@Star One,I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/27/2014 11:35 am@Star One,I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there. If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.
Quote from: Prober on 01/28/2014 01:50 amQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/27/2014 11:35 am@Star One,I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there. If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.Well that's what makes it double confusing then about this need for SRBs for it on the Atlas V.
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
Quote from: Star One on 01/28/2014 06:26 amQuote from: Prober on 01/28/2014 01:50 amQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/27/2014 11:35 am@Star One,I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there. If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.Well that's what makes it double confusing then about this need for SRBs for it on the Atlas V.Why is it confusing that Prober is wrong?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/27/2014 08:05 pm...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.Isn't the issue about failure modes of the SRBs? Can capsule survive / LAS get away from a detonating SRB? Cheers, Martin
Quote from: newpylong on 01/27/2014 07:01 pmI've seen illustrations of everything from 402 to 422, so who knows what it will end up being. Too much speculation. It definitely is not a 5xx though.We had an official NASA presentation that said the 412. That's the latest information that we have. The 422 is speculation based on the image. Some speculated (on a prior image) that the image shows the 422 because it looks better with two boosters.
I've seen illustrations of everything from 402 to 422, so who knows what it will end up being. Too much speculation. It definitely is not a 5xx though.
FWIW, the last LV configuration that I heard about in a reliable way for the CST-100 was 412. I've never liked the *1* configuration; something about that asymmetric motor placement makes me twitch.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/28/2014 01:04 pmFWIW, the last LV configuration that I heard about in a reliable way for the CST-100 was 412. I've never liked the *1* configuration; something about that asymmetric motor placement makes me twitch.Is that the version that when the Atlas lifts off looks like it is getting pushed to one side?
Assuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?
Just to re-cap (because I'm a little slow)CST-100 uses a LV with single SRB on a Atlas V (412 configuration),Dragon uses a LV with no SRB's on a Falcon 9, andDC uses (as presented) a LV with no SRB's on a Atlas V (402 configuration).the plot thickens...
Quote from: USFdon on 12/16/2013 04:32 pmQuote from: manboy on 12/13/2013 10:54 pmHere you gohttp://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdfOn page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)
Quote from: manboy on 12/13/2013 10:54 pmHere you gohttp://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdfOn page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?
Here you gohttp://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)
Thank you for posting this, but one bit seems confusing.What is being shown in the center under the heading "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"?Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?
Quote from: thydusk666 on 01/28/2014 02:22 pmAssuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?No, because there is no need for different delta-V/altitudes
Are you suggesting that CST-100 is built with a single destination in mind? Bigelow Destiny I and II are in a ~100km higher orbit than ISS, and different inclination. I would be surprised if Boeing limited the capsule's capabilities so much.