NASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be DelayedRevised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019NASA 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}
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.
And the two become one....Launch Pad Abort Test is next
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.
Quote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile 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.
Quote from: chipguy on 04/09/2018 05:33 pmQuote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile 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.
No re-using anything [snip]
Quote from: kevinof on 04/09/2018 06:17 pm No re-using anything [snip]This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 04/09/2018 06:27 pmQuote from: kevinof on 04/09/2018 06:17 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 04/09/2018 06:40 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 04/09/2018 06:27 pmQuote from: kevinof on 04/09/2018 06:17 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.
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.Quote from: okan170 on 04/09/2018 05:55 pmQuote from: chipguy on 04/09/2018 05:33 pmQuote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isnt 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.
Quote from: chipguy on 04/09/2018 05:33 pmQuote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isnt 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.
Quote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isnt more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isnt more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
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.
Wall Street Journal's take,Doesn't this effectively merge Boe-CFT with Post-Certification Mission-1?WSJ....QuoteNASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be DelayedRevised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019NASA 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}
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.
Quote from: kevinof on 04/09/2018 06:34 pmOk 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.