...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.
Quote from: Patchouli on 05/23/2016 07:33 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.
Quote from: douglas100 on 05/24/2016 07:59 amQuote from: Patchouli on 05/23/2016 07:33 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
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
Quote from: VIY on 06/14/2017 11:12 pmNow that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.just because Boeing builds both has no bearing on the matter. What X-37 does is unrelated to CST-100.
Quote from: Jim on 06/15/2017 01:27 amQuote from: VIY on 06/14/2017 11:12 pmNow that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.just because Boeing builds both has no bearing on the matter. What X-37 does is unrelated to CST-100.Agreed. The connection was mostly psychological. My question was mostly if CST-100 can fly on other vehicles or is strictly designed for Atlas V? Can it be launched on F9 or is too heavy or too wide, aerodynamically unsuitable?
One thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?
Quote from: VIY on 06/14/2017 11:12 pmNow that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
>Boeing's plan calls for the first two launches to be on an Atlas, but the company has not ruled out other launchers, including the Falcon 9 developed by CCiCAP rival Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). “It's got to be compatible with others and we continue to have discussions with SpaceX because once the Falcon 9 has enough flights under its belt and is safe enough to fly crew, we feel we can make that business decision. We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”>
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/16/2017 12:10 amOne thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?Not according to Boeing on fiso podcast a couple years ago. One of biggest issues is lack of DV. It is not simply job of enlarging service module as LAS isn't designed for extra mass.
Quote from: Eerie on 06/15/2017 12:54 pmCST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/15/2017 11:00 pmQuote from: Eerie on 06/15/2017 12:54 pmCST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?Emphasis mine.That's the day h*ll freezes over.Seriously, the one remaining obstacle for Atlas 5 to keep flying has just been wiped out by US Congress. Atlas 5 will continue to be around for a long time IMO, regardless of Vulcan and Falcon 9. As long as there is government business, there will be Atlas 5 capacity.The only potentially viable reason to stick Starliner on top of a Falcon 9 is cost. But the recent Cygnus missions on Atlas 5 point to the fact that, when necessary, Atlas 5 can be cost-efficient enough.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/16/2017 06:14 amQuote from: QuantumG on 06/15/2017 11:00 pmQuote from: Eerie on 06/15/2017 12:54 pmCST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?Emphasis mine.That's the day h*ll freezes over.Seriously, the one remaining obstacle for Atlas 5 to keep flying has just been wiped out by US Congress. Atlas 5 will continue to be around for a long time IMO, regardless of Vulcan and Falcon 9. As long as there is government business, there will be Atlas 5 capacity.The only potentially viable reason to stick Starliner on top of a Falcon 9 is cost. But the recent Cygnus missions on Atlas 5 point to the fact that, when necessary, Atlas 5 can be cost-efficient enough.Atlas V is gone as soon as Congress figures out they can get at least 2 redundant launch vehicles that are certified, cheaper, and as capable. Which might be 2022, or it might be never.
Starliner has lot of potential for doing LEO tourism flights, this may only a be few hours orbiting earth before returning. Need to start somewhere plus it would test tourism market for space hotels.With 10 reuses per capsule and 6 month turnaround time, Boeing only needs small fleet to support 10 missions a year. If they could sell 5-10 missions a year, mission costs would come down. Bulking buying service module components ( mainly engines) and LVs should give them significant discounts.