Author Topic: CST-100 on Falcon 9  (Read 17454 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #20 on: 11/12/2014 08:56 PM »
It will fly on Atlas and/or delta if need be. It will never fly on Falcon 9. Ever.

I could say "oh its this thread again" considering how many times I have seen this thread re-posted in the last 9 months but I won't. Doesn't matter how many times people bring this up it will not happen. The most direct competitor to SpaceX is not going to fly on SpaceX.

You're offering a lot of complaining and not a lot of evidence to back up your position.

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1952
  • USA
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #21 on: 11/12/2014 09:23 PM »
If for whatever reason, and for an undetermined amount of time, Atlas was unable to launch CST, the next most logical option would be to use the ONLY other NASA certified launcher for crewed services. And that's the Falcon 9v1.1.

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #22 on: 11/13/2014 09:43 PM »

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1267
  • Likes Given: 1465
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #23 on: 11/14/2014 01:02 AM »

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

How would it not be? Not only would there be profit involved, but the kind of triumphant PR one-upsmanship that money just can't buy.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #24 on: 11/14/2014 07:13 AM »
Agreed, just pointing out that it's not Boeings call if they get ride F9 v.1
.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2014 07:14 AM by oiorionsbelt »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #25 on: 11/14/2014 08:09 AM »

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

How would it not be? Not only would there be profit involved, but the kind of triumphant PR one-upsmanship that money just can't buy.

Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1577
  • Likes Given: 1387
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #26 on: 11/14/2014 08:21 AM »
Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

No, we are talking about Boeing using the cheaper ride than Atlas V. That is what Boeing gave as the possible reason to fly Falcon 9.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #27 on: 11/14/2014 03:58 PM »
Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

No, we are talking about Boeing using the cheaper ride than Atlas V. That is what Boeing gave as the possible reason to fly Falcon 9.

You're wrong.  You could have checked the context just by clicking the link on the innermost nested quote in my post.  It's from rcoppola.  It was cut down by one of the people I was responding to.  If you had clicked on it, you could have seen the full quote:

If for whatever reason, and for an undetermined amount of time, Atlas was unable to launch CST, the next most logical option would be to use the ONLY other NASA certified launcher for crewed services. And that's the Falcon 9v1.1.

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1952
  • USA
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #28 on: 11/14/2014 04:13 PM »
Some additional thoughts:

Could CST catch a ride on F9? Sure. Of course it's not that easy as we all know. There's a number of GSE/FSS mods etc, etc...

None of this is plug and play. SpaceX would have to know / agree to use F9 at 39A as a possible CST launch option as they modified Pad39A. They'd need to have agreements in place and funds committed / allocated from Boeing to do so. I'm just not seeing or hearing any of that being the case.

ULA is being contracted by Boeing to provide the launcher and all pad infrastructure for CST. If, as they seemed to have, committed to Atlas V, then that's the train they're going to ride throughout their contract commitments.

ULA would have committed to full (current Atlas V) operability all the way through the Atlas (VI) or whatever they call it, development/testing phase. Boeing and ULA would have a transition plan in place when moving to the new launcher which is also being designed to be cheaper, allowing Boeing to be more competitive in the long run.

IF there was an emergency and the CST needed a launcher already certified for a crewed mission, what would take longer?: Swapping it out for a Dragon2, or Modding F9 & 39A to accommodate CST?

Needless to say, I think we'd all prefer to have 2 different systems for all the obvious reasons. Now let's just see who gets there first.

**I'd be curious as to what, if anything, the selection committee thought of each proposers Pad designs. And what type of contingencies, if any, each proposer listed in the case of any Pad or launcher interruptions.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 79
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #29 on: 11/14/2014 04:37 PM »
Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 768
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #30 on: 11/14/2014 09:24 PM »
The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.

Right, that's pretty clear. Atlas V was their preferred option from the beginning. But they did air the possibility.

I sit corrected! Thanks

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #31 on: 11/15/2014 02:55 PM »
Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 79
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #32 on: 11/15/2014 07:22 PM »
Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

Boeing is a publicly traded company and this is NOT a 'Black Project'.  Money spent for this purpose would have to be justified to the shareholders via the board.  Therefore, something would have been said about it.

SpaceX, being privately owned, I could more easily see being silent at a customer's request.

Again, I personally think it would be a good idea, and money well spent on Boeing's part, to set up the necessary pre-reqs, just in case.  But if they were doing that, since it would be an added layer of redundancy for their OV, why would we not hear anything about it???
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CST-100 on Falcon 9
« Reply #33 on: 11/16/2014 04:18 PM »
Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

Boeing is a publicly traded company and this is NOT a 'Black Project'.  Money spent for this purpose would have to be justified to the shareholders via the board.  Therefore, something would have been said about it.

SpaceX, being privately owned, I could more easily see being silent at a customer's request.

Again, I personally think it would be a good idea, and money well spent on Boeing's part, to set up the necessary pre-reqs, just in case.  But if they were doing that, since it would be an added layer of redundancy for their OV, why would we not hear anything about it???

Sorry but that greatly over simplifies how these things work.  First,  there are many ways to work this.  You may chose to make sure that all designs do not preclude it.  Or you can be actively working design changes/updates as needed.  Most likely, you will do the first while your small team focuses on launching this vehicle on the Atlas V which is right down the road.  But in the end, even if this was a full effort to say do it in 3 years, the cost is a pitence in the Boeing budget - management is well aware of what is being done but it is not like anything that needs to rise to approval fromt he stock holders. 

And you would not be hearing about it because it involves complex negotiation between NASA and several (also competing) private companies.  The data is proprietary.  While we would all love to hear this info, and we are used to NASA being a leaky bucket, we just will not hear about most of the stuff.  You just will not get a lot of specifics.  Sorry.

Tags: