Author Topic: SpaceX and Boeing in home stretch for Commercial Crew readiness  (Read 2647 times)


Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2043
  • Likes Given: 2432
I didn't see any mention of the debate and concern about whether crew should be loaded before fueling on the Falcon 9, or after the Falcon 9 is loaded.

Maybe this question has been resolved, or maybe NASA is waiting for the final Falcon 9 Block 5 certification process before they decide?

Also, it would seem like Foreign Object Damage (FOD) mitigation in space has already been designed into both spacecraft, so regardless what NASA wants the hardware is as protective as it can be (i.e. no one plans on adding layers of reactive armor in the future). Could it be that it's the method of calculating the FOD dangers that is still being debated?

Overall though, it's exciting to be getting closer to both of these vehicles being made operational.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2017 02:26 AM by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 401
Excellent article filled with meaty details. Thanks to Chris G., Brady, and Nathan for their wonderful work. The long night for humans launched from US soil will soon be over.  :)
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4380
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 790
I didn't see mention of an in-flight abort for the starliner?
Tony De La Rosa

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1949
  • USA
  • Liked: 1181
  • Likes Given: 469
I didn't see mention of an in-flight abort for the starliner?
That's because there isn't one. SpaceX decided to do their own, NASA didn't require it. Boeing is only doing a Pad Abort.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Ike17055

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
I saw one comment recently that stated that the lauch of commercial crew as planned will represent the first manned launches from Cape Canaveral (all others being from KSC) since Apollo 7. Is that correct?

Offline Flying Beaver

I saw one comment recently that stated that the lauch of commercial crew as planned will represent the first manned launches from Cape Canaveral (all others being from KSC) since Apollo 7. Is that correct?

For Starliner, from LC-41, yes it would be. All US manned launches since Apollo 7 have been from LC-39 A or B.

Saw OG-2 Booster Land in person 21/12/2015.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12550
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3344
  • Likes Given: 559
I saw one comment recently that stated that the lauch of commercial crew as planned will represent the first manned launches from Cape Canaveral (all others being from KSC) since Apollo 7. Is that correct?

For Starliner, from LC-41, yes it would be. All US manned launches since Apollo 7 have been from LC-39 A or B.
This may be the place to mention that the Cape was still officially named "Cape Kennedy" at the time of the Apollo 7 launch.  Technically, Mercury Atlas 9 was, I think, the last manned mission from the place when it was still named "Cape Canaveral".  The name reverted to "Cape Canaveral" in 1973 or thereabouts.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/14/2017 03:57 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Ike17055

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
Was the "kennedy" moniker applied to the geographic location of the Cape itself, or to the Air Force station, or both? Regardless, this means Starliner will restore manned flight to the Cape after a 50-year absence. Impressive.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31130
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9387
  • Likes Given: 296
Was the "kennedy" moniker applied to the geographic location of the Cape itself, or to the Air Force station, or both? Regardless, this means Starliner will restore manned flight to the Cape after a 50-year absence. Impressive.

It applied to the land mass, AF Station and Space Center. 

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3852
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1030
Near the end, this excellent article says
Quote
some incremental upgrades, like increased engine thrust will debut next week on the CRS-12 launch,
Now that CRS-12 has flown, was there any evidence that this was, in fact, the case?
Several discussions seem to coming to the conclusion that CRS-12 had no greater thrust than CRS-11.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 1004
  • Likes Given: 674
Near the end, this excellent article says
Quote
some incremental upgrades, like increased engine thrust will debut next week on the CRS-12 launch,
Now that CRS-12 has flown, was there any evidence that this was, in fact, the case?
Several discussions seem to coming to the conclusion that CRS-12 had no greater thrust than CRS-11.

There's evidence that the upper stage ran at higher thrust: it staged slower yet got to orbital velocity 10 seconds faster.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2199
  • Likes Given: 445
Several discussions seem to coming to the conclusion that CRS-12 had no greater thrust than CRS-11.

Here's the link to LouScheffer's analysis for those interested:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42878.msg1713683#msg1713683

Tags: