-
#280
by
docmordrid
on 02 May, 2014 11:27
-
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
-
#281
by
yg1968
on 02 May, 2014 14:13
-
The good news is that it sounds like all 3 CC vehicles are going to be built with or without NASA funding.
What makes you say that?
-
#282
by
Prober
on 02 May, 2014 15:33
-
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
-
#283
by
collectSPACE
on 02 May, 2014 15:38
-
Here's my article for Space.com about the new commercial version of the CST-100:
Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spacelinerhttp://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.htmlBoeing has seen the future of private human spaceflight, and it is blue. Sky blue, that is.
The aerospace giant on Wednesday (April 30) unveiled its new concept for the cabin of a future commercial spaceliner — a vision based in part on the blue-lit Boeing "Sky" interior of the company's modern airliners, as well as work on the company's CST-100 space capsule to ferry NASA astronauts on roundtrips to the International Space Station.
"As we find ourselves on the verge of commercial flight … we begin to think, 'What does come next? Provided there is a destination for them out there, how will that passenger want to go back and forth?'" said Chris Ferguson, a former astronaut who commanded NASA's final space shuttle mission in 2011 and now serves as Boeing's director of crew and mission operations for the commercial crew program.
-
#284
by
Prober
on 02 May, 2014 16:00
-
-
#285
by
collectSPACE
on 02 May, 2014 16:16
-
Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.
I've been inside the CST-100 mockup that Bigelow built for Boeing and which Boeing then extensively modified to reflect its NASA interior design. I've also been inside a fully-outfitted Apollo mockup.
The CST-100 feels much more spacious than Apollo.
The CST-100 configuration I sat in included seating for five and even with four other people inside the capsule at the same time, I still had more room than most airliners offer their customers seated in coach.
-
#286
by
Prober
on 03 May, 2014 00:04
-
Having experienced the inside of the one of the Apollo boiler plates; even a larger CST-100 will be cramped inside.
I've been inside the CST-100 mockup that Bigelow built for Boeing and which Boeing then extensively modified to reflect its NASA interior design. I've also been inside a fully-outfitted Apollo mockup.
The CST-100 feels much more spacious than Apollo.
The CST-100 configuration I sat in included seating for five and even with four other people inside the capsule at the same time, I still had more room than most airliners offer their customers seated in coach.
sounds like those Boeing design skills really come through. The pics shown the public I'll bet can't do it justice.
Hope to have the experience of sitting in the mockup shortly myself.
The Bigelow experience left me thinking I'd seen this all before, and I have. The complex and security etc. all reminds me of "Moonraker" complex.
-
#287
by
docmordrid
on 03 May, 2014 00:10
-
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Just asking what seems to me a pair of obvious questions. Restating;
a) if there is an RD-180 shortage, would Atlas V's assigned to CST-100 and DC test flights be withdrawn to extend the EELV programs access to launchers?
b) if so would those spacecraft be delayed while Falcon 9 adapters are designed, wind tunnel tested etc.?
-
#288
by
Prober
on 03 May, 2014 00:19
-
Anyone ask if Boeing is still considering Falcon 9? Given a possible shortage of RD-180's ISTM they'd sequester the warehoused units for EELV launches - not CC development flights.
you just throwing this out there; or has talk of "sequester the warehoused units" been talked about ?
Just asking what seems to me a pair of obvious questions. Restating;
a) if there is an RD-180 shortage, would Atlas V's assigned to CST-100 and DC test flights be withdrawn to extend the EELV programs access to launchers?
b) if so would those spacecraft be delayed while Falcon 9 adapters are designed, wind tunnel tested etc.?
I have a much better question along the same lines. Where does HSF rank under NASA policy?
Would NASA sat launches using Atlas V be cancelled/delayed to save the core for an advanced Crew test program for CST-100 or DC ?
-
#289
by
baldusi
on 03 May, 2014 00:25
-
I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.
Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
-
#290
by
Prober
on 03 May, 2014 02:46
-
I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.
Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
1) this falls under a NASA problem not DOD....If what I've been reading is correct Orion by law (as the backup to commercial) should be ready to launch to the ISS. SLS was to be ready in 2015-2016 and that won't happen...so that makes Delta IV the rocket of choice as the backup action plan right?
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Your thoughts?
-
#291
by
baldusi
on 03 May, 2014 04:19
-
I guess it depends on the need for program acceleration, cost and how the situation keeps developing. A. US made RD-180 will take four to five years. And swapping LV might take three. And realistically, the only other man rated LV within that time frame in the US is F9. I mean, with common avionics and all the RS-68A and Fleet Standardization Program, human rating the Delta IV shouldn't be much of a problem. But the cost will be higher, the schedule longer and will require more infrastructure changes.
Right now, if the need is to get fastest access to space because of deteriorating relationships with Russia, I only see Dragon. Not only becuase they are the most advanced, but because of the Atlas V propulsion issues. If DoD would accept to let go of the necessary 6 or 8 Atlas V until a US engine is supplied, then they might have a chance. But good luck with that.
1) this falls under a NASA problem not DOD....If what I've been reading is correct Orion by law (as the backup to commercial) should be ready to launch to the ISS. SLS was to be ready in 2015-2016 and that won't happen...so that makes Delta IV the rocket of choice as the backup action plan right?
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Your thoughts?
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds. If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it. The schedule alone would push IOC to 2019 or so, and again at what cost. Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits. If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
-
#292
by
ChefPat
on 03 May, 2014 14:03
-
If the new CST-100 configuration can carry 9 passengers & 1 crew, or a combination of passengers & cargo, just how much weight can a CST-100 transport to LEO?
-
#293
by
Jim
on 03 May, 2014 14:28
-
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
-
#294
by
Jim
on 03 May, 2014 14:30
-
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
-
#295
by
baldusi
on 03 May, 2014 14:39
-
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
That's because electrical testing and solid installation is done at the pad, right? Does the pad need more refurbishing after each launch, to? I wonder why they didn't used the Fleet Standardization Program to improve the Delta IV flow.
-
#296
by
Prober
on 03 May, 2014 15:45
-
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
see where your going with this.....Crew contracts were made with LM or Boeing right under their "commercial" services?
-
#297
by
Prober
on 03 May, 2014 15:54
-
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds. If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it. The schedule alone would push IOC to 2019 or so, and again at what cost. Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits. If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.
Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.
Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years? Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
If you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it.
If you look at our status I don't see any other choice.
Those schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits.
That’s a given....its time for Rocketdyne to pull all the materials out of storage and get the manufacturing project started.
If funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.
Where is this coming from? The Falcon 9 is under continuous experimental status with re usability. Unless I missed something, don't see this combo operational as HSR for years. Throwing more cash is not going to fix this problem.
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.
We are at the pre to painful decisions point. Start thinking of it as a management lead Apollo 13 issue. So a decision is needed, the Sooner the better.
Believe the real call NASA needs to make is going from the RS-68 A to make the RS-68B. The electronics upgrade is done? The regenerative nozzle would finish the project?
But, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
What can be solved in two days?
-
#298
by
simonbp
on 03 May, 2014 17:57
-
Regarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating.
There is the SLC-37 bottleneck. DIV can't fly as frequently as Atlas
That is until this week. Barring some extraordinary diplomacy, the Atlas V flight rate just hit a much worse bottleneck. I doubt there will be any non-national security Atlas launches for several years at least.
This being the CST-100 thread, we can probably ignore nuclear rating, but I really hope ULA is putting their own money into starting the human rating of Delta or CST-100 is dead in the water.
The optics of Boeing showing off their mock-up CST just weeks before their main competitor shows off a flightworthy manned capsule isn't helpful, either.
-
#299
by
arachnitect
on 03 May, 2014 18:19
-
The optics of Boeing showing off their mock-up CST just weeks before their main competitor shows off a flightworthy manned capsule isn't helpful, either.
That's not their ISS product. That's a future configuration for Bigelow they were showing at a Bigelow event. Remember when NASA and others expressed concern that Boeing wasn't pursuing non-ISS business? Maybe Boeing is responding to that.
Boeing has been showing us cool stuff all year, now we're going to see something cool from Spacex. I don't see why every little thing has to be a knock against Boeing.
