-
#480
by
yg1968
on 16 Jul, 2014 21:29
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
-
#481
by
arachnitect
on 16 Jul, 2014 23:12
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
Companies can propose either model, but I think rental model is starting to emerge as the favored approach. Pilot just takes up space that could be sold as a tourist seat or NASA cargo.
-
#482
by
Malderi
on 17 Jul, 2014 05:40
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
Companies can propose either model, but I think rental model is starting to emerge as the favored approach. Pilot just takes up space that could be sold as a tourist seat or NASA cargo.
Crew training is still a consideration. Remember early ISS - they launched a Soyuz with 3 people, every 6 months, just to rotate the lifeboat, and rotated the actual crews on Shuttle missions on the middeck. This whole exercise was done, 100%, to reduce the training burden on the ISS crews by removing the Soyuz-specific training. CST-100 is planned to have considerable automation so maybe the training time is less, but it's still something that'll be looked at.
-
#483
by
A_M_Swallow
on 17 Jul, 2014 06:08
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838166
Also:
Confirms BA trying to sell 5th seat through Space Adventures
On this issue, it is still not clear if a taxi model or a rental model will be adopted. McAlister said that it's up to the commercial companies to decide which models they prefer to offer. SpaceX said that it's up to NASA to decide which model they prefer.
When the smoke clears NASA will probably decide if one of its astronauts is on board then it will want that astronaut to fly the spacecraft otherwise let the commercial company do it. No need to bring an astronaut back from say the Moon base.
This is a managerial problem not a technical one.
-
#484
by
Malderi
on 07 Aug, 2014 20:04
-
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.
The CST-100 + Cygnus also looks pretty crazy, but a modified Cygnus for a hab module seems like a good match for some tourism missions, if they're considering that...
-
#485
by
abaddon
on 07 Aug, 2014 20:05
-
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Presumably it's this:
A CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.
-
#486
by
A_M_Swallow
on 07 Aug, 2014 20:54
-
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
Presumably it's this:
A CST-100 partner and team member since 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne's CCiCap work continued the development of the service module and launch abort propulsion system from prior commercial crew contracts with Boeing.
Service modules normally attach to the back of capsules rather than dock to the top. Could the big module in the picture contain sufficient propellant to push the CST-100 to GEO, EML-1/2 or LLO?
-
#487
by
arachnitect
on 07 Aug, 2014 21:49
-
-
#488
by
TrevorMonty
on 08 Aug, 2014 08:10
-
The smaller 100lb engines can be used for ISS boost. This is only CC vehicle that can offer this service that I know about. A big plus for Boeing come down selection time.
NB the excessive 24 x 1,500lb thrusters are needed for redundancy for LAS, same reason Dragon has redundant Super Dracos.
-
#489
by
Burninate
on 08 Aug, 2014 17:49
-
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
That image has been floating around for awhile now. I think it originated on this guy's blog here: https://astrowright.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/personal-orbital-spacecraft-within-reach/ and is not from any kind of internal effort at Boeing/ULA.
Likeliest explanation in my opinion is that someone at AJ/R ****ed up and just grabbed the image off a quick Google search. Hopefully they cleared using it with the creator (he doesn't seem to be credited in the PR). It probably would have taken about 30min. to get a current image from Boeing... (grrr.).
Aerojet Rocketdyne Completes CST-100 Work for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Contract
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, completed its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) commitment in support of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft that will help open a new era of spaceflight and carry people to low-Earth orbit from American soil once again.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
Is that a CST-100 docked with a Cygnus???
The article mentions 24 1,500lb OMAC engines. That's almost twice the thrust of the Shuttle main RCS, and about as many engines. That seems way too high for me, for a much smaller vehicle.
Need the higher thrust for attitude control during aborts in the lower atmosphere.
He has the scale wrong as well. The Cygnus diameter is 3.07m, while the CST-100 diameter is 4.56m, a full 50% larger.
-
#490
by
yg1968
on 18 Aug, 2014 15:05
-
Boeing says that it might continue at least until CRS2 is awarded if it is downselected under CCtCap:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-nears-multibillion-dollar-decision-commercial-space-taxis-n180986In the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
-
#491
by
rcoppola
on 19 Aug, 2014 01:31
-
Boeing says that it might continue at least until CRS2 is awarded if it is downselected under CCtCap:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-nears-multibillion-dollar-decision-commercial-space-taxis-n180986
In the past, Boeing has said it couldn't proceed with the CST-100 without CCtCap funding, but Ferguson hedged a bit. "If we do not emerge victorious from this, we're going to have to step back and look at the business case," he told NBC News. Ferguson said NASA's latest solicitation for space cargo services was "a new card in the deck" — which suggests an autonomous version of the CST-100 might be offered as a option.
Taking a step back and looking at the business case is consistent with what they have always said. The new angle is wrt CRS-2. Perhaps they think they can make a go using CST as a cargo platform in lieu of a crew contract.
Sounds like a decent back-up plan, if they can be competitive against Orbital in the next CRS round.
-
#492
by
Prober
on 21 Aug, 2014 17:46
-
-
#493
by
BrianNH
on 21 Aug, 2014 18:00
-
[Boeing VP and program manager John] Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design.
So they are are working on a cargo version. I hadn't heard that, but it shouldn't be surprising. Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
-
#494
by
TrevorMonty
on 21 Aug, 2014 21:02
-
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.
Alternatively use a larger propulsion module to enable station boosting.
-
#495
by
Robotbeat
on 21 Aug, 2014 21:28
-
Measuring in mass means they can get 99% of the way there without touching the avionics...
One is reminded by Kistler...
-
#496
by
IslandPlaya
on 21 Aug, 2014 21:36
-
Measuring in mass, means they can get to 100% without having anything near a functional spacecraft!
I wonder what beancounter got a bonus for suggesting that metric?
-
#497
by
docmordrid
on 21 Aug, 2014 21:57
-
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
-
#498
by
Rifleman
on 21 Aug, 2014 22:45
-
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
-
#499
by
clongton
on 21 Aug, 2014 23:12
-
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
