-
#40
by
newpylong
on 25 Oct, 2013 16:27
-
Looks pretty sweet on top of the Atlas doesn't it?
-
#41
by
Lurker Steve
on 25 Oct, 2013 20:16
-
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
LH2 tank is forward on Centaur.
CST-100 SM is a larger diameter than the Centaur and the abort motors angle outboard a bit, so the plume may not actually impinge on the upper stage.
Does it even matter though? Back in the days of "the stick" I remember there being a lot of talks about abort modes. I think somebody knowledgeable said that the LAS has to out run an upper stage RUD, in which case it doesn't matter if the abort motors vaporize the upper stage. I imagine that as long as you have a bit of clearance, by the time the plume torches the upper stage, the capsule is already accelerating away from the remains of the LV.
Doesn't matter for that case, but consider some of the pad aborts actually seen in the past, where the launch vehicle aborted very close to the pad. In some of those, the launch escape system fired while the rest of the rocket stayed on the pad: it would be less handy if the launch escape system caused the entire launch vehicle to explode, destroying the pad. More generally, if the upper stage is NOT blowing up, it seems like it would be a safety win to not go ahead and make it blow up. In other words, promoting a whole bunch of lesser cases to the worst case doesn't seem like a good attribute. So yes, I think it does matter.
But you are right, maybe the plumes don't impinge or not much anyway, and the short time frame makes it reasonable. I'm sure those concerns have been raised, and answered in some way.
If the first stage blows up, isn't there an extremely good chance that the second stage isn't going to survive anyway ?
-
#42
by
Prober
on 26 Oct, 2013 14:13
-
Is this the RS-88? Are there four used for pad abort and launch escape, and are they the bulges on the side of the "service module" or whatever it's called for CST-100? I haven't seen much on that part of the design, eg drawings that show the layout of the pad abort motors and how they (and their nozzles) are situated inside the module. Anybody have links?
They're not inside the four faired volumes, but on the backshell of the service module.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CST_100_Wind_4.png
Thanks for the diagram!
So does that mean they are firing directly onto the top of the LH2 or LOX tank of the Centaur (DEC I guess?) in an abort? Yikes!
No, I believe the centaur/CST-100 adapter has four open and deflected paths with some sort of blow-out panels - one for each abort engine. In this image you can see the darker panels that should allow the deflected thrust to exit if an abort occurs. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it will work.
No fairing needed? This will save some weight.
-
#43
by
Kaputnik
on 26 Oct, 2013 21:22
-
-
#44
by
Rocket Science
on 15 Nov, 2013 19:57
-
-
#45
by
Ike17055
on 13 Dec, 2013 14:50
-
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to get more than a modicum of anything but old news about Boeing's vehicle and its progress in development. Does their low profile translate in any way into a lack of real commitment by Boeing toward getting the commercial crew contract. In more blunt terms, how do your respond to those who claim that Boeing has more or less conceded the leading position to supply a capsule for CC to SpaceX because of the perception of an insurmountable lead?
-
#46
by
BrianNH
on 13 Dec, 2013 16:33
-
I don't know that we really are getting less info on CST-100 than Dragonrider or Dream Chaser. If you think about it, we really only hear from any of them when they meet certain milestones. I think that the perception is there that we are getting more info on Dragon because we are all following so many different developments at SpaceX, including cargo missions.
What bothers me is that there seems to be very little information (or progress?) on human-rating the Atlas V.
-
#47
by
arachnitect
on 13 Dec, 2013 18:26
-
Of course I want more info on CST-100, but I am learning to accept what we get. We have more info on CST-100 current config. than manned dragon. SNC has certainly clammed up since the accident.
I don't think SpaceX has been particularly forthcoming, it just looks that way because every word that leaks out of Hawthorne becomes the basis of 2000 blog spam articles across the internet.
I don't think the PR situation reflects Boeing's commitment to the program, BA just has weird PAO to begin with. Example: Boeing doesn't like to give out decent resolution images for some reason, but the high res versions usually show up eventually.
-
#48
by
manboy
on 13 Dec, 2013 22:54
-
-
#49
by
newpylong
on 16 Dec, 2013 14:32
-
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
-
#50
by
Lars_J
on 16 Dec, 2013 16:02
-
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
Did this just happen? Good, if that is the case. Do you have a link/source?
-
#51
by
BrightLight
on 16 Dec, 2013 16:17
-
Dual engined Centaur had the PDR...
Did this just happen? Good, if that is the case. Do you have a link/source?
I recall back in mid-June, 2013
-
#52
by
USFdon
on 16 Dec, 2013 16:32
-
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?
-
#53
by
Lars_J
on 16 Dec, 2013 16:41
-
Here you go
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2013_Mulholland.pdf
On page 4 of this presentation it mentions "Solar Panels (Mission Kit)" pictured on the bottom of the service module. Is this a new development as I thought the CST-100 was battery only... Or is this an option for longer duration missions or something?
A good find! Yes, it would appear to be for longer duration missions. But the location is a bit odd, and would require a limited attitude options for using them. (see attached image from the PDF)
-
#54
by
Occupymars
on 16 Dec, 2013 16:58
-
Boeing Defense tweet: @BoeingDefense 3h
Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine
http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb Terry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"
"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."
-
#55
by
robertross
on 16 Dec, 2013 17:05
-
Boeing Defense tweet: @BoeingDefense 3h
Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb Terry Lorier:"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,"
"The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."
sweet, thanks for passing that along
-
#56
by
intrepidpursuit
on 26 Jan, 2014 05:17
-
It seems to me like the CST-100 is basically out of the game for commercial crew or any other use for that matter. It seemed to be the safe and traditional fallback in case Sierra Nevada folded or Dragon didn't live up to performance / schedule expectations. Now that both of the longshots seem to be on track, what place does CST have? The clamshell design and pusher LAS are innovative, but the other options use pushers and have pinpoint landing capabilities, something NASA probably cares more about than how easy it is for boeing to outfit the interior.
Does CST still have a shot at being tested? If so, why?
-
#57
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2014 10:41
-
It seems to me like the CST-100 is basically out of the game for commercial crew or any other use for that matter. It seemed to be the safe and traditional fallback in case Sierra Nevada folded or Dragon didn't live up to performance / schedule expectations. Now that both of the longshots seem to be on track, what place does CST have? The clamshell design and pusher LAS are innovative, but the other options use pushers and have pinpoint landing capabilities, something NASA probably cares more about than how easy it is for boeing to outfit the interior.
Does CST still have a shot at being tested? If so, why?
Quite the opposite. It is further along, less risk, etc
-
#58
by
BrianNH
on 26 Jan, 2014 13:48
-
Quite the opposite. It is further along, less risk, etc
Can you expand on how it is "further along"? I personally find it difficult to see the big picture.
-
#59
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2014 13:52
-
Quite the opposite. It is further along, less risk, etc
Can you expand on how it is "further along"? I personally find it difficult to see the big picture.
It is only couple of months away from CDR