-
#1060
by
jtrame
on 04 Sep, 2015 17:09
-
We got some new promo videos and got a look inside C3PF. Pretty much negates my criticism of Boeing's lack of same. Thanks Chris for an excellent job as always!
-
#1061
by
Endeavour_01
on 04 Sep, 2015 17:32
-
I agree with Chris that the name is okay. I felt a little let down but it could have been worse. Looking forward to seeing the Starliner fly!
P.S. My wife was a bit displeased (She was pulling for "Artemis"). When I told her the name I believe her exact words were, "Sounds lame."
-
#1062
by
nadreck
on 04 Sep, 2015 17:49
-
Well the name did evoke a little of the intro to the TV show Enterprise, but it is a tad presumptuous.
-
#1063
by
LastStarFighter
on 04 Sep, 2015 17:52
-
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.
About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times. 
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"?
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
-
#1064
by
woods170
on 04 Sep, 2015 17:58
-
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.
About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times.
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"?
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten.
-
#1065
by
LastStarFighter
on 04 Sep, 2015 18:30
-
Solar array shows up in the PR movies for the first time.
About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times.
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"?
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten.
Agreed. It's semantics. Who knows were the line should really be. The bottom line is they are both US companies, built in the US (albeit with foreign components), launching from the US and finally allowing the US to launch it's own Astronauts from it's own soil again. Personally I can't wait to go to the Cape again and watch Astronauts launch again!
I do dig the StarLiner to! Good pick. Hoping individual StarlLiners will be nicknamed after stars!
-
#1066
by
obi-wan
on 04 Sep, 2015 18:46
-
"Starliner" was used for three different models of cars and a Lockheed turboprop airliner. I seem to remember the double-decker rail cars with the glass observation decks being called "Starliners", but haven't found any corroboration of that. (My daughters think that the "Axiom" in Wall-E was referred to as a "Starliner" in the movie, which honestly is more appropriate for a vessel carrying thousands of people than a capsule carrying four people...)
-
#1067
by
baldusi
on 04 Sep, 2015 19:39
-
...
About that promo...
"...returning American astronauts to space in an American spacecraft on an American rocket."
Too bad the narrator forgot the add: "Powered by Russian engines". I guess Boeing has to be politically correct at all times.
So... should the narrator for SpaceX say "American rocket build with French aluminum"?
There's always something on a vehicle that involves other countries.
Main stage engines qualify a bit higher than just "something" as ordinary as aluminum. Besides, that stuff is produced all over the planet, but main stage rocket engines a little less so. SpaceX could have gotten it's aluminum from the USA or even the Netherlands (heaven forbid!). But there is no way ULA can have engines for Atlas V from the USA, lest you had forgotten.
To put some emphasis on that. Do you know where are the lathe's made? The machine centers? The CNC Mill contoller? the hammers? With propulsion usually being something like 20% to 40% of a rocket's cost, is not a small issue. But more importantly, you can't switch suppliers overnight. That should be the main issue.
-
#1068
by
rcoppola
on 04 Sep, 2015 19:49
-
Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
-
#1069
by
SoulWager
on 04 Sep, 2015 20:00
-
Starliner.... That name is so boring it HAD to have been picked by committee. If you can't come up with a new interesting name, you can at least use a somewhat relevant mythological name, like Hermes.
-
#1070
by
Prober
on 04 Sep, 2015 20:25
-
Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible.
-
#1071
by
BrightLight
on 04 Sep, 2015 20:30
-
Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible.
In order to that, they'd have to have an incredible amount of congressional support - oh dear.
-
#1072
by
rcoppola
on 04 Sep, 2015 20:44
-
Great to see these companies put so much passion and effort into all aspects of this program. Truly amazing we have one BLEO and two LEO vehicles being made all at the same time. Starliner is fine. So long as they refrain from using the acronym of Boeing Starliner, BS. Which it most certainly isn't. I think numbering the missions will sound good with it. "Starliner-1, this is Houston, looking good for ISS docking."
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible.
I truly believe that's where all of this will go. I suspect most people do. Which is why there is some handwringing in certain quarters. Once these vehicles are done, they are privately owned and inexpensive to use. First stop LEO. But we all know that's just the beginning. We just need to get through this first transition of LEO to commercial. Once that's firmly established, many things will change. Exciting times.
-
#1073
by
pippin
on 04 Sep, 2015 20:45
-
Uhm.. no. Have you seen how many design iterations, windtunnel iterations and change-cycles CST-100 has been thru? Have you seen how the current pressure-shell STA is significantly different from the one developed for CCDev-1? Have you seen how the current service module is significantly different from the original idea, including the recent addition of the vortex ring? Have you seen the mass-growth on CST-100, requiring it to go thru no less than 3 versions of Atlas-V?
The "build a little, test a little" process applies to Boeing as well, albeit it in a less pronounced form than SpaceX.
Hm, how many of these design iterations have they actually been flying/testing? Oh...
Changes during a development phase are normal, every project has that, even the most stringent waterfall-model project.
What SpaceX does different is that they iterate a lot within their flying vehicles.
-
#1074
by
Rocket Science
on 04 Sep, 2015 21:13
-
-
#1075
by
rayleighscatter
on 04 Sep, 2015 22:21
-
Where can I find a recording of the announcement, i missed it.
The whole shebang is online at
The naming announcement its self is right at the end.
-
#1076
by
clongton
on 05 Sep, 2015 02:08
-
Starliner could turn into a BEO capsule. Its getting the funds to finish building, while Orion hurts. Couple of years from now someone is going to get the bright idea to upgrade the Starliner for another mission. It's possible.
Ah no. Not only would its heat shield fail, but CST-100 is not structurally capable of flights BEO. It was stressed for re-entry from LEO. Re-entry from BEO would push the structure beyond its design limits. If Boeing wants a BEO spacecraft they will have to start from scratch.
-
#1077
by
adrianwyard
on 05 Sep, 2015 02:39
-
I noticed that recent promo images of the ... Starliner ... show the vehicle with a curious circumferential perforated grid on the service module (see attachment below). This was spotted earlier this year on wind tunnel models. At the time no-one was sure of it's function. One guess was that it was to help wind-tunnel test fidelity, but it looks like it's a real feature of the vehicle.
Here's the original post and subsequent speculation:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1359475#msg1359475The attachment is from the new video here:
The grid is also shown on the OPF-3 mural, but not on Boeing's web page:
http://www.boeing.com/space/crew-space-transportation-100-vehicleSo... anyone know its purpose?
-
#1078
by
docmordrid
on 05 Sep, 2015 02:40
-
Does anyone know how they're sealing the seam between the upper and lower halves of the CM clam shell? Seems to be a failure mode looking for a time to happen.
-
#1079
by
adrianwyard
on 05 Sep, 2015 03:36
-
I noticed that recent promo images of the ... Starliner ... show the vehicle with a curious circumferential perforated grid on the service module (see attachment below). This was spotted earlier this year on wind tunnel models. At the time no-one was sure of it's function. One guess was that it was to help wind-tunnel test fidelity, but it looks like it's a real feature of the vehicle.
Here's the original post and subsequent speculation: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1359475#msg1359475
The grid is also shown on the OPF-3 mural, but not on Boeing's web page: http://www.boeing.com/space/crew-space-transportation-100-vehicle
So... anyone know its purpose?
A guess: adds drag to the service module to ensure clean separation of the command module after an abort? The SM has forward pointing thrusters that could do this, but the grid is there as a backup?
