Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 106514 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Saw this on twitter and couldn't find a ULA Starliner patch on the forum:

Quote
Newest mission patch for @ulalaunch's #AtlasV launching @Boeing's #Starliner capsule! #welaunchedthat

https://twitter.com/ularocketman/status/852197019829522432

You are a Twitter guru! Only just noticed it now Tory's RT'ed it. I like it!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #201 on: 04/21/2017 05:58 PM »
Quote
Aerojet Rocketdyne Successfully Completes Qualification Tests on Reusable Engine to Support Next Era of Human Spaceflight from the United States

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), has successfully completed hot-fire qualification tests of an engine that demonstrates the ability to meet reusability requirements for Boeing's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 Starliner crew module propulsion system. The tests were conducted on Aerojet Rocketdyne's MR-104J hydrazine monopropellant engine in Redmond, Washington. For NASA service missions to the International Space Station, Boeing's Starliner spacecraft will carry up to four astronauts and time-critical scientific research.

"Our engineers have incorporated a unique design that will allow the MR-104 engine to be used on multiple missions, providing the reliability, cost-efficiency and reusability our customer needs to be competitive in the current commercial space environment," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "We look forward to delivering the engines for the crew module and continuing our proud heritage of enabling astronauts to fly to the International Space Station from U.S. soil."

The Starliner crew module propulsion system will use 12 MR-104J engines for reaction control to orient the vehicle during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Prior to re-entry, attitude control is provided by the Service Module Engines, also provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne.

The MR-104J, designed by Aerojet Rocketdyne, was developed and tested under the company's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) subcontract to Boeing. Similar to other reaction control system engines, the MR-104J includes additional features to increase redundancy that meet critical requirements and improved strength to withstand multiple shocks at operating temperatures. The engine upgrades also provide reusability for Boeing as it certifies Starliner crew modules for multiple missions.

Under the CCtCap subcontract to Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne will provide propulsion system hardware that includes Crew Module Reaction Control engines; Launch Abort Engines, Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control thrusters, and Service Module Reaction Control System thrusters. Boeing will assemble propulsion hardware into the Starliner spacecraft at its Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-successfully-completes-qualification-tests-reusable-engine-support-next

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4650
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1466
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #202 on: 05/17/2017 02:42 AM »
Boeing Begins a New Era in Space

Boeing
Published on May 16, 2017


We are at the edge of a new era in human spaceflight. Boeings CST-100 Starliner, set to launch in 2018, will be one of the first commercial space capsules to take people to and from low-Earth orbit. Will you be a future passenger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9K7B4xsQOU?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #203 on: 05/19/2017 02:45 PM »
Not a lot of detail I'm afraid:

Quote
Tim Robinson‏ @RAeSTimR 5m5 minutes ago

1st Boeing CST-100 Starliner in construction here at KSC.

https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/865576751635861504

Offline Sotar

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Pacific NW
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #204 on: 05/25/2017 10:12 PM »
I'm not an engineer or scientist so forgive me / delete my post if it is in the wrong place, or the answer is obvious and I just need to go search more.

Why is  hydrazine monopropellant, still being used?  My understanding is that it is pretty toxic.  Perhaps it is relative inexpensive, thus gives very good thrust / control for the cost?


I'm guessing that we just haven't developed propellant / engines that would be as cost effective and as usable.    :(


-S
1% for Space

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12778
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3548
  • Likes Given: 608
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #205 on: 05/26/2017 03:18 AM »
I'm not an engineer or scientist so forgive me / delete my post if it is in the wrong place, or the answer is obvious and I just need to go search more.

Why is  hydrazine monopropellant, still being used?  My understanding is that it is pretty toxic.  Perhaps it is relative inexpensive, thus gives very good thrust / control for the cost?


I'm guessing that we just haven't developed propellant / engines that would be as cost effective and as usable.    :(


-S
No igniter is needed.  Almost unlimited restarts are possible.  Open a valve and pass N2H4 through a catalyst and, presto, instant reliable relatively cool thrust with no moving parts except for a valve or two.  Put these thrusters on a satellite and they'll run for 15 or 20 years, maybe longer.  See Voyager.  They'll keep thrusting.

Wikipedia gets this one right.  It says "[e]ngineers choose monopropellant systems when the need for simplicity and reliability outweigh the need for high delivered impulse".  Think about your life depending on that thruster, then underline that word reliability a few times.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/26/2017 03:32 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4650
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1466
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #206 on: 05/30/2017 10:55 PM »
Boeing Tests Starliners Seats

Boeing
Published on May 30, 2017

As Boeing continues to work toward launches of the CST-100 Starliner in 2018, teams tested the spacecraft's seats in a lab to ensure astronauts will land safely on dry land after the Starliner returns to Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqfvpei0VaM?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7285
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5441
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 336
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #208 on: 05/31/2017 01:59 PM »
Copying across relevant Commercial Crew Program info from today's non-broadcast media event.

Q from Marcia Dunn: Timelines for uncrewed and crewed?

Kathy: Contracts state end of 2017 for uncrewed for SpaceX and late-2nd quarter '18 for crewed.  Lots of work left on this.  Will work over next few months to finalize schedule.

For Boeing, May for uncrewed and August for crew.


Q: What work remains to cert abort systems and human-rating both LVs.

A: Already worked through V&V plan for cert for transport and abort systems.  Right now, working through final model results that come through in testing to close the requirements.



Q: What are the milestones coming up?  And where are high-alt aborts currently scheduled?

A: CCP contracts DID NOT mandate uncrewed test flights.  That's something that Spx and Boeing wanted to do on top of the CCP contract requirements.

High alt abort tests.  Each provider developed their own schedule. 

Boeing will do full-up pad abort test NET 1st Q of 2018.


Q from me: What's the current the LOC gap - current number?  Final aim and how that's changed since initial benchmarks?

A: History... after STS-107, what was LOC number for Shuttle.  It was 1/100.  At same time, ppl were pulling together the CCP numbers.  NASA wanted to get to 10x better than Shuttle.  We've learned a lot over the last 10 years working with the requirement.  Lots learned with Orion, where they learned that 1/1,000 was not credible.  We learned the doing probabilistic assessment required understanding and giving value to LOC elements.  And that's very very difficult.  AT beginning of CCP, there were questions about what was needed and how to make trades.

We chose to use the LOC number as one part of a suite of tools for all sorts of safety requirements... with safety review process compared to performance requirements like oxygen % in cabin and ability to get crew out of capsule in 90 secs.

So as we've working, we've been working to get all of that and the rankings for the contributors to LOC as a way to focus on highest risk items to program. But what's become obvious is that the data sets to run assessments on that we simply don't have.  The certainty bars were high, but as we dug down, we realized that aiming for a number wasn't enough, we had to understand what those numbers were telling us. 

NOW, we starting to understand that that LOC gap given as requirement is going to VERY HARD to meet.  Don't know where we'll end up.  But from agency standpoint, where there are differences in the numbers, we're learning and are happy.

Number might not match, but process and numbers and safety processes are exactly where I want them to be.

I'm very happy that we want through the whole list and as a joint team said "There's nothing we would change in the vehicle designs to change where the LOC number is right now."


James Dean: When do you expect to chose who goes first?

A: Not ready yet.  Gerst has trained me well.  "No decision before it's time."  Healthy competition going on here.  Depends on who's ready and when.  We get through an uncrewed demo, and if there's a problem, things have to change.  We're simultaneously preparing for the worst AND the best.  We don't want to hold back a provided that's ready to go.

Dean: How does spacing of flight works?

A: For operational, once we see where they are, we'll figure it out.  Ideally, we'd like six-month rotations. Big struggle right now is making sure we're ready with both, and then figuring out the rotation dance of the manifest.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #209 on: 05/31/2017 06:08 PM »
Why is  hydrazine monopropellant, still being used?  My understanding is that it is pretty toxic.  Perhaps it is relative inexpensive, thus gives very good thrust / control for the cost?

I'm guessing that we just haven't developed propellant / engines that would be as cost effective and as usable.    :(

No igniter is needed.  Almost unlimited restarts are possible.  Open a valve and pass N2H4 through a catalyst and, presto, instant reliable relatively cool thrust with no moving parts except for a valve or two.  Put these thrusters on a satellite and they'll run for 15 or 20 years, maybe longer.  See Voyager.  They'll keep thrusting.

Wikipedia gets this one right.  It says "[e]ngineers choose monopropellant systems when the need for simplicity and reliability outweigh the need for high delivered impulse".  Think about your life depending on that thruster, then underline that word reliability a few times.

 - Ed Kyle

Sorry Ed Kyle, I think your reply is incomplete.
There are other monopropalent, let my try to explain why hydrazine is prefered above other mono propallents.

High Test Peroxide (HTP | H2O2) works the same as hydrazine, only it is far less toxic.
If I'm not mistaken, there are two drawbacks related to HTP that are the reason why the space industry, for now, prefers Hydrazine thrusters above HTP.

1) In the early days of the space industry HTP and hydrazine competed with each other. HTP lost because the efficiency of the cathalist decreased with burntime. Hydrazine did not have this problem or they solved it early on. Hydrazine has a bit higher ISP, and also density ISP (if I'm not mistaken). This lead the space industry  to use hydrazine and drop HTP.
2) If I'm not mistaken, the problems with the durability of HTP cathalist packs has bean solved recently (several years ago). The problem is that the HTP engines havn't been flight tested.
Hydrazine is space proven technology (TRL9). If I'm not mistaken, HTP thrusters havn't been used in space jet. They have been ground tested so they are TRL6/7 (right?)

With human space flight Nasa demands the use of proven technology, thus Hydrazine.
Nitrogen and butane mono propallent thrusters have far lower ISP then hydrazine.
Green mono propallents are new, are far more expensive and have only been used a couple of times.
So human spaceflight sticks with hydrazine until HTP or green mono propallents have more flight experience (TRL9).

Only for hydrazine there are multiple supliers that can deliver thrusters in all thrust classes. And also tanks and pluming for hydrazine is widely available.  The stability and durability of HTP and green mono propallent systems still has to be proven.

I also hope, HTP and green mono propallent systems mature soon,  so hydrazine can be replaced.

Edit: I forgot to mention that SpaceX Dragon v2 also uses hydrazine monopropellant thrusters.
(Super) Draco
« Last Edit: 05/31/2017 06:16 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31279
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9563
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #210 on: 05/31/2017 06:15 PM »

1) In the early days of the space industry HTP and hydrazine competed with each other. HTP lost because the efficiency of the cathalist decreased with burntime. Hydrazine did not have this problem or they solved it early on. Hydrazine has a bit higher ISP, and also density ISP (if I'm not mistaken). This lead the space industry  to use hydrazine and drop HTP.
2) If I'm not mistaken, the problems with the durability of HTP cathalist packs has bean solved recently (several years ago). The problem is that the HTP engines havn't been flight tested.
Hydrazine is space proven technology (TRL9). If I'm not mistaken, HTP thrusters havn't been used in space jet. They have been ground tested so they are TRL6/7 (right?)


HTP has long term storage issues.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #211 on: 05/31/2017 06:25 PM »
HTP has long term storage issues.

If I'm not mistaken, views differ on this one. link
There are a lot of different grades of HTP. It's always a solution with water. I've read that higher grades tend to be more stable.
Doesn't NASA somewere have a tank where they have stored HTP at 4deg celcius for multiple decades. The HTP in that tank is stil stable.
But I'm far from an expert on this, please correct me if I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2017 06:38 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2701
  • Liked: 1243
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #212 on: 05/31/2017 07:57 PM »
... SpaceX Dragon v2 also uses hydrazine monopropellant thrusters.
(Super) Draco

Draco and Super Draco use MMH oxidized by NTO, not hydrazine monoprop.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • USA
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #213 on: 06/01/2017 01:37 AM »
Soyuz uses HTP for the descent module RCS. Its one of the limiting factors for its on-orbit lifetime though

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #214 on: 06/01/2017 07:27 AM »
Doesn't NASA somewere have a tank where they have stored HTP at 4deg celcius for multiple decades. The HTP in that tank is stil stable. But I'm far from an expert on this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It was 90% HTP stored for 17 years in a vented barrel at 5 C by the FMC Corporation. They measured 90.5% concentration at 17 years.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7285
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #215 on: 06/01/2017 08:56 AM »
Doesn't NASA somewere have a tank where they have stored HTP at 4deg celcius for multiple decades. The HTP in that tank is stil stable. But I'm far from an expert on this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It was 90% HTP stored for 17 years in a vented barrel at 5 C by the FMC Corporation. They measured 90.5% concentration at 17 years.
Assuming the measured concentration is correct than that is pretty darn impressive for stored HTP.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #216 on: 06/14/2017 05:42 AM »
Quote
@torybruno and I conducting demo of the @ulalaunch LC41 #AtlasV #Starliner Emergency Egress System. Crew safety is our top priority! 40+ MPH

https://twitter.com/wentzgary/status/874710428965892097

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 708
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #217 on: 06/14/2017 05:47 AM »
This looks familiar...
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #218 on: 06/14/2017 06:12 AM »
Quote
Best ride in Florida.  #AtlasV #Starliner @BoeingDefense

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/874755135485947904

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #219 on: 07/18/2017 12:39 PM »
Quote
Tory Bruno‏ Verified account @torybruno 2m2 minutes ago

Decatur has completed #Starliner PCM-1's Forward Truss Ring.  Another step closer to sending Astronauts to space from American soil.

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/887289806455160833

Tags: