My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
Quote from: AnimatorRob on 10/13/2016 09:18 pmQuote from: GWH on 10/13/2016 07:45 pmNew Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
Quote from: GWH on 10/13/2016 07:45 pmNew Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.
New Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488
Ugh. I can't wait for Vulcan.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/13/2016 07:14 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/13/2016 03:45 pmHere is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs. I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game. - Ed KyleThe first major delay of CST-100 (of roughly six months), as announced by Boeing last May, was mostly caused by the need to do this "design patch" and fix an overweight problem.And now, another slip of roughly six months because Boeing screwed up the lower dome of spacecraft number 2. Let's see, in the space of less than six months the first crewed mission of CST-100 has slipped almost a year.Ouch...Clearly, the Boeing way of doing things is not as beatific as some had claimed here.Nor is cheap points scoring welcome here.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/13/2016 03:45 pmHere is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs. I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game. - Ed KyleThe first major delay of CST-100 (of roughly six months), as announced by Boeing last May, was mostly caused by the need to do this "design patch" and fix an overweight problem.And now, another slip of roughly six months because Boeing screwed up the lower dome of spacecraft number 2. Let's see, in the space of less than six months the first crewed mission of CST-100 has slipped almost a year.Ouch...Clearly, the Boeing way of doing things is not as beatific as some had claimed here.
Here is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs. I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: mfck on 10/13/2016 11:14 pmQuote from: AnimatorRob on 10/13/2016 09:18 pmQuote from: GWH on 10/13/2016 07:45 pmNew Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.The rendering is great, the subject's appearance now... meah...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/14/2016 01:51 amQuote from: mfck on 10/13/2016 11:14 pmQuote from: AnimatorRob on 10/13/2016 09:18 pmQuote from: GWH on 10/13/2016 07:45 pmNew Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.The rendering is great, the subject's appearance now... meah... Sure. Meah is an understatement. It's ugly to a point where one starts to doubt its flight qualities
Quote from: Star One on 10/13/2016 09:32 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/13/2016 07:14 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/13/2016 03:45 pmHere is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs. I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game. - Ed KyleThe first major delay of CST-100 (of roughly six months), as announced by Boeing last May, was mostly caused by the need to do this "design patch" and fix an overweight problem.And now, another slip of roughly six months because Boeing screwed up the lower dome of spacecraft number 2. Let's see, in the space of less than six months the first crewed mission of CST-100 has slipped almost a year.Ouch...Clearly, the Boeing way of doing things is not as beatific as some had claimed here.Nor is cheap points scoring welcome here.I was voicing my opinion. Which, in case you had failed to notice, is not prohibited in a discussion thread. And yeah, I was taking it out on those members here proclaiming "The Boeing way is better than the SpaceX way!". And yeah, you will also find posts here were I'm taking it out on members proclaiming "SpaceX is better than Boeing!" But again: you failed to notice this.But I digress.
Even before Tuesday’s announcement, Boeing officials signaled that engineering challenges—particularly the crucial test of the crew emergency escape system—could upset flight schedules. The test escape system is vital for the project, because it is the only way astronauts can survive a rocket failure from before launch all the way to cutoff of the main engine during ascent. NASA has to sign off on the test results before crew transportation can begin.Chris Ferguson, Boeing’s deputy program manager, told a space conference in Long Beach last month that a so-called emergency pad abort test, which blasts a stationary capsule off the launch pad, was slated for late 2017. But he said Boeing intended to use simulations to demonstrate that the emergency escape system will work later in the mission, when the rocket is climbing toward orbit.“We’re pedaling as quickly as we can,” Mr, Ferguson told the conference, calling it “a very aggressive schedule.” He also said “we’ll fly when we’re ready.” If it ultimately “takes a couple of extra months” to certify a safe vehicle, he added, “then we’ll do just that” because “that’s what the country wants, and specifically what the astronauts want.”
So now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort?
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 12:55 pmIn the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 11:12 amSo now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort? How is the "original engineering" been "has proven so deficient"? ...
Quote from: rocx on 10/14/2016 01:52 pmQuote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 12:55 pmIn the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.If you crush (detonate) the Centaur when the launch abort thrusters lite off, you could damage the thrusters, nozzles, or the heat shield (as discussed by a former head of engineering at ULA, moments before getting fired). Maybe escape would still be successful; their in-flight demo will confirm... oh wait, they aren't doing an in-flight demo.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 11:12 amSo now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort? How is the "original engineering" been "has proven so deficient"?
The escape thrusters were on the inside in the previous design.