-
#1160
by
woods170
on 10 Sep, 2015 10:21
-
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.
Question: when was the last time (before CST-100) that Boeing designed a manned spacecraft that is designed to go up to orbit and come back down intact to a controlled landing, by means of an Earth landing system?
Answer: never. Chuck was spot on in his commnts. USOS modules don't require and don't have heatshields for re-entry, nor an Earth landing system, nor autonomous docking systems, nor launch escape systems, nor RCS thrusters with associated plumbing and tankage, etc. etc.
-
#1161
by
abaddon
on 10 Sep, 2015 13:25
-
It sure is fun seeing metal instead of Power Point Presentations.
Even more so watching it launch.
I am sure watching the crew access tower launch
would be fun...
-
#1162
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 10 Sep, 2015 13:58
-
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.
Question: when was the last time (before CST-100) that Boeing designed a manned spacecraft that is designed to go up to orbit and come back down intact to a controlled landing, by means of an Earth landing system?
Answer: never. Chuck was spot on in his commnts. USOS modules don't require and don't have heatshields for re-entry, nor an Earth landing system, nor autonomous docking systems, nor launch escape systems, nor RCS thrusters with associated plumbing and tankage, etc. etc.
Other than the entry and landing components, the USOS has everything else necessary to be considered "manned spacecraft" including a LOT more plumbing and internal systems than any capsule or spaceplane. They may not have RCS thrusters but they do have command/control and data handling systems to control those that were planned for the integrated truss segments designed and built by McDAC (pre-merger) as well as the CMG's for attitude control. Remember, Boeing was prime for the entire program. Your point, such as it is, is irrelevant. In 50 years if humanity ever leaves LEO again, will you argue the Hab module for the mission isn't a spacecraft?
-
#1163
by
Endeavour_01
on 10 Sep, 2015 16:05
-
Look guys nobody should be offended that someone has a personal preference for a particular spacecraft or thinks that a particular spacecraft is the best. That doesn't mean that they think that other spacecraft are pieces of junk or something. I like and prefer to drive my Buick Lesabre more than my wife's Hyundai Accent. That doesn't mean I think her car is subpar. In fact I like driving her car and in certain situations it is better to drive. Its the same thing with spacecraft. Liking Starliner more than Dragon isn't heresy.
-
#1164
by
sublimemarsupial
on 11 Sep, 2015 07:52
-
In 50 years if humanity ever leaves LEO again, will you argue the Hab module for the mission isn't a spacecraft?
Nobody will argue that the hab is not a spacecraft, but what it most certainly is not is a reentry vehicle. Neither is the ISS.
Most all of the accidents involving manned spacecraft have happened during ascent or reentry, and Boeing's ISS design experience will only marginally help on ascent (no fairing for CST-100), and not at all on reentry.
-
#1165
by
woods170
on 11 Sep, 2015 10:30
-
In 50 years if humanity ever leaves LEO again, will you argue the Hab module for the mission isn't a spacecraft?
Nobody will argue that the hab is not a spacecraft, but what it most certainly is not is a reentry vehicle. Neither is the ISS.
Most all of the accidents involving manned spacecraft have happened during ascent or reentry, and Boeing's ISS design experience will only marginally help on ascent (no fairing for CST-100), and not at all on reentry.
Emphasis mine.
Chuck was right. With regards to these aspects Boeing is very much on a par to SpaceX and not ahead of them. Both have DDT&E'd one unmanned orbital ascent-and-reentry vehicle (Dragon for SpaceX and X-37 for Boeing) and both have no prior experience designing a manned orbital ascent-and-reentry vehicle.
In a way, SpaceX could be considered to be actually ahead of Boeing, but only on a few specific aspects: Dragon 2 is very much based on Dragon 1, particularly with regards to pressure-vessel, overall geometry of the spacecraft (and thus known dynamics on ascent and reentry) and heatshield technology.
Boeing has to do those particular aspects (almost) from scratch. IMO that is the very reason why their CCDev-2 contribution was a pressure vessel. They needed to demonstrate that they could build one. SpaceX didn't have to because they had already proven that via COTS.
And before someone goes 'but wait...': A pressure vessel for a space station module does not equal to that of capsule ascent-and-reentry vehicle. Different loadings and dynamics involved.
-
#1166
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 11 Sep, 2015 13:21
-
This thread is a typical example of the worst kind of NSF thread drift. I didn't mention SpaceX nor did I say anything about Boeing's CST design at all. I was specifically responding to Chuck's and later your comments regarding Boeing's perceived lack of experience designing spacecraft.
If we want to play this game of throwing out off-topic comments about competitors, Lockheed never built a crewed spacecraft design either until Orion and guess what? It worked great on the first try.
For all their faults, American Big Aerospace knows what they're doing technically. Specifically, they're very good at understanding basic physics and engineering. Recoverable capsules are 55 year old technology. There is little serious doubt Boeing's CST design will do what it's supposed to do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself.
-
#1167
by
bad_astra
on 11 Sep, 2015 14:36
-
As a calm observer of these thread conflicts, I think we must reflect and realize the only way discussions about Starliner and Dragon will be resolved is with a drag race.
back on track:
Is the new crew tower going to be set up for an escape slide-wire?
-
#1168
by
arachnitect
on 11 Sep, 2015 14:42
-
Is the new crew tower going to be set up for an escape slide-wire?
Yes.
-
#1169
by
Eer
on 12 Sep, 2015 15:21
-
As a calm observer of these thread conflicts, I think we must reflect and realize the only way discussions about Starliner and Dragon will be resolved is with a drag race.
back on track:
Is the new crew tower going to be set up for an escape slide-wire?
Yup ... for pink slips, no less.
-
#1170
by
Archibald
on 15 Sep, 2015 08:13
-
Just one small nitpicking about the CTS-100. Can't help but thinking that name was used before (a long time ago, admittedly) by Lockheed for the last batches of their Constellation airliner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1649_StarlinerWhat does Lockheed think about Boeing use of Starliner ?
-
#1171
by
arachnitect
on 16 Sep, 2015 02:13
-
Overshadowed by Bezos today, LC-41 crew access tower assembly has begun.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/15/build-up-of-crew-access-tower-begins-at-atlas-5-pad/ Biegler [head of ULA human launch services] said the plan calls for all seven segments to be hoisted by the time of the Atlas 5’s scheduled launch of a new GPS navigation satellite Oct. 30. Some of the tiers will go up before the Atlas 5’s next mission, which is set for Oct. 2 with a Mexican communications satellite, and ground teams will add the rest before the Oct. 30 launch.
Some other good info on CST-100 conops in there. They will load crew with the rocket fully fueled, for example.
-
#1172
by
catdlr
on 16 Sep, 2015 20:06
-
Commercial Crew Access Tower Rising
Published on Sep 16, 2015
A crane places the first tier on a concrete foundation at Space Launch Complex-41 to form the Crew Access Tower under construction by Boeing and United Launch Alliance. The steel structure is being built in seven pieces that will be stacked atop each other to form the tower complete with elevator, communications and power infrastructure, and an escape system. The tower, standing about 200 feet tall, will provide astronauts and ground support teams access to Boeing's CST-100 Starliner spacecraft under development in partnership with NASA's Commercial Crew Program.
-
#1173
by
Kansan52
on 16 Sep, 2015 20:46
-
I know it's PR and not technical, but that part about 'maybe paying customers' omits the fact that Commercial Crew is a paying customer.
-
#1174
by
arachnitect
on 23 Sep, 2015 18:31
-
-
#1175
by
Lars-J
on 23 Sep, 2015 19:12
-
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/
Boeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program.
How will that work with the potential SM impact area? Once the deorbit burn is done, the SM will separate but on a very similar trajectory. Are they betting that all of it will burn up?
-
#1176
by
arachnitect
on 23 Sep, 2015 19:30
-
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/
Boeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program.
How will that work with the potential SM impact area? Once the deorbit burn is done, the SM will separate but on a very similar trajectory. Are they betting that all of it will burn up?
I assume the SM has more drag and pretty much no lift to speak of, so the debris should fall short of land.
-
#1177
by
manboy
on 24 Sep, 2015 02:37
-
"Boeing is still finalizing a list of five candidate landing sites in the Western United States, but the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah will initially be the prime return locations, said Chris Ferguson, deputy manager of the CST-100 Starliner program."
“Some of the (landing sites) are very familiar to you — Edwards Air Force Base and White Sands,” Ferguson said. “Dugway Proving Ground is a new one … but they have a lot of features that we like. There are others that are candidates. I don’t want to mention them just yet until we can really solidify the details with them, but suffice it to say they’re in the western part of the United States, and we look for areas that no one else is. You can extrapolate where that is. The Southwest is a good place to land.”
"Boeing is building at least three flight-ready CST-100 crew modules, and each will be certified for up to 10 missions. Every flight will require a new service module. The company could order more vehicles if Boeing wins a contract to resupply the space station with cargo, an award NASA expects to announce November."
“We have to launch and dock within 24 hours, be able to wave off that docking and hold for 24 hours, then stay docked for six months, undock, have a waved off landing for 24 hours, and then land,” Ferguson said. “We can support that with our current battery and solar array structure.”
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/
-
#1178
by
arachnitect
on 26 Sep, 2015 20:20
-
-
#1179
by
LastStarFighter
on 29 Sep, 2015 09:59
-
