Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 336818 times)

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #300 on: 04/06/2018 09:54 pm »
Wall Street Journal's take,

Doesn't this effectively merge Boe-CFT with Post-Certification Mission-1?

WSJ....

Quote
NASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be Delayed

Revised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019


NASA and Boeing Co. have agreed to turn the initial test flight of the companys commercial crewed capsule into an operational mission, one of several recent signs officials are hedging their bets on when U.S. spacecraft will start regularly ferrying astronauts to the international space station.

Thursday's disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020 and would likely carry one additional crew...{paywalled}
« Last Edit: 04/06/2018 09:56 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #301 on: 04/06/2018 11:41 pm »
Here's a few options I can think of for a third astronaut should that plan turn true:

Either they can bring up another one of NASA's Commercial Crew cadre;

They can bring up a space tourist for a long-duration mission since this mission might last six months;

They might bring up another Boeing test pilot;

Or they might send up an international astronaut from either ESA, Russia, Canada, or Japan.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2018 11:42 pm by ZachS09 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #302 on: 04/07/2018 02:08 pm »
How does this signal a delay in regular flights? I dont have access to the Journal article, so perhaps it is explained there, but we are only looking at an expansion of the already planned flight, as this summary reads.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #303 on: 04/07/2018 02:13 pm »
How does this signal a delay in regular flights? I dont have access to the Journal article, so perhaps it is explained there, but we are only looking at an expansion of the already planned flight, as this summary reads.

The reason for expanding the test flight would be to avoid having a gap in the crew when the schedule slips.

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #304 on: 04/08/2018 09:39 am »
So the slip would occur after this “test flight” while awaiting certification as “operational” vehicle - is that it? — despite the fact the test flight served as an operational flight?  But The first crew flight (being a test) would still occur roughly “on schedule.” Is this what we are saying...sorry to be dense.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #305 on: 04/08/2018 02:21 pm »
Right now you've got Soyuz flights going up about every three months (not exactly that duration, but close) so that after a 3-person crew has been on orbit for 5-6 months their replacements come up on another Soyuz.  With the planned initiation of U.S. crew flights the future Soyuz flights have been cut back so that Soyuz and U.S. crew vehicles would alternate.  On the last FPIP we've seen it looks like the crew going up in March 2019 will be replaced by another Soyuz flight in September 2019, but the crew going up in May 2019 doesn't have a replacement Soyuz scheduled.  That means around November 2019 either the U.S. flies up some crew or the number of crew on ISS gets cut in half. 

Both of the U.S. crew vehicles are scheduled to be flying by then, but there isn't really a guarantee they will be.  Basically if a first crewed test flight happens in early 2019 then it could just take the two astronauts already scheduled and then we could have a post certification mission around November.  If the first crewed test flights slip into the summer (or later) then the test flight may need to expand its scope to keep the ISS crew size from shrinking in November 2019.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48174
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81664
  • Likes Given: 36933
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #306 on: 04/09/2018 10:15 am »
Quote
And the two become one....Launch Pad Abort Test is next

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/983175787393310721

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #307 on: 04/09/2018 05:33 pm »
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.

This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #308 on: 04/09/2018 05:55 pm »
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.

This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.

Its almost the same as the other spacecraft.  People are more excited for a certain company's hype.

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #309 on: 04/09/2018 06:17 pm »
I don't want to take this off topic but neither excite me. Dragon 2 would have been a big step forward by landing on land with the Dracos.  That's gone and their dunking it in the ocean which is what they did 50 years ago.

Same with CST. It's basically the same as Apollo 50 years ago but with modern avionics. No re-using anything, not pushing the boat out on anything. Kind of meh!

So for me neither one get the juices going much.

While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.

This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.

Its almost the same as the other spacecraft.  People are more excited for a certain company's hype.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #310 on: 04/09/2018 06:27 pm »
No re-using anything [snip]

This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #311 on: 04/09/2018 06:34 pm »
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis.  So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. 

And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.

Just kind of lost it's spark for me.

No re-using anything [snip]

This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).

Offline TrevorMonty

No re-using anything [snip]

This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.

Online Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #313 on: 04/09/2018 07:45 pm »
No re-using anything [snip]

This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Soyuz, just with a different method of making the touchdown non-destructive. It's still a very hard landing, out in the middle of the wilderness. The crew still has to wait out in the middle of nowhere for a convoy to come rescue them.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #314 on: 04/10/2018 01:03 am »
No re-using anything [snip]

This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Soyuz, just with a different method of making the touchdown non-destructive. It's still a very hard landing, out in the middle of the wilderness. The crew still has to wait out in the middle of nowhere for a convoy to come rescue them.

Not correct.  CST-100 will land nominally at a designated site where there will be personnel ready to get them out and recover the vehicle very quickly.  Only an emergency off-nominal landing on land or in the water would there be any wait.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #315 on: 04/10/2018 01:05 am »
I don't want to take this off topic but neither excite me. Dragon 2 would have been a big step forward by landing on land with the Dracos.  That's gone and their dunking it in the ocean which is what they did 50 years ago.

Same with CST. It's basically the same as Apollo 50 years ago but with modern avionics. No re-using anything, not pushing the boat out on anything. Kind of meh!

So for me neither one get the juices going much.

While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.

This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.

Its almost the same as the other spacecraft.  People are more excited for a certain company's hype.

Well yes, you have a capsule but some times the best design is the same design.  After thousands of years we still make boats look like, well boats.  But the CST-100 does have some big difference over Apollo, not the least one being that it is autonomous.  Should be able to launch,. dock and come home without needing the crew to do anything (but they can if something goes wrong).

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #316 on: 04/10/2018 01:06 am »
Here's a few options I can think of for a third astronaut should that plan turn true:

Either they can bring up another one of NASA's Commercial Crew cadre;

They can bring up a space tourist for a long-duration mission since this mission might last six months;

They might bring up another Boeing test pilot;

Or they might send up an international astronaut from either ESA, Russia, Canada, or Japan.


Won't be 2 Boeing pilots.  Boeing only has one and NASA would not use a seat that way.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #317 on: 04/10/2018 01:07 am »
Wall Street Journal's take,

Doesn't this effectively merge Boe-CFT with Post-Certification Mission-1?

WSJ....

Quote
NASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be Delayed

Revised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019


NASA and Boeing Co. have agreed to turn the initial test flight of the companys commercial crewed capsule into an operational mission, one of several recent signs officials are hedging their bets on when U.S. spacecraft will start regularly ferrying astronauts to the international space station.

Thursday's disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020 and would likely carry one additional crew...{paywalled}

Basically, yeah.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #318 on: 04/10/2018 07:04 am »
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis.  So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. 

And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.

Just kind of lost it's spark for me.

That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.

And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.

This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:
- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).
- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.
- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.

All courtesy of NASA.

But I digress.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2018 07:04 am by woods170 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis.  So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. 

And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.

Just kind of lost it's spark for me.

That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.

And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.

This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:
- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).
- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.
- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.

All courtesy of NASA.

But I digress.
The customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0