Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2  (Read 523143 times)

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6938
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1900
  • Likes Given: 1965
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #620 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.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9415
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 9145
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #622 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.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2014 08:17 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5481
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 679
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #623 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?
-- sdsds --

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3048
  • Likes Given: 1229
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #624 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.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2014 08:41 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #625 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.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #626 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.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2014 12:03 am by baldusi »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #627 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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4649
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 4562
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #628 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
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #629 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.

Offline MP99

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

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #631 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.


« Last Edit: 10/06/2014 01:19 pm by newpylong »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #632 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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4649
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 4562
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #633 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #634 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
« Last Edit: 10/06/2014 11:03 pm by Jim »

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #635 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...)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3048
  • Likes Given: 1229
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #636 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 :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #637 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

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #638 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

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4649
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 4562
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #639 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: