NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 01:32 PM

Title: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 01:32 PM
Boeing will announce the selection of its rocket for the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 on Thursday, August 4 at noon Eastern Time (11 a.m. Central Time, 9 a.m. Pacific Time). 

Three test flights will be flown with this rocket in 2015.  With sufficient funding and selection for a development contract, Boeing expects to provide an operational capability to transport crews to and from the International Space Station in 2015.   

Article after the announcement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 01:35 PM
SpaceX is now in a race and it isn't one agaist a 'competitor' (NASA) that has already abandoned any pretence of actually attempting to complete the course, let alone win the race.  I wonder if they'll be ready to step up?

So... There you have it ladies and gentlemen: The Space Race in the 1950s was the USA vs. the Soviet Union.  The Space Race in the 2010s will be SpaceX vs. Boeing and ULA.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 01:36 PM
The three choices

Edit: anyone find the announcement before a major Atlas V to coincidental?  I think not.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 01:39 PM
Good time for a office pool.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 01:40 PM
The smart money is on Atlas V. Would be a real shock if it was F9, given the history between those two companies.

Mass hysteria if it's Liberty ;D
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: EE Scott on 08/04/2011 01:44 PM
The obvious choice - Atlas V - is already being reported as having been selected, according to sources:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110804/NEWS02/108040305/Today-Boeing-expected-reveal-Atlas-V-will-carry-next-crew-capsule
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 01:44 PM
WEll if we are going with a poll, will do a ranking:

1. Atlas V
2. Delta IV
3. Falcon 9

Liberty.... well hard to baseline for a rocket that does not exist yet.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Blackjax on 08/04/2011 01:46 PM
I don't know how likely it is, but this article is certainly intriguing.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/08/03/will-boeing-choose-atlas-v-or-liberty-to-launch-cst-100/
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/04/2011 01:51 PM
Here's the fourth contestant.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 01:55 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

Either the Boeing capsule will be less than 10 tons, or ULA is going to have to develop a new system to accommodate the extra weight for Atlas V.

This is ignoring the issue of the 2 engine Centaur.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: demorcef on 08/04/2011 02:30 PM
Boy they are sure going to have to crank out a bunch of Atlas V's in the near future.  It is about to become a very popular rocket for manned spaceflight!
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/04/2011 02:34 PM
What's the maximum capacity of the Atlas V production lines?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: SpacexULA on 08/04/2011 02:40 PM
Boy they are sure going to have to crank out a bunch of Atlas V's in the near future.  It is about to become a very popular rocket for manned spaceflight!

About time :)

Atlas V was not designed with low production runs in mind.  Will be nice to see what happens to their unit costs if they get into double digit a year launch rates.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 02:44 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 03:04 PM

What, no Taurus II in the list?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/04/2011 03:13 PM

What, no Taurus II in the list?

Not enough capacity, solid upper stage, no flight history, lack of spacecraft processing facilities near pad.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 03:29 PM

What, no Taurus II in the list?

Not enough capacity, solid upper stage, no flight history, lack of spacecraft processing facilities near pad.

IIRC, OSC were planning to move Taurus-II launches to KSC in the fullness of time if Prometheus had received CCDev-2 funding.  It didn't so the point is moot now.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 03:30 PM
Is there going to be a webcast for the announcement?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 03:38 PM
Is there going to be a webcast for the announcement?

No, media only teleconference. I don't have time to do this one, presser note came at really short notice.

There will be a press release soon.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 03:40 PM
Is there going to be a webcast for the announcement?

No, media only teleconference. I don't have time to do this one, presser note came at really short notice.

There will be a press release soon.
Thanks Chris
Robert :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/04/2011 03:40 PM
Here's the fourth contestant.

Many seem to hate Ares I/Liberty based merely on its looks. 

I submit that Atlas V/CST-100 looks good on paper, but is butt-ugly in appearance - one of the ugliest rocket/payload combinations yet seen!  A repulsive stump!  Liberty is a graceful beauty by comparison.  ;)

Then again, they all look good when flying.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:00 PM
(Bump as it's 9:00 PDT)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/04/2011 04:00 PM
And the winner is... Atlas!

Quote
Boeing Selects Atlas V Rocket for Initial Commercial Crew Launches
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1869
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:03 PM
Quote
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.

Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/04/2011 04:05 PM
Indeed. I also like how the CST-100 capsule is a "capsule-shaped spacecraft". :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Namechange User on 08/04/2011 04:05 PM
"If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding....".

Ah yes, commercial space flight is here.  :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/04/2011 04:05 PM
Quote
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.

Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...

Well, there's the rub.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 04:06 PM
And the winner is... Atlas!

Quote
Boeing Selects Atlas V Rocket for Initial Commercial Crew Launches
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1869

"Initial" - hmmm!
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/04/2011 04:08 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Namechange User on 08/04/2011 04:08 PM
"Initial" - hmmm!

That's the point of being "launch vehicle agnostic".  If they can get better rates with various vendors they'll jump to wherever.  No surprise that they went with Atlas first though. 
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 04:09 PM
Quote
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.

Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...

Couldn't it be this same approach?

http://www.orbital.com/HumanSpaceExplorationSystems/HumanSpaceSystems/OrionATB/
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Space Pete on 08/04/2011 04:11 PM
Atlas V is fast becoming my favourite unmanned rocket. That is all. :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Dappa on 08/04/2011 04:12 PM
Atlas V is fast becoming my favourite unmanned rocket. That is all. :)
Atlas V is fast becoming my favourite manned rocket! ;) (post-shuttle)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: simonbp on 08/04/2011 04:13 PM
The Orion ATB is like Little Joe I and Little Joe II before it in that it's a specifically-designed booster that is nearly exhausted when the abort test takes place. What Boeing is doing is launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/04/2011 04:13 PM
So what does the future hold for the Delta IV? Looks like it's the loser in all the CCDEV choices. Is there enough other business for it to remain viable?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 04:14 PM
Well that was predictable... ::)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 04:15 PM
The Orion ATB is like Little Joe I and Little Joe II before it in that it's a specifically-designed booster that is nearly exhausted when the abort test takes place. What Boeing is doing is launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

Does it say that somewhere?  I didn't see that in the release but maybe it's well-known from elsewhere.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 04:15 PM
So what does the future hold for the Delta IV? Looks like it's the loser in all the CCDEV choices. Is there enough other business for it to remain viable?

Its existence is not contingent on commercial crew.

CCDev is not the proper term.  It is only a development project
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 04:16 PM
The Orion ATB is like Little Joe I and Little Joe II before it in that it's a specifically-designed booster that is nearly exhausted when the abort test takes place. What Boeing is doing is launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.
Can I push the button? :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: TimL on 08/04/2011 04:16 PM
Been mine since being there in attendance for the very first flight. She's just plain ol' sexy in the copper skin and can't beat that leap off the pad in the 551 configuration! :D
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Longhorn John on 08/04/2011 04:16 PM
I hope this doesn't beat AV and Dream Chaser in the competition selections.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Terry Rocket on 08/04/2011 04:18 PM
I hope this doesn't beat AV and Dream Chaser in the competition selections.

Agreed. From a public interest level, this capsule on the top is about as inspiring as a wet fart compared to Dream Chaser.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 04:18 PM
Atlas V is fast becoming my favourite unmanned rocket. That is all. :)
Atlas V is fast becoming my favourite manned rocket! ;) (post-shuttle)
It has been Jim's for years, you have been assimilated ;)

I love the test as you fly instead of testing the abort system on a sounding rocket. I think this is a first in US manned spaceflight.

What I like out of this, it finally means the work needed to bring Dual Engine Centaur to the Atlas V will finally be done.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/04/2011 04:22 PM
So what does the future hold for the Delta IV? Looks like it's the loser in all the CCDEV choices. Is there enough other business for it to remain viable?

Its existence is not contingent on commercial crew.

CCDev is not the proper term.  It is only a development project

Thanks Jim. Glad to hear that Delta remains viable.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 04:23 PM
So what does the future hold for the Delta IV? Looks like it's the loser in all the CCDEV choices. Is there enough other business for it to remain viable?

That's a question that we've been discussion on various EELV-oriented threads.  Purely FWIW, I suspect that being 'All-American' (i.e. no pesky Energomash or NK Engines core engines), Delta-IV will still get some DoD business to secure its future for the short-term (until ~2020).  Indeed, the selection of Atlas-V-412 by Boeing actually improves Delta-IV's prospects as fewer Atlas-V launch slots will be available for DoD and other USG cargo payloads.  Long term, DoD is looking to develop such goodies as fly-back boosters and such things, so the EELVs will likely be replaced by the 2030s.


I hope this doesn't beat AV and Dream Chaser in the competition selections.

Seriously, CST-100 might look boring but that isn't a bad thing from an engineering standpoint.  If we learn nothing else from Shuttle it is that those winning looks tend to bring with it programatic and engineering risk.  Right now, low-risk, high-confidence is the solution NASA needs.  Purely IMHO, that means CST-100/Atlas-V.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 04:23 PM
I feel NASA has a warm spot for Dream Chaser and could use the excuse of new technology demonstrator....
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: robertross on 08/04/2011 04:25 PM
Quote
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.

Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...

Yeah, I thought that was impressive, and I like it. Real world beats simulations any day.

woot for Atlas V!!
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Space Pete on 08/04/2011 04:27 PM
Apparently, two lucky Boeing test pilots will get to fly the CST-100 to the ISS on its first crewed flight!

I'm sure there will be room for a third tag-along ISS fan who could blog the whole thing for NSF - no fee required, I'll sign any waiver you want! ;D
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 04:29 PM
Apparently, two lucky Boeing test pilots will get to fly the CST-100 to the ISS on its first crewed flight!

I'm sure there will be room for a third tag-along ISS fan who could blog the whole thing for NSF - no fee required, I'll sign any waiver you want! ;D
It will require a fair and open competition in 6 years... :D
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/04/2011 04:35 PM
I thought they were designing CST-100 to be compatible with several launch vehicles?

Or is this just a formal announcement for the initial test flights?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 04:37 PM
If CST-100 does end up flying, it is another potential cargo craft.  It might not be volumetricly efficient but it will be another option.


OSP mark II.
The return of the black zone busters
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 04:38 PM
I thought they were designing CST-100 to be compatible with several launch vehicles?

As I understand it, it could operate with several vehicles.

Or is this just a formal announcement for the initial test flights?

Again, as I understand it, this is the selected initial launch provider for all missions.  Boeing are smart enough to leave the door open if another LV comes along that is cheaper and offers an acceptable level of reliability but it's Atlas for now.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/04/2011 04:42 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: EE Scott on 08/04/2011 04:47 PM
If CST-100 does end up flying, it is another potential cargo craft.  It might not be volumetricly efficient but it will be another option.


OSP mark II.
The return of the black zone busters

I surely appreciate the optimism.  This version may cost less than Mark I would have but it will take longer than necessary.  Maybe that's OK.  Yet a more robust funding structure would speed things up drastically - but also change the nature of the program as well.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 04:48 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle

That's one reason for the LAS, right?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/04/2011 04:48 PM
The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

But Liberty's solid first stage doesn't?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: EE Scott on 08/04/2011 04:51 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle

I wonder what, if any, safety upgrades will be made to the Aerojet Atlas SRBs?  They've already gone through one upgrade process to increase reliability if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: MP99 on 08/04/2011 04:58 PM
I don't know how likely it is, but this article is certainly intriguing.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/08/03/will-boeing-choose-atlas-v-or-liberty-to-launch-cst-100/

Interested in the comment "[t]he upgraded boosters that had been developed under Ares I would be cheaper because they incorporated changes that NASA had not allowed to be used on the shuttle version."

What would those changes be?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Prober on 08/04/2011 04:59 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle

The Atlas V could be the answer, only problem is that term "funding"

Does this mean to go forward 3 sets of engines would need to be "man rated" ?

The other problem is the RD-180.  IMHO Boeing screwed up by seling Rocketdyne.  Had they kept Rocketdyne they could compete with SpaceX on costs.


Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: e of pi on 08/04/2011 05:18 PM
Apparently, two lucky Boeing test pilots will get to fly the CST-100 to the ISS on its first crewed flight!

I'm sure there will be room for a third tag-along ISS fan who could blog the whole thing for NSF - no fee required, I'll sign any waiver you want! ;D

Press to Orbit indeed. :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/04/2011 05:23 PM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 05:26 PM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/04/2011 05:29 PM
Does it need a real RL-10 though, or would some mockup/mass simulator suffice?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 05:37 PM
Does it need a real RL-10 though, or would some mockup/mass simulator suffice?

Would probably depend on where they do the abort, however would like to know whether or not the range would still need to activate the destruct device, and whether or not a centaur could continue to orbit after the simulated abort (ride for CRYOTE?)
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 05:44 PM
Has anyone seen any decent hi res images of Atlas with CST-100?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: JosephB on 08/04/2011 05:50 PM
Has anyone seen any decent hi res images of Atlas with CST-100?

with the single solid?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/04/2011 05:51 PM
Would probably depend on where they do the abort,

At max drag , probably, close to Mach 1 (like they say in the presser, transonic).

Quote

 however would like to know whether or not the range would still need to activate the destruct device,

TLYF ? they probably will.

Quote
and whether or not a centaur could continue to orbit after the simulated abort (ride for CRYOTE?)

No way. IMO.

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/04/2011 05:52 PM
Would probably depend on where they do the abort

I would think they'd want do the abort test at max-Q which is well within 1st stage burn. Centaur's primary purpose would then be to provide guidance to the vehicle and provide a large s#!tload of explosive stuff.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: erioladastra on 08/04/2011 05:59 PM
Apparently, two lucky Boeing test pilots will get to fly the CST-100 to the ISS on its first crewed flight!

I'm sure there will be room for a third tag-along ISS fan who could blog the whole thing for NSF - no fee required, I'll sign any waiver you want! ;D

I think you misheard or misread something.  The first manned flight isn't planned to dock to ISS.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Space Pete on 08/04/2011 06:02 PM
I think you misheard or misread something.  The first manned flight isn't planned to dock to ISS.

Ah, I see - so just a rendezvous, and no docking?

I'd still take that. :D
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 06:04 PM
Has anyone seen any decent hi res images of Atlas with CST-100?

with the single solid?

Doesn't have to be, just need something for the lead image.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/04/2011 06:14 PM
The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

But Liberty's solid first stage doesn't?

A strap-on booster adds failure modes compared to a straight two-stage launch vehicle.  Liberty would be a two stage rocket with one motor and one liquid engine.  Atlas 421 will be a 2.5 stage rocket with one solid strap-on motor and three liquid engines using four thrust chambers/nozzles.  More components and separation events equals more failure modes.

From ESAS: 

"Augmentation of the medium-lift class systems with solid strap-on boosters ... poses an issue for crew safety regarding small strap-on Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) reliability, as determined by the Orbital Space Plane-ELV (OSP–ELV) Flight Safety Certification Study report, dated March 2004"

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 06:28 PM
Frankly, Ed, I would be more willing to trust my safety to the Aerojet SRB (or even the ATK GEMs) with dozens of missions between them, than the RSRM-V-inline which has none and has serious flight dynamic issues that may make an abort during burn impossible.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: marsavian on 08/04/2011 06:34 PM
So what does the future hold for the Delta IV? Looks like it's the loser in all the CCDEV choices. Is there enough other business for it to remain viable?

That's a question that we've been discussion on various EELV-oriented threads.  Purely FWIW, I suspect that being 'All-American' (i.e. no pesky Energomash or NK Engines core engines), Delta-IV will still get some DoD business to secure its future for the short-term (until ~2020).  Indeed, the selection of Atlas-V-412 by Boeing actually improves Delta-IV's prospects as fewer Atlas-V launch slots will be available for DoD and other USG cargo payloads.  Long term, DoD is looking to develop such goodies as fly-back boosters and such things, so the EELVs will likely be replaced by the 2030s.


There's a long term elephant in the room when it comes to Atlas V and that is the long term supply of cheap RD-180s. 101 were ordered and 50 have been delivered so far at a unit cost of around $10m each. The Russians have recently complained they are being sold at half production cost so expect any new ones after the batch of 101 to start at $30+m. This will change the future cost equation against Delta IV especially the RS-68A ones and steps are also being taken to make their manufacturing cheaper too as part of the ULA arrangement.

http://www.aeroworld.net/5th06177.htm
http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/engines/rd180/
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110512-fromwires-engine-maker-half-cost-sales.html
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 06:35 PM
My article on the announcement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 06:41 PM
My article on the announcement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/

Good article, Chris!
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 06:44 PM
This will change the future cost equation against Delta IV especially the RS-68A ones and steps are also being taken to make their manufacturing cheaper too as part of the ULA arrangement.


still not enough to make Delta IV competitive.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 06:46 PM
@ marsavian,

Agreed that the RD-180 supply would dry up a lot quicker.  That is obviouisly something that would have to be remedied as a matter of priority.

That said, there is some talk about ultimately replacing the 'stock' -180, either with US-built RD-180s or some other US-built engine.  2 x AJ-26-500 has been mentioned but I don't know with how much authority.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: KEdward5 on 08/04/2011 06:47 PM
My article on the announcement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/

Good article, Chris!

Liked that too. Love the subheadline "Atlas V For The Win" (FTW) ;D
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/04/2011 06:52 PM
Heh, thanks. Atlas V is doing an impression of Charlie Sheen, lately.

Dream Chaser, Blue Origin, CST-100.....Winning!

(http://www.nonpopulist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Charlie-SHEEN-WINNING-CHICKS-Warming-Glow.jpg)
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Martin FL on 08/04/2011 07:03 PM
Brilliant! Just sat coke all over the desk at that :D
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/04/2011 07:21 PM
Frankly, Ed, I would be more willing to trust my safety to the Aerojet SRB (or even the ATK GEMs) with dozens of missions between them, than the RSRM-V-inline which has none and has serious flight dynamic issues that may make an abort during burn impossible.

The Atlas V solids don't have a lot of flight experience.  Tomorrow's planned Atlas 551 launch will represent 16-ish percent of all Atlas V solids flown.  Atlas V has 26 flights under its belt.  Only 12 of those used strap-on solid motors. 

Delta II had two failures, both involving strap-on solids.  The first didn't happen until more than 40 flights into the program, by which time more than 350 solids had powered Delta II rockets. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/04/2011 07:24 PM
Kind of interesting CST-100 needs both DEC and 1 solid. Weren't there some folks running around here saying the solid solution would only need to last until DEC flies?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 07:26 PM
Brilliant! Just sat coke all over the desk at that :D
Dust buster should clean up the powder ;)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: simonbp on 08/04/2011 07:29 PM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.
A full live Centaur would not be required there.
But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

And if that's the case (test-what-you-fly), it means the transonic abort test would be with the single SRB too.

The burn time of the SRB is 94 seconds. By that point the vehicle is ~11 km up and quite supersonic. Thus, a transonic abort would have to occur while the SRB is still burning. Once the capsule has cleared the vehicle, Range Safety would presumably trigger the destruction of the CCB, causing the SRB to shoot off in a random direction. Does the SRB have a separate destruct mechanism, or would it just continue off?

The whole thing does seem like more of a publicity stunt than a real test, so that the marketing department can say, "Look! Our capsule can survive a massive fiery explosion!" Of course all the new media will show is the explosion, not the capsule parachuting down...
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lars_J on 08/04/2011 07:33 PM
Yep, I wonder how excited ULA is that Boeing wants to blow up one of their Atlas V's in mid-flight.

Sure, it will provide a LOT of useful data, but it could also be a publicity minefield.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 07:36 PM
I suspect that if this test is done at close to max-q, even if the RSO doesn't press the button, the aero forces would shred the vehicle. Though to properly do an end to end test, that includes activating the flight termination package.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/04/2011 07:38 PM
Sure, it will provide a LOT of useful data, but it could also be a publicity minefield.

That has occured to me as well. Maybe one of the ways to eliminate this is make this booster visually stand out from the others. Like big letters "THIS WAY UP" on the CCB or some other goofy thing like those crash test dummy yellow-black round markings  ;D
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 07:42 PM
Maybe one of the ways to eliminate this is make this booster visually stand out from the others. Like big letters "THIS WAY UP" on the CCB or some other goofy thing like those crash test dummy yellow-black round markings  ;D

You mean like for the last 747-8f test flight drawing a 747 across the mid west?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: hydra9 on 08/04/2011 07:57 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle

They also bother me for the SLS too! But I guess when you have a LAS-- anything goes:-)

But Boeing engineers have already contemplated deriving a simple crew launch booster from the SLS without SRBs.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/05/boeings-new-hlv-concept-could-be-dc-3.html

Plus I'm not so sure if Boeing executives really want the CST-100 to be dependent on launch vehicles  manufactured by other companies in the long run-- especially if space tourism really takes off. 

Marcel F. Williams
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:02 PM

Plus I'm not so sure if Boeing executives really want the CST-100 to be dependent on launch vehicles  manufactured by other companies in the long run-- especially if space tourism really takes off. 

Marcel F. Williams

Another clue less post.  You have a habit of spreading them everywhere.  What you are sure of doesn't mean squat and shows that you don't know squat either.

ULA is not" other companies".   Boeing owes 1/2 of ULA.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:05 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:05 PM

But Boeing engineers have already contemplated deriving a simple crew launch booster from the SLS without SRBs.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/05/boeings-new-hlv-concept-could-be-dc-3.html

Contemplated is as far as that idea is going.  It is not SLS nor is NASA or Boeing going to build.  Why can you understand and accept it?
It is politically, economically and legality unacceptable.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:08 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.


Why wouldn't the 5XX be used?
Or a thicker Centaur can be used.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:10 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.


Why wouldn't the 5XX be used?
Or a thicker Centaur can be used.

The difference between the 4xx and 5xx series is the payload fairing used for the 5xx series - but the Boeing capsule cannot be accommodated inside the payload fairing; ergo, Boeing has already decided on using the 4xx series.

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:12 PM

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

yes, it can.  The skin gage for it and the old Atlas were changed at will to suit mission requirements in the past
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2011 08:14 PM

The difference between the 4xx and 5xx series is the payload fairing used for the 5xx series - but the Boeing capsule cannot be accommodated inside the payload fairing; ergo, Boeing has already decided on using the 4xx series.


A fairing can encapsulate just the Centaur, which was the  idea for OSP.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 08/04/2011 08:22 PM
Jim or any expert,
How does the 421 configuration (2 engine Centaur and 1 solid) help you?  Is it more payload to orbit?
Is it a more benign trajectory?
Is it something else?
How concerned would you be riding with a solid attached?  Is the performance/safety of the extra thrust worth any risk of a solid rocket? 

I guess Boeing believes that to be the case.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/04/2011 08:27 PM
I'm no expert but...

How does the 421 configuration (2 engine Centaur and 1 solid) help you?  Is it more payload to orbit?

It's 412 - PLF size, number of solids, number of engines on Centaur

The benefit is payload to orbit.  The 5m PLF weighs more and the Dual Engine Centaur has higher thrust meaning it sacrifices the ability to push things beyond LEO in exchange for pushing more to LEO.  The solid is just for extra thrust in the first ~75 seconds of flight.

There is an increased risk from using a solid rocket booster on the vehicle, although it is mostly a statistical issue.  That said, I imagine ULA would not have recommended the use of an SRM (especially not the asymmetrical 1-booster option) unless it was really necessary.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: marsavian on 08/04/2011 08:33 PM
They are also using dual-engine Centaur on all man-rated Atlas Vs for LOC/LOM and redundancy reasons I believe. Extra engine in case one doesn't fire at all on staging.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:49 PM

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

yes, it can.  The skin gage for it and the old Atlas were changed at will to suit mission requirements in the past

"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 08:50 PM
Jim or any expert,
How does the 421 configuration (2 engine Centaur and 1 solid) help you?  Is it more payload to orbit?


I am not an expert, but the 2nd engine helps mitigate gravity losses during early stages of Centaur flight.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/04/2011 08:54 PM
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.

Why not?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 08:59 PM
They are also using dual-engine Centaur on all man-rated Atlas Vs for LOC/LOM and redundancy reasons I believe. Extra engine in case one doesn't fire at all on staging.

Raised eyebrow... I suspect if an RL-10 fails for any reason, the other will be shut down and an abort will occur. It is better to cut ones losses and safely recover the crew than push a bad situation and risk a LOM.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Xplor on 08/04/2011 08:59 PM
I'm no expert but...

How does the 421 configuration (2 engine Centaur and 1 solid) help you?  Is it more payload to orbit?

It's 412 - PLF size, number of solids, number of engines on Centaur

The benefit is payload to orbit.  The 5m PLF weighs more and the Dual Engine Centaur has higher thrust meaning it sacrifices the ability to push things beyond LEO in exchange for pushing more to LEO.  The solid is just for extra thrust in the first ~75 seconds of flight.
 

Both the second RL10 and SRB increase performance to LEO.  The second RL10 also provides additional upper stage thrust allowing the trajectory to be depressed enhancing abort options.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/04/2011 09:03 PM
They are also using dual-engine Centaur on all man-rated Atlas Vs for LOC/LOM and redundancy reasons I believe. Extra engine in case one doesn't fire at all on staging.

Raised eyebrow... I suspect if an RL-10 fails for any reason, the other will be shut down and an abort will occur. It is better to cut ones losses and safely recover the crew than push a bad situation and risk a LOM.
Disagree. By pushing the button, you GUARANTEE loss of mission (LOM). If an engine goes out but the remaining one is capable of getting you to orbit, better not to abort. LAS systems aren't designed to be terribly safe when activated... they only are used incredibly rarely and only have a survival probability design of around 90%. Launch abort is NOT without risks!

If the other engine goes, THEN press the button.

If you abort the first time you have engine trouble, Shuttle would've likely aborted instead of completed the mission at a lower orbit once or twice. Other missions, too.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2011 09:03 PM
They are also using dual-engine Centaur on all man-rated Atlas Vs for LOC/LOM and redundancy reasons I believe. Extra engine in case one doesn't fire at all on staging.

Raised eyebrow... I suspect if an RL-10 fails for any reason, the other will be shut down and an abort will occur. It is better to cut ones losses and safely recover the crew than push a bad situation and risk a LOM.

You mean LOC?  An abort guarantees LOM.

An abort with a single RL-10 could potentially be safer than a LAS abort.  LAS aborts carry risks too.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Xplor on 08/04/2011 09:04 PM
Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.



While Atlas 4XY was only qualified to 20,000 lbs as part of the Atlas V development it can actually cary substantially more mass, both structurally and for performance reasons.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: FinalFrontier on 08/04/2011 09:04 PM
This is excellent news! The most reliable launcher wins out again, glad to hear they made this choice. Cannot wait to see cst 100 fly.

Big win for US HSF in general here.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/04/2011 09:06 PM
Disagree. By pushing the button, you GUARANTEE loss of mission (LOM). If an engine goes out but the remaining one is capable of getting you to orbit, better not to abort. LAS systems aren't designed to be terribly safe when activated... they only are used incredibly rarely and only have a survival probability design of around 90%. Launch abort is NOT without risks!

If the other engine goes, THEN press the button.

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen our experts say thrust vectoring capability would be insufficient to deal with an engine-out situation.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/04/2011 09:07 PM
Disagree. By pushing the button, you GUARANTEE loss of mission (LOM). If an engine goes out but the remaining one is capable of getting you to orbit, better not to abort. LAS systems aren't designed to be terribly safe when activated... they only are used incredibly rarely and only have a survival probability design of around 90%. Launch abort is NOT without risks!

If the other engine goes, THEN press the button.

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen our experts say thrust vectoring capability would be insufficient to deal with an engine-out situation.
Yes, but we were talking about the case where engine-out is a viable capability.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/04/2011 09:11 PM

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen our experts say thrust vectoring capability would be insufficient to deal with an engine-out situation.
Yes, but we were talking about the case where engine-out is a viable capability.

Can you point me to where in the announcement they said they would be adding enough vectoring for the DEC to continue on a single engine?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/04/2011 09:12 PM
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.


In a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure, the skin is very much structural.  In aircraft, that skin is often only a few thousands of an inch thick. 

So in a nutshell, yes it can.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: douglas100 on 08/04/2011 09:14 PM


Raised eyebrow... I suspect if an RL-10 fails for any reason, the other will be shut down and an abort will occur. It is better to cut ones losses and safely recover the crew than push a bad situation and risk a LOM.

I think that's right. In the past, if only one RL 10 lit the Centaur became uncontrollable. See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1321/1

I'm assuming that would be the same for a dual engined Centaur with Atlas V. In which case definite loss of mission.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: psloss on 08/04/2011 09:16 PM
Bill Harwood's story; includes quotes from the media telecon that underscore how this still remains in the web of the unresolved funding + priorities:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/70a70ae4a9cbfc79f89fb4ca7ab8f9ce-314.html
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/04/2011 09:18 PM

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen our experts say thrust vectoring capability would be insufficient to deal with an engine-out situation.
Yes, but we were talking about the case where engine-out is a viable capability.

Can you point me to where in the announcement they said they would be adding enough vectoring for the DEC to continue on a single engine?
I assumed that's what you were referring to. If there's no engine-out capability, obviously it goes without saying that you would abort if an engine fails.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: peter-b on 08/04/2011 09:19 PM
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

In other news, the Pope is Catholic.  I don't think anybody should have been surprised by this decision.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/04/2011 09:21 PM
...
 LAS systems aren't designed to be terribly safe when activated...


However an upper stage abort would not require activation of full thrust LAS.

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/04/2011 09:22 PM
...
 LAS systems aren't designed to be terribly safe when activated...


However an upper stage abort would not require activation of full thrust LAS.


It's still not terribly safe. If engine-out capability is available, better to take advantage of it. Keep the abort as a last resort.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/04/2011 09:24 PM
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

Made by ULA, which is co-owned by Boeing. And Atlas used to be built by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing. I think Boeing still has exclusive marketing rights to Delta for commercial clients and Lockheed Martin has the same rights for Atlas.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 09:26 PM
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

In other news, the Pope is Catholic.  I don't think anybody should have been surprised by this decision.

First of all it is ULA, which is half owned by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin.  Atlas V was originally a Lockheed LV and Delta IV was Boeing's LV, so don't know what you are getting at here. Atlas was clearly the winner in a technical stand point.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: peter-b on 08/04/2011 09:33 PM
Capsule made by Boeing to launch on launcher made by Boeing!

In other news, the Pope is Catholic.  I don't think anybody should have been surprised by this decision.
First of all it is ULA, which is half owned by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin.  Atlas V was originally a Lockheed LV and Delta IV was Boeing's LV, so don't know what you are getting at here. Atlas was clearly the winner in a technical stand point.
It was entirely obvious to me that Boeing would select a launcher in which they have a financial interest, which would mean either Delta IV, Atlas V or ;D SLS. Of the three, the only sane option was Atlas V, especially in the light of the recent announcement that ULA would look into human-rating it.

So I stick by my assertion that this announcement was a complete no-brainer.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/04/2011 09:43 PM
...
 Boeing owes 1/2 of ULA.


To whom ?!

lol
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: douglas100 on 08/04/2011 09:46 PM

Quote
It's still not terribly safe. If engine-out capability is available, better to take advantage of it. Keep the abort as a last resort.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe the Centaur has engine out capacity. If you know otherwise, could you post a link please?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/04/2011 10:03 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

Any Atlas V-4XX vehicle has a weight constraint of 20,000 lbs, regardless of how many Centaur engines or strap-ons are used. Its a structural constraint.

To remove the constraint, Atlas V-5XX is used, as the payload fairing can support the additional weight.  However, the Boeing capsule will not use a 5xx series Atlas.

How Boeing is going to get around that constraint is a mystery to me.


Why wouldn't the 5XX be used?
Or a thicker Centaur can be used.

The difference between the 4xx and 5xx series is the payload fairing used for the 5xx series - but the Boeing capsule cannot be accommodated inside the payload fairing; ergo, Boeing has already decided on using the 4xx series.

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

I guess I don't understand about a "thicker" Centaur. Is the second stage on the 5xx series also 5 meters wide, or do all Atlas V models use the same-sized structure second-stage ?

I thought with the ULA consolidation, I thought that they wanted to eventually eliminate the 4XX series, and go with the common 5M core size that Delta uses.

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/04/2011 10:19 PM
Whoa, they're actually going to do an in-flight abort test? That'll be interesting...

Sounds like there's going to be 4 test flights, including an off-the-pad abort, without a booster. Somewhere else, like White Sands? Or actually off *the* pad at LC-41?
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Prober on 08/04/2011 10:27 PM

As for a "thicker" Centaur, *rockets aren't Legos*, you can't just "thicken" a Centaur.

yes, it can.  The skin gage for it and the old Atlas were changed at will to suit mission requirements in the past
the fun Jim is back
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: xyz on 08/04/2011 10:33 PM
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lars_J on 08/04/2011 10:39 PM
Does anyone know what the timeline is for ULA to bring the dual-engine Centaur into service?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: xyz on 08/04/2011 10:41 PM
2015 of course
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Prober on 08/04/2011 10:56 PM
You must say one thing about Boeing, they are back in the game.  Someone has started doing some much needed PR work.

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 11:21 PM
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/04/2011 11:23 PM

I guess I don't understand about a "thicker" Centaur. Is the second stage on the 5xx series also 5 meters wide, or do all Atlas V models use the same-sized structure second-stage ?

I thought with the ULA consolidation, I thought that they wanted to eventually eliminate the 4XX series, and go with the common 5M core size that Delta uses.



The Centaur for the 5xx series and the 4xx series are identical - the difference is the payload fairing.

As for the Delta IV and the Atlas V 5xx, they both use "common cores", but the common cores are different.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: rsnellenberger on 08/04/2011 11:35 PM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2011 11:45 PM
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.


If DoD really wanted 2 engine Centaur they would have already paid for it.  2 engine Centaur is mostly for LEO, ISS orbit.  As well the second VIF is only really needed for commercial crew, DoD would only benefit from a second MLP.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/04/2011 11:45 PM
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.


In a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure, the skin is very much structural.  In aircraft, that skin is often only a few thousands of an inch thick. 

So in a nutshell, yes it can.

Absolutely it can.  All one has to do is look back at Atlas III.  Some of those "balloon tank" Atlas vehicles were topped by Centaur stages weighing nearly 23 tonnes (50,700 pounds), plus payloads plus fairings, etc..  Balloon tank Atlas used pressurized stainless steel tanks just like Centaur, though likely thicker gauge.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/04/2011 11:52 PM
Thinking about this proposal, it will probably lose, since a large portion of the costs involved are for improvements for Atlas V that NASA doesn't really need. DoD would benefit from a 2 engine Centaur and the strengthening of the Centaur structure, but not NASA.


If DoD really wanted 2 engine Centaur they would have already paid for it.  2 engine Centaur is mostly for LEO, ISS orbit.  As well the second VIF is only really needed for commercial crew, DoD would only benefit from a second MLP.
Nice pics... :)
Edit: Dual Centaur on Atlas III for reference
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: jongoff on 08/05/2011 12:14 AM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/05/2011 12:31 AM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon
Now that would be a potential public relations problem. You'd have every news station report about an unexpected explosion... and then forget to ever correct (or at least, never on the first page) that it was expected by the Red Team.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/05/2011 12:32 AM

Agreed.  I haven't read the rest of the thread, but if I wanted to test an in-flight abort, along with two other flights, I would have the red team not tell everyone else which flight was going to be the in-flight abort test....

~Jon

I would put one constraint on the red team though, it has to be far enough from the pad so the chances of pad damage are zero ;)
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/05/2011 12:33 AM
Would probably depend on where they do the abort

I would think they'd want do the abort test at max-Q ...

This live blog seems to confirm it:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/08/04/boeing-launcher-selection-telecon-live-blogging/

"ascent abort test at max dynamic pressure"
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/05/2011 12:44 AM
WRT to a "live" abort test, it seems to me that this sort of thing is going to be crazy-expensive and at the same time crazy-followed by the aerospace media.  As a result, it will only be done once.  Therefore, you'd need to do this at the point in the overall flight profile that offers the most-challenging "corner condition" so that you can use the data to certify the flight envelope to the greatest extent possible for the effort expended.  At first blush, doing the test at or very near to max-q is probably the best place to meet all the likely objectives.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Steve D on 08/05/2011 12:53 AM
WRT to a "live" abort test, it seems to me that this sort of thing is going to be crazy-expensive and at the same time crazy-followed by the aerospace media.  As a result, it will only be done once.  Therefore, you'd need to do this at the point in the overall flight profile that offers the most-challenging "corner condition" so that you can use the data to certify the flight envelope to the greatest extent possible for the effort expended.  At first blush, doing the test at or very near to max-q is probably the best place to meet all the likely objectives.

Has anyone ever done this? Tested an abort at or near Max-Q? If the test fails how would that affect manned space flight? We have counted on a system that was never really put to the test and it didn't work?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/05/2011 12:55 AM

Has anyone ever done this? Tested an abort at or near Max-Q? If the test fails how would that affect manned space flight? We have counted on a system that was never really put to the test and it didn't work?

I thought that was the point of the Little Joe flights during Apollo...
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 12:56 AM
Little Joe I and II and Big Joe
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/05/2011 12:56 AM
Some history...

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/appb.htm
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 01:02 AM
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.

Spacecraft load is not carried by the fairing
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/05/2011 01:03 AM
WRT to a "live" abort test, it seems to me that this sort of thing is going to be crazy-expensive and at the same time crazy-followed by the aerospace media.  As a result, it will only be done once.  Therefore, you'd need to do this at the point in the overall flight profile that offers the most-challenging "corner condition" so that you can use the data to certify the flight envelope to the greatest extent possible for the effort expended.  At first blush, doing the test at or very near to max-q is probably the best place to meet all the likely objectives.

3 test launches in one year is going to be expensive, but the abort test doesn't really add to the cost at all, since the launcher isn't reusable. I don't believe the CST-100 will be reusable at first either, so they are investing in 3 fully instrumented Atlas V 421 launchers and CST-100 capsules. But, they are also setting the bar on the requirements for Safety testing. Perhaps SpaceX and Dream Chaser will be required to perform the same abort tests before they are allowed to carry humans.

I have the same feeling about the ULA space act agreement. They didn't get any NASA funding, but they did get gain the ability to help set the NASA standards for human rating a launcher.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 01:06 AM
...launching a full-up orbital Atlas with the intent to have range-safety blow it up mid-flight. That's ballsy.

A full live Centaur would not be required there.

But it will be since:
a.  TLYF
b.  It can't be flown empty
c.  it can't be flown with different fluid
d. too much engineering to do the above

If it's really going to be TLYF, they should set up a red team that is entirely responsible for how and when the abort occurs.  Their job is to kill the booster in the worst possible way at the worst possible time -- if they do their job right, the launch team will be as surprised as the rest of us when the abort occurs.

The launch team has no influence once T-0 is past.  It also has no influence on the flight trajectory pre launch, they just loadvthe software
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Steve D on 08/05/2011 01:07 AM
Some history...

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/appb.htm


Just took a quick look at this. Seems like there was a high percentage of failures with the Little John tests.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/05/2011 01:11 AM
Nice pics... :)

That is Atlas III, not Atlas V. Also, notice how Atlas V has not used the DEC before even though it was used for Atlas III.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/05/2011 01:15 AM
Nice pics... :)

That is Atlas III, not Atlas V. Also, notice how Atlas V has not used the DEC before even though it was used for Atlas III.
Yup, 100% correct :) I tagged the photos with that for clarity sake.
Regards
Robert
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/05/2011 01:17 AM
Some history...

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/appb.htm


Just took a quick look at this. Seems like there was a high percentage of failures with the Little John tests.
That was pretty early in spaceflight history. If you look at the Apollo tests later on, they were very sucessful abort tests.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: kch on 08/05/2011 02:23 AM
3 test launches in one year is going to be expensive, but the abort test doesn't really add to the cost at all, since the launcher isn't reusable. I don't believe the CST-100 will be reusable at first either, so they are investing in 3 fully instrumented Atlas V 421 launchers and CST-100 capsules.

How does the 421 configuration (2 engine Centaur and 1 solid) help you?  Is it more payload to orbit?

It's 412 - PLF size, number of solids, number of engines on Centaur
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: clongton on 08/05/2011 02:34 AM
I am liking this very, very much :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: robertross on 08/05/2011 02:40 AM
I am liking this very, very much :)

Certainly some promising news of late, at least from the commercial side.

I really do wonder when they will step in and go with domestic RD-180 production. You would have to think in the next 2-3 years to get a head start.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: PeterAlt on 08/05/2011 02:47 AM
It's becoming clear to me now that Boeing envisions ULA to be for crewed commercial - at least in regard to their own capsule - what USA was to shuttle - complete launch services, including payload processing, recovery, turnaround, and maintenance. I wonder if ULA would do the same for Orion/SLS, or if it's pretty much a given that USA would inherent this contract from the shuttle program?

On a side note for Chris Bergen, it would be a convenient idea if this site could place links at the button of the page at the end of articles saying something to the effect "Discuss this article", which would take visitors to the forum thread discussing the article (instead of forcing visitors to guess where the thread may be only to find a thread that forwards to another thread somewhere else).
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/05/2011 02:58 AM
It's becoming clear to me now that Boeing envisions ULA to be for crewed commercial - at least in regard to their own capsule - what USA was to shuttle - complete launch services, including payload processing, recovery, turnaround, and maintenance. I wonder if ULA would do the same for Orion/SLS, or if it's pretty much a given that USA would inherent this contract from the shuttle program?

ULA is not permitted to do work on spacecraft. Either Boeing, USA, or even Atrotech would do CST-100 processing.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Proponent on 08/05/2011 02:59 AM
Raised eyebrow... I suspect if an RL-10 fails for any reason, the other will be shut down and an abort will occur. It is better to cut ones losses and safely recover the crew than push a bad situation and risk a LOM.

I think that's right. In the past, if only one RL 10 lit the Centaur became uncontrollable. See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1321/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1321/1)

I'm assuming that would be the same for a dual engined Centaur with Atlas V. In which case definite loss of mission.

If the engines could be vectored enough so that each acted through the vehicle's center of mass at ignition, then loss of control should be avoidable at the cost of a very small performance penalty (cosine losses for a short period after ignition).  That would probably be over 10 degrees' worth of vectoring, though.  Off hand, I seem to recall seeing 8 degrees of vectoring as a spec.

If one failed to ignite but loss of control was prevented by vectoring of the good engine, a horizontal translation would occur.  I wonder whether that would create any difficulties in regard to separation from the first stage.

FWIW, the attached ULA study shows Atlas V 401 having slightly better LoM and LoC probabilities than the 402 (p. 7).  For both configurations it is assumed that the probability of a failed abort (i.e., of LoM becoming LoC) is 0.1, suggesting that no single-engine abort mode is considered viable.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Proponent on 08/05/2011 03:04 AM
On a side note for Chris Bergen....

Bergin, please.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Skyrocket on 08/05/2011 05:44 AM
Little Joe I and II and Big Joe

Big Joe was'nt an abort test - it lacked the launch escape system.
http://www.siloworld.net/GD-A%20%20San%20Diego%20Aerospace/MERCURY%20ATLAS/10D%209-9-1959%20ETR14%20BIG%20JOE%20MA-0%202%20GD-A%20SDAM%20ART%20LeBRUN.JPG
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Geron on 08/05/2011 06:27 AM
I sincerely hope that in CC DEV 3 all serious comers are awarded funds through test flights. It would be amazing in 2014-2016, we had dozens of flights of new vehicles from Dreamchaser/Atlas to Dragon/Falcon9 to CST-100/Atlas.

I think you get a lot more people excited about spaceflight with that level of activity as opposed to spending another 5 billion on power points during the same period. I mean a fraction of that power point money could enable multiple commercial launch vehicles that could inspire enough multimillionaires to take orbital rides to orbital space platforms like ISS, Bigelow modules, or circumlunar travel.

An industry could be born if we focused our limited resources appropriately. Once we had this industry we could then use additional funds to leverage existing capabilitys to go BEO with the lowest cost possible.

Exciting times though! And no matter what the next five years of space flight development are going to be much more exciting than the previous 30... (IMO only:))
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Hauerg on 08/05/2011 06:33 AM
This is excellent news! The most reliable launcher wins out again, glad to hear they made this choice. Cannot wait to see cst 100 fly.

Big win for US HSF in general here.
So HOW many 412 did ULA fly so far?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/05/2011 07:19 AM
This is excellent news! The most reliable launcher wins out again, glad to hear they made this choice. Cannot wait to see cst 100 fly.

Big win for US HSF in general here.
So HOW many 412 did ULA fly so far?

To my knowledge, they've flown two 411s with another in the pipe-line.  So, that gives a lot of data for predicting core performance already available.  One of the points of the test program will be for validating the simulation predictions on how DEC performs.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Skyrocket on 08/05/2011 07:26 AM
This is excellent news! The most reliable launcher wins out again, glad to hear they made this choice. Cannot wait to see cst 100 fly.

Big win for US HSF in general here.
So HOW many 412 did ULA fly so far?

To my knowledge, they've flown two 411s with another in the pipe-line.  So, that gives a lot of data for predicting core performance already available.  One of the points of the test program will be for validating the simulation predictions on how DEC performs.

Three 411 have been flown
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/atlas-5-411.htm

DEC should also be no problem, as a very similar DEC has been flown on Atlas III
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 11:31 AM

ULA is not permitted to do work on spacecraft. Either Boeing, USA, or even Atrotech would do CST-100 processing.


Astrotech doesn't do hands on, they only provide facilities.  Boeing will process their own spacecraft, which is SOP.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/05/2011 11:32 AM
If one failed to ignite but loss of control was prevented by vectoring of the good engine, a horizontal translation would occur.  I wonder whether that would create any difficulties in regard to separation from the first stage.

Centaur reaches meaningful thrust levels well beyond the CCB so there should be no issues in this regard.

Due to the reasons you state (limited gimbal angle), I'm not sure you can either thrust "forward" or through CG. Methinks you would have to pick CG and live with the cosine losses at all times.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 11:33 AM
It's becoming clear to me now that Boeing envisions ULA to be for crewed commercial - at least in regard to their own capsule - what USA was to shuttle - complete launch services, including payload processing, recovery, turnaround, and maintenance. I wonder if ULA would do the same for Orion/SLS, or if it's pretty much a given that USA would inherent this contract from the shuttle program?


Huh?  Boeing does not nor does ULA do such things.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Xplor on 08/05/2011 12:27 PM
I sincerely hope that in CC DEV 3 all serious comers are awarded funds through test flights. It would be amazing in 2014-2016, we had dozens of flights of new vehicles from Dreamchaser/Atlas to Dragon/Falcon9 to CST-100/Atlas.

I think you get a lot more people excited about spaceflight with that level of activity as opposed to spending another 5 billion on power points during the same period. I mean a fraction of that power point money could enable multiple commercial launch vehicles that could inspire enough multimillionaires to take orbital rides to orbital space platforms like ISS, Bigelow modules, or circumlunar travel.

An industry could be born if we focused our limited resources appropriately. Once we had this industry we could then use additional funds to leverage existing capabilitys to go BEO with the lowest cost possible.

Exciting times though! And no matter what the next five years of space flight development are going to be much more exciting than the previous 30... (IMO only:))


Very exciting idea, a true fly off like what is used successfully by the airforce for new fighters. This could happen if Congress gave NASA more funding or a fraction of SLS's $1.8B were transfered to commercial crew.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: yg1968 on 08/05/2011 01:49 PM
Atlas V 400 constrains the capsule mass + LAS to 20,000 lbs. Atlas V 500 can accommodate more weight, using the payload fairing for support, but I don't see how a capsule could fly inside a payload fairing.

CAnt find the source, but I believe it was previously mentioned that the Atlas V for CST-100 would be the 41X variety rather than 400

You are right, it wasn't yet official but it had been indicated previously in this presentation (of a couple of months ago) that it would be the Atlas V 412:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24855.msg751698#msg751698
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: yg1968 on 08/05/2011 01:53 PM

What, no Taurus II in the list?

Not enough capacity, solid upper stage, no flight history, lack of spacecraft processing facilities near pad.

IIRC, OSC were planning to move Taurus-II launches to KSC in the fullness of time if Prometheus had received CCDev-2 funding.  It didn't so the point is moot now.

Prometheus also used the Atlas V. However, OSC had a CCDev-1 proposal with a 4 person capsule that would have used the Taurus II.   
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: yg1968 on 08/05/2011 01:58 PM
Quote
George Sowers: CST-100 will use the Atlas 5 412 configuration (one solid strap-on, dual-engine Centaur).
(Jeff Foust)

The strap-on solid bothers me for crewed flight.   

 - Ed Kyle

If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/05/2011 02:11 PM
I wonder how strange a sensation it will be for the astronauts on board when the one solid lights and the vehicle assumes its AoA at liftoff, and then goes back after SRB burnout. Like pulling the handle on your recliner, or kicking back in your rocking chair?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: ugordan on 08/05/2011 02:18 PM
I think it will not feel particularly strange. I don't know if the inner ear is capable of discerning the slightly "sideways" flight during SRB burn. There's probably more sideways buffeting than that in any given launch due to high level winds.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: xyz on 08/05/2011 03:02 PM
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.

Spacecraft load is not carried by the fairing
"Spacecraft load" includes not just axial loads, but also side-to-side loads which must be countered.  The Centaur has a FLR (forward load reactor) which is there to partially distribute these side loads to the fairing so that the Centaur structure does not have to react all of the side load, as is the case for the 400 series.  For the 500 series... "Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure."
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2011 03:09 PM
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.

Spacecraft load is not carried by the fairing
"Spacecraft load" includes not just axial loads, but also side-to-side loads which must be countered.  The Centaur has a FLR (forward load reactor) which is there to partially distribute these side loads to the fairing so that the Centaur structure does not have to react all of the side load, as is the case for the 400 series.  For the 500 series... "Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure."

Still not true.  The CFLR is there to help the fairing react to aeroloads.  It has nothing to do with the spacecraft.  A 500 series with no spacecraft would still require the CFLR.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: xyz on 08/05/2011 03:42 PM
5xx has same Centaur but is inside the 5m fairing. Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure.

Spacecraft load is not carried by the fairing
"Spacecraft load" includes not just axial loads, but also side-to-side loads which must be countered.  The Centaur has a FLR (forward load reactor) which is there to partially distribute these side loads to the fairing so that the Centaur structure does not have to react all of the side load, as is the case for the 400 series.  For the 500 series... "Spacecraft load is partially carried by fairing structure."

Still not true.  The CFLR is there to help the fairing react to aeroloads.  It has nothing to do with the spacecraft.  A 500 series with no spacecraft would still require the CFLR.
Yes, aeroloads, and thrust loads, and inertial loads of all sorts, tension compression and all that rot.  You are responding with, what is as I understand the term, a "strawman" argument.  When there is a spacecraft, which is always the case, the load that it induces (by being there and having mass) into the system is partially carried by the fairing structure.  Of course the fairing loads are also carried to the Centaur through the CFLF.  Saying that does not make the statement that the spacecraft loads are partially carried by the fairing (again ASSUMING a spacecraft) incorrect in any way.  Thanks for reminding me why I don't comment on blogs, even this fairly high quality one.  You are very knowledgable, often correcting opinion with fact, and I respect that.  You should however take into account the question that was being asked.  I was trying to give a brief explanation to someone trying to understand whether the Centaur used for a 500 series was 5m in diameter, and was not aware that the Centaur is actually encapsulated in the fairing along with the spacecraft, and thought it would be nice to include a caveat that this arrangement reguires a structural accomodation.  You chose to be pedantic, that is to say, you missed the point.  I would be happy to respond to any further questions via PM.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/05/2011 03:48 PM
"Thickening the skin" of the Centaur won't help support > 20,000 lbs payload weight.


In a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure, the skin is very much structural.  In aircraft, that skin is often only a few thousands of an inch thick. 

So in a nutshell, yes it can.

Absolutely it can.  All one has to do is look back at Atlas III.  Some of those "balloon tank" Atlas vehicles were topped by Centaur stages weighing nearly 23 tonnes (50,700 pounds), plus payloads plus fairings, etc..  Balloon tank Atlas used pressurized stainless steel tanks just like Centaur, though likely thicker gauge.

 - Ed Kyle

The 20,000 lb weight limit for Atlas V 4xx series is for the payload, not the Centaur itself.

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Danderman on 08/05/2011 03:50 PM

If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 

I am sure that the additional cost to NASA of developing 2 engine Centaur for Atlas V will be considered, along with the cost of modifying Atlas V 4xx to accommodate more than 20,000 lbs payload mass. I am not sure at all if NASA wants to bear those costs.

Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: yg1968 on 08/05/2011 04:41 PM

If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 

I am sure that the additional cost to NASA of developing 2 engine Centaur for Atlas V will be considered, along with the cost of modifying Atlas V 4xx to accommodate more than 20,000 lbs payload mass. I am not sure at all if NASA wants to bear those costs.

Dream Chaser also use the dual centaur. It uses the Atlas V 402.
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: joek on 08/05/2011 05:42 PM
If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 
I am sure that the additional cost to NASA of developing 2 engine Centaur for Atlas V will be considered, along with the cost of modifying Atlas V 4xx to accommodate more than 20,000 lbs payload mass. I am not sure at all if NASA wants to bear those costs.
Dream Chaser also use the dual centaur. It uses the Atlas V 402.

As apparently does everyone else (except SpaceX) who is considering or has selected Atlas V for commercial crew.  Per ULA (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf):
Quote
Atlas Dual Engine Centaur  ... has been baselined by all CCT Companies that we are currently working with.

Which would imply that if Atlas V is in the future of commercial crew, so is DEC.

edit: clarify "everyone"
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Space Pete on 08/05/2011 05:50 PM
ULA press release:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/77
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: clongton on 08/05/2011 06:40 PM

If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 

I am sure that the additional cost to NASA of developing 2 engine Centaur for Atlas V will be considered, along with the cost of modifying Atlas V 4xx to accommodate more than 20,000 lbs payload mass. I am not sure at all if NASA wants to bear those costs.

Multi-engine Centaurs have already flown and the current design already has a designed evolution to multi-engine. The design work is already done. Costs to NASA would be reduced to implimentation and qualification.

Quote
Modular design enables multiple engine configurations from one to six RL-10s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2011 02:15 AM
If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, one of the reason that Dream Chaser was chosen above OSC's Prometheus was that Dream Chaser used the Atlas V 402 whereas the Prometheus used a larger version of the Atlas V. I wonder if the choice of the Atlas 412 will be taken into account for CCDev-3. 
I am sure that the additional cost to NASA of developing 2 engine Centaur for Atlas V will be considered, along with the cost of modifying Atlas V 4xx to accommodate more than 20,000 lbs payload mass. I am not sure at all if NASA wants to bear those costs.
Dream Chaser also use the dual centaur. It uses the Atlas V 402.

As apparently does everyone else (except SpaceX) who is considering or has selected Atlas V for commercial crew.  Per ULA (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf):
Quote
Atlas Dual Engine Centaur  ... has been baselined by all CCT Companies that we are currently working with.

Which would imply that if Atlas V is in the future of commercial crew, so is DEC.

edit: clarify "everyone"

For Blue Origin, there was a presentation that said that it was either the Atlas V 401 or 402.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2011 05:39 PM
I was trying to give a brief explanation to someone trying to understand whether the Centaur used for a 500 series was 5m in diameter, and was not aware that the Centaur is actually encapsulated in the fairing along with the spacecraft, and thought it would be nice to include a caveat that this arrangement reguires a structural accomodation.  You chose to be pedantic, that is to say, you missed the point.  I would be happy to respond to any further questions via PM.

No, I was clarifying it for the same person.  A layman when seeing a statement such as "Spacecraft load is carried by the fairing"  would assume that spacecraft is connected to the fairing, which it is not.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: xyz on 08/06/2011 07:03 PM
I'll bite, and not my tongue. You have misquoted my original post, again. My use of the adverb "partially" modifies the verb "carries" which was intended to indicate that the spacecraft load was not entirely reacted by the Centaur when employed in the 500 series configuration. if you were interested in clarifying for the layman you should have said that they are not physically connected, but instead you added to the ambiguity by saying flatly and incorrectly that no spacecraft load is carried by the fairing.   
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: phred on 08/10/2011 05:36 PM
A manned flight in 2015?  That's awesome.  I'm wondering a few things:

1) The RD-180 is still manufactured in Russia, right?  How could this affect things?

2) Is there a safer option to the SRB, or would any option be more complicated than building a new launcher?

3) Since Atlas V is so extensible, is there any suggestion of eventually increasing CST-100's capability, say with a larger service module?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: zaitcev on 08/10/2011 06:03 PM
1) The RD-180 is still manufactured in Russia, right?  How could this affect things?
As far as I know, which is admittedly not very far, domestic production is possible but needs far, far greater launch rate to occur (numbers like 20 launches per year were thrown about). So in the short term a careful attention is given to stockpiling years worth of RD-180. In the long term, it may be possible to re-engine with whatever Aeroject threatens to produce. They keep making noises about liquid boosters for SLS (if you recall Zenit 1st stage was used as a side booster for Energiya in a similar scheme). That may possibly be an option, in case. But most likely the Russian production of RD-180 is going to continue, with RD-180V baselined for Rus-M.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/10/2011 06:39 PM
I was trying to give a brief explanation to someone trying to understand whether the Centaur used for a 500 series was 5m in diameter, and was not aware that the Centaur is actually encapsulated in the fairing along with the spacecraft, and thought it would be nice to include a caveat that this arrangement reguires a structural accomodation.  You chose to be pedantic, that is to say, you missed the point.  I would be happy to respond to any further questions via PM.

No, I was clarifying it for the same person.  A layman when seeing a statement such as "Spacecraft load is carried by the fairing"  would assume that spacecraft is connected to the fairing, which it is not.

OK, lay person commenting again.

Both Atlas V models use the same CCB, which is 3.81m in diameter. The Centaur second stage mounts on top of the CCB. The second stage is also common between both the 400 and 500 models. The spacecraft mounts to the top of the second stage. The only difference between the 2 families, is the size of the fairing, correct ?

But in the case of commerical crew vehicles, there is no fairing because the spacecraft is exposed. I suppose that ULA or Boeing will have to develop some sort of adapter for mounting the CST-100 to the top of the stack. Perhaps this adapter helps distribute/translate the loads similar to the 500 series fairing.

Of course, Dream Chaser and Blue Origin may have to develop a similar adapter to fly their space craft on the Altas, since they will be different physical shapes.

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: erioladastra on 08/11/2011 01:40 AM
1) The RD-180 is still manufactured in Russia, right?  How could this affect things?
As far as I know, which is admittedly not very far, domestic production is possible but needs far, far greater launch rate to occur (numbers like 20 launches per year were thrown about). So in the short term a careful attention is given to stockpiling years worth of RD-180. In the long term, it may be possible to re-engine with whatever Aeroject threatens to produce. They keep making noises about liquid boosters for SLS (if you recall Zenit 1st stage was used as a side booster for Energiya in a similar scheme). That may possibly be an option, in case. But most likely the Russian production of RD-180 is going to continue, with RD-180V baselined for Rus-M.

I *believe* that someone here has the plans for the RD180.  The military refused to accept using Russian hardware until there was enough stockpiled and someone had the ability to ramp up and start making them if something happened.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: docmordrid on 08/11/2011 02:17 AM
Let's presume AJ26-500 or Merlin 2 becomes real at the right price. Could we then tell Russia to stuff it? Would we?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mborgia on 08/11/2011 03:07 AM
I have asked this before elsewhere, but why is Delta IV not being given any consideration for roles as commercial spacecraft launcher?
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: zaitcev on 08/11/2011 03:34 AM
I *believe* that someone here has the plans for the RD180.

See  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26303.180
-- Pete
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Downix on 08/11/2011 04:05 AM
I have asked this before elsewhere, but why is Delta IV not being given any consideration for roles as commercial spacecraft launcher?
The cost to man rate is over a billion dollars due to the lack of redundancy systems and detection systems.  For a commercial vendor to consider, they would have to foot that bill, but then all could enjoy the benefits of their up front cost.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: alexw on 08/11/2011 04:21 AM
I have asked this before elsewhere, but why is Delta IV not being given any consideration for roles as commercial spacecraft launcher?
   Essentially because it's more expensive than Atlas V to outfit and rate it for humans. RS-68 requires at least some reworking, where RD-180 does not. DIV Medium (4,0)'s 9.3mT performance is a little bit low for many of the crew vehicles, although M+(4,2) at 12.5mT is comparable to AV402.
Possibly the biggest issue is the pad: DIV stacks at the pad, so LC-37B would be unavailable for government use (including the Heavy missions that presumably take longer to build up) while the Com. Crew was prepping. This may not be a showstopper, but it means there's call for a second pad (LC-37A) if Delta were to see much use for this, and that's pricey.

 Atlas spends only ~24 hours at the pad, and more easily parallelizes in two ways: with a second MLP (relatively cheap) you can build two vehicles at once, and presumably launch them in either order, and with a second assembly building (by retrofitting the SMARF as VIF2) you could completely segregate the commercial and government users. (I don't know if VIF(1) could stack two vehicles within it with two MLP, but it could certainly handle three Atlas boosters simultaneously.)
 
    You certainly *could* use Delta, and in a world where Delta was flying often it would be easier to spread out the greater costs and justify the effort. At rock-bottom minimal flight rate, there's little incentive to do anything with Delta other than try to lower its costs (e.g. by leveraging DOD's need for RD-68A), rather than enhance its features.
 
    It would be interesting to hear more from Boeing/LockMart/ULA folks on their impressions, but no doubt they feel compelled to speak guardedly.
    -Alex
 
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/11/2011 12:54 PM

 Atlas spends only ~24 hours at the pad, and more easily parallelizes in two ways: with a second MLP (relatively cheap) you can build two vehicles at once, and presumably launch them in either order, and with a second assembly building (by retrofitting the SMARF as VIF2) you could completely segregate the commercial and government users. (I don't know if VIF(1) could stack two vehicles within it with two MLP, but it could certainly handle three Atlas boosters simultaneously.)
 

VIF can only handle one MLP
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: mike robel on 08/11/2011 05:08 PM
I have asked this before elsewhere, but why is Delta IV not being given any consideration for roles as commercial spacecraft launcher?
Possibly the biggest issue is the pad: DIV stacks at the pad, so LC-37B would be unavailable for government use (including the Heavy missions that presumably take longer to build up) while the Com. Crew was prepping. This may not be a showstopper, but it means there's call for a second pad (LC-37A) if Delta were to see much use for this, and that's pricey.

 

If I am not mistaken, Delta IV stacks in its Horizontal Integration Facitliy (or whatever it may be called) and only integrates the payload on the pad.

Also, there is room for multiple launch vehicles in the HIF.

I am sure Jim will blow me out of the room if I am wrong here.  :)
Title: Re: Boeing Selection of Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: erioladastra on 08/11/2011 05:18 PM
I think you misheard or misread something.  The first manned flight isn't planned to dock to ISS.

Ah, I see - so just a rendezvous, and no docking?

I'd still take that. :D

Sorry for the delay - but this is interesting.  This is the first time that Boeing has suggested that.  It has not been discussed with NASA.  Now in the end, like SpaceX, I suspect they will push to combine the first near rednezvous and demo but it will be an interesting discussion.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: zaitcev on 08/11/2011 07:32 PM
VIF can only handle one MLP
I saw some discussion about building a VIF extension from the other side, so the second MLP would backtrack a bit and switch. It's basically a question of money.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Jim on 08/11/2011 07:58 PM
VIF can only handle one MLP
I saw some discussion about building a VIF extension from the other side, so the second MLP would backtrack a bit and switch. It's basically a question of money.

Not feasible without shutting down ongoing operations and causes other issues like the location of PVan and GVan.  All studies were of new buildings.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/13/2011 06:08 PM
from MLAS thread:


The [CST-100] abort motors also are the orbital maneuvering, propulsion and de-orbit system.

Citation, please ?
edit:
"orbital maneuvering" = propulsion system
"de-orbit" = propulsion system


Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Namechange User on 08/13/2011 06:13 PM
No need for a citation, it's not accurate
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: docmordrid on 08/13/2011 06:29 PM
They state re-use of the abort fuel to reboost ISS but not specifically the Bantam thrusters, though I would imagine the attitude control thrusters wouldn't be up to the task.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/15/boeing-tests-pusher-abort-system-cst100-vehicle/

Quote
>
“The successful engine test series was Boeing’s last major milestone under our current Commercial Crew Development Space Act Agreement with NASA. It validates our technical approach for a pusher launch abort system,” said Keith Reiley, deputy program manager, Commercial Crew programs, Boeing. Â ”With this system, we can use the abort fuel to re-boost the space station orbit, which is an added benefit to NASA and Bigelow Aerospace. Â This is a significant step in our plan to provide safe, reliable and affordable crew and passenger transportation to the International Space Station and other low-Earth orbit destinations.”
>
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: renclod on 08/13/2011 06:49 PM
...
though I would imagine the attitude control thrusters wouldn't be up to the task. ...

Why not ?

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: docmordrid on 08/13/2011 07:35 PM
I had presumed too small, but after researching it I see Soyuz uses its attitude thrusters so....

Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Downix on 08/13/2011 08:34 PM
...
though I would imagine the attitude control thrusters wouldn't be up to the task. ...

Why not ?


The CST-100 is using an evolved form of the thrusters from Gemini, according to Rocketdyne:

www.space.com/9024-boeing-moves-commercial-space-capsule.html

120kgf is not terribly much for reboost, even if you could use all 24. Especially when there are four much more powerful and efficient engines right there.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: hop on 08/13/2011 09:10 PM
120kgf is not terribly much for reboost, even if you could use all 24. Especially when there are four much more powerful and efficient engines right there.
Progress reboosts are generally done with the RCS engines, which are significantly lower thrust.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Downix on 08/13/2011 09:21 PM
120kgf is not terribly much for reboost, even if you could use all 24. Especially when there are four much more powerful and efficient engines right there.
Progress reboosts are generally done with the RCS engines, which are significantly lower thrust.
The Progress' engines are model KDU-80, and have 6* the thrust.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: hop on 08/13/2011 09:56 PM
The Progress' engines are model KDU-80, and have 6* the thrust.
As I said, Progress reboosts are frequently done with the smaller RCS thrusters.

For example http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg765151#msg765151
Quote
Reboost Update:
The 2nd one-burn ISS reboost (of 2) was performed today at 12:16 AM GMT using Progress M-11M/43P DPO rendezvous & docking thrusters, with attitude control handover to RS MCS (Motion Control System) at 10:30 AM GMT and return to US CMGs (Control Moment Gyroscopes) at 1:10 PM GMT. Due to the thruster malfunction during 43P docking, only 4 thrusters were used (instead of the usual 8 ). Burn duration: 29m 32s. Actual Delta-V was 1.97 m/s (6.46 ft/s) vs. predicted 1.95/6.60
Now will you *please* take the time to familiarize yourself with the facts before making blanket statements ?

edit:
note DPO thrusters are on the order of 10kgf
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Downix on 08/13/2011 10:59 PM
The Progress' engines are model KDU-80, and have 6* the thrust.
As I said, Progress reboosts are frequently done with the smaller RCS thrusters.

For example http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg765151#msg765151
Quote
Reboost Update:
The 2nd one-burn ISS reboost (of 2) was performed today at 12:16 AM GMT using Progress M-11M/43P DPO rendezvous & docking thrusters, with attitude control handover to RS MCS (Motion Control System) at 10:30 AM GMT and return to US CMGs (Control Moment Gyroscopes) at 1:10 PM GMT. Due to the thruster malfunction during 43P docking, only 4 thrusters were used (instead of the usual 8 ). Burn duration: 29m 32s. Actual Delta-V was 1.97 m/s (6.46 ft/s) vs. predicted 1.95/6.60
Now will you *please* take the time to familiarize yourself with the facts before making blanket statements ?

edit:
note DPO thrusters are on the order of 10kgf
Yes, please do. The DPO system has four models of thruster, 12 of 2.3kg, 14 of 13.2 kgf and two of the forementioned model. You just made a blanket statement on these thrusters which is not true. According to the reboost manual, the reboost uses two KDU-80 and up to six of the 13.6 kgf.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/13/2011 11:24 PM
Progress thruster discussion has nothing to do with the Atlas V announcement for CST-100.  Please get back on topic.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/14/2011 06:10 PM
...
The CST-100's abort thrusters are most likely LESS efficient. They won't be used for ISS reboost.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Downix on 08/14/2011 06:21 PM
...
The CST-100's abort thrusters are most likely LESS efficient. They won't be used for ISS reboost.
~340 isp is pretty efficient to me for a kerolox engine.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: Lars_J on 08/14/2011 10:52 PM
The CST-100's abort thrusters are most likely LESS efficient. They won't be used for ISS reboost.

Efficiency doesn't matter much in this case. If a spacecraft is docked at ISS in a reboost-friendly position (fore and aft), and has extra propellant to spare - of course it makes sense to use it for reboost.

After all, Progress and Shuttle were certainly not the most efficient way to reboost the station - but they are/were available, and so you use what you have.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: SgtPoivre on 08/15/2011 10:09 AM
After all, Progress and Shuttle were certainly not the most efficient way to reboost the station - but they are/were available, and so you use what you have.

As far as I remember the Shuttle could not reboost the ISS (and I can't see how it could have done it given its docking location). Well maybe in the early stages of the assembly of the ISS...
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: AnalogMan on 08/15/2011 11:23 AM
After all, Progress and Shuttle were certainly not the most efficient way to reboost the station - but they are/were available, and so you use what you have.

As far as I remember the Shuttle could not reboost the ISS (and I can't see how it could have done it given its docking location). Well maybe in the early stages of the assembly of the ISS...

I'm afraid your memory may be failing you  ;)    The last reboost of the ISS by a shuttle was as recently as the STS-134  mission.  This used the vernier RCS thrusters and gave a ΔV = +0.57 m/s  resulting in a mean altitude increase of 1.04 km.
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: SgtPoivre on 08/15/2011 12:38 PM
ΔV = +0.57 m/s  resulting in a mean altitude increase of 1.04 km.

Call that a reboost!!  ;)

But thanks for the information I learned something today
Title: Re: Boeing Selects Atlas V Launch Vehicle for CST-100 - August 4, 2011
Post by: erioladastra on 08/20/2011 12:49 AM
...
The CST-100's abort thrusters are most likely LESS efficient. They won't be used for ISS reboost.

Abort engines won't be used but the RCS will be available, if the ISS program wants the delta V.