-
#240
by
JBF
on 08 Apr, 2014 13:37
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
-
#241
by
eriblo
on 08 Apr, 2014 15:05
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
-
#242
by
JBF
on 08 Apr, 2014 15:38
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
You send the first one up on automatics.
-
#243
by
eriblo
on 08 Apr, 2014 16:12
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.
-
#244
by
JBF
on 08 Apr, 2014 16:42
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
-
#245
by
arachnitect
on 08 Apr, 2014 18:10
-
Could Boeing maybe be trying to sell a tourist seat on each flight?
A likely explanation for the 5 passenger quote is that it's just a typo.
-
#246
by
eriblo
on 08 Apr, 2014 18:24
-
[...]
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
Then we're on the same page (literally for me, since baldusis 'taxi model not currently possible' post just before your 'use taxi model' one are one different pages
).
I can't say I've heard how one would deal with a faulty docking port, are there any actual plans (apart from aborting and relaunching without pilot)?
-
#247
by
baldusi
on 08 Apr, 2014 20:19
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.
-
#248
by
BrightLight
on 08 Apr, 2014 20:33
-
They are supposed to be able to sit on station for a year, so you do a taxi model where you send an extra one up at the beginning and then rotate that one out every 6 months or so.
Leaving each cab driver outside with the meter running, twiddling his thumbs for half a year?
You send the first one up on automatics.
AIUI from baldusis post and elsewhere there is (or will be) a requirement that a backup docking port is available and only two total. If that is the case then the old vehicle must leave before the new one arrives and can not bring the pilot of the new one back down.
If the taxi model is used that will have to be modified to allow a short period of both ports being used.
That and the current planning strongly suggest that the taxi model won't be used. That and the fact that NASA got FAA to say that NASA astronauts are more than space participants and thus can actually pilot the craft without being crew vehicle company's employees.
Will NASA then lease the vehicle and use NASA pilots?
-
#249
by
simonbp
on 10 Apr, 2014 14:47
-
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?
Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
-
#250
by
arachnitect
on 10 Apr, 2014 17:34
-
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?
Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
CST can carry up to 7 passengers.
This reference says it will "typically carry 5"
That's either news or a typo.
-
#251
by
Prober
on 10 Apr, 2014 22:10
-
Being designed for 5 people doesn't mean that it will always carry 5 people. How many shuttle flights had fewer than 7 people on board?
Boeing has some requirement in mind that means they are designing for 5 (Bigelow, perhaps?), but if NASA only wants 4 on board, there is no problem.
Maybe we can just carry up a few bots each time.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1181688#msg1181688
-
#252
by
arachnitect
on 14 Apr, 2014 23:59
-
Commercial crew, Crimea, and CongressOne tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
-
#253
by
edkyle99
on 15 Apr, 2014 02:07
-
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
-
#254
by
Prober
on 17 Apr, 2014 15:33
-
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin
-
#255
by
erioladastra
on 19 Apr, 2014 17:10
-
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin
Yes but it is a trade - components like arrays generally add significantly to the failure modes in risk assessments. And it will add significant recurring costs. Engineering is all about choices
-
#256
by
A_M_Swallow
on 19 Apr, 2014 17:16
-
I hope the CST-100 has oxygen to go with the extra flight time.
I assume that the solar panels increase the number of and size of the launch windows.
-
#257
by
pathfinder_01
on 19 Apr, 2014 22:18
-
I hope the CST-100 has oxygen to go with the extra flight time.
I assume that the solar panels increase the number of and size of the launch windows.
CO2 scrubbing is what is most important in terms of life support(yeah you do need oxygen, but if you don't remove the CO2, you will poison yourself. It is sort of what will get you first.). I doubt they added them for that reason, though it might help. They were planning to keep the batteries charged by drawing power from the ISS. Having some ability to produce some power could be helpful if that system breaks, or you need more time to dock and so on.
-
#258
by
Robotbeat
on 27 Apr, 2014 01:31
-
Commercial crew, Crimea, and Congress
One tweak to the CST-100 design is the addition of solar cells to the base of the service module. Originally, Ferguson said, Boeing designed the spacecraft to be powered entirely by batteries, given its short free flight times—less than a day—to and from the ISS. Adding the solar panels to the base “allows us to tread water from an electrical perspective” and keep the batteries charged.
Good news, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
yes, a very good move on Boeing's part to add margin
Yes but it is a trade - components like arrays generally add significantly to the failure modes in risk assessments. And it will add significant recurring costs. Engineering is all about choices
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon. The arrays in this case allow greater power margin and reduce overall mission failure rate, since they allow the crew time to phase up properly or to troubleshoot problems (unrelated to the arrays) before having to give up and abort-to-Earth (perhaps unsafely to a remote part of the globe) just due to lack of time.
-
#259
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 27 Apr, 2014 01:50
-
I think it goes both ways, here. Not contradicting what you said, just expounding on the comment from Ferguson: CST-100 may retain enough battery power to do the whole mission (in a slightly accelerated mode) with batteries-only if BOTH arrays fail to open, like was discussed with cargo Dragon.
From what we have seen from Boeing, the Arrays wont need to deploy, they will just sit on the end of the CST-100 SM:
