Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/28/2013 02:08 amQuote from: Hauerg on 10/27/2013 01:17 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pmIf I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?1. Claustrophobia?2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.I have the opposite of Claustrophobia (I like tight confined spaces and believe me I've been in some way smaller than Soyuz) and Soyuz' flight history seems to support a conclusion that this is a reliable, proven system.I just cannot see how Soyuz would qualify as a "Commercial crew vehicle"
Quote from: Hauerg on 10/27/2013 01:17 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pmIf I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?1. Claustrophobia?2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.I have the opposite of Claustrophobia (I like tight confined spaces and believe me I've been in some way smaller than Soyuz) and Soyuz' flight history seems to support a conclusion that this is a reliable, proven system.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pmIf I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?1. Claustrophobia?2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.
If I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?
Endeavour was built from 1987 to 1992. And the shuttle fleet rebuilt in 2004/5 was done by them, too. Not to mention maintenance engineering while the fleet flew. Btw, the CST-100 is based all the work on the Boeing bid for what was later awarded to LM as Orion.
CST-100. Most proven lift vehicle and simple design of spacecraft.
Quote from: newpylong on 10/28/2013 12:36 pmCST-100. Most proven lift vehicle and simple design of spacecraft.CST-100 seems awfully similar to Orion to me. I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense for a cash-strapped agency to be funding two similar but separate capsules, in addition to Dragon.