Quote from: Lars_J on 01/30/2014 04:11 amWhat gives you that impression? (that they would open it up)Doing so would be terribly inefficient. There is going to be so much wiring, pipes, and other interfaces that surround and connect the top part of the pressure vessel from the bottom part. Madness.Just see how complex the Orion systems are (a similar design), and they aren't even done installing everything needed for EFT-1.What makes me think that they will open the entire clamshell for access is Boeing's direct statement in the slide included in this post where they say "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.
What gives you that impression? (that they would open it up)Doing so would be terribly inefficient. There is going to be so much wiring, pipes, and other interfaces that surround and connect the top part of the pressure vessel from the bottom part. Madness.Just see how complex the Orion systems are (a similar design), and they aren't even done installing everything needed for EFT-1.
If its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?
Quote from: BrightLight on 01/30/2014 04:10 pmIf its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?Read this post."The clamshell structure is weldless."
Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot.
Quote from: arachnitect on 01/27/2014 07:33 pmAlso CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.I'm not sure I see how that's a drawback.. it seems like an efficiency to me. DC either aborts and uses the engines to do the abort, or doesn't abort and uses the engines to achieve orbit. CST-100 throws away perfectly good engines unless they are needed in the abort. (snip)
I'm not sure I see how that's a drawback.. it seems like an efficiency to me. DC either aborts and uses the engines to do the abort, or doesn't abort and uses the engines to achieve orbit. CST-100 throws away perfectly good engines unless they are needed in the abort. Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot. All IMHO anyway.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.
Quote from: newpylong on 02/13/2014 06:33 pmhttp://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.Here's the pic:I can't seem to find a caption or hi res version, but maybe it's hiding somewhere I can't find it.
Quote from: robertross on 02/13/2014 08:02 pmI found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."Why not? They're in the lead. - Ed Kyle
I found this statement a bit bold & absolute (highlight mine):"Boeing's [NYSE: BA] Commercial Crew Program (CCP) recently completed a hardware design review and software safety test, bringing it closer to launching the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft that will return Americans to space."