Author Topic: Application of Starliner outside of Commercial Crew?  (Read 6826 times)

Online douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Application of Starliner outside of Commercial Crew?
« Reply #20 on: 05/24/2016 07:59 AM »

...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.

Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much  heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
Douglas Clark

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25730
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5829
  • Likes Given: 4325
Re: Application of Starliner outside of Commercial Crew?
« Reply #21 on: 05/24/2016 05:25 PM »

...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.

Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much  heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
Or you have a detachable propulsion stage instead of embiggening the service module.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Application of Starliner outside of Commercial Crew?
« Reply #22 on: 05/24/2016 05:41 PM »

...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.

Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much  heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.

They'd also need to fit solar panels or something on there, batteries aren't gonna cut it. Easiest way would probably be a separate propulsion module that can be ditched in an abort (along the lines of this http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/soyuz/soyuz_acts_fregat_1.jpg). Or use ACES? After orbital refueling it should have plenty of fuel left for lunar orbital insertion, then separate Starliner to do the rest of its mission

Offline TrevorMonty


...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.

Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much  heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.

They'd also need to fit solar panels or something on there, batteries aren't gonna cut it. Easiest way would probably be a separate propulsion module that can be ditched in an abort (along the lines of this http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/soyuz/soyuz_acts_fregat_1.jpg). Or use ACES? After orbital refueling it should have plenty of fuel left for lunar orbital insertion, then separate Starliner to do the rest of its mission
ULA actually proposed using ACES with Orion. Most of the existing service module functionality was to be provided by ACES, resulting in a small cheaper service module.
In case of existing Starliner this would work for cargo missions.

Tags: