Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 03/15/2014 10:45 pmA crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.Not only that, those are dollars that stay in America, a lot goes back to government in taxes and almost all of it stays in the US economy.Also it is a political move. As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.
A crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.
Problem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.
Quote from: Prober on 03/16/2014 04:26 pmProblem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.Could have been faster if congress had funded commercial crew as requested. Instead they cut funding, rather sending money to the Russians.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 03/16/2014 04:29 pmQuote from: Prober on 03/16/2014 04:26 pmProblem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.Could have been faster if congress had funded commercial crew as requested. Instead they cut funding, rather sending money to the Russians.sorry your going to disagree with me on this Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.Not fully funded is another word game
Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.Not fully funded is another word game
NASA Commercial Crew Partners Complete Space System Milestones - March 31, 2014http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partners-complete-space-system-milestones-0/#.UznTfNy5o-J
I wouldn't discount CST-100 so much. (Warning - unfounded opinion follows). Boeing has plenty on its plate outside of CST-100, so the fact they don't toot their own horn about it perhaps as much as others do their respective products doesn't mean its not progressing. I'd worry more about DC. Crashing a flight test article is not good.
Quote from: wolfpack on 04/01/2014 02:18 pmI wouldn't discount CST-100 so much. (Warning - unfounded opinion follows). Boeing has plenty on its plate outside of CST-100, so the fact they don't toot their own horn about it perhaps as much as others do their respective products doesn't mean its not progressing. I'd worry more about DC. Crashing a flight test article is not good.The landing crash means nothing other than showing the aircraft and crew can walk away to fly again. They used landing gear harvested from an F-5.
The comparison to CST-100 is irrelevant. We know capsules can fly. At some point SNC had to take a bold step before they began OTV fabrication to verify the design.
Quote from: newpylong on 04/04/2014 12:29 pmThe comparison to CST-100 is irrelevant. We know capsules can fly. At some point SNC had to take a bold step before they began OTV fabrication to verify the design.Actually, don't all capsules need to somehow manage the angle of attack they used upon reentry, so that they get the proper "lift" or maximum effect of the heat shield ? It may not be as difficult as guiding an airframe to a landing on a runway, but something needs to be done during the early stages of de-orbit. I haven't seen the video from the SNC landing, but the video from the CST-100 parachute / airbag tests didn't exactly show a nice gentle touchdown either.
Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft will typically carry five people plus cargo to low Earth orbit destinations, including the International Space Station.