-
#1140
by
Krevsin
on 08 Sep, 2015 05:07
-
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
to quote:
I'm convinced that, five years from now, we will all see clearly that Boeing has developed the best manned LEO spacecraft that has yet flown. Spend some time really studying the details of its design and you'll see what I mean.
- Ed Kyle
It'll be better than Dragon too, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
A lot of people will interpret that as a challenge. It is not something that one should say lightly or without sufficient evidence. Which, given that neither Dragon 2 nor Starliner have flown yet, is a very difficult thing to procure as can be seen in the discussion on whether or not Boeing has experience with building manned spacecraft.
The subject of "Boeing vs. SpaceX" is a topic that is known to incite arguments and derail topics. Yes, even in the SpaceX section of this forum.
So claiming that one is definitely better than the other is like poking into a hornet's nest. Not a very clever idea.
-
#1141
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 08 Sep, 2015 05:47
-
Better is always in the eye of the beholder.
-
#1142
by
Krevsin
on 08 Sep, 2015 06:59
-
Indeed.
Especially with manned crew excursions to the ISS, where the only goal is to ferry crew onto it.
The only way one can be better than the other at achieving this is when the other does not succeed in delivering the crew to their destination (i.e. they are most likely killed in a horrible fireball). Or if one is more expensive than hitching rides on a Soyuz (which is highly unlikely). The rest is just personal preference.
-
#1143
by
woods170
on 08 Sep, 2015 07:40
-
Better is always in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed. Over the years I've had discussions with lot's of people. Quite a number of them held the opinion that STS was a much better spacecraft then Soyuz because it carried more crew, more cargo, could land on wheels, generated a lot more noise upon launch and was USA in nature.
Those folks usually shut up the minute I pointed out that STS has killed 14 crew members whereas the tally for Soyuz stands at 'only' 4.
IMO, in my opinion there is no such thing as a better spacecraft, just people who think they can make the non-existent distinction.
-
#1144
by
clongton
on 08 Sep, 2015 11:57
-
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.
No he wasn't lying. He was "extrapolating" the pedigree. That's something several people like to do and it is misleading at best. To repeat what I said upthread:
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.
-
#1145
by
Jim
on 08 Sep, 2015 12:10
-
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.
Wrong. I was part of MDAC when Boeing bought it. So did my experience with a manned module suddenly evaporate? And a year earlier, did the same thing happened to the all Rockwell people that were supporting Shuttle launch and missions?
Working on the sustainability of a system for several years provides the same experience (or even more) as the original designer.
B-52's must not still be able to fly because the original designers are not still around.
-
#1146
by
clongton
on 08 Sep, 2015 13:34
-
Working on the sustainability of a system for several years provides the same experience (or even more) as the original designer.
B-52's must not still be able to fly because the original designers are not still around.
No it doesn't. Maintenance personnel, as valuable as they are, as vital to the operations as they are, are not designers. Their skill and talent is vital to properly maintaining any system, but they are not designers. Because of their skill, experience and talent, such personnel can often figure out a way to improve a design - but only
after they have been given a design to work with. The original design teams deal with things that operations personnel never have to consider. Operations and design are two very different sides to a coin.
Maintaining an *existing* system - aircraft or spacecraft - is not the same thing as
designing a new one from the ground up - not by a long shot. All the original
design talent is long gone.
-
#1147
by
woods170
on 08 Sep, 2015 13:41
-
B-52's must not still be able to fly because the original designers are not still around.
Maintaining an *existing* system - aircraft or spacecraft - is not the same thing as designing a new one from the ground up - not by a long shot. All the original design talent is long gone.
Correct. Jim wil undoubtly counter by mentioning X-37, but that's not a manned system and draws on STS experience which Boeing maintained after having acquired the aerospace activities of Rockwell.
-
#1148
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 08 Sep, 2015 16:22
-
Catching up on this thread ... Chuck (clongton) is way off base in his comments re Boeing's experience with building spacecraft. Even setting aside the corporate heritage that's been absorbed through industry contraction, Boeing built the USOS for ISS as well as being the prime integration contractor for everything else. What it built for the USOS was everything - pressure vessels, berthing mechanisms, ECLSS, control systems, experiment support systems, power and data systems, etc. I was on that program when it was still Space Station Freedom. Even through nodes and Cupola were ultimately farmed out to the Italians for political and funding reasons, all those elements were the same basic designs and we're all through PDR with Boeing before being set overseas.
It may not be a capsule or a sexy spaceplane, but it's certainly a spacecraft. Chuck is just wrong.
-
#1149
by
Prober
on 08 Sep, 2015 17:55
-
Let's get this back on track
The Starliner has the "look and feel" of an upgraded Apollo capsule. The capsule looks to be progressing on a very tight schedule. The program looks like a good NASA type program with hints of something larger. To sum it up, frankly at this point it looks good
-
#1150
by
LastStarFighter
on 08 Sep, 2015 21:36
-
The Starliner has the "look and feel" of an upgraded Apollo capsule.
I feel like I've heard this a couple times on the forum. Are you just saying the capsules basic shape is similar to Apollo?
-
#1151
by
abaddon
on 09 Sep, 2015 13:34
-
Starliner looks great and the name is fine. I wish I didn't have to wade through pages and pages of chest thumping and "Boeing this" and "SpaceX that" to read a small amount of actually interesting information, though.
And, shame on those forum goers who are long-time mega posters here who participated in this nonsense. You should have higher standards for your posting than that.
-
#1152
by
psloss
on 09 Sep, 2015 19:16
-
-
#1153
by
jtrame
on 09 Sep, 2015 19:34
-
The Starliner has the "look and feel" of an upgraded Apollo capsule.
I feel like I've heard this a couple times on the forum. Are you just saying the capsules basic shape is similar to Apollo?
Of the three spacecraft that share a similar conical shape, Apollo is 4 meters, CST 100 4.5, and Orion 5. These are diameters, and rounded off of course. Dragon diameter is slightly less than Apollo, but it has an entirely different cross section, so volume might be a better comparison size wise.
-
#1154
by
AnalogMan
on 09 Sep, 2015 22:09
-
Crew Access Tower Stacking BeginsSteven Siceloff - September 9, 2015 at 4:00 pm
The first new Crew Access Tower at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida since the Apollo era will take shape at Space Launch Complex-41 in the coming days as workers moved the first two tiers from a nearby construction yard to the pad surface. The tiers will be lifted into place atop each other at the foot of the launch pad starting next week.
Boeing and United Launch Alliance are building the tower which is a critical element for the launch pad as it is converted from a pad that serves only uncrewed missions to a complex that can safely accommodate the needs of flight crews along with their ground support teams for CST-100 Starliner missions. The Starliner is under development in partnership with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, along with the SpaceX Crew Dragon, to take astronauts to the International Space Station from Florida’s Space Coast.
Designed with modern data systems, communications and power networks integrated and protected from blast and vibration, plus an elevator, the Crew Access Tower has been built with several features only a fully suited astronaut could appreciate, such as wider walkways, snag-free railings and corners that are easy to navigate without running into someone. The tower will also be equipped with slide wire baskets for emergency evacuation to a staged blast-resistant vehicle.
The segments were assembled about four miles away from the launch pad so workers wouldn’t be idled by launch preps for United Launch Alliance Atlas V rockets. The tower will be stacked just to the side of the hard stand at SLC-41 where the boosters lift off. It will take seven tiers to complete the more than 200-foot-tall tower. A swing-out walkway bridge will be added later to connect the tower to the hatch of the Starliner so astronauts can climb aboard the ship as it stands at the pad before launch.
The tower construction marks the latest in a quick succession of events for Boeing’s Starliner program. The company opened the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility last week for use as the Starliner production and processing base and just completed the mural on the front of the building showing the spacecraft orbiting above Florida. The upper and lower dome assemblies arrived earlier this year for the Starliner’s Structural Test Article which is being built and processed as a pathfinder for the program and will be put together just as an operational spacecraft would before it goes into exhaustive testing to the prove the design.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/09/crew-access-tower-stacking-begins/
-
#1155
by
arachnitect
on 09 Sep, 2015 22:21
-
-
#1156
by
Kansan52
on 09 Sep, 2015 23:12
-
I always think of CST-100/Starliner as Orion Jr.
Boeing lost the Orion contract but has never given up on building a new capsule. They did a lot of work with Bigelow and then NASA to go from the Orion to this. Just as the Starliner is not Apollo, neither is it Orion. But lessons learned from both affects the Starliner. On my good days, they learned how to do things better. On bad days, they are ignoring those lessons.
And we mustn't forget pride. This is big mojo for Boeing. They gave up making a profit on refueling tankers to win the contract because it was bad mojo to lose to Airbus. They see the potential with Bigelow and the ISS and they want to be part of it.
The PR about the Crew Access Tower gives us insight. 'The first new crew access tower.' That's a bit of 'proud papa' about baby and a bit of a slap at those other guys 'only' refurbishing the old (historic) launch tower (39a).
And some bragging about the speed of doing all this including the 'just completed the mural'. Of course, there was years of planning to allow this speed.
It sure is fun seeing metal instead of Power Point Presentations.
-
#1157
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 09 Sep, 2015 23:22
-
It sure is fun seeing metal instead of Power Point Presentations.
Even more so watching it launch.
-
#1158
by
Jim
on 09 Sep, 2015 23:57
-
I always think of CST-100/Starliner as Orion Jr.
Boeing lost the Orion contract but has never given up on building a new capsule. They did a lot of work with Bigelow and then NASA to go from the Orion to this.
CST-100 is just a remake of Boeing's OSP proposal and not the CEV (Orion).
-
#1159
by
edkyle99
on 10 Sep, 2015 01:55
-
So claiming that one is definitely better than the other is like poking into a hornet's nest. Not a very clever idea.
But it was OK for "JeffLA" to predict a "tearful Bolden" in front of "grinning lawmakers" and "fat cat Boeing execs" unveiling the CST-100 name.
That draws no complaints. Only someone expressing an opinion in
favor of a Boeing concept gets hammered - repeatedly and days after the opinion has been stated - on this forum, out of context, in a thread that is
about that very concept.
Yes. Moving on.
- Ed Kyle
