The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 12/15/2014 05:14 pmThe 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.Surely there is a "co-pilot" position? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/16/2014 08:18 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 12/15/2014 05:14 pmThe 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.Surely there is a "co-pilot" position? - Ed KyleI don't think there's a co-pilot position in the way you'd see in an airliner with duplicate displays, controls, etc. Look at the pictures of Ferguson in the simulator.The way it's described I think whoever's in the left seat is already the "co-pilot," the flight computer is supposed to be flying the capsule anyways.
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well. Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew. The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 12:27 amNews today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well. Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew. The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.Would a "CST-100C" need to be re-engineered to have a CBM rather than an NDS at the apex?
The versatility of having three cargo craft (Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) is something NASA shouldn't say no to, especially in light of the recent Antares failure. I'm not sure about the CST's service module propulsion, but it may also be a bonus if it can provide needed orbital boosts to the ISS itself. Bonus for NASA gaining a 2nd vehicle with safe cargo return ability.
IIRC, though both Dragon V1 and Cygnus use CBM they have different hatch sizes. Dragon V1: 1270 mmCygnus: 940 mm
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well. Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew. The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus. - Ed Kyle
My guess is no since the CST's design would have to be widened considerably, making it effectively a new spacecraft. They'd use the NASA docking port and cargo would be scaled to fit there. If they needed larger items, Cygnus and Dragon v1 and their use of the CBM would do.
The versatility of having three cargo craft (Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) is something NASA shouldn't say no to, especially in light of the recent Antares failure.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 12:27 amNews today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well. Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew. The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus. - Ed KyleWe will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/20/2014 03:20 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 12:27 amNews today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well. Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew. The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus. - Ed KyleWe will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo. If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price? - Ed Kyle
my "dark horse" musing for CRS II was a Boeing/ULA "big transfer vehicle." Basically an American HTV clone (if not simply a Japanese built HTV). If US-built, the service module would have some CST-100 commonality. Really big 4.5m diameter pressurized module on the front with a CBM. Boeing would offer 1 of these per year starting in 2018, but launched on an Atlas 541/551 or even a DIV-H and carrying 7+ tons of cargo. It would give NASA a way to get more cargo to station without adding more flights. In this scenario, Cynus probably goes away.In light of Orbital's recent trouble I think NASA would be very interested.Seems like they're offering some kind of cargo optimized CST-100, which I don't think will be competitive.