Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 09/17/2014 03:23 pmAnyone 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?
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.
Quote from: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 03:19 pmAs 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?
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 03:38 pmQuote from: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 03:19 pmAs 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.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!
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.
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 05:14 pmI 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.
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 05:56 pmAnd 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. 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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/03/2014 12:17 amHere's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap. 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.