Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion  (Read 713602 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1180 on: 01/27/2013 02:29 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 01/27/2013 02:34 am by Patchouli »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1181 on: 01/27/2013 05:20 am »


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.

Online BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1182 on: 02/06/2013 09:34 pm »
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1183 on: 02/06/2013 09:45 pm »
They've said multiple times that the CST-100 capsule will be reused. That's part of the motivation for land-based recovery.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1184 on: 02/10/2013 03:29 am »
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).
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 01:12 am by yg1968 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1185 on: 02/10/2013 11:39 am »
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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

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

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1186 on: 02/10/2013 09:32 pm »
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.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1187 on: 02/10/2013 09:47 pm »
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
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1188 on: 02/10/2013 10:28 pm »
Weird to have a scoring feature and not advertise it...

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1189 on: 02/11/2013 12:18 am »
Trunk upmass is not a requirement for the crewed capsule if I remember correctly.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1190 on: 02/11/2013 12:23 am »
It could make abort /slightly/ trickier, so I understand why they aren't blabbing about it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1191 on: 02/11/2013 12:54 am »
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. 

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1192 on: 02/11/2013 12:55 am »
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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1193 on: 02/11/2013 06:41 am »
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.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1194 on: 02/12/2013 03:16 am »
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.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1195 on: 03/23/2013 06:21 pm »
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.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1196 on: 03/24/2013 12:13 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2013 12:19 am by deltaV »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1197 on: 03/24/2013 01:24 am »
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

Quote
>
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.
>
« Last Edit: 03/24/2013 01:26 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1198 on: 03/24/2013 01:35 am »
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion
« Reply #1199 on: 03/24/2013 04:11 am »
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0