-
#60
by
Prober
on 26 Jan, 2014 17:02
-
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?
Noticed that as well and believe its a good move on their part. My only issue might be the location of the Solar panels. Won't they get damaged by the thrusters?
-
#61
by
Robotbeat
on 26 Jan, 2014 17:07
-
"Mission kit" means optional.
-
#62
by
arachnitect
on 26 Jan, 2014 18:28
-
from @Commercial_CrewFormer astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
-
#63
by
arachnitect
on 26 Jan, 2014 18:38
-
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?
Noticed that as well and believe its a good move on their part. My only issue might be the location of the Solar panels. Won't they get damaged by the thrusters?
Should be clear of the OMAC thrusters. I don't think anything on ISS would impinge on that either (assuming the solar mission kit ever flew to ISS).
-
#64
by
Oli
on 26 Jan, 2014 23:44
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
-
#65
by
Avron
on 26 Jan, 2014 23:55
-
from @Commercial_Crew
Former astro @BoeingDefense’s Chris Ferguson flies on-orbit, docking and entry scenarios in the CST-100 simulator. pic.twitter.com/NvJxd4akvK
Have not seen the same from the competition
-
#66
by
Lars_J
on 27 Jan, 2014 00:57
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
A good catch!
I have also attached an image of a crew access tower from the PDF. (edit: found a higher resolution version)
-
#67
by
BrightLight
on 27 Jan, 2014 01:04
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
-
#68
by
Lars_J
on 27 Jan, 2014 01:16
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
-
#69
by
BrightLight
on 27 Jan, 2014 01:25
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.
-
#70
by
arachnitect
on 27 Jan, 2014 01:51
-
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
Does it say that somewhere? The renderings could be wrong. They'll probably always call it a 400 series since the centaur isn't under a fairing.
So the Atlas configuration foreseen to launch CST-100 is now 522 (2 boosters, dual engine centaur)?
what is the cost for the two SRB's? do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
Decreases. But I'm curious what caused the change - has the CST-100 mass grown so much in the last year?
so its possible that the reliability of the LV decreases compared to a Atlas V 402 and the cost increases - compared to the SNC DC - hmmm,.
Boeing is just distributing the risk differently; the LV does more and the spacecraft does less. Not asking Atlas V to do anything it hasn't done before.
-
#71
by
Oli
on 27 Jan, 2014 03:12
-
...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
It may provide engine-out capability for dual-engine centaur, then it would increase reliability.
-
#72
by
Jim
on 27 Jan, 2014 03:13
-
...do the SRB's increase or decrease reliability?
It may provide engine-out capability for dual-engine centaur, then it would increase reliability.
Centaur doesn't have engine out capability
-
#73
by
Oli
on 27 Jan, 2014 03:20
-
Centaur doesn't have engine out capability
So what would happen if one engine fails on DEC? The other one must be shut down too?
But whatever, its not like engine-out capability is necessary in this case.
-
#74
by
woods170
on 27 Jan, 2014 07:46
-
-
#75
by
Star One
on 27 Jan, 2014 11:23
-
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
-
#76
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 27 Jan, 2014 11:35
-
@Star One,
I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
-
#77
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 27 Jan, 2014 13:55
-
@Star One,
I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
That just made the CST-100 a lot less attractive and might give the DC an edge.
-
#78
by
Star One
on 27 Jan, 2014 13:56
-
@Star One,
I'm not sure but I think some of it this extra thrust requirement comes from compensating for the mass of the 5m fairing around the Centaur. I believe that CST-100 has turned out heavier than initially projected too.
I can't help feeling this being the case it's a negative point in the comparison to DC unless there is some compensation through higher payload delivery or other plus points to offset this?
-
#79
by
yg1968
on 27 Jan, 2014 13:57
-
So why does this need the 522 configuration yet DC can use the no doubt cheaper 402 configuration?
Do we know that CST-100 will use the 522? How do we know it's not the 422?