraft and integrated launch vehicle, the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket. The testing is part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.
Boeing and ULA also worked together to test a newly developed component of the Atlas V's Centaur upper stage. Boeing now has completed two of eight performance milestones under CCiCap and is on track to have completed all 19 of its milestones around mid-2014.
"The Centaur has a long and storied past of launching the agency's most successful spacecraft to other worlds," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "Because it has never been used for human spaceflight before, these tests are critical to ensuring a smooth and safe performance for the crew members who will be riding atop the human-rated Atlas V."
The wind tunnel testing, which began in March and wrapped up in May at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., were the first interface tests of Boeing's spacecraft, launch vehicle adaptor and launch vehicle. A scale model of the integrated spacecraft and rocket was placed in Ames' 11-foot diameter transonic wind tunnel. The data gathered provides Boeing with critical information it needs to ensure its system is safe for launching crews to low-Earth orbit.
The Centaur liquid oxygen-feed duct line was tested in March in Murrieta, Calif., to characterize how liquid oxygen moves from the stage's oxygen tank to its two engines where the propellant will be mixed with liquid hydrogen to create thrust. The Centaur, which takes over after the Atlas V first stage runs low on propellants, will push the spacecraft to its intended orbit. The Centaur has an extensive and successful history of delivering spacecraft to their destinations, including carrying NASA's Curiosity science rover to Mars.
"The CST-100 and Atlas V, connected with the launch vehicle adaptor, performed exactly as expected and confirmed our expectations of how they will perform together in flight," said John Mulholland, Boeing vice president and program manager for Commercial Programs.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/boeing_ula_lox.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/boeing_ula_lox.html)
Image Caption: Shown is the integrated model at NASA's Ames Research Center. The model is a 7 percent model of the Boeing CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle adaptor and launch vehicle. Image credit: Boeing
Hmm..... does it mean that the baseline Atlas V configuration for CST-100 is now a 401? (instead of the 411 as originally reported)
-
What makes you say that?
Incidentally, it's the Atlas V 412 (not the 411). It was always going to use the dual engine centaur.
-
What makes you say that?
Incidentally, its the Atlas V 412 (not the 411). It was always going to use the dual engine centaur.
I don't see any solids attached to the wind tunnel model above.
-
What makes you say that?
Incidentally, its the Atlas V 412 (not the 411). It was always going to use the dual engine centaur.
I don't see any solids attached to the wind tunnel model above.
You don't see the LOX line nor control box either, does not mean it lacks oxygen or steering.
This looks to me as the focus was on the upper portions, and the lower sections were overly simplified, is all.
-
What makes you say that?
Incidentally, its the Atlas V 412 (not the 411). It was always going to use the dual engine centaur.
I don't see any solids attached to the wind tunnel model above.
You don't see the LOX line nor control box either, does not mean it lacks oxygen or steering.
This looks to me as the focus was on the upper portions, and the lower sections were overly simplified, is all.
The 412 (and 411, for that matter) only uses one solid -- it might be on the far side.
-
Getting the Centaur human rated is a real good thing.
Will the RL-10 be considered Human rated on its own after this process?
Its possible that the RL-10 will be in the SLS per this uber fine article
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/sls-pdr-evolved-rocket-dual-upper-stage/
Edit: add link
-
United Launch Alliance Completes Dual Engine Centaur Preliminary Design Review and Development Testing in Support of Commercial Crew Program:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32130.0
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/142/
-
They may switch to Falcon 9 after the second Atlas V launch.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml
>
At the recent Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., he said CST-100 “can be operational as soon as 2016.
>
"....We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
>
-
They may switch to Falcon 9 after the second Atlas V launch.
Wow! Time for ULA to look at its pricing policy again, methinks!
-
Man rating Atlas and Centaur, only to use them for two launches is a pretty expensive backup plan. But, it would be good to have two available launchers. It would be really good if either capsule could fly on either rocket. Keep one accident in Hawthorne from crippling the Dragon program for two years.
-
HOUSTON -- The Boeing Company of Houston is inviting media to view a full-size test version of its CST-100 spacecraft as NASA astronauts conduct evaluations inside it.
The event will begin at 11 a.m. CDT Monday, July 22, at the company's Houston Product Support Center at 13100 Space Center Boulevard.
Boeing is one of three aerospace industry partners working with NASA's Commercial Crew Program on its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability initiative, which is intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.
This event is the first time media have been invited to see a test version of the CST-100 crew capsule. Boeing and NASA representatives will provide remarks and be available for interviews. Chris Ferguson, former space shuttle commander and current director of Boeing Crew and Mission Operations, will conduct a tour of the capsule while two NASA astronauts conduct live flight suit evaluations in the CST-100.
The event participants include:
-- Kathy Lueders, deputy manager, NASA's Commercial Crew Program
-- John Elbon, vice president, Boeing Space Exploration
-- John Mulholland, vice president and program manager, Boeing Commercial Programs
-- Chris Ferguson, director, Boeing Crew and Mission Operations
To participate, journalists should contact Boeing's Kelly George directly no later than 5 p.m. Friday, July 19 at [email protected]. Media will be given access to the event beginning at 10:30 a.m. on Monday.
Security requires media covering this event to present affiliation credentials. For safety, a dress code must be followed at the site: no skirts, no shorts, no sleeveless shirts, and only closed-toe, flat shoes.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program and its aerospace industry partners, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
-
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Model Passes Water-Recovery Tests
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Model Passes Water-Recovery Tests
These images are available for editorial use by news media.
HOUSTON, July 19, 2013 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] recently demonstrated that astronauts in its Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 capsule will be able to safely exit the spacecraft during an emergency water landing.
Although the CST-100 is designed to land on the ground, Boeing engineers worked with NASA and Department of Defense search-and-recovery personnel to test several emergency water-extraction scenarios.
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing. “A water landing is unlikely, but it’s important that we test the spacecraft in all potential scenarios.”
The testing was done July 8 at Bigelow Aerospace in North Las Vegas, Nev., as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative.
The CST-100 will transport crew members and cargo to low Earth orbit destinations such as the International Space Station and Bigelow’s planned station. The first piloted orbital flight of the CST-100 capsule is scheduled for 2016.
-
Silly Boeing employees playing around in the pool with their blow up slide instead of working.... Oh wait. :D
-
The testing was done July 8 at Bigelow Aerospace in North Las Vegas, Nev., as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative.
The funny thing is, after pulling up the old satellite pictures of the Bigelow Facility on Google Earth, that pool looks finished in 2003! Was it possible that Bigelow has been testing some form of crew transportation for the better part of a decade?
-
Was it possible that Bigelow has been testing some form of crew transportation for the better part of a decade?
Isn't it cheap test of inflatable module for leaks?
-
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing.
If safety is your top priority, you better make sure the crew never leaves the ground.
-
Bigelow discussion should be redirected here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6602.0).
-
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Model Passes Water-Recovery Tests
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Model Passes Water-Recovery Tests
These images are available for editorial use by news media.
HOUSTON, July 19, 2013 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] recently demonstrated that astronauts in its Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 capsule will be able to safely exit the spacecraft during an emergency water landing.
Although the CST-100 is designed to land on the ground, Boeing engineers worked with NASA and Department of Defense search-and-recovery personnel to test several emergency water-extraction scenarios.
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing. “A water landing is unlikely, but it’s important that we test the spacecraft in all potential scenarios.”
The testing was done July 8 at Bigelow Aerospace in North Las Vegas, Nev., as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative.
The CST-100 will transport crew members and cargo to low Earth orbit destinations such as the International Space Station and Bigelow’s planned station. The first piloted orbital flight of the CST-100 capsule is scheduled for 2016.
Does that egress slide/ladder fly on the capsule, or does the recovery crew bring that?
Also nice to see a high res photo from Boeing. They seem to have this weird aversion to releasing good images.
"Thanks for coming to our flickr... you wanted a photo of a 787? Hows 500x700 sound?"
-
Boeing reveals interior of new commercial space capsule
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-072213a.html
Boeing has thrown open the hatch to its new commercial spacecraft, offering a first look inside the capsule it is building in a bid to fly NASA astronauts to the International Space Station.
At its Houston Product Support Center located near NASA Johnson Space Center, Boeing revealed its first full-scale model of the CST-100, a gumdrop-shaped spacecraft that can seat up to seven crew members.
On Monday (July 22), two NASA astronauts were strapped into the capsule mockup to undergo flight suit evaluations aimed at validating the CST-100's interior design.
-
Boeing reveals interior of new commercial space capsule
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-072213a.html
Boeing has thrown open the hatch to its new commercial spacecraft, offering a first look inside the capsule it is building in a bid to fly NASA astronauts to the International Space Station.
At its Houston Product Support Center located near NASA Johnson Space Center, Boeing revealed its first full-scale model of the CST-100, a gumdrop-shaped spacecraft that can seat up to seven crew members.
On Monday (July 22), two NASA astronauts were strapped into the capsule mockup to undergo flight suit evaluations aimed at validating the CST-100's interior design.
CollectSpace is a great website. If you click on any of the high resolution pictures they expand to screen filling size.
Thanks for posting the link and hopefully we'll get a heads up view of the control panels soon.
-
Interesting pictures, but not the best angles. Hopefully better ones will be released soon, and with more seats than two.
-
interior of this capsule looks terrible :(
-
Interesting pictures, but not the best angles. Hopefully better ones will be released soon, and with more seats than two.
Actually, I would like to see how they are really going to hang the display and control panels. The current mounting scheme doesn't look like it would survive either takeoff or landing. I would imagine those controls would end up in an astronaut's lap (or on his/her head) if a more secure mounting method is not used.
-
...hopefully we'll get a heads up view of the control panels soon.
Boeing considers the layout of the console to be proprietary, so while we were able to look at it, the company requested no photography of the controls.
Interesting pictures, but not the best angles. Hopefully better ones will be released soon, and with more seats than two.
The capsule is currently configured for this week's suit tests with only the two seats and pads for where the three other seats are located. While CST-100 can support up to a crew of seven, NASA's current requirements are for four seats and Boeing's preferred crew-to-cargo configuration is five seats.
There aren't many more angles to be shown, though we'll have an expanded photo gallery on collectSPACE on Tuesday (as well as an interview with Chris Ferguson).
-
The testing was done July 8 at Bigelow Aerospace in North Las Vegas, Nev., as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative.
The funny thing is, after pulling up the old satellite pictures of the Bigelow Facility on Google Earth, that pool looks finished in 2003! Was it possible that Bigelow has been testing some form of crew transportation for the better part of a decade?
ancient info
-
Boeing Reveals Interior of New Commercial Space Capsulehttp://news.yahoo.com/boeing-reveals-interior-commercial-space-capsule-175138134.html (http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-reveals-interior-commercial-space-capsule-175138134.html)
-
interior of this capsule looks terrible :(
Compared to what ??? I actually think it looks much better than Dragon's. Better lighting and nicer looking seats :)
-
interior of this capsule looks terrible :(
Compared to what ??? I actually think it looks much better than Dragon's. Better lighting and nicer looking seats :)
I think that both Boeing and SpaceX have a hidden obsession in making their interiors look like something out of Star Trek. ;D
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
-
"Faux news" video: Boeing unveils new spacecraft > http://youtu.be/X87vFJP5Gvc
Can't seem to embed video's anymore :'(
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
Not quite the same state of development, it would seem. When new Dragon mockup pictures are released (now that they are finalizing the pressure/space suits), I think it will look more... finished. (instead of a raw aluminum pressure hull interior)
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
Not quite the same state of development, it would seem. When new Dragon mockup pictures are released (now that they are finalizing the pressure/space suits), I think it will look more... finished. (instead of a raw aluminum pressure hull interior)
Isn't that about the interior finish a little backwards?
Wasn't the Dragon mockup in a pressure vessel, probably an early prototype, while the CST-100 is a full mock-up? It looks cleaner because it has no real "bones" whereas almost all the "Dragon" had was bones?
Now CST-100 has someone in a fairly representational pressure suit on a pretty realistic looking couch, but weren't the Dragon crew photos are from farther back in the process?
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
Not quite the same state of development, it would seem. When new Dragon mockup pictures are released (now that they are finalizing the pressure/space suits), I think it will look more... finished. (instead of a raw aluminum pressure hull interior)
Fair enough but still the seating arrangement in the CST-100 IMO will allow for a classier looking interior and Boeing have a lot of experience in designing interiors of aerospace vehicles. From this pic of the CST-100 mock up I just can't see any space capsule looking much better. http://i.space.com/images/i/000/031/032/i02/boeing-cst100-interior-mockup.jpg?1374511506
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
Not quite the same state of development, it would seem. When new Dragon mockup pictures are released (now that they are finalizing the pressure/space suits), I think it will look more... finished. (instead of a raw aluminum pressure hull interior)
Fair enough but still the seating arrangement in the CST-100 IMO will allow for a classier looking interior and Boeing have a lot of experience in designing interiors of aerospace vehicles. From this pic of the CST-100 mock up I just can't see any space capsule looking much better. http://i.space.com/images/i/000/031/032/i02/boeing-cst100-interior-mockup.jpg?1374511506
It's just a different layout... (rows next to or below the "top" row) Lets see how it looks with 5 more seats in there. :D
-
I hope people aren't comparing the dressed-up mockup CST-100 to the actual cargo Dragon.
No I'm comparing the "dressed-up mockup CST-100" to the mock up dragon rider see here>http://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2012/post-347280-0-24838100-1336439809.jpg
Not quite the same state of development, it would seem. When new Dragon mockup pictures are released (now that they are finalizing the pressure/space suits), I think it will look more... finished. (instead of a raw aluminum pressure hull interior)
Fair enough but still the seating arrangement in the CST-100 IMO will allow for a classier looking interior and Boeing have a lot of experience in designing interiors of aerospace vehicles. From this pic of the CST-100 mock up I just can't see any space capsule looking much better. http://i.space.com/images/i/000/031/032/i02/boeing-cst100-interior-mockup.jpg?1374511506
It's just a different layout... (rows next to or below the "top" row) Lets see how it looks with 5 more seats in there. :D
"It's just a different layout" layout makes all the difference. Dragon will be mutton dressed as lamb! :D Think of it this way Dragon is a delivery van converted into a people carrier and CST-100 is a people carrier from the...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
"get go"
-
NASA video: Boeing's CST-100 Unveiled to the World > http://youtu.be/VdQfdKkr46U
-
Dragon was designed from the get-go as a people carrier. It has gotten early use as a cargo vehicle, and the crew version is modified with lessons learned from the experience.
And classy? Who's to say crewed Dragon wouldn't be cooler? Musk is basically responsible for the Tesla Model S. But really, that shouldn't matter. Who the heck cares what's more classy? What's classy to me is a spaceship that can go places and which can actually afford to be used (both CST-100 and Dragon fit those requirements, though arguably Dragon does a little better especially on the last one).
-
thanks to collectspace for the photos.
-
interior of this capsule looks terrible :(
Compared to what ??? I actually think it looks much better than Dragon's. Better lighting and nicer looking seats :)
I think that both Boeing and SpaceX have a hidden obsession in making their interiors look like something out of Star Trek. ;D
You may be right but all of this discussion carries little weight until if and when they fly. Right now Soyuz has them both beat.
-
Pretty awesome looking - though we all know it will get crammed with other sh*t when the time comes and look more like everything else.
-
NASA video: Boeing's CST-100 Unveiled to the World > http://youtu.be/VdQfdKkr46U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdQfdKkr46U&feature=youtu.be
-
John Ive redesigns spaceships.... :)
All nice and empty and white.
-
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/359384106498404352/photo/1
-
Water recovery test video:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/07/bds_cst100_07_22_13.page
-
I am digging the blue LEDs, though. ;)
-
Now CST-100 has someone in a fairly representational pressure suit on a pretty realistic looking couch, but weren't the Dragon crew photos are from farther back in the process?
It's just a modified ACES, in fact it looks like the same one's that are being used for the Orion mock-up tests.
-
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/359384106498404352/photo/1
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=66095
NASA's uploaded several more.
-
Ars Technica article
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/ars-hops-in-boeings-commercial-space-spaceship-the-cst-100/
-
Now CST-100 has someone in a fairly representational pressure suit on a pretty realistic looking couch, but weren't the Dragon crew photos are from farther back in the process?
Yes, the Dragon trials were late 2011 to early 2012 under CCDev-1 CCDev-2 (non-funded milestones #5 and #7).
-
I'm happy now NASA has uploaded pics.
Can launch rockets, can't upload a high resolution picture seems to be normal in spaceflight these days. Drives me bonkers.
Now I can tell there's a mini astronaut MMU in the window. Ahhhh details ;D
-
...hopefully we'll get a heads up view of the control panels soon.
Boeing considers the layout of the console to be proprietary, so while we were able to look at it, the company requested no photography of the controls.
Interesting pictures, but not the best angles. Hopefully better ones will be released soon, and with more seats than two.
The capsule is currently configured for this week's suit tests with only the two seats and pads for where the three other seats are located. While CST-100 can support up to a crew of seven, NASA's current requirements are for four seats and Boeing's preferred crew-to-cargo configuration is five seats.
There aren't many more angles to be shown, though we'll have an expanded photo gallery on collectSPACE on Tuesday (as well as an interview with Chris Ferguson).
Based on what we can see, and the video, a mostly glass panel flanked on either side by smaller panels with banks of shuttle type switches. We can gauge the size and the types on information displayed, but not how the software would display it. The Ars Technica article reports the displays are merely printed paper on this mockup.
-
I'm happy now NASA has uploaded pics.
Can launch rockets, can't upload a high resolution picture seems to be normal in spaceflight these days. Drives me bonkers.
Now I can tell there's a mini astronaut MMU in the window. Ahhhh details ;D
Nice catch! ;)
-
I like the mike hanging down from the tunnel. Avionics?? :)
-
Liked the mike too. The interior looks neat and spacious until you remember the power of wide angle lenses. The Ars Technica author commented on how crowded it would be with a full crew (but in zero G for 6 hours, not a big deal.)
-
Liked the mike too. The interior looks neat and spacious until you remember the power of wide angle lenses. The Ars Technica author commented on how crowded it would be with a full crew (but in zero G for 6 hours, not a big deal.)
Yep, all of the prospective commercial crew vehicles will get quite packed with a crew of seven. I have attached an image which shows how 7 would be seated: (top row of 3, then 4 below their feet) The wider diameter of the CST-100 compared to Dragon allows this kind of seating, whereas the Dragon cabin compensates by being taller, thus two levels. (bottom image)
Both seating arrangements have their pros/cons, so it will be interesting to see more final/complete mockups with all seats in place to judge how much space there is left.
-
In the picture of YG & Spectre: is that a couch on the right? IF yes: why, if not what is it?
-
In the picture of YG & Spectre: is that a couch on the right? IF yes: why, if not what is it?
Those flat padded areas are where the other seats would be (see pic in my post above) - it is probably just there to allow easier movement in the cabin.
-
Yep, all of the prospective commercial crew vehicles will get quite packed with a crew of seven.
NASA's original requirement was one to seven crew members, but no longer. The requirement is now one to four crew members. Boeing is moving forward with a four-seat configuration, with a possible fifth for Bigelow and other commercial missions. I imagine Dragon and Sierra Nevada will follow suit.
-
His other spaceship was a shuttle: Former astronaut helms Boeing space capsule
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-072313a.html
Two years after climbing out of the last ship to launch him into orbit, Chris Ferguson was back in a spacecraft on Monday (July 22).
Ferguson, who as commander of NASA's orbiter Atlantis landed the space shuttle program's final mission on July 21, 2011, is retired as an astronaut and is now working at Boeing. There, he is leading development of a commercial space capsule designed to pick up where the shuttle left off.
"Two years and one day... I will tell you, it has gone by so fast," Ferguson says. "But if you can't fly 'em, you might as well build 'em."
On Monday, Ferguson got his first chance to go inside a mockup of the spacecraft he and his team are building, dubbed the CST-100.
-
A great article, collectSPACE.
(Although I wish you would make your site layout a wee bit more flexible... Reading a very thin single column where there is lots of space just means a LOT of scrolling)
-
Thanks. (We've been experimenting with a wider template, e.g. here (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-071713a.html).)
-
More NASA images
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
-
Guys, please continue the discussion in thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.0)