The good news is that it sounds like all 3 CC vehicles are going to be built with or without NASA funding.
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
Here's my article for Space.com about the new commercial version of the CST-100:Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spacelinerhttp://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html
Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.
Quote from: Prober on 05/02/2014 04:00 pmHaving experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.I've been inside the CST-100 mockup that Bigelow built for Boeing and which Boeing then extensively modified to reflect its NASA interior design. I've also been inside a fully-outfitted Apollo mockup.The CST-100 feels much more spacious than Apollo.The CST-100 configuration I sat in included seating for five and even with four other people inside the capsule at the same time, I still had more room than most airliners offer their customers seated in coach.
Quote from: docmordrid on 05/02/2014 11:27 amAnyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Quote from: Prober on 05/02/2014 03:33 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 05/02/2014 11:27 amAnyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?Just asking what seems to me a pair of obvious questions. Restating; a) if there is an RD-180 shortage, would Atlas V's assigned to CST-100 and DC test flights be withdrawn to extend the EELV programs access to launchers? b) if so would those spacecraft be delayed while Falcon 9 adapters are designed, wind tunnel tested etc.?
I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
Quote from: baldusi on 05/03/2014 12:25 amI guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.1) this falls under a NASA problem not DOD....If what I've been reading is correct Orion by law (as the backup to commercial) should be ready to launch to the ISS. SLS was to be ready in 2015-2016 and that won't happen...so that makes Delta IV the rocket of choice as the backup action plan right?2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out. Your thoughts?
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
Quote from: baldusi on 05/03/2014 04:19 amRegarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
Quote from: Prober on 05/03/2014 02:46 am2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out. Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds. If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it. The schedule alone would push IOC to 2019 or so, and again at what cost. Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits. If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
The optics of Boeing showing off their mock-up CST just weeks before their main competitor shows off a flightworthy manned capsule isn't helpful, either.