Quote from: SWGlassPit on 08/22/2014 06:26 pmMilestones 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 07:20 pmQuote from: SWGlassPit on 08/22/2014 06:26 pmMilestones 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?
Quote from: Avron on 08/22/2014 09:41 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 07:20 pmQuote from: SWGlassPit on 08/22/2014 06:26 pmMilestones 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.
Quote from: arachnitect on 08/22/2014 02:07 amQuote from: baldusi on 08/22/2014 01:30 amWhat's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682People 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
Quote from: baldusi on 08/22/2014 01:30 amWhat's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682People 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.
What's the pressurized volume of a 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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 08/22/2014 11:10 pm(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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/22/2014 04:02 pmQuote from: DGH on 08/22/2014 09:55 amQuote from: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 09:57 pmISTM 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 $0.02I 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.Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress. 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.
Quote from: DGH on 08/22/2014 09:55 amQuote from: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 09:57 pmISTM 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 $0.02I 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.Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress. With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 09:57 pmISTM 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 $0.02I 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.
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
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".
Quote from: PahTo on 09/16/2014 09:29 pmWhat 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.
Quote from: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 09:33 pmQuote from: PahTo on 09/16/2014 09:29 pmWhat 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?