NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section => Topic started by: thomson on 07/24/2013 10:48 AM

Title: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: thomson on 07/24/2013 10:48 AM
New Update and Discussion Thread for Boeing's CST-100.

Previous thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.0

News articles:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/cst-100/

L2 Master Thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29664.0

Remember to stay on topic.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/25/2013 12:48 AM
Liked the mike too. The interior looks neat and spacious until you remember the power of wide angle lenses. The Ars Technica author commented on how crowded it would be with a full crew (but in zero G for 6 hours, not a big deal.)

Yep, all of the prospective commercial crew vehicles will get quite packed with a crew of seven. I have attached an image which shows how 7 would be seated: (top row of 3, then 4 below their feet) The wider diameter of the CST-100 compared to Dragon allows this kind of seating, whereas the Dragon cabin compensates by being taller, thus two levels. (bottom image)

Both seating arrangements have their pros/cons, so it will be interesting to see more final/complete mockups with all seats in place to judge how much space there is left.


Interior volume won't be a big issue with a day one docking:

Quote
Boeing is planning a flight day one rendezvous and docking capability with the space station, rather than the shuttle’s day-three berthing.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_07_24_2013_p01-02-599911.xml&p=2
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 07/25/2013 01:27 AM
day one docking

Even more precisely, docking within 12 hours, per Chris Ferguson:

"We're going to dock within 24 hours on a normal mission and six hours after undock, we are going to be on the ground... If everything goes well, you're not going to be a passenger in this vehicle in flight for more than 18 hours."

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-072313a.html
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: justineet on 07/25/2013 02:10 AM
It probably has more room than SpaceX's capsule because it doesn't contain self-contained boosters like the Dragon....which I assume take some room...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 07/25/2013 06:33 AM
It probably has more room than SpaceX's capsule because it doesn't contain self-contained boosters like the Dragon....which I assume take some room...

They may not take up any room at all inside the pressurized cabin. The boosters/thrusters will share propellant with the regular Draco thrusters, and the thruster pods are located on the outside of the pressurized cabin - if the recent mock ups are accurate.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: R7 on 07/25/2013 09:51 AM
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing. Can't even find what the acronym stand for  :-\
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/25/2013 10:21 AM
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing. Can't even find what the acronym stand for  :-\

Not sure this will be of any help with your searching, but my understanding is that SIMAC is an acronym for Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 07/25/2013 11:42 AM
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.
There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 07/25/2013 02:07 PM
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.
There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.

Intellectual property (Boeing) / ITAR issues?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 07/25/2013 02:10 PM
The overall design inside is very Star Trek voyager like.   Looks comfortable, futuristic, and use of space.  My well done to the team that produced this design.
 
 ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 07/25/2013 02:36 PM
Is there anywhere more information about the SIMAC docking system? Tried searching the site and googling, no pdfs no diagrams no images of mockups, nothing.
There's not even anything on L2. I don't get why it seems like there's an embargo on SIMAC info.

Intellectual property (Boeing) / ITAR issues?
Aviation Week called it a "non-proprietary system" and stated it's supposed to be part of an international docking standard. Prior to SIMAC NASA published a plethora of knowledge on the NDS (they even let you download some STL files of it), so I'm not sure why ITAR would now prevent them now from posting some basic info.

I've recently contacted the International Docking Standard website and NASA PAO to see if I could get any info on the project, I'll post an update when they email back.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: R7 on 07/25/2013 02:37 PM
SIMAC is an acronym for Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept

Thanks, got a bit more hits with that but any kind of image or diagram still eludes searches.

The vague descriptions give impression of mechanized iLIDS sans the magnets ... which would be pretty much APAS clone.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 07/25/2013 02:52 PM
SIMAC is an acronym for Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept

Thanks, got a bit more hits with that but any kind of image or diagram still eludes searches.

The vague descriptions give impression of mechanized iLIDS sans the magnets ... which would be pretty much APAS clone.
The impression I got was that it would be an APAS clone with different dimensions and resource connections (which is why the IDA adapters are required).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 07/27/2013 06:56 AM
NASA Astronauts Demonstrate Operations in Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft

HOUSTON, July 24, 2013 – Two NASA astronauts evaluated communications, ergonomics and crew-interface aspects of the Boeing [NYSE: BA] Crew Space Transportation-100 capsule on July 22, showing how future astronauts will operate in the spacecraft as it transports them to the International Space Station and other low Earth orbit destinations.

In this photo, astronaut Serena Aunon prepares to enter the CST-100 mockup for flight-suit evaluations.

###

Photo credit: NASA photo
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 07/28/2013 10:59 AM
Boeing Defense ‏@BoeingDefense 

PHOTO: @NASA's Randy Bresnik prepares to evaluate #Boeing CST-100 capsule http://flic.kr/p/feTNgu  @Commercial_Crew #CCDev @NASA_Astronauts

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 07/30/2013 04:42 PM
At NewSpace 2013 I related my dismay at this comment:

Quote
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing.

in the Boeing press release, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2743

In the group of people was two Boeing employees who looked at each other, looked at me, and said "the mission is our top priority, safety is second, but boy oh boy do some people not understand that."

I think they get it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 07/30/2013 04:52 PM
At NewSpace 2013 I related my dismay at this comment:

Quote
“Crew safety is our top priority,” said Alex Diaz, Boeing director for the testing.

in the Boeing press release, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2743

In the group of people was two Boeing employees who looked at each other, looked at me, and said "the mission is our top priority, safety is second, but boy oh boy do some people not understand that."

I think they get it.

I assume the "Mission" is to transport the passengers on the CST-100 to their destination safely. If the passengers do not arrive at the destination safe and sound, then the mission is a failure.

What did the Boeing employees think the mission was ?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 07/30/2013 04:55 PM
I assume the "Mission" is to transport the passengers on the CST-100 to their destination safely. If the passengers do not arrive at the destination safe and sound, then the mission is a failure.

What did the Boeing employees think the mission was ?

That.. what you're missing is that Alex Diaz didn't say that. He said safety is the top priority, in which case you can easily achieve that by just not flying anyone. That's what makes it an incredibly stupid statement and yet people keep making it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: catdlr on 07/31/2013 03:08 PM
Engineers Test CST-100 Water Recovery Techniques

Published on Jul 31, 2013
The Boeing Company evaluated tools, equipment and procedures it could use if the CST-100 spacecraft is required to make a water landing. The testing included a full-scale mockup of the spacecraft floating in a specialized facility operated by Bigelow Aerospace near Las Vegas. The CST-100 is one of three spacecraft under development in partnership with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The others are the SpaceX Dragon and Sierra Nevada Corporation Dream Chaser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESAwzJklEvM
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 08/11/2013 01:21 PM
So do I understand this correctly?    In the Boeing design the landing airbags (designed for land operations), also can be used as floatation in water landings?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 08/11/2013 02:46 PM
So do I understand this correctly?    In the Boeing design the landing airbags (designed for land operations), also can be used as floatation in water landings?

That is correct, with the addition of the 2 extra bags on top in case of stability issues on splashdown.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 08/16/2013 12:43 AM
Boeing's new CCiCap milestones:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=679
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 08/16/2013 03:00 AM
Short version: Optional milestone #21 "Phase 2 Safety Review Board" is split into milestones #21a and #21b.  #21a becomes a base period milestone; #21b remains an optional milestone.  #21a is "Phase 2 Safety Review Board", due July 2014 with a value of $20M.

Term of agreement is also extended from 31-May-2014 to 31-Aug-2014.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/20/2013 03:21 PM
Boeing puts airplane feel into latest space capsule
by Chris Sullivan, KIRO Radio reporter

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2334968/Boeing-puts-airplane-feel-into-latest-space-capsule
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/05/2013 10:26 PM
Boeing Performs Third CST-100 Contingency Water Landing Scenario
Thurs, 5 Sept 2013 12:00:00 PM EDT

A mock-up of The Boeing Company's CST-100 spacecraft was put through its third and final contingency water landing scenario at Bigelow Aerospace's headquarters outside of Las Vegas on Sept. 4. The CST-100 is designed for ground landings, but could splash down on the water, if necessary. Through the tests, teams are verifying the spacecraft's landing system will operate as planning during a contingency.

Boeing is one of three American companies working with the agency's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) to develop safe, reliable and cost-effective crew transportation systems during the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, which is intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html)

Photo Caption
A mock-up of Boeing's CST-100 undergoes a final water contingency landing scenario Sept. 4 near Las Vegas.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/14/2013 12:14 AM
Boeing Completes Mission Control Center Interface Test
Rebecca Regan, John F. Kennedy Space Center - Sept 13, 2013

For the first time, the Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston has tested communications with a commercial, crew-capable spacecraft, as The Boeing Company conducted an interface test between the MCC and software planned for the company's CST-100 spacecraft.

Boeing has partnered with NASA to develop a fully integrated crew transportation system, with its CST-100 spacecraft and United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, in partnership with NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP). New commercial spaceflight capabilities being developed by NASA partners through commercial crew initiatives could eventually provide services to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station, launching from U.S. soil.

The August test verified that Boeing could send and receive data from its Avionics Software Integration Facility to the MCC. The company's software facility and CST-100 spacecraft simulator are serving as precursors to integrated flight operations training.

"Every day, our connection to the humans living and working in space comes through the historic and hallowed MCC in Houston," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager. "As low-Earth orbit opens to a growing commercial space industry, the ability of new spacecraft to communicate with existing space infrastructure is critical."

Through a reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA's Mission Operations Directorate, which began during CCP's second phase of development, Boeing is collaborating with the agency on mission planning, training and flight operations for its CST-100.

"Our continued partnership with NASA Mission Operations Directorate brings valued experience to our Commercial Crew Program," said John Mulholland, vice president of Boeing Commercial Crew Programs. "This fully integrated team will ensure that we can safely and affordably conduct missions."

Additional interconnectivity assessments conducted by Boeing will include software avionics testing for the ascent phase of flight and demonstrations that will put a human at the controls of the spacecraft simulator. A pilot will run through the critical phases of flight, including rendezvous and docking by firing thrusters, navigating state changes and adjusting the spacecraft attitude.

Boeing is on track to meet all 20 of its Commercial Crew integrated Capabilities (CCiCap) milestones by summer 2014. All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-completes-mission-control-center-interface-test (http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-completes-mission-control-center-interface-test)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/20/2013 04:12 PM
NASA Commercial Partner Boeing Tests CST-100 Spacecraft Thrusters
RELEASE 13-289  Sept 20, 2013

Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft is one step closer to liftoff after a gauntlet of test firings of its steering jets at White Sands Space Harbor in Las Cruces, N.M.
 
Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne recently completed the tests, which simulated the demanding environment of space. The tests assessed how the thrusters -- which fire with 1,500 pounds of force -- will speed up, slow down and move the spacecraft while carrying NASA astronauts in Earth’s orbit.
 
Boeing is developing a fully integrated crew transportation system, which includes the CST-100 spacecraft and the United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, in partnership with NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP). New commercial spaceflight capabilities being developed by NASA partners through commercial crew initiatives eventually could provide services to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station, launching from American soil. Boeing is working on development milestones that are part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative.
 
"Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne continue to show a path forward for NASA's low-Earth orbit crew transportation needs by implementing cutting-edge technologies and showcasing decades of human spaceflight experience," said Ed Mango, CCP manager.
 
The CST-100's orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) system has 24 thrusters, giving it the ability to perform critical maneuvers in space such as those required to refine the CST-100's orbit, as well as the braking maneuver near the end of a mission that slows the spacecraft down before re-entry. The OMAC thrusters will be jettisoned when the service module is released from the capsule just before re-entry. Positioned in four clusters of six on the service module of the spacecraft, the thrusters could steer the spacecraft in case an emergency calls for it to separate from its rocket during launch or ascent.
 
During the tests, the OMAC thrusters were fired in a vacuum chamber that simulated the space-like environment at an altitude of 100,000 feet. These evaluations put the thrusters through the burns and stresses they would encounter during a real flight. Engineers equipped the jets with a host of instruments to measure changes in the smallest components.
 
"The CST-100 OMAC thrusters are an example of leveraging proven flight hardware solutions to ensure mission supportability," said John Mulholland, Boeing vice president and manager for commercial programs. "We are very pleased with the data collected during this second series of tests and with our overall team performance as we continue to progress through CCiCap milestones on time and on budget."
 
Previous tests of the OMAC thrusters verified their durability in extreme heat, evaluated the opening and closing of their valves and confirmed continuous combustion and performance. Designers are using the results of these tests to validate or adjust their complex computer models that predict how a thruster and spacecraft will work during a mission.
 
"The OMAC engines met CCiCap test objectives," said Terry Lorier, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CST-100 Service Module Propulsion Program manager. "Aerojet Rocketdyne and Boeing are both pleased with the results and look forward to continuing our partnership."
 
With the completion of its ninth milestone, Boeing is on track to meet all 20 of its CCiCap milestones by summer 2014. All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/september/nasa-commercial-partner-boeing-tests-cst-100-spacecraft-thrusters/ (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/september/nasa-commercial-partner-boeing-tests-cst-100-spacecraft-thrusters/)

Photo Caption:
A thruster glows red during a hot-fire test at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, N.M.,for Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) system. Image Credit: Boeing
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Garrett on 09/26/2013 01:12 PM
Don't think this vid was posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVzzHlOCDxk

Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the link.

Is this the drop test from April 3rd 2012?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 09/26/2013 03:17 PM
Feel close to this project as I can relate to the sizes etc.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30260.msg977040#msg977040 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30260.msg977040#msg977040)
 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 09/26/2013 08:09 PM
Don't think this vid was posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVzzHlOCDxk

Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the link.

Is this the drop test from April 3rd 2012?

Is the capsule suppose to bounce like that? Was there a problem with the air bags?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: robertross on 09/27/2013 01:31 AM
Don't think this vid was posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVzzHlOCDxk

Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the link.

Is this the drop test from April 3rd 2012?

Ooo...we have a new contender for the title of vomit comet!
I wouldn't want to experience the jarring seen prior to full chute deploy on that release...ouch!
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 09/27/2013 01:49 AM
So are there no drogues in this parachute system? Because the mains were blasted out directly, it seems like. Or was it not a full parachute sequence due to slow speed or low altitude?

They talk about three pilot chutes... and if you look carefully they are there, but they hardly seem to be involved here - mortars seem to trigger the mains almost directly.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/22/2013 06:24 PM
https://www.facebook.com/NASACommercialCrew

Boeing and Space Florida recently finalized an agreement to use a processing facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, where the company plans to begin building its CST-100 spacecraft in 2014. The former space shuttle hangar, now called the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF), is being modernized to support the new spacecraft. Boeing’s CST-100 is under development in collaboration with NASA Commercial Crew Program to transport crews to low-Earth orbit and potentially the International Space Station.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 10/24/2013 11:53 PM
makin' noise

Boeing Commercial Crew Program engine hot fire test (http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10459828596/)
Quote
An Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: a_langwich on 10/25/2013 01:24 AM
makin' noise

Boeing Commercial Crew Program engine hot fire test (http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10459828596/)
Quote
An Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/25/2013 01:38 AM
makin' noise

Boeing Commercial Crew Program engine hot fire test (http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/10459828596/)
Quote
An Aerojet Rocketdyne engine for the Boeing Commercial Crew program produces 40,000 pounds of thrust in an Oct. 22 test in Mojave, Calif.

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?

They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: a_langwich on 10/25/2013 01:49 AM

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?

They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png

Thanks for the diagram! 
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 10/25/2013 03:00 AM

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?

They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png

Thanks for the diagram! 
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!

LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.

CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.

Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: a_langwich on 10/25/2013 03:29 AM
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!

LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.

CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.

Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.


Doesn't matter for that case, but consider some of the pad aborts actually seen in the past, where the launch vehicle aborted very close to the pad.  In some of those, the launch escape system fired while the rest of the rocket stayed on the pad:  it would be less handy if the launch escape system caused the entire launch vehicle to explode, destroying the pad.  More generally, if the upper stage is NOT blowing up, it seems like it would be a safety win to not go ahead and make it blow up.  In other words, promoting a whole bunch of lesser cases to the worst case doesn't seem like a good attribute.  So yes, I think it does matter. 

But you are right, maybe the plumes don't impinge or not much anyway, and the short time frame makes it reasonable.  I'm sure those concerns have been raised, and answered in some way.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 10/25/2013 04:51 AM

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?

They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png

Thanks for the diagram! 
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!

No, I believe the centaur/CST-100 adapter has four open and deflected paths with some sort of blow-out panels - one for each abort engine. In this image you can see the darker panels that should allow the deflected thrust to exit if an abort occurs. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it will work.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/25/2013 04:27 PM
Looks pretty sweet on top of the Atlas doesn't it?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/25/2013 08:16 PM
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!

LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.

CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.

Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.


Doesn't matter for that case, but consider some of the pad aborts actually seen in the past, where the launch vehicle aborted very close to the pad.  In some of those, the launch escape system fired while the rest of the rocket stayed on the pad:  it would be less handy if the launch escape system caused the entire launch vehicle to explode, destroying the pad.  More generally, if the upper stage is NOT blowing up, it seems like it would be a safety win to not go ahead and make it blow up.  In other words, promoting a whole bunch of lesser cases to the worst case doesn't seem like a good attribute.  So yes, I think it does matter. 

But you are right, maybe the plumes don't impinge or not much anyway, and the short time frame makes it reasonable.  I'm sure those concerns have been raised, and answered in some way.

If the first stage blows up, isn't there an extremely good chance that the second stage isn't going to survive anyway ?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 10/26/2013 02:13 PM

Is this the RS-88?  Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100?  I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module.  Anybody have links?

They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png

Thanks for the diagram! 
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort?  Yikes!

No, I believe the centaur/CST-100 adapter has four open and deflected paths with some sort of blow-out panels - one for each abort engine. In this image you can see the darker panels that should allow the deflected thrust to exit if an abort occurs. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it will work.

No fairing needed?   This will save some weight.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/26/2013 09:22 PM
Looks pretty sweet on top of the Atlas doesn't it?

Reminds me of something...

https://www.discountrocketry.com/images/images_big/es_2123.jpg
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/15/2013 07:57 PM
Daily Planet video piece on the CST-100 from the 14th starts at 6:00 into it...

http://www.discovery.ca/dp/videos/
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ike17055 on 12/13/2013 02:50 PM
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to get more than a modicum of anything but old news about Boeing's vehicle and its progress in development.  Does their low profile translate in any way into a lack of real commitment by Boeing toward getting the commercial crew contract.  In more blunt terms, how do your respond to those who claim that Boeing has more or less conceded the leading position to supply a capsule for CC to SpaceX because of the perception of an insurmountable lead?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrianNH on 12/13/2013 04:33 PM
I don't know that we really are getting less info on CST-100 than Dragonrider or Dream Chaser.  If you think about it, we really only hear from any of them when they meet certain milestones.  I think that the perception is there that we are getting more info on Dragon because we are all following so many different developments at SpaceX, including cargo missions.

What bothers me is that there seems to be very little information (or progress?) on human-rating the Atlas V.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 12/13/2013 06:26 PM
Of course I want more info on CST-100, but I am learning to accept what we get. We have more info on CST-100 current config. than manned dragon. SNC has certainly clammed up since the accident.

I don't think SpaceX has been particularly forthcoming, it just looks that way because every word that leaks out of Hawthorne becomes the basis of 2000 blog spam articles across the internet.

I don't think the PR situation reflects Boeing's commitment to the program, BA just has weird PAO to begin with. Example: Boeing doesn't like to give out decent resolution images for some reason, but the high res versions usually show up eventually.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 12/13/2013 10:54 PM
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to get more than a modicum of anything but old news about Boeing's vehicle and its progress in development.
Here you go

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 12/16/2013 02:32 PM
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/16/2013 04:02 PM
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...

Did this just happen? Good, if that is the case. Do you have a link/source?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 12/16/2013 04:17 PM
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...

Did this just happen? Good, if that is the case. Do you have a link/source?
I recall back in mid-June, 2013
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: USFdon on 12/16/2013 04:32 PM
Here you go

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf

On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/16/2013 04:41 PM
Here you go

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf

On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?

A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Occupymars on 12/16/2013 04:58 PM
Boeing Defense tweet: ‏@BoeingDefense 3h
Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb (http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb)
Quote
Terry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"

"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: robertross on 12/16/2013 05:05 PM
Boeing Defense tweet: ‏@BoeingDefense 3h
Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb (http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb)
Quote
Terry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"

"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."

sweet, thanks for passing that along
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/26/2014 05:17 AM
It seems to me like the CST-100 is basically out of the game for commercial crew or any other use for that matter. It seemed to be the safe and traditional fallback in case Sierra Nevada folded or Dragon didn't live up to performance / schedule expectations. Now that both of the longshots seem to be on track, what place does CST have? The clamshell design and pusher LAS are innovative, but the other options use pushers and have pinpoint landing capabilities, something NASA probably cares more about than how easy it is for boeing to outfit the interior.

Does CST still have a shot at being tested? If so, why?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/26/2014 10:41 AM
It seems to me like the CST-100 is basically out of the game for commercial crew or any other use for that matter. It seemed to be the safe and traditional fallback in case Sierra Nevada folded or Dragon didn't live up to performance / schedule expectations. Now that both of the longshots seem to be on track, what place does CST have? The clamshell design and pusher LAS are innovative, but the other options use pushers and have pinpoint landing capabilities, something NASA probably cares more about than how easy it is for boeing to outfit the interior.

Does CST still have a shot at being tested? If so, why?

Quite the opposite.  It is further along, less risk, etc
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrianNH on 01/26/2014 01:48 PM
Quite the opposite.  It is further along, less risk, etc

Can you expand on how it is "further along"?  I personally find it difficult to see the big picture.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/26/2014 01:52 PM
Quite the opposite.  It is further along, less risk, etc

Can you expand on how it is "further along"?  I personally find it difficult to see the big picture.

It is only couple of months away from CDR
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 01/26/2014 05:02 PM
Here you go

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf

On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?

Noticed that as well and believe its a good move on their part.  My only issue might be the location of the Solar panels.  Won't they get damaged by the thrusters?
 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/26/2014 05:07 PM
"Mission kit" means optional.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/26/2014 06:28 PM
from @Commercial_Crew (https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/423924261946814466/photo/1)

Quote
Former astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/26/2014 06:38 PM
Here you go

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf

On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?

Noticed that as well and believe its a good move on their part.  My only issue might be the location of the Solar panels.  Won't they get damaged by the thrusters?
 

Should be clear of the OMAC thrusters. I don't think anything on ISS would impinge on that either (assuming the solar mission kit ever flew to ISS).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Oli on 01/26/2014 11:44 PM

So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Avron on 01/26/2014 11:55 PM
from @Commercial_Crew (https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/423924261946814466/photo/1)

Quote
Former astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
Have not seen the same from the competition
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/27/2014 12:57 AM

So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?

A good catch!

I have also attached an image of a crew access tower from the PDF. (edit: found a higher resolution version)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/27/2014 01:04 AM

So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/27/2014 01:16 AM


So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?

Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/27/2014 01:25 AM


So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?

Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/27/2014 01:51 AM

So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?

Does it say that somewhere? The renderings could be wrong. They'll probably always call it a 400 series since the centaur isn't under a fairing.



So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?

Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.

Boeing is just distributing the risk differently; the LV does more and the spacecraft does less. Not asking Atlas V to do anything it hasn't done before.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 03:12 AM
Quote from: BrightLight
...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?

It may provide engine-out capability for dual-engine centaur, then it would increase reliability.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/27/2014 03:13 AM
Quote from: BrightLight
...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?

It may provide engine-out capability for dual-engine centaur, then it would increase reliability.

Centaur doesn't have engine out capability
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2014 03:20 AM
Quote from: Jim
Centaur doesn't have engine out capability

So what would happen if one engine fails on DEC? The other one must be shut down too?

But whatever, its not like engine-out capability is necessary in this case.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/27/2014 07:46 AM
from @Commercial_Crew (https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/423924261946814466/photo/1)

Quote
Former astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
Have not seen the same from the competition
No? Here's the SNC DC one: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dreamchaser-sim-langley.html
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/27/2014 11:23 AM
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/27/2014 11:35 AM
@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/27/2014 01:55 PM
@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
That just made the CST-100 a lot less attractive and might give the DC an edge.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/27/2014 01:56 PM

@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.

I can't help feeling this being the case it's a negative point in the comparison to DC unless there is some compensation through higher payload delivery or other plus points to offset this?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 01/27/2014 01:57 PM
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?

Do we know that CST-100 will use the 522? How do we know it's not the 422?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/27/2014 03:11 PM
Either way if there is the addition of two SRBs is there any knock on as flight safety checks are concerned? I would think the less additional items on the Atlas V manned flights the better.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/27/2014 03:33 PM
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?

Do we know that CST-100 will use the 522? How do we know it's not the 422?
No, I don't know if the LV is a 522 - in fact, I have no clear definitions other than Atlas V what configuration the  CST-100 will use?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/27/2014 03:36 PM
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?

Don't be to sure about the DC using the 402 configuration. Until we get liftoff mass of the entire DC stack. Also ULA might be unwilling to developed both the 4X2 and 5X2 versions of the AV.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/27/2014 03:40 PM
The web is full of pictures of the CSt-100 with and without SRB's on the Atlas V LV.
Is there a publication/article etc defining the LV?
the best I have is the FISO report in February 2013:
 http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/Reiley_2-6-13.pptx

the pictures show two SRB's - but this is hardly definitive.
Just for reference, I found from another web site that the difference between a 402 and a 522  configurations was about $5 million.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/27/2014 06:04 PM
Quote from: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/
The capsule will launch on a version of the Atlas 5 known as the 422 model - with a two-engine Centaur and two solid rocket boosters - in the launcher's catalog of configurations tailored to the size and destination of the payload for each launch, according to a Boeing spokesperson.

I wouldn't have found that if I hadn't known what to look for, so thanks to Oli for spotting the second SRB. You win internet points Oli.

Don't know why people think this is a 500 series: the Centaur is clearly not encapsulated.

Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/27/2014 06:16 PM
Exactly. The image does NOT show a 500 series Atlas V. It is a non-encapsulated Centaur stage. I'm not sure what it will be called, since it has no fairing - But it is certainly closer to a 422 than a 522 model.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/27/2014 06:29 PM
Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.
DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/27/2014 06:35 PM
Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.
DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2014 06:44 PM
Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.
DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.
Well, it doesn't /improve/ the reliability.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 01/27/2014 07:01 PM
I've seen illustrations of everything from 402 to 422, so who knows what it will end up being. Too much speculation. It definitely is not a 5xx though.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/27/2014 07:17 PM
Also don't know why people think this hurts CST. They already needed at least 1 SRB, so adding another doesn't change much (a few $). If DC has mass growth they'll probably end up doing the same thing.
DC is still supposed to use the 402, from all that is currently known. I was not aware that the CST was originally supposed to use the 412. I thought it was going to be the 402 just like the DC.
Right - my question still stands, does the addition of the SRB's (only about $5 million, not that much considering) change the reliability of the Atlas V.
Well, it doesn't /improve/ the reliability.

It might improve the reliability of the overall system. since there is spare thrust in the first stage.

As long as they already had 1 solid, I don't see adding a second solid making it any less safe.

The 40x is definitely the most common / flown Atlas configuration, but from Ed Kyle's launch log it appears that the 4/521 configuration has flown 4 times while the 411 configuration has only flown twice. Of course, there are plenty of 3 and 5 SRB launches as well. The only "partial" failure Ed has ever logged with Atlas is when the Centaur shut down a few seconds early, causing the sat to need to put itself into the proper orbit.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/27/2014 07:23 PM
It might improve the reliability of the overall system. since there is spare thrust in the first stage.

As long as they already had 1 solid, I don't see adding a second solid making it any less safe.

Statistics. That's why. You are adding a possible failure point.

How does that spare thrust help you? There is no scenario where a first stage engine out (or booster out) is recoverable.

Atlas V doesn't launch with more SRBs than needed.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/27/2014 07:33 PM
It might improve the reliability of the overall system. since there is spare thrust in the first stage.

As long as they already had 1 solid, I don't see adding a second solid making it any less safe.

Statistics. That's why. You are adding a possible failure point.

How does that spare thrust help you? There is no scenario where a first stage engine out (or booster out) is recoverable.

Atlas V doesn't launch with more SRBs than needed.

Yes it adds risk to the booster, but the difference is quite manageable. Sure an SRM failure doomed a Delta II once, but how many SRMs flew without incident on Delta II alone? It's a non issue.

It improves reliability by increasing your mass margin on the spacecraft (can use heavier components, add redundancy, no need to mess around with composites). Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2014 08:05 PM
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?

I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/27/2014 08:22 PM
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?

I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
I wonder which has larger, albeit small incremental, reduction effect on reliability - one extra solid motor or one extra RL10?  My bet would be RL10.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2014 08:26 PM
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?

I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.
I wonder which has larger, albeit small incremental, reduction effect on reliability - one extra solid motor or one extra RL10?  My bet would be RL10.

 - Ed Kyle
...I think I agree. Especially since the RL-10 is started on-orbit (not during first-stage hold-down where it can be aborted intact in case of early problem being detected).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 01/27/2014 08:30 PM
The wind tunnel images for both CST-100 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/focus-on-details-paying-off-for-cst-100/#.UubOMrTTnnI) and Dream Chaser (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about/work/partners/tunnel_120521.html) (images attached) show an Atlas 4xx; no SRB shown but may be on other side.  Edit: presumably that's a 4x2 as both CST-100 and DC have stated DEC is required.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/27/2014 08:50 PM
The wind tunnel images for both CST-100 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/focus-on-details-paying-off-for-cst-100/#.UubOMrTTnnI) and Dream Chaser (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about/work/partners/tunnel_120521.html) (images attached) show an Atlas 4xx; no SRB shown but may be on other side.  Edit: presumably that's a 4x2 as both CST-100 and DC have stated DEC is required.
Keep in mind that these wind tunnel tests likely run through a series of vehicle configurations to mimic the range of flight conditions.  These images might just be showing the set up to test post solid separation conditions, for example.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/27/2014 11:31 PM

It improves reliability by increasing your mass margin on the spacecraft (can use heavier components, add redundancy, no need to mess around with composites). Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.

You are mixing apples and oranges. 
1.  The launch vehicle reliability is lowered
2.  And you can't say it increases spacecraft reliability.  It doesn't matter if the spacecraft doesn't make into orbit. 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 01/28/2014 12:56 AM

It improves reliability by increasing your mass margin on the spacecraft (can use heavier components, add redundancy, no need to mess around with composites). Also CST doesn't have to use its LAS to get into orbit like DC does.

You are mixing apples and oranges. 
1.  The launch vehicle reliability is lowered
2.  And you can't say it increases spacecraft reliability.  It doesn't matter if the spacecraft doesn't make into orbit. 

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 01/28/2014 01:50 AM
@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.

Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there.  If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/28/2014 06:26 AM

@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.

Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there.  If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.

Well that's what makes it double confusing then about this need for SRBs for it on the Atlas V.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/28/2014 06:40 AM

@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.

Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there.  If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.

Well that's what makes it double confusing then about this need for SRBs for it on the Atlas V.
Why is it confusing that Prober is wrong? ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/28/2014 08:32 AM
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?

I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.

Isn't the issue about failure modes of the SRBs?

Can capsule survive / LAS get away from a detonating SRB?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/28/2014 08:55 AM


@Star One,

I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.

Sorry I disagree don't think the need for the Solid(s) is there.  If anything the CST-100 should be the most refined of the players.

Well that's what makes it double confusing then about this need for SRBs for it on the Atlas V.
Why is it confusing that Prober is wrong? ;)

So they can't launch this then without the use of SRBs, though how many seems up for debate.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/28/2014 01:04 PM
FWIW, the last LV configuration that I heard about in a reliable way for the CST-100 was 412. I've never liked the *1* configuration; something about that asymmetric motor placement makes me twitch.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/28/2014 01:45 PM
...adding another SRB doesn't improve reliability compared to a similar vehicle launched without one. How is this really in question?

I agree it probably has negligible effect on reliability, though. Atlas V is one of the most reliable launch vehicles on record.

Isn't the issue about failure modes of the SRBs?

Can capsule survive / LAS get away from a detonating SRB?

Cheers, Martin

Of course, those solid boosters must light after the RD-180, so there is already confidence in the liquid portion of the first stage. The RD-180 can be shut down if a SRB failure is detected. Of course, a SRB failure might also take out the Atlas core tank, even with the RD-180 shut down. Either way, the thrust required to get away from an exploding core must be greater than what those Aerojet SRBs can generate. We're not talking Shuttle SRBs here. These things are relatively small. If the CST-100 can get away from a core failure, it should be able to get away from an SRB failure.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2014 02:07 PM
I've seen illustrations of everything from 402 to 422, so who knows what it will end up being. Too much speculation. It definitely is not a 5xx though.

We had an official NASA presentation that said the 412. That's the latest information that we have. The 422 is speculation based on the image. Some speculated (on a prior image) that the image shows the 422 because it looks better with two boosters.

Hehe, true, with one booster it looks so unbalanced.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/28/2014 02:18 PM
I've seen illustrations of everything from 402 to 422, so who knows what it will end up being. Too much speculation. It definitely is not a 5xx though.

We had an official NASA presentation that said the 412. That's the latest information that we have. The 422 is speculation based on the image. Some speculated (on a prior image) that the image shows the 422 because it looks better with two boosters.
TY yg1968 - it always amazes me how well connected this community is - would it be possible to post some portion of the document in L2?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: thydusk666 on 01/28/2014 02:22 PM
Could it be that Boeing is designing and testing multiple Atlas V variants for different delta-V mission requirements? That could explain why we see different configurations on the 1st stage.

Assuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 01/28/2014 02:44 PM

FWIW, the last LV configuration that I heard about in a reliable way for the CST-100 was 412. I've never liked the *1* configuration; something about that asymmetric motor placement makes me twitch.

Is that the version that when the Atlas lifts off looks like it is getting pushed to one side?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: kch on 01/28/2014 02:49 PM

FWIW, the last LV configuration that I heard about in a reliable way for the CST-100 was 412. I've never liked the *1* configuration; something about that asymmetric motor placement makes me twitch.

Is that the version that when the Atlas lifts off looks like it is getting pushed to one side?

That's the one -- just like the Shuttle ...  ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 02:50 PM

Assuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?

No, because there is no need for different delta-V/altitudes
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/28/2014 02:56 PM
Just to re-cap (because I'm a little slow)
CST-100 uses a LV with single SRB on a Atlas V (412 configuration),
Dragon uses a LV with no SRB's on a Falcon 9, and
DC uses (as presented) a LV with no SRB's on a Atlas V (402 configuration).
the plot thickens...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/28/2014 03:07 PM
Just to re-cap (because I'm a little slow)
CST-100 uses a LV with single SRB on a Atlas V (412 configuration),
Dragon uses a LV with no SRB's on a Falcon 9, and
DC uses (as presented) a LV with no SRB's on a Atlas V (402 configuration).
the plot thickens...

If you want to confuse yourself a little more, the Atlas V / Centaur puts CST-100 into orbit, while the DC fires it's hybrid engines after being released from the second stage to get to orbit.

If you are counting engines to orbit, it's 10 for Dragon, 4 for CST-100, 5 (2 hybrids)  for Dream Chaser.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2014 03:27 PM
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf (http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf)

On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?

A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)

Thank you for posting this, but one bit seems confusing.

What is being shown in the center under the heading "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"?

Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?  With full atmospheric pressure* that joint is resisting nearlytwo million Newtons (101 kPa * 2.5^2 m^2 * Pi)  or a half million pounds of force (14.7 PSI*(2.5 M*40 in/m)^2*Pi).  That would indeed be convenient but looks hard to implement.

*"Sea level is for sissies"
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 03:36 PM


A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)

I would expect for them to be deployable
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 03:38 PM

Thank you for posting this, but one bit seems confusing.

What is being shown in the center under the heading "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"?

Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?

I would say that is for assembly and not for refurb
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: thydusk666 on 01/28/2014 03:43 PM

Assuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?

No, because there is no need for different delta-V/altitudes

Are you suggesting that CST-100 is built with a single destination in mind?
Bigelow Destiny I and II are in a ~100km higher orbit than ISS, and different inclination. I would be surprised if Boeing limited the capsule's capabilities so much.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 03:57 PM

Are you suggesting that CST-100 is built with a single destination in mind?
Bigelow Destiny I and II are in a ~100km higher orbit than ISS, and different inclination. I would be surprised if Boeing limited the capsule's capabilities so much.

Bigelow Genesis I and II are in a ~100km higher orbit than ISS.  That was to make a more stable since they did not have reboost capabilities and the inclination is not viable for a manned station.  The ISS is a max inclination for manned station for the foreseeable future.   Bigelow stations will likely be in a loser inclination than the ISS.

Anyways, CST-100 will have propellant on on board for maneuvering.

Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 01/28/2014 04:02 PM

Assuming the 401/402 can lift the CST-100 to LEO, how much delta-V/altitude increase would be provided by SRBs, in either 1/2/3/4/5 configuration?

No, because there is no need for different delta-V/altitudes

Are you suggesting that CST-100 is built with a single destination in mind?
Bigelow Destiny I and II are in a ~100km higher orbit than ISS, and different inclination. I would be surprised if Boeing limited the capsule's capabilities so much.

Jim is focused on trips to ISS (what's built).
You could be right about the higher orbits getting confusing materials out.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/28/2014 04:08 PM
The ISS is a max inclination for manned station for the foreseeable future.

Because there is no need for higher inclinations while it would make it more expensive to reach from lower latitudes, or is there a more fundamental reason?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 04:17 PM
The ISS is a max inclination for manned station for the foreseeable future.

Because there is no need for higher inclinations while it would make it more expensive to reach from lower latitudes, or is there a more fundamental reason?

thats it
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 01/28/2014 04:25 PM
Of course, those solid boosters must light after the RD-180, so there is already confidence in the liquid portion of the first stage. The RD-180 can be shut down if a SRB failure is detected. Of course, a SRB failure might also take out the Atlas core tank, even with the RD-180 shut down. Either way, the thrust required to get away from an exploding core must be greater than what those Aerojet SRBs can generate. We're not talking Shuttle SRBs here. These things are relatively small. If the CST-100 can get away from a core failure, it should be able to get away from an SRB failure.
Take in consideration that the SRB supplies about 172tonnes of force. An Atlas V weights 330tonnes + payload (let's say 340tonnes?) of which 284 are RP-1/LOX. And the SRB fire for 116s, while the core does for 242s. So, at SRB cut off we can assume that at least 40% of propellant is remaining in the core. So, even in the worst case, the T/W with a single SRB would be 0.77 in the worst case. The only problem would be asymmetric thrust issue. But if that happens after you've cleared enough to avoid recontact issues, it would actually help to get the core out of the capsule's way faster.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: InfraNut2 on 01/28/2014 05:34 PM
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's

Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?

I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 05:44 PM
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's

Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?

I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.

too high of acceleration
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2014 05:47 PM

Thank you for posting this, but one bit seems confusing.

What is being shown in the center under the heading "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"?

Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?

I would say that is for assembly and not for refurb
Are you saying that they would install the couches and cargo carrying hardware before welding closed the pressure vessel? 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 05:59 PM

Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?  With full atmospheric pressure* that joint is resisting nearlytwo million Newtons (101 kPa * 2.5^2 m^2 * Pi)  or a half million pounds of force (14.7 PSI*(2.5 M*40 in/m)^2*Pi).  That would indeed be convenient but looks hard to implement.

*"Sea level is for sissies"

The joint would only have stress of 740lb per linear inch.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2014 06:09 PM
This is worse.  A flat bulkhead attached to a cylinder.  At least, the CST-100 is cylinder to cylinder.  Maybe they do take it apart between missions like Spacehab.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/28/2014 07:12 PM
422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson:  SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)


If the CST-100 requires an Atlas V 422, does that mean its too heavy for Falcon 9 ?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/28/2014 07:19 PM
422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson:  SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)


If the CST-100 requires an Atlas V 422, does that mean its too heavy for Falcon 9 ?
It's not clear as to which LV configuration will be used - I trust a direct quote by Sowers to C. Bergin, but it could also mean that Boeing has modified the CST-100 CONOPS since 2011.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 01/28/2014 07:28 PM
422 config. as of last June according to Boeing spokesperson:  SpaceFlightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1306/02cst100/)
Another data point from this guy (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-welch/37/508/385), who should be in a position to know:
Quote from: Mark Welch, Commercial Crew Vehicle Systems Design & Operations (CST-100) at Boeing
I’m currently working with a team of talented Boeing and NASA engineers to develop the capability to transport astronauts to the ISS; designing the CST-100 capsule that will launch on top of ULA’s Atlas 422 rocket.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: InfraNut2 on 01/28/2014 07:45 PM
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's

Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?

I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.

too high of acceleration

Terse answer as usual. Maybe too terse for me this time.

I am not sure I understand.

The acceleration problem you mention must be during SRB firing.

AFAIK 400-series and 500-series carries the same liquid propellant load in both stages.

The total acceleration difference between a 541 (or 551) and a hypothetical 441 (or 451) must then be due to dry mass (and payload) difference. A quick search seem to indicate just something like 3t dry weight difference located in fairing and interstage. The resulting acceleration difference seems much too little to account for the need to limit to 2 less SRBs, if this was just about limiting the acceleration load on the payload.

The only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that it is the difference in loads the acceleration put on the centaur that is the limitation. There the acceleration combines unfavorably with increased payload and the fact that the weight of the 4m fairing is carried through the centaur as opposed to being directed around it to the interstage.

edit: especially taking into account that the centaur is one of the most dry weight optimized (read: thin-walled) upper stages around...

Did I get it right?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 01/28/2014 07:58 PM
The clamshell structure is weldless.  See attached snippets from an older Boeing presentation.  (Can't find a link to the original but a similar presentation is here (http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/Reiley_2-6-13.pptx); will post original link if I find it.)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/29/2014 04:30 AM
Anyways, 400 series Atlas V can only have max of 3 SRM's

Is there a technical reason for that? Are the 4xx cores less structurally strong than the 5xx cores or something?

I had just assumed that the cores were all the same and ULA just did not bother to offer more than 3SRBs on 4xx cores because they did not anticipate any demand for more, since any payload heavy enough to need more than 3 SRBs would be highly unlikely to fit in a 4m fairing anyway.

too high of acceleration

Terse answer as usual. Maybe too terse for me this time.

I am not sure I understand.

The acceleration problem you mention must be during SRB firing.

AFAIK 400-series and 500-series carries the same liquid propellant load in both stages.

The total acceleration difference between a 541 (or 551) and a hypothetical 441 (or 451) must then be due to dry mass (and payload) difference. A quick search seem to indicate just something like 3t dry weight difference located in fairing and interstage. The resulting acceleration difference seems much too little to account for the need to limit to 2 less SRBs, if this was just about limiting the acceleration load on the payload.

The only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that it is the difference in loads the acceleration put on the centaur that is the limitation. There the acceleration combines unfavorably with increased payload and the fact that the weight of the 4m fairing is carried through the centaur as opposed to being directed around it to the interstage.

edit: especially taking into account that the centaur is one of the most dry weight optimized (read: thin-walled) upper stages around...

Did I get it right?

My guess is the Centaur in the 400 series have a limit to the stress of lifting the entire payload stack along with aerodynamic forces. Where in the 500 series the payload fairing partially carry some the stress and takes the full aerodynamic forces.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: InfraNut2 on 01/29/2014 05:26 AM
(...)

The total acceleration difference between a 541 (or 551) and a hypothetical 441 (or 451) must then be due to dry mass (and payload) difference. A quick search seem to indicate just something like 3t dry weight difference located in fairing and interstage. The resulting acceleration difference seems much too little to account for the need to limit to 2 less SRBs, if this was just about limiting the acceleration load on the payload.

The only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that it is the difference in loads the acceleration put on the centaur that is the limitation. There the acceleration combines unfavorably with increased payload and the fact that the weight of the 4m fairing is carried through the centaur as opposed to being directed around it to the interstage.

edit: especially taking into account that the centaur is one of the most dry weight optimized (read: thin-walled) upper stages around...

Did I get it right?

My guess is the Centaur in the 400 series have a limit to the stress of lifting the entire payload stack along with aerodynamic forces. Where in the 500 series the payload fairing partially carry some the stress and takes the full aerodynamic forces.

Yes, I thought of the aerodynamic and acoustic loads as a significant contributor after I wrote the previous post, but I did not post it since I thought it was enough to list the larger acceleration loads to get my point across.

And yes, there are increased loads along the whole stack from more SRBs but the load difference between matching 4xx and 5xx Atlas Vs (with max payloads) on the core stages is relatively small. So, the centaur must me the limiting factor here.

Not that there is anything wrong with with the centaur (except that it is overdue for some cost-optimization). It has excellent performance and reliability. It is standard practice to optimize harder for weight (including shaving margins a bit more)  in upper stages than boosters, because that makes a greater difference in payload to orbit. (The current F9 US is a bad example of this--radical development&production cost optimization overrode performance optimization more than usual there (which is good for price/performance)--but the future reusable F9 US will have more need for near-optimal performance).

edit: typos, included F9 counter-example.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/30/2014 02:47 AM

Thank you for posting this, but one bit seems confusing.

What is being shown in the center under the heading "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"?

Are they saying that the pressure vessel splits at its widest point to allow access before each launch?

I would say that is for assembly and not for refurb
Are you saying that they would install the couches and cargo carrying hardware before welding closed the pressure vessel? 

Looks like mechanical fasteners to me.

Should be weld less  unless they needed to add some welds that add weight.
 http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/23/22339/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/23/22339/)

A lot of new technology in the Cs-100 & Orion programs ;)

Wow.  Thanks for the information.
It looks like Boeing really would open up the entire "clam shell" between missions. 
Neat.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/30/2014 04:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/30/2014 05:51 AM
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.

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 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1133795#msg1133795) where they say  "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"
Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Confusador on 01/30/2014 06:21 AM
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.

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 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1133795#msg1133795) where they say  "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"
Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.

I read "Hardware Installation" as being during construction, whereas between missions would be "Cargo Loading" (or "Payload Integration").  It's possible that they're including maintenance in that concept, but I'm not sold yet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/30/2014 06:29 AM
Exactly. Doing it during construction is one thing. Between reuses it is a *whole* new ballgame.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/30/2014 04:10 PM
If its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: RonM on 01/30/2014 04:46 PM
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.

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 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1133795#msg1133795) where they say  "Clam Shell CM Design allows easy hardware integration"
Frankly, I was amazed to have it shown that Boeing can do this.

I don't know why you would be amazed Boeing can do this. They are a major aerospace company.

If their engineers think the clamshell concept is better than how Orion is setup, it's a matter of engineering to get it to work. The proof, of course, will be in testing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/30/2014 05:22 PM
If its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?
Read this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1154671#msg1154671)
"The clamshell structure is weldless."
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 01/30/2014 07:41 PM
If its welded and they do not use removable fasteners, how will they de-weld the clam-shell?
Read this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1154671#msg1154671)
"The clamshell structure is weldless."
TY
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 01/30/2014 11:07 PM
Also 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. Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot. All IMHO anyway.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: matthewbot on 01/30/2014 11:12 PM
CST-100 may have an Abort-to-Orbit mode, where if the second stage under-performs by a small amount the LAS fires and allows the mission to continue, whereas DC might be forced to deorbit under the same scenario.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2014 12:39 AM
Those engines, not being used much, are likely to be less reliable on average than engines that get used a lot.

Not true at all for pressure fed thrusters
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 01/31/2014 06:12 AM
Also 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)
Jim responded and objected to your last sentence. (which I did not quote above)

I am responding in support of the remaining bulk of your post.

It makes sense to me, too, to use the engines for two purposes that cannot overlap.

Someone might object that giving them two tasks makes them less than optimum for either task, and maximizing their performance and reliability as a LAS is a standard goal.  It doesn't have to be.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 04:15 PM
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.

OTOH as Boeing has pointed out, the propellant could be used for ISS reboost.  Boeing has been consistent and particular in stating "propellant", so presumably the main LAS thrusters are inappropriate.  There are quite a number of smaller LAS control thrusters on the SM that might be appropriate for the job?  Not sure if using the CM RCS thrusters is feasible.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 02/13/2014 06:33 PM
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975

A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: robertross on 02/13/2014 08:01 PM
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975

A picture of some hardware on the NASA Commercial Crew Facebook page.

full release:

Boeing Commercial Crew Program Passes NASA Hardware, Software Reviews


HOUSTON, Feb. 13, 2014 -- 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.

Boeing completed a Critical Design Review for the the system's Launch Vehicle Adapter (LVA), which connects CST-100 to the United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket. The CDR, which included wind tunnel tests verifying flight stability, confirmed that the LVA design is suitable for production.

Separately, the Atlas V rocket's emergency detection system, which communicates with the capsule and initiates emergency procedures, if needed, passed its evaluation.

"Safety is a key element of the CST-100, from the drawing board to design implementation and beyond," said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager, Boeing Commercial Programs. "These tests help to validate that the launch vehicle adapter and emergency detection system are fully functioning and able to ensure a safe launch for our future passengers."

These two milestones are part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) agreement with Boeing. Next in line for the program is a software review this spring and the more comprehensive Integrated CDR this summer. Boeing is on track to meet all 20 of its CCiCap milestones in 2014.

Visit www.beyondearth.com for more information about the future of human space exploration.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 58,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: robertross on 02/13/2014 08:02 PM
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."

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/13/2014 08:44 PM
Always better to be assertive. :)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 02/13/2014 10:06 PM
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975

A 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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 02/13/2014 10:11 PM
That is the Centaur Forward Adapter with avionics.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 02/14/2014 04:26 AM
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=128975

A 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.
Taken from here.

http://workplaceelements.com/united-launch-alliance-project-profile/
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/14/2014 06:16 AM
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."
Why not?  They're in the lead.

 - Ed Kyle

I suppose if they really complete the integrated CDR in a April, and the only remaining milestone for them is a spacecraft safety review, then they just might be in the lead. They are closer to completing all of their milestones than any other vendor.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2014 08:54 AM
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."
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."
Why not?  They're in the lead.

 - Ed Kyle
Ed is correct, regardless of what all the SpaceX fanbois may think.
IMO: If and when down-select of CRS providers occurs to 1.5 competitors the 1.0 award will go to Boeing, with SpaceX getting the 0.5 award.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Confusador on 02/14/2014 09:02 AM
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."
Why not?  They're in the lead.

 - Ed Kyle

I assume the relative positions haven't changed since the last selection statement, where Boeing was further along in design but SpaceX was willing to invest more.  How those facts will be weighted in the CCtCap I couldn't say, especially because the program is starting to get more money, but regardless I think it's safe to assume that both vehicles will put Americans in space - just not necessarily govt employees.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/14/2014 10:11 AM

I assume the relative positions haven't changed since the last selection statement, where Boeing was further along in design but SpaceX was willing to invest more. 

But Boeing and SpaceX have both received roughly the same amount of funding from NASA. Are you saying Boeing has progressed more cost effectively than SpaceX, since Boeing has spent less total funds on their vehicle ?

Interesting how a program can run on time / on budget once in a while.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 12:19 PM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/14/2014 01:00 PM
Also, doesn't SpaceX's milestones include the launch vehicle? I might be wrong there.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: dcporter on 02/14/2014 02:52 PM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??

I wonder if he's saying they haven't done those things yet?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 03:30 PM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??

I wonder if he's saying they haven't done those things yet?
There's another thing, however. All we've seen from Boeing is hardware mock-ups or test articles (the CST-100 airbag test was done with something much less than a real spacecraft) while SpaceX has flown 4 Dragons (variants which will carry crew) to orbit and reentered back safely on Earth, 3 of which carried pressurized cargo to and from the International Space Station, and a 5th is at the launch site now. Sure, the crewed one will be different, but this ought to count as far, far more than simply an airbag test.

I'm concerned with real hardware. Boeing's strongest point is not actually any CST-100 hardware (because they've shown very little real CST-100 hardware, which is a little disconcerting), but ULA's Atlas V (originally built by Lockheed Martin), which is definitely real hardware...

...although the variant that will launch commercial crew, the 422 with dual centaur, has never flown, unlike the F9 v1.1 which has already flown 3 times and will fly dozens of times before the first crewed flight to ISS.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/14/2014 03:54 PM
All we have seen are hardware mock-ups of the SpaceX crew capsule as well.

Stop comparing it to the cargo vehicle.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 04:07 PM
All we have seen are hardware mock-ups of the SpaceX crew capsule as well.

Stop comparing it to the cargo vehicle.
Why? It's a completely valid point. You don't get to ignore it because it goes against your opinion.

..It's also a valid point that SpaceX hasn't shown hardware of the crew variant (and that Atlas V itself has flown dozens of times successfully--admittedly not the same variant as will be used), but Boeing has shown neither (of course, Boeing didn't with COTS/CRS, although arguably the competition essentially unfairly excluded proposals that used EELVs... I think that at the time it probably wasn't the best decision to exclude EELVs). The basic design /is/ the same, though. The basic mission profile is also the same.

My only point is a response to Ed's claim that Boeing is "ahead." That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Pre-COTS, absolutely Boeing was ahead by miles. But SpaceX got a huge leg up when they won COTS, especially now that v1.1 has had several flights with Dragon and v1.0 having flown several times, as well.

We have seen the parachute test with the new configuration of parachute tested on a Dragon capsule, however.

I have no doubt in my mind that Boeing can do it, I just don't think it's fair to say they're "ahead."

...when is Boeing planning a pad abort test (if they are)?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 04:54 PM
According to this:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule
"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."

...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2014 08:36 PM
According to this:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule
"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."

...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
Then again, pad abort for the SpaceX vehicle was originally planned for late 2013 as well. Didn't happen, yet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 08:37 PM
According to this:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule
"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."

...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
Then again, pad abort for the SpaceX vehicle was originally planned for late 2013 as well. Didn't happen, yet.
Good point. But it may happen soon, and almost surely before the CST-100 pad abort (which isn't scheduled?).

I'm merely saying that Boeing really /doesn't/ appear to be ahead.

...Additionally, I expect both Boeing and SpaceX to suffer slips. The question is who will slip more.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 02/14/2014 11:08 PM
There is also Boeing saying they're talking to SpaceX about using Falcon 9 after their contracted Atlas V HR flights (2?) Business case v. price.

ISTM this wouldn't indicate a closed business case, and if so why would SpaceX help them close it?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml

Quote
>
At the recent Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., he said CST-100 “can be operational as soon as 2016.
>
"....We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
>
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/14/2014 11:42 PM
There is also Boeing saying they're talking to SpaceX about using Falcon 9 after their contracted Atlas V HR flights (2?) Business case v. price.

ISTM this wouldn't indicate a closed business case, and if so why would SpaceX help them close it?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml
{snip}

On the half a loaf is worth more than no loaf principle.

The LV part of SpaceX would make money from the launch even if the spacecraft part does not.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 02/15/2014 12:03 AM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??

Is Ed honestly saying that paperwork counts more than actual flown hardware?
Say it ain't so Ed. ::)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 02/15/2014 12:55 AM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??

Remember that one of NASA's goals was to have two contenders at CDR at the end of the CCiCap base period; that appears to be coming true.  Undoubtedly there were negotiations over milestones and content with NASA, so the milestones in the resulting SAA's are not necessarily representative of what was originally proposed.

Does that tell us much about who is ahead?  Not really, although one could argue that SpaceX's pad and in-flight abort tests are beyond CDR.  Then again, those have been pushed back, so maybe they're not so far ahead?  (Also note no word on the "Dragon Primary Structure Qualification" milestone, which was to be completed last month after the pad abort test.)

In any case, the real prize is CCtCap.  Boeing may have positioned themselves to better compete for CCtCap at the expense of CCiCap.  In particular, certification (that was one of the strengths noted in the CCiCap selection statement), and if the notional schedules are to be believed, that is where the majority of the time and effort will be spent for CCtCap.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/15/2014 01:43 AM
I agree that how fast Boeing finishes its CCiCap milestones isn't indicative of how far along they are. If SNC finishes its milestones before SpaceX, hopefully nobody will say that they are ahead of SpaceX.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/15/2014 03:13 AM
Good point. But it may happen soon, and almost surely before the CST-100 pad abort (which isn't scheduled?).

I'm merely saying that Boeing really /doesn't/ appear to be ahead.

...Additionally, I expect both Boeing and SpaceX to suffer slips. The question is who will slip more.

Looking at the CCiCap milestone schedule that was released when the contract was announced, Boeing had just one vehicle hardware milestone ("Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Development Test"), whereas Sierra Nevada had their "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" and end their contract with "Main Propulsion and RCS Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing".  SpaceX ends their contract with a "Pad Abort Test", "Dragon Primary Structure Qualification", and an "In-Flight Abort Test".

At the end of the CCiCap contract it appears that Boeing will have demonstrated the least amount of real hardware progress.  Of course that may not be an indication of the real level of progress that they will have made, just that they haven't demonstrated whatever they do have.

Just from a demonstration standpoint though, it would almost seem like Boeing is behind both SpaceX AND Sierra Nevada, which would be surprising given how little funding Sierra Nevada was provided.  And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they award CCtCap.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 02/15/2014 03:50 AM
Looking at the CCiCap milestone schedule that was released when the contract was announced, Boeing had just one vehicle hardware milestone ("Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Development Test"), whereas Sierra Nevada had their "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" and end their contract with "Main Propulsion and RCS Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing".  SpaceX ends their contract with a "Pad Abort Test", "Dragon Primary Structure Qualification", and an "In-Flight Abort Test".

At the end of the CCiCap contract it appears that Boeing will have demonstrated the least amount of real hardware progress.  Of course that may not be an indication of the real level of progress that they will have made, just that they haven't demonstrated whatever they do have.

Just from a demonstration standpoint though, it would almost seem like Boeing is behind both SpaceX AND Sierra Nevada, which would be surprising given how little funding Sierra Nevada was provided.  And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they award CCtCap.

Both Boeing and SpaceX should be at CDR within the next few months.  SNC still has quite a ways to go to reach CDR. If we pick CDR as a critical point (key NASA CCiCap base period goal), given SpaceX's  pad and in-flight abort delays, it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point.  Given the SpaceX delays, it's also questionable whether the pad and in-flight abort tests will occur in time to have sny influence on the CCtCap award.  In which case whether or not we see those tests any time soon may depend on whether SpaceX receives a CCtCap award.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 02/15/2014 09:39 AM
  And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.

Was money ever part of the "help"?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 02/15/2014 01:51 PM
  And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.

Was money ever part of the "help"?
If they barter parts that are already qualified, then it is the equivalent to money. Wouldn't be much, though.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 02/15/2014 09:22 PM
... it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point. 

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the four round-trip flights into space of CST-100. When did they happen?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Eer on 02/15/2014 09:22 PM
Hmmm... The phrase "past performance" does come to mind.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 02/15/2014 09:28 PM
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??

Is Ed honestly saying that paperwork counts more than actual flown hardware?
Say it ain't so Ed. ::)
Number of Atlas 5 Launches:  43 N/A
Number of Falcon 9 v1.1 Launches:  3 N/A
Number of CST-100 Flights:  0
Number of SpaceX Crew Vehicle Flights:  0

Digging deeper into history gives these numbers.

Number of SpaceX orbital launches:  13 N/A
Number of Boeing or Boeing predecessor or partly owned company orbital launches:  787 N/A
Number of Boeing or predecessor/partly owned launches by orbital family rockets:  906 N/A
Number of Boeing or Boeing predecessor crewed orbital spacecraft flown:  All previous U.S. flights N/A

 - Ed Kyle
Hmmm... The phrase "past performance" does come to mind.


Number of times a CST-100 of any flavor has flown into space - 0.
Number of times a Dragon of any flavor has flown into space 4.

We are not discussing rockets from either company
We are not discussing any spacecraft that are not part of this specific Commercial Crew program.
We ARE discussing CST-100, DreamChaser and Dragon - ONLY.

Specifically the CST-100. Read the Thread title.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 02/15/2014 10:35 PM
Do we even know when (or if) CST-100 has a launch abort test scheduled?

And once they do that, will they do a max-Q abort test?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 02/15/2014 10:59 PM
Do we even know when (or if) CST-100 has a launch abort test scheduled?

And once they do that, will they do a max-Q abort test?

No.  Nothing funded or scheduled under CCiCap.  Assuming a schedule is published and Boeing wins a CCtCap award, we'll know in August.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 02/16/2014 12:26 AM
... it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point. 
Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the four round-trip flights into space of CST-100. When did they happen?

I was speaking to use of particular CCiCap milestones or out of context as a questionable indicator of who is "ahead" with respect to commercial crew.  In particular, that both SpaceX and Boeing will be at CDR soon and at approximately the same time (which was/is a key CCiCap objective), and thus in that respect they should be at relative parity, all other things equal.  Of course all other things are not equal, and whether they balance is an open question.

Yes, the SpaceX COTS/CRS flights must surely count for something (I was not disputing that); in the CCiCap selection statement, SpaceX received a plus for leveraging Dragon cargo into Dragon Crew (among other things).  OTOH, Boeing received a plus for their approach to certification (among other things), and the highest technical confidence score (above SpaceX).

So what does that mean today and for CCtCap?  I don't know, but I think this is still a serious race with no clear winner; simply pointing to one area of accomplishment while ignoring other areas misses the forest for the trees.  In any case, we should know in August.  (And apologies if I accidentally stepped on your dog. [edit] Hard to make a statement without stepping on something.  I'll try to be clearer in the future.)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 02/16/2014 04:05 AM
Please give it up Ed and whoever else. These are not updates.  These are not discussions of updates. These are silly back and forths after a silly absolutist comment about relative standing. What good can it do to spit back a litany of well known facts? 
Boeing and SpaceX are taking very different approaches from very different positions. We all have our opinions, none of which will change and none of which has any real importance.

Let's all hope and look for some real hardware news that we can share, discuss, and learn from.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 02/16/2014 09:49 PM
Most recent indication of flight schedule I've seen from Boeing (from their Beyond Earth (http://www.beyondearth.com/space-systems/commercial-crew-transportation-system/overview) site):
Quote
The first CST-100 test flight will launch in late 2016, with the first manned mission planned for early 2017.

edit: Assuming of course Boeing wins a sufficient CCtCap award.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ike17055 on 02/23/2014 10:23 PM
Is CST-100 still being discussed for station reboost with its unused launch abort propellant?  Are any of the other contenders offering this capability as well? It would seem to be a valuable service and an efficient means of applying propellant as opposed to dumping it. And has the question of its service module (ring) accommodating a cargo load ever been fully answered?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 02/27/2014 09:50 PM
Last Shuttle Commander Virtually Flies Boeing CST-100 to Space Station (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2014/02/bds_cst_100_02_27_14.page)
Quote
Chris Ferguson, commander of the final space shuttle flight, virtually returned to space in the Boeing Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 simulator, when he recently performed manual piloting activities, including on-orbit attitude and translation maneuvers, docking and backing away from a virtual International Space Station, and a manual re-entry to Earth.

This is in service of the pilot in the loop ccicap milestone.

More at the link, with video.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 03/03/2014 03:05 PM
Last Shuttle Commander Virtually Flies Boeing CST-100 to Space Station (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2014/02/bds_cst_100_02_27_14.page)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: catdlr on 03/06/2014 11:25 PM
Boeing CST-100 Unveiled, Ready for Testing

Published on Mar 6, 2014
A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft with an Atlas V rocket successfully underwent a fit check, verifying that the model accurately fits the hardware that will be used during dynamic stability testing in NASA Langley Research Center's Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) this spring.

Boeing is one of three American companies working with NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) to develop safe, reliable and cost-effective crew transportation systems during NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, which is intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.

Triumph Aerospace Systems, Inc. in Newport News, Va., built the model in collaboration with Boeing Space Exploration of Houston. NASA Langley will provide expertise and facilities to characterize the dynamic stability of Boeing's CST-100. The test will consist of two dynamic stability test techniques, known as free-to-oscillate and forced oscillation, which will characterize the external forces the spacecraft could experience during an emergency abort from the launch vehicle.

Characterization of the test equipment and lessons learned will be directly applicable to future test programs. Additionally, the test will help maintain the center's critical skills in highly specialized areas and unique facilities, and generate revenue for the center.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi0FN5Tw53o
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rusty on 03/12/2014 10:40 PM
Boeing CST-100 Unveiled, Ready for Testing
A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft with an Atlas V rocket successfully underwent a fit check, verifying that the model accurately fits the hardware ...
Ummm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
Seriously, SpaceDev has fine-tuned construction techniques, built and tested a composite aerostructure while continuing work on their hybrid rockets and escape system. Dragon is already flying with continued work on their escape and landing systems. Boeing has --- a small scale chunk of metal made by someone else? It reinforces my long-standing view that their contract is black cover and will never see completion.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 03/12/2014 11:14 PM
Boeing CST-100 Unveiled, Ready for Testing
A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft with an Atlas V rocket successfully underwent a fit check, verifying that the model accurately fits the hardware ...
Ummm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
Seriously, SpaceDev has fine-tuned construction techniques, built and tested a composite aerostructure while continuing work on their hybrid rockets and escape system. Dragon is already flying with continued work on their escape and landing systems. Boeing has --- a small scale chunk of metal made by someone else? It reinforces my long-standing view that their contract is black cover and will never see completion.

Boeing has done all the things you mention and more.

The video is from NASA Langley, and is therefore highlighting the work they do at that center.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2014 01:52 AM
Ummm. Congratulations Triumph Aerospace Systems on fabricating an aluminum model to fit another model? As the design evolves, will they be producing more of these? I'm not sure which is more impressive, this, the cardboard mock-up Boeing's been showing off, or the fact Boeing was able to get and continue to receive funding.
Seriously, SpaceDev has fine-tuned construction techniques, built and tested a composite aerostructure while continuing work on their hybrid rockets and escape system. Dragon is already flying with continued work on their escape and landing systems. Boeing has --- a small scale chunk of metal made by someone else? It reinforces my long-standing view that their contract is black cover and will never see completion.

What are these?  You should do a little research before making such unsupported statements, which is nothing more than biased opinion.

There also is a Avionics Software Integration Facility
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rusty on 03/14/2014 12:25 AM
What are these?  You should do a little research before making such unsupported statements, which is nothing more than biased opinion. There also is a Avionics Software Integration Facility
Biased? Not at all, against who and quite the discreditive assumption.
Boeing has yet to surpass Blue Origin's well-funded development who was cut after CCDev2. At that time Boeing only had a presentation, but unusually took the largest chunk of cash to date and began work. At the time I suspected a good deal of the money would go to other Boeing projects, but this one has done quite well for them;

"Payments are made only after partner demonstrates that the milestone criteria have been successfully met."

Based on their own 2013-2014 roadmap, Boeing is very far behind and I doubt they'll pass the Critical Design Review Board in April this year. They've done the PR work, but not the engineering. In April, like Blue Origin, they can thank us for the cash, fold the program and we'll be down to two programs - unless someone else could use funding for unspecified reasons. IMO, of course, but by no means "biased".
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2014 02:08 AM

1.  Boeing has yet to surpass Blue Origin's well-funded development who was cut after CCDev2.

2. At the time I suspected a good deal of the money would go to other Boeing projects, but this one has done quite well for them;

3. Boeing is very far behind and

4. I doubt they'll pass the Critical Design Review Board in April this year


Biased because you are accusing them of criminal activity and you have nothing to back it up

1.  Proof?

2.  Unfounded and also slander

3.  Boeing's road map is not NASA's.  They are meeting NASA's schedule. 

4.  IMO doesn't cut it, you need to have data to back it up.

CST-100 is going to be a finalist
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 03/14/2014 03:01 AM
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?

Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2014 03:53 AM
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?

Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?
Unneeded. The new CRS contract allows contractors to transfer cargo through docking port, although certainly a CBM would allow larger cargo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 03/14/2014 01:12 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist

I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/14/2014 01:15 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist

I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.

NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IRobot on 03/14/2014 01:24 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
Unsubstantiated
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 03/14/2014 04:07 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
Unsubstantiated

good one ;D   Maybe Jim needs to add IMHO to his posts?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 03/14/2014 05:33 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist

I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.

NASA is not budgeting for a down select.

What makes you say that? There is a discussion about extending CCiCap (by adding optional milestones) but I think that a downselection (likely to two providers) should still happen under CCtCap.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 03/14/2014 05:36 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist

I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.

NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/14/2014 05:59 PM
CST-100 is going to be a finalist

I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.

NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.

I agree that with 2 flights per year, they need to down select to a single vendor.
We also don't know what price the vendors will charge for each flight.

We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.


Once they select the final vendors, and award CCT contracts, it should be easier to convince the vendors to commit to further funding, since the risk has been eliminated.


Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/14/2014 06:12 PM
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.

At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2014 06:46 PM
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?

Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?



No Room.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/10/BoeingCST100d-660x311.jpg
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 03/14/2014 08:47 PM
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?

Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?



No Room.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/10/BoeingCST100d-660x311.jpg

Indeed. CST-100 (and Orion) follow the Apollo design, which packs the parachutes very tightly around the docking tunnel. There simply isn't room in the design for something much bigger like a berthing hatch.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 03/15/2014 11:42 AM
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.

At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.

Yes that's the price that SpaceX has been stating. It's a bit hard to believe given that cargo Dragon is $133M per launch.  But maybe the F9R will allow SpaceX to reduce its prices. There will be some resemblance between cargo Dragon 2 and the crewed Dragon 2 which may provide economies of scale. Boeing's CST-100 price to the Bigelow station is $35M per seat (assuming that it has 7 crew on it).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/15/2014 02:16 PM
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 03/15/2014 03:30 PM
Not necessarily, per craft is correct. And they'll send some cargo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2014 06:25 PM
Shuttle launched with a mostly full crew even when not strictly required. I know this has been rehashed so many times, but still.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 03/15/2014 06:28 PM
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.

At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.

Elon also said the same in front of Congress. 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/15/2014 09:06 PM
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
There will be cargo in place of the crew members then, or maybe some tourist that is along for the ride (goes down in the same capsule with the previous expedition crew). Besides, it is still possible that the size of the ISS crew will increase. Either way, your original argument that "We also don't know what price the vendors will charge for each flight." is wrong, as we clearly do know what the price is and it is lower than the sum you mentioned if all seats are filled. Also want to point out that even if SpaceX charged three times as much for a seat (e.g. if there were only 3 people on board and no cargo) it would still be cheaper than a seat on the Soyuz that is currently at 70 million. For some reason some members of congress and you seem to have no problem with spending that much. I guess it ain't wasteful spendin' if the money goes to them Russians.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2014 09:59 PM
ISS could possibly go to 7 crew, especially if extended to 2028 (which seems most likely) or even beyond. That'd mean at least 4 crew.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 03/15/2014 10:15 PM
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
If you adjust it for four passengers it is still cheaper than Soyuz plus you get more up and downmass.

ISS could possibly go to 7 crew, especially if extended to 2028 (which seems most likely) or even beyond. That'd mean at least 4 crew.
The ISS is going to go to a seven person crew when the CCV starts flying but it is planned to only be used to transport a crew of four.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/15/2014 10:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IRobot on 03/16/2014 02:58 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IRobot on 03/16/2014 03:02 PM
Could a 7 crew capsule replace the entire crew at once? Let's say there are 2 crew members that stayed for a year in the ISS and 5 others on a 6 months rotation.

A 7 members crew could be sent up, especially if some of the new crew members are on their 2nd or 3rd ISS flight, meaning it is not a 100% rookie team.

Of course if the Russians want to keep at least their 2 cosmonauts going up on Soyuz, that still leaves room for a 5 crew capsule, EU and US.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: RonM on 03/16/2014 03:53 PM
As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.

The original plan was to shutdown the shuttle program in 2010 and have Orion on Ares 1 ready by 2012. A two year gap wouldn't be bad. However, as we all know now, that was a terrible plan. So now we are stuck with buying seats from Russia because of our bad planning.

At least we only have to wait a few more years before Commercial Crew is operational. It could be done in two years if Congress gave NASA enough money.

CST-100, Dragon, and Dream Chaser are all good designs. Whichever one is selected will add new capabilities to the ISS. Larger crew rotations are possible. The big point is redundancy. Right now, if something grounds the Soyuz program for a protracted period, ISS will have to be abandoned.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 03/16/2014 04:26 PM
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.
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.

Problem is the timing need to get a crew system up and running by 2015 as planned.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/16/2014 04:29 PM
Problem 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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 03/16/2014 05:02 PM
Problem 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  :o

Its not underfunded;  the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.

Not fully funded is another word game  :-X
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/16/2014 05:33 PM
Problem 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  :o

Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.

Not fully funded is another word game  :-X
No, they got less money than requested. That meant that the money was not there to pay the milestones as originally planned and had to be delayed years on NASAs side (pay it with next years budget or the budget of the year after that). This is not what I say, that's what NASA says. And this is on topic as it affects CST 100 as well.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2014 09:14 PM
I don't know about the others. But I'm pretty sure the Boeing with a full funding profile could have gotten the CST-100 commissioned by 2015. If there's anybody that could have done it, it's them.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Mader Levap on 03/16/2014 09:17 PM
Its not underfunded the millstones are getting all the funds they requested.

Not fully funded is another word game  :-X
So you claim underfunding commercial few years in row hasn't any negative effects? ::) Or that there were not any underfunding? ::)

It is like reading some comments under articles about situation in Crimea...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2014 07:59 AM
Both Dream Chaser ( started in 2004) and Dragon will be taken to completion with or without NASA funding. Not so sure about CST100.
 With extension of ISS to 2024 there are more crew and cargo supply contracts up for grab. Enough business for 2-3 suppliers/vehicles but a 4th vehicle may have to find alternative work.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 03/31/2014 10:38 PM
NASA Commercial Crew Partners Complete Space System Milestones - March 31, 2014
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partners-complete-space-system-milestones-0/#.UznTfNy5o-J



Press Release was posted over in the DC thread.

CST-100 primary structures CDR complete. Software CDR anticipated in April.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: wolfpack on 04/01/2014 02:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 04/01/2014 02:57 PM
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.

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.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: simonbp on 04/04/2014 05:44 AM
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.

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.

Not to belabor the point, but it was a failure that should never have happened. F-5s don't regularly crash upon landing. Someone wasn't doing their job right.

SNC was going for a splash with that first drop test, and got more than they bargained for. Boeing is taking a slower, more incremental approach, which is much less likely to produce "surprises" like DreamChaser's crash.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 04/04/2014 12:29 PM
F5s don't regular crash because they use their own gear.

Sierra installed what they could in time to meet the milestone. The biggest challenge was verifying the aircraft could even fly. It flew perfectly.

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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/04/2014 01:47 PM

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.

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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: notsorandom on 04/04/2014 02:50 PM

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.

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.
A capsule can generate lift during reentry, though certainly not as much as a lifting body or winged vehicle. Doing so allows for a wider cross range, smaller landing area, and lower deceleration forces on the crew. So most capsules do this. However this is not strictly necessary when returning from LEO. The Mercury, Vostok, and Voskhod capsules did not generate lift. On occasion the Soyuz has been forced to do a ballistic entry due to an inability to control attitude. Capsules returning from BEO though do need to generate lift due to the more extreme deceleration forces and heat.

At hyper-sonic speeds the Shuttle and Dream Chase are not really flying all that much either, acting more like blunt bodies. It is the low speed low altitude part of the flight that need a bit of testing. Orion, Dragon, and CTS-100 all are undergoing numerous parachute tests and Dream Chaser like the Shuttle before is doing landing tests.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 04/04/2014 06:44 PM
CST-100 coverage in Boeing Frontiers (company publication).

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2014/april/#/20/

Not much new. A lot of talk about adapting the airliner interior elements to CST. One caption caught my attention:

Quote
Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft will typically carry five people plus cargo to low Earth orbit destinations, including the International Space Station.

NASA is rotating 4 crew. Is Boeing proposing a taxi model?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/05/2014 12:04 AM
Is the 5th person a commercial "pilot", maybe?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 04/05/2014 03:18 AM
That's the same question as "is this a taxi model".
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 04/07/2014 12:08 AM
The quote says "destinations". If you're going to a Bigelow station, more passengers = more money.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Wigles on 04/08/2014 11:47 AM
The taxi model could result in more flexibility for customers, including NASA as the passangers do not get involved in flying and therefore don't need to be qualified and trained as such. NASA could swap out astronauts with little notice if required.
Title: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 04/08/2014 01:21 PM
For ISS the capsule are also used for emergency evacuation. They'll need to keep a couple of NASA astronauts trained onboard. So "taxi" model doesn't works on ISS as currently projected. Also, there are just two docking ports. And NASA wants two open for redundancy for crew docking. So keeping a dedicated egress vehicle of other company is not a good option either.
I'm frankly baffled. I understood that the next Russian module would allow for just one extra crew. And that the partners are planning keeping just one Soyuz and on Commercial Crew Vehicle on station. In each increment one will land and the next of the same will go up. In this scenario, unless Russians come up with a four crew Soyuz, there's no space for temporary crew members.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 04/08/2014 01:37 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: eriblo on 04/08/2014 03:05 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.

Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 04/08/2014 03:38 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.

Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)

You send the first one up on automatics.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: eriblo on 04/08/2014 04:12 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 04/08/2014 04:42 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.

If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 04/08/2014 06:10 PM
Could Boeing maybe be trying to sell a tourist seat on each flight?

A likely explanation for the 5 passenger quote is that it's just a typo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: eriblo on 04/08/2014 06:24 PM
[...]
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
Then we're on the same page (literally for me, since baldusis 'taxi model not currently possible' post just before your 'use taxi model' one are one different pages :) ).

I can't say I've heard how one would deal with a faulty docking port, are there any actual plans (apart from aborting and relaunching without pilot)?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 04/08/2014 08:19 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.

If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrightLight on 04/08/2014 08:33 PM
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year? :)
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.

If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.
Will NASA then lease the vehicle and use NASA pilots?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: simonbp on 04/10/2014 02:47 PM
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?

Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 04/10/2014 05:34 PM
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?

Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.

CST can carry up to 7 passengers.

This reference says it will "typically carry 5"

That's either news or a typo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 04/10/2014 10:10 PM
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?

Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.

Maybe we can just carry up a few bots each time.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1181688#msg1181688
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 04/14/2014 11:59 PM
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)
Quote
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/15/2014 02:07 AM
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)
Quote
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 04/17/2014 03:33 PM
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)
Quote
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle

yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 04/19/2014 05:10 PM
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)
Quote
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle

yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin ;)

Yes but it is a trade - components like arrays generally add significantly to the failure modes in risk assessments.  And it will add significant recurring costs.  Engineering is all about choices :)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/19/2014 05:16 PM
I hope the CST-100 has oxygen to go with the extra flight time.

I assume that the solar panels increase the number of and size of the launch windows.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 04/19/2014 10:18 PM
I hope the CST-100 has oxygen to go with the extra flight time.

I assume that the solar panels increase the number of and size of the launch windows.

CO2 scrubbing is what is most important in terms of life support(yeah you do need oxygen, but if you don't remove the CO2, you will poison yourself. It is sort of what will get you first.). I doubt they added them for that reason, though it might help. They were planning to keep the batteries charged by drawing power from the ISS. Having some ability to produce some power could be helpful if that system breaks, or you need more time to dock and so on.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/27/2014 01:31 AM
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2492/1)
Quote
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle

yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin ;)

Yes but it is a trade - components like arrays generally add significantly to the failure modes in risk assessments.  And it will add significant recurring costs.  Engineering is all about choices :)
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon. The arrays in this case allow greater power margin and reduce overall mission failure rate, since they allow the crew time to phase up properly or to troubleshoot problems (unrelated to the arrays) before having to give up and abort-to-Earth (perhaps unsafely to a remote part of the globe) just due to lack of time.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/27/2014 01:50 AM
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.

From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/27/2014 01:57 AM
Thanks!

However, that is pretty limiting for spacecraft attitude. Probably doable, though, if you are just using it as a non-critical supplement to the batteries.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 04/28/2014 02:20 PM
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.

From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:

Good find, I like it. Seems like it's a pretty flexible spacecraft and good design.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2014 04:47 PM
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.

From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:

Thanks! Do you have a link to that presentation?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/28/2014 04:55 PM
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.

From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:

Thanks! Do you have a link to that presentation?

http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 04/30/2014 09:14 PM
Boeing Showcases Future Commercial Spacecraft Interior

Version of CST-100 capsule for non-government space customers

NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev., April 30, 2014 -- Boeing [NYSE:BA] today unveiled a new commercial interior of its Crew Space Transportation (CST-100) next-generation manned space capsule, showing how people other than NASA astronauts may one day travel to space. 

Boeing and partner Bigelow Aerospace highlighted the future commercial interior of the capsule it is developing for NASA, while Bigelow showcased a full-scale model of its BA 330 commercial space habitat.

"We are moving into a truly commercial space market and we have to consider our potential  customers – beyond NASA – and what they need in a future commercial spacecraft interior,"  said Chris Ferguson, former Space Shuttle Atlantis commander and current Boeing director of Crew and Mission Operations for the Commercial Crew Program.

Engineers from across Boeing leveraged the company's decades of experience in commercial and government aerospace to design the capsule's interior.

"Boeing's teams have been designing award-winning and innovative interiors for our airplanes since the dawn of commercial aviation," said Rachelle Ornan, regional director of Sales and Marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "Designing the next-generation interior for commercial space is a natural progression. A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."

CST-100, developed as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability initiative, is designed to transport up to seven crew members or a mix of crew and cargo to low-Earth-orbit destinations such as the International Space Station and a planned Bigelow station.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 04/30/2014 09:26 PM
Um... yeah, I don't think it will look anything like that. Not event close.

This image gives a decent idea of what they need to pack in there:
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Eer on 04/30/2014 09:41 PM
Um... yeah, I don't think it will look anything like that. Not event close.

This image gives a decent idea of what they need to pack in there:

Yeah, but won't it look nice in Virgin Galactic trade dress?  Don't you figure that's who their "Commercial Interior" is aiming at?  One pilot, above, 6 passengers below with room to float.

lol - I remember when airplanes used to look like that when they were new ...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 01:25 AM
Ha, you are right. It certainly looks partially inspired by the Virgin Galactic renderings and mockups. (another case where the reality will be less spectacular)

I also added a mockup picture of the next generation Russian manned spacecraft, which has similar over-the-top clean and spacious mockups:
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/01/2014 02:08 AM
Looks like Boeing is doing some PR work....

This was on tonight's local tv station.. the Bigelow & Boeing deal.....I need to read above but check out the number of people aboard in the video.
Nice passenger seats & one for the Pilot.

http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/positively-lv/In-North-Las-Vegas-a-sneak-peek-at-the-future-of-space-travel--257427871.html
 :D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: malu5531 on 05/01/2014 03:53 PM
Looks like Boeing is doing some PR work....

This was on tonight's local tv station.. the Bigelow & Boeing deal.....I need to read above but check out the number of people aboard in the video.
Nice passenger seats & one for the Pilot.

http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/positively-lv/In-North-Las-Vegas-a-sneak-peek-at-the-future-of-space-travel--257427871.html
 :D

Interesting. 9 passengers + 1 pilot, 30 million USD / pax in 10-15 years.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 03:54 PM
10 people packed in a CST-100? Are they trying to make Soyuz look spacious? ;)

That has to be a misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: malu5531 on 05/01/2014 03:59 PM
10 people packed in a CST-100? Are they trying to make Soyuz look spacious? ;)

That has to be a misunderstanding.

From the video in that link, they appear to be talking about some kind of hypothetical successor to the CST-100 adapted for civil/bigelow space transportation.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/01/2014 05:58 PM
Since Boeing has taken the cargo space out food, water, oxygen, clothing and experiments would have to go up on a second launch.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 08:41 PM
That has to be a misunderstanding.

It is not a misunderstanding. If the sole purpose of the flight is to deliver passengers to a commercial space station, such as Bigelow has planned using its BA 330 modules, then the CST-100's new commercial interior can be configured to seat nine passengers and one pilot.

That said, the way the cabin is designed, the "overhead bins" of the spaceliner occupy the same space as the seats, so for each storage space the customer wants, they lose a chair. Bigelow envisions flights with six crew members.

So it is a maximum of ten people with the actual number to be dictated by the customer's needs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 09:29 PM
That has to be a misunderstanding.

It is not a misunderstanding. If the sole purpose of the flight is to deliver passengers to a commercial space station, such as Bigelow has planned using its BA 330 modules, then the CST-100's new commercial interior can be configured to seat nine passengers and one pilot.

That said, the way the cabin is designed, the "overhead bins" of the spaceliner occupy the same space as the seats, so for each storage space the customer wants, they lose a chair. Bigelow envisions flights with six crew members.

So it is a maximum of ten people with the actual number to be dictated by the customer's needs.

I'm still not seeing it. Look at the the middle top part of the first image below - that is how 7 seats will be arranged.

Then look at the 2nd image. There is no "overhead bins" space in the CST pressurized volume - certainly not enough for seats to be placed up there. (the 3rd image as well)

So how do they fit 3 more seats? Unless they plan on having people sit in each others laps, it would be veeeery tight.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 10:22 PM
I'm still not seeing it.

That's because you're looking at the wrong CST-100 configuration.

What's being discussed now is the new commercial version (non-NASA) of the capsule, revealed Wednesday. The seating arrangement, types of seats, storage and other elements are different for commercial passengers.

"Overhead bins" wasn't meant to be taken literally. They aren't overhead. The bins are interchangeable with the seats. In the rendering linked below, where you see a bin is where another seat could go.

See here: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=129058#assets_117

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 11:06 PM
Yes, but I suspect that any Boeing engineer that actually works on the CST-100 would find that rendering quite amusing. IKEA chairs with no shock absorption capability. No room for ECCLS or other flight systems. (since the cabin now extends all the way down to the bottom of the pressurized structure - these systems appear to be taking up the bottom 1ft of the NASA configuration)

You might think I am being biased here, but if SpaceX (or SnC) unveils something as outlandish on May 29, I will happily decry it as equally fantastic.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 12:36 AM
10 people packed in a CST-100? Are they trying to make Soyuz look spacious? ;)

That has to be a misunderstanding.

Nope, I questioned it myself (you know how I like to question everything) ;D

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25395862/nlv-company-gets-closer-to-building-space-stations
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/02/2014 01:13 AM
Yes, but I suspect that any Boeing engineer that actually works on the CST-100 would find that rendering quite amusing.

According to Boeing, the renderings were produced in consultation with the CST-100 engineering team.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/02/2014 04:09 AM
The good news is that it sounds like all 3 CC vehicles are going to be built with or without NASA funding.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 05/02/2014 11:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 02:13 PM
The good news is that it sounds like all 3 CC vehicles are going to be built with or without NASA funding.

What makes you say that?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 03:33 PM
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.

you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/02/2014 03:38 PM
Here's my article for Space.com about the new commercial version of the CST-100:

Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spaceliner
http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html

Boeing has seen the future of private human spaceflight, and it is blue. Sky blue, that is.

The aerospace giant on Wednesday (April 30) unveiled its new concept for the cabin of a future commercial spaceliner — a vision based in part on the blue-lit Boeing "Sky" interior of the company's modern airliners, as well as work on the company's CST-100 space capsule to ferry NASA astronauts on roundtrips to the International Space Station.

"As we find ourselves on the verge of commercial flight … we begin to think, 'What does come next? Provided there is a destination for them out there, how will that passenger want to go back and forth?'" said Chris Ferguson, a former astronaut who commanded NASA's final space shuttle mission in 2011 and now serves as Boeing's director of crew and mission operations for the commercial crew program.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 04:00 PM
Here's my article for Space.com about the new commercial version of the CST-100:

Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spaceliner
http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html


Maybe you can get more info from the other stories.....they claim a "12hr fight to the Station".  Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30260.msg976673#msg976673
Side note: should be open for show again fall this year.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/02/2014 04:16 PM
Having 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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 12:04 AM
Having 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.

sounds like those Boeing design skills really come through.  The pics shown the public I'll bet can't do it justice.

Hope to have the experience of sitting in the mockup shortly myself. ;)

The Bigelow experience left me thinking I'd seen this all before, and I have.   The complex and security etc. all reminds me of "Moonraker" complex.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 05/03/2014 12:10 AM
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.

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.?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 12:19 AM
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.

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 have a much better question along the same lines.    Where does HSF rank under NASA policy?
Would NASA sat launches using Atlas V be cancelled/delayed  to save the core for an advanced Crew test program for CST-100 or DC ?


Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2014 12:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 02:46 AM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2014 04:19 AM

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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ChefPat on 05/03/2014 02:03 PM
If the new CST-100 configuration can carry 9 passengers & 1 crew, or a combination of passengers & cargo, just how much weight can a CST-100 transport to LEO?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2014 02:28 PM

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. 


Not NASA's call.  NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2014 02:30 PM
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.

There is the SLC-37 bottleneck.  DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2014 02:39 PM

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.

There is the SLC-37 bottleneck.  DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
That's because electrical testing and solid installation is done at the pad, right? Does the pad need more refurbishing after each launch, to? I wonder why they didn't used the Fleet Standardization Program to improve the Delta IV flow.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 03:45 PM

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. 


Not NASA's call.  NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.

see where your going with this.....Crew contracts were made with LM or Boeing right under their "commercial" services?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 03:54 PM

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 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.

Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.

Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years?  Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.

If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it.

If you look at our status I don't see any other choice.   

Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits.

That’s a given....its time for Rocketdyne to pull all the materials out of storage and get the manufacturing project started.   

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.

Where is this coming from?   The Falcon 9 is under continuous experimental status with re usability.   Unless I missed something, don't see this combo operational as HSR for years.   Throwing more cash is not going to fix this problem.

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.

We are at the  pre to painful decisions point. Start thinking of it as a management lead Apollo 13 issue.  So a decision is needed, the Sooner the better. 

Believe the real call NASA needs to make is going from the RS-68 A to make the RS-68B.  The electronics upgrade is done?   The regenerative nozzle would finish the project?

But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.

What can be solved in two days?


Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: simonbp on 05/03/2014 05:57 PM
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.

There is the SLC-37 bottleneck.  DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas

That is until this week. Barring some extraordinary diplomacy, the Atlas V flight rate just hit a much worse bottleneck. I doubt there will be any non-national security Atlas launches for several years at least.

This being the CST-100 thread, we can probably ignore nuclear rating, but I really hope ULA is putting their own money into starting the human rating of Delta or CST-100 is dead in the water.

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.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 05/03/2014 06:19 PM

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.

That's not their ISS product. That's a future configuration for Bigelow they were showing at a Bigelow event. Remember when NASA and others expressed concern that Boeing wasn't pursuing non-ISS business? Maybe Boeing is responding to that.

Boeing has been showing us cool stuff all year, now we're going to see something cool from Spacex. I don't see why every little thing has to be a knock against Boeing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 05/03/2014 06:21 PM

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. 


Not NASA's call.  NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
This is such an important point with regards to NASA's Commercial Crew program that always gets lost in the soup.

SNC and Boeing are the ones' offering this service. They will be contracted by NASA. They alone decide which launcher to include in their proposals and at what cost. They, not NASA, would sub-contract ULA as part of their integrated proposals. Which is why Boeing has spoken publicly about using the F9 if the business case made sense. Depending on how things evolve, that case may start to make more rather then less sense. But nobody knows yet. All speculative. I'm sure it will come up during any number of NASA meetings over the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2014 07:18 PM

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.

Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.

Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years?  Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.

Quote
If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it.

If you look at our status I don't see any other choice.
That's not right. Falcon 9 is closer to human rate. And there's the option of producing the engines in the US.

Quote
Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits.

That's a given....its time for Rocketdyne to pull all the materials out of storage and get the manufacturing project started.
It needs the funding. 200M have been appropriated this year. But it's a long road and we don't know what will happen with the project if the Ukrainian crisis gets solved next year.

Quote
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.

Where is this coming from?   The Falcon 9 is under continuous experimental status with re usability.   Unless I missed something, don't see this combo operational as HSR for years.   Throwing more cash is not going to fix this problem.
Dragon on Falcon 9 is about to go through integrated CDR in a couple of month. They are actually testing the MaxQ LAS abort this year or early next. And they have agreed their certification process with NASA. Do you believe that you can be the fore runner in crewed launch competition with a rocket that's nowhere close to human rating? If Atlas V was the closest to human rating, then Falcon 9 is clearly next.

Quote
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.

We are at the  pre to painful decisions point. Start thinking of it as a management lead Apollo 13 issue.  So a decision is needed, the Sooner the better.

Believe the real call NASA needs to make is going from the RS-68 A to make the RS-68B.  The electronics upgrade is done?   The regenerative nozzle would finish the project?
The RS-68A project actually took care of most of the human rating issues. Going to a full new development like the RS-68B would not only be seriously expensive, but add three to five years to the human rating effort. As the Delta IV current status, is mostly implementing Common Avionics, pad mods and design and implement the certification process. The issue is mostly the avionics implementation schedule.
The issue with the rest of the crew rating is simply money and time. Had CST-100 or DreamChaser chosen the DIV, they would have done all the requirement and planning that would have allowed them to launch crew in a couple of years. But they haven't and no amount of money can accelerate certain thing. In any case nowhere close to Falcon 9 readiness.

Quote
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.

What can be solved in two days?
I'm sorry, I meant two years. I'm referring to the Ukrainian situation.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/03/2014 10:41 PM

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.

Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.

Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years?  Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.
My guess is that the DoD wished to get the complete order.   Have a feeling the State Dept long ago thought it a better idea to keep purchases low and cash flowing into Russia.....believe it was the policy.  The US didn't want the engineers to end up working for the bad guys.

After the Georgia mess; that policy should have changed with the new Administration.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2014 11:32 PM
That might be your opinion. But on L2 and even on the public side every informed opinion is that SpaceX is ahead of the rest in CCtCap. You'll understand if you go by the opinion of the actual NASA engineers.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 05/04/2014 03:04 PM
That might be your opinion. But on L2 and even on the public side every informed opinion is that SpaceX is ahead of the rest in CCtCap. You'll understand if you go by the opinion of the actual NASA engineers.

These the same NASA engineers making the call on SLS or Orion, or how about Aries 1?

If so its not a great track record ;D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2014 04:16 PM

These the same NASA engineers making the call on SLS or Orion, or how about Aries 1?


Not the same
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 05/04/2014 10:56 PM
What will Putin gobble next? Off topic.
General world situation? Off topic.

Some posts trimmed.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/07/2014 08:10 PM
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:

Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space (http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-boeing-capsule-that-may-someday-take-you-to-1573099687)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 05/07/2014 08:27 PM
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:

Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space (http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-boeing-capsule-that-may-someday-take-you-to-1573099687)

Yep, and those pictures do seem to suggest that this is an interior of some fantasy spacecraft (look at all the windows!), and *NOT* CST-100. Some future derivative perhaps, but not CST-100.

There is no way that interior matches the exterior.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 05/07/2014 08:58 PM
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:

Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space (http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-boeing-capsule-that-may-someday-take-you-to-1573099687)

Yep, and those pictures do seem to suggest that this is an interior of some fantasy spacecraft (look at all the windows!), and *NOT* CST-100. Some future derivative perhaps, but not CST-100.

There is no way that interior matches the exterior.

We've always known this is not the CCtCap product, Boeing has been very clear about that.

Some of the windows are simulated (digital displays), but they are studying options with real glass says Ferguson.

http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 05/10/2014 12:36 PM
Another update:
http://www.universetoday.com/111655/boeing-cst-100-space-taxi-maiden-test-flight-to-iss-expected-early-2017-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander/#ixzz31JbVLzZW
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/17/2014 02:43 PM
I started a thread on Human Rating Delta IV if you're interested.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34753.0
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 05/17/2014 08:26 PM
Ken Kremer's interview with Ferguson continues:

http://www.universetoday.com/111935/assembling-and-launching-boeings-cst-100-private-space-taxi-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander-part-2/
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/19/2014 05:35 PM
"Boeing takes over the OPF-3 lease in late June 2014 following an official handover ceremony from Space Florida. Assembly begins soon thereafter.
When will CST-100 spacecraft manufacturing begin?
“The pieces are coming one by one from all over the country,” Ferguson explained. “Parts from our vendors are already starting to show up for our test article.
“Assembly of the test article in Florida starts soon.”


Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/111935/assembling-and-launching-boeings-cst-100-private-space-taxi-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander-part-2/#ixzz32BSzNqQs"
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 05/19/2014 06:09 PM
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 05/19/2014 08:28 PM

I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?

The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.

Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 05/19/2014 11:52 PM
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."

Seems everyone agrees with this. Which ever spacecraft flies on on which ever launcher, it will most likely have a blue interior.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/20/2014 01:00 PM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/20/2014 01:03 PM
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."

Seems everyone agrees with this. Which ever spacecraft flies on on which ever launcher, it will most likely have a blue interior.

Anyway we go, someone will be sining the "Spaceman Blues"...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/20/2014 01:18 PM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Garrett on 05/20/2014 01:41 PM
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 05/20/2014 02:28 PM

I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.

I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 05/20/2014 04:50 PM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.

That's how they originally planned to do it, but if RD-180 becomes as priceless as people think they have other ways of doing an inflight abort test ("little joe" type of vehicle).


I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.

I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.

I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 05/20/2014 05:34 PM

Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.

That's how they originally planned to do it, but if RD-180 becomes as priceless as people think they have other ways of doing an inflight abort test ("little joe" type of vehicle).


I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.

I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.

I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.

It depends how they define national security payloads though doesn't it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 05/20/2014 05:51 PM

I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.

Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 05/20/2014 06:49 PM


I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.

Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?

Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 05/20/2014 07:01 PM



Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?

Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.

Exactly my point. That would mean no RD-180 for civilian use. Again: If enacted as formulated.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/20/2014 07:06 PM
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher.
ULA already has 2 yrs of RD-180 engine stock and I believe they recently asked NPO Energomash to increase their supply rate from once per year to once every 6 months (citation needed ;) )
So from what I understand, Atlas V will continue as normal until at least 2017.
No, they're not going to continue as normal if the supply is about to run out.
 If the Russians want to keep selling engines and the US wants to keep buying them, the US can make a statement that they won't be used for offensive or defensive weaponry or whatever it takes to save face on the Russian side. If there's a will, there will be some semantic solution to implement it. Let the NRO put their logo on the rocket instead of the AF if that's what it takes.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 05/20/2014 09:16 PM


I really doubt that situation as outlined here is going to remain the same. Also what engines they do have will go to priority national defence payloads not to this.
I thought the Russians were only threatening to withhold the engine for national security payloads, in which case we could continue to use Atlas V for crew transportation.

Assuming the announcement will be enacted as formulated: Continuing delivery would depend on the US-government plediging not to use RD-180 for military purposes. How likely is such a pledge? Would that pledge need to include the present stock?

Could you imagine any US administration giving that kind of pledge, as I can't.

Most likely event is continuation of status quo. Realpolitik does happen though; move a few NRO birds over to Delta, everyone's "happy," and life continues more or less as before.

Cheer up with selfies in space:

http://www.space.com/25950-space-apps-boeing-cst-100-capsule.html

Quote
"There's no telling where this [partnership] is going to lead in half a dozen years, but our intention is to closely mimic what the commercial customer desires on an airliner, to be able to provide them with at least a similar type of service on a spaceliner," Ferguson said.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/21/2014 01:24 PM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.

They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.

Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/22/2014 11:55 AM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.

They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.

Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.

First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.  ::)

Second without a successful LES abort test of the CST-100 from the Atlas V at Max-Q. You have no way of gauging the effectiveness of  the CST-100 abort system.


Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/22/2014 01:13 PM
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.

Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.

They don't need it for either test and I suspect they won't use one.

Apollo used Little Joe.
Orion is going to use a Peacekeeper.

First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.  ::)

Second without a successful LES abort test of the CST-100 from the Atlas V at Max-Q. You have no way of gauging the effectiveness of  the CST-100 abort system.

I suggest reading the following article: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-flight-centers/ccafs-space-flight-centers/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/

If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/22/2014 01:40 PM


If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.

It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 05/22/2014 02:07 PM

First the Peacekeeper SLV more commonly known as the Minotaur IV+ is under-power for this inflight abort test. The Minotaur have a LEO payload capacity of 1735 kg with 2,200 kN thrust from the first stage. Somehow don't see the Minotaur lift the 10 ton CST-100 capsule and service module stack to the Max-Q of the Atlas V.  ::)
2,200k n are 218 tonnes of force. How much would the stack weight? Please remember that they just need to reach MaxQ, which is usually about 30s into the flight and that's it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/22/2014 02:31 PM


If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.

It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/22/2014 03:13 PM


If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.

It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?

My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/22/2014 05:04 PM


If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.

It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?

My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.


It is a single motor with avionics and will carry 150klbs of ballast so the Orion abort will be at the proper conditions (velocity and altitude)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/22/2014 05:18 PM


If the Peacekeeper first stage can get a much heavier Orion to Max-Q it can get CST-100. Simple.

It will be carrying 150klb of ballast with Orion
70 tons of ballast?

My Jimspeak interpretation: you need the whole Minotaur IV LV not just only the 1st stage. The avionics are in the upper stage. Unless someone have a single stage LV available with a Thiokol SR-118 solid motor.

Did you read the article? It's just the first stage with Orion on top.

Here is further clarification: http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/ATB_factsheet.pdf
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/22/2014 09:53 PM
If they do use something like a Little Joe, SNC may also be interested in using it for DC. This would help to share development costs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ChefPat on 05/23/2014 02:29 PM
Boeing to show off commercial capsule at KSC next month (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/05/23/boeing-to-show-off-commercial-capsule-at-ksc-next-month/9482301/)

Boeing will visit Kennedy Space Center June 9 to discuss its CST-100 crew capsule, a contender to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station.

A media invitation offers a "boarding pass" to experience a capsule mockup and preview the "Commercial Crew Processing Facility" in which flight vehicles will be assembled, in a renovated space shuttle hangar and engine shop.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 05/24/2014 12:59 AM
Well, in light of this development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34810.0

either AV pursues a new engine it can acquire quickly, like TR-107, or CST-100 will be looking for a new ride.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/24/2014 03:09 PM
CST isn't a national security satellite.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 05/24/2014 04:20 PM
CST isn't a national security satellite.

True but do you believe there will be a contract extension and Atlas V continuing to fly unaltered for civil payloads when military payloads have switched?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/24/2014 05:23 PM
Nope - that is a good point.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Will on 05/28/2014 11:30 PM
Well, in light of this development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34810.0

either AV pursues a new engine it can acquire quickly, like TR-107, or CST-100 will be looking for a new ride.

That only applies to *future* contracts. LM reportedly has 15 engines in hand and something like 30 on order under the existing contracts.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 05/29/2014 12:23 AM
CST isn't a national security satellite.

True but do you believe there will be a contract extension and Atlas V continuing to fly unaltered for civil payloads when military payloads have switched?

yes,
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/09/2014 10:58 PM
Looks like Boeing is going for some press coverage

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-boeing-space-capsule-20140609,0,5583321.story

Anyone near get us some close-ups?

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/12/2014 10:50 AM
Found some more pics and story ..

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_0631_2a_CST-100_Ken-Kremer.jpg

http://www.universetoday.com/105587/boeing-unveils-commercial-cst-100-space-taxi-to-launch-us-astronauts-to-space-from-us-soil/

"The vehicle includes five recliner seats, a hatch and windows, the pilots control console with several attached Samsung tablets for crew interfaces with wireless internet,'



Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/12/2014 10:58 AM
"full scale mockup..."
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/12/2014 02:55 PM
Sen. Nelson was there, giving a speech and crawling inside the mockup, which the reporter described as "America’s next spaceship destined to carry humans". 

Were any U.S. Senators at the SpaceX unveiling?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: moralec on 06/12/2014 03:07 PM
Is it just me, or the distribution of the interior is very unusual?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 06/12/2014 03:19 PM

"The vehicle includes five recliner seats, [...]"


Second reference to 5 seats in Commercial Crew CST-100.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/13/2014 12:10 AM
Sen. Nelson was there, giving a speech and crawling inside the mockup, which the reporter described as "America’s next spaceship destined to carry humans". 

Were any U.S. Senators at the SpaceX unveiling?

 - Ed Kyle

IIRC this mockup's been seen so it wasn't really an unveiling.

Several key congressmen from committees that matter, along with Sen. Nelson & Sen. Heinrich, were at the DC event.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/spacex_brings_crew_vehicle_to_dc-233747-1.html

Quote
>
Technocrat spotted at the event Reps. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., Mike Honda, D-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. Nearly all sit on committees that set policy or draft spending bills for NASA. The House Intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat, Maryland’s C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, was also spotted.
>
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2014 04:19 PM
Quote
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — Hoping for the best, but preparing for defeat, Boeing will send out about 215 potential layoff notices to employees currently working on its NASA CST-100 Commercial Crew program.

The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.

“It’s just a standard way … to minimize potential business impact,” added John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew program manager.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/17/2014 04:27 PM
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.

This is a good reminder though that we are getting closer to a decision...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/17/2014 04:39 PM
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.

you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil.    Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program.  When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems.  Just saying
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 06/17/2014 05:09 PM
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.

you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil.    Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program.  When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems.  Just saying

It also shows Boeing has little faith in Bigelow and is unwilling to continue development on the CST-100 on it's own dime.  Both SpaceX and SNC have stated they will keep development going.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: RocketmanUS on 06/17/2014 05:12 PM
Quote
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — Hoping for the best, but preparing for defeat, Boeing will send out about 215 potential layoff notices to employees currently working on its NASA CST-100 Commercial Crew program.

The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.

“It’s just a standard way … to minimize potential business impact,” added John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew program manager.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss
After reading that article, were is Boeing's commercial market they were to have?
So no tax payer money, then no CST-100 from Boeing?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: billh on 06/17/2014 06:09 PM
From the article:
Quote
The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.
Quote
Mulholland said “several hundred” employees currently work on the CST-100 program, including just under 100 in Florida.

So not everyone involved is getting a notice. I'm not sure if that signifies plans for any ongoing investment in CST-100 if they lose the contract. It could be that everyone not getting a notice has a potential assignment on another project.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/17/2014 06:19 PM
Or it's a targeted PR move aimed at  congresscritters to spook their way into a slot; 'select us or a lot of your constituents lose their jobs.'
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: notsorandom on 06/17/2014 06:50 PM
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 06/17/2014 07:02 PM
Interesting that the crew access tower was only designed for CST. Although I suspect if DC is chosen, then design mods will commence soon thereafter.

Boeing has been consistent wrt their business case or lack thereof without NASA. They have always expressed skepticism of achieving commercial operations without NASA

NASA needs to down-select sooner rather then later to provide some clarity. Clearly, no immediate business case is evident that will support all 3 systems.

Full up fund 2 competitors and let's get this done.
Title: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2014 07:15 PM
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.

Would Boeing notice as much as a company  if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 07:16 PM
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
I disagree. One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars. Of course they have to make commercial sense as an ongoing business.
That is the way we are going to have commercial spaceflight, by cutting costs to get towards their eventual goal.
Boeing needs to spend less on lobbyists and less time gouging the American people and more time putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach.
IMHO of course!
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/17/2014 07:33 PM
Surely the other competitors will be issuing similar notices to employees.  Can NASA fund more than one after this down select and still gain a crew taxi in a timely manner?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2014 07:49 PM

Boeing needs to spend less on lobbyists and less time gouging the American people and more time putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach.


All points are nonsense.   How is Boeing gouging the American people on CST-100 or 787?   Why should they be putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach?  Why should any company?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: DMeader on 06/17/2014 07:59 PM
One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.

SpaceX is in the game because Elon has a boatload of money so he can build cool toys and fly rockets. Boeing is a commercial company. Since when does either have a mandate to save humanity?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:00 PM
I didn't mention the 787. Maybe because of its great cost is why Boeing wants to gouge the USG (and hence people) for HSF and launches.
Jim, if I found you injured in the road I would help you. It would be of no benefit to me, however it would be the right thing to do. More so, we would both benefit subsequently.
That is why Boeing should grow a pair. Dare I say it, like SpaceX.
As always IMHO.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/17/2014 08:02 PM
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldn’t be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:04 PM
One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.

SpaceX is in the game because Elon has a boatload of money so he can build cool toys and fly rockets. Boeing is a commercial company. Since when does either have a mandate to save humanity?
Who said anything about saving humanity? Or mandates?
SpaceX is a commercial company as is Boeing. One has a vision, one is about shareholders dividends.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2014 08:08 PM
Jim, if I found you injured in the road I would help you. It would be of no benefit to me, however it would be the right thing to do. More so, we would both benefit subsequently.
That is why Boeing should grow a pair. Dare I say it, like SpaceX.
As always IMHO.

There is no one injured and hence Boeing has no obligation to help anyone.  Furthermore, it is wrong for you to say that they should and impose your beliefs on them.  They are free to do what they want and pursue the projects they want.

I didn't mention the 787. Maybe because of its great cost is why Boeing wants to gouge the USG (and hence people) for HSF and launches.


How is Boeing gouging the USG for HSF?
Also, HSF doesn't make enough money compared to commercial airplanes to matter.
More nonsense.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2014 08:11 PM
one is about shareholders dividends.

That is what most companies care about.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:17 PM
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
I don't know much about US politics, but it seems like there is a similar 'battle'/discussion going on there.
I enjoy our exchanges, but as my old gran used to say 'Out with the old, in with the new.'
I'm just rocket mad. I want to see new rockets and lots of them.
For that failing, you have my apologies.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: enkarha on 06/17/2014 08:23 PM
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.

Except the Lunar module (Grumman) and now, Orion(LM).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/17/2014 08:28 PM
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.

Except the Lunar module (Grumman) and now, Orion(LM).
Good point, I was thinking LEO ops...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/17/2014 09:17 PM
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.

you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil.    Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program.  When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems.  Just saying

It also shows Boeing has little faith in Bigelow and is unwilling to continue development on the CST-100 on it's own dime.  Both SpaceX and SNC have stated they will keep development going.

just posted an interview taken the last hr with Elon its in the DV2 section.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/17/2014 09:33 PM

Would Boeing notice as much as a company  if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2014 09:51 PM
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.


It has nothing to do with New Space and Old Space.   Spacex is an exception but all New Space companies are looking to make a buck and not expanding humanity's reach.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 09:52 PM
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.


It has nothing to do with New Space and Old Space.   Spacex is an exception but all New Space companies are looking to make a buck and not expanding humanity's reach.
You are correct.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2014 06:26 AM


Would Boeing notice as much as a company  if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.

Thanks for that, I don't think that's any bad thing here that are so diversified.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SoulWager on 06/18/2014 07:04 AM
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldn’t be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...
Dropping SpaceX would mean sending more money to Russia for either Soyuz launches or engines for Atlas.  I think It would be more responsible to give SpaceX whatever funding is required to meet the equilibrium point on schedule acceleration vs additional Soyuz launches, while sending SNC enough funds to provide long term competition, to keep SpaceX's prices low.

Boeing has made it clear they will not maintain production capability without a steady stream of grease, which means they aren't very useful for exerting price pressure on SpaceX or SNC. Threatening to fire the team working on the project doesn't exactly evoke confidence in future support/ manufacturing flexibility.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2014 11:36 AM
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2014 01:26 PM

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2014 02:09 PM

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.

Who said anything about Boeing "going over the wall"? Certainly I didn't. Re-read what I said. I intimated that if their space-based efforts ultimately couldn't compete with new-space on price point that they would simply close their space business. Remember that the "space business" is only about 1% of Boeing's business. Should they close the doors on that it wouldn't even be a blip on the shareholder's stock price.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 02:17 PM
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.
They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 06/18/2014 05:42 PM
Boeing has and continues to be one of the most innovative aerospace companies on the planet wrt to both Commercial and Government (ie. Phantom Works) programs and services. But they are still a business. If they see too much downside risk to a project, they will not proceed. I would not expect them to. If they thought for one minute that CST would / could be utilized in a meaningful, profit generating way beyond NASA, they would invest more. After all, it costs Billions to launch programs such as 777, 787 etc. But there are billions more to be made.

Apparently, they see no such definitive upside to CST investments beyond NASA at this point. They are not of the "if we build it, they will come" mentality. I respect that. As I will also respect when NASA decides to down-select to Dragon & Dream Chaser. 
Title: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2014 06:01 PM
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.
They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.

This is what I was getting at when they want to they can aggressively compete in market sectors. Their presence in military aviation for example hasn't been as great as maybe some other companies but all by reports they have turned their focus that way and I wouldn't bet against them in any sector they choose to enter with their maximum focus. It's hard to say I will admit how much corporate focus they have on the CST-100.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 06/18/2014 06:09 PM
Yep. Boeing might be a good proxy to understand why fuzzy future is not a good strategy to leverage private capital and innovation. Should they see a strong and coordinated effort to develop a LEO station market, I'm pretty sure they would invest heavily. They were primes for both shuttle and the ISS, not to mention Apollo et al. But if NASA doesn't have a clear transition plan to full commercial services, with incentives to leveraging new markets, there's simply no reasonable expectancy for a profit. And if they have to stand down a decade or two until one is realized, they can afford to do since they'll have internal divisions still on the government side and go with whatever path does work commercially (like reusability).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/18/2014 06:26 PM
Don't underestimate Boeing. ... They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010).
Part of that is likely residual from the post-Cold War mergers.  Boeing Classic was mostly commercial aircraft, though it also built bombers and tankers for the Pentagon and had the odd space contract like Saturn V S-IC.  Hughes Space was satellites, often commercial but also big-buck government satellites.  Rockwell (North American Aviation) was all Pentagon.  McDonnell Douglas was mostly Pentagon (ex-McDonnell), though it also built commercial aircraft (ex-Douglas).   

The launch vehicle business (all USAF and NASA at first) sprang from the Douglas side, interestingly enough.  It was that McDonnell Douglas launch vehicle group then at Huntington Beach that originated Delta 4.  A few years after the merger, Big New Boeing got rid of Delta 4 (to ULA) because it had turned into a big scandalous money loser (at the time, but ULA has turned it around).  Not long after, Big New Boeing also dropped out of Sea Launch ownership.  Boeing Classic seems to have won those board room arguments.

Which leaves Boeing in terms of space business with SLS and Space Station and maybe CST-100, along with the satellite work.  Except for the satellites, this, as near as I can tell, came from the side of Boeing that can vaguely trace itself back, in spirit at least, to NAA/Rockwell (the S-II and Apollo CSM and Shuttle builder). 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/18/2014 06:31 PM

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.


This thread has become increasingly annoying with many people spouting off what they think they know.  In reality, they are just preaching to the "hey let's pretend we know what the hell we are talking about and tell others who is to blame and why this company is doing it all wrong". 

Here are facts:

1.  Price Point:  No other company knows what the price point (or whatever you wish to call it) is of the other.  If they did, or if anyone here did, you would be violating the law in several key places. 

2.  Cost is part of the equation.  Not the whole equation.  All will be competitive overall. 

3.  Claims of Boeing doing this or that and not being competitive, able to react to market pressure is complete nonsense.  Look at the various business units products and earnings for the absolute proof.  The idea that one or a group of people think they can say otherwise is only because they want it to fit with the narrative of what they want to believe and they want others to believe. 

4.  Market.  Boeing knows something about this.  If they do not win CCtCap for whatever reason, the business case goes away.  They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.  Anything else that comes along is great for Boeing as well as NASA but not necessary.  So, like others will also find, the "vast commercial market" that special interests touted so heavily several years ago is not there (like many believed) and therefore a company is not going to invest in something they logically do not see a ROI on in the near future. 

5.  The SpaceX-worshipers can pretend to say "but Elon is different".  Doesn't work that way.  Money makes the world turn.  SpaceX must be profitable to either re-invest in themselves or do the things they want to do.  If not, they will go down in flames.   
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 06/18/2014 06:44 PM
But SpaceX is different. There is a big difference between being profitable enough to keep going and being profitable enough to satisfy your stockholders.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/18/2014 06:50 PM
But SpaceX is different. There is a big difference between being profitable enough to keep going and being profitable enough to satisfy your stockholders.

No it is not.  And stakeholders do not make the day to day business decisions of any company.  But it is easy to try to say the "nebulous and greedy stockholders" are evil and holding Boeing or whoever back, rallying against innovation and progress in order to pad their bank accounts.  It fits the narrative so many want to believe here.   
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/18/2014 06:58 PM
>
They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.
>

If the Boeing CC case is closed why is it they were talking about switching to Falcon 9 because Atlas V is so expensive? 

Certainly the Atlas V situation hasn't improved in the last few weeks. Have they decided to jump ship to get the costs down?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/18/2014 07:05 PM
>
They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.
>

If the Boeing CC case is closed why is it they were talking about switching to Falcon 9 because Atlas V is so expensive? 

Certainly the Atlas V situation hasn't improved in the last few weeks. Have they decided to jump ship to get the costs down?

This is consistent with what has been discussed about CST-100 since the beginning.

Contrary to the belief that some like to tout around here, a viable, productive, innovative and competitive company (Boeing) will always pay attention and do what is necessary to cut overall costs and be able to respond to market changes. 

That is good for Boeing and it is good for customers (current and prospective)

And "switching" is not what is happening.  Boeing has been very consistent in that the vehicle will ultimately be "launch vehicle agnostic" to offer maximum flexibility across the operational life cycle that includes technical, cost and schedule factors. 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 06/18/2014 07:07 PM
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2014 07:21 PM

Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Maybe Boeing don't like to make a big thing about their progress unlike certain others.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 06/19/2014 01:14 PM
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Agreed 100%.

My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: notsorandom on 06/19/2014 01:51 PM
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Agreed 100%.

My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.
Sounds like it is funding dependent but Boeing wants to do an in-flight abort with the plan to "unzip" the Atlas V at transonic speeds.
Quote
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 06/19/2014 06:11 PM
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.


Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:

1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.
2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing.  Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way.  That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX.  NASA lists a requireemnt.  Boeing says how much fault tolerance?  Here is the massive analysis and documentation.  SpaceX says why do you need that?  This is good enough. 

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 06/19/2014 06:18 PM
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.


Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:

1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.
2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing.  Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way.  That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX.  NASA lists a requireemnt.  Boeing says how much fault tolerance?  Here is the massive analysis and documentation.  SpaceX says why do you need that?  This is good enough. 



Does the Astronaut Office get to go over the designs prior to contract award, or do they get brought in after selection?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 06/19/2014 06:20 PM

1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.


Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 06:37 PM

Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.

The prices are redacted in the public releases of the CRS contracts
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/19/2014 07:16 PM

Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.

The prices are redacted in the public releases of the CRS contracts
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 07:54 PM

I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...


That was the maximum price, the actual per mission (per kg) is not known
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/19/2014 08:20 PM

I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...


That was the maximum price, the actual per mission (per kg) is not known
Well at least we know that it cant be more than that then ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: catdlr on 06/19/2014 09:43 PM
Boeing Details Its Plans for CST-100 Assembly at Kennedy

The Boeing Company anticipates using the Orbiter Processing Facility 3 and adjacent engine shop as the main manufacturing and assembly facility for the CST-100 spacecraft now in development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvq34Uah7jk
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/19/2014 10:46 PM
So if we sum thing up...Boeing & SpaceX both have pressure hulls built, plus a couple of mock ups.

Would that be agreeable?

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 06/20/2014 01:58 AM
So if we sum thing up...Boeing & SpaceX both have pressure hulls built, plus a couple of mock ups.

Would that be agreeable?

It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2014 02:05 AM
How so?

I think SpaceX's considerable lead has been eaten up by all this v2 nonsense.

I think that was by nefarious design.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: notsorandom on 06/20/2014 03:31 AM
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Comga on 06/20/2014 05:25 AM
How so?

I think SpaceX's considerable lead has been eaten up by all this v2 nonsense.

I think that was by nefarious design.

"nefarious"?
On whose part?

(I might use nefarious to describe the combining of "V" and "2" on a rocket project.  :P  Nefarious or unaware)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2014 09:05 AM
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Vertical landing is great, and I too look forward to the day when a stage flies back to the launch site and lands on its tail as God and Robert Heinlein intended, but for Dragon it's just a boondoggle. It's not "safe", it's not "how a 21st century spaceship should land" or whatever stupid sales gimmick they're using now. Considering that they're still going with toxic propellants, I don't think it's even sensible. Why the double standard? Because those stages are supposed to be able to be restacked and refly the same day (eventually), or at least the same week. There's absolutely no need for a crew vehicle to be able to do that. Ya want pinpoint landing? Buy an off-the-shelf GPS guided parachute. Ya want softer landings? Use airbags or a parawing.

They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Mader Levap on 06/20/2014 09:21 AM
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/20/2014 09:22 AM
^^ this

Having been a skydiver, the confidence that parachutes have fewer failure modes than a cluster of redundant,  pressure fed, hypergolic engines is unfounded. Are mortars 100%? Doubt it. Canopies collapse, drogues fail, canopy lines tangle, secondaries tangle with primaries and sometimes s*** just happens.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2014 10:21 AM
Yeah? Well, rockets explode and take entire vehicles with them.

If you want reliability, use a solid.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JBF on 06/20/2014 10:30 AM
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.

Exactly, they had to develop an abort system. At that point they had a choice, throw it away or dual purpose it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: tobi453 on 06/20/2014 10:35 AM
The toxic propellant at landing is definitely an issue.

Also the long term goal is Mars, how do you make N2H4/N2O4 easily on Mars? I think they need to look for another solution in the long term.

But the same is true for a solid, how do make/fill a solid on mars?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kryten on 06/20/2014 10:46 AM
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull three years ago (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=56721), I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/20/2014 10:58 AM

It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull three years ago (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=56721), I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.

A few articles I saw around the time of Dragon V2 announcement were quoting CST-100 as being neck & neck with Space X.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sghill on 06/20/2014 01:17 PM
The toxic propellant at landing is definitely an issue.

Please name a propellant that is not toxic and can be stored for extended periods of time.  To slam any company for making a chemical reaction based engine (terrestrial or aerospace for that matter) is just a thread troll.

Handling toxic propellants is something you do every day when you go to the pump.  That's why we have gas tanks.  This is a non-issue.

And as far as solids fuels being safer than liquids, the body count comes down in favor of liquids.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2014 01:26 PM

Handling toxic propellants is something you do every day when you go to the pump.  That's why we have gas tanks.  This is a non-issue.


Quite wrong.  There are no ill effects due to short term exposure to fumes while fueling or being next to an operating car.  Same goes for getting splashed by gasoline when the nozzle "burps" while fueling. It is quite the opposite with H2H4 or N2O4. 
Also, gasoline is not a monopropellant and doesn't decompose when exposed to contaminates. 

And as far as solids fuels being safer than liquids, the body count comes down in favor of liquids.

Wrong.  Body count is not relevant, since  it is more of a function of the vehicle's capacity vs number of incidents.  And the "one" incident did not have an escape system, so it doesn't even count.

Please name a propellant that is not toxic and can be stored for extended periods of time.

Ethanol, GH2, GCH4, etc.  There are many that can be stored and are non toxic in short term exposures.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: notsorandom on 06/20/2014 02:41 PM
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Vertical landing is great, and I too look forward to the day when a stage flies back to the launch site and lands on its tail as God and Robert Heinlein intended, but for Dragon it's just a boondoggle. It's not "safe", it's not "how a 21st century spaceship should land" or whatever stupid sales gimmick they're using now. Considering that they're still going with toxic propellants, I don't think it's even sensible. Why the double standard? Because those stages are supposed to be able to be restacked and refly the same day (eventually), or at least the same week. There's absolutely no need for a crew vehicle to be able to do that. Ya want pinpoint landing? Buy an off-the-shelf GPS guided parachute. Ya want softer landings? Use airbags or a parawing.

They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant parachutes on the Falcon. At any rate the CTS-100 dosn't seem to be all that far behind Dragon at this point. It is a viable contender.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 06/20/2014 04:48 PM

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.

So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?

Edit: to bring on topic.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/20/2014 05:14 PM
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/20/2014 06:33 PM

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.

So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?

Edit: to bring on topic.

V2 needs them in the case of a pad or in-flight abort.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/20/2014 06:48 PM
V2 needs them in the case of a pad or in-flight abort.
And in case the engines fail to start prior to powered landing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 06/20/2014 07:46 PM
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.
DC's back up is?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/20/2014 08:17 PM
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.
DC's back up is?
HL-20 had a proposed chute which is seen as not required for DC... Its lifting body generates enough cross range and recall that reasonably  low 161 kts landing speed during ALT 1.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: dchill on 06/21/2014 02:39 AM
DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 

If the world had millions of people trying to land using rocket thrusters and back-up parachutes every day, the news would probably take 15 minutes longer to get done listing all the fatalities. 

Structure is inherently more reliable than fabric tucked up in a ball and/or rocket motors (given nearly equivalent TPS issues on the initial reentry phase - and if you're only coming back from LEO).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/21/2014 02:04 PM
DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 
Which airlines use lifting bodies?

NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/21/2014 03:03 PM


NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle
Two main reasons. One being the USAF wanted to be able to make once around polar orbits, which required a very high crossrange. Two was that the complex shape of the body would result in difficult payload bay dimensions and subsytem layouts. Number one was the real driver though.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/21/2014 03:50 PM
DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 
Which airlines use lifting bodies?

NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle

Oh come on, Ed. You know very well the reason they used wings per se rather than a lifting body: size/mass of the vehicle in the first place; cargo down-mass requirements, and cross-range. Had they gone straight from their small lifting body experiments to an operational space vehicle, it would have looked very much like DC does.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/21/2014 09:52 PM
Oh come on, Ed. You know very well the reason they used wings per se rather than a lifting body: size/mass of the vehicle in the first place; cargo down-mass requirements, and cross-range. Had they gone straight from their small lifting body experiments to an operational space vehicle, it would have looked very much like DC does.
NASA traded lifting bodies with winged designs for Shuttle during the early studies, but went with wings very early.  The add-on USAF cross range requirements forced use of a double-delta wing rather than the original straight wing, but lifting bodies were already out of it by then.  The early lifting bodies had stability problems and landed hot.  They got better later.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 06/22/2014 10:43 PM
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Darren_Hensley on 06/23/2014 08:59 AM
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 06/23/2014 04:49 PM
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/23/2014 05:11 PM
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)

how old is that CBM design anyhow?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 06/23/2014 07:11 PM
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)
He just answered my question. And I was trying to find out the suitability for CRS 2 of CST-100. Let's remember that their pressure vessel is made out of a single billet, formed and machined. Thus, I understand that making adaptations is not that easy. And CBM is very important to CRS 2.
As stated before, adding an unpressurized section is not so simple with the CST-100, and the CBM seems incompatible. Which is a shame given that it is a lot roomier inside. Save for the CBM CST-100 would make an amazing pressurized cargo transport.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/24/2014 12:11 AM
how old is that CBM design anyhow?


The mechanical design passed the Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 PDR at MSFC in the spring of 1993. The general dimensions came well before that (circa 1988 towards the end of Phase B studies).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/24/2014 12:33 AM
how old is that CBM design anyhow?


The mechanical design passed the Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 PDR at MSFC in the spring of 1993. The general dimensions came well before that (circa 1988 towards the end of Phase B studies).

The CBM is great at joining modules together permanently - much easier than welding them.   Unfortunately, unlike LEGO bricks, it does not pull apart easily.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 06/24/2014 12:40 AM
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.

Quote
Assuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.

-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 06/24/2014 12:44 AM
Quote
“We’ve got a great relationship with Space Adventures,” John Mulholland told Space News in November of 2012. “I love the idea of flying people up to the International Space Station. It brings additional awareness to all the good things that are being done on the space station. You build advocacy. So we really hope to be able to partner with Space Adventures and NASA to fly customers in extra seats to the International Space Station.”

Good to hear. Shame we haven't heard it recently.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 06/24/2014 01:04 AM
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.

Quote
Assuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.

-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.

Nice find! Great info on a fairly reclusive program. I wish there was enough money for all 3 vendors because they are all pretty exciting.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 06/24/2014 01:16 AM
Quote
“We’ve got a great relationship with Space Adventures,” John Mulholland told Space News in November of 2012. “I love the idea of flying people up to the International Space Station. It brings additional awareness to all the good things that are being done on the space station. You build advocacy. So we really hope to be able to partner with Space Adventures and NASA to fly customers in extra seats to the International Space Station.”

Good to hear. Shame we haven't heard it recently.

References to a 5th seat in CST imply that Boeing is protecting the option.

Not only would a tourist seat require NASA's approval, on a $ per kg. basis NASA cargo is pretty lucrative.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/24/2014 02:11 AM
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
But wait.  Solid rocket motors are far too dangerous for human launches.  There will be vibrations that will shake the crew to death, and those motors are far too skinny (the rocket will surely tip over), and when the rocket blows up chucks of the solids will set the parachutes on fire.  This is all Griffin's fault.  Etc. ........ 

Appropriate metacommunicative pictorial representation of a facial expression goes here.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 06/24/2014 02:27 AM

But wait.   ....snip...   There will be vibrations that will shake the crew to death, and......snip ......, and when the rocket blows up chucks of the solids will set the parachutes on fire.  This is all Griffin's fault.  Etc. ........ 

Those all happen to be true for a particular vehicle, so what is your point?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/24/2014 02:55 AM
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.

Quote
Assuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.

-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.

Thanks for the link.

Sounds like Boeing are in this for long haul,  especially as they are also targeting Bigelow's customers. Would be interesting to know how many commercial customers Bigelow has.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: happyflower on 06/24/2014 03:08 AM
This really bothered me. I understand prepare for the worst hope for the best, but there is such a thing as crushing the spirit of the engineers.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/boeing-wont-bui.html

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 06/24/2014 05:21 AM
Good article and this confirms that they are looking beyond ISS for commercial human space flight which some have doubted.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/24/2014 02:38 PM
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/24/2014 03:12 PM
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?

think 5-9 passengers
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/24/2014 03:23 PM
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Good review of the latest CST-100 event and status of the program in general. Worth reading.

Quote
Assuming Boeing does win a contract from NASA to provide launch services for its astronauts and international crew members to the International Space Station, Boeing and ULA state the first launch (no crew) will take place early in 2017, with the first crewed mission commanded by Christopher Ferguson to take place mid-2017. Boeing’s goal is to have the first mission dock to the ISS, not merely make an approach.

-OPF-3 engine shop refurbishment complete, shuttle processing area still being renovated.
-Crew access tower design "96% complete"
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
-Boeing wants to sell tourist excursions to ISS via Space Adventures.

more interesting:

Senator Nelson spoke next. “This is a celebration of a public-private partnership. We are at the dawn of a new era,” he said. He suggested NASA could support more than one company in the next phase of the commercial crew program if it receives the $805 million proposed by the Senate. “That’s enough money for NASA to do the competition for at least two companies, and maybe more,” he said. “That, of course, is up to NASA as they evaluate all the proposals.”


down select to one would give you what?    A faster program, or a complete program?
Run some thinking SpaceX DV2 needs 4-500 million to complete with 80% paid by NASA
Boeing?
SNC ?
Would love to know the numbers.



Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Malderi on 06/24/2014 04:16 PM
Always thought originally baselining the Atlas 402 was a good idea. Gives you a lot of room for growth. A few years ago it was the 412, now the 422, and they've got an easy trade path (money for mass) if they need to grow more.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 06/25/2014 04:08 PM
This really bothered me. I understand prepare for the worst hope for the best, but there is such a thing as crushing the spirit of the engineers.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/boeing-wont-bui.html

Of course there would be layoffs.  Outside of NASA, there is no commercially viable market to transport people to LEO for the reasonably foreseeable future.  Why spend money on a product with no near-term customers?  I really don't understand why people are shocked by this.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 06/25/2014 06:23 PM
A little less armwaving and chainyanking please. Trimmed.

A note: Disagreeing with mod actions is allowed. You do so by doing a "report to moderator" or by PMing Chris.... he holds all of our briefs and if he thinks one of us screwed up he lets us know in no uncertain terms....

You do NOT do so on forum, and especially not in a way that casts aspersions on others. Posts doing so get removed, usually with no explanation.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sghill on 06/25/2014 07:21 PM
This really bothered me. I understand prepare for the worst hope for the best, but there is such a thing as crushing the spirit of the engineers.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/boeing-wont-bui.html

Of course there would be layoffs.  Outside of NASA, there is no commercially viable market to transport people to LEO for the reasonably foreseeable future.  Why spend money on a product with no near-term customers?  I really don't understand why people are shocked by this.

No kidding.  Boeing is a big boy.  It's used to this game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw

Fast forward to 1:47:00 if you want to watch the tears and cheers.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 06/27/2014 12:33 PM
Boeing has some flashy 3D printed rocket engine news to promote if they wished.  But mostly its not Boeing's style.   The story is still great!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1219927#msg1219927

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sghill on 07/02/2014 05:50 PM
Well, Boeing won $2 billion in F-18 derivative contracts and $2.8 billion for the center core of the SLS today.  I think they won't cry in their beer too loudly if they don't land commercial crew too.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/boeing-gets-contract-to-build-more-fighter-jets/11932069/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-boeing-gets-28-billion-nasa-contract-20140702,0,1896819.story
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/03/2014 01:31 PM
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?

think 5-9 passengers
So assuming that they baselined for 5 passengers, then we still only have about 400kg more weight (assuming weight for people, extra chairs, spacesuits, etc) for 9 people. This still sounds to me like their capsule is very heavy for what it does (and compared to Dragon v2).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/03/2014 06:14 PM
-Confirms AV 422 (2 SRBs)
This part bothers me a lot. Is the CST 100 really that heavy?

think 5-9 passengers
So assuming that they baselined for 5 passengers, then we still only have about 400kg more weight (assuming weight for people, extra chairs, spacesuits, etc) for 9 people. This still sounds to me like their capsule is very heavy for what it does (and compared to Dragon v2).

Do you have mass numbers for the two spacecraft, or are you going off LV performance?

F9 does far more kg to ISS orbit than AV421 (don't know how much extra performance the Dual Centaur adds, but I doubt it adds 3000kg).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 07/03/2014 07:50 PM
The DragonFly EIS lists a dry mass of 6,350.3 kg. How close that is to a crew V2 is up for discussion.

This AmericaSpace article gives CST-100 a mass of 10 tons.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=40183
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 07/04/2014 01:39 AM
Dual Centaur should add about 2500kg.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: dj_fan on 07/04/2014 03:46 PM

Bucket List

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VYIUi9H3vM&list=PL2jATyVdY-7EXxvWX1KdI60Eb1IWKFArf
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/08/2014 05:38 PM
The DragonFly EIS lists a dry mass of 6,350.3 kg. How close that is to a crew V2 is up for discussion.

This AmericaSpace article gives CST-100 a mass of 10 tons.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=40183
Wonder where the huge difference in mass comes from, especially since the CST 100 does not seem to be any more capable than the Dragon V2.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2014 05:52 PM

Wonder where the huge difference in mass comes from, especially since the CST 100 does not seem to be any more capable than the Dragon V2.

It is obvious.  Propellant.  Dry vs wet mass
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/08/2014 06:34 PM

Is it?

It is right in the words:  "The DragonFly EIS lists a dry mass of 6,350.3 kg"

Also missing the trunk.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 07/08/2014 06:48 PM
CST-100 is also larger in diameter and Dragon's PICA-X heat shield is very light (Gen 1 = 0.27 g/cm^3)**

** Link.... (http://136.142.82.187/eng12/history/spring2013/pdf/3131.pdf)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/08/2014 08:28 PM
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx)
Quote
Centennial, Colo., (July 7, 2014) – United Launch Alliance (ULA) recently completed a Critical Design Review (CDR) of the launch site accommodations that will support commercial crew launches of Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation (CST) -100 at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) in Florida.

The CDR, supported by Boeing, NASA, and the Air Force, approved the design for the Crew Access Tower, Crew Access Arm as well as the White Room that will allow the flight crews the ability to safely ingress and egress Boeing’s CST-100 crew module for launch. In addition, the team reviewed the conceptual design of the emergency egress system which is similar in design to the space shuttle basket escape system.

More at the link.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/08/2014 08:46 PM
No mention of DC support in the new tower.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 07/08/2014 09:38 PM
No mention of DC support in the new tower.

no but some news in there....

“This was a critical milestone to ensure all elements are in place to begin the construction as early as this fall

Once the work begins at SLC-41, the construction of the new elements to support human spaceflight will take approximately 18 months and will not impact any scheduled launches at the pad.   

“The beauty of the plan is the integrated fashion in which the construction will be handled,” said Plese. “We will be constructing each segment of the new tower and access arm at an off-site location and performing assembly at the pad between launches. This allows ULA to continue its full manifest of launches from SLC-41 while preparing the pad for future commercial crew missions.”


Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/08/2014 11:17 PM
Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?

"ensure all elements are in place to begin the construction as early as"

Means:

"Construction begins as soon as the check clears"
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 07/09/2014 12:33 AM

Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?


Unplanned.  Will only happen if Boeing wins.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/10/2014 10:37 PM
Do the crew board capsule before or after LV is fuelled?.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 07/10/2014 11:22 PM
Do the crew board capsule before or after LV is fuelled?.

After.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 07/11/2014 01:30 AM
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx)

Here is the rest of the image from their facebook page.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jcc on 07/16/2014 01:29 AM

Among the questions
1) anyone know when shovel turning day is?


Unplanned.  Will only happen if Boeing wins.

What if SNC wins? They will need a tower to launch from an Atlas V.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2014 02:05 AM
Then it will happen too
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ike17055 on 07/16/2014 02:45 AM
That is a fine looking spacecraft.  Seems very reminiscent of the original plans for Orbital Space Plane, isn't it?  How does this compare to Saturn IB?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 07/16/2014 04:04 AM
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-successfully-completes-critical-design.aspx)

Here is the rest of the image from their facebook page.
Thanks for finding that. Some things look elegant and some, not so much. This would be one of the latter, I'm afraid. Something just seems really ungainly. Not that it matters at all.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/16/2014 08:33 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Quote
Mulholland won't say how much less it will cost NASA to fly the CST-100 than it currently pays the Russians, only to say it will be "significantly below" $70 million a seat. He cites competitive reasons for not disclosing a figure. He also won't say how much money Boeing has invested of its own money in developing the space taxi, though he says NASA's $460 million investment "has paid the preponderance of the development work to date."

Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
Planned manifest is pad abort, uncrewed mission, crewed mission.
Seats are 3D printed apparently?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2014 09:29 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures

On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/16/2014 11:12 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures

On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.

Companies can propose either model, but I think rental model is starting to emerge as the favored approach. Pilot just takes up space that could be sold as a tourist seat or NASA cargo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Malderi on 07/17/2014 05:40 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures

On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.

Companies can propose either model, but I think rental model is starting to emerge as the favored approach. Pilot just takes up space that could be sold as a tourist seat or NASA cargo.

Crew training is still a consideration. Remember early ISS - they launched a Soyuz with 3 people, every 6 months, just to rotate the lifeboat, and rotated the actual crews on Shuttle missions on the middeck. This whole exercise was done, 100%, to reduce the training burden on the ISS crews by removing the Soyuz-specific training. CST-100 is planned to have considerable automation so maybe the training time is less, but it's still something that'll be looked at.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2014 06:08 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166)
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures

On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.

When the smoke clears NASA will probably decide if one of its astronauts is on board then it will want that astronaut to fly the spacecraft otherwise let the commercial company do it.  No need to bring an astronaut back from say the Moon base.

This is a managerial problem not a technical one.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: pechisbeque on 08/07/2014 07:54 PM
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Malderi on 08/07/2014 08:04 PM
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.

The CST-100 + Cygnus also looks pretty crazy, but a modified Cygnus for a hab module seems like a good match for some tourism missions, if they're considering that...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: abaddon on 08/07/2014 08:05 PM
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

Presumably it's this:

Quote
A CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/07/2014 08:54 PM
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

Presumably it's this:

Quote
A CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.

Service modules normally attach to the back of capsules rather than dock to the top.  Could the big module in the picture contain sufficient propellant to push the CST-100 to GEO, EML-1/2 or LLO?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 08/07/2014 09:49 PM

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

That image has been floating around for awhile now. I think it originated on this guy's blog here: https://astrowright.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/personal-orbital-spacecraft-within-reach/ and is not from any kind of internal effort at Boeing/ULA.

Likeliest explanation in my opinion is that someone at AJ/R ****ed up and just grabbed the image off a quick Google search. Hopefully they cleared using it with the creator (he doesn't seem to be credited in the PR). It probably would have taken about 30min. to get a current image from  Boeing... (grrr.).
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.

Need the higher thrust for attitude control during aborts in the lower atmosphere.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/08/2014 08:10 AM
The smaller 100lb engines can be used for ISS boost. This is only CC vehicle that can offer this service that I know about. A big plus for Boeing come down selection time.

NB the excessive 24 x 1,500lb thrusters are needed for redundancy for LAS,  same reason Dragon has redundant Super Dracos.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Burninate on 08/08/2014 05:49 PM

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

That image has been floating around for awhile now. I think it originated on this guy's blog here: https://astrowright.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/personal-orbital-spacecraft-within-reach/ and is not from any kind of internal effort at Boeing/ULA.

Likeliest explanation in my opinion is that someone at AJ/R ****ed up and just grabbed the image off a quick Google search. Hopefully they cleared using it with the creator (he doesn't seem to be credited in the PR). It probably would have taken about 30min. to get a current image from  Boeing... (grrr.).
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract (http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract)

Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.

Need the higher thrust for attitude control during aborts in the lower atmosphere.

He has the scale wrong as well.  The Cygnus diameter is 3.07m, while the CST-100 diameter is 4.56m, a full 50% larger.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 08/18/2014 03:05 PM
Boeing says that it might continue at least until CRS2 is awarded if it is downselected under CCtCap:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-nears-multibillion-dollar-decision-commercial-space-taxis-n180986

Quote
In the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 08/19/2014 01:31 AM
Boeing says that it might continue at least until CRS2 is awarded if it is downselected under CCtCap:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-nears-multibillion-dollar-decision-commercial-space-taxis-n180986

Quote
In the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
Taking a step back and looking at the business case is consistent with what they have always said. The new angle is wrt CRS-2. Perhaps they think they can make a go using CST as a cargo platform in lieu of a crew contract.

Sounds like a decent back-up plan, if they can be competitive against Orbital in the next CRS round.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 08/21/2014 05:46 PM
just hit the wire....

Boeing says completed key design review for space taxi

http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-says-completed-key-design-review-space-taxi-170631601--finance.html

some points made...

making it the only one of four rival bidders to finish the NASA work on time, company officials said on Thursday.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: BrianNH on 08/21/2014 06:00 PM
Quote
[Boeing VP and program manager John] Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design.

So they are are working on a cargo version.  I hadn't heard that, but it shouldn't be surprising.  Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/21/2014 09:02 PM
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.
Alternatively use a larger propulsion module to enable station boosting.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/21/2014 09:28 PM
Measuring in mass means they can get 99% of the way there without touching the avionics... :)

One is reminded by Kistler...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 08/21/2014 09:36 PM
Measuring in mass, means they can get to 100% without having anything near a functional spacecraft!
I wonder what beancounter got a bonus for suggesting that metric?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 09:57 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rifleman on 08/21/2014 10:45 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 08/21/2014 11:12 PM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 08/21/2014 11:21 PM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Woah! That's exactly what I said. But not in so many words...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/22/2014 12:01 AM
Have we all noticed that "measured in mass" is not actually a quote?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:02 AM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?

The sad fact is that the press and American public are so woefully scientifically/mathematically illiterate that no layperson will even ask that question.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:04 AM
Have we all noticed that "measured in mass" is not actually a quote?

"Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design."

How is that not a quote?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: c3infinity on 08/22/2014 12:08 AM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?

Mulholland gave a one-sentence summary of how far along they are in the design process of a complex hardware development project. Measuring that by how much of the vehicle they have designed doesn't seem unreasonable. Would percent complete measured by part count be better? Either one is obviously going to be a gross simplification of the overall status of the design, but gets across his point to the journalist and the general public that they have a majority of the vehicle designed. I'm no project manager, but the ire this one statement has generated seems a bit much.

(Of course, the snarky comeback to his statement would be to ask how much their flight software weighs.)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:14 AM


Mulholland gave a one-sentence summary of how far along they are in the design process of a complex hardware development project. Measuring that by how much of the vehicle they have designed doesn't seem unreasonable. Would percent complete measured by part count be better? Either one is obviously going to be a gross simplification of the overall status of the design, but gets across his point to the journalist and the general public that they have a majority of the vehicle designed.

The "ire" is from engineers who have worked on similar projects and know that a metric of design completion based on mass is utterly absurd and designed only to give the false impression that they are much farther along than they really are.

Realistic metrics are percent complete by time/schedule/milestones, or percent complete by dollars spent versus total expected cost. Percent complete by mass is total BS for public/political consumption.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/22/2014 12:23 AM

"Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design."

How is that not a quote? Unless he didn't actually say what the reporter said he did.
It's not a quote because it's not in quotation marks.

The reporter took a larger statement and used their own scientific/mathematic literacy (and writing ability) to create a summation for their readers. It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 08/22/2014 12:25 AM
Boeing engineers should get a job at SpaceX as soon as they can... They have been served notice already?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 12:33 AM
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.

I disagree.  The advantage of using the same vehicle for cargo as you do for crew is that you don't lose valuable non-human "stuff" on a cargo run if there is an abort.  Sometimes that "stuff" can be unique and hard to replace, so the owners would much rather fly on a vehicle that could safeguard the "stuff" by returning it safely to Earth.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: PahTo on 08/22/2014 12:34 AM

I've tried to keep clam about Boeing, but given the recent posts, will offer this front-row view of what I've seen around here, while remaining as neutral as possible (i.e. I don't work for Boeing).

Boeing changed dramatically, right about the time they acquired MD.  In reality, I think it was the other way around.  The corporate HQ moved to Chicago, then the commercial airplane division made huge demands of local and state govts here and elsewhere, and the military branch followed with the national govt (see tanker contracts) while at the same time making huge demands (and huge insults) on/to their workforce--the best people in the business.

The commercial airplane division has been the bread winner for the company from the start.  They have been the real risk takers and innovators.  From the Red Barn to the Dash-80/707 (google Tex Johnston and Lake Washington) to the 747 and the 777 (was at Everett for the initial rollout of that one!) Boeing has led the world in the best aircraft--period.
The efforts of the commercial side fed directly to the military side (see B-17, B-29, B-47, B-52).

That has all changed, and it is strange to watch the "leadership" continue to undo all that has made the company great (and a ton of money over the decades).  Recently the head of the commercial airplane division remarked that he looked forward to "making his workforce cower".  Lovely...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 08/22/2014 12:40 AM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?

The sad fact is that the press and American public are so woefully scientifically/mathematically illiterate that no layperson will even ask that question.
Well, then it's a good thing that neither the press or the public are deciding its' fate. NASA knows the real situation and I trust they will make the correct decision.

That statement didn't really raise my ire as much as the statement about being the only company out of the four to complete all milestones within the given period of performance. That's technically true but not all milestones are created equal.

The real question is, who's this PR for? Not NASA, they know what's really going on. The public? They just want to see something fly if they even pay that much attention in the first pace. Certain members of Congress? (Don't want to jump the shark again) So who is this message trying to influence? And why?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:42 AM
It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.

And I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a Boeing exec on technical details.  ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:49 AM

The real question is, who's this PR for? Not NASA, they know what's really going on. The public? They just want to see something fly if they even pay that much attention in the first pace. Certain members of Congress? (Don't want to jump the shark again) So who is this message trying to influence? And why?

You've seen Glengarry Glen Ross, right? ABC = Always Be Closing.

Yes, NASA knows what's really going on. But do scientifically illiterate Congresspeople who control the purse strings? No.

They're just working the refs, like an NBA game. Spin until you win.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 08/22/2014 12:50 AM
It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.

And I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a Boeing exec on technical details.  ;)
I don't get that sense from Mr. Mulholland. And nothing he was quoted as saying was technically untrue. He knows what's coming down and he's doing his best to keep a positive public display. He's in a difficult situation. On some level, there will be those in the industry and out, who say, "Hey look, Big Boeing jut got its' arse kicked from little old SpaceX." That's totally not what I believe or would say but the optics of them losing, if and when they do, will not be pleasant. And Mr. Mulholland did the best he could with what he was given. Talk to Jim McNerney if you have complaints.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Kabloona on 08/22/2014 12:55 AM
I have no complaints. I believe what he said is entirely true. That isn't the question.

The question is whether "percent design complete by mass" is a realistic metric, and anyone who has designed aerospace systems comprising structure, propulsion, avionics, and software knows that it isn't.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 08/22/2014 01:13 AM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.

I'd think it's the other way around. Cygnus covers the bulky cargo and trash disposal. You are correct about the unpressurized cargo of course. Cygnus could go to a full sized CBM hatch if desired, CST can't.

Assuming their CRS2 proposal is a pretty straight CST-100 derivative (remove some systems and abort motors maybe windows, etc) I don't think it's really competitive at all sadly.

I hope they can at least use SEC.

The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.

I disagree.  The advantage of using the same vehicle for cargo as you do for crew is that you don't lose valuable non-human "stuff" on a cargo run if there is an abort.  Sometimes that "stuff" can be unique and hard to replace, so the owners would much rather fly on a vehicle that could safeguard the "stuff" by returning it safely to Earth.

Most of the ISS cargo isn't inherently valuable. Food, clothes, experiments, etc. The theoretical value of any cargo saved by the LAS has to be traded against the performance you lost on every successful mission.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 08/22/2014 01:30 AM
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/22/2014 01:49 AM
Yes, NASA knows what's really going on. But do scientifically illiterate Congresspeople who control the purse strings? No.

They're just working the refs, like an NBA game. Spin until you win.

Yes. This is almost like an admission of losing the race. As if gearing up for a different game...

A lot of the cost in commercial crew are around CREW related items not in a cargo vehicle. Perhaps they were competing with Dragon and not Dragon-2? Perhaps that still is the game. It certainly does not come across as confident.

They could offer more pressurized volume than Dragon as well as capabilities of HTV to boot, while retaining unpressurized cargo.

It makes sense in that CST-100 was piggybacked off of a failed OSP bid, so why not a CRS-2 bid based of a failed CCtCap one. Members of Congress would like to throw Boeing a "mulligan" here.

But that would assume that either OrbATK or SpaceX would "screw up" ... or be overcommitted. Both seem rather solid for CRS right now. What would be the "hidden advantage"?

While I have a rather low opinion of the minions of Congress, they don't like to become too obvious, for fear of painting targets on themselves ...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/22/2014 01:51 AM
In 2014
Quote
Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review,


SpX cargo capsule first visited ISS 2012
Cygnus cargo capsule first visited  ISS 2013

?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 08/22/2014 01:55 AM
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.

You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?

Maybe it's just a fun way of measuring progress trotted out for public consumption. Reuters is mainstream media, not L2. As an internal metric it's not useless, it helps you know how safe your mass margins are.

Maybe Ferguson is actually a passionate guy, leading a relatively small team inside a much larger organization. Maybe he's got a real connection to the work and client. Maybe he really cares about the people who work for him.

I like Ferguson, and I think he shoots straight. You think Musk and Sirangelo haven't been feeding us carefully qualified half truths? It frustrates me that people can just slag the guy and nobody cares.

Quote was from Mulholland. Everything I said still applies.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 08/22/2014 02:07 AM
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682

People are estimating 16-20m3 (I bet usable volume is maybe half that? I'm too tired to fire up CAD right now).

I've seen "more than 1100kg" and "up to 1300kg" for cargo capacity.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/22/2014 03:00 AM
Quote
[Boeing VP and program manager John] Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design.

Measured by mass, I have personally completed more than 90% of the design of my new rocket, which will replace both the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.1.  I've decided to use RP-1 and LOX.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: meekGee on 08/22/2014 04:34 AM
FWIW, I've seen "percent completed by mass" used before in aerospace.  It was idiotic then and is idiotic now, but the Boeing exec did not invent it.

That said, Boeing charged the most, delivered the least, played politics, and demonstrated lack of commitment.  It's worked for them in other contexts in the pasts, but the times, they are a-changin'.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 08/22/2014 07:28 AM
Boeing Commercial Crew Program Completes Critical Design and Safety Reviews

NASA approves final two milestones in Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Phase (CCiCap)


HOUSTON, Aug. 21, 2014 –  Boeing [NYSE: BA] recently completed the Phase Two Spacecraft Safety Review of its Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft and the Critical Design Review (CDR) of its integrated systems, meeting all of the company’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) milestones on time and on budget.

The reviews were Boeing’s final two milestones in the current phase of its partnership with NASA. Completed in July, the CDR milestone marks a significant step in reaching the ultimate design that will be used for the spacecraft, launch vehicle and related systems. Propulsion, software, avionics, landing, power and docking systems were among 44 individual CDRs conducted as part of the broader review.

“The challenge of a CDR is to ensure all the pieces and sub-systems are working together,” said John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew program manager. “Integration of these systems is key. Now we look forward to bringing the CST-100 to life.”

The CST-100 is being developed as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which aims to make crew transportation systems available for low-Earth orbit destinations such as the International Space Station by 2017. The capsule could accommodate up to seven crew members or a mix of crew and cargo and features a weld less structure, wireless internet and Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.

The Phase Two Spacecraft Safety Review included an overall hazard analysis of the spacecraft, identifying life-threatening situations and ensuring that the current design mitigated any safety risks.

More information about the future of human space exploration can be found at www.beyondearth.com.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/22/2014 08:09 AM
I like Ferguson, and I think he shoots straight. You think Musk and Sirangelo haven't been feeding us carefully qualified half truths? It frustrates me that people can just slag the guy and nobody cares.

If you don't think people jump on any perceived weaknesses in anything Musk and Sirangelo say, you haven't been paying much attention.  The NSF forums are equal-opportunity bashers.

Anyway, whether people also question the statements of Musk and Sirangelo is irrelevant.  If there's a weakness in what Ferguson says, it's perfectly legitimate to make a point of that.  If you have an issue with people not doing that to Musk or Sirangelo, bring it up yourself in the appropriate parts of the forum.

Ferguson may be a great guy in all sorts of ways, but that's really irrelevant to how people react to a particular statement he made.  If he made a dumb statement, I'm glad people are calling him on that, as they should on any dumb statement someone in a position of authority publicly makes.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: DGH on 08/22/2014 09:55 AM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: DGH on 08/22/2014 10:00 AM
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682

People are estimating 16-20m3 (I bet usable volume is maybe half that? I'm too tired to fire up CAD right now).

I've seen "more than 1100kg" and "up to 1300kg" for cargo capacity.

Please do not take those numbers too seriously.
At best they are a guess.
I have no idea if they are correct.

In 2011 they said 1164 kg and 7 crew.
Again old so trust level is low.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf (http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Burninate on 08/22/2014 12:30 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.

I'd think it's the other way around. Cygnus covers the bulky cargo and trash disposal. You are correct about the unpressurized cargo of course. Cygnus could go to a full sized CBM hatch if desired, CST can't.

The proposal is out there to turn Cygnus into a (perhaps not reusable) return capsule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29372.0), via a HIAD, in the HEART test (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/07_HEART%20Flight%20Test%20Overview_N.%20Cheatwood1.pdf).  I can't find anything from the HIAD team less than a year old though, despite the fact that they should have been on the PR warpath for IRVE-4 this past spring.

The Cygnus team also seems pretty damn flexible as far as the scale of their 3m diameter tin can. The 2-segment craft is being replaced by a 3-segment 'enhanced' craft as they develop Antares further, with a 4-segment craft proposed if anyone wants to fund it, and I think there were whispers of an even longer one.

I have to wonder what they would charge under a commercial contract for a 4.5m diameter tin can to launch on Falcon Heavy... and whether it would be substantially cheaper than the Japanese and European entrants.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2014 12:54 PM

I have to wonder what they would charge under a commercial contract for a 4.5m diameter tin can to launch on Falcon Heavy... and whether it would be substantially cheaper than the Japanese and European entrants.

Not really a viable idea.
1.  It doesn't use an OSC launch vehicle
2.  If there was a need, Spacex would do something similar.
3.  OSC doesn't manufacture the pressurized modules.   The Italian pressure vessel manufacturer has made the 4.5m Spacehab modules, Nodes, MPLM's, Columbus, ATV modules; and they or somebody else could make the spacecraft vs OSC.
4.  Spacex is not the solution for everything

This is a CST-100 thread and not a Spacex thread
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/22/2014 01:01 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.

I'd think it's the other way around. Cygnus covers the bulky cargo and trash disposal. You are correct about the unpressurized cargo of course. Cygnus could go to a full sized CBM hatch if desired, CST can't.

The proposal is out there to turn Cygnus into a (perhaps not reusable) return capsule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29372.0), via a HIAD, in the HEART test (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/07_HEART%20Flight%20Test%20Overview_N.%20Cheatwood1.pdf).  I can't find anything from the HIAD team less than a year old though, despite the fact that they should have been on the PR warpath for IRVE-4 this past spring.

The Cygnus team also seems pretty damn flexible as far as the scale of their 3m diameter tin can. The 2-segment craft is being replaced by a 3-segment 'enhanced' craft as they develop Antares further, with a 4-segment craft proposed if anyone wants to fund it, and I think there were whispers of an even longer one.

I have to wonder what they would charge under a commercial contract for a 4.5m diameter tin can to launch on Falcon Heavy... and whether it would be substantially cheaper than the Japanese and European entrants.
ESA is out of the ATV game at this point, and ISTM Japan's HTV 2 plans may hinge on if they choose to fly Dream Chaser or not.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/22/2014 04:02 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rpapo on 08/22/2014 04:20 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust.  If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself.  It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).

The strength is another matter.  You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 08/22/2014 04:25 PM
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust.  If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself.  It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).

The strength is another matter.  You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.

Point 1. Since when is this a problem? This (rotation of ISS for reboost) always happened for Shuttle reboosts. ISS will also change attitude for some docking events.

Point 2. The LAS engines - being liquid - can be throttled. But if that is insufficient, CST-100 has several RCS thrusters that can do the job. (presuming they use the same propellant source)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rpapo on 08/22/2014 05:00 PM
Point 1. Since when is this a problem? This (rotation of ISS for reboost) always happened for Shuttle reboosts. ISS will also change attitude for some docking events.

Point 2. The LAS engines - being liquid - can be throttled. But if that is insufficient, CST-100 has several RCS thrusters that can do the job. (presuming they use the same propellant source)

(1) Depends on how much a pain in the neck doing that flip is.  It would have been less of a problem when the station was less complete.  I find no record of the last shuttle flight having done this, and it would have made sense to do it on that mission, of all missions.  Do we know when was the last time the Shuttle reboosted the ISS?  In any case, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression the Shuttle could pull the ISS because of how far outboard the RCS nozzles were (compared to those of a capsule).

(2) Question: It sounds like, from what you're saying, that they did indeed elect to have a pusher escape system for the CST-100?  Wikipedia indicated that it was decided upon, but didn't say what they chose.  Artwork out on the web shows the service module both with and without nozzles on it.

We need some real astronauts on this forum.  They would KNOW.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lars_J on 08/22/2014 05:05 PM
Point 1. Since when is this a problem? This (rotation of ISS for reboost) always happened for Shuttle reboosts. ISS will also change attitude for some docking events.

Point 2. The LAS engines - being liquid - can be throttled. But if that is insufficient, CST-100 has several RCS thrusters that can do the job. (presuming they use the same propellant source)

(1) Depends on how much a pain in the neck doing that flip is.  It would have been less of a problem when the station was less complete.  I find no record of the last shuttle flight having done this, and it would have made sense to do it on that mission, of all missions.  Do we know when was the last time the Shuttle reboosted the ISS?  In any case, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression the Shuttle could pull the ISS because of how far outboard the RCS nozzles were (compared to those of a capsule).

(2) Question: It sounds like, from what you're saying, that they did indeed elect to have a pusher escape system for the CST-100?  Wikipedia indicated that it was decided upon, but didn't say what they chose.  Artwork out on the web shows the service module both with and without nozzles on it.

We need some real astronauts on this forum.  They would KNOW.

About 1... No, Shuttle never "pulled" ISS. Where did you get this from?

About 2... Yes, CST-100 has a pusher escape system. By definition, since it is located in the SM. How else do you think CST-100 would be able to dock to ISS with a "puller" LAS still attached?

A lot (all?) of your assumptions in the post seem to be based on wrong information
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2014 05:07 PM

(1) Depends on how much a pain in the neck doing that flip is.  It would have been less of a problem when the station was less complete.  I find no record of the last shuttle flight having done this, and it would have made sense to do it on that mission, of all missions.  Do we know when was the last time the Shuttle reboosted the ISS?  In any case, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression the Shuttle could pull the ISS because of how far outboard the RCS nozzles were (compared to those of a capsule).

(2) Question: It sounds like, from what you're saying, that they did indeed elect to have a pusher escape system for the CST-100?  Wikipedia indicated that it was decided upon, but didn't say what they chose.  Artwork out on the web shows the service module both with and without nozzles on it.

3.  We need some real astronauts on this forum.  They would KNOW.

1.  Not really, the shuttle helped.   The shuttle used downward firing thrusters.
`
2.  The big nozzles are the escape thrusters

3.  Not necessarily
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rpapo on 08/22/2014 05:16 PM
About 2... Yes, CST-100 has a pusher escape system. By definition, since it is located in the SM. How else do you think CST-100 would be able to dock to ISS with a "puller" LAS still attached?
Never said it would have a puller LAS still attached.  Those fly away.  Anybody who has lived through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (and paid any attention) knows that much.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mr. mark on 08/22/2014 06:24 PM
Uninformed question: Why does Boeing's CST-100 completed Milestones not need aborts and other features that SpaceX or Sierra Nevada need to include?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/22/2014 06:26 PM
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 07:20 PM
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.

And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rpapo on 08/22/2014 09:17 PM
Well, just like any bidding process, there were better offers and lesser offers.  Just like what happened with CRS contracts.  SpaceX was the low bidder, and Orbital the next one.  That Orbital was charging more for what it was delivering is immaterial.  Neither company knew the other's bid ahead of time, and the two companies' bids were accepted.  I don't know who lost, nor the reasons why, but I'm pretty sure that cost was not the only consideration.

Likewise here, except that there were three companies that won that round (and four who lost out).  Or 2.5 winners, depending on how you want to look at it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Avron on 08/22/2014 09:41 PM
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.

And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.

So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ?  never mind what funding purchased?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 10:56 PM
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.

And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.

So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ?  never mind what funding purchased?

Short answer is no.

Go look at the CCiCap Selection Statement to see what NASA's rationale was.  Boeing ranked high on their technical approach and level of confidence (no doubt because they have lots of experience), but moderate on the business side for "level of effectiveness" for their low level of corporate investment.  Both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX rated higher than Boeing for the "Business Information" evaluation portion.

But Boeing's ranking overall meant that they merited the funding they got on CCiCap, because of where Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were at that point.  But now we're two years later, and there is new progress and evaluation criteria that will be used for CCtCap.

After the winners are announced I would think NASA will again release a selection statement to explain their rationale.  I think it's not only important for the contenders, both winners and losers, but for the industry as a whole to see what strategies worked and which ones didn't - and why?  Because I'm sure most of us are hoping there will be more COTS/CCiCap type efforts in the future... they sure seem to be cost effective.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rcoppola on 08/22/2014 11:10 PM
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.

And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.

So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ?  never mind what funding purchased?

Short answer is no.

Go look at the CCiCap Selection Statement to see what NASA's rationale was.  Boeing ranked high on their technical approach and level of confidence (no doubt because they have lots of experience), but moderate on the business side for "level of effectiveness" for their low level of corporate investment.  Both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX rated higher than Boeing for the "Business Information" evaluation portion.

But Boeing's ranking overall meant that they merited the funding they got on CCiCap, because of where Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were at that point.  But now we're two years later, and there is new progress and evaluation criteria that will be used for CCtCap.

After the winners are announced I would think NASA will again release a selection statement to explain their rationale.  I think it's not only important for the contenders, both winners and losers, but for the industry as a whole to see what strategies worked and which ones didn't - and why?  Because I'm sure most of us are hoping there will be more COTS/CCiCap type efforts in the future... they sure seem to be cost effective.
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 08/23/2014 01:34 AM
What's the pressurized volume of a CST-100?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg740682#msg740682

People are estimating 16-20m3 (I bet usable volume is maybe half that? I'm too tired to fire up CAD right now).

I've seen "more than 1100kg" and "up to 1300kg" for cargo capacity.

Please do not take those numbers too seriously.
At best they are a guess.
I have no idea if they are correct.

In 2011 they said 1164 kg and 7 crew.
Again old so trust level is low.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf (http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf)


Okay I get roughly 12.75 m3 for the volume of the pressure vessel, not including the docking tunnel.

Don't know what else needs to go inside there besides paid cargo.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2014 02:12 PM

(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.

NASA has no need or money for those.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jtrame on 08/23/2014 03:15 PM

(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.

NASA has no need or money for those.

No Money, agreed.

But the NASA Mission Directorate "Human Exploration and Operations" seems to indicate a need.  How can NASA develop human exploration beyond earth orbit without habitats and eventually landers? 

OK off topic.  But a great direction for the evolution of the commercial effort IMO.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2014 04:32 PM

(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.

NASA has no need or money for those.
They certainly have the need as much as they need anything. They should replace the Orion program with some sort of lander, hab, deep space spacecraft. Buzz Aldrin has crazy ideas, but that one (evolving Orion program to a deep space vehicle program of some sort) is a good one. Orion is too heavy, too expensive, basically useless on its own. It should've been a lot more like the CST-100.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: su27k on 08/23/2014 05:49 PM

(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.

NASA has no need or money for those.

The money for commercial crew development would be available after 2017.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/23/2014 06:27 PM
Back on topic please chaps. I never want to see "I'm off topic but"! ;D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/23/2014 08:24 PM
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.

Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its  bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.

Seems by using an expensive,   disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.

My $0.02

I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust.  If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself.  It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).

The strength is another matter.  You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.
Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jcc on 08/24/2014 04:11 PM


Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract

Just noticed in the above link:
"The 28 100-pound thrust class RCS engines are adapted from a similar engine design currently in production. These engines provide high-altitude abort attitude control, on-orbit low delta-v maneuvering functions and space station re-boost capability"

I did not think reboost was a requirement, but that may be a capability for CST-100 and Dragon (not sure about DC).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: stichtom on 09/16/2014 09:17 PM
Boeing: "The spacecraft will undergo a pad-abort test in 2016, an uncrewed flight in early 2017, leading up to the first crewed flight to the ISS in mid-2017."
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/16/2014 09:29 PM

What LV will CST-100 use?  I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 09:33 PM

What LV will CST-100 use?  I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".

Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?  ;)
Weird.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AJW on 09/16/2014 09:38 PM

What LV will CST-100 use?  I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".

Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?  ;)
Weird.

That's tomorrow's announcement of the deal between ULA and BO to replace the RD-180.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/16/2014 09:47 PM

What LV will CST-100 use?  I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".

Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?  ;)
Weird.

That's tomorrow's announcement of the deal between ULA and BO to replace the RD-180.

I have a hard time believing a new LV (HR at that) can be functional by 2017.  Keep in mind the Atlas V vehicle envisioned employs a 2 engine Centaur, which in itself would need development time (and big $$), and using engines that are apparently end of life (going to RL-10C-1. which won't fit on Centaur).  So while FINALLY developing ACES (common 5 meter upper stage) may be in the offing, (and sorry to repeat myself), I have a really hard time believing ULA will take on new core stage development, new upper stage development, and all that comes with it, especially when one considers the action they've shown wrt ACES to date.  Remember, Boeing gets the big pot of money, not ULA/LV.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 09/16/2014 11:12 PM
[Homer Simpson Voice] WOOHOO! [/Homer Simpson]

Just really glad to see CST-100 made it. Didn't believe the rumors could be true as they started coming in this morning.

Can't wait to see them taking shape in the OPF, and rolling out at SLC-41.

(Okay, I'm done abusing the servers for a while.)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 09/17/2014 03:23 PM
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/17/2014 07:33 PM
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?
Also can anyone give a status of the human rating of the Atlas V ?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 05:47 AM
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?
Also can anyone give a status of the human rating of the Atlas V ?

They need an emergency detection system and Dual Engine Centaur.

They've been ground testing the EDS in CCiCap. Most of the necessary hardware (sensors, data buses) are already on the rocket. EDS is a kit that gets installed for crew flights.

Atlas V human rating work has been happening since OSP.

Previous versions of Centaur flew with two engines. The updated version should be through Critical Design Review and ready to start production (that was the plan at least, haven't heard anything about DEC status).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/18/2014 06:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuwPdH6UChc
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2014 03:04 PM
Not sure this was noted elsewhere:

"Boeing Co's proposal to develop a so-called space taxi for NASA astronauts includes a seat for paying tourists to fly to the International Space Station, the company's program manager said on Wednesday, a first for a U.S. space program."

more here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/boeing-space-taxi-has-tourist-seat-1.2770088
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/18/2014 08:01 PM
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???

Yep. Add a ECLSS and you could easily use a pre-launched (maybe by Delta-IV or Falcon Heavy) heavyweight Cygnus as a commercial mission module; maybe a lab of some sort. Or slap it on the front of a BE-3-powered propulsion module as a DSH-lite.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 09/19/2014 01:49 AM
Do we know for sure that they are launching on an Atlas V? I know there was discussion of other launch vehicles early on. They downplayed the Russian engine connection in the press conference, could they be flying on an all US built rocket?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 09/19/2014 02:08 AM
Do we know for sure that they are launching on an Atlas V? I know there was discussion of other launch vehicles early on. They downplayed the Russian engine connection in the press conference, could they be flying on an all US built rocket?

Yes, an Atlas V 422.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/19/2014 12:39 PM
I am personally glad that there are two competitors.

Mods.  Not sure where to post this.  Not sure either if it would be productive to open a new thread on the downselect news.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 03:38 PM
As I've posted before, I like the engineering.  I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.

I brought his over from the CCtCap thread because OT there.

Can you expand on that modular concept? Anything, that Dragon with its trunk cannot do?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 04:12 PM
As I've posted before, I like the engineering.  I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.

I brought his over from the CCtCap thread because OT there.

Can you expand on that modular concept? Anything, that Dragon with its trunk cannot do?
It's not just the pieces CST-100 splits into operationally, the components within them are also relatively easy to recombine and modify.  Weight can be stripped off where capabilities are not needed, capacity can be increased where needed.

I think with this modular approach they'd have little difficulty recreating all the components of the Apollo spacecraft out of this (with a nozzle extension on the RS-88), and making larger space-storable and refuelable propulsion modules, and systems for aerobraking things other than capsules, from a moon return to LEO.

The Bigelow moon base concept art shows what appears to be CST-family lunar landers / return vehicles, sitting by the landed base.

SpaceX could probably also build something along these lines, but they always talk about Mars.  They want to sell flights, not vehicles, and especially not custom vehicles.  The Boeing CST approach seems much more customizable, or at least they're showing us how it's customizable.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: obi-wan on 10/02/2014 04:45 PM
As I've posted before, I like the engineering.  I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.

I brought his over from the CCtCap thread because OT there.

Can you expand on that modular concept? Anything, that Dragon with its trunk cannot do?
It's not just the pieces CST-100 splits into operationally, the components within them are also relatively easy to recombine and modify.  Weight can be stripped off where capabilities are not needed, capacity can be increased where needed.

I think with this modular approach they'd have little difficulty recreating all the components of the Apollo spacecraft out of this (with a nozzle extension on the RS-88), and making larger space-storable and refuelable propulsion modules, and systems for aerobraking things other than capsules, from a moon return to LEO.

The Bigelow moon base concept art shows what appears to be CST-family lunar landers / return vehicles, sitting by the landed base.

SpaceX could probably also build something along these lines, but they always talk about Mars.  They want to sell flights, not vehicles, and especially not custom vehicles.  The Boeing CST approach seems much more customizable, or at least they're showing us how it's customizable.

Can you give links to that level of detail about CST-100? From what I've seen,they're tighter-lipped about their design than SpaceX. I could really use CST-100 design details, particularly about their service module. Thanks!
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 05:14 PM
SpaceX could probably also build something along these lines, but they always talk about Mars.  They want to sell flights, not vehicles, and especially not custom vehicles.  The Boeing CST approach seems much more customizable, or at least they're showing us how it's customizable.

This one is a good argument. SpaceX may not want to do it. But given a very good incentive, like a similar amount Boeing would charge, they may change their mind. They do need money.

I don't see what could be stripped off CST-100 except the airbags and go back to water landing. The Dragon trunk is empty. It should be easier to install anything needed there.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 05:48 PM
Can you give links to that level of detail about CST-100? From what I've seen,they're tighter-lipped about their design than SpaceX. I could really use CST-100 design details, particularly about their service module. Thanks!
Have you looked at their basic materials?
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf

I don't have any special, detailed sources.  They've been emphasizing how it will be to put together, over how it will work, from the beginning.  It's a system integrator's design, from the clamshell pressure vessel on up.

It's like Dragon V2 is an iBook, Dream Chaser is a Nintendo 3DS, and CST-100 is a Dell minitower PC with a separate monitor and keyboard: which one you want is a matter of taste and intended use, but it's just obvious which is the easiest to provide in a wide variety of configurations.

RS-88 was originally designed as a LOX/ethanol engine for a small launch vehicle, which they've adapted to NTO/MMH.  It's certainly suitable for adaptations such a gimbal mount and nozzle extension, if you want to use it for major orbital maneuvers, and since it's throttleable and fast-lighting, it's likely suitable as the main engine of a lunar lander.

I don't see what could be stripped off CST-100 except the airbags and go back to water landing. The Dragon trunk is empty. It should be easier to install anything needed there.
If you want a CST-family lunar lander/ascent vehicle, it doesn't need the LAS, the heat shield, the parachute, the air bags, or the aeroshell.  It can launch in a fairing, uncrewed, for LEO rendezvous.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 05:56 PM
I don't see what could be stripped off CST-100 except the airbags and go back to water landing. The Dragon trunk is empty. It should be easier to install anything needed there.
If you want a CST-family lunar lander/ascent vehicle, it doesn't need the LAS, the heat shield, the parachute, the air bags, or the aeroshell.  It can launch in a fairing, uncrewed, for LEO rendezvous.

And a new pressure vessel because a capsule makes no sense for a lunar lander. So we are talking about a new vehicle with some componenents, like avionics and engines reused. Not about a modified CST-100.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 06:17 PM
And a new pressure vessel because a capsule makes no sense for a lunar lander.
There's a point where you have to stop optimizing for mass and performance and start optimizing for cost and reliability.  I mean, a moon base isn't going to happen unless there are major improvements in launch cost and rate.

Especially once you're moving out beyond LEO, where you can't just have a default plan of initiating reentry if anything goes wrong, you need components that are tested and proven in space.  Once you have something that's not overly massive and can be trusted to keep crews alive and do rendezvous, you want to use those systems, instead of designing a lunar lander from scratch.

It's no sillier than the whole Red Dragon thing.  Development is expensive, and developing a new tool for every job is a big part of why space stuff has cost so much.  Once you've developed a system you're producing in multiples, you want to look for every opportunity to use it.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/02/2014 06:36 PM
People have proposed landing on the moon with Dragon. The idea was shot down every time. And with good reason. How is this any different with CST-100?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/03/2014 12:17 AM
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: a_langwich on 10/03/2014 02:07 AM
And a new pressure vessel because a capsule makes no sense for a lunar lander.
There's a point where you have to stop optimizing for mass and performance and start optimizing for cost and reliability.  I mean, a moon base isn't going to happen unless there are major improvements in launch cost and rate.

I would agree, there is a point as you describe.  This is not that point.  You stop optimizing for mass and performance in those places and situations where mass and performance are not the key drivers of the design, and a lunar lander is not such a place.  Every pound of mass on a lunar lander has required tens of pounds of mass to lift it and support it through the rest of the mission profile.  And for at least the next decade or two, what you can do on the moon is crucially limited by the weight of things you can bring, so even if you don't care about saving the tens of pounds of launch mass, you will care about the pound of usable payload that you gave up just to be able to reuse an inapt design.  And for at least the next decade or two, the cost of getting a pound of payload to the surface of the moon is more than enough to pay for a little bit of engineering time to free up that pound by customizing a design.

Having said that, if the choice is between trying to customize a Dragon or CST-100 to become a lander versus another NASA program where they spend $4-10 billion and run trades of every possible combinatorial collection of possibilities, including ones you know you won't use (e.g. no margin of safety), then yeah, maybe something based on those would work better than a cancelled design stopped for lack of budget.  But you'd do still better to ask SpaceX or Boeing to design a better vehicle for that purpose.

RS-88 was originally designed as a LOX/ethanol engine for a small launch vehicle, which they've adapted to NTO/MMH.  It's certainly suitable for adaptations such a gimbal mount and nozzle extension, if you want to use it for major orbital maneuvers, and since it's throttleable and fast-lighting, it's likely suitable as the main engine of a lunar lander.

You keep using singular form "it".  Shouldn't that be "they" since there are 4 mounted pointing diagonally out, not 1 pointing back as in the Apollo SM?  And, since they are pointing diagonally out and may be used for LAS (meaning the tip of the existing nozzle is close to the outer mold line of the vehicle in order to fire during flight), are they really suitable for nozzle extensions? 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/03/2014 01:41 PM
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.

Who cares? Isn't it obvious they have not built as much as SpaceX?

It has been covered ad nauseam that many contracts are signed without hardware.

Different companies, different goals, different approaches.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/03/2014 02:09 PM
And for at least the next decade or two, the cost of getting a pound of payload to the surface of the moon is more than enough to pay for a little bit of engineering time to free up that pound by customizing a design.
Just how much mass do you think you can shave off of a capsule pressure vessel and still have one that's suitable for a lunar lander / ascent vehicle?

Anyway, a moon base is going to require a lot of mass to the moon surface.  Crew vehicles will be a small fraction of it.  If you have to worry about a few pounds on the crew lander, you're not doing a moon base.

At our current crude level of space technology and general ineptitude in space, engineering effort should be focused on multi-order-of-magnitude gains, like efficiently reusable vehicles, solar and nuclear power systems truly optimized for space, and propellant production from lunar and asteroid sources, rather than asymptotic ones like slightly lighter air cans.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Star One on 10/03/2014 02:14 PM

Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.

Who cares? Isn't it obvious they have not built as much as SpaceX?

It has been covered ad nauseam that many contracts are signed without hardware.

Different companies, different goals, different approaches.

Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/03/2014 02:21 PM
Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.

So.. you're suggesting that they've done work that isn't in the contracts now?

That's pretty far fetched for Boeing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Prober on 10/03/2014 02:51 PM
Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.

So.. you're suggesting that they've done work that isn't in the contracts now?

That's pretty far fetched for Boeing.

think Bigelow :D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 10/03/2014 03:34 PM
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.

You have to be VERY careful.  The milestones are snapshots of activity, something the company needs to do, NASA wants to see progress on, but is not a reflection of all the work being done.  There is a LOT more that is being done by both companies than you see int eh milestones.  It is a good gauge of progress but not of specifics.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/03/2014 11:35 PM
Mini thread trim.

It is a fundamental rule of this forum that everyone is civil to each other.

If there is even a hint of that not being the case, your post will be deleted.

If you continue to do ignore the rules, you will lose your posting privileges for a period of time that will be at our discretion.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/04/2014 03:55 AM
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.

So? Boeing as an organization (even disregarding the former competitors they've absorbed over the last 25 or so years of American aerospace industry contraction) has successfully designed, built, tested, flown and sold at a profit many dozens - if not hundreds - of specific designs of aircraft and spacecraft systems for commercial and government operators. Of all the organizations around the world offering spaceflight services, they are the ones LEAST likely to eff it all up due to "unknown unknowns", especially with something as generally-conservative as a capsule design.

Biplane aircraft? Check.
Monoplane pursuit fighter? Check.
Multi-engine monoplane transport? Check.
Multi-engine piston bomber? Check and check.
Turboprop bomber/transport/tanker? Check/check/check.
Turbojet bomber? Check and check.
Solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile program management? Check.
Intercontinental multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Regional multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Permanently-manned low-Earth orbit space station design, construction and long-term operational management? Check, check and check.
Kerolox heavy rocket booster stage? Check.
Integration services and program management for heavy lunar-capable booster? Check.

If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/04/2014 04:19 AM
I'm confused as to what your comment has to do with mine. Some people are upset at the fact that CST-100 isn't as far along as the competing offerings. Others are upset that anyone would dare say that's a fact.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 AM
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.

For me at least, I have no doubt that Boeing can build a safe, workable spacecraft.  What they are capable of doing is not in dispute.

However the record appears to be that when billionaires want space hardware, they don't go to Boeing first.  Certainly Elon Musk didn't when he was only a mere millionaire, but neither did billionaires Jeff Bezos or Paul Allen.  And with Allen that's pretty ironic, since he is stripping two Boeing 747's to get parts to build the largest wingspan aircraft in the world.

So apparently Boeing is not a safe bet when billionaires need unique hardware for accessing space.

But why?

I think it's because Boeing is not perceived as being a company that wants to be a partner to take risks.  Certainly NASA cited Boeing for "corporate investment during the CCiCap period does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having insufficient funding in the base period...", meaning that despite their obvious financial resources they chose not to use them on Commercial Crew.

As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.

So maybe Boeing is a safe bet, but that doesn't mean they are the only bet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AncientU on 10/04/2014 12:56 PM

If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.

You'd actually need to be a multi-billionaire.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: cambrianera on 10/04/2014 01:11 PM
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/21/boeing-completes-final-commercial-crew-milestones/). I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.

So? Boeing as an organization (even disregarding the former competitors they've absorbed over the last 25 or so years of American aerospace industry contraction) has successfully designed, built, tested, flown and sold at a profit many dozens - if not hundreds - of specific designs of aircraft and spacecraft systems for commercial and government operators. Of all the organizations around the world offering spaceflight services, they are the ones LEAST likely to eff it all up due to "unknown unknowns", especially with something as generally-conservative as a capsule design.

Biplane aircraft? Check.
Monoplane pursuit fighter? Check.
Multi-engine monoplane transport? Check.
Multi-engine piston bomber? Check and check.
Turboprop bomber/transport/tanker? Check/check/check.
Turbojet bomber? Check and check.
Solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile program management? Check.
Intercontinental multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Regional multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.
Permanently-manned low-Earth orbit space station design, construction and long-term operational management? Check, check and check.
Kerolox heavy rocket booster stage? Check.
Integration services and program management for heavy lunar-capable booster? Check.

If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.

Ahhh, the good ole days.....
Weather too has changed, not the same anymore......
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 10/05/2014 12:48 AM
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.

Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative.  Yes, they got more money.  However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless, with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count).  In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it.  The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 01:38 AM
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/05/2014 01:43 AM
Wasn't CST-100's service module hotfire and pad abort delayed out of CCiCap, thereby preserving their "perfect" record? 

Also, they cancelled their in-flight abort all together,

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/11cst100/

Quote
An ascent abort demonstration originally planned using a third Atlas 5 rocket has been removed from the Boeing test manifest, according to Mulholland

Perfection by moving the goalposts?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 10/05/2014 01:53 AM
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.

Flawlessly executing to plan.  Boeing may be rightly dinged for being overly conservative, but they appear to have a very good idea of what they are willing and capable of delivering at a point in time, and plan and promise accordingly.  (SpaceX and SNC not so much.)  That speaks directly to plan and schedule risk--which in case anyone forgot is one of the factors (and arguably one of the most important factors)--in the CCtCap selection.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/05/2014 02:03 AM
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.

Chris, don't you think that's a bit hyperbolic? Neither of us knows for sure how detailed their work was, but I'm quite sure they created some extremely detailed plans. Their 787 was the first plane they completely computer designed and simulated before bending metal. Their biggest mistake with the 787 was to engage too many sub-contractors for parts. But let's face it; they do have the industrial base to take a detailed plan and put it into production without undertaking massive expansion to the company.

Let me say that Dragon and and DC were my own favorites, and Ron is correct that those two proceeded with a lot more physical testing than did Boeing. Nevertheless, Boeing does have a greater industrial capability than the other two corporations. Due to their proven current ability to create computerized designs and also run computer simulations, then to put those plans into production, they didn't need to prove to NASA their ability to bend metal. NASA and everyone else already knows they are capable of doing so.

Despite the loftiness to which some hold Boeing's ethics, I am quite aware of their possession of LM EELV documents prior to ULA and the USAF tanker competition issues. Those issues, however, do not diminish Boeing's industrial production ability. I have no doubt that they can build a safe and well performing spacecraft. They were not my first or second choice, but to claim they did nothing more than Powerpoint and Word documents is......well, you know that isn't the case.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 02:06 AM
I suggest Chris and the moderation team simply change the thread title to "Boeing Bashing Thread - Bonus Points Awarded For Snarky Zingers" so the usual crowd can continue to post their complaints, accusations of impropriety and innuendo-laden one-liners.

The rest of us who understand engineering milestones and how RFP's are scored and graded will know to simply ignore the nonsense, rather than wading through pages of repeated nonsense in search of meaningful discussion.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 10/05/2014 02:08 AM
Perfection by moving the goalposts?
No.  The Boeing CCiCap goalposts (milestones) have not moved since the original CCiCap awards, with the exception of adding a milestone "Phase 2 Spacecraft Safety Review Board", which was due in Jul-2014, which Boeing completed (reportedly on time in Jul-2014).

Quote
Also, they cancelled their in-flight abort all together
That was not a funded or accepted CCiCap milestone.  You might as well claim that SpaceX's original CCiCap proposal, which included a crewed mission to ISS milestone, was "cancelled...all together", which would be just as disingenuous and wrong.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:52 AM
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.

For me at least, I have no doubt that Boeing can build a safe, workable spacecraft.  What they are capable of doing is not in dispute.


I agree.  It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Being publicly held, Boeing is going to be a lot more conservative with their money.  When they know there is a definite market, they aren't afraid to innovate and go out on a limb (787), but when the market is uncertain they seem to hold back.  (Commercial manned space).  Not really surprising.  I can't stand their PR thug approach and the recent WSJ articles have been reprehensible for their lack of journalistic integrity...what does the WSJ think it's doing to it's reputation by publishing that kind of tabloid trash?  And I don't like the way they play Congress though you have to admit it's clever and effective from their point of view.  So I don't like Boeing. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying the many rides I've had in their aircraft.  And once the commercial market heats up...watch out.  I'm sure we will see Boeing will come on even stronger.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/05/2014 04:30 AM
I agree.  It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

.. and firewalled.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 04:46 AM
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.

Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative.  Yes, they got more money.  However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...

Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner.  Anything less and they would not get paid.  So this metric means nothing.

Quote
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count).  In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it.  The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.

Two points:

1.  We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too.  No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX.  They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.

2.  I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same.  For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction).  And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mkent on 10/05/2014 05:19 AM
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.

Oh, good grief!  They passed **CDR**!  That's a heckuva lot more than Powerpoints and Word documents.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/05/2014 05:24 AM
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.

Oh, good grief!  They passed **CDR**!  That's a heckuva lot more than Powerpoints and Word documents.

Really?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:50 AM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 01:33 PM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.

They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.

So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Hauerg on 10/05/2014 02:19 PM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.

They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.

So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 PM
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 02:49 PM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned[/b] spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.

They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.

So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.
X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.

Don't all three companies have plenty of staff with experience in manned spaceflight?  I know they all have former astronauts working on their projects.  Also, to varying degrees, they all work very closely with NASA.  To say that Boeing has a major experience advantage based on accomplishments that are 20-30 years old over the others seems a bit of a stretch.  To say Boeing has no experience seems very unfactual.

All three companies are very competent and experienced in building actual flight hardware.  Spacex has experience in operations with Dragon.  Boeing would I think have experience in operations with X37 (or does the Air Force do all that?) and with their support of the ISS.  SNC as far as I know would have less experience in that regard.

Operating a manned space program will be new to all 3 companies, but they have NASA on their team and supervising so that should count for something shouldn't it?  (Even if they didn't win, SNC still has access to NASA via unfunded agreements.  If the protest fails, but they do succeed in moving on with DC, then they will have to work extensively with NASA if they are going to dock with ISS carrying a European mission and crew.  (should that come about))

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 02:50 PM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.


They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.

So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.

X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.


Thank you Hauerg. That was my point precisely.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 02:52 PM
Lot of discussion about what Boeing knew, and when.  Almost like a murder mystery.  I think really what the discussion boils down to is whether Boeing has unique knowledge and skills that provide it with some sort of advantage.

Pressure vessels are just one example.  Boeing certainly has lots of experience with pressure vessels, both from terrestrial aircraft to spacecraft.  But is this knowledge unique to them?  I would say not.  Lots of other companies have demonstrated the same capabilities, and no doubt Boeing has not retained all the employees that they taught these skills to, so I would argue that pressure vessels for spacecraft are an industry skill, not just one company.

Same could be said about capsules.  Research for capsules goes back to at least the 1950's, from many different companies, and that research is available through NASA for the industry to use.

To me this is pretty obvious, because without such a high level of industry capability and access to previous taxpayer-funded research SpaceX would not be where it is at today.  There are only so many things you can tackle with a startup, and SpaceX has acknowledged that they have been relying on the work of others to get where they are at today.  That is the same situation with Boeing and Sierra Nevada too.

About the only metrics we can really use for comparison is money, since everyone has the same date goal, everyone has to provide the same level of service, but everyone is free to do those things in their own unique way.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 PM
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.

In fact, I'll go further and state that CST-100 is what Orion should have been. It is much lighter (which means greater delta-v capability for the same rocket) and cheaper, still has lots of room for lunar missions, has a service module that can provide extra delta-v, and even has better operational efficiency since air bags weren't dropped from the design. And I think the abort mode is safer since it doesn't need a separate jettison motor and hatch like Orion's LAS. Orion seems like a tired redo of Apollo capsule with a little more room while CST-100 improves on the Apollo design in several aspects including cost reduction and even reuse.

That said, I still think Dragon is even better technically/operationally and has the huge advantage of already flying in a cargo version. And I do think DC is awesome and SNC has every right to protest given the huge cost differential and fact that Boeing hasn't bent much metal comparatively.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 03:07 PM
Ron, that is insightfully true. SNC, after reviewing the selection criteria, for the 1st time in its 50 year history, filed a formal bid protest with the GAO. In the announcement, it was stated that excepting price, all the scores for the 3 competitors were approximately the same. If that is true, then NASA's own statements come back to haunt her when it was stated that price would be the major discriminator, and be given DOUBLE weight. And again IF that is true then on the face of it either NASA violated its own selection rules to deliberately favor Boeing or Boeing was successful in lobbying Congressional legislators to the point they could successfully threaten NASA unless Boeing was selected.

Mind you I am NOT saying that is what happened. I am saying that provided what SNC stated in the protest is true, that that is the impression left in the minds of thinking persons.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 03:26 PM
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.

Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris).

The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node.  The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.

And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998.

So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: R7 on 10/05/2014 04:48 PM
Lot of discussion about what Boeing knew, and when.  Almost like a murder mystery.  I think really what the discussion boils down to is whether Boeing has unique knowledge and skills that provide it with some sort of advantage.

Clearly not. The people involved in the previous manned spacecrafts and related systems traceable to Boeing had all their design papyri burned and were buried alive with lead engineering pharaohs in unmarked pyramids to prevent tomb robbers acquiring the information. Using any means to maintain and pass the knowledge to future generations was considered too risky.

At least that's the sentiment I get from the last few pages of this thread. Very entertaining though  :D

Could ISS manned systems experience and X-37 spacecraft experience be combined to leverage in building manned spacecrafts? No, that must be crazy talk.

One thing is certain; Boeing is behind in rapid curtain reeling technology.

Warning: message may contain traces of sarcasm
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2014 05:32 PM
It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project.  And pretty cool!

Not really. The discussion had evolved around manned spacecraft. X-37 is not a manned spacecraft.


They designed the pressurized elements of Space Station Freedom/ISS from soup to nuts - pressure vessels, MMD shielding, internal power/data system, internal structures, payload and systems racks, control systems and software, and (by the way), the ECLSS. Boeing also provides sustaining engineering for all of these components and systems. These pressurized elements are the longest-lived space crewed systems ever created.

So arguing that X-37 isn't crewed and that fact is somehow a negative for Boeing's ability to design and operate a crewed spacecraft is ridiculous.

X37 not being manned is not a negative. And clongton did not state that. All he said was that X37 cannot be used as a pro argument for Boeing re manned systems.


Thank you Hauerg. That was my point precisely.


Yes, it can be used as relevant experience and pro argument for a manned system because  its shows all the necessary experience in fielding a maneuverable and recoverable  spacecraft, much a like a cargo dragon.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 06:18 PM
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.

Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris).

The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node.  The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.

And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998.

So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.


I know Thales Alenia did not start from a clean slate, but I tend to put fabrication on a higher pedestal than others, so I guess my bias is showing.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-alenia-space
Quote
Orbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.



...after decades of unending analysis, design reviews, conceptual reviews, etc, I'm tired of paper milestones. I prefer metal being bent (or carbon fiber being laid up, if you will).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 10/05/2014 06:33 PM
I'm at a LEGO show this weekend (Brickcon.org ... it's awesome) and haven't been following this thread closely but we are getting a fair number of reports. Please dial up the excellentness and dial down the snark.   Also try to stay more or less on topic, detailed discussion of DC and Dragon is probably off topic.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 10/05/2014 06:42 PM
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.

Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative.  Yes, they got more money.  However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...

Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner.  Anything less and they would not get paid.  So this metric means nothing.

Quote
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count).  In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it.  The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.

Two points:

1.  We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too.  No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX.  They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.

2.  I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same.  For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction).  And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.

Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key facts.  The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk.  By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks.  For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it.  For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks.  So that was their major milestones.  Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on).  So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it.  Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to.  Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.

Not sure what you are trying to say by your second point.  Boeing has tCAP milestones that would be before SpaceX and SNC iCAP milestones.  So yes, NASA is concerned about the impact tot he dates.    There is a good chance that funding won't support 2 companies to be ready by 2014.  NASA likely can't support via resources two companies.  If you also slow down those two companies - I am sure SpaceX is also impacted though depending on various factors, maybe not so much - you will indeed be risking 2017.  I am fairly confident we won't have a commercial crew flight by 2017.

Fortunately, I think legal wranglings will get the process rolling here again soon while the GAO conducts its review.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 06:46 PM
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.

None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small.  Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 07:07 PM
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.

None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small.  Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.
And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO.

If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.

Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.

CST-100 is a better fit.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 PM
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.

None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small.  Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.
And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO.

If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.

Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.

CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/05/2014 07:46 PM

Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.

I have been thinking the same. I had Dragon in mind instead of CST-100 but the argument is true for both CST-100 and Dragon.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/05/2014 07:57 PM
Glad you all agree with me... ;D

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35455.60
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/05/2014 08:14 PM
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.

None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small.  Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.
And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO.

If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.

Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.

CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.

Does CST-100 fulfill the requirements for a beyond lunar lifeboat? The lunar module sustained a crew for 12 man-days vs a design of 3 man-days during Apollo 13. Applying the same multiple to the Orion design life of 21 days, you get something like 3 months - of course, it wasn't comfortable for the crew, but they came back alive.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/05/2014 08:19 PM
Could CST handle the structural loads through its forward docking port that are required for e.g. CxP-style TLI and LOI burns?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 08:41 PM
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only.  Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/05/2014 11:42 PM
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only.  Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
The heat shield is not an integral component.  It detaches during the landing.

It should be straightforward to upgrade.

As I've pointed out before, one of the strengths of the CST-100 design is its modularity, and the name implies the first of a family.  As launch costs go down and rates go up, the basic CST design can be adapted to meet the demands of diverse missions, and exploit progress in technology and the marketplace with piecemeal component upgrades.
Title: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 10/06/2014 12:01 AM
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only.  Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
And the heat shield can be comfortably resized. And the SM is very modular. CST-100 is LEO only, and so is Dragon v2, just not because of the heat shield. But both are not that far from LEO that they can't be adapter cheaply (when compared to starting from scratch).
But having BEO rated avionics, heat transfer through heat plates, high distance comm system, long term ECLSS, BEO astrogation capabilities, limited radiation protection for crew, etc. those thing are the hard part.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/06/2014 12:32 AM
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.

Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only.  Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
And the heat shield can be comfortably resized. And the SM is very modular. CST-100 is LEO only, and so is Dragon v2, just not because of the heat shield. But both are not that far from LEO that they can't be adapter cheaply (when compared to starting from scratch).
But having BEO rated avionics, heat transfer through heat plates, high distance comm system, long term ECLSS, BEO astrogation capabilities, limited radiation protection for crew, etc. those thing are the hard part.

Yet if the crew is going to live in a habitat from the time of deep space injection until just prior to Earth reentry, those things are not so important. You put them all in the hab. The heat shield gets upgraded, the electronics hardened against deep space radiation, and otherwise the capsule is little more than a taxi for LEOR staging and then a higher V reentry. The rest of the time she is dormant. That 21 day qualification was part of CxP Lunar missions with no hab involved. Think of how small Soyuz reentry module is compared with all 3 components. Put in the capsule only what's needed for launch and reentry; spend the rest of the time in a more voluminous but lower mass/volume habitat.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/06/2014 12:57 AM
Hi all.  I think our moderator is going to clamp down on us soon since we're getting off topic, so  I started a new thread where we can talk about CST-100 and other Commercial Crew vehicles for BEO applications.  Go to:

Are Commercial Crew Vehicles Usable/Upgradeable for Beyond-LEO Needs?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35787.0
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/06/2014 01:30 AM
The title of the thread is Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion. That is what we have been discussing. Nothing in the title limits the discussion to CST-100 solely as part of CC/LEO. Technically, the discussion has not been off topic.

If anything, the discussion is germane and pertinent because an extant CST-100, as opposed to a hypothetical one, offers an actual option, via upgrades, to Orion.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MP99 on 10/06/2014 05:47 AM
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.

Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative.  Yes, they got more money.  However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...

Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner.  Anything less and they would not get paid.  So this metric means nothing.

Quote
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count).  In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it.  The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.

Two points:

1.  We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too.  No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX.  They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.

2.  I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same.  For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction).  And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.

Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key folks.  The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk.  By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks.  For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it.  For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks.  So that was their major milestones.  Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on).  So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it.  Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to.  Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.

Not sure what you are trying to say by your second point.  Boeing has tCAP milestones that would be before SpaceX and SNC iCAP milestones.  So yes, NASA is concerned about the impact tot he dates.    There is a good chance that funding won't support 2 companies to be ready by 2014.  NASA likely can't support via resources two companies.  If you also slow down those two companies - I am sure SpaceX is also impacted though depending on various factors, maybe not so much - you will indeed be risking 2017.  I am fairly confident we won't have a commercial crew flight by 2017.

Fortunately, I think legal wranglings will get the process rolling here again soon while the GAO conducts its review.
Thanks, that was the step back I was looking for.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/06/2014 01:13 PM


Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.

Orion is back within design limits for the chutes.

Your words are easily said in hindsight, Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006. Who was to say back then how things would end up? They were shifting from STS to CxP.

The alternative that Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo were developed simultaneously back then is a non-starter. It is taking people until now to warm up to new space, back then, not a shot.


Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/06/2014 08:57 PM


...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....

....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....

CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/06/2014 09:51 PM
The alternative that Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo were developed simultaneously back then is a non-starter. It is taking people until now to warm up to new space, back then, not a shot.

That is a fair statement.  Certainly it has taken SpaceX a number of years to gain the proficiency it has today, and that is partly because of the experience it had to have in doing real launches with real payloads (sometimes it's own).  I'd also throw in Orbital Sciences and Sierra Nevada into that too, in that they too have gained a lot of experience and capabilities over these past few years.

I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too.  Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us).  New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust.  This is a good thing.

And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast!  So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2014 11:02 PM


...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....

....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....

CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.

Actually, CST-100 is older than Orion. It is based on OSP
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Malderi on 10/06/2014 11:05 PM


...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....

....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....

CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.

That's pretty absurd to say "not all that much modification". The CST-100 I saw a few years ago had only batteries supporting one day's free flight time (NASA wanted 2, Boeing said the numbers for rendezvous failures were low enough that they wanted to save the mass). Considering Orion jumped through hoops to support months of quiescent time in LOR - and that's just one of many systems - there are *substantial* differences in what CST-100 and Orion are now, and what missions they are designed to support.

It's correct to say that CST-100 started off in some ways from Boeing's CEV bid, but the design morphed substantially with the requirement to be as cheap and reliable for LEO transport as possible (driving design decisions such as batteries only and not worrying about solar array deployment mechanisms... hey, where have we seen that in the news recently...)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 10/06/2014 11:05 PM
And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast!  So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.

First let me say that I agree - it is an exciting time.
But please allow me a brief moment of nostalgia. The NASA threads would have been bouncing off the walls with activity by now if it had actually replaced CxP with DIRECT and executed it the way it was planned. There was plenty of money because the then existing Shuttle budget would have sustained ISS as well as deployed the new CxP hardware. We would still have the ISS and would be testing out Altair in LEO now, preparing to go to the moon. Oh well - it's day is long past now.

Now returning you to your regularly scheduled programming :)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2014 11:06 PM



I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too.  Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us).  New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust.  This is a good thing.

And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast!  So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.

Not true.  OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: IslandPlaya on 10/06/2014 11:26 PM



I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too.  Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us).  New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust.  This is a good thing.

And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast!  So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.

Not true.  OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/07/2014 12:34 AM
...New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust.  This is a good thing.

Not true.  OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs

Oh sure, not doubt it was intended to be lower cost, just like many programs that were supposed to be low cost (some have been, some not).  But since it never got to that stage we'll never know.

However today Old Space companies are feeling competitive pressure from New Space, and as long as there are open and fair competitions that can only mean good things for space related stuff, regardless who ultimately wins the competitions.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/07/2014 01:21 AM
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.

Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris).

The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node.  The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.

And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998.

So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.


I know Thales Alenia did not start from a clean slate, but I tend to put fabrication on a higher pedestal than others, so I guess my bias is showing.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-alenia-space
Quote
Orbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.



...after decades of unending analysis, design reviews, conceptual reviews, etc, I'm tired of paper milestones. I prefer metal being bent (or carbon fiber being laid up, if you will).

Ah, again you missed some of the history ... the Node STA was built before the Unity node was flown. The Lab was built, again after STAs and manufacturing qual pieces were built, tested and learned from (lessons that were passed along to Alenia). Racks were built. Structural test articles for the Cupola design were built. All the ECLSS systems installed in the Lab and then in Node 3 were designed and built. All the CBMs were designed, built and tested. All those standoff and endcone structural pieces were built (arguably and quite honestly among the most complicated and important of all the structural aspects of the pressurized module designs). The MPLMs were designed by Boeing, based on the Node and Lab/Hab designs.

All of that detailed development data was passed along for Alenia to build from - data that would've required billions of dollars/Euros and half a dozen years to recreate, data and knowledge that was created and acquired by Boeing in the first place, at U.S. government expense. They took known-good designs and built them (in the case of the MPLMs) or stretched them (in the case of the nodes).

Again, Boeing did the hardest parts during the SSF program. Alenia tweaked the designs as necessary and validated them - that's not insignificant, but much akin to the Chinese building Shenzhou from Soyuz rather than designing from scratch.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/07/2014 01:38 PM


...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....

....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....

CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.

Boeing's CEV competitor based on OSP designs (as Jim said) was competing with Orion. The CST-100 we have now is nothing like what was proposed at the time other than a capsule design. The requirements are completely different.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/07/2014 02:05 PM


...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....

....Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....

CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.

Boeing's CEV competitor based on OSP designs (as Jim said) was competing with Orion. The CST-100 we have now is nothing like what was proposed at the time other than a capsule design. The requirements are completely different.
The concept goes even futher back to Rockwell's design for Shuttle escape resized... A certain astronaut we all know advocated for it... ;)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MP99 on 10/07/2014 02:18 PM


Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us). 

As opposed to the ~$8b that CCrew will cost? ;-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist. And, yes, I know the CCrew figure includes 12 flights.)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/07/2014 03:00 PM

As opposed to the ~$8b that CCrew will cost? ;-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist. And, yes, I know the CCrew figure includes 12 flights.)

Cheers, Martin

More importantly it includes two separate entities developing that capability. That more than doubles cost, when those two entities offer different prices. There is no way that competition drives the cost down enough to make it worthwile to have two.* The reason is having another if one stands down. You don't get that capability for free.

* Except when the one is Boeing. In that case you can expect cost to balloon even from the already highest bid as soon as they are the only provider. I know it is a completely unbased assumption. ;)

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 10/08/2014 12:41 AM
Except when the one is Boeing. In that case you can expect cost to balloon even from the already highest bid as soon as they are the only provider. I know it is a completely unbased assumption. ;)

ya, let's not go there.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Wayne Hale on 10/08/2014 08:56 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: CraigLieb on 10/09/2014 06:30 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2014 06:41 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.

And what's that matter with that.  The onus is on the gov't to have well defined requirements.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: newpylong on 10/09/2014 06:45 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.

Oh well.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/09/2014 07:52 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.

I think commercial crew has a lot less likelihood of scope creep than a military project.  It's the nature of military projects that there is an enemy and the enemy is not predictable, the enemy is always evolving new tactics, and the enemy is always fielding new technology.  Commercial crew doesn't have a human adversary, so requirements can be fixed and, if reasonably defined, left unchanged.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 10/09/2014 10:44 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
First, there are two competitors plus a third that's protesting. It is very difficult to introduce changes in the contract. What you refer to is common when NASA is guiding the development. But in this case the specifications are very high level, with minimum power of NASA to decide on the specifics of the implementation. So specification creep is very difficult to do. There are clauses for special services, but that's also why they have two suppliers. Do you believe Boeing will want to compete with SpaceX on price? They better stick to their contract that's very interesting as it is.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/09/2014 11:43 PM
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract.  Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects.  Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.

And what's that matter with that.  The onus is on the gov't to have well defined requirements.

.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2014 12:38 PM

.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...

Right, everybody is a crook.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/10/2014 01:01 PM

.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...

Right, everybody is a crook.

Weeellllll... not a 'crook'. That implies self-awareness of openly dishonest intent. You ask most people who do things like this and they'll insist that it is 100% legal and honest (if possibly dubiously ethical) and all they're doing is getting the maximum legal amount out of a contract. "Milking it for all that it is worth but not a cent more" is one way I've heard it described.

But we digress.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 10/10/2014 02:02 PM

.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...

Right, everybody is a crook.

Weeellllll... not a 'crook'. That implies self-awareness of openly dishonest intent. You ask most people who do things like this and they'll insist that it is 100% legal and honest (if possibly dubiously ethical) and all they're doing is getting the maximum legal amount out of a contract. "Milking it for all that it is worth but not a cent more" is one way I've heard it described.

But we digress.
Which in a Fixed Firm Price contract is...?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/10/2014 03:37 PM
It's the nature of military projects that there is an enemy and the enemy is not predictable, the enemy is always evolving new tactics, and the enemy is always fielding new technology.

The B-52 is an example of that need to endlessly modify a platform in response to enemy capabilities, however just as often the military has extras in the back of its mind that it wants to pile on soon after a downselect. The Advanced Tactical Fighter Program was supposed to choose a purely air superiority fighter. As soon as LM was chosen over Boeing, USAF immediately decided to add attack capability, even though the Joint Strike Fighter Program was in the pipeline, making the F-22 into an F/A-22 completely unnecessary. Likewise, in that program, as soon as LM again defeated Boeing, USAF, USN, and USMC all piled extra qualifications onto their respective F-35 variants. Granted, there were all kinds of other cost increase drivers, but there have been numerous Christmas Wish List additions that have been immediately piled on after a downselect that were in no way driven by enemy adaptations. I cannot see NASA doing this with the CC program, unless they decide to evolve a CC vehicle for beyond LEO one day.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 10:24 PM
Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner.  Anything less and they would not get paid.  So this metric means nothing.

Those milestones had payments and dates attached to them--and those dates are a significant metric as a gauge or not only what will be delivered, but when it will be delivered.  Or are you suggesting that when evaluating performance to plan, dates "mean nothing"? So as long as we have a milestone based program, it doesn't matter when the vendor delivers?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: abaddon on 10/17/2014 05:01 PM
From the SpaceX Pad Abort thread, figured I should follow up here:

And, according to Boeing, the heat shield drops off at 5,000 feet so the air bags can deploy. Can't see it being reused either.

Link.... (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html)


Quote
After reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.

So, it sounds like the jettisoning of the heat shield is a required prerequisite for the airbags deploying, which I guess makes sense but was not something I had previously considered.

What happens if the heat shield doesn't jettison, and the airbags therefore can't deploy?  What kind of landing would the capsule experience, would the heat shield provide any meaningful cushion on its own?  If the heat shield did jettison but the airbags failed to deploy properly (or inflate correctly), what then?

These are similar questions to "what if the SuperDracos on a DragonV2 failed to operate and the capsule landed on land" question.  I believe SpaceX has answered those to some extent to say the landing would not be comfortable but would be survivable.  Has Boeing commented about any of this anywhere?

The article also says:

Quote
“In October, we’ll have a whole new series of tests with 12 new airbags, and we will do extensive drop tests at White Sands Missile Range [in New Mexico], where the CST-100 will actually land,” said McKinney. He also said there will be approximately 20 tests that will allow this test data to be used to verify that simulation models are accurate.

Are these "approximately 20 tests" all going to be from the drop rig or are any of them going to be from altitude?  And are any of them going to be simulating the jettisoning of the heat shield, or is that going to wait for a more flight-like capsule to be tested?

One other note; it mentions that astronauts will be landing at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, which I had not seen before.  My wife remembers seeing the single shuttle landing at WSMR so that's pretty cool...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 10/17/2014 05:43 PM
I don't know if the failure of the heat shield separation would be survivable. But I know that when some failures are a LOM (like SRB holding bolts that fail to break on a Shuttle launch), the go with ridiculous redundancy and reliability (like having explosive charges that work 99.999% and putting four where one would do). Same happens with parachute door opening. Those are super critical events that get reviewed, tested and redesigned to (almost) perfection.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: NovaSilisko on 10/17/2014 07:51 PM
From the image on this page... http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-finishes-commercial-crew-space-act-agreement-for-cst-100atlas-v/#.VEFrEPnF8n0

Looks like the artist might've been a little rushed, the model normals for the RCS covers are inverted   ;)

edit: Actually there are a -lot- of little mistakes like that, visible gaps between objects, no holddowns on the Atlas...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 08:24 PM
From the image on this page... http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-finishes-commercial-crew-space-act-agreement-for-cst-100atlas-v/#.VEFrEPnF8n0

Looks like the artist might've been a little rushed, the model normals for the RCS covers are inverted   ;)

edit: Actually there are a -lot- of little mistakes like that, visible gaps between objects, no holddowns on the Atlas...

Looks like the tower truss elements are just floating too -- no hardware connecting the I-beams to each other.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 10/18/2014 01:40 PM

October 17, 2014


Boeing Concludes Commercial Crew Space Act Agreement for CST-100/Atlas V

Boeing has successfully completed the final milestone of its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Space Act Agreement with NASA. The work and testing completed under the agreement resulted in significant maturation of Boeing’s crew transportation system, including the CST-100 spacecraft and Atlas V rocket.

NASA in July approved the Critical Design Review Board milestone for Boeing’s crew transportation system, confirming the detailed designs and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis to proceed with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and testing. It is the culmination of four years of development work by Boeing beginning when the company partnered with NASA during the first round of agreements to develop commercial crew transportation systems. To get to this point, extensive spacecraft subsystem, systems, and integrated vehicle design work has been performed, along with extensive component and wind tunnel testing.

Boeing is one of eight companies NASA partnered with during the last four years to develop a human-rated transportation system capable of flying people to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station. NASA’s unique approach encouraged companies to invest their own financial resources in the effort and open up a new industry of private space travel. Other current NASA partners Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation and SpaceX all are deep in development of their own commercial crew transportation systems under separate Space Act Agreements.

NASA's spaceflight specialists from a variety of technical expertise areas not only assisted the companies but also worked closely with them in judging progress and deciding whether milestones in the Space Act Agreements were met.

The partnership with Boeing began in 2010 when NASA selected the company as one of five awardees for the first phase of commercial crew development. NASA’s second round of development awards in April 2011 also included Boeing and called for the CST-100 crew transportation system design to be advanced to the preliminary design review point.

The CCiCap initiative, the third phase of development, began in August 2012 when NASA announced an agreement with Boeing totaling $460 million to advance the design of the integrated transportation system. NASA added an optional milestone in 2013, bringing the total level of NASA investment in Boeing for CCiCap to $480 million.

Development work aligned with milestone goals of the initiative, and work took place at numerous locations across the country to take advantage of unique facilities.

Engineering teams tested and modified mission flight software, including launch, docking, on-orbit, and re-entry and landing maneuvers. Teams conducted mission simulations to advance communications and mission operations planning.

Models of the CST-100 and the Atlas V launch vehicle were tested in wind tunnels. Launch abort engines and thrusters the spacecraft will use for maneuvering in space were test-fired. Work was done to refine the spacecraft and service module designs and make modifications required for human rating the existing commercially available United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket.

Ground systems design and operation included launch site modification plans for crews and pad workers. Landing and recovery details also were conceived, reviewed, tested and approved.

All this work ensured Boeing’s crew transportation system matured to the verge of flight test article construction.

NASA's goal for the Commercial Crew Program is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost-effective access to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station. The next and final phase of commercial crew development was announced recently with the award of Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts to Boeing and SpaceX. With the new contracts, NASA’s goal is to certify crew transportation systems in 2017 that will return the ability to launch astronauts from American soil to the International Space Station using privately built spacecraft.

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rusty on 10/21/2014 10:19 PM
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative.  Yes, they got more money.  However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too.  No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX.  They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key facts.  The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk.  By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks.  For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it.
For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks.  So that was their major milestones.  Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on).  So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it.  Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to.  Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.
"For Boeing, for example," you've outlined how they didn't actually DO anything to get such a massive contract and what minimal effort and absence of engineering they put forth. The "significant risks" were addressed by using other's work, previous designs and putting off testing them. The capsule is based on others work, previous designs and no where near actually tested.
The only thing that can be chalked up to Boeing is "modern analysis" aka algorithmic work on their CAD compilations. In that regard, I'd point out algorithms are no substitute for the hardware tests Boeing explicitly didn't do unlike its competitors. ie; on Boeing's 787, hardware tests revealed algorithmic conclusions to be insufficient - the wingbox (delaminated), power systems (failed and fires) and fuel lines (expansion); on Lockheed's LCS, waves predictably caused the hull and structure to fracture.
The only task Being actually completed (the "significant risks" were only addressed, not completed) was crunching numbers on their Powerpoint proposal and accounts for exactly bumpkiss towards developing a system. But somehow this justified a four-plus billion dollar contract at the expense of a more developed, capable and cheaper proposal. Something stinks, and it ain't me.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/21/2014 11:11 PM
Something stinks, and it ain't me.

^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
There isn't just one engineering design process.  The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.

But the other hand, Boeing has clearly done considerably more than analysis and powerpoints.  They've built and tested hardware, even if they haven't built a complete capsule yet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Patchouli on 10/21/2014 11:44 PM

"For Boeing, for example," you've outlined how they didn't actually DO anything to get such a massive contract and what minimal effort and absence of engineering they put forth. The "significant risks" were addressed by using other's work, previous designs and putting off testing them. The capsule is based on others work, previous designs and no where near actually tested.
The only thing that can be chalked up to Boeing is "modern analysis" aka algorithmic work on their CAD compilations. In that regard, I'd point out algorithms are no substitute for the hardware tests Boeing explicitly didn't do unlike its competitors. ie; on Boeing's 787, hardware tests revealed algorithmic conclusions to be insufficient - the wingbox (delaminated), power systems (failed and fires) and fuel lines (expansion); on Lockheed's LCS, waves predictably caused the hull and structure to fracture.
The only task Being actually completed (the "significant risks" were only addressed, not completed) was crunching numbers on their Powerpoint proposal and accounts for exactly bumpkiss towards developing a system. But somehow this justified a four-plus billion dollar contract at the expense of a more developed, capable and cheaper proposal. Something stinks, and it ain't me.

I expect the CST-100 to work as there is nothing about the design that pushes the boundaries so or tries anything new.
As for their design philosophy they are a huge traditional aerospace company and this is how they tend to operate vs the build ,test and refine philosophy like Spacex or even SNC.

But as a tax payer I feel that four plus billion could have been better spent as like Musk said it costs much more but does less then Dragon V2.

Musk probably would not have been so cheeky if SNC was his competitor.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mkent on 10/21/2014 11:47 PM
Something stinks, and it ain't me.

^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
There isn't just one engineering design process.  The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.

This is what it means:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734)

Quote
But the other hand, Boeing has clearly done considerably more than analysis and powerpoints.  They've built and tested hardware, even if they haven't built a complete capsule yet.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/21/2014 11:58 PM
Something stinks, and it ain't me.

^^Yet another person who doesn't understand the engineering design process.
There isn't just one engineering design process.  The mere fact of having completed the design review doesn't mean anything definite, except that it's a box ticked off on a NASA check list.

This is what it means:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1272734#msg1272734)
Yeah, sure.  And this is what else it means:

I have a friend who worked designing cruise missiles (for a group that is now part of Boeing).  He described CDRs in rather unflattering terms.
...
He said that neither of the main CDR goals (Is the design sound?  Is it ready for fabrication?) was advanced by the CDR.  The first had been settled long ago, by informal meetings between the relevant technical experts.   It was unthinkable that anyone would advance to a CDR with any serious technical questions unanswered.
...
When he switched to the military side of the house (not by choice, his commercial product got cancelled),  he started to have to run formal CDRs.  He felt the process sucked up an enormous amount of engineering time, to very little practical benefit.

In a perfect world, the CDR is where you certify that the design is complete and correct and you are ready to start cutting metal - but in reality, with concurrent engineering practices the wall between "design" and "fabrication" is largely broken down.
...
The other thing is that there is no such monolithic thing as "CDR". Every individual system usually has their own CDR, and in some organizations they have both "internal CDRs" and "external CDRs". There are "Mission System CDRs" and "Flight System CDRs" and "Program CDRs".
...
the worst CDRs I've ever been involved with were the ones where the organization wasn't ready, but the program schedule said this was when the CDR took place, and they held it anyway. That wastes everyone's time for a week and gives rise to the worst possible outcome, a "Delta CDR" where you spend another week doing it all over again.

Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 10/22/2014 12:18 AM

Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.

Clearly. Right.  Because, clearly, it couldn't be that a company has internal checks and balances, hires top-notch consultants to get additional insights and external checks on its checks and balances, and the teams involved have not only professional capability but pride invested in doing a good job.

Sheesh.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/22/2014 12:53 AM
By CDR, you damn well better NOT have any "serious technical question unanswered." You have PLENTY of them at PDR, but between closure of all outstanding RIDs and sign-off on the PDR and the time you put your CDR deliverables together, the very definition of the "final design process" includes addressing all the questions and concerns raised at PDR, you are ready to bend metal.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 01:25 AM

Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.

Clearly. Right.  Because, clearly, it couldn't be that a company has internal checks and balances, hires top-notch consultants to get additional insights and external checks on its checks and balances, and the teams involved have not only professional capability but pride invested in doing a good job.

Sheesh.
I'm talking about what having the CDR done means, not what the situation may be when the CDR is done.

obi-wan mentioned cases where people just did a CDR prematurely for the sake of keeping on schedule, and then quietly did the real one when they were ready for it.

Because these kinds of shenanigans do happen, saying the contractually mandated CDR is done tells you approximately nothing, by itself.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 10/22/2014 01:51 AM
Because these kinds of shenanigans do happen, saying the contractually mandated CDR is done tells you approximately nothing, by itself.

Having a CDR and completing a CDR are not the same thing.  Typically the first part of a CDR is laying out what are your requirements, the second part is showing how you meet those requirements (design and analysis).  If the second part doesn't adequately support the first part, then you'll have to schedule a Delta CDR.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: obi-wan on 10/22/2014 05:03 AM

Exactly what a CDR means varies from case to case, and when the CDR is a contract milestone you get paid for meeting, it clearly means a lot less because you're given such a strong incentive to declare it completed.

Clearly. Right.  Because, clearly, it couldn't be that a company has internal checks and balances, hires top-notch consultants to get additional insights and external checks on its checks and balances, and the teams involved have not only professional capability but pride invested in doing a good job.

Sheesh.
I'm talking about what having the CDR done means, not what the situation may be when the CDR is done.

obi-wan mentioned cases where people just did a CDR prematurely for the sake of keeping on schedule, and then quietly did the real one when they were ready for it.

Because these kinds of shenanigans do happen, saying the contractually mandated CDR is done tells you approximately nothing, by itself.

Sorry, no, that's not what I said. Delta CDRs are a bad thing - it announces to the world you screwed up your CDR and you're having to do part or all of it over. It's the kind of event where, whether it's a real threat or not, the project management starts worrying about the sponsor pulling the plug if the Delta CDR doesn't go well. After you get raked over the coals in a CDR (which, honestly, happens even if you're in great shape, because that's what it's all about), you can always say, "Well, at least they're not going to make us do a Delta CDR!"

And, by the way, there's no such thing as a meaningless CDR. You always come out of it stronger because smart, experienced people who are not on your team sit on a review board and critique your work. It is an incredible pain in the ass and worth its weight in gold to your program...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: archipeppe68 on 10/22/2014 07:47 AM
Here it my contribution about the topic.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 03:14 PM
Sorry, no, that's not what I said. Delta CDRs are a bad thing - it announces to the world you screwed up your CDR
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.  However, you were saying that there are CDRs, and there are CDRs.  There isn't just one that always means the project is really good to go, which is what people are treating it as.

Quote
And, by the way, there's no such thing as a meaningless CDR. You always come out of it stronger because smart, experienced people who are not on your team sit on a review board and critique your work. It is an incredible pain in the ass and worth its weight in gold to your program...
That seems like it must depend on the relative ability, level of effort, and match-up of design philosophy of the review board to the design team.

LouScheffer's friend sounds like he sure doesn't think they're worth their weight in gold.

It seems to me that trying to satisfy all of a board's concerns can turn into something closely resembling a design-by-committee, and letting that happen is the easiest way to pass review.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 10/22/2014 03:49 PM
Here it my contribution about the topic.

Thanks for the upload.  Just cause it was going to bug me the rest of the day, I rearranged the projections so that the capsule is never pointed sideways.  The drafter in me is lashing out.  ;D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 10/22/2014 04:41 PM
Sorry, no, that's not what I said. Delta CDRs are a bad thing - it announces to the world you screwed up your CDR
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.  However, you were saying that there are CDRs, and there are CDRs.  There isn't just one that always means the project is really good to go, which is what people are treating it as.

Quote
And, by the way, there's no such thing as a meaningless CDR. You always come out of it stronger because smart, experienced people who are not on your team sit on a review board and critique your work. It is an incredible pain in the ass and worth its weight in gold to your program...
That seems like it must depend on the relative ability, level of effort, and match-up of design philosophy of the review board to the design team.

LouScheffer's friend sounds like he sure doesn't think they're worth their weight in gold.

It seems to me that trying to satisfy all of a board's concerns can turn into something closely resembling a design-by-committee, and letting that happen is the easiest way to pass review.

All due respect but it sounds to me as though you're reaching over and over again to find ways to question the validity of Boeing's CDR, adjusting your argument as you get new facts.

By your logic, any contract is also not worth the paper it's written on (or digital equivalent) because there may be some bad actors or because some folks don't take it seriously.

Also by your logic, NASA doesn't know how to evaluate a CDR (remember they have to concur that milestones are met) - which is laughable.  Unless you also want to say that "the fix is in".

There are standards in engineering.  Just like the rest of the world, sometimes people don't meet those standards.  But Boeing is not one of the world's top-of-class engineering companies by accident, or by dint of rent-seeking, or via any other mechanism.  Take a look at ISS - talk about _pain_ as regards CDRs and FRR's and all the rest (I was there) - and done with an international team speaking multiple languages just learning how to play together.  It has a superb on-orbit ops record. Without hyperbole, it is one of the greatest engineering achievements (and systems integration achievements) in human history.  They must've had some idea what they were doing.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 07:36 PM
All due respect but it sounds to me as though you're reaching over and over again to find ways to question the validity of Boeing's CDR, adjusting your argument as you get new facts.
I'm not "questioning the validity of Boeing's CDR", I'm pointing out that it doesn't actually mean what people are trying to claim it means: that they're closer to having a working vehicle than SpaceX or SNC, because they finished their CDR first.

That's just not what it means.  There are better and worse ways of passing CDR, which leave you closer to or further from the goal of carrying passengers.  In this particular case, passing CDR still means being years from flying missions.

Quote
Also by your logic, NASA doesn't know how to evaluate a CDR (remember they have to concur that milestones are met) - which is laughable.  Unless you also want to say that "the fix is in".

There are standards in engineering.  Just like the rest of the world, sometimes people don't meet those standards.  But Boeing is not one of the world's top-of-class engineering companies by accident, or by dint of rent-seeking, or via any other mechanism.  Take a look at ISS - talk about _pain_ as regards CDRs and FRR's and all the rest (I was there) - and done with an international team speaking multiple languages just learning how to play together.  It has a superb on-orbit ops record. Without hyperbole, it is one of the greatest engineering achievements (and systems integration achievements) in human history.  They must've had some idea what they were doing.
NASA and Boeing are both huge organizations, that don't have a consistent character from team to team.  They've each put teams on things that fouled up badly, and they've each put teams on things that succeeded brilliantly.

What they certainly haven't demonstrated is infallibility.

More than anything to expect consistently from Boeing is that they know how to play the game, to tell government customers what they want to hear and win contracts, because that's where corporate's interest is at a peak.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/23/2014 03:24 AM
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments  ;D
Laugh if you want, but when people are trying to use their expert status to push an agenda and swat down reasonable criticism and doubt, while biting their tongues and letting unreasonable stuff said stand as long as it helps their side, this is the sort of thing that's going to happen.

I don't like playing this sort of role in an argument where I'm basically picking at contradictions between what one expert is saying that any expert would agree with, and what another expert's saying that differs, about something I don't know much about, but that's clearly not adding up.  It's just better than the alternative of taking things on faith.

I've probably been posting more than I should, but I learn a lot this way.  People at a lot of different levels of knowledge communicate together here.  I do my best to acknowledge when I've overstated my case, and not add to the confusion.  But I don't consider awareness that the person I'm arguing with knows more than me about the issue at hand to be a reason to stop arguing, unless their position is clearly a matter of objective truth that I could study and confirm instead.

Sometimes when I know more, I look back and regret those arguments, and realize I was being stupid.  Sometimes, knowing more, I'm more convinced I had a point worth fighting for.

And with all that's been said so far, I still don't believe passing CDR means anything definite and comparable between one project and another.  One project might pass CDR sooner and with less real chance of success because they made passing it a goal in and of itself, saving up trouble for later, while another project might pass CDR later because they treated it as something that would arise naturally as a side effect of their uncompromised development process.  A project can pass CDR, and the design can still turn out to be a failure because the review board missed the same things the design team missed, or a great design can be held up by a review board that doesn't have the knowledge and talent to understand why it's going to work, even though it has all been worked out properly.

Saying that NASA was right to pick Boeing's pricey bid, because the bid is better, because CST-100 passed CDR, and that the CDR should be trusted because Boeing and NASA are great at this stuff, is circular reasoning.  You might as well skip mention of the CDR, and just say Boeing and NASA are great at this stuff.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 10/23/2014 03:39 AM
SpaceX has completed half their CDR. Milestone 13A was completed a while ago and 13B was recently completed according to Reisman. We are not talking about a huge gap between the two companies.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: archipeppe68 on 10/23/2014 07:38 AM
Here it my contribution about the topic.

Thanks for the upload.  Just cause it was going to bug me the rest of the day, I rearranged the projections so that the capsule is never pointed sideways.  The drafter in me is lashing out.  ;D

Never mind. thanks for the re-arrangement.

Ciao
Giuseppe
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/23/2014 04:27 PM
SpaceX has completed half their CDR. Milestone 13A was completed a while ago and 13B was recently completed according to Reisman. We are not talking about a huge gap between the two companies.

Let's not confuse the methodology that Boeing and SpaceX uses to back up their claims during the CDR presentation that the design specifications presented are reasonably achievable.  SpaceX does it the old fashion way of actually building prototypes and then fitting them all together to determine if their design is achievable for a flight unit.  Boeing uses other data such as what has been achieved before to show that the specific designs can be met.  For more critical items such as structure strength margins and LAS propulsion subsystems Boeing actually did some prototypes and testing.  It's this difference in approach that is the major item in the CCtCAP costs differences for development.  Boeing has to produce all the subsystems prototypes and create a full up integrated test article. SpaceX already has nearly completed this step.

A CDR is the presentation of the design specifications for the complete systems and all subsystems showing the specifications for environment (thermal, EM, and acoustic), fit, location, weight, thermal, power and interfaces.  It also includes the reasoning that these specifications can be achieved within a reasonable amount of risk that the design would have to be changed for the actual flight units.  It is just that SpaceX without a large set of other space programs systems and experience to draw from uses actual prototype hardware to justify their designs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: obi-wan on 10/23/2014 04:57 PM
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments  ;D

It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)

I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: RonM on 10/23/2014 05:19 PM
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments  ;D

It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)

I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

It's also a good idea to share knowledge to establish credibility. Remember, this is a forum on the Internet. New members who are not familiar with previous posts don't know if other members are industry professionals or kids on their parents' computer.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: aga on 10/23/2014 06:33 PM
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

but this should work the other way around too... people who are not experts should not be arrogant and aggressively push their agendas just because they do not like what the experts are saying... or even accusing them of lying (even indirectly)... as is often happening on this forum...
and they should listen what the experts tell them... at least a little bit... and they should be glad that they have the opportunity to even talk to the experts, ask them questions...

show some respect... do not think you have all the knowledge in the world, as some of the non-experts are behaving here
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TomH on 10/23/2014 09:53 PM
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

but this should work the other way around too... people who are not experts should not be arrogant and aggressively push their agendas just because they do not like what the experts are saying... or even accusing them of lying (even indirectly)... as is often happening on this forum...
and they should listen what the experts tell them... at least a little bit... and they should be glad that they have the opportunity to even talk to the experts, ask them questions...

show some respect... do not think you have all the knowledge in the world, as some of the non-experts are behaving here

And this is exactly the point. Logical detailed cases have been laid out, yet people with no understanding keep slamming those who do know what they're talking about. It is just silly. There comes a point at which experts get tired of laying out information over and over, only to have believers continually attempt feeble contradictions.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nindalf on 10/24/2014 01:38 AM
Okay, so you've got one expert saying:
"The CDR is the Critical Design Review.  It is the second-most important milestone on an aerospace development program -- second only to first flight. ... Simply put, it is the gate between design and fabrication.  If you haven't passed CDR, you aren't in fabrication, you're still in design."

...and you've got others saying, "in reality, with concurrent engineering practices the wall between 'design' and 'fabrication' is largely broken down." and "neither of the main CDR goals (Is the design sound?  Is it ready for fabrication?) was advanced by the CDR.  The first had been settled long ago".

Apparently, if you listen to the experts unquestioningly, design is settled long before CDR, AND CDR means the design is "90% done" (and you know what they say about getting "90%" of something done: you still have to do the other 90%).  If you haven't passed CDR, you aren't in fabrication, you're still in design, AND the wall between 'design' and 'fabrication' is largely broken down.

I'm not against CST-100.  I've posted lots of positive things about it, and pointed out the ways I think it's better than either Dragon or Dream Chaser (mostly that I think it'll be the best lifeboat, and is the most suitable for an expensive launch platform like Atlas V, which can't have a lot of test flights, and of course, the reboost capability is a significant bonus for ISS).  I've been back and forth over whether I think SNC or Boeing has the stronger case as new information has come out and new arguments have been raised, but always admitted uncertainty over who should win the dispute.  What I'm against is misleading characterizations, bad logic, and incorrect information, in any discussion.

This isn't a cost-plus contract.  NASA's involved to lend a hand, and to evaluate what they're willing to pay for and fly astronauts on, NOT to specify the details of how they want the vehicles built and have their way on every point.  The customer CDR is not an essential part of the design process in this case.  These are commercial vehicles, which will be owned and operated by the companies building them, not by NASA, and they can be built without passing some single customer's CDR.  The companies designing them can and should push back against NASA feedback, to keep their vehicles economical and maximize their commercial potential.

SpaceX hasn't been shy about saying they were going ahead with or without NASA, and when SNC lost in the downselect (aside from disputing that decision), they immediately started shopping Dream Chaser around to other potential customers.  Only Boeing has said straight-up that they're not doing CST-100 without NASA, and therefore would definitely need to pass the NASA CDR to proceed.

I reject the "it is the second-most important milestone ... second only to first flight ... it is the gate between design and fabrication" position.  Regardless of who it comes from, I don't believe that's a correct assessment, as applied to these particular CDRs.

It's just a contract milestone here.  Completing it reasonably means that NASA is more satisfied with the design (and we know that independently about CST-100 because it won a contract, and leaked documents have said so), but not that the design is actually more complete.

(edit: something funny happened when I tried to post it the first time, and it ended up posting an earlier revision I had previewed but didn't intend to post)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Lar on 10/24/2014 02:55 AM
There is way too much casting of aspersions in this thread for my taste.  We have a lot of experts here and a lot of interested amateurs. Give people the respect they are due, be willing to concede that others may have something to bring that you don't (information you don't have since you don't work in the industry... a fresh perspective from not working in the industry, or even just a different set of facts) and in general be excellent to each other.

I just downselected a few posts. Some of them are still referenced in other ones, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Please turn the excellent-ness level up a notch or 3 ( from its current setting of -1...)  Less bashing of Boeing, of each other, of everything. Thank you.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ChefPat on 10/25/2014 03:02 PM
Have there been any updates on the CST-100 lately?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MattMason on 11/06/2014 07:27 PM
Have there been any updates on the CST-100 lately?

Two bits of news:

The CST-100 mockup visited Abu Dhabi on November 5. Opinion: While the report notes that the visit is to promote education interests for children, you could read more in this when a spacecraft concept visits a country with a lot of millionaires.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/boeing-s-cst-100-debuts-in-abu-dhabi-114110500447_1.html (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/boeing-s-cst-100-debuts-in-abu-dhabi-114110500447_1.html)

And UTC Aerospace has been tapped by Boeing to make the CST's ECLSS (that's "life support system" for the tragically anagram-impaired).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/utc-aerospace-systems-supports-boeing-cst-100-vehicle-2014-11-06?reflink=MW_news_stmp (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/utc-aerospace-systems-supports-boeing-cst-100-vehicle-2014-11-06?reflink=MW_news_stmp)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MattMason on 11/06/2014 07:30 PM
A more detailed report on the Abu Dhabi visit in this article from the Khaleej Times:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness)

EDIT: Corrected spelling
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 11/06/2014 08:25 PM
A more detailed report on the Abu Dhabi visit in this article from the Kaleej Times:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness)

Thanks for pointing to this article.

I do have a question about one of Ferguson's answers.

To the question "Who were Boeing’s competitors in launching this space vehicle?",

Ferguson replies "We were up against some new companies that are doing some very innovative and creative things to bring down the cost of human space flight but Space X and Boeing are both still in the running, so it’s still a competition. We have our test flights guaranteed to us from Nasa but the next major hurdle is who will be the first one to take Nasa passengers to lower orbit. That decision will be made in May 2015."

Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/06/2014 09:37 PM

Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.
Because of the long-lead planning. It takes months... years of forward planning before the launch actually takes place. NASA could theoretically wait until a system is online and then start the 2-3 years process, which means Commercial Crew wouldn't reach station before 2020, and we'd need to buy another 4-8 Soyuz launches.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 11/06/2014 10:15 PM
It can take 2 to 3 years between a decision to launch a specific payload and when that payload actually flies, but it does not have to and rarely does. Everything about the crew flight will use NASA standard hardware, either purchased directly from NASA (CCST-100) or built to NASA standards (SpaceX). Nothing unusual. If there was an emergency aboard ISS which required a crew vehicle launch and dock to ISS NASA could pull that off in weeks, providing both spacecraft were ready, and depending on LV availability. Weeks, not years.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: RanulfC on 11/11/2014 01:17 AM
Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.

Call me paranoid but I suspect that will be when a "decsion" is made on if there is going to be another "down-select" and Boeing is planning on the answer being "yes" and one guess who they expect to "win" that one :(

Randy
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 11/11/2014 01:27 PM
You are paranoid :-P

The decision is who will fly first.  Someone has to be first.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 11/11/2014 04:30 PM
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 11/11/2014 04:39 PM
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 11/11/2014 05:04 PM
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.

I can certainly accept that crews must be trained for these spacecraft. But my response is, why not train crews for both vehicles? I thought NASA was planning on using both spacecraft in perpetuity (or until ISS is decommissioned) for dissimilar redundancy in getting crew to and from the ISS?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 11/12/2014 12:51 AM
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.

I can certainly accept that crews must be trained for these spacecraft. But my response is, why not train crews for both vehicles? I thought NASA was planning on using both spacecraft in perpetuity (or until ISS is decommissioned) for dissimilar redundancy in getting crew to and from the ISS?

Yes, each company will move along at their milestone pace.  I don't think ther eis anything magic about Mayish except for maybe CRS2.  But ISSPO will not be locking in a provider at that point I believe.

NASA will not be trainign the crews - the providers do.

it is not practical to train crews for both.  We will never have a person go up/down on different (excelt *maybe* a tourist) and the flights for an ISS increment are too far aprt to train for both.  Probably you will get generic training both until it is clear what vehicle you are taking up.  Even though they are autonomous vehciles they are too complicated to train for both as a pilot/CDR.

NASA has never said anything about using both forever.  After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete.  One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Roy_H on 11/12/2014 02:29 AM
NASA has never said anything about using both forever.  After the certs and first few flights NASA will re-compete.  One or both could win or lose based on cost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...

NASA has repeatedly said that they want redundancy, backup with different companies. Possibly SNC would get chosen in the future and either Boeing or SpaceX could loose out. But down to one? Only if Congress forces it on them.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2014 02:33 AM
{snip}
NASA has never said anything about using both forever.  After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete.  One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...

It is a beginners mistake for a manager to choose one monopoly supplier when he can play two suppliers off against each other.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 11/12/2014 05:13 AM

Yes, each company will move along at their milestone pace.  I don't think ther eis anything magic about Mayish except for maybe CRS2.  But ISSPO will not be locking in a provider at that point I believe.

NASA will not be trainign the crews - the providers do.

it is not practical to train crews for both.  We will never have a person go up/down on different (excelt *maybe* a tourist) and the flights for an ISS increment are too far aprt to train for both.  Probably you will get generic training both until it is clear what vehicle you are taking up.  Even though they are autonomous vehciles they are too complicated to train for both as a pilot/CDR.

NASA has never said anything about using both forever.  After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete.  One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...

If NASA decides to fly 6 post-certification missions for each provider that takes us to the end of 2022 which is almost the end of the ISS extension (2024).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/01/2014 11:26 PM
Boeing Completes First Milestone for NASA’s Commercial Crew Transportation Systems
December 1, 2014

NASA has approved the completion of Boeing’s first milestone in the company’s path toward launching crews to the International Space Station from the United States under a groundbreaking Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract.

The Certification Baseline Review is the first of many more milestones, including flight tests from Florida’s Space Coast that will establish the basis for certifying Boeing’s human space transportation system to carry NASA astronauts to the space station. The review established a baseline design of the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft, United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, and associated ground and mission operations systems.

"The work done now is crucial to each of the future steps in the path to certification, including a flight test to the International Space Station," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. "This first milestone establishes an expected operating rhythm for NASA and Boeing to meet our certification goal."

On Sept. 16, the agency unveiled its selection of Boeing and SpaceX to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their CST-100 and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively. These contracts will provide U.S. missions to the station, ending the nation’s sole reliance on Russia and allowing the station’s current crew of six to grow, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.

The CCtCap contracts are designed for the companies to complete NASA certification of their human space transportation systems, including a crewed flight test with at least one NASA astronaut aboard to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch from the United States, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, as well as validate all its systems perform as expected. Once the test program has been completed successfully and the systems achieve NASA certification, the contractors will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station. The spacecraft also will serve as a lifeboat for astronauts aboard the station.

During the review, Boeing provided NASA with a roadmap toward certification, including its baseline design, concept of operations and management and insight plans. The Boeing team also detailed how the CST-100 would connect with the station and how it plans to train NASA astronauts to fly the CST-100 in orbit.

"It's important for us to set a robust plan for achieving certification upfront," said Boeing Commercial Crew Program Manager John Mulholland. "It's crucial for us to achieve our 2017 goal, and the plan we’ve put in place will get us there."

By expanding the crew size and enabling private companies to handle launches to low-Earth orbit -- a region NASA has been visiting since 1962 -- the nation's space agency can focus on getting the most research and experience out of America's investment in the International Space Station. NASA also can expand its focus to develop the Space Launch System and Orion capsule for missions in the proving ground of deep space beyond the moon to advance the skills and techniques that will enable humans to explore Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-completes-first-milestone-for-nasa-s-commercial-crew-transportation-systems (http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-completes-first-milestone-for-nasa-s-commercial-crew-transportation-systems)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Beittil on 12/02/2014 09:40 AM
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.

Where is your hardware Boeing? :(
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: guckyfan on 12/02/2014 10:29 AM
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.

Where is your hardware Boeing? :(

Exactly my thoughts too. But you must admit Boeing are good at this game.

When will they do the pad abort?

When will they do the in flight abort? Or is the name Boeing on the label good for omitting one or both?

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/02/2014 01:53 PM
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.

Where is your hardware Boeing? :(
Boeing has already made some test articles, but the November 3/10 Aviation Week reports that assembly of the Structural Test Article was set to begin in November, and that upper and lower pressure domes and the tunnel assembly were all in final stages of machining at the vendor.  The STA is expected to be completed during the Spring of 2015. 

The STA is one of four spacecraft planned - the STA, a 2016 pad abort test article, a 2017 uncrewed test article, and the first crewed spacecraft set to fly later in 2017.   A flight design service module will be tested at White Sands (propulsion system qualification tests) in 2016.  A flight qualification flight unit and pad abort test unit will also be at White Sands.

Remember, we haven't seen any photos of a real Dragon 2 either.  Both programs are just kicking off.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: abaddon on 12/02/2014 05:22 PM
Remember, we haven't seen any photos of a real Dragon 2 either.  Both programs are just kicking off.

The Dragon V2 shown earlier was real hardware.  Apparently the pressure vessel will be used for both abort tests.  But that's not relevant to this thread.

On topic, I still have not heard of any planned in-flight abort test for the CST-100.  Is there any reference to when that will take place?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 12/02/2014 05:34 PM
To me this just comes across as yet another 'power point' milestone. A couple of days of presentations on how things could be and wham... Boeing can hold up their hands again.

Where is your hardware Boeing? :(

First milestones are like this. Look at CCiCap, CCDev2, etc.

Spacex will have similar milestones.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: jacqmans on 12/10/2014 06:34 PM
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Moves Another Step Closer to Flight

Program completes baseline and ground segment Critical Design Review
 

HOUSTON, Dec. 10, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] and NASA recently completed the Ground Segment Critical Design Review and set the baseline design for the company’s Commercial Crew Transportation System, moving a step closer to the planned early 2017 voyage to the International Space Station.

Completion of the Certification Baseline Review allows construction on system hardware, including the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin. It also keeps the effort on track for achieving human-rated certification of the vehicle and ULA Atlas V rocket.

“This is an important step towards achieving human-rated certification,” said Boeing Commercial Crew Program Manager John Mulholland. “This review provided an in-depth assessment of our training, facilities, operations and our flight processes.”

Setting the design was the first milestone under the $4.2 billion contract NASA awarded to Boeing in September.

The second milestone in the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of the Commercial Crew Program, the Ground System Critical Design Review, evaluates all the ground operations and systems, mission operation systems, facilities, training systems, including mock-ups and trainers, and the control center.

The Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft, being developed in partnership with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, will provide a U.S. system for taking astronauts and cargo to low-Earth orbit destinations, such as the space station. It will accommodate up to seven people, or a mix of crew and cargo, and features a weldless structure, wireless Internet, and Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 12/10/2014 09:20 PM
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.

Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign.  ::)

Is it:

A) A skylight, but in space *none serious*.

B) A bunch of tacky LEDs or whatever it is that seems to bathe the capsule interior in stark blue light from the mockup's they've created earlier. But in space. *pseudo-genuine question*

D) Creative marketing of the "rich Corinthian leather" variety? *genuine question*

C) (most likely explanation) Something with an actual function? *curious question*

Sorry to be a dunce.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Will on 12/10/2014 09:40 PM
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.

Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign.  ::)

Is it:

A) A skylight, but in space *none serious*.

B) A bunch of tacky LEDs or whatever it is that seems to bathe the capsule interior in stark blue light from the mockup's they've created earlier. But in space. *pseudo-genuine question*

D) Creative marketing of the "rich Corinthian leather" variety? *genuine question*

C) (most likely explanation) Something with an actual function? *curious question*

Sorry to be a dunce.

B & C. It's the same kind of kind of LED lighting they use on their newest model jets. The sky blue is supposed to make the cabin seem larger, and the LEDs require lower power and last longer than fluorescents.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 12/10/2014 10:19 PM
Every vehicle put forward for consideration in CCtCAP had some version of blue interior lighting.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/10/2014 10:50 PM
Boeing Covers Groundwork in Second Milestone
December 10, 2014

The momentum of certifying American space transportation systems capable of carrying astronauts to the International Space Station continued on pace as NASA took a comprehensive look at all of Boeing’s ground-based system designs. This Ground Segment Critical Design Review marks the second milestone in the company’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, NASA’s Launch America initiative designed to return human spaceflight launches to the United States and end our reliance on Russia.

The three-week-long review covered Boeing’s plans for constructing and processing its Crew Space Transportation System, called the CST-100, in a former orbiter processing facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where Boeing will process its CST-100. It also covered the development of a nearby mission control center that would be the hub of the company’s engineering operations.

“Along with facility designs, we looked at the operation processes,” said Dave Allega, a lead in the Ground and Mission Operations Office of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “How would they be using those facilities? What is the flow? How are they going to build up their new spacecraft, get it ready to fly, put it on the launch vehicle and then operate it once it is there? Then, after landing, how will they go recover it and turn it around to go and do it again?”

A few dozen engineers, along with safety and health and human performance experts, took a deep dive into the various elements here on the ground that would support a crew mission to the station. Even astronauts who could one day fly aboard the CST-100 participated in the review of these critical elements, such as how Boeing would test flight hardware, and assemble and integrate its spacecraft to the United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket. They even looked at the equipment that would move the integrated stack to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 41.

“ULA has a long history of successful uncrewed commercial launches, and now they are highlighting what is different about flying a crew,” said John Mulholland, Boeing Commercial Crew Program Manager.

Another critical piece of this review included how Boeing plans to train astronauts prior to missions and how the company will monitor crew members during all phases of the flight. For example, the CST-100 spacecraft simulator the company built at its Houston Product Support Center will start to see a lot of action as more pilot-in-the-loop demonstrations are performed and crew training begins.

“The CST-100 will be a more simple vehicle to operate than the space shuttle, but the automation is complicated in and of itself, so we need to understand that automation and so does the crew,” said Allega. “When Boeing trains our astronauts, they will have to balance simplicity, and giving the crew everything they need to know to manually operate the spacecraft just in case something goes wrong.”

As part of its Launch America initiative, NASA selected Boeing and SpaceX to finalize their respective space transportation system designs, then build and fly test flights with crews to the station over the next few years. For actual crew transportation missions to the ISS, the CCtCap contract requires crew handover to NASA within one hour of landing, which is why Boeing is looking at bringing the CST-100 home to land on terra-ferma in the Western United States using parachute and then utilizing airbags to soften the final touchdown. This means for the first time since the end of NASA’s Space Shuttle Program, agency managers, program managers and medical teams won’t need to leave the United States to greet astronauts returning from space.

"This critical design review was validation to the NASA team that all of Boeing’s ground segment plans are in place and are starting to match up to our certification requirements," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "This is a really good sign that we're marching at a good pace to reach our goal of certifying the system to fly to the space station."

http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-covers-groundwork-in-second-milestone (http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-covers-groundwork-in-second-milestone)

Image Caption: Concept of the floor of the CST-100 assembly facility that Boeing envisions at Kennedy Space Center. Image Credit: Boeing
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2014 11:54 PM
Remember, we haven't seen any photos of a real Dragon 2 either.  Both programs are just kicking off.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes we have, at the unveiling. Musk made a point that it was real flight hardware. Obviously not flight "ready", but a real Dragon v2. Both spacecraft are following their own schedules but I would estimate that Dragon appears to be further along. YMMV.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mkent on 12/11/2014 01:45 AM
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.

Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign.  ::)

It's Boeing's blue lighting scheme first used on the 787.  Here's a picture of it in the commercial CST-100.  NASA's version should be similar.

Edit: Removed bad html & used attach instead.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Garrett on 12/12/2014 09:38 AM
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Moves Another Step Closer to Flight
Program completes baseline and ground segment Critical Design Review
...
Completion of the Certification Baseline Review allows construction on system hardware, including the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin.

(bold emphasis mine)
Now things get interesting. Will the next milestone be a milestone of actual hardware? If so, then Boeing is catching up quickly on SpaceX.
That latest review by Boeing appears to be equivalent to milestone 13B in SpaceX's CCiCAP contract, which SpaceX was supposed to have completed in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. I can't find any confirmation, however, that SpaceX completed that milestone.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Eer on 12/12/2014 11:09 AM
...Boeing LED “Sky Lighting” technology.

Pardon my lay-personisms, but I must have missed the memo on what this is exactly. What on earth is "sky lighting" technology? The roof of my house confides in me that the inclusion of "sky lighting" technology into a orbiting pressure vessel may not be structurally benign.  ::)

It's Boeing's blue lighting scheme first used on the 787.  Here's a picture of it in the commercial CST-100.  NASA's version should be similar.

Edit: Removed bad html & used attach instead.

I don't recall seeing the Flux Capacitor design decorating the center consoles before ... I must have missed that detail when looking at these in the past.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: mkent on 12/13/2014 01:03 AM
Boeing CST-100 Spacecraft Moves Another Step Closer to Flight
Program completes baseline and ground segment Critical Design Review
...
Completion of the Certification Baseline Review allows construction on system hardware, including the spacecraft and United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch vehicle adaptor, to begin.

(bold emphasis mine)
Now things get interesting. Will the next milestone be a milestone of actual hardware? If so, then Boeing is catching up quickly on SpaceX.
That latest review by Boeing appears to be equivalent to milestone 13B in SpaceX's CCiCAP contract, which SpaceX was supposed to have completed in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. I can't find any confirmation, however, that SpaceX completed that milestone.

Sort of.  There are two milestones mentioned in the press release.  Milestone 2 -- the ground system CDR -- is equivalent to SpaceX CCiCap milestone 13B.  Milestone 1 is the Certification Baseline Review.  SpaceX doesn't have a similar milestone in CCiCap, so it is surely in CCtCap.

As for who's ahead, it's hard to say.  SpaceX has a working cargo Dragon which can be thought of as unmanned prototype for their crew Dragon.  So they are able to perform some tasks much earlier than would be the case in the more traditional from-scratch development program that Boeing must undertake.  That allowed SpaceX to move their structural test article and pad & in-flight abort tests into CCiCap putting those things ahead of Boeing's equivalent tests.

So as of right this instant, Boeing is probably ahead, since they have completed CDR and their baseline review (these are major milestones).  However, they will now have to stand-up a supply chain and establish a production facility, something SpaceX did during COTS.  While they are doing that, SpaceX will perform some major tests and take the lead.

Who will finish first?  Hard to say.  Elon Musks says SpaceX will launch their first manned Dragon in late 2016, though he says common schedule slips may push that back to mid 2017.  Boeing says their first manned flight will be in mid 2017.  Historically they haven't slipped as much as SpaceX, but that could change.  Nobody knows right now how this will turn out.

It should be fun.

Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/15/2014 05:14 PM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/16/2014 03:05 PM
With all those touch-screens, moving seats and the like, I'm thinking that both Boeing and SpaceX's interior design engineers are fully paid-up Trekkies! ;D
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/16/2014 08:18 PM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
Surely there is a "co-pilot" position?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 12/16/2014 10:11 PM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
Surely there is a "co-pilot" position?

 - Ed Kyle

I don't think there's a co-pilot position in the way you'd see in an airliner with duplicate displays, controls, etc. Look at the pictures of Ferguson in the simulator.

The way it's described I think whoever's in the left seat is already the "co-pilot," the flight computer is supposed to be flying the capsule anyways.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 12:27 AM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/17/2014 01:02 AM
SpaceX has option of using Dragon 2 for both if they wanted to, too. But the docking port is much smaller for the crew vehicles, so Dragon cargo no doubt offers the superior value to NASA.

And besides, Where is the profit for Boeing if they offer it at a competitive price? The launch on Atlas V (with a couple solids) alone costs as much as SpaceX charged for fully expended Falcon 9 and Dragon combined.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 12/17/2014 01:06 AM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
Surely there is a "co-pilot" position?

 - Ed Kyle

I don't think there's a co-pilot position in the way you'd see in an airliner with duplicate displays, controls, etc. Look at the pictures of Ferguson in the simulator.

The way it's described I think whoever's in the left seat is already the "co-pilot," the flight computer is supposed to be flying the capsule anyways.

Requirement is to be able to operate these commercial vehicles with one person.  NASA will almost certainly train two.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/17/2014 12:20 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

Would a "CST-100C" need to be re-engineered to have a CBM rather than an NDS at the apex?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: MattMason on 12/17/2014 01:07 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

Would a "CST-100C" need to be re-engineered to have a CBM rather than an NDS at the apex?

My guess is no since the CST's design would have to be widened considerably, making it effectively a new spacecraft. They'd use the NASA docking port and cargo would be scaled to fit there. If they needed larger items, Cygnus and Dragon v1 and their use of the CBM would do.

A cargo CST has quite a bit of pressurized volume but I can't locate the usable volume in comparison to Dragon v1 and v2.

The versatility of having three cargo craft (Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) is something NASA shouldn't say no to, especially in light of the recent Antares failure. I'm not sure about the CST's service module propulsion, but it may also be a bonus if it can provide needed orbital boosts to the ISS itself. Bonus for NASA gaining a 2nd vehicle with safe cargo return ability.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/17/2014 01:41 PM
The versatility of having three cargo craft (Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) is something NASA shouldn't say no to, especially in light of the recent Antares failure. I'm not sure about the CST's service module propulsion, but it may also be a bonus if it can provide needed orbital boosts to the ISS itself. Bonus for NASA gaining a 2nd vehicle with safe cargo return ability.
I see a need for a Cygnus-like cargo hauler (no heavy heat shield so more upmass and more volume) and for one return-capable cargo ship (Dragon or CST or something else).  One of each would be enough.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 12/17/2014 01:42 PM
Please consider that ISS would just have two NDS docking ports. Thus, a cargo craft that only uses docking (instead of berthing) means that there would be no redundancy of docking ports for the cargo craft. And they would have to be cleared for the docking of manned crafts to enable a second docking option for crew. Not to mention the limitation for cargo. The latest IDSS standard has fixed petals. 800mm round hole is a lot less than a 1500mm square one. The pressure vessels are formed from one billet and then machined. Looking at its design, it would seem like they could widen a bit the tunnel passage. it might need a new aerodynamic fairing. But they'll be customizing quite a lot of it anyways to reduce costs.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: docmordrid on 12/19/2014 12:22 PM
IIRC, though both Dragon V1 and Cygnus use CBM they have different hatch sizes.

Dragon V1: 1270 mm
Cygnus: 940 mm
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 12/20/2014 11:00 AM
IIRC, though both Dragon V1 and Cygnus use CBM they have different hatch sizes.

Dragon V1: 1270 mm
Cygnus: 940 mm
But the CBM berthing ring is exactly the same. You could have no door, but you still need the collar. I believe that's how the ISS truss is attached, in fact. The question is if CST-100 has enough diameter for such a ring.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 12/20/2014 03:20 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle

We will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo. 
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/20/2014 03:32 PM
I just don’t see another capsule player needed for cargo since they are essentially duplication of the same entry forces and don’t provide the low g entry of Dream Chaser on sensitive experiments...
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/20/2014 03:55 PM
My guess is no since the CST's design would have to be widened considerably, making it effectively a new spacecraft. They'd use the NASA docking port and cargo would be scaled to fit there. If they needed larger items, Cygnus and Dragon v1 and their use of the CBM would do.

In which case why use the CST-100 if it cannot do the job by itself?  Remember that's the whole reason for redundancy is that any vehicle can perform the required tasks for getting cargo to the ISS.

Returning cargo to Earth is currently a mixed bag, where right now only the SpaceX Dragon can return significant cargo, but once Commercial Crew comes online then any of the CC vehicles could be used to return cargo that fits through their docking ports (GLACIER freezers would be an issue, but maybe their contents could be transferred).  That would allow operations to continue until any problems are solved.

Quote
The versatility of having three cargo craft (Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) is something NASA shouldn't say no to, especially in light of the recent Antares failure.

And they won't have to, since once both Commercial Crew vehicles becomes operational NASA will have access to four different spacecraft that would be capable of moving cargo to the ISS (two with size restrictions), and three that can return cargo to Earth (two with size restrictions).

NASA's decision point for the CRS2 contract should be based on price at this point, since technical issues have already been dealt with (or being dealt with on CCtCap).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/20/2014 04:01 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle

We will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo. 
If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: yg1968 on 12/20/2014 05:48 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle

We will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo. 
If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price?

 - Ed Kyle

What I meant by my twice the price comment is that I don't think that Boeing will win an award if their price is twice as much as SpaceX's (as was the case for commercial crew).

In any event, I don't think that the economies of scale are that large. If one proposal is much more expensive then I would go with the two that are the least expensive. But if they are all roughly the same price, there is some logic in selecting 3 companies for CRS2 (e.g., Boeing, SpaceX and Orbital).
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 12/20/2014 06:14 PM
my "dark horse" musing for CRS II was a Boeing/ULA "big transfer vehicle." Basically an American HTV clone (if not simply a Japanese built HTV). If US-built, the service module would have some CST-100 commonality. Really big 4.5m diameter pressurized module on the front with a CBM. Boeing would offer 1 of these per year starting in 2018, but launched on an Atlas 541/551 or even a DIV-H and carrying 7+ tons of cargo. It would give NASA a way to get more cargo to station without adding more flights. In this scenario, Cynus probably goes away.

In light of Orbital's recent trouble I think NASA would be very interested.

Seems like they're offering some kind of cargo optimized CST-100, which I don't think will be competitive.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 12/20/2014 06:21 PM
News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle

We will see. I don't see why NASA would be willing to pay twice the price for the same service for cargo. It is possible that NASA would select three companies for cargo. 
If it selects three companies, won't NASA then end up paying three times the price?

 - Ed Kyle
It really depends. Having a third supplier with a low launch rate (say 1/yr), could be done by CST-100, adding some redundancy for down mass and helping spread the fixed costs of the crewed capsule. Thus, NASA might pay 3X for one flight, but on the overall line of CSR2, it might be just an extra 25%. If it doesn't pays 3X, but more like 1.5X (compared to Dragon, that's probably 200M/mission), then on the overall budget it would be around +10%. Personally, if they are going to do a "third" supply I would select DreamChaser. But I could see them adding the CST-100, too.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 12/20/2014 08:12 PM

News today that Boeing is offering CST-100 for the cargo contract as well.  Having an essentially identical craft working both contracts would seem to be a big advantage compared to SpaceX, which is using basic Dragon for cargo and is working on a more elaborate Dragon 2 for crew.  The CST-100 synergy may also make tough competition for Cygnus.

 - Ed Kyle

What says SpaceX didn't bid for CRS2 with Dragon 2 as their cargo vehicle rather than Dragon 1?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/22/2014 04:28 AM
my "dark horse" musing for CRS II was a Boeing/ULA "big transfer vehicle." Basically an American HTV clone (if not simply a Japanese built HTV). If US-built, the service module would have some CST-100 commonality. Really big 4.5m diameter pressurized module on the front with a CBM. Boeing would offer 1 of these per year starting in 2018, but launched on an Atlas 541/551 or even a DIV-H and carrying 7+ tons of cargo. It would give NASA a way to get more cargo to station without adding more flights. In this scenario, Cynus probably goes away.

In light of Orbital's recent trouble I think NASA would be very interested.

Seems like they're offering some kind of cargo optimized CST-100, which I don't think will be competitive.

NASA is looking for a service, delivering and returning cargo from the ISS. Not paying for development of yet another vehicle. Unless Boeing, LMart or ULA does the vehicle development on their own dime, NASA will not be interested.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Garrett on 12/22/2014 09:12 AM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/22/2014 05:19 PM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)

IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.

It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: arachnitect on 12/22/2014 05:23 PM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)

IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.

It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.


CST-100 ISS version has 5 seats.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/22/2014 06:23 PM
Here is presentation on CST100 (6 Feb 13)

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm

They deliberately took a low cost (internal cost), low technology risk approach. Using as much existing in in-house technology they had ie  what can we use from our extensive parts bin.
CST-100 is only designed for LEO there is no BLEO capabilities built into it.

NASA were not after new technology just reliable transport to ISS that will be built on schedule and to a fix cost.
NASA definitely didn't want another Spaceship Two where it is always 2yrs away from flying.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 12/24/2014 12:43 AM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)

IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.

It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.

The commercial companies may design a vehicle that can carry whatever they want - seems both are targeting about 7.  However, NASA requires to be able to send 1, 2, 3 or 4.    There are no requirements or official plans to have it as a lifeboat for 7. 

Manual docking is also a requirement for the CCP.  The big debate is that means different things to different people - for example, does it mean fully taking the stick and piloting under 6 degrees of freedom?  On top of the fault tolerance of an autonomous vehicle that is a pretty hefty addition (cost, complexity).  But even then, NASA will train a backup person for piloting the vehicle.  If for no other contigency, deconditioned crews may need the help on returning.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: manboy on 12/24/2014 01:21 AM
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)

IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
They're not. They're only required to serve as a lifeboat for a crew of four.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: fast on 12/25/2014 09:49 AM
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: Nomadd on 12/25/2014 01:47 PM
 It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
 Two qualified pilots would be because they want piloted mode to be redundant in itself and not just a redundancy for automatic operation.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/25/2014 03:08 PM
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
Seats and carrying capacity in an emergency are two different things. Apollo was determined to be able to carry 6 people back from Skylab in an emergency, despite only having 3 seats. A couple people may not have a comfortable ride back, but they'll have a ride back.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: baldusi on 12/25/2014 03:15 PM
One issue I've just now realized, is that a catastrophic failure that required the crew to leave in a matter of minutes, might prevent to ago across the station. Thus, having your crewed crafts on each side might be an important security consideration. From that point of view, current Commercial Crew seems like a good solution. Regrettably, the RS won't have enough Soyuzes once the Americans start using their own vehicles. Of course that current situation is worse with all escape vehicles on one side.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: brihath on 12/25/2014 03:19 PM
The plan with Apollo was to add 2 couches and launch with a crew of 2 to rescue the 3 crew onboard Skylab.  This option was considered in 1974 during the third Skylab mission due to a failed thruster quad.  Vance Brand and Don Lind were selected as the rescue crew, but further analysis of the failure determined that a rescue was not necessary.
Title: Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
Post by: erioladastra on 12/25/2014 04:39 PM
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.