Liked the mike too. The interior looks neat and spacious until you remember the power of wide angle lenses. The Ars Technica author commented on how crowded it would be with a full crew (but in zero G for 6 hours, not a big deal.)
Yep, all of the prospective commercial crew vehicles will get quite packed with a crew of seven. I have attached an image which shows how 7 would be seated: (top row of 3, then 4 below their feet) The wider diameter of the CST-100 compared to Dragon allows this kind of seating, whereas the Dragon cabin compensates by being taller, thus two levels. (bottom image)
Both seating arrangements have their pros/cons, so it will be interesting to see more final/complete mockups with all seats in place to judge how much space there is left.
Boeing is planning a flight day one rendezvous and docking capability with the space station, rather than the shuttle’s day-three berthing.
day one docking
It probably has more room than SpaceX's capsule because it doesn't contain self-contained boosters like the Dragon....which I assume take some room...
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing. Can't even find what the acronym stand for :-\
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.
Aviation Week called it a "non-proprietary system" and stated it's supposed to be part of an international docking standard. Prior to SIMAC NASA published a plethora of knowledge on the NDS (they even let you download some STL files of it), so I'm not sure why ITAR would now prevent them now from posting some basic info.Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.
Intellectual property (Boeing) / ITAR issues?
SIMAC is an acronym for Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept
The impression I got was that it would be an APAS clone with different dimensions and resource connections (which is why the IDA adapters are required).SIMAC is an acronym for Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept
Thanks, got a bit more hits with that but any kind of image or diagram still eludes searches.
The vague descriptions give impression of mechanized iLIDS sans the magnets ... which would be pretty much APAS clone.
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing.
At NewSpace 2013 I related my dismay at this comment:Quote“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing.
in the Boeing press release, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2743
In the group of people was two Boeing employees who looked at each other, looked at me, and said "the mission is our top priority, safety is second, but boy oh boy do some people not understand that."
I think they get it.
I assume the "Mission" is to transport the passengers on the CST-100 to their destination safely. If the passengers do not arrive at the destination safe and sound, then the mission is a failure.
What did the Boeing employees think the mission was ?
So do I understand this correctly? In the Boeing design the landing airbags (designed for land operations), also can be used as floatation in water landings?
Don't think this vid was posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVzzHlOCDxk
Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the link.
Is this the drop test from April 3rd 2012?
Don't think this vid was posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVzzHlOCDxk
Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the link.
Is this the drop test from April 3rd 2012?
An Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.
makin' noise
Boeing Commercial Crew Program engine hot fire test (http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10459828596/)QuoteAn Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.
makin' noise
Boeing Commercial Crew Program engine hot fire test (http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10459828596/)QuoteAn Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Thanks for the diagram!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.
CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.
Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Thanks for the diagram!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.
CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.
Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.
Doesn't matter for that case, but consider some of the pad aborts actually seen in the past, where the launch vehicle aborted very close to the pad. In some of those, the launch escape system fired while the rest of the rocket stayed on the pad: it would be less handy if the launch escape system caused the entire launch vehicle to explode, destroying the pad. More generally, if the upper stage is NOT blowing up, it seems like it would be a safety win to not go ahead and make it blow up. In other words, promoting a whole bunch of lesser cases to the worst case doesn't seem like a good attribute. So yes, I think it does matter.
But you are right, maybe the plumes don't impinge or not much anyway, and the short time frame makes it reasonable. I'm sure those concerns have been raised, and answered in some way.
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Thanks for the diagram!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
No, I believe the centaur/CST-100 adapter has four open and deflected paths with some sort of blow-out panels - one for each abort engine. In this image you can see the darker panels that should allow the deflected thrust to exit if an abort occurs. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it will work.
Looks pretty sweet on top of the Atlas doesn't it?
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to get more than a modicum of anything but old news about Boeing's vehicle and its progress in development.Here you go
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
I recall back in mid-June, 2013Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
Did this just happen? Good, if that is the case. Do you have a link/source?
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
On 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?
Terry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"
"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."
Boeing Defense tweet: @BoeingDefense 3h
Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb (http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb)QuoteTerry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"
"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."
It seems to me like the CST-100 is basically out of the game for commercial crew or any other use for that matter. It seemed to be the safe and traditional fallback in case Sierra Nevada folded or Dragon didn't live up to performance / schedule expectations. Now that both of the longshots seem to be on track, what place does CST have? The clamshell design and pusher LAS are innovative, but the other options use pushers and have pinpoint landing capabilities, something NASA probably cares more about than how easy it is for boeing to outfit the interior.
Does CST still have a shot at being tested? If so, why?
Quite the opposite. It is further along, less risk, etc
Quite the opposite. It is further along, less risk, etc
Can you expand on how it is "further along"? I personally find it difficult to see the big picture.
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
On 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?
Former astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
On 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?
Noticed that as well and believe its a good move on their part. My only issue might be the location of the Solar panels. Won't they get damaged by the thrusters?
from @Commercial_Crew (https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/423924261946814466/photo/1)Have not seen the same from the competitionQuoteFormer astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
Quote from: BrightLight...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
It may provide engine-out capability for dual-engine centaur, then it would increase reliability.
Centaur doesn't have engine out capability
No? Here's the SNC DC one: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dreamchaser-sim-langley.htmlfrom @Commercial_Crew (https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/423924261946814466/photo/1)Have not seen the same from the competitionQuoteFormer astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
@Star One,That just made the CST-100 a lot less attractive and might give the DC an edge.
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.
@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.
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
No, I don't know if the LV is a 522 - in fact, I have no clear definitions other than Atlas V what configuration the CST-100 will use?So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
Do we know that CST-100 will use the 522? How do we know it's not the 422?
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
The capsule will launch on a version of the Atlas 5 known as the 422 model - with a two-engine Centaur and two solid rocket boosters - in the launcher's catalog of configurations tailored to the size and destination of the payload for each launch, according to a Boeing spokesperson.
Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Well, it doesn't /improve/ the reliability.Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Well, it doesn't /improve/ the reliability.Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
It might improve the reliability of the overall system. since there is spare thrust in the first stage.
As long as they already had 1 solid, I don't see adding a second solid making it any less safe.
It might improve the reliability of the overall system. since there is spare thrust in the first stage.
As long as they already had 1 solid, I don't see adding a second solid making it any less safe.
Statistics. That's why. You are adding a possible failure point.
How does that spare thrust help you? There is no scenario where a first stage engine out (or booster out) is recoverable.
Atlas V doesn't launch with more SRBs than needed.
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?I wonder which has larger, albeit small incremental, reduction effect on reliability - one extra solid motor or one extra RL10? My bet would be RL10.
I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
...I think I agree. Especially since the RL-10 is started on-orbit (not during first-stage hold-down where it can be aborted intact in case of early problem being detected)....adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?I wonder which has larger, albeit small incremental, reduction effect on reliability - one extra solid motor or one extra RL10? My bet would be RL10.
I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
- Ed Kyle
The wind tunnel images for both CST-100 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/focus-on-details-paying-off-for-cst-100/#.UubOMrTTnnI) and Dream Chaser (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about/work/partners/tunnel_120521.html) (images attached) show an Atlas 4xx; no SRB shown but may be on other side. Edit: presumably that's a 4x2 as both CST-100 and DC have stated DEC is required.Keep in mind that these wind tunnel tests likely run through a series of vehicle configurations to mimic the range of flight conditions. These images might just be showing the set up to test post solid separation conditions, for example.
It improves reliability by increasing your mass margin on the spacecraft (can use heavier components, add redundancy, no need to mess around with composites). Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
It improves reliability by increasing your mass margin on the spacecraft (can use heavier components, add redundancy, no need to mess around with composites). Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
1. The launch vehicle reliability is lowered
2. And you can't say it increases spacecraft reliability. It doesn't matter if the spacecraft doesn't make into orbit.
@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.
@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.
Why is it confusing that Prober is wrong? ;)@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.
Why is it confusing that Prober is wrong? ;)@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.
Isn't the issue about failure modes of the SRBs?
Can capsule survive / LAS get away from a detonating SRB?
Cheers, Martin
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.
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.
TY yg1968 - it always amazes me how well connected this community is - would it be possible to post some portion of the document in L2?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.
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.
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.
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.
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, and
DC uses (as presented) a LV with no SRB's on a Atlas V (402 configuration).
the plot thickens...
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf (http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf)
On 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)
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
The ISS is a max inclination for manned station for the foreseeable future.
The ISS is a max inclination for manned station for the foreseeable future.
Because there is no need for higher inclinations while it would make it more expensive to reach from lower latitudes, or is there a more fundamental reason?
Of course, those solid boosters must light after the RD-180, so there is already confidence in the liquid portion of the first stage. The RD-180 can be shut down if a SRB failure is detected. Of course, a SRB failure might also take out the Atlas core tank, even with the RD-180 shut down. Either way, the thrust required to get away from an exploding core must be greater than what those Aerojet SRBs can generate. We're not talking Shuttle SRBs here. These things are relatively small. If the CST-100 can get away from a core failure, it should be able to get away from an SRB failure.Take in consideration that the SRB supplies about 172tonnes of force. An Atlas V weights 330tonnes + payload (let's say 340tonnes?) of which 284 are RP-1/LOX. And the SRB fire for 116s, while the core does for 242s. So, at SRB cut off we can assume that at least 40% of propellant is remaining in the core. So, even in the worst case, the T/W with a single SRB would be 0.77 in the worst case. The only problem would be asymmetric thrust issue. But if that happens after you've cleared enough to avoid recontact issues, it would actually help to get the core out of the capsule's way faster.
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's
Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?
I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.
Are you saying that they would install the couches and cargo carrying hardware before welding closed the pressure vessel?
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?
I would say that is for assembly and not for refurb
Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch? With full atmospheric pressure* that joint is resisting nearlytwo million Newtons (101 kPa * 2.5^2 m^2 * Pi) or a half million pounds of force (14.7 PSI*(2.5 M*40 in/m)^2*Pi). That would indeed be convenient but looks hard to implement.
*"Sea level is for sissies"
422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson: SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)
It's not clear as to which LV configuration will be used - I trust a direct quote by Sowers to C. Bergin, but it could also mean that Boeing has modified the CST-100 CONOPS since 2011.422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson: SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)
If the CST-100 requires an Atlas V 422, does that mean its too heavy for Falcon 9 ?
422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson: SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)Another data point from this guy (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-welch/37/508/385), who should be in a position to know:
I’m currently working with a team of talented Boeing and NASA engineers to develop the capability to transport astronauts to the ISS; designing the CST-100 capsule that will launch on top of ULA’s Atlas 422 rocket.
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's
Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?
I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.
too high of acceleration
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's
Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?
I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.
too high of acceleration
Terse answer as usual. Maybe too terse for me this time.
I am not sure I understand.
The acceleration problem you mention must be during SRB firing.
AFAIK 400-series and 500-series carries the same liquid propellant load in both stages.
The total acceleration difference between a 541 (or 551) and a hypothetical 441 (or 451) must then be due to dry mass (and payload) difference. A quick search seem to indicate just something like 3t dry weight difference located in fairing and interstage. The resulting acceleration difference seems much too little to account for the need to limit to 2 less SRBs, if this was just about limiting the acceleration load on the payload.
The only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that it is the difference in loads the acceleration put on the centaur that is the limitation. There the acceleration combines unfavorably with increased payload and the fact that the weight of the 4m fairing is carried through the centaur as opposed to being directed around it to the interstage.
edit: especially taking into account that the centaur is one of the most dry weight optimized (read: thin-walled) upper stages around...
Did I get it right?
(...)
The total acceleration difference between a 541 (or 551) and a hypothetical 441 (or 451) must then be due to dry mass (and payload) difference. A quick search seem to indicate just something like 3t dry weight difference located in fairing and interstage. The resulting acceleration difference seems much too little to account for the need to limit to 2 less SRBs, if this was just about limiting the acceleration load on the payload.
The only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that it is the difference in loads the acceleration put on the centaur that is the limitation. There the acceleration combines unfavorably with increased payload and the fact that the weight of the 4m fairing is carried through the centaur as opposed to being directed around it to the interstage.
edit: especially taking into account that the centaur is one of the most dry weight optimized (read: thin-walled) upper stages around...
Did I get it right?
My guess is the Centaur in the 400 series have a limit to the stress of lifting the entire payload stack along with aerodynamic forces. Where in the 500 series the payload fairing partially carry some the stress and takes the full aerodynamic forces.
Are you saying that they would install the couches and cargo carrying hardware before welding closed the pressure vessel?
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?
I would say that is for assembly and not for refurb
Looks like mechanical fasteners to me.
Should be weld less unless they needed to add some welds that add weight.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/23/22339/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/23/22339/)
A lot of new technology in the Cs-100 & Orion programs ;)
What gives you that impression? (that they would open it up)
Doing so would be terribly inefficient. There is going to be so much wiring, pipes, and other interfaces that surround and connect the top part of the pressure vessel from the bottom part. Madness.
Just see how complex the Orion systems are (a similar design), and they aren't even done installing everything needed for EFT-1.
What gives you that impression? (that they would open it up)
Doing so would be terribly inefficient. There is going to be so much wiring, pipes, and other interfaces that surround and connect the top part of the pressure vessel from the bottom part. Madness.
Just see how complex the Orion systems are (a similar design), and they aren't even done installing everything needed for EFT-1.
What makes me think that they will open the entire clamshell for access is Boeing's direct statement in the slide included in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1133795#msg1133795) where they say "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"
Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.
What gives you that impression? (that they would open it up)
Doing so would be terribly inefficient. There is going to be so much wiring, pipes, and other interfaces that surround and connect the top part of the pressure vessel from the bottom part. Madness.
Just see how complex the Orion systems are (a similar design), and they aren't even done installing everything needed for EFT-1.
What makes me think that they will open the entire clamshell for access is Boeing's direct statement in the slide included in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1133795#msg1133795) where they say "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"
Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.
If its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?Read this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1154671#msg1154671)
TYIf its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?Read this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1154671#msg1154671)
"The clamshell structure is weldless."
Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot.
Jim responded and objected to your last sentence. (which I did not quote above)Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
I'm not sure I see how that's a drawback.. it seems like an efficiency to me. DC either aborts and uses the engines to do the abort, or doesn't abort and uses the engines to achieve orbit. CST-100 throws away perfectly good engines unless they are needed in the abort. (snip)
I'm not sure I see how that's a drawback.. it seems like an efficiency to me. DC either aborts and uses the engines to do the abort, or doesn't abort and uses the engines to achieve orbit. CST-100 throws away perfectly good engines unless they are needed in the abort. Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot. All IMHO anyway.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975
A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975
A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.
Taken from here.http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975
A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.
Here's the pic:
I can't seem to find a caption or hi res version, but maybe it's hiding somewhere I can't find it.
I found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):Why not? They're in the lead.
"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."
- Ed Kyle
I found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):Why not? They're in the lead.
"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."
- Ed Kyle
Ed is correct, regardless of what all the SpaceX amazing people may think.I found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):Why not? They're in the lead.
"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."
- Ed Kyle
I found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):Why not? They're in the lead.
"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."
- Ed Kyle
I assume the relative positions haven't changed since the last selection statement, where Boeing was further along in design but SpaceX was willing to invest more.
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
There's another thing, however. All we've seen from Boeing is hardware mock-ups or test articles (the CST-100 airbag test was done with something much less than a real spacecraft) while SpaceX has flown 4 Dragons (variants which will carry crew) to orbit and reentered back safely on Earth, 3 of which carried pressurized cargo to and from the International Space Station, and a 5th is at the launch site now. Sure, the crewed one will be different, but this ought to count as far, far more than simply an airbag test.Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
I wonder if he's saying they haven't done those things yet?
All we have seen are hardware mock-ups of the SpaceX crew capsule as well.Why? It's a completely valid point. You don't get to ignore it because it goes against your opinion.
Stop comparing it to the cargo vehicle.
According to this:Then again, pad abort for the SpaceX vehicle was originally planned for late 2013 as well. Didn't happen, yet.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule
"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."
...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
Good point. But it may happen soon, and almost surely before the CST-100 pad abort (which isn't scheduled?).According to this:Then again, pad abort for the SpaceX vehicle was originally planned for late 2013 as well. Didn't happen, yet.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule
"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."
...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
>
At the recent Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., he said CST-100 “can be operational as soon as 2016.
>
"....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.”
>
There is also Boeing saying they're talking to SpaceX about using Falcon 9 after their contracted Atlas V HR flights (2?) Business case v. price.
ISTM this wouldn't indicate a closed business case, and if so why would SpaceX help them close it?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml
{snip}
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
Good point. But it may happen soon, and almost surely before the CST-100 pad abort (which isn't scheduled?).
I'm merely saying that Boeing really /doesn't/ appear to be ahead.
...Additionally, I expect both Boeing and SpaceX to suffer slips. The question is who will slip more.
Looking at the CCiCap milestone schedule that was released when the contract was announced, Boeing had just one vehicle hardware milestone ("Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Development Test"), whereas Sierra Nevada had their "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" and end their contract with "Main Propulsion and RCS Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing". SpaceX ends their contract with a "Pad Abort Test", "Dragon Primary Structure Qualification", and an "In-Flight Abort Test".
At the end of the CCiCap contract it appears that Boeing will have demonstrated the least amount of real hardware progress. Of course that may not be an indication of the real level of progress that they will have made, just that they haven't demonstrated whatever they do have.
Just from a demonstration standpoint though, it would almost seem like Boeing is behind both SpaceX AND Sierra Nevada, which would be surprising given how little funding Sierra Nevada was provided. And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they award CCtCap.
And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.
If they barter parts that are already qualified, then it is the equivalent to money. Wouldn't be much, though.And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.
Was money ever part of the "help"?
... it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point.
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
Is Ed honestly saying that paperwork counts more than actual flown hardware?
Say it ain't so Ed. ::)Number of Atlas 5 Launches: 43N/ANumber of Falcon 9 v1.1 Launches: 3N/A
Number of CST-100 Flights: 0
Number of SpaceX Crew Vehicle Flights: 0
Digging deeper into history gives these numbers.Number of SpaceX orbital launches: 13N/ANumber of Boeing or Boeing predecessor or partly owned company orbital launches: 787N/ANumber of Boeing or predecessor/partly owned launches by orbital family rockets: 906N/ANumber of Boeing or Boeing predecessor crewed orbital spacecraft flown: All previous U.S. flightsN/A
- Ed Kyle
Hmmm... The phrase "past performance" does come to mind.
Do we even know when (or if) CST-100 has a launch abort test scheduled?
And once they do that, will they do a max-Q abort test?
... it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point.Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the four round-trip flights into space of CST-100. When did they happen?
The first CST-100 test flight will launch in late 2016, with the first manned mission planned for early 2017.
Chris Ferguson, commander of the final space shuttle flight, virtually returned to space in the Boeing Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 simulator, when he recently performed manual piloting activities, including on-orbit attitude and translation maneuvers, docking and backing away from a virtual International Space Station, and a manual re-entry to Earth.
Last Shuttle Commander Virtually Flies Boeing CST-100 to Space Station (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2014/02/bds_cst_100_02_27_14.page)
Boeing CST-100 Unveiled, Ready for TestingUmmm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft with an Atlas V rocket successfully underwent a fit check, verifying that the model accurately fits the hardware ...
Boeing CST-100 Unveiled, Ready for TestingUmmm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft with an Atlas V rocket successfully underwent a fit check, verifying that the model accurately fits the hardware ...
Seriously, SpaceDev has fine-tuned construction techniques, built and tested a composite aerostructure while continuing work on their hybrid rockets and escape system. Dragon is already flying with continued work on their escape and landing systems. Boeing has --- a small scale chunk of metal made by someone else? It reinforces my long-standing view that their contract is black cover and will never see completion.
Ummm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
Seriously, SpaceDev has fine-tuned construction techniques, built and tested a composite aerostructure while continuing work on their hybrid rockets and escape system. Dragon is already flying with continued work on their escape and landing systems. Boeing has --- a small scale chunk of metal made by someone else? It reinforces my long-standing view that their contract is black cover and will never see completion.
What are these? You should do a little research before making such unsupported statements, which is nothing more than biased opinion. There also is a Avionics Software Integration FacilityBiased? Not at all, against who and quite the discreditive assumption.
1. Boeing has yet to surpass Blue Origin's well-funded development who was cut after CCDev2.
2. At the time I suspected a good deal of the money would go to other Boeing projects, but this one has done quite well for them;
3. Boeing is very far behind and
4. I doubt they'll pass the Critical Design Review Board in April this year
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?Unneeded. The new CRS contract allows contractors to transfer cargo through docking port, although certainly a CBM would allow larger cargo.
Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
CST-100 is going to be a finalistUnsubstantiated
CST-100 is going to be a finalistUnsubstantiated
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?
Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?
Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?
No Room.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/10/BoeingCST100d-660x311.jpg
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.There will be cargo in place of the crew members then, or maybe some tourist that is along for the ride (goes down in the same capsule with the previous expedition crew). Besides, it is still possible that the size of the ISS crew will increase. Either way, your original argument that "We also don't know what price the vendors will charge for each flight." is wrong, as we clearly do know what the price is and it is lower than the sum you mentioned if all seats are filled. Also want to point out that even if SpaceX charged three times as much for a seat (e.g. if there were only 3 people on board and no cargo) it would still be cheaper than a seat on the Soyuz that is currently at 70 million. For some reason some members of congress and you seem to have no problem with spending that much. I guess it ain't wasteful spendin' if the money goes to them Russians.
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.If you adjust it for four passengers it is still cheaper than Soyuz plus you get more up and downmass.
ISS could possibly go to 7 crew, especially if extended to 2028 (which seems most likely) or even beyond. That'd mean at least 4 crew.The ISS is going to go to a seven person crew when the CCV starts flying but it is planned to only be used to transport a crew of four.
A crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.Not only that, those are dollars that stay in America, a lot goes back to government in taxes and almost all of it stays in the US economy.
As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.
A crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.Not only that, those are dollars that stay in America, a lot goes back to government in taxes and almost all of it stays in the US economy.
Also it is a political move. As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.
Problem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.Could have been faster if congress had funded commercial crew as requested. Instead they cut funding, rather sending money to the Russians.
Problem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.Could have been faster if congress had funded commercial crew as requested. Instead they cut funding, rather sending money to the Russians.
No, they got less money than requested. That meant that the money was not there to pay the milestones as originally planned and had to be delayed years on NASAs side (pay it with next years budget or the budget of the year after that). This is not what I say, that's what NASA says. And this is on topic as it affects CST 100 as well.Problem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.Could have been faster if congress had funded commercial crew as requested. Instead they cut funding, rather sending money to the Russians.
sorry your going to disagree with me on this :o
Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.
Not fully funded is another word game :-X
Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.So you claim underfunding commercial few years in row hasn't any negative effects? ::) Or that there were not any underfunding? ::)
Not fully funded is another word game :-X
NASA Commercial Crew Partners Complete Space System Milestones - March 31, 2014
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partners-complete-space-system-milestones-0/#.UznTfNy5o-J
I wouldn't discount CST-100 so much. (Warning - unfounded opinion follows). Boeing has plenty on its plate outside of CST-100, so the fact they don't toot their own horn about it perhaps as much as others do their respective products doesn't mean its not progressing. I'd worry more about DC. Crashing a flight test article is not good.
I wouldn't discount CST-100 so much. (Warning - unfounded opinion follows). Boeing has plenty on its plate outside of CST-100, so the fact they don't toot their own horn about it perhaps as much as others do their respective products doesn't mean its not progressing. I'd worry more about DC. Crashing a flight test article is not good.
The landing crash means nothing other than showing the aircraft and crew can walk away to fly again. They used landing gear harvested from an F-5.
The comparison to CST-100 is irrelevant. We know capsules can fly. At some point SNC had to take a bold step before they began OTV fabrication to verify the design.
A capsule can generate lift during reentry, though certainly not as much as a lifting body or winged vehicle. Doing so allows for a wider cross range, smaller landing area, and lower deceleration forces on the crew. So most capsules do this. However this is not strictly necessary when returning from LEO. The Mercury, Vostok, and Voskhod capsules did not generate lift. On occasion the Soyuz has been forced to do a ballistic entry due to an inability to control attitude. Capsules returning from BEO though do need to generate lift due to the more extreme deceleration forces and heat.
The comparison to CST-100 is irrelevant. We know capsules can fly. At some point SNC had to take a bold step before they began OTV fabrication to verify the design.
Actually, don't all capsules need to somehow manage the angle of attack they used upon reentry, so that they get the proper "lift" or maximum effect of the heat shield ? It may not be as difficult as guiding an airframe to a landing on a runway, but something needs to be done during the early stages of de-orbit.
I haven't seen the video from the SNC landing, but the video from the CST-100 parachute / airbag tests didn't exactly show a nice gentle touchdown either.
Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft will typically carry five people plus cargo to low Earth orbit destinations, including the International Space Station.
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.You send the first one up on automatics.They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.You send the first one up on automatics.They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
[...]Then we're on the same page (literally for me, since baldusis 'taxi model not currently possible' post just before your 'use taxi model' one are one different pages :) ).
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.You send the first one up on automatics.They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
Will NASA then lease the vehicle and use NASA pilots?That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.You send the first one up on automatics.They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?
Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?
Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)Good news, IMO.QuoteOne tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)Good news, IMO.QuoteOne tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
- Ed Kyle
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)Good news, IMO.QuoteOne tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
- Ed Kyle
yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin ;)
I hope the CST-100 has oxygen to go with the extra flight time.
I assume that the solar panels increase the number of and size of the launch windows.
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon. The arrays in this case allow greater power margin and reduce overall mission failure rate, since they allow the crew time to phase up properly or to troubleshoot problems (unrelated to the arrays) before having to give up and abort-to-Earth (perhaps unsafely to a remote part of the globe) just due to lack of time.Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)Good news, IMO.QuoteOne tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
- Ed Kyle
yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin ;)
Yes but it is a trade - components like arrays generally add significantly to the failure modes in risk assessments. And it will add significant recurring costs. Engineering is all about choices :)
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.
From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.
From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.
From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:
Thanks! Do you have a link to that presentation?
Um... yeah, I don't think it will look anything like that. Not event close.
This image gives a decent idea of what they need to pack in there:
Looks like Boeing is doing some PR work....
This was on tonight's local tv station.. the Bigelow & Boeing deal.....I need to read above but check out the number of people aboard in the video.
Nice passenger seats & one for the Pilot.
http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/positively-lv/In-North-Las-Vegas-a-sneak-peek-at-the-future-of-space-travel--257427871.html
:D
10 people packed in a CST-100? Are they trying to make Soyuz look spacious? ;)
That has to be a misunderstanding.
That has to be a misunderstanding.
That has to be a misunderstanding.
It is not a misunderstanding. If the sole purpose of the flight is to deliver passengers to a commercial space station, such as Bigelow has planned using its BA 330 modules, then the CST-100's new commercial interior can be configured to seat nine passengers and one pilot.
That said, the way the cabin is designed, the "overhead bins" of the spaceliner occupy the same space as the seats, so for each storage space the customer wants, they lose a chair. Bigelow envisions flights with six crew members.
So it is a maximum of ten people with the actual number to be dictated by the customer's needs.
I'm still not seeing it.
10 people packed in a CST-100? Are they trying to make Soyuz look spacious? ;)
That has to be a misunderstanding.
Yes, but I suspect that any Boeing engineer that actually works on the CST-100 would find that rendering quite amusing.
The good news is that it sounds like all 3 CC vehicles are going to be built with or without NASA funding.
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
Here's my article for Space.com about the new commercial version of the CST-100:
Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spaceliner
http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html
Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.
Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.
I've been inside the CST-100 mockup that Bigelow built for Boeing and which Boeing then extensively modified to reflect its NASA interior design. I've also been inside a fully-outfitted Apollo mockup.
The CST-100 feels much more spacious than Apollo.
The CST-100 configuration I sat in included seating for five and even with four other people inside the capsule at the same time, I still had more room than most airliners offer their customers seated in coach.
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Just asking what seems to me a pair of obvious questions. Restating;
a) if there is an RD-180 shortage, would Atlas V's assigned to CST-100 and DC test flights be withdrawn to extend the EELV programs access to launchers?
b) if so would those spacecraft be delayed while Falcon 9 adapters are designed, wind tunnel tested etc.?
I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.
Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds. If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it. The schedule alone would push IOC to 2019 or so, and again at what cost. Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits. If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.
Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
1) this falls under a NASA problem not DOD....If what I've been reading is correct Orion by law (as the backup to commercial) should be ready to launch to the ISS. SLS was to be ready in 2015-2016 and that won't happen...so that makes Delta IV the rocket of choice as the backup action plan right?
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Your thoughts?
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
That's because electrical testing and solid installation is done at the pad, right? Does the pad need more refurbishing after each launch, to? I wonder why they didn't used the Fleet Standardization Program to improve the Delta IV flow.Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds. If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it. The schedule alone would push IOC to 2019 or so, and again at what cost. Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits. If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
The optics of Boeing showing off their mock-up CST just weeks before their main competitor shows off a flightworthy manned capsule isn't helpful, either.
This is such an important point with regards to NASA's Commercial Crew program that always gets lost in the soup.
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.
Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.
Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years? Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it.That's not right. Falcon 9 is closer to human rate. And there's the option of producing the engines in the US.
If you look at our status I don't see any other choice.
Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits.It needs the funding. 200M have been appropriated this year. But it's a long road and we don't know what will happen with the project if the Ukrainian crisis gets solved next year.
That's a given....its time for Rocketdyne to pull all the materials out of storage and get the manufacturing project started.
If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.Dragon on Falcon 9 is about to go through integrated CDR in a couple of month. They are actually testing the MaxQ LAS abort this year or early next. And they have agreed their certification process with NASA. Do you believe that you can be the fore runner in crewed launch competition with a rocket that's nowhere close to human rating? If Atlas V was the closest to human rating, then Falcon 9 is clearly next.
Where is this coming from? The Falcon 9 is under continuous experimental status with re usability. Unless I missed something, don't see this combo operational as HSR for years. Throwing more cash is not going to fix this problem.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.The RS-68A project actually took care of most of the human rating issues. Going to a full new development like the RS-68B would not only be seriously expensive, but add three to five years to the human rating effort. As the Delta IV current status, is mostly implementing Common Avionics, pad mods and design and implement the certification process. The issue is mostly the avionics implementation schedule.
We are at the pre to painful decisions point. Start thinking of it as a management lead Apollo 13 issue. So a decision is needed, the Sooner the better.
Believe the real call NASA needs to make is going from the RS-68 A to make the RS-68B. The electronics upgrade is done? The regenerative nozzle would finish the project?
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.I'm sorry, I meant two years. I'm referring to the Ukrainian situation.
What can be solved in two days?
My guess is that the DoD wished to get the complete order. Have a feeling the State Dept long ago thought it a better idea to keep purchases low and cash flowing into Russia.....believe it was the policy. The US didn't want the engineers to end up working for the bad guys.The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.
Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.
Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years? Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
That might be your opinion. But on L2 and even on the public side every informed opinion is that SpaceX is ahead of the rest in CCtCap. You'll understand if you go by the opinion of the actual NASA engineers.
These the same NASA engineers making the call on SLS or Orion, or how about Aries 1?
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:
Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space (http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-boeing-capsule-that-may-someday-take-you-to-1573099687)
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:
Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space (http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-boeing-capsule-that-may-someday-take-you-to-1573099687)
Yep, and those pictures do seem to suggest that this is an interior of some fantasy spacecraft (look at all the windows!), and *NOT* CST-100. Some future derivative perhaps, but not CST-100.
There is no way that interior matches the exterior.
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."
Seems everyone agrees with this. Which ever spacecraft flies on on which ever launcher, it will most likely have a blue interior.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
That's how they originally planned to do it, but if RD-180 becomes as priceless as people think they have other ways of doing an inflight abort test ("little joe" type of vehicle).ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
No, they're not going to continue as normal if the supply is about to run out.ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
"There's no telling where this [partnership] is going to lead in half a dozen years, but our intention is to closely mimic what the commercial customer desires on an airliner, to be able to provide them with at least a similar type of service on a spaceliner," Ferguson said.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.
Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.
Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V. ::)
Second without a successful LES abort test of the CST-100 from the Atlas V at Max-Q. You have no way of gauging the effectiveness of the CST-100 abort system.
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V. ::)2,200k n are 218 tonnes of force. How much would the stack weight? Please remember that they just need to reach MaxQ, which is usually about 30s into the flight and that's it.
70 tons of ballast?
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.70 tons of ballast?
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.70 tons of ballast?
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.70 tons of ballast?
If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
CST isn't a national security satellite.
Well, in light of this development:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34810.0
either AV pursues a new engine it can acquire quickly, like TR-107, or CST-100 will be looking for a new ride.
CST isn't a national security satellite.
True but do you believe there will be a contract extension and Atlas V continuing to fly unaltered for civil payloads when military payloads have switched?
"The vehicle includes five recliner seats, [...]"
Sen. Nelson was there, giving a speech and crawling inside the mockup, which the reporter described as "America’s next spaceship destined to carry humans".
Were any U.S. Senators at the SpaceX unveiling?
- Ed Kyle
>
Technocrat spotted at the event Reps. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., Mike Honda, D-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. Nearly all sit on committees that set policy or draft spending bills for NASA. The House Intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat, Maryland’s C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, was also spotted.
>
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — Hoping for the best, but preparing for defeat, Boeing will send out about 215 potential layoff notices to employees currently working on its NASA CST-100 Commercial Crew program.
The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.
“It’s just a standard way … to minimize potential business impact,” added John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew program manager.
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.
you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil. Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program. When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems. Just saying
After reading that article, were is Boeing's commercial market they were to have?QuoteKENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — Hoping for the best, but preparing for defeat, Boeing will send out about 215 potential layoff notices to employees currently working on its NASA CST-100 Commercial Crew program.
The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.
“It’s just a standard way … to minimize potential business impact,” added John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew program manager.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss
The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.
Mulholland said “several hundred” employees currently work on the CST-100 program, including just under 100 in Florida.
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.I disagree. One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars. Of course they have to make commercial sense as an ongoing business.
Boeing needs to spend less on lobbyists and less time gouging the American people and more time putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach.
One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.
Who said anything about saving humanity? Or mandates?One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.
SpaceX is in the game because Elon has a boatload of money so he can build cool toys and fly rockets. Boeing is a commercial company. Since when does either have a mandate to save humanity?
Jim, if I found you injured in the road I would help you. It would be of no benefit to me, however it would be the right thing to do. More so, we would both benefit subsequently.
That is why Boeing should grow a pair. Dare I say it, like SpaceX.
As always IMHO.
I didn't mention the 787. Maybe because of its great cost is why Boeing wants to gouge the USG (and hence people) for HSF and launches.
one is about shareholders dividends.
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.
Good point, I was thinking LEO ops...Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.
Except the Lunar module (Grumman) and now, Orion(LM).
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.
you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil. Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program. When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems. Just saying
It also shows Boeing has little faith in Bigelow and is unwilling to continue development on the CST-100 on it's own dime. Both SpaceX and SNC have stated they will keep development going.
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.
Would Boeing notice as much as a company if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
You are correct.New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
It has nothing to do with New Space and Old Space. Spacex is an exception but all New Space companies are looking to make a buck and not expanding humanity's reach.
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.
Would Boeing notice as much as a company if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldn’t be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...Dropping SpaceX would mean sending more money to Russia for either Soyuz launches or engines for Atlas. I think It would be more responsible to give SpaceX whatever funding is required to meet the equilibrium point on schedule acceleration vs additional Soyuz launches, while sending SNC enough funds to provide long term competition, to keep SpaceX's prices low.
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.
They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.
Don't underestimate Boeing. ... They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010).Part of that is likely residual from the post-Cold War mergers. Boeing Classic was mostly commercial aircraft, though it also built bombers and tankers for the Pentagon and had the odd space contract like Saturn V S-IC. Hughes Space was satellites, often commercial but also big-buck government satellites. Rockwell (North American Aviation) was all Pentagon. McDonnell Douglas was mostly Pentagon (ex-McDonnell), though it also built commercial aircraft (ex-Douglas).
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
But SpaceX is different. There is a big difference between being profitable enough to keep going and being profitable enough to satisfy your stockholders.
>
They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.
>
>
They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.
>
If the Boeing CC case is closed why is it they were talking about switching to Falcon 9 because Atlas V is so expensive?
Certainly the Atlas V situation hasn't improved in the last few weeks. Have they decided to jump ship to get the costs down?
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.
Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.
Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.
Sounds like it is funding dependent but Boeing wants to do an in-flight abort with the plan to "unzip" the Atlas V at transonic speeds.Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.
Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.
Agreed 100%.
My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:
1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.
2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing. Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way. That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX. NASA lists a requireemnt. Boeing says how much fault tolerance? Here is the massive analysis and documentation. SpaceX says why do you need that? This is good enough.
1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.
Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
The prices are redacted in the public releases of the CRS contracts
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
Well at least we know that it cant be more than that then ;)
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
That was the maximum price, the actual per mission (per kg) is not known
So if we sum thing up...Boeing & SpaceX both have pressure hulls built, plus a couple of mock ups.
Would that be agreeable?
How so?
I think SpaceX's considerable lead has been eaten up by all this v2 nonsense.
I think that was by nefarious design.
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull three years ago (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=56721), I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull three years ago (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=56721), I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.
The toxic propellant at landing is definitely an issue.
Handling toxic propellants is something you do every day when you go to the pump. That's why we have gas tanks. This is a non-issue.
And as far as solids fuels being safer than liquids, the body count comes down in favor of liquids.
Please name a propellant that is not toxic and can be stored for extended periods of time.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant parachutes on the Falcon. At any rate the CTS-100 dosn't seem to be all that far behind Dragon at this point. It is a viable contender.Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.
Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.
Vertical landing is great, and I too look forward to the day when a stage flies back to the launch site and lands on its tail as God and Robert Heinlein intended, but for Dragon it's just a boondoggle. It's not "safe", it's not "how a 21st century spaceship should land" or whatever stupid sales gimmick they're using now. Considering that they're still going with toxic propellants, I don't think it's even sensible. Why the double standard? Because those stages are supposed to be able to be restacked and refly the same day (eventually), or at least the same week. There's absolutely no need for a crew vehicle to be able to do that. Ya want pinpoint landing? Buy an off-the-shelf GPS guided parachute. Ya want softer landings? Use airbags or a parawing.
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.
Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.
Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.
Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Edit: to bring on topic.
V2 needs them in the case of a pad or in-flight abort.And in case the engines fail to start prior to powered landing.
So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.
- Ed Kyle
HL-20 had a proposed chute which is seen as not required for DC... Its lifting body generates enough cross range and recall that reasonably low 161 kts landing speed during ALT 1.So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.
- Ed Kyle
DC's back up is?
DC's back up is?...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day.
Which airlines use lifting bodies?DC's back up is?...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day.
Two main reasons. One being the USAF wanted to be able to make once around polar orbits, which required a very high crossrange. Two was that the complex shape of the body would result in difficult payload bay dimensions and subsytem layouts. Number one was the real driver though.
NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s. There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.
- Ed Kyle
Which airlines use lifting bodies?DC's back up is?...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day.
NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s. There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.
- Ed Kyle
Oh come on, Ed. You know very well the reason they used wings per se rather than a lifting body: size/mass of the vehicle in the first place; cargo down-mass requirements, and cross-range. Had they gone straight from their small lifting body experiments to an operational space vehicle, it would have looked very much like DC does.NASA traded lifting bodies with winged designs for Shuttle during the early studies, but went with wings very early. The add-on USAF cross range requirements forced use of a double-delta wing rather than the original straight wing, but lifting bodies were already out of it by then. The early lifting bodies had stability problems and landed hot. They got better later.
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?
CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.
1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?
CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.
1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.
Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances. CBM is *not* an option. Move on :)
He just answered my question. And I was trying to find out the suitability for CRS 2 of CST-100. Let's remember that their pressure vessel is made out of a single billet, formed and machined. Thus, I understand that making adaptations is not that easy. And CBM is very important to CRS 2.They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?
CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.
1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.
Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances. CBM is *not* an option. Move on :)
how old is that CBM design anyhow?
how old is that CBM design anyhow?
The mechanical design passed the Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 PDR at MSFC in the spring of 1993. The general dimensions came well before that (circa 1988 towards the end of Phase B studies).
Assuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.
“We’ve got a great relationship with Space Adventures,” John Mulholland told Space News in November of 2012. “I love the idea of flying people up to the International Space Station. It brings additional awareness to all the good things that are being done on the space station. You build advocacy. So we really hope to be able to partner with Space Adventures and NASA to fly customers in extra seats to the International Space Station.”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1
Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.QuoteAssuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.
-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.
Quote“We’ve got a great relationship with Space Adventures,” John Mulholland told Space News in November of 2012. “I love the idea of flying people up to the International Space Station. It brings additional awareness to all the good things that are being done on the space station. You build advocacy. So we really hope to be able to partner with Space Adventures and NASA to fly customers in extra seats to the International Space Station.”
Good to hear. Shame we haven't heard it recently.
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)But wait. Solid rocket motors are far too dangerous for human launches. There will be vibrations that will shake the crew to death, and those motors are far too skinny (the rocket will surely tip over), and when the rocket blows up chucks of the solids will set the parachutes on fire. This is all Griffin's fault. Etc. ........
But wait. ....snip... There will be vibrations that will shake the crew to death, and......snip ......, and when the rocket blows up chucks of the solids will set the parachutes on fire. This is all Griffin's fault. Etc. ........
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1
Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.QuoteAssuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.
-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1
Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.QuoteAssuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.
-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.
This really bothered me. I understand prepare for the worst hope for the best, but there is such a thing as crushing the spirit of the engineers.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/boeing-wont-bui.html
This really bothered me. I understand prepare for the worst hope for the best, but there is such a thing as crushing the spirit of the engineers.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/boeing-wont-bui.html
Of course there would be layoffs. Outside of NASA, there is no commercially viable market to transport people to LEO for the reasonably foreseeable future. Why spend money on a product with no near-term customers? I really don't understand why people are shocked by this.
So assuming that they baselined for 5 passengers, then we still only have about 400kg more weight (assuming weight for people, extra chairs, spacesuits, etc) for 9 people. This still sounds to me like their capsule is very heavy for what it does (and compared to Dragon v2).-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?
think 5-9 passengers
So assuming that they baselined for 5 passengers, then we still only have about 400kg more weight (assuming weight for people, extra chairs, spacesuits, etc) for 9 people. This still sounds to me like their capsule is very heavy for what it does (and compared to Dragon v2).-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?
think 5-9 passengers
The DragonFly EIS lists a dry mass of 6,350.3 kg. How close that is to a crew V2 is up for discussion.Wonder where the huge difference in mass comes from, especially since the CST 100 does not seem to be any more capable than the Dragon V2.
This AmericaSpace article gives CST-100 a mass of 10 tons.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=40183
Wonder where the huge difference in mass comes from, especially since the CST 100 does not seem to be any more capable than the Dragon V2.
Is it?
It is right in the words: "The DragonFly EIS lists a dry mass of 6,350.3 kg"
Centennial, Colo., (July 7, 2014) – United Launch Alliance (ULA) recently completed a Critical Design Review (CDR) of the launch site accommodations that will support commercial crew launches of Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation (CST) -100 at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) in Florida.
The CDR, supported by Boeing, NASA, and the Air Force, approved the design for the Crew Access Tower, Crew Access Arm as well as the White Room that will allow the flight crews the ability to safely ingress and egress Boeing’s CST-100 crew module for launch. In addition, the team reviewed the conceptual design of the emergency egress system which is similar in design to the space shuttle basket escape system.
No mention of DC support in the new tower.
Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?
Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?
Do the crew board capsule before or after LV is fuelled?.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx)
Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?
Unplanned. Will only happen if Boeing wins.
Thanks for finding that. Some things look elegant and some, not so much. This would be one of the latter, I'm afraid. Something just seems really ungainly. Not that it matters at all.http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx)
Here is the rest of the image from their facebook page.
Mulholland won't say how much less it will cost NASA to fly the CST-100 than it currently pays the Russians, only to say it will be "significantly below" $70 million a seat. He cites competitive reasons for not disclosing a figure. He also won't say how much money Boeing has invested of its own money in developing the space taxi, though he says NASA's $460 million investment "has paid the preponderance of the development work to date."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
Companies can propose either model, but I think rental model is starting to emerge as the favored approach. Pilot just takes up space that could be sold as a tourist seat or NASA cargo.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
A CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Presumably it's this:QuoteA CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
That image has been floating around for awhile now. I think it originated on this guy's blog here: https://astrowright.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/personal-orbital-spacecraft-within-reach/ and is not from any kind of internal effort at Boeing/ULA.
Likeliest explanation in my opinion is that someone at AJ/R ****ed up and just grabbed the image off a quick Google search. Hopefully they cleared using it with the creator (he doesn't seem to be credited in the PR). It probably would have taken about 30min. to get a current image from Boeing... (grrr.).Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.
Need the higher thrust for attitude control during aborts in the lower atmosphere.
In the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
Boeing says that it might continue at least until CRS2 is awarded if it is downselected under CCtCap:Taking a step back and looking at the business case is consistent with what they have always said. The new angle is wrt CRS-2. Perhaps they think they can make a go using CST as a cargo platform in lieu of a crew contract.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-nears-multibillion-dollar-decision-commercial-space-taxis-n180986QuoteIn the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
[Boeing VP and program manager John] Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design.
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
Woah! That's exactly what I said. But not in so many words...Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Have we all noticed that "measured in mass" is not actually a quote?
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Mulholland gave a one-sentence summary of how far along they are in the design process of a complex hardware development project. Measuring that by how much of the vehicle they have designed doesn't seem unreasonable. Would percent complete measured by part count be better? Either one is obviously going to be a gross simplification of the overall status of the design, but gets across his point to the journalist and the general public that they have a majority of the vehicle designed.
It's not a quote because it's not in quotation marks.
"Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design."
How is that not a quote? Unless he didn't actually say what the reporter said he did.
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.
Well, then it's a good thing that neither the press or the public are deciding its' fate. NASA knows the real situation and I trust they will make the correct decision.Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
The sad fact is that the press and American public are so woefully scientifically/mathematically illiterate that no layperson will even ask that question.
It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.
The real question is, who's this PR for? Not NASA, they know what's really going on. The public? They just want to see something fly if they even pay that much attention in the first pace. Certain members of Congress? (Don't want to jump the shark again) So who is this message trying to influence? And why?
I don't get that sense from Mr. Mulholland. And nothing he was quoted as saying was technically untrue. He knows what's coming down and he's doing his best to keep a positive public display. He's in a difficult situation. On some level, there will be those in the industry and out, who say, "Hey look, Big Boeing jut got its' arse kicked from little old SpaceX." That's totally not what I believe or would say but the optics of them losing, if and when they do, will not be pleasant. And Mr. Mulholland did the best he could with what he was given. Talk to Jim McNerney if you have complaints.It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.
And I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a Boeing exec on technical details. ;)
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.
I disagree. The advantage of using the same vehicle for cargo as you do for crew is that you don't lose valuable non-human "stuff" on a cargo run if there is an abort. Sometimes that "stuff" can be unique and hard to replace, so the owners would much rather fly on a vehicle that could safeguard the "stuff" by returning it safely to Earth.
Yes, NASA knows what's really going on. But do scientifically illiterate Congresspeople who control the purse strings? No.Yes. This is almost like an admission of losing the race. As if gearing up for a different game...
They're just working the refs, like an NBA game. Spin until you win.
Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review,
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?
[Boeing VP and program manager John] Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design.
I like Ferguson, and I think he shoots straight. You think Musk and Sirangelo haven't been feeding us carefully qualified half truths? It frustrates me that people can just slag the guy and nobody cares.
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682
People are estimating 16-20m3 (I bet usable volume is maybe half that? I'm too tired to fire up CAD right now).
I've seen "more than 1100kg" and "up to 1300kg" for cargo capacity.
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
I'd think it's the other way around. Cygnus covers the bulky cargo and trash disposal. You are correct about the unpressurized cargo of course. Cygnus could go to a full sized CBM hatch if desired, CST can't.
I have to wonder what they would charge under a commercial contract for a 4.5m diameter tin can to launch on Falcon Heavy... and whether it would be substantially cheaper than the Japanese and European entrants.
ESA is out of the ATV game at this point, and ISTM Japan's HTV 2 plans may hinge on if they choose to fly Dream Chaser or not.ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
I'd think it's the other way around. Cygnus covers the bulky cargo and trash disposal. You are correct about the unpressurized cargo of course. Cygnus could go to a full sized CBM hatch if desired, CST can't.
The proposal is out there to turn Cygnus into a (perhaps not reusable) return capsule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29372.0), via a HIAD, in the HEART test (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/07_HEART%20Flight%20Test%20Overview_N.%20Cheatwood1.pdf). I can't find anything from the HIAD team less than a year old though, despite the fact that they should have been on the PR warpath for IRVE-4 this past spring.
The Cygnus team also seems pretty damn flexible as far as the scale of their 3m diameter tin can. The 2-segment craft is being replaced by a 3-segment 'enhanced' craft as they develop Antares further, with a 4-segment craft proposed if anyone wants to fund it, and I think there were whispers of an even longer one.
I have to wonder what they would charge under a commercial contract for a 4.5m diameter tin can to launch on Falcon Heavy... and whether it would be substantially cheaper than the Japanese and European entrants.
Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust. If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself. It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust. If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself. It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).
The strength is another matter. You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.
Point 1. Since when is this a problem? This (rotation of ISS for reboost) always happened for Shuttle reboosts. ISS will also change attitude for some docking events.
Point 2. The LAS engines - being liquid - can be throttled. But if that is insufficient, CST-100 has several RCS thrusters that can do the job. (presuming they use the same propellant source)
Point 1. Since when is this a problem? This (rotation of ISS for reboost) always happened for Shuttle reboosts. ISS will also change attitude for some docking events.
Point 2. The LAS engines - being liquid - can be throttled. But if that is insufficient, CST-100 has several RCS thrusters that can do the job. (presuming they use the same propellant source)
(1) Depends on how much a pain in the neck doing that flip is. It would have been less of a problem when the station was less complete. I find no record of the last shuttle flight having done this, and it would have made sense to do it on that mission, of all missions. Do we know when was the last time the Shuttle reboosted the ISS? In any case, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression the Shuttle could pull the ISS because of how far outboard the RCS nozzles were (compared to those of a capsule).
(2) Question: It sounds like, from what you're saying, that they did indeed elect to have a pusher escape system for the CST-100? Wikipedia indicated that it was decided upon, but didn't say what they chose. Artwork out on the web shows the service module both with and without nozzles on it.
We need some real astronauts on this forum. They would KNOW.
(1) Depends on how much a pain in the neck doing that flip is. It would have been less of a problem when the station was less complete. I find no record of the last shuttle flight having done this, and it would have made sense to do it on that mission, of all missions. Do we know when was the last time the Shuttle reboosted the ISS? In any case, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression the Shuttle could pull the ISS because of how far outboard the RCS nozzles were (compared to those of a capsule).
(2) Question: It sounds like, from what you're saying, that they did indeed elect to have a pusher escape system for the CST-100? Wikipedia indicated that it was decided upon, but didn't say what they chose. Artwork out on the web shows the service module both with and without nozzles on it.
3. We need some real astronauts on this forum. They would KNOW.
About 2... Yes, CST-100 has a pusher escape system. By definition, since it is located in the SM. How else do you think CST-100 would be able to dock to ISS with a "puller" LAS still attached?Never said it would have a puller LAS still attached. Those fly away. Anybody who has lived through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (and paid any attention) knows that much.
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ? never mind what funding purchased?
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ? never mind what funding purchased?
Short answer is no.
Go look at the CCiCap Selection Statement to see what NASA's rationale was. Boeing ranked high on their technical approach and level of confidence (no doubt because they have lots of experience), but moderate on the business side for "level of effectiveness" for their low level of corporate investment. Both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX rated higher than Boeing for the "Business Information" evaluation portion.
But Boeing's ranking overall meant that they merited the funding they got on CCiCap, because of where Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were at that point. But now we're two years later, and there is new progress and evaluation criteria that will be used for CCtCap.
After the winners are announced I would think NASA will again release a selection statement to explain their rationale. I think it's not only important for the contenders, both winners and losers, but for the industry as a whole to see what strategies worked and which ones didn't - and why? Because I'm sure most of us are hoping there will be more COTS/CCiCap type efforts in the future... they sure seem to be cost effective.
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682
People are estimating 16-20m3 (I bet usable volume is maybe half that? I'm too tired to fire up CAD right now).
I've seen "more than 1100kg" and "up to 1300kg" for cargo capacity.
Please do not take those numbers too seriously.
At best they are a guess.
I have no idea if they are correct.
In 2011 they said 1164 kg and 7 crew.
Again old so trust level is low.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf (http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf)
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
They certainly have the need as much as they need anything. They should replace the Orion program with some sort of lander, hab, deep space spacecraft. Buzz Aldrin has crazy ideas, but that one (evolving Orion program to a deep space vehicle program of some sort) is a good one. Orion is too heavy, too expensive, basically useless on its own. It should've been a lot more like the CST-100.
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust. If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself. It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
The strength is another matter. You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.
Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Maybe he was just pretending to be an American? ;)
Weird.
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Maybe he was just pretending to be an American? ;)
Weird.
That's tomorrow's announcement of the deal between ULA and BO to replace the RD-180.
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?Also can anyone give a status of the human rating of the Atlas V ?
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?Also can anyone give a status of the human rating of the Atlas V ?
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Do we know for sure that they are launching on an Atlas V? I know there was discussion of other launch vehicles early on. They downplayed the Russian engine connection in the press conference, could they be flying on an all US built rocket?
As I've posted before, I like the engineering. I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.
It's not just the pieces CST-100 splits into operationally, the components within them are also relatively easy to recombine and modify. Weight can be stripped off where capabilities are not needed, capacity can be increased where needed.As I've posted before, I like the engineering. I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.
I brought his over from the CCtCap thread because OT there.
Can you expand on that modular concept? Anything, that Dragon with its trunk cannot do?
It's not just the pieces CST-100 splits into operationally, the components within them are also relatively easy to recombine and modify. Weight can be stripped off where capabilities are not needed, capacity can be increased where needed.As I've posted before, I like the engineering. I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.
I brought his over from the CCtCap thread because OT there.
Can you expand on that modular concept? Anything, that Dragon with its trunk cannot do?
I think with this modular approach they'd have little difficulty recreating all the components of the Apollo spacecraft out of this (with a nozzle extension on the RS-88), and making larger space-storable and refuelable propulsion modules, and systems for aerobraking things other than capsules, from a moon return to LEO.
The Bigelow moon base concept art shows what appears to be CST-family lunar landers / return vehicles, sitting by the landed base.
SpaceX could probably also build something along these lines, but they always talk about Mars. They want to sell flights, not vehicles, and especially not custom vehicles. The Boeing CST approach seems much more customizable, or at least they're showing us how it's customizable.
SpaceX could probably also build something along these lines, but they always talk about Mars. They want to sell flights, not vehicles, and especially not custom vehicles. The Boeing CST approach seems much more customizable, or at least they're showing us how it's customizable.
Can you give links to that level of detail about CST-100? From what I've seen,they're tighter-lipped about their design than SpaceX. I could really use CST-100 design details, particularly about their service module. Thanks!Have you looked at their basic materials?
I don't see what could be stripped off CST-100 except the airbags and go back to water landing. The Dragon trunk is empty. It should be easier to install anything needed there.If you want a CST-family lunar lander/ascent vehicle, it doesn't need the LAS, the heat shield, the parachute, the air bags, or the aeroshell. It can launch in a fairing, uncrewed, for LEO rendezvous.
I don't see what could be stripped off CST-100 except the airbags and go back to water landing. The Dragon trunk is empty. It should be easier to install anything needed there.If you want a CST-family lunar lander/ascent vehicle, it doesn't need the LAS, the heat shield, the parachute, the air bags, or the aeroshell. It can launch in a fairing, uncrewed, for LEO rendezvous.
And a new pressure vessel because a capsule makes no sense for a lunar lander.There's a point where you have to stop optimizing for mass and performance and start optimizing for cost and reliability. I mean, a moon base isn't going to happen unless there are major improvements in launch cost and rate.
And a new pressure vessel because a capsule makes no sense for a lunar lander.There's a point where you have to stop optimizing for mass and performance and start optimizing for cost and reliability. I mean, a moon base isn't going to happen unless there are major improvements in launch cost and rate.
RS-88 was originally designed as a LOX/ethanol engine for a small launch vehicle, which they've adapted to NTO/MMH. It's certainly suitable for adaptations such a gimbal mount and nozzle extension, if you want to use it for major orbital maneuvers, and since it's throttleable and fast-lighting, it's likely suitable as the main engine of a lunar lander.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.
And for at least the next decade or two, the cost of getting a pound of payload to the surface of the moon is more than enough to pay for a little bit of engineering time to free up that pound by customizing a design.Just how much mass do you think you can shave off of a capsule pressure vessel and still have one that's suitable for a lunar lander / ascent vehicle?
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.
Who cares? Isn't it obvious they have not built as much as SpaceX?
It has been covered ad nauseam that many contracts are signed without hardware.
Different companies, different goals, different approaches.
Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.
Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.
So.. you're suggesting that they've done work that isn't in the contracts now?
That's pretty far fetched for Boeing.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.
So? Boeing as an organization (even disregarding the former competitors they've absorbed over the last 25 or so years of American aerospace industry contraction) has successfully designed, built, tested, flown and sold at a profit many dozens - if not hundreds - of specific designs of aircraft and spacecraft systems for commercial and government operators. Of all the organizations around the world offering spaceflight services, they are the ones LEAST likely to eff it all up due to "unknown unknowns", especially with something as generally-conservative as a capsule design.
Biplane aircraft? Check.
Monoplane pursuit fighter? Check.
Multi-engine monoplane transport? Check.
Multi-engine piston bomber? Check and check.
Turboprop bomber/transport/tanker? Check/check/check.
Turbojet bomber? Check and check.
Solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile program management? Check.
Intercontinental multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Regional multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Permanently-manned low-Earth orbit space station design, construction and long-term operational management? Check, check and check.
Kerolox heavy rocket booster stage? Check.
Integration services and program management for heavy lunar-capable booster? Check.
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
An ascent abort demonstration originally planned using a third Atlas 5 rocket has been removed from the Boeing test manifest, according to Mulholland
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Perfection by moving the goalposts?No. The Boeing CCiCap goalposts (milestones) have not moved since the original CCiCap awards, with the exception of adding a milestone "Phase 2 Spacecraft Safety Review Board", which was due in Jul-2014, which Boeing completed (reportedly on time in Jul-2014).
Also, they cancelled their in-flight abort all togetherThat was not a funded or accepted CCiCap milestone. You might as well claim that SpaceX's original CCiCap proposal, which included a crewed mission to ISS milestone, was "cancelled...all together", which would be just as disingenuous and wrong.
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
For me at least, I have no doubt that Boeing can build a safe, workable spacecraft. What they are capable of doing is not in dispute.
I agree. It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Oh, good grief! They passed **CDR**! That's a heckuva lot more than Powerpoints and Word documents.
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.
So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.
So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.
So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Lot of discussion about what Boeing knew, and when. Almost like a murder mystery. I think really what the discussion boils down to is whether Boeing has unique knowledge and skills that provide it with some sort of advantage.
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.
So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.
Thank you Hauerg. That was my point precisely.
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris).
The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.
And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998.
So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.
Orbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.Quote...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.
Two points:
1. We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too. No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX. They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.
2. I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same. For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction). And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.
None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.
None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO.
If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.
Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.
CST-100 is a better fit.
Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.
None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO.
If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.
Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.
CST-100 is a better fit.
Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.
The heat shield is not an integral component. It detaches during the landing.Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.
Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only. Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
And the heat shield can be comfortably resized. And the SM is very modular. CST-100 is LEO only, and so is Dragon v2, just not because of the heat shield. But both are not that far from LEO that they can't be adapter cheaply (when compared to starting from scratch).Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.
Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only. Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
And the heat shield can be comfortably resized. And the SM is very modular. CST-100 is LEO only, and so is Dragon v2, just not because of the heat shield. But both are not that far from LEO that they can't be adapter cheaply (when compared to starting from scratch).Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.
Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only. Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
But having BEO rated avionics, heat transfer through heat plates, high distance comm system, long term ECLSS, BEO astrogation capabilities, limited radiation protection for crew, etc. those thing are the hard part.
Thanks, that was the step back I was looking for.As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.Quote...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.
Two points:
1. We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too. No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX. They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.
2. I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same. For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction). And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.
Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key folks. The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk. By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks. For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it. For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks. So that was their major milestones. Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on). So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it. Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to. Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.
Not sure what you are trying to say by your second point. Boeing has tCAP milestones that would be before SpaceX and SNC iCAP milestones. So yes, NASA is concerned about the impact tot he dates. There is a good chance that funding won't support 2 companies to be ready by 2014. NASA likely can't support via resources two companies. If you also slow down those two companies - I am sure SpaceX is also impacted though depending on various factors, maybe not so much - you will indeed be risking 2017. I am fairly confident we won't have a commercial crew flight by 2017.
Fortunately, I think legal wranglings will get the process rolling here again soon while the GAO conducts its review.
Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
The alternative that Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo were developed simultaneously back then is a non-starter. It is taking people until now to warm up to new space, back then, not a shot.
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too. Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us). New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.
And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too. Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us). New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.
And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
Not true. OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
...New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.
Not true. OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris).
The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.
And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998.
So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.
I know Thales Alenia did not start from a clean slate, but I tend to put fabrication on a higher pedestal than others, so I guess my bias is showing.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-alenia-spaceQuoteOrbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.
...after decades of unending analysis, design reviews, conceptual reviews, etc, I'm tired of paper milestones. I prefer metal being bent (or carbon fiber being laid up, if you will).
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
The concept goes even futher back to Rockwell's design for Shuttle escape resized... A certain astronaut we all know advocated for it... ;)
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
Boeing's CEV competitor based on OSP designs (as Jim said) was competing with Orion. The CST-100 we have now is nothing like what was proposed at the time other than a capsule design. The requirements are completely different.
Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us).
As opposed to the ~$8b that CCrew will cost? ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist. And, yes, I know the CCrew figure includes 12 flights.)
Cheers, Martin
Except when the one is Boeing. In that case you can expect cost to balloon even from the already highest bid as soon as they are the only provider. I know it is a completely unbased assumption. ;)
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
First, there are two competitors plus a third that's protesting. It is very difficult to introduce changes in the contract. What you refer to is common when NASA is guiding the development. But in this case the specifications are very high level, with minimum power of NASA to decide on the specifics of the implementation. So specification creep is very difficult to do. There are clauses for special services, but that's also why they have two suppliers. Do you believe Boeing will want to compete with SpaceX on price? They better stick to their contract that's very interesting as it is.Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
And what's that matter with that. The onus is on the gov't to have well defined requirements.
.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...
.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...
Right, everybody is a crook.
Which in a Fixed Firm Price contract is...?
.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...
Right, everybody is a crook.
Weeellllll... not a 'crook'. That implies self-awareness of openly dishonest intent. You ask most people who do things like this and they'll insist that it is 100% legal and honest (if possibly dubiously ethical) and all they're doing is getting the maximum legal amount out of a contract. "Milking it for all that it is worth but not a cent more" is one way I've heard it described.
But we digress.
It's the nature of military projects that there is an enemy and the enemy is not predictable, the enemy is always evolving new tactics, and the enemy is always fielding new technology.
Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.
And, according to Boeing, the heat shield drops off at 5,000 feet so the air bags can deploy. Can't see it being reused either.
Link.... (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)QuoteAfter reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.
“In October, we’ll have a whole new series of tests with 12 new airbags, and we will do extensive drop tests at White Sands Missile Range [in New Mexico], where the CST-100 will actually land,” said McKinney. He also said there will be approximately 20 tests that will allow this test data to be used to verify that simulation models are accurate.
From the image on this page... http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-finishes-commercial-crew-space-act-agreement-for-cst-100atlas-v/#.VEFrEPnF8n0
Looks like the artist might've been a little rushed, the model normals for the RCS covers are inverted ;)
edit: Actually there are a -lot- of little mistakes like that, visible gaps between objects, no holddowns on the Atlas...
---------------------------------------------------------------We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too. No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX. They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key facts. The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk. By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks. For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it."For Boeing, for example," you've outlined how they didn't actually DO anything to get such a massive contract and what minimal effort and absence of engineering they put forth. The "significant risks" were addressed by using other's work, previous designs and putting off testing them. The capsule is based on others work, previous designs and no where near actually tested.
For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks. So that was their major milestones. Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on). So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it. Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to. Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.
There isn't just one engineering design process. The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.Something stinks, and it ain't me.
^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
"For Boeing, for example," you've outlined how they didn't actually DO anything to get such a massive contract and what minimal effort and absence of engineering they put forth. The "significant risks" were addressed by using other's work, previous designs and putting off testing them. The capsule is based on others work, previous designs and no where near actually tested.
The only thing that can be chalked up to Boeing is "modern analysis" aka algorithmic work on their CAD compilations. In that regard, I'd point out algorithms are no substitute for the hardware tests Boeing explicitly didn't do unlike its competitors. ie; on Boeing's 787, hardware tests revealed algorithmic conclusions to be insufficient - the wingbox (delaminated), power systems (failed and fires) and fuel lines (expansion); on Lockheed's LCS, waves predictably caused the hull and structure to fracture.
The only task Being actually completed (the "significant risks" were only addressed, not completed) was crunching numbers on their Powerpoint proposal and accounts for exactly bumpkiss towards developing a system. But somehow this justified a four-plus billion dollar contract at the expense of a more developed, capable and cheaper proposal. Something stinks, and it ain't me.
There isn't just one engineering design process. The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.Something stinks, and it ain't me.
^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
But the other hand, Boeing has clearly done considerably more than analysis and powerpoints. They've built and tested hardware, even if they haven't built a complete capsule yet.
Yeah, sure. And this is what else it means:There isn't just one engineering design process. The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.Something stinks, and it ain't me.
^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
This is what it means:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734)
I have a friend who worked designing cruise missiles (for a group that is now part of Boeing). He described CDRs in rather unflattering terms.
...
He said that neither of the main CDR goals (Is the design sound? Is it ready for fabrication?) was advanced by the CDR. The first had been settled long ago, by informal meetings between the relevant technical experts. It was unthinkable that anyone would advance to a CDR with any serious technical questions unanswered.
...
When he switched to the military side of the house (not by choice, his commercial product got cancelled), he started to have to run formal CDRs. He felt the process sucked up an enormous amount of engineering time, to very little practical benefit.
In a perfect world, the CDR is where you certify that the design is complete and correct and you are ready to start cutting metal - but in reality, with concurrent engineering practices the wall between "design" and "fabrication" is largely broken down.
...
The other thing is that there is no such monolithic thing as "CDR". Every individual system usually has their own CDR, and in some organizations they have both "internal CDRs" and "external CDRs". There are "Mission System CDRs" and "Flight System CDRs" and "Program CDRs".
...
the worst CDRs I've ever been involved with were the ones where the organization wasn't ready, but the program schedule said this was when the CDR took place, and they held it anyway. That wastes everyone's time for a week and gives rise to the worst possible outcome, a "Delta CDR" where you spend another week doing it all over again.
Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.
I'm talking about what having the CDR done means, not what the situation may be when the CDR is done.
Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.
Clearly. Right. Because, clearly, it couldn't be that a company has internal checks and balances, hires top-notch consultants to get additional insights and external checks on its checks and balances, and the teams involved have not only professional capability but pride invested in doing a good job.
Sheesh.
Because these kinds of shenanigans do happen, saying the contractually mandated CDR is done tells you approximately nothing, by itself.
I'm talking about what having the CDR done means, not what the situation may be when the CDR is done.
Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.
Clearly. Right. Because, clearly, it couldn't be that a company has internal checks and balances, hires top-notch consultants to get additional insights and external checks on its checks and balances, and the teams involved have not only professional capability but pride invested in doing a good job.
Sheesh.
obi-wan mentioned cases where people just did a CDR prematurely for the sake of keeping on schedule, and then quietly did the real one when they were ready for it.
Because these kinds of shenanigans do happen, saying the contractually mandated CDR is done tells you approximately nothing, by itself.
Sorry, no, that's not what I said. Delta CDRs are a bad thing - it announces to the world you screwed up your CDRSorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying. However, you were saying that there are CDRs, and there are CDRs. There isn't just one that always means the project is really good to go, which is what people are treating it as.
And, by the way, there's no such thing as a meaningless CDR. You always come out of it stronger because smart, experienced people who are not on your team sit on a review board and critique your work. It is an incredible pain in the ass and worth its weight in gold to your program...That seems like it must depend on the relative ability, level of effort, and match-up of design philosophy of the review board to the design team.
Here it my contribution about the topic.
Sorry, no, that's not what I said. Delta CDRs are a bad thing - it announces to the world you screwed up your CDRSorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying. However, you were saying that there are CDRs, and there are CDRs. There isn't just one that always means the project is really good to go, which is what people are treating it as.QuoteAnd, by the way, there's no such thing as a meaningless CDR. You always come out of it stronger because smart, experienced people who are not on your team sit on a review board and critique your work. It is an incredible pain in the ass and worth its weight in gold to your program...That seems like it must depend on the relative ability, level of effort, and match-up of design philosophy of the review board to the design team.
LouScheffer's friend sounds like he sure doesn't think they're worth their weight in gold.
It seems to me that trying to satisfy all of a board's concerns can turn into something closely resembling a design-by-committee, and letting that happen is the easiest way to pass review.
All due respect but it sounds to me as though you're reaching over and over again to find ways to question the validity of Boeing's CDR, adjusting your argument as you get new facts.I'm not "questioning the validity of Boeing's CDR", I'm pointing out that it doesn't actually mean what people are trying to claim it means: that they're closer to having a working vehicle than SpaceX or SNC, because they finished their CDR first.
Also by your logic, NASA doesn't know how to evaluate a CDR (remember they have to concur that milestones are met) - which is laughable. Unless you also want to say that "the fix is in".NASA and Boeing are both huge organizations, that don't have a consistent character from team to team. They've each put teams on things that fouled up badly, and they've each put teams on things that succeeded brilliantly.
There are standards in engineering. Just like the rest of the world, sometimes people don't meet those standards. But Boeing is not one of the world's top-of-class engineering companies by accident, or by dint of rent-seeking, or via any other mechanism. Take a look at ISS - talk about _pain_ as regards CDRs and FRR's and all the rest (I was there) - and done with an international team speaking multiple languages just learning how to play together. It has a superb on-orbit ops record. Without hyperbole, it is one of the greatest engineering achievements (and systems integration achievements) in human history. They must've had some idea what they were doing.
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments ;DLaugh if you want, but when people are trying to use their expert status to push an agenda and swat down reasonable criticism and doubt, while biting their tongues and letting unreasonable stuff said stand as long as it helps their side, this is the sort of thing that's going to happen.
Here it my contribution about the topic.
Thanks for the upload. Just cause it was going to bug me the rest of the day, I rearranged the projections so that the capsule is never pointed sideways. The drafter in me is lashing out. ;D
SpaceX has completed half their CDR. Milestone 13A was completed a while ago and 13B was recently completed according to Reisman. We are not talking about a huge gap between the two companies.
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments ;D
It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments ;D
It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.
but this should work the other way around too... people who are not experts should not be arrogant and aggressively push their agendas just because they do not like what the experts are saying... or even accusing them of lying (even indirectly)... as is often happening on this forum...
and they should listen what the experts tell them... at least a little bit... and they should be glad that they have the opportunity to even talk to the experts, ask them questions...
show some respect... do not think you have all the knowledge in the world, as some of the non-experts are behaving here
Have there been any updates on the CST-100 lately?
A more detailed report on the Abu Dhabi visit in this article from the Kaleej Times:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml§ion=uaebusiness (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml§ion=uaebusiness)
Because of the long-lead planning. It takes months... years of forward planning before the launch actually takes place. NASA could theoretically wait until a system is online and then start the 2-3 years process, which means Commercial Crew wouldn't reach station before 2020, and we'd need to buy another 4-8 Soyuz launches.
Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.
Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem :o
But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?
I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem :o
But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?
I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.
One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem :o
But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?
I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.
One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.
I can certainly accept that crews must be trained for these spacecraft. But my response is, why not train crews for both vehicles? I thought NASA was planning on using both spacecraft in perpetuity (or until ISS is decommissioned) for dissimilar redundancy in getting crew to and from the ISS?
NASA has never said anything about using both forever. After the certs and first few flights NASA will re-compete. One or both could win or lose based on cost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...
{snip}
NASA has never said anything about using both forever. After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete. One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...
Yes, each company will move along at their milestone pace. I don't think ther eis anything magic about Mayish except for maybe CRS2. But ISSPO will not be locking in a provider at that point I believe.
NASA will not be trainign the crews - the providers do.
it is not practical to train crews for both. We will never have a person go up/down on different (excelt *maybe* a tourist) and the flights for an ISS increment are too far aprt to train for both. Probably you will get generic training both until it is clear what vehicle you are taking up. Even though they are autonomous vehciles they are too complicated to train for both as a pilot/CDR.
NASA has never said anything about using both forever. After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete. One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.
Where is your hardware Boeing? :(
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.Boeing has already made some test articles, but the November 3/10 Aviation Week reports that assembly of the Structural Test Article was set to begin in November, and that upper and lower pressure domes and the tunnel assembly were all in final stages of machining at the vendor. The STA is expected to be completed during the Spring of 2015.
Where is your hardware Boeing? :(
Remember, we haven't seen any photos of a real Dragon 2 either. Both programs are just kicking off.
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.
Where is your hardware Boeing? :(
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.
Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign. ::)
Is it:
A) A skylight, but in space *none serious*.
B) A bunch of tacky LEDs or whatever it is that seems to bathe the capsule interior in stark blue light from the mockup's they've created earlier. But in space. *pseudo-genuine question*
D) Creative marketing of the "rich Corinthian leather" variety? *genuine question*
C) (most likely explanation) Something with an actual function? *curious question*
Sorry to be a dunce.
Remember, we haven't seen any photos of a real Dragon 2 either. Both programs are just kicking off.
- Ed Kyle
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.
Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign. ::)
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Moves Another Step Closer to Flight(bold emphasis mine)
Program completes baseline and ground segment Critical Design Review
...
Completion of the Certification Baseline Review allows construction on system hardware, including the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin.
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.
Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign. ::)
It's Boeing's blue lighting scheme first used on the 787. Here's a picture of it in the commercial CST-100. NASA's version should be similar.
Edit: Removed bad html & used attach instead.
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Moves Another Step Closer to Flight(bold emphasis mine)
Program completes baseline and ground segment Critical Design Review
...
Completion of the Certification Baseline Review allows construction on system hardware, including the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin.
Now things get interesting. Will the next milestone be a milestone of actual hardware? If so, then Boeing is catching up quickly on SpaceX.
That latest review by Boeing appears to be equivalent to milestone 13B in SpaceX's CCiCAP contract, which SpaceX was supposed to have completed in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. I can't find any confirmation, however, that SpaceX completed that milestone.
The 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?
The 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
The 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
I 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.
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.
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.I see a need for a Cygnus-like cargo hauler (no heavy heat shield so more upmass and more volume) and for one return-capable cargo ship (Dragon or CST or something else). One of each would be enough.
IIRC, though both Dragon V1 and Cygnus use CBM they have different hatch sizes.But the CBM berthing ring is exactly the same. You could have no door, but you still need the collar. I believe that's how the ISS truss is attached, in fact. The question is if CST-100 has enough diameter for such a ring.
Dragon V1: 1270 mm
Cygnus: 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.
If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price?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
We 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?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
We 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.
- Ed Kyle
It really depends. Having a third supplier with a low launch rate (say 1/yr), could be done by CST-100, adding some redundancy for down mass and helping spread the fixed costs of the crewed capsule. Thus, NASA might pay 3X for one flight, but on the overall line of CSR2, it might be just an extra 25%. If it doesn't pays 3X, but more like 1.5X (compared to Dragon, that's probably 200M/mission), then on the overall budget it would be around +10%. Personally, if they are going to do a "third" supply I would select DreamChaser. But I could see them adding the CST-100, too.If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price?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
We 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.
- Ed Kyle
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 "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.
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
They're not. They're only required to serve as a lifeboat for a crew of four.The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.Seats and carrying capacity in an emergency are two different things. Apollo was determined to be able to carry 6 people back from Skylab in an emergency, despite only having 3 seats. A couple people may not have a comfortable ride back, but they'll have a ride back.
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
Two qualified pilots would be because they want piloted mode to be redundant in itself and not just a redundancy for automatic operation.
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?RS-88 by Aerojet-Rocketdyne. N2O4/MMH so that propellant can be used during mission (retro burn primarily) if not for abort.
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?RS-88 by Aerojet-Rocketdyne. N2O4/MMH so that propellant can be used during mission (retro burn primarily) if not for abort.
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
- Ed Kyle
Does anyone have a link to a data sheet of general CST 100 properties? Like how is it powered? How long can it stay under its own LSS. How does the integrated LAS work? Propellants used? etc. And maybe some launch vehilce data would be nice too.
THANK YOU!!!! :D
Does anyone have a link to a data sheet of general CST 100 properties? Like how is it powered? How long can it stay under its own LSS. How does the integrated LAS work? Propellants used? etc. And maybe some launch vehilce data would be nice too.
THANK YOU!!!! :D
Old, but probably most comprehensive: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
Power: Batteries with solar panel "mission kit" to help maintain charge
Nominal Endurance: 48 hours.
LAS is a pusher setup using 4 modified RS-88 motors mounted in the Service module along with attitude control thrusters mounted in "doghouse" pods around the SM. Propellants are NTO/MMH.
Launch Vehicle is Atlas V 422. Usually lots of information about Atlas available, but this will be a new variant so not as much data out there.
The arrays are a mission kit applied on the underside of the service module, between the abort thrusters. Bottom right on the attached image,
AIUI a mission kit is an optional add-on used as required, and everyone will ride CST-100, Dragon 2 and Soyuz in a sharing arrangement.The arrays are a mission kit applied on the underside of the service module, between the abort thrusters. Bottom right on the attached image,
Thank you so much! :D And sorry for this stupid question, but what does the name "mission kit" mean? Does it mean that it will be added only if a mission requires the 'kit'?
Btw. what a beautiful spacecraft. Just incredible. Maybe ESA astronauts will get a ride on this one to orbit one day. :)
The arrays are a mission kit applied on the underside of the service module, between the abort thrusters. Bottom right on the attached image,
Thank you so much! :D And sorry for this stupid question, but what does the name "mission kit" mean? Does it mean that it will be added only if a mission requires the 'kit'?
Btw. what a beautiful spacecraft. Just incredible. Maybe ESA astronauts will get a ride on this one to orbit one day. :)
Boeing and United Launch Alliance (ULA) will mark the start of construction of the Commercial Crew access tower at Space Launch Complex 41(SLC-41) on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida at 2:30 p.m. EST Friday, Feb. 20. Media are invited to tour operations and attend the formal groundbreaking event. [...]
Astronaut access tower construction plan
How it will be built while other schedule flights are conducted at the same pad.
Published on Feb 19, 2015
Credit: Boeing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A9_FzuqeHU
Astronaut access tower construction plan
How it will be built while other schedule flights are conducted at the same pad.
Published on Feb 19, 2015
Credit: Boeing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A9_FzuqeHU
Looks like they're planning to be done (or at least have the major structures complete) by the end of the year.
What about evacuation slides and safe areas for crews?
Seats and carrying capacity in an emergency are two different things. Apollo was determined to be able to carry 6 people back from Skylab in an emergency, despite only having 3 seats. A couple people may not have a comfortable ride back, but they'll have a ride back.
I'll post the ULA Presser if they ever create one for this.
Atlas V CST-100: Space Launch Complex-41 Pad Modifications
UnitedLaunchAlliance
Published on Feb 20, 2015
The Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft will launch atop ULA’s Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral’s Space Launch Complex (SLC)-41, is under development by Boeing. CST-100 will be certified to fly crews to and from the International Space Station. The team’s innovative designs for a Crew Access Tower and Crew Access Arm allow flight crews to safely ingress and egress the CST-100 capsule. Each segment of the new tower and arm will be built at an off-site location and assembled at the pad between launches. The tower and other elements will take approximately 18 months and will not impact any scheduled launches at the pad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgsKNv4HAbk
The informative build animation was also a good parry at SpaceX's video format. Where SpaceX normally shows what will be from a launch perspective, Boeing simultaneously showed a planned concept and a buttload of actual scheduled launches that go on during the construction. Talk about illustrating getting stuff done vs. showing what's dreamed up (however likely it will be). One point to Boeing! ;)
The informative build animation was also a good parry at SpaceX's video format. Where SpaceX normally shows what will be from a launch perspective, Boeing simultaneously showed a planned concept and a buttload of actual scheduled launches that go on during the construction. Talk about illustrating getting stuff done vs. showing what's dreamed up (however likely it will be). One point to Boeing! ;)
SpaceX will be launching a similar number of rockets as ULA will be launching Atlas Vs, the difference is that SpaceX will be developing 39A for future manned launches, while current launches go from LC40.
Would you rather SpaceX show a timelapse of 39A being developed while off in the distance rockets launch from LC40? :o
I like what Boeing is doing and I don't mind them showing ULA launching at the same time at all... it's a very relevant detail as to how they plan on developing the crew access capability on an active pad. Comparing that to what SpaceX is doing is needless and frankly confusing since SpaceX doesn't have the same pad constraint.
The informative build animation was also a good parry at SpaceX's video format. Where SpaceX normally shows what will be from a launch perspective, Boeing simultaneously showed a planned concept and a buttload of actual scheduled launches that go on during the construction. Talk about illustrating getting stuff done vs. showing what's dreamed up (however likely it will be). One point to Boeing! ;)
SpaceX will be launching a similar number of rockets as ULA will be launching Atlas Vs, the difference is that SpaceX will be developing 39A for future manned launches, while current launches go from LC40.
Would you rather SpaceX show a timelapse of 39A being developed while off in the distance rockets launch from LC40? :o
I like what Boeing is doing and I don't mind them showing ULA launching at the same time at all... it's a very relevant detail as to how they plan on developing the crew access capability on an active pad. Comparing that to what SpaceX is doing is needless and frankly confusing since SpaceX doesn't have the same pad constraint.
Of course. What shows in the video is a sense of thinking process that Boeing seemed to create from their video in contrast to the "shock and awe" SF sense that other competitors have done. Business-like. It's really the opposite side of the same coin both companies do. One simply makes a greater business presentation versus a sales presentation.
Am I misremembering, but I thought USAF was dead set against modifying the Atlas and Delta pads for crew access?
I don't mean to nitpick, but there are several glaring glitches and errors in that render. Look at the CST-100 thruster pods, the crew access tower beams lacking joints, some of the pipes lacking shading groups etc. Sorry, that image triggered my 3D modeler OCD.
It'll be real cool to see this thing finished and in use! :)
Boeing to Congress (paraphrased) -Yes, there's also a point around life-cycle affordability that was quite interesting.
If you don't like Russian Engines we can fly on Falcon 9
Couldn't help but laugh
Via L2 (and with L2 graphics) - CST-100's two demo missions:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
@BoeingDefense to Nat'l Space Club: We're working with high-altitude suit designer David Clark
So, from Apollo suits back to Gemini suits, eh? ;)
I went to the link that you provided. I found it rather cool that their logo includes what I would assume is an EVA associated with the Gemini spacecraft a reference to USA's first space walk with Ed White in GT-4. And isn't that a U2? Shuttle is obvious.So, from Apollo suits back to Gemini suits, eh? ;)
http://www.davidclarkcompany.com/aerospace/chaps
"Splat", "Splash" or "Thud" (Soyuz), it will be interesting to see which craft the astronauts find the most agreeable upon landing. My hunch is the CST-100.
Here's it with the color scheme it will most likely use.So, from Apollo suits back to Gemini suits, eh? ;)
http://www.davidclarkcompany.com/aerospace/chaps
"Splat", "Splash" or "Thud" (Soyuz), it will be interesting to see which craft the astronauts find the most agreeable upon landing. My hunch is the CST-100.I will channel my inner Mr. Spock in honor of the passing of Leonard Nimoy, “crude but effective” ...
Interesting article on the cargo version of the CST-100, "Boeing Would Pull Seats, Life Support, Engines For Cargo-carrying CST-100":
http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100
One thing to keep in mind is that even though Aviation Week gets access to a lot of exclusive info their reporting isn't always reliable.Interesting article on the cargo version of the CST-100, "Boeing Would Pull Seats, Life Support, Engines For Cargo-carrying CST-100":So does CST have deployable solar panels now?
http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100
The Aviationweek article raises almost as many questions as it answers.
One thing to keep in mind is that even though Aviation Week gets access to a lot of exclusive info their reporting isn't always reliable.Interesting article on the cargo version of the CST-100, "Boeing Would Pull Seats, Life Support, Engines For Cargo-carrying CST-100":So does CST have deployable solar panels now?
http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100
The Aviationweek article raises almost as many questions as it answers.
"Splat", "Splash" or "Thud" (Soyuz), it will be interesting to see which craft the astronauts find the most agreeable upon landing. My hunch is the CST-100.
They've been wrong many times before. Do you have any inside info on the panels?One thing to keep in mind is that even though Aviation Week gets access to a lot of exclusive info their reporting isn't always reliable.Interesting article on the cargo version of the CST-100, "Boeing Would Pull Seats, Life Support, Engines For Cargo-carrying CST-100":So does CST have deployable solar panels now?
http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100
The Aviationweek article raises almost as many questions as it answers.
Or more likely, Boeing proposed a version with panels.
I don't mean to nitpick, but there are several glaring glitches and errors in that render. Look at the CST-100 thruster pods, the crew access tower beams lacking joints, some of the pipes lacking shading groups etc. Sorry, that image triggered my 3D modeler OCD.
It'll be real cool to see this thing finished and in use! :)
"Splat", "Splash" or "Thud" (Soyuz), it will be interesting to see which craft the astronauts find the most agreeable upon landing. My hunch is the CST-100.
Once Dragon v2 begins powered landings it will be "Splat","Splash""Settle" or "Thud" (Soyuz).
I did this rendering for the folks over at Something Awful, and thought I'd post it here since its not L2. CST-100 and an Extended Cygnus.
AV-073 will be outfitted as though it is carrying a crew but will fly the CST-100 without astronauts in an orbital flight test, a significant step on Boeing’s path to certification.
AV-080 is the rocket that will carry the first people inside a CST-100 for a flight into space. Still a flight test, the objective is to launch the Atlas V from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and place the CST-100 on a path to the station. Crew members will fly to the orbiting laboratory and stay there for a few days while the spacecraft’s systems are evaluated for their performance. The flight test crew would then use the vehicle to return home to the United States, completing the test.
I did this rendering for the folks over at Something Awful, and thought I'd post it here since its not L2. CST-100 and an Extended Cygnus.
#Boeing #CST100 will transport @NASA to + from ISS. Today: Splash test emergency water drop scenarios w/@NASA_Langley
Looks like they're testing some edge of the envelope scenarios there. A landing with such lateral velocity would probably only happen in very strong wind. Had this been a land landing the capsule would have toppled and gotten dragged as well IMO.These are testing abort and emergency scenarios. Landing on land is the intended goal.
I do not think CST-100 is supposed to roll over after water landing, is it? Getting out of the capsule may be a bit difficult?
Looks like they're testing some edge of the envelope scenarios there. A landing with such lateral velocity would probably only happen in very strong wind. Had this been a land landing the capsule would have toppled and gotten dragged as well IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeAbLlcpC4o
I do not think CST-100 is supposed to roll over after water landing, is it? Getting out of the capsule may be a bit difficult?
Good observation. That's very odd. Perhaps I could see them being some kind of passive drag stabilization (during abort), but would they be hidden behind a service module fairing during launch?
My guess is it's something to do with scale-model effects: additional drag is needed to make it behave like the real thing at abort speeds/pressures.
My guess is it's something to do with scale-model effects: additional drag is needed to make it behave like the real thing at abort speeds/pressures.
No, that would rather defeat the point of a wind tunnel if you couldn't actually test the shape you are interested in. Wind tunnels handle scale-effects by matching the Reynolds and Mach numbers to the real thing.
I'm pretty sure your first guess is right, they are testing a Soyuz style deployable fins.
My guess is it's something to do with scale-model effects: additional drag is needed to make it behave like the real thing at abort speeds/pressures.
No, that would rather defeat the point of a wind tunnel if you couldn't actually test the shape you are interested in. Wind tunnels handle scale-effects by matching the Reynolds and Mach numbers to the real thing.
I'm pretty sure your first guess is right, they are testing a Soyuz style deployable fins.
D-J Engineering is manufacturing eight different parts for the Crew Space Transportation-100 spacecraft that Boeing will provide to NASA as part of its Commercial Crew Program.
Ryan Hernandez, D-J’s vice president of engineering and technology, said parts that the privately held company is manufacturing for the spacecraft include the capsule door, the frame of the door and frangible joints – which allow stages of the rocket that propel the spacecraft to safely separate during flight.
#CST100 Tiers 1+ 2 will be complete + stacked this week before installation on Launch Pad 41.
I did this rendering for the folks over at Something Awful, and thought I'd post it here since its not L2. CST-100 and an Extended Cygnus.
Nice rendering!
It does bring up a curious question, one I'm sure we've noted before. First, CST Cargo uses the IDA port, limiting the size of some supplies.
But more importantly is the reach of Canadarm 2 to get to the rear of the CST Cargo's service module-turned-unpressurized trunk from IDA 1. From the rendering, isn't that a longer reach that the arm can do? Or, would DEXTRE work for this?
Not much at the Pad yet for the crew tower, you can see the construction showing the base from the rear of LC42 from these AFSPC-5 rollout images:Are you getting new pad syndrome (NPS)???
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/19/photos-atlas-5-on-the-pad-for-x-37b-launch/
The construction site is at the demolished Titan ITL VAB site.Quote from: @BoeingDefense#CST100 Tiers 1+ 2 will be complete + stacked this week before installation on Launch Pad 41.
Also: https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/05/18/crew-access-tower-coming-together-for-cst-100/
Via L2 (and with L2 graphics) - CST-100's two demo missions:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
Thanks, Chris. The timeliness of that presser during a period where even the Russians cannot reach the station in cargo or crew modes seems more than coincidental, but certainly welcome news.
I hear we'll start seeing the CAT sections go up at -41 in the early fall.I was on autopilot trying to post replies before i had to board my Paris flight.
(Minor nit for russianhalo117: that's "VIB", not "VAB")
Did the Russians ever pay for Shuttle as a backup system?Thanks, Chris. The timeliness of that presser during a period where even the Russians cannot reach the station in cargo or crew modes seems more than coincidental, but certainly welcome news.
And it's also worth noting that NASA will still be paying the Russians during that period too....as it's been determined they need Soyuz TMA backup support.
Here's some USCV-1 stuff:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=USCV-1
Thanks, Chris. The timeliness of that presser during a period where even the Russians cannot reach the station in cargo or crew modes seems more than coincidental, but certainly welcome news.
"Boeing Awarded First Commercial Human Spaceflight Mission"
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-05-27-Boeing-Awarded-First-Commercial-Human-Spaceflight-Mission
- Ed Kyle
Press release isn't clear, but this doesn't mean Boeing will be first to fly to ISS with people.
Press release isn't clear, but this doesn't mean Boeing will be first to fly to ISS with people.
I'm still not sure what it is actually saying. I think I've finally settled on that NASA has contracted with Boeing first, but not necessarily for the first flight.
It is too early to determine who gets the first flight IMHO
Press release isn't clear, but this doesn't mean Boeing will be first to fly to ISS with people.
I'm still not sure what it is actually saying. I think I've finally settled on that NASA has contracted with Boeing first, but not necessarily for the first flight.
It is too early to determine who gets the first flight IMHO
So this contract is for USCV-1, then?
I don't expect press releases to get too technical. It fits NASA's usual modus operandi in terms of their long history with Boeing and the trust and reliability generated. That is, go with the safe bet. Unlike other manned ventures, however, they have a backup.
As for Boeing, it's a nice day. We'd all love for them to show us some real hardware now. But it's quite a company that can take a contract when most of the spacecraft is still demoed as ABS and balsa based on public info...
Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX.
There are some major differences in design philosophy between Boeing and SpaceX. That is why you are seeing this contract without much hardware. SpaceX builds a little, tests a little, and changes a little. Boeing gets the design together, reviews and iterates the design and comes up with a final plan before they start bending metal. In both cases it is the development process and not the actual fabrication of the final product which takes the most time. Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX. NASA is pretty comfortable with the Boeing approach as it has been the industry standard for decades. I am not sure if one approach is really better than the other. It looks like both will get the job done. SpaceX's lower price could be for any number of other reasons.
NASA consistently showed CST-100 leading Dragon and other competitors when it was posting the 60-day milestone updates for CCDev2. Boeing won more funding, so it should be ahead.Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX.
No. Again, as NASA has emphasized (and every news article I've read is careful to point out) either provider could be the first to fly. They just chose to work on Boeing's paperwork first.
The way the milestones were set up and the progress getting through the milestones means that Boeing got to the point where the contract could be awarded first.
NASA is still going to fly with whoever can be ready first. That is still looking like SpaceX by a few months. It is still anyone's game here as a slip by either one could allow the other to fly first.
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006...
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design.
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
But Boeing also have to rely on many more outside suppliers for their systems and this means they could be more susceptible to delays by these suppliers and push the timeline out longer.Horizontal integration is traditionally a way to reduce supply delays, not cause it. Vertical integration means the entire chain is susceptible to various delays because there's few/no alternatives if a problem arises except relying on in-house assets. If you are working with suppliers and one of them is having problems supplying a widget you go on to another supplier to get that widget. If you're having problems making your own widget then you simply have a delay until you can solve the problem.
Frankly, I am disappointed by NASA's decision. It seems clear this is another case of the bipolar nature of big bureaucracies.
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
Not sure how you can conclude that design is ahead of actual flying systems - SpaceX have Dragon 1 flying. This means they have manufacturing, transport, ground ops all in place. They also have their control and flight systems done (the same control system from Dragon 1 will probably fly on Dragon 2), telemetry , fuel & power management etc. Add in the pad abort (the las is now tested), the new chute deploy system, the detach from the trunk. I'm sure there's a lot more in there that I haven't covered but others will know better.
Where is Boeing?.
I've no doubt Boeing are very capable and will produce a fine spacecraft. They have a lot of heritage and resources so they will deliver exactly what they say they will. But Boeing also have to rely on many more outside suppliers for their systems and this means they could be more susceptible to delays by these suppliers and push the timeline out longer.
A good test of an argument is to reverse it. Swap SpaceX with Boeing and come back to the table with the argument that SpaceX are ahead because they have a good paper design and therefore Boeing are behind even though they are flying hardware. Wouldn't stand up.
A good design doesn't make a good spacecraft. SNC had a good design with DC and look where it got them.
-kevin
The reason is obvious: if you've been following the space industry for a while, you've seen many "designs" that never flew nor even manifested in hardware. Being good at paperwork is nice, but being good at building and flying hardware is much better. Boeing hasn't done a pad abort test yet, neither are they even planning on an in-flight abort. The skeptic has to wonder if that means Boeing simply is putting off all the high risk tests and milestones to the very end when it'd be too late to go with someone else when these high risk tests inevitably develop delays.Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
NASA consistently showed CST-100 leading Dragon and other competitors when it was posting the 60-day milestone updates for CCDev2. Boeing won more funding, so it should be ahead.Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX.
No. Again, as NASA has emphasized (and every news article I've read is careful to point out) either provider could be the first to fly. They just chose to work on Boeing's paperwork first.
- Ed Kyle
The deal does not ensure Boeing will be the first to fly a crew rotation mission to the space station. NASA said SpaceX, which is also under contract to build a human-rated crew capsule, is expected to receive a similar order later this year, and officials will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date.
That's an assumption right there on your part Jim. Don't do that.Frankly, I am disappointed by NASA's decision. It seems clear this is another case of the bipolar nature of big bureaucracies.
What makes you think Spacex is better?
My understanding is that Boeing received the first contract because they completed their CCtCap Delta CDR before SpaceX. SpaceX has yet to complete their CCiCap CDR. (If they have, it hasn't been announced yet.) When they complete their CCtCap Delta CDR they will also receive a crew rotation award.
Nobody "won" anything! You really should stop saying that - it's wrong - and can lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Nobody "won" anything! You really should stop saying that - it's wrong - and can lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Gotta maintain the myth that there's a competition going on - even if there's not in any meaningful sense.
My understanding is that Boeing received the first contract because they completed their CCtCap Delta CDR before SpaceX. SpaceX has yet to complete their CCiCap CDR. (If they have, it hasn't been announced yet.) When they complete their CCtCap Delta CDR they will also receive a crew rotation award.
Issuance of these task orders does not really tell us much. They do not require completion of any milestones, although that might have been a consideration; if so, exactly what is unclear. NASA could issue task orders for up to two missions for each CCtCap awardee at any time since 16-Sep-2014 (date of CCtCap awards). Additional task orders require completion of ISS DCR (design certification review), which doesn't appear to be likely until about mid- to late-2016 for SpaceX or Boeing respectively.
The more interesting event is authority to proceed (ATP), of which I have not seen mention. ATP is the point real money for these task orders starts to flow, flight schedules get firmed, and the clock starts ticking. All we know is that, at minimum, ATP requires completion of the certification baseline review (CBR), which Boeing and SpaceX completed late last year. Completion of other milestones may be (and very likely are) required prior to ATP, but to my knowledge that information is not public.
Nobody "won" anything! You really should stop saying that - it's wrong - and can lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Gotta maintain the myth that there's a competition going on - even if there's not in any meaningful sense.
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Who cares who is "ahead", if all goes to plan we will have both flying in two years. Just because one or the other doesn't develop like the other doesn't make one or the other is better.Agreed. Even the fact that they each use different methodologies can be seen as a good thing, when your objective is to increase the chance that one or the other will accomplish something, and that the two results will have even less in common with each other. The goal is to produce two crew launch systems, where if one of them has to stand down, the likelihood that the other will have to stand down also will be as low as possible.
It is humorous to see the comments that somehow Boeing is incapable of producing real hardware.
In case HSF having a competitor can be a benefit as the competitor provides redundancy. If only one vehicle was servicing a commercial space station and flights had to be cancelled because of issues with vehicle, the spacestation could go out of business, killing the market.Who cares who is "ahead", if all goes to plan we will have both flying in two years. Just because one or the other doesn't develop like the other doesn't make one or the other is better.Agreed. Even the fact that they each use different methodologies can be seen as a good thing, when your objective is to increase the chance that one or the other will accomplish something, and that the two results will have even less in common with each other. The goal is to produce two crew launch systems, where if one of them has to stand down, the likelihood that the other will have to stand down also will be as low as possible.
Competition between the two vendors benefits us in many ways, and price is only one and not the most important of them.
This was ATP. ICDR was the major criteria.
NASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The deal does not ensure Boeing will be the first to fly a crew rotation mission to the space station. NASA said SpaceX, which is also under contract to build a human-rated crew capsule, is expected to receive a similar order later this year, and officials will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
{snip}
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
The operational fights should follow successful test flights. In a well managed organisation the Authority to Proceed would not be issued until a test flight has been successfully performed. The dates of the test flights can be guessed but are subject to delay if there are any problems.
So this task order amounts to NASA cheering Boeing on. Any parts of NASA and the ISS involved with the operational flight are hereby being been officially informed of its existence in writing. They can include it in their budgeting for instance.
Hmmm... the more I read the more odd this "award" appears...
And seems to be some confusion (or maybe it's just me); from, e.g., Boeing gets first order for commercial crew mission (http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/28/boeing-gets-first-order-for-commercial-crew-mission/)...QuoteNASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The deal does not ensure Boeing will be the first to fly a crew rotation mission to the space station. NASA said SpaceX, which is also under contract to build a human-rated crew capsule, is expected to receive a similar order later this year, and officials will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
Hmmm... the more I read the more odd this "award" appears...
And seems to be some confusion (or maybe it's just me); from, e.g., Boeing gets first order for commercial crew mission (http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/28/boeing-gets-first-order-for-commercial-crew-mission/)...QuoteNASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The deal does not ensure Boeing will be the first to fly a crew rotation mission to the space station. NASA said SpaceX, which is also under contract to build a human-rated crew capsule, is expected to receive a similar order later this year, and officials will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
That strongly suggests Boeing gets the first mission. Or there is a hole in the schedule which would allow a later award to SpaceX to go first (which would be odd). Or NASA has provisionally allowed for two crew rotation missions within a 90-day window (which would be extremely odd). Or this is not really an ATP as commonly understood and as defined in the RFP. Or something?
If in fact NASA "will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date", then this is not an ATP, but some previously undefined and undocumented task-order-cum-authority-to-proceed mash-up. And the only reason I can think of for that is someone wanting the money that comes with an ATP sooner rather than later, without having to make the commitments that come with an ATP.
{snip}
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
The operational fights should follow successful test flights. In a well managed organisation the Authority to Proceed would not be issued until a test flight has been successfully performed. The dates of the test flights can be guessed but are subject to delay if there are any problems.
So this task order amounts to NASA cheering Boeing on. Any parts of NASA and the ISS involved with the operational flight are hereby being been officially informed of its existence in writing. They can include it in their budgeting for instance.
This *is* an ATP but NASA has not determined a launch schedule...
Task orders issued to Contractors are intended to require Post Certification Missions to ISS with limited flexibility to adjust launch dates. To provide flexibility to both the Contractor and NASA, a standard launch window will be established for each planned Post Certification Mission. Authorization to Proceed (ATP) is formal written direction from the Contracting Officer that authorizes the Contractor to proceed with the work detailed within a DRD 202 Post Certification Mission Work Plan. The standard launch window will be created by NASA establishing an initial window for each mission at ATP. Thereafter, with mutual agreement between the Contractor and NASA, the launch window will be reduced according to the table below.
Table H.20.1: Launch Windows for PCM ATP Prior to ISS DCR** ISS DCR is the DCR for the crewed flight to ISS
Months Prior to Launch Date -- First to Last Day Standard Launch Window (Days) ATP through L-13m 90d L-13m through L-4m 30d L-4m through Launch 7d
...but the one who appears to be ready first will get the first flight.
...but the one who appears to be ready first will get the first flight.Which is as it should be.
Boeing will fly first. More Congress people in their pockets.I don't think congress will be the one deciding. That's a NASA decision.
You can say whatever you want in response to that however, a simple googling of campaign finance donations will answer your questions. Political realities suck, but this is how it works.
Boeing will fly first. More Congress people in their pockets.
Chatsworth, Calif. May 2015 – Aitech Defense Systems Inc. was recently awarded a contract by The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] to provide space-grade products and services to support the Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) and Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft, part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Aitech has been commissioned to develop and produce the crew interface system computer and displays used to physically control and maneuver the capsule. The new subsystem, consisting of a display computer, pilot and copilot displays and keypads, gives the space crew reliable, precision control of the craft using the pilots’ rotational and translational hand controllers.
Doug Patterson, VP, military & aerospace business sector of Aitech, noted, “Being a part of this next generation of manned spacecraft is a testament to the reliable products and services we have been proud to deliver for over three decades. In space, there is no room for error, a philosophy we share in every system and board we deliver.”
As a pioneer in true embedded and mission critical computing technologies for environmentally-demanding, mission-critical applications, Aitech draws on its wealth of experience with rugged, space-qualified boards and subsystems to provide reliable computing solutions for the program.
Boeing’s CST-100 is being developed as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which aims to resume U.S.-based flights to space by 2017. The CST-100 will transport up to seven passengers or a mix of crew and cargo to the ISS and other low-Earth orbit destinations.
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at its Kennedy Space Center facility in Florida. The spacecraft will undergo a pad-abort test, an unmanned flight test and, ultimately, the first crewed flight to the ISS in 2017.
Earlier this year, Boeing recently completed the first two milestones in the CCtCap phase: the Certification Baseline Review (CBR) and Ground System Critical Design Review (CDR).
CBR completion allows construction of system hardware, such as the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin. It also keeps the effort for achieving human-rated certification of the vehicle and ULA Atlas V rocket on track.
The Ground System CDR evaluates all the ground operations and systems, mission operation systems, facilities, training systems, including mock-ups and trainers, and the control center.
Contract Highlights:
• Crew interface system for CST-100 crew capsule
• SP0 SBC and other I/O boards for autonomous rendezvous and docking (AR&D)
• First two program milestones completed by Boeing: CBR and Ground System CDR
Boeing will fly first. More Congress people in their pockets.
If SpaceX and Boeing complete within 6 months of each other then political influence may permit one to jump the queue. Outside that first come first served.
Boeing put in a higher bid price so it may need to call in a few favours to ensure the next president does not award all the flights to SpaceX. Plenty of lobbying for redundancy to make sure a monopoly supplier messing up does not leave the USA without human launch ability again.
The President doesn't have the authority to simply award flights. That's not an Executive Branch function.
The President doesn't have the authority to simply award flights. That's not an Executive Branch function.
Yes it is.
{snip}
So, if you want to postulate SpaceX or Boeing applying political pressure to either 1) be named sole provider, or 2) avoid having the other guy being named sole provider, you need to apply pressure up and down the line, on both the White House and Congress. And even then, political pressure only defines what gets funded. You'd also need to figure out how to apply political pressure to NASA management (mostly non-appointed, non-political figures) to achieve these goals politically.
Whichever spacecraft best supports the ISS crew rotation schedule will fly first, and that will be a NASA decision. Congress has no control or influence over ISS crew rotations.
Whichever spacecraft best supports the ISS crew rotation schedule will fly first, and that will be a NASA decision. Congress has no control or influence over ISS crew rotations.
Agree, but given that the decision has to be made well in advance, what does "well in advance" mean? Per the RFP, that would (or should) occur no later than at ATP. Given that Boeing has been issued an ATP, that strongly suggests Boeing will fly the first PCM. That does not necessarily mean Boeing will fly the first PCM, but that it is theirs to lose.
It will be a NASA decision. The purpose of my posts was to counter the incorrect posts claiming that the decision would be dictated by congressional politics. It will not.
Engineers from Boeing and NASA's Commercial Crew Program, United Launch Alliance and Special Aerospace Service drove the MRAP, short for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, on potential emergency routes at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to determine how much time to allocate in their contingency plans for launches coming up in 2017.
With the loss of IDA-1, would it be possible to fit the early CST-100 capsules with hardware to connect directly with the APAS-95 docking interface of PMA-2? Perhaps NASA could donate spare STS hardware for the purpose?
Second IDA will be flown to ISS this year.
With the loss of IDA-1, would it be possible to fit the early CST-100 capsules with hardware to connect directly with the APAS-95 docking interface of PMA-2? Perhaps NASA could donate spare STS hardware for the purpose?
The operative here is that a second IDA will be required to meet program requirements. I'll look for an IDA-specific thread, but I wonder if they'll use the/a test article to fabricate the replacement flight version.
The first two domes that will form the pressure shell of the Structural Test Article, or STA, for Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft have arrived at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. The STA Crew Module will be assembled inside the former space shuttle hangar, known as Orbiter Processing Facility-3, so the company can validate the manufacturing and processing methods it plans to use for flight-ready CST-100 vehicles. While the STA will not fly with people aboard, it will be used to determine the effectiveness of the design and prove its escape system during a pad abort test. The ability to abort from an emergency and safely carry crew members out of harm’s way is a critical element for NASA’s next generation of crew spacecraft.
That's correct.
It was mentioned in the presser today that NASA would like two IDAs so they can have two vehicles docked at the same time for crew rotations. Only having one at first won't be a problem.
So do I understand this correctly? In the Boeing design the landing airbags (designed for land operations), also can be used as floatation in water landings?
Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?That's correct.
It was mentioned in the presser today that NASA would like two IDAs so they can have two vehicles docked at the same time for crew rotations. Only having one at first won't be a problem.
It's not a problem but it would force an indirect handover.
Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?That's correct.
It was mentioned in the presser today that NASA would like two IDAs so they can have two vehicles docked at the same time for crew rotations. Only having one at first won't be a problem.
It's not a problem but it would force an indirect handover.
Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?
The truss, being aft of both the zenith and forward docking ports, offers basically zero protection in either case.When Shuttle was docked, didn't the ISS flew with ROS forward? Else the USCV will be exposing its aft. Of curse they are somewhat protected by their thrunks. But Dragon's is very small. In comparison Soyuz is a lot better protected by its PAO.Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?
The truss, being aft of both the zenith and forward docking ports, offers basically zero protection in either case.When Shuttle was docked, didn't the ISS flew with ROS forward? Else the USCV will be exposing its aft. Of curse they are somewhat protected by their thrunks. But Dragon's is very small. In comparison Soyuz is a lot better protected by its PAO.Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?
Shouldn't then move the IDA from forward to Nadir, now that there is a second CBM in nadir?The truss, being aft of both the zenith and forward docking ports, offers basically zero protection in either case.When Shuttle was docked, didn't the ISS flew with ROS forward? Else the USCV will be exposing its aft. Of curse they are somewhat protected by their thrunks. But Dragon's is very small. In comparison Soyuz is a lot better protected by its PAO.Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?
The ISS is not designed to fly in that attitude permanently. This is a big issue with the commercial crewed vehicles. The Node 2 Forward position is the preferred option but at the tip of the sphere for MMOD. Zenith is slight better but you still have one side into the wind (and really particles to come at the ISS from the sides as well). Both companies are being asked to meet very tight limits - which is proving to be difficult for 6 months. Having things like your heat shield protected by a service module helps but is not perfect. The ISS is looking at inspection options but they are limited.
Shouldn't then move the IDA from forward to Nadir, now that there is a second CBM in nadir?The truss, being aft of both the zenith and forward docking ports, offers basically zero protection in either case.When Shuttle was docked, didn't the ISS flew with ROS forward? Else the USCV will be exposing its aft. Of curse they are somewhat protected by their thrunks. But Dragon's is very small. In comparison Soyuz is a lot better protected by its PAO.Which I understand they are going to use anyways. Using the zenith IDA would expose one full side of the capsule to MMOD, or does the truss offers enough protection?
The ISS is not designed to fly in that attitude permanently. This is a big issue with the commercial crewed vehicles. The Node 2 Forward position is the preferred option but at the tip of the sphere for MMOD. Zenith is slight better but you still have one side into the wind (and really particles to come at the ISS from the sides as well). Both companies are being asked to meet very tight limits - which is proving to be difficult for 6 months. Having things like your heat shield protected by a service module helps but is not perfect. The ISS is looking at inspection options but they are limited.
Having things like your heat shield protected by a service module helps but is not perfect.
Shouldn't then move the IDA from forward to Nadir, now that there is a second CBM in nadir?
Too crowded nadir. There will be two berthing ports (nadir and zenith) and two docking ports (forward and zenith). You want all 4.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
OPF-3 undergoing a faceliftNow that's how you decorate a vehicle building. Very, very nice.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
"The Can"... ;)Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Gumdrop One?
The Cone of Power?
Ironman Two?
St. George? ::)
In seriousness, this is curious news. The marketing's not over for this vehicle, it appears. At the least, they may have a name that works easier off the tongue .
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
This could be as horrendous as the plans to rename SLS into "The Inspiration Rocket" or some such twitter-friendly nonsense.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
This could be as horrendous as the plans to rename SLS into "The Inspiration Rocket" or some such twitter-friendly nonsense.
"The Can"... ;)Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Gumdrop One?
The Cone of Power?
Ironman Two?
St. George? ::)
In seriousness, this is curious news. The marketing's not over for this vehicle, it appears. At the least, they may have a name that works easier off the tongue .
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Gumdrop One?
The Cone of Power?
Ironman Two?
St. George? ::)
In seriousness, this is curious news. The marketing's not over for this vehicle, it appears. At the least, they may have a name that works easier off the tongue .
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
This could be as horrendous as the plans to rename SLS into "The Inspiration Rocket" or some such twitter-friendly nonsense.
St. GeorgeUhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Sigurd, Beowulf or any other of The Dragon Slayers ;)
Maybe something like “Freedom” or “Independence” as in from relying on Russia as well as the historical American reference... ;)
Maybe something like “Freedom” or “Independence” as in from relying on Russia as well as the historical American reference... ;)
I was thinking the revolutionary war from the tyranny of those awful Brits (sorry Chris) all’s good now! :) Man I‘ve got to find my copy of Armageddon that’s still sealed and unviewed since purchase. Is that what the Shuttles were called? I only saw it the one time in the theatre back then... ;DMaybe something like “Freedom” or “Independence” as in from relying on Russia as well as the historical American reference... ;)
Ah yes, the pair of X-71s which successfully defended Earth from that incoming asteroid in 1998. A shining moment in American history. ;D
While slaying the Dragon Beowulf was mortally wounded by the dragon's horn. You best not overlook that little detail ;)Uhhh....whhhaaattt? :o
Boeing Defense @BoeingDefense
#StayTuned as #Boeing's #CST100 gets its official name on Friday.
Sigurd, Beowulf or any other of The Dragon Slayers ;)
Great. At least we know where the extra hundreds of millions of funding compared to Dragon 2 went. On OPF repainting and a twitter-friendly name for an already named spacecraft. I envision Friday's event to be painful, with a tearful Bolden trying to keep to a script, grinning lawmakers, and fat cat Boeing execs checking their stock price, before Bolden rushes off the stage to write that next check to Russia again.
I have a name for the CST-100: Orion lite. ;)Not at all yg, I called it that a couple of years back myself! ;D
It is sure to confuse everyone again...
I have a name for the CST-100: Orion lite. ;)
It is sure to confuse everyone again...
Sounds familiar. A NRM guy earlier this year gave a presentation on the state of affairs of the USA HSF program and used the exact same two words to describe CST-100.I have a name for the CST-100: Orion lite. ;)Not at all yg, I called it that a couple of years back myself! ;D
It is sure to confuse everyone again...
I thought we'd seen this render before, but it's actually new.It is my understanding that the ring produces a smoother flight through the lower atmosphere and Thermosphere
Looks like the perforated ring around the SM will be on the spacecraft.
(when it showed up on wind tunnel models there was speculation that it was for testing purposes or maybe deployable)
I thought we'd seen this render before, but it's actually new.It is my understanding that the ring produces a smoother flight through the lower atmosphere and Thermosphere
Looks like the perforated ring around the SM will be on the spacecraft.
(when it showed up on wind tunnel models there was speculation that it was for testing purposes or maybe deployable)
I actually prefer Boeing-1100. This is Boeing's 1st generation human spacecraft, and the 100 is for the 100 km line.
Perhaps they will take a page from their newest plane
787 - Dreamliner
CST-100 - Dreammaker
Too close to DreamChaser? Worth a shot!
In a Symposium they argued SpaceX has the philosophy of buid a little, test a little. Boeing does not need to do that. When Boeing builds something everybody knows it flies and used the Dreamliner as an example.
In a Symposium they argued SpaceX has the philosophy of buid a little, test a little. Boeing does not need to do that. When Boeing builds something everybody knows it flies and used the Dreamliner as an example.
Uhm.. no. Have you seen how many design iterations, windtunnel iterations and change-cycles CST-100 has been thru? Have you seen how the current pressure-shell STA is significantly different from the one developed for CCDev-1? Have you seen how the current service module is significantly different from the original idea, including the recent addition of the vortex ring? Have you seen the mass-growth on CST-100, requiring it to go thru no less than 3 versions of Atlas-V?
Senator Nelson says he will fight for commercial crew fundingBut does he mean for both companies or just enough so that they could downselect to just Boeing? *questions questions*
More political group hugging now.
Some hardware talk, still calling it CST-100.
He's got a video! ;D
SpaceLiner
Dreamliner
AstroLiner
DreamOrbiter
Dreamliner... Starliner... Could have been a hell of a lot worse imho :) Nice name!
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.
But I wonder, how good will be the in-flight peanuts (or pretzels, if you're allergic)?
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.About that promo...
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times. :P
Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten.Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times. :P
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"? ;)
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten.Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times. :P
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"? ;)
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
To put some emphasis on that. Do you know where are the lathe's made? The machine centers? The CNC Mill contoller? the hammers? With propulsion usually being something like 20% to 40% of a rocket's cost, is not a small issue. But more importantly, you can't switch suppliers overnight. That should be the main issue.Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten....
About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times. :P
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"? ;)
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
In order to that, they'd have to have an incredible amount of congressional support - oh dear.Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible. :o
I truly believe that's where all of this will go. I suspect most people do. Which is why there is some handwringing in certain quarters. Once these vehicles are done, they are privately owned and inexpensive to use. First stop LEO. But we all know that's just the beginning. We just need to get through this first transition of LEO to commercial. Once that's firmly established, many things will change. Exciting times.Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible. :o
Uhm.. no. Have you seen how many design iterations, windtunnel iterations and change-cycles CST-100 has been thru? Have you seen how the current pressure-shell STA is significantly different from the one developed for CCDev-1? Have you seen how the current service module is significantly different from the original idea, including the recent addition of the vortex ring? Have you seen the mass-growth on CST-100, requiring it to go thru no less than 3 versions of Atlas-V?
The "build a little, test a little" process applies to Boeing as well, albeit it in a less pronounced form than SpaceX.
Where can I find a recording of the announcement, i missed it.The whole shebang is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1pno_CKpAw
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible. :o
I noticed that recent promo images of the ... Starliner ... show the vehicle with a curious circumferential perforated grid on the service module (see attachment below). This was spotted earlier this year on wind tunnel models. At the time no-one was sure of it's function. One guess was that it was to help wind-tunnel test fidelity, but it looks like it's a real feature of the vehicle.
Here's the original post and subsequent speculation: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1359475#msg1359475
The grid is also shown on the OPF-3 mural, but not on Boeing's web page: http://www.boeing.com/space/crew-space-transportation-100-vehicle
So... anyone know its purpose?
Does anyone know how they're sealing the seam between the upper and lower halves of the CM clam shell? Seems to be a failure mode looking for a time to happen.
Great. At least we know where the extra hundreds of millions of funding compared to Dragon 2 went. On OPF repainting and a twitter-friendly name for an already named spacecraft. I envision Friday's event to be painful, with a tearful Bolden trying to keep to a script, grinning lawmakers, and fat cat Boeing execs checking their stock price, before Bolden rushes off the stage to write that next check to Russia again.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible. :o
Ah no. Not only would its heat shield fail, but CST-100 is not structurally capable of flights BEO. It was stressed for re-entry from LEO. Re-entry from BEO would push the structure beyond its design limits. If Boeing wants a BEO spacecraft they will have to start from scratch.
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, but will it be affordable? Because if no one can afford to use it, then all those features that make it "the best" are a waste.
I'm reminded of the saying by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
We don't really know how much CST-100 will cost once operational, but that said, some things are worth the cost.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, but will it be affordable? Because if no one can afford to use it, then all those features that make it "the best" are a waste.
I'm reminded of the saying by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, but will it be affordable? Because if no one can afford to use it, then all those features that make it "the best" are a waste.
I'm reminded of the saying by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Ed: what do you recommend as the best source available for Starliner design info? There seems to have been a dearth of publicly available information in this craft, even for those of us with great interest in it and actively seeking it out.
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, but will it be affordable? Because if no one can afford to use it, then all those features that make it "the best" are a waste.
I'm reminded of the saying by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, but will it be affordable? Because if no one can afford to use it, then all those features that make it "the best" are a waste.
Can someone explain what the "top overhang structure is on Boeing Starliner Access Tower (boxed in white on attached image) please ?
Does anyone know how they're sealing the seam between the upper and lower halves of the CM clam shell? Seems to be a failure mode looking for a time to happen.
How is that any different than joining these to modules or attaching the bulkhead? Or joining the Spacelab support module to the experiment module and after installing the experiment racks, attaching the endcone?
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
- Ed Kyle
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
- Ed Kyle
Does anyone know how they're sealing the seam between the upper and lower halves of the CM clam shell? Seems to be a failure mode looking for a time to happen.
How is that any different than joining these to modules or attaching the bulkhead? Or joining the Spacelab support module to the experiment module and after installing the experiment racks, attaching the endcone?
They didn't/don't have to survive re-entry, or potentially keep water out after doing so - especially if the chutes take you for a ride in rough seas. Potential leak prevention is why mariners try to minimize the number and size of hull penetrations. This appears larger than the rest of Starliner's other penetrations combined, and then some. Excrement happens.
Care to put together a list of capabilities, comparing Starliner with Dragon 2?In my mind, it isn't about capabilities, since both are being designed to meet the same requirements. It is about the overriding concepts behind the designs. It is about reliability. It is about ease of use. Etc.
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
- Ed Kyle
You know, I really hate this kind of discussion, turning the whole thing into "my NFL team is better than your NFL team" level of discourse. Both vehicles are still in detailed design, fabrication is at its early stages, and neither contractor has been free enough with details to permit more than educated guesses as to what the final systems will be like. I wish both contractors full funding and the best of luck, and when they're both flying we can all get into "Mac vs. PCs" religious arguments... :-)
... if a Starliner ever ends up in the ocean, I bet they'll write it off.
Care to put together a list of capabilities, comparing Starliner with Dragon 2?In my mind, it isn't about capabilities, since both are being designed to meet the same requirements. It is about the overriding concepts behind the designs. It is about reliability. It is about ease of use. Etc.
CST-100 will ride on a more reliable, more proven launch vehicle. That is my first point of comparison.
CST-100 puts the big abort/retro motors behind the crew in the service module rather than hang them around the crew on the outside of the capsule. The Boeing design is conventional, and based on previously flown spacecraft design. The SpaceX design is unconventional and its concept is unproven (especially during reentry). That's No. 2.
CST-100 will be recovered on land and its design allows for easier dis-assembly for refurbishment than Dragon. Dragon is dropping into water. If SpaceX does develop a land-recovery variant, it will use thrusters to land - another unproven method with crews. That's No. 3.
Since it doesn't bring back the service module, CST-100 capsule should weigh less than Dragon 2 for reentry and landing. I see that as a plus. It means less heating, smaller parachutes, or less stress on them, etc.
I don't doubt that SpaceX can successfully develop a crewed spacecraft. I just believe that its design has more chances for development trouble than the more conservative CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
They didn't/don't have to survive re-entry, or potentially keep water out after doing so - especially if the chutes take you for a ride in rough seas. Potential leak prevention is why mariners try to minimize the number and size of hull penetrations. This appears larger than the rest of Starliner's other penetrations combined, and then some. Excrement happens.
Ed, I believe you are mixing up "risky" vs "worse" concepts.As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to human space flight, less risk = better, more risk = worse.
Agreed. But you equal new technology to higher risk. And that is just plain silly. With such an attitude mankind never would have progressed beyond the stone-age.Ed, I believe you are mixing up "risky" vs "worse" concepts.As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to human space flight, less risk = better, more risk = worse.
- Ed Kyle
Care to put together a list of capabilities, comparing Starliner with Dragon 2?In my mind, it isn't about capabilities, since both are being designed to meet the same requirements. It is about the overriding concepts behind the designs. It is about reliability. It is about ease of use. Etc.
CST-100 will ride on a more reliable, more proven launch vehicle. That is my first point of comparison.
CST-100 puts the big abort/retro motors behind the crew in the service module rather than hang them around the crew on the outside of the capsule. The Boeing design is conventional, and based on previously flown spacecraft design. The SpaceX design is unconventional and its concept is unproven (especially during reentry). That's No. 2.
CST-100 will be recovered on land and its design allows for easier dis-assembly for refurbishment than Dragon. Dragon is dropping into water. If SpaceX does develop a land-recovery variant, it will use thrusters to land - another unproven method with crews. That's No. 3.
Since it doesn't bring back the service module, CST-100 capsule should weigh less than Dragon 2 for reentry and landing. I see that as a plus. It means less heating, smaller parachutes, or less stress on them, etc.
I don't doubt that SpaceX can successfully develop a crewed spacecraft. I just believe that its design has more chances for development trouble than the more conservative CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
I must be missing something and yes probably I am but isn't the Atlas V going away? I thought it was going to be updated?The restriction on RD-180 is for military and national security launches, I believe. ULA could continue to fly them for NASA. I haven't heard anyone say definitively, but I assume it will be around long enough to complete the commercial crew contract. Has anyone heard how Boeing intends to address that?
Point 2, I thought abort motors were typically on a tower above the crew.
Point 3, if they use thrusters to land then it will be a proven method, ha!
Point 4, The Dragon returns the service module?
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
Well of course. It will be better than Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Mercury and Gemini, and will be safer than Shuttle. All those were LEO-only spacecraft. Boeing's new spacecraft will be better than all of them for a variety of reasons. Apollo and Dragon OTOH were both designed as BOE spacecraft, not LEO-limited spacecraft.
- Ed Kyle
You know, I really hate this kind of discussion, turning the whole thing into "my NFL team is better than your NFL team" level of discourse. Both vehicles are still in detailed design, fabrication is at its early stages, and neither contractor has been free enough with details to permit more than educated guesses as to what the final systems will be like. I wish both contractors full funding and the best of luck, and when they're both flying we can all get into "Mac vs. PCs" religious arguments... :-)
It's certainly true that to ignore the risk-tolerance of the current culture/customer would be foolhardy.
I think some here - me included - long for the return of that Apollo era gung-ho attitude to spaceflight. The right path forward is probably somewhere between the two extremes.
I must be missing something and yes probably I am but isn't the Atlas V going away? I thought it was going to be updated?The restriction on RD-180 is for military and national security launches, I believe. ULA could continue to fly them for NASA. I haven't heard anyone say definitively, but I assume it will be around long enough to complete the commercial crew contract. Has anyone heard how Boeing intends to address that?
Point 2, I thought abort motors were typically on a tower above the crew.
Point 3, if they use thrusters to land then it will be a proven method, ha!
Point 4, The Dragon returns the service module?
Point 2: Past capsule designs have done so, but both CST-100 and Dragon propose a pusher escape system.
Point 3: :)
Point 4: For Dragon, the "service module" is integral with the capsule. The trunk section provides only solar cells and radiators. CST-100 has a jettisonable service module that also includes the abort motors.
Regardless, any transition wouldn't be for quite some time. <snip>
So depending upon initial CC contract awards and then the follow on, I'd say Starliner could potentially see a launch on Vulcan between 2022-25. With the station being extended to 2028. IMO.
Care to put together a list of capabilities, comparing Starliner with Dragon 2?In my mind, it isn't about capabilities, since both are being designed to meet the same requirements. It is about the overriding concepts behind the designs. It is about reliability. It is about ease of use. Etc.
CST-100 will ride on a more reliable, more proven launch vehicle. That is my first point of comparison.
CST-100 puts the big abort/retro motors behind the crew in the service module rather than hang them around the crew on the outside of the capsule. The Boeing design is conventional, and based on previously flown spacecraft design. The SpaceX design is unconventional and its concept is unproven (especially during reentry). That's No. 2.
CST-100 will be recovered on land and its design allows for easier dis-assembly for refurbishment than Dragon. Dragon is dropping into water. If SpaceX does develop a land-recovery variant, it will use thrusters to land - another unproven method with crews. That's No. 3.
Since it doesn't bring back the service module, CST-100 capsule should weigh less than Dragon 2 for reentry and landing. I see that as a plus. It means less heating, smaller parachutes, or less stress on them, etc.
I don't doubt that SpaceX can successfully develop a crewed spacecraft. I just believe that its design has more chances for development trouble than the more conservative CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
Of course even I am correct, Dragon's thruster assisted landing might be said to be more unreliable than Starliner's airbag system. But then Soyuz has been using solid rockets to do the same thing for decades.
STA upper and lower domes. The old pressure vessel pathfinder is in the background.
You mean they can't just install a new super pica heat shield and go for it ;D
Several people have mentioned Boeing's experience with manned spacecraft. Just to be clear, Boeing has not ever designed and built a manned spacecraft before. Mercury was built by McDonald Aircraft. Gemini was built by McDonald Aircraft. Apollo CSM was built by North American Aviation, The Lunar Module was built by Grumman. Skylab was built by McDonald Douglas. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell International. Just because somewhere in its pedigree Boeing can show that it eventually purchased, directly or indirectly, those companies doesn't count because *all* the talent and know-how - all the "experience" - of those days has long since retired or died. There is no one on the Boeing payroll today who has ever built a manned spacecraft. In that regard Boeing, Blue and SpaceX are all on a level playing field.
So when touting Boeing over SpaceX, or SpaceX over Boeing, or either over Blue, it is simply incorrect to class it as "experienced" vs. "inexperienced". All companies have varying degrees of inexperience they are dealing with, with talented engineering teams totally dedicated to their tasks. With very few exceptions, all of us here on NSF wish all companies success. So let's not be distorting or misrepresenting. It doesn't serve anyone and doesn't do anyone any good.
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
Several people have mentioned Boeing's experience with manned spacecraft. Just to be clear, Boeing has not ever designed and built a manned spacecraft before. Mercury was built by McDonald Aircraft. Gemini was built by McDonald Aircraft. Apollo CSM was built by North American Aviation, The Lunar Module was built by Grumman. Skylab was built by McDonald Douglas. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell International. Just because somewhere in its pedigree Boeing can show that it eventually purchased, directly or indirectly, those companies doesn't count because *all* the talent and know-how - all the "experience" - of those days has long since retired or died. There is no one on the Boeing payroll today who has ever built a manned spacecraft. In that regard Boeing, Blue and SpaceX are all on a level playing field.
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.If you read the thread, you'll see that I wasn't the original "stirrer". And isn't a discussion of the merits of competing designs exactly what this forum should be doing?
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
So when touting Boeing over SpaceX, or SpaceX over Boeing, or either over Blue, it is simply incorrect to class it as "experienced" vs. "inexperienced".
.
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
to quote:And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.If you read the thread, you'll see that I wasn't the original "stirrer". And isn't a discussion of the merits of competing designs exactly what this forum should be doing?
- Ed Kyle
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
Better is always in the eye of the beholder.Indeed. Over the years I've had discussions with lot's of people. Quite a number of them held the opinion that STS was a much better spacecraft then Soyuz because it carried more crew, more cargo, could land on wheels, generated a lot more noise upon launch and was USA in nature.
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
So Gerstenmeir was just lying when he cited Boeing's experience, is what you are saying.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
Working on the sustainability of a system for several years provides the same experience (or even more) as the original designer.
B-52's must not still be able to fly because the original designers are not still around.
B-52's must not still be able to fly because the original designers are not still around.
Maintaining an *existing* system - aircraft or spacecraft - is not the same thing as designing a new one from the ground up - not by a long shot. All the original design talent is long gone.
The Starliner has the "look and feel" of an upgraded Apollo capsule.
Good times roll....a big, and completely different payload rolls to the Atlas V pad...@CommericalCrew access tower
The Starliner has the "look and feel" of an upgraded Apollo capsule.
I feel like I've heard this a couple times on the forum. Are you just saying the capsules basic shape is similar to Apollo?
It sure is fun seeing metal instead of Power Point Presentations.Even more so watching it launch.
I always think of CST-100/Starliner as Orion Jr.
Boeing lost the Orion contract but has never given up on building a new capsule. They did a lot of work with Bigelow and then NASA to go from the Orion to this.
So claiming that one is definitely better than the other is like poking into a hornet's nest. Not a very clever idea.But it was OK for "JeffLA" to predict a "tearful Bolden" in front of "grinning lawmakers" and "fat cat Boeing execs" unveiling the CST-100 name. That draws no complaints. Only someone expressing an opinion in favor of a Boeing concept gets hammered - repeatedly and days after the opinion has been stated - on this forum, out of context, in a thread that is about that very concept.
Catching up on this thread ... Chuck (clongton) is way off base in his comments re Boeing's experience with building spacecraft. Even setting aside the corporate heritage that's been absorbed through industry contraction, Boeing built the USOS for ISS as well as being the prime integration contractor for everything else. What it built for the USOS was everything - pressure vessels, berthing mechanisms, ECLSS, control systems, experiment support systems, power and data systems, etc. I was on that program when it was still Space Station Freedom. Even through nodes and Cupola were ultimately farmed out to the Italians for political and funding reasons, all those elements were the same basic designs and we're all through PDR with Boeing before being set overseas.Question: when was the last time (before CST-100) that Boeing designed a manned spacecraft that is designed to go up to orbit and come back down intact to a controlled landing, by means of an Earth landing system?
It may not be a capsule or a sexy spaceplane, but it's certainly a spacecraft. Chuck is just wrong.
I am sure watching the crew access tower launch would be fun... ;)It sure is fun seeing metal instead of Power Point Presentations.Even more so watching it launch.
Catching up on this thread ... Chuck (clongton) is way off base in his comments re Boeing's experience with building spacecraft. Even setting aside the corporate heritage that's been absorbed through industry contraction, Boeing built the USOS for ISS as well as being the prime integration contractor for everything else. What it built for the USOS was everything - pressure vessels, berthing mechanisms, ECLSS, control systems, experiment support systems, power and data systems, etc. I was on that program when it was still Space Station Freedom. Even through nodes and Cupola were ultimately farmed out to the Italians for political and funding reasons, all those elements were the same basic designs and we're all through PDR with Boeing before being set overseas.Question: when was the last time (before CST-100) that Boeing designed a manned spacecraft that is designed to go up to orbit and come back down intact to a controlled landing, by means of an Earth landing system?
It may not be a capsule or a sexy spaceplane, but it's certainly a spacecraft. Chuck is just wrong.
Answer: never. Chuck was spot on in his commnts. USOS modules don't require and don't have heatshields for re-entry, nor an Earth landing system, nor autonomous docking systems, nor launch escape systems, nor RCS thrusters with associated plumbing and tankage, etc. etc.
In 50 years if humanity ever leaves LEO again, will you argue the Hab module for the mission isn't a spacecraft?
Emphasis mine.
In 50 years if humanity ever leaves LEO again, will you argue the Hab module for the mission isn't a spacecraft?
Nobody will argue that the hab is not a spacecraft, but what it most certainly is not is a reentry vehicle. Neither is the ISS.
Most all of the accidents involving manned spacecraft have happened during ascent or reentry, and Boeing's ISS design experience will only marginally help on ascent (no fairing for CST-100), and not at all on reentry.
Is the new crew tower going to be set up for an escape slide-wire?
As a calm observer of these thread conflicts, I think we must reflect and realize the only way discussions about Starliner and Dragon will be resolved is with a drag race.
back on track:
Is the new crew tower going to be set up for an escape slide-wire?
Biegler [head of ULA human launch services] said the plan calls for all seven segments to be hoisted by the time of the Atlas 5’s scheduled launch of a new GPS navigation satellite Oct. 30. Some of the tiers will go up before the Atlas 5’s next mission, which is set for Oct. 2 with a Mexican communications satellite, and ground teams will add the rest before the Oct. 30 launch.
Boeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/QuoteBoeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/QuoteBoeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program.
How will that work with the potential SM impact area? Once the deorbit burn is done, the SM will separate but on a very similar trajectory. Are they betting that all of it will burn up?
4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
I am told that the CAT's grounding wires at the base of the CAT have been installed and connected to there grounding plates/system and functionality has been verified ahead of the rollout4 of 7 tiers stacked5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
I do not have that info, but probably below the CAA tier for simplicity otherwise they move all of the steel up. I was told that the steel is being stored on ULA property on CCAFS. If there are bolt holes at the top of tier 7 then it would go on top, otherwise it will go below.also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
Is the extra tier a new roof level, or will they insert it below the crew access arm/slidewire level?
I do not have that info, but probably below the CAA tier for simplicity otherwise they move all of the steel up. I was told that the steel is being stored on ULA property on CCAFS. If there are bolt holes at the top of tier 7 then it would go on top, otherwise it will go below.also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
Is the extra tier a new roof level, or will they insert it below the crew access arm/slidewire level?
As a total aside, is it not time to change the thread title to "Boeing's CST-100 Starliner capsule updates & discussion"?unless we hit the title character limit, it should be possible.
Or are we waiting for a forthcoming THREAD 3 to make a nice, clean change?
I do not have that info, but probably below the CAA tier for simplicity otherwise they move all of the steel up. I was told that the steel is being stored on ULA property on CCAFS. If there are bolt holes at the top of tier 7 then it would go on top, otherwise it will go below.also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
Is the extra tier a new roof level, or will they insert it below the crew access arm/slidewire level?
Moving all the steel up is actually not such a big deal. Jacking up existing steel structures to insert new steel underneath is being done all over the world. One example from the spaceflight industry that comes to mind is that of the mobile service structure of SLC-2W when it was modified for use with the taller Delta II vehicles.
Yup. For all we know that extra tier may just be inserted underneath the current structure when Vulcan comes online.I do not have that info, but probably below the CAA tier for simplicity otherwise they move all of the steel up. I was told that the steel is being stored on ULA property on CCAFS. If there are bolt holes at the top of tier 7 then it would go on top, otherwise it will go below.also there are eight tiers, but one tier will be stored for a few years and assembled later to raise the CAT to the new height for Vulcan.4 of 7 tiers stacked
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/25/crew-access-tower-stacking-passes-midway-point/
5 of 7 tiers are stacked and a temporary protective roof is on for the launch. The rest will be completed after the launch.
Is the extra tier a new roof level, or will they insert it below the crew access arm/slidewire level?
Moving all the steel up is actually not such a big deal. Jacking up existing steel structures to insert new steel underneath is being done all over the world. One example from the spaceflight industry that comes to mind is that of the mobile service structure of SLC-2W when it was modified for use with the taller Delta II vehicles.
Was also done on SLC-3E for the Atlas II to Atlas V conversion. Raised it 30ft.
some decent pics of the new tower in this thread. ;)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36271.msg1440553#msg1440553
Mr. McAlister described the status of NASA’s partners under the CCtCap contracts. A chart showing Boeing’s schedule was presented. Mr. McAlister explained that Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation-100 (CST-100) spacecraft can accommodate up to seven passengers or a mix of crew and cargo to LEO destinations such as the ISS or the planned Bigelow station. The design mission is for four crew and 220 lbs of pressurized cargo. The Boeing system comprises the CST-100 spacecraft, the Atlas V, and ground infrastructure. Mr. Bowersox commented that the costs for NASA could increase because the Atlas V relies on the Russian RD-180 engine, and the Air Force has been precluded from using that engine in the future for national security missions. Mr. McAlister responded that the Boeing contract is for a fixed price and covers two test flights and up to six operational missions to the ISS. Cost increases would have to be absorbed by the contractor. Mr. Gerstenmaier explained that six flights are required from both Boeing and SpaceX and are sufficient, at two flights per year, to cover transportation to the ISS through 2023. He added that Boeing may offer, as an alternative to the Atlas V, the Vulcan LV under development by United Launch Alliance (ULA). Mr. McAllister noted that the CST-100 features a weld-free capsule.
That's the white room?
Updating one of my earlier public-side renders of CST-100 at the station, incorporating recent Starliner changes!A little bit off topic. Maybe you should move the canadarm2 in your rendering because it go through the trunk of the cargo dragon. :-\
.@ethan829 @KaiFarrimondXD 412. sorry about the typo
Here's something interesting: Tory Bruno says on Twitter that CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V 412.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/668081787105468416 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/668081787105468416)Quote.@ethan829 @KaiFarrimondXD 412. sorry about the typo
I don't know if this is old news and I just missed it, but I thought we had previously heard that it would use the 422.
Cool shot of the progress on the Crew Access Tower at LC-41
http://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/stack11.jpg
Update by John Mulholland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLITpaHwqUk
Nice progress! :)
But for some reason the closeup of the white-room makes it look like one of this IKEA "mini-apartment" displays in their stores, complete with some of their bookcases. ;)
Nice progress! :)
But for some reason the closeup of the white-room makes it look like one of this IKEA "mini-apartment" displays in their stores, complete with some of their bookcases. ;)
Today's pic from ULA Orbital launch is interesting.
they using 3 clean rooms?
Nice progress! :)
But for some reason the closeup of the white-room makes it look like one of this IKEA "mini-apartment" displays in their stores, complete with some of their bookcases. ;)
Today's pic from ULA Orbital launch is interesting.
they using 3 clean rooms?
Those aren't whiteroom/cleanrooms
Four astronauts training for test flights with NASA’s Commercial Crew program joined the festivities at Space Launch Complex 41 Thursday morning as one of the highest steel beams was placed on the Crew Access Tower during a “topping off” ceremony with United Launch Alliance, Boeing and Hensel Phelps at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch site in Florida.
The Crew Access Arm and White Room the astronauts looked over today will be attached to the tower after several months’ of testing and fit checks.
Love how they constructed part of the towers top for this at groundlevel :) Cool photo's to!That's the actual CAA.
Is the the 'actual' CAA or just an engineering article? Seems to me that if everything checks out they would just remove this one from the fitting stand and then hoist it up to the real CAT.
This is the first I've heard of Boeing also building new space suits. Do we have any information on them?
NASA astronaut Ricky Arnold recently got an up-close look at the environmental control and life support system, known as the ECLSS, that Boeing will integrate into its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft for crew flights to the International Space Station. The visit with UTC Aerospace Systems in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, on Dec. 9 allowed the team to show off the critical components of the system designed to keep astronauts and the Starliner’s electrical systems safe in space, including cool, breathable air. The team recently passed a critical design review of the system, which will be fully integrated next year.