-
#740
by
Garrett
on 22 Dec, 2014 09:12
-
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
-
#741
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 Dec, 2014 17:19
-
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
-
#742
by
arachnitect
on 22 Dec, 2014 17:23
-
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
CST-100 ISS version has 5 seats.
-
#743
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 Dec, 2014 18:23
-
Here is presentation on CST100 (6 Feb 13)
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htmThey deliberately took a low cost (internal cost), low technology risk approach. Using as much existing in in-house technology they had ie what can we use from our extensive parts bin.
CST-100 is only designed for LEO there is no BLEO capabilities built into it.
NASA were not after new technology just reliable transport to ISS that will be built on schedule and to a fix cost.
NASA definitely didn't want another Spaceship Two where it is always 2yrs away from flying.
-
#744
by
erioladastra
on 24 Dec, 2014 00:43
-
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
It puzzle me why you need 2 pilots to monitor an autonomous automatic docking, unless you are proposing manual docking to the ISS.
The commercial companies may design a vehicle that can carry whatever they want - seems both are targeting about 7. However, NASA requires to be able to send 1, 2, 3 or 4. There are no requirements or official plans to have it as a lifeboat for 7.
Manual docking is also a requirement for the CCP. The big debate is that means different things to different people - for example, does it mean fully taking the stick and piloting under 6 degrees of freedom? On top of the fault tolerance of an autonomous vehicle that is a pretty hefty addition (cost, complexity). But even then, NASA will train a backup person for piloting the vehicle. If for no other contigency, deconditioned crews may need the help on returning.
-
#745
by
manboy
on 24 Dec, 2014 01:21
-
The 1+6 seating in that photo looks like 6 are passengers and only one gets to work the knobs.
That's the "commercial" concept for seven passengers. The version for NASA will likely carry only four crew members and the seating layout will look more like what's shown in the attached photo
(i.e. two crew members at the controls)
IIRC commercial crew vehicles is suppose to be lifeboat for 7 personnel. So seating will be needed for 7.
They're not. They're only required to serve as a lifeboat for a crew of four.
-
#746
by
fast
on 25 Dec, 2014 09:49
-
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
-
#747
by
Nomadd
on 25 Dec, 2014 13:47
-
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
Two qualified pilots would be because they want piloted mode to be redundant in itself and not just a redundancy for automatic operation.
-
#748
by
rayleighscatter
on 25 Dec, 2014 15:08
-
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
Seats and carrying capacity in an emergency are two different things. Apollo was determined to be able to carry 6 people back from Skylab in an emergency, despite only having 3 seats. A couple people may not have a comfortable ride back, but they'll have a ride back.
-
#749
by
baldusi
on 25 Dec, 2014 15:15
-
One issue I've just now realized, is that a catastrophic failure that required the crew to leave in a matter of minutes, might prevent to ago across the station. Thus, having your crewed crafts on each side might be an important security consideration. From that point of view, current Commercial Crew seems like a good solution. Regrettably, the RS won't have enough Soyuzes once the Americans start using their own vehicles. Of course that current situation is worse with all escape vehicles on one side.
-
#750
by
brihath
on 25 Dec, 2014 15:19
-
The plan with Apollo was to add 2 couches and launch with a crew of 2 to rescue the 3 crew onboard Skylab. This option was considered in 1974 during the third Skylab mission due to a failed thruster quad. Vance Brand and Don Lind were selected as the rescue crew, but further analysis of the failure determined that a rescue was not necessary.
-
#751
by
erioladastra
on 25 Dec, 2014 16:39
-
It seems like capability to evacuate 7 would be a good thing to have. If something major requiring evacuation caused Soyuz to be unavailable it would be kind of rude to just leave three people behind.
Two qualified pilots would be because they want piloted mode to be redundant in itself and not just a redundancy for automatic operation.
Yes, that would be nice, but it is not required. The cost of keeping a spare spacecraft for an extremely unlikely event is not practical. Equipment and procedures are designed to not be rude to anyone. There is always some risk in space so unless you have a spare 7 seater on both ends there is still a chance you could cut someone off. Most likely such a catastrophic event (e.g., MMOD hit) will kill the crew but we hope to give every advantage possible. Even the idea of being able to launch a spare empty spacecraft to rescue the crew is not required - it would be a nice capabilitya nd hopefully with two companies, one is always ready for that sort of case but no one is planning that hard for that contingency (bigger fish to worry about frying).
Two pilots help for redudnancy and to assist each other. If you are having a bad day where you are manually flying the vehicle, having two sets of eyes to check each other and offload each other is very useful, especially when you are coming home after 6 months.
-
#752
by
edkyle99
on 25 Dec, 2014 20:46
-
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
RS-88 by Aerojet-Rocketdyne. N2O4/MMH so that propellant can be used during mission (retro burn primarily) if not for abort.
- Ed Kyle
-
#753
by
Lars-J
on 26 Dec, 2014 04:55
-
What are the engines Boeing is planning to use for CST abort system?
I mean those 4 big nozzles at the bottom of SM, I suppose those are abort motors?
RS-88 by Aerojet-Rocketdyne. N2O4/MMH so that propellant can be used during mission (retro burn primarily) if not for abort.
- Ed Kyle
I thought it was a modified RS-88 that uses KeroLox? Or I could be mistaken.
-
#754
by
USFdon
on 26 Dec, 2014 06:13
-
The original RS-88 Bantam ran on Ethanol/LOX. This variant runs on hypergolics with an ablative nozzle if I'm not mistaken.
-
#755
by
tesla
on 23 Jan, 2015 09:03
-
Does anyone have a link to a data sheet of general CST 100 properties? Like how is it powered? How long can it stay under its own LSS. How does the integrated LAS work? Propellants used? etc. And maybe some launch vehilce data would be nice too.
THANK YOU!!!!
-
#756
by
arachnitect
on 23 Jan, 2015 16:49
-
Does anyone have a link to a data sheet of general CST 100 properties? Like how is it powered? How long can it stay under its own LSS. How does the integrated LAS work? Propellants used? etc. And maybe some launch vehilce data would be nice too.
THANK YOU!!!!
Old, but probably most comprehensive:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/Power: Batteries with solar panel "mission kit" to help maintain charge
Nominal Endurance: 48 hours.
LAS is a pusher setup using 4 modified RS-88 motors mounted in the Service module along with attitude control thrusters mounted in "doghouse" pods around the SM. Propellants are NTO/MMH.
Launch Vehicle is Atlas V 422. Usually lots of information about Atlas available, but this will be a new variant so not as much data out there.
-
#757
by
tesla
on 24 Jan, 2015 10:38
-
Does anyone have a link to a data sheet of general CST 100 properties? Like how is it powered? How long can it stay under its own LSS. How does the integrated LAS work? Propellants used? etc. And maybe some launch vehilce data would be nice too.
THANK YOU!!!!
Old, but probably most comprehensive: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/
Power: Batteries with solar panel "mission kit" to help maintain charge
Nominal Endurance: 48 hours.
LAS is a pusher setup using 4 modified RS-88 motors mounted in the Service module along with attitude control thrusters mounted in "doghouse" pods around the SM. Propellants are NTO/MMH.
Launch Vehicle is Atlas V 422. Usually lots of information about Atlas available, but this will be a new variant so not as much data out there.
Thanks! And so it is solar powered? But where are the solar panels in all the CST 100 pictures? Or is it only battery powered in the initial config?
-
#758
by
docmordrid
on 24 Jan, 2015 14:14
-
The arrays are a mission kit applied on the underside of the service module, between the abort thrusters. Bottom right on the attached image,
-
#759
by
tesla
on 24 Jan, 2015 17:59
-
The arrays are a mission kit applied on the underside of the service module, between the abort thrusters. Bottom right on the attached image,
Thank you so much!
And sorry for this stupid question, but what does the name "mission kit" mean? Does it mean that it will be added only if a mission requires the 'kit'?
Btw. what a beautiful spacecraft. Just incredible. Maybe ESA astronauts will get a ride on this one to orbit one day.
