Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 01:38 amFlawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.Oh, good grief! They passed **CDR**! That's a heckuva lot more than Powerpoints and Word documents.
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft 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!
Quote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 amQuote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 amQuote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 amQuote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 amQuote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
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.
Quote from: Hauerg on 10/05/2014 02:19 pmQuote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 amQuote from: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 amIt'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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 pmPressurized 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.
Quote from: joek on 10/05/2014 12:48 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs 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...
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.
...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.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 pmI 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...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 pmI 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.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.