And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different.
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...
kinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...And NASA will say that they have Orion, which meets all of their requirements including a wide field-of-view navigation widow tested to withstand boot kicks. And it will be ready to fly at about the $10B mark.
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
Quote from: Tony Ostinato on 08/21/2011 11:54 pmkinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.Or maybe like the shuttle... Is ISS docking nominally controlled from the forward or aft flight deck controls?
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...Something of a prisoner's dilemma there. Only takes one to say "yes" and if the requirement stands as-is, CST-100 (or Orion) would appear to have the advantage.
Quote from: Jorge on 08/22/2011 01:15 amQuote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?
Quote from: manboy on 08/22/2011 01:23 amQuote from: Jorge on 08/22/2011 01:15 amQuote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?Not personally.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/21/2011 06:16 amSpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.Then won't get a contract from NASA. NASA isn't changing requirements halfway. NASA hasn't even started the procurement for CCP.
SpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.
In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 03:29 amIn my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.Have you ever heard the rule of commerce, that the customer is always right? Indeed NASA has every right to request a requirement that they deem necessary, as they have had a decade of ISS experience plus more with Mir. If you deem that overly conservative, think of how expensive ISS is and how much of a stake NASA has in the program. So if a couple of vehicles cannot meet the requirement, then NASA has every right to exclude them to protect its investment. However, it will be interesting to see whether or not a periscope could be defined as a "window" since it is basically light reflected from a window. Seems like an easy solution.
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed. (unless I am mistaken)Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.