-
#1120
by
rcoppola
on 06 Sep, 2015 22:52
-
ULA has never stated publicly when any commercial crew mission would transition to Vulcan. That would be for Boeing to announce anyways and they haven't said anything definitive. Regardless, any transition wouldn't be for quite some time. If all goes well, Vulcan with BE4 could be ready by 2020. (I know they say 2019) But they'll need a flight history with it before Boeing would offer it as part of their CC services contract. So depending upon initial CC contract awards and then the follow on, I'd say Starliner could potentially see a launch on Vulcan between 2022-25. With the station being extended to 2028. IMO.
-
#1121
by
Endeavour_01
on 07 Sep, 2015 01:13
-
Regardless, any transition wouldn't be for quite some time. <snip>
So depending upon initial CC contract awards and then the follow on, I'd say Starliner could potentially see a launch on Vulcan between 2022-25. With the station being extended to 2028. IMO.
Good points. I think that it is also important to note that even if Vulcan is delayed or Russia decides to stop the flow of RD-180 engines Starliner could fly on a Falcon 9.
-
#1122
by
ISP
on 07 Sep, 2015 01:39
-
Care to put together a list of capabilities, comparing Starliner with Dragon 2?
In my mind, it isn't about capabilities, since both are being designed to meet the same requirements. It is about the overriding concepts behind the designs. It is about reliability. It is about ease of use. Etc.
CST-100 will ride on a more reliable, more proven launch vehicle. That is my first point of comparison.
CST-100 puts the big abort/retro motors behind the crew in the service module rather than hang them around the crew on the outside of the capsule. The Boeing design is conventional, and based on previously flown spacecraft design. The SpaceX design is unconventional and its concept is unproven (especially during reentry). That's No. 2.
CST-100 will be recovered on land and its design allows for easier dis-assembly for refurbishment than Dragon. Dragon is dropping into water. If SpaceX does develop a land-recovery variant, it will use thrusters to land - another unproven method with crews. That's No. 3.
Since it doesn't bring back the service module, CST-100 capsule should weigh less than Dragon 2 for reentry and landing. I see that as a plus. It means less heating, smaller parachutes, or less stress on them, etc.
I don't doubt that SpaceX can successfully develop a crewed spacecraft. I just believe that its design has more chances for development trouble than the more conservative CST-100.
- Ed Kyle
Just to comment.
Point 1) Riding on a more reliable launch vehicle has nothing to do with s/c reliability, especially if the aforementioned s/c is not launch vehicle specific. CST-100 is not just designed to fly on Atlas, for one example. It is also designed to fly on Falcon 9, which is "less reliable, less proven".
Point 3) I thought the initial version of crew Dragon had it land on solid ground, under parachutes, with the SDs only providing cushion upon landing. Of course even I am correct, Dragon's thruster assisted landing might be said to be more unreliable than Starliner's airbag system. But then Soyuz has been using solid rockets to do the same thing for decades.
-
#1123
by
Jim
on 07 Sep, 2015 01:49
-
Of course even I am correct, Dragon's thruster assisted landing might be said to be more unreliable than Starliner's airbag system. But then Soyuz has been using solid rockets to do the same thing for decades.
Not a relevant comparison since one is liquid thrusters and the other solid motors.
-
#1124
by
arachnitect
on 07 Sep, 2015 03:22
-
Some pictures from the C3PF ceremony are up at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/I won't copy them all over, but here's a few of the more interesting ones.
STA upper and lower domes. The old pressure vessel pathfinder is in the background.
-
#1125
by
arachnitect
on 07 Sep, 2015 03:27
-
Two more from the CP3F unveiling:
First image is the STA docking tunnel and a hatch
Second image is the inner cylinder for the SM in (what I'm guessing) is the SM assembly fixture.
Credit for these images is NASA/Kim Shiflett
-
#1126
by
arachnitect
on 07 Sep, 2015 03:32
-
-
#1127
by
woods170
on 07 Sep, 2015 07:09
-
STA upper and lower domes. The old pressure vessel pathfinder is in the background.
Nice image. Goes to show just how much different the CCDev2 pressure vessel is from the STA. Looks like a near complete re-design compared from the CCDev2 days.
The general shape and division-in-parts is similar, but just about every detail is different.
-
#1128
by
Patchouli
on 07 Sep, 2015 14:56
-
You mean they can't just install a new super pica heat shield and go for it 
For a direct entry probably not but a skip reentry might allow the structure to handle it.
Though such a skip would easier to do and lower risk with something the retains it's main propulsion and life support like Dream Chaser or Dragon since you can preform a mid course correction at the apogee and getting captured into an elliptical obit would not necessarily be a death sentence if you still have the radiators or enough sublimator capacity.
Still it should be possible to modify Starliner to do it just that you better get everything right before SM separation as after that you're committed though you still can modify the trajectory some during the atmospheric part of the first skip.
Now the good news it's OML is close to something that has peformed lunar reentries before so worst case that's one thing that should not need redesigned.
-
#1129
by
clongton
on 08 Sep, 2015 00:52
-
Several people have mentioned Boeing's experience with manned spacecraft. Just to be clear, Boeing has not ever designed and built a manned spacecraft before. Mercury was built by McDonald Aircraft. Gemini was built by McDonald Aircraft. Apollo CSM was built by North American Aviation, The Lunar Module was built by Grumman. Skylab was built by McDonald Douglas. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell International. Just because somewhere in its pedigree Boeing can show that it eventually purchased, directly or indirectly, those companies doesn't count because *all* the talent and know-how - all the "experience" - of those days has long since retired or died. There is no one on the Boeing payroll today who has ever built a manned spacecraft. In that regard Boeing, Blue and SpaceX are all on a level playing field.
So when touting Boeing over SpaceX, or SpaceX over Boeing, or either over Blue, it is simply incorrect to class it as "experienced" vs. "inexperienced". All companies have varying degrees of inexperience they are dealing with, with talented engineering teams totally dedicated to their tasks. With very few exceptions, all of us here on NSF wish all companies success. So let's not be distorting or misrepresenting. It doesn't serve anyone and doesn't do anyone any good.
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
-
#1130
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Sep, 2015 01:13
-
-
#1131
by
Patchouli
on 08 Sep, 2015 01:24
-
Several people have mentioned Boeing's experience with manned spacecraft. Just to be clear, Boeing has not ever designed and built a manned spacecraft before. Mercury was built by McDonald Aircraft. Gemini was built by McDonald Aircraft. Apollo CSM was built by North American Aviation, The Lunar Module was built by Grumman. Skylab was built by McDonald Douglas. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell International. Just because somewhere in its pedigree Boeing can show that it eventually purchased, directly or indirectly, those companies doesn't count because *all* the talent and know-how - all the "experience" - of those days has long since retired or died. There is no one on the Boeing payroll today who has ever built a manned spacecraft. In that regard Boeing, Blue and SpaceX are all on a level playing field.
So when touting Boeing over SpaceX, or SpaceX over Boeing, or either over Blue, it is simply incorrect to class it as "experienced" vs. "inexperienced". All companies have varying degrees of inexperience they are dealing with, with talented engineering teams totally dedicated to their tasks. With very few exceptions, all of us here on NSF wish all companies success. So let's not be distorting or misrepresenting. It doesn't serve anyone and doesn't do anyone any good.
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
Depends does the Star Liner design team have access to the work done by the X-37B team or are the two projects kept separated from each other due to classified military technology.
If the latter is the case then Spacex might actually be a little ahead since Dragon already has flown several times.
I suspect the latter as if they had access to that data Star Liner might have been a space plane instead of a capsule.
The reason I say a little they probably still have free access to the comsat side of the business and a lot of the same engineering problems on a satellite apply to a crew vehicle.
-
#1132
by
Jim
on 08 Sep, 2015 01:26
-
Several people have mentioned Boeing's experience with manned spacecraft. Just to be clear, Boeing has not ever designed and built a manned spacecraft before. Mercury was built by McDonald Aircraft. Gemini was built by McDonald Aircraft. Apollo CSM was built by North American Aviation, The Lunar Module was built by Grumman. Skylab was built by McDonald Douglas. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell International. Just because somewhere in its pedigree Boeing can show that it eventually purchased, directly or indirectly, those companies doesn't count because *all* the talent and know-how - all the "experience" - of those days has long since retired or died. There is no one on the Boeing payroll today who has ever built a manned spacecraft. In that regard Boeing, Blue and SpaceX are all on a level playing field.
Boeing operated the shuttle via USA and did the system engineering and integration of the vehicle for 30 years. Boeing is the ISS prime contractor and built all the USOS components. The Boeing's prime space location, Huntington Beach, is basically Rockwell Downey and Douglas groups combined. The JSC location is Rockwell legacy personnel with MDAC thrown in.
So no, it is not a level playing field. Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
-
#1133
by
clongton
on 08 Sep, 2015 01:38
-
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
-
#1134
by
arachnitect
on 08 Sep, 2015 02:24
-
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
John Mulholland
-
#1135
by
edkyle99
on 08 Sep, 2015 04:12
-
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
If you read the thread, you'll see that I wasn't the original "stirrer". And isn't a discussion of the merits of competing designs exactly what this forum should be doing?
- Ed Kyle
-
#1136
by
Ike17055
on 08 Sep, 2015 04:50
-
And Ed, it is not helpful for you to start this whole thing off by throwing out your opinion that one spacecraft will someday be better than all the others because you know full well that there are many here that will interpret that as a challenge that needs to be answered. That's not what this forum is for. Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
Again, the SpaceX enthusiasts go on and on, and it is supposed to be fine, but if someone says the Boeing craft is a better craft, well, shoot, let's just take his head off. Double standard. Childish.
-
#1137
by
Ike17055
on 08 Sep, 2015 04:55
-
Your bias is obvious, but that's your right. Just don't throw it out there as a taunt to stir things up. Not helpful at all.
Read: "you are of course entitled to your opinion, but you better not express it." This is forum bullying, and the mods need to finally say enough...just like they do when some of us call out the BS from others who favor the "other spacecraft" and who make extravagent and unsupported claims.
-
#1138
by
Ike17055
on 08 Sep, 2015 04:59
-
So when touting Boeing over SpaceX, or SpaceX over Boeing, or either over Blue, it is simply incorrect to class it as "experienced" vs. "inexperienced".
.
When a large corporation buys another large corporation, they are buying more than a logo.
-
#1139
by
Ike17055
on 08 Sep, 2015 05:01
-
Boeing has the corporate experience and those companies do count.
No. Boeing bought the companies. But the people with experience are long gone; *long* gone. "Boeing" does not have the experience. The other companies did and they are gone, as well as their experienced people.
So Gerstenmeir was just lying when he cited Boeing's experience, is what you are saying.
