Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2  (Read 521108 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11338
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #420 on: 06/20/2014 01:26 pm »

Handling toxic propellants is something you do every day when you go to the pump.  That's why we have gas tanks.  This is a non-issue.


Quite wrong.  There are no ill effects due to short term exposure to fumes while fueling or being next to an operating car.  Same goes for getting splashed by gasoline when the nozzle "burps" while fueling. It is quite the opposite with H2H4 or N2O4. 
Also, gasoline is not a monopropellant and doesn't decompose when exposed to contaminates. 

And as far as solids fuels being safer than liquids, the body count comes down in favor of liquids.

Wrong.  Body count is not relevant, since  it is more of a function of the vehicle's capacity vs number of incidents.  And the "one" incident did not have an escape system, so it doesn't even count.

Please name a propellant that is not toxic and can be stored for extended periods of time.

Ethanol, GH2, GCH4, etc.  There are many that can be stored and are non toxic in short term exposures.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2014 01:34 pm by Jim »

Online notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #421 on: 06/20/2014 02:41 pm »
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Vertical landing is great, and I too look forward to the day when a stage flies back to the launch site and lands on its tail as God and Robert Heinlein intended, but for Dragon it's just a boondoggle. It's not "safe", it's not "how a 21st century spaceship should land" or whatever stupid sales gimmick they're using now. Considering that they're still going with toxic propellants, I don't think it's even sensible. Why the double standard? Because those stages are supposed to be able to be restacked and refly the same day (eventually), or at least the same week. There's absolutely no need for a crew vehicle to be able to do that. Ya want pinpoint landing? Buy an off-the-shelf GPS guided parachute. Ya want softer landings? Use airbags or a parawing.

They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant parachutes on the Falcon. At any rate the CTS-100 dosn't seem to be all that far behind Dragon at this point. It is a viable contender.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2014 02:42 pm by notsorandom »

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1412
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 1482
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #422 on: 06/20/2014 04:48 pm »

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.

So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?

Edit: to bring on topic.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2014 04:51 pm by oiorionsbelt »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13121
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #423 on: 06/20/2014 05:14 pm »
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/20/2014 05:17 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 793
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #424 on: 06/20/2014 06:33 pm »

Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.

Redundant systems are the way to go. That's why the V2 still has them.

So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?

Edit: to bring on topic.

V2 needs them in the case of a pad or in-flight abort.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 931
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #425 on: 06/20/2014 06:48 pm »
V2 needs them in the case of a pad or in-flight abort.
And in case the engines fail to start prior to powered landing.

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1412
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 1482
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #426 on: 06/20/2014 07:46 pm »
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.
DC's back up is?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9219
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3068
  • Likes Given: 8345
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #427 on: 06/20/2014 08:17 pm »
So what is the CST-100's backup if their parachutes fail?
Multiple parachutes, same as Apollo, and same as Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle
So, triple redundant systems on Dragon, Super Draco's, Parachutes and backup chutes. Seems more robust than just two sets of chutes like CST-100.
DC's back up is?
HL-20 had a proposed chute which is seen as not required for DC... Its lifting body generates enough cross range and recall that reasonably  low 161 kts landing speed during ALT 1.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline dchill

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #428 on: 06/21/2014 02:39 am »
DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 

If the world had millions of people trying to land using rocket thrusters and back-up parachutes every day, the news would probably take 15 minutes longer to get done listing all the fatalities. 

Structure is inherently more reliable than fabric tucked up in a ball and/or rocket motors (given nearly equivalent TPS issues on the initial reentry phase - and if you're only coming back from LEO).

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13121
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #429 on: 06/21/2014 02:04 pm »
DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 
Which airlines use lifting bodies?

NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/21/2014 02:05 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #430 on: 06/21/2014 03:03 pm »


NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle
Two main reasons. One being the USAF wanted to be able to make once around polar orbits, which required a very high crossrange. Two was that the complex shape of the body would result in difficult payload bay dimensions and subsytem layouts. Number one was the real driver though.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

DC's back up is?
...pretty much like all the airplanes around the world landing with about 4.5 million passengers every day. 
Which airlines use lifting bodies?

NASA intensively studied lifting bodies during the 1960s and 70s.  There is a reason the agency chose to put wings on Shuttle.

 - Ed Kyle

Oh come on, Ed. You know very well the reason they used wings per se rather than a lifting body: size/mass of the vehicle in the first place; cargo down-mass requirements, and cross-range. Had they gone straight from their small lifting body experiments to an operational space vehicle, it would have looked very much like DC does.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13121
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #432 on: 06/21/2014 09:52 pm »
Oh come on, Ed. You know very well the reason they used wings per se rather than a lifting body: size/mass of the vehicle in the first place; cargo down-mass requirements, and cross-range. Had they gone straight from their small lifting body experiments to an operational space vehicle, it would have looked very much like DC does.
NASA traded lifting bodies with winged designs for Shuttle during the early studies, but went with wings very early.  The add-on USAF cross range requirements forced use of a double-delta wing rather than the original straight wing, but lifting bodies were already out of it by then.  The early lifting bodies had stability problems and landed hot.  They got better later.

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4518
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #433 on: 06/22/2014 10:43 pm »
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

Offline Darren_Hensley

  • System Software Engineer, MCTP, NGC, Ft Leavenworth Ks
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Captian(ret) USS Pabilli, Timefleet, UFP-TIC
  • Alamogordo NM
    • H-10-K Enterprises
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #434 on: 06/23/2014 08:59 am »
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.
BSNCM Devry, MAITM Webster, MSSS & MSAP SFA
H-10-K Enterprises Gateway Station

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #435 on: 06/23/2014 04:49 pm »
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #436 on: 06/23/2014 05:11 pm »
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)

how old is that CBM design anyhow?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4518
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #437 on: 06/23/2014 07:11 pm »
They didn't had fly-by-wire technology as mature and reliable as today. That's true. But they shouldn't had gone to a jack of all trades super vehicle with 60% of the already optimists budgets for full development. In any case, none of this is an issue for CST-100.
Am I remembering right that the stock CST-100 pressure vessel doesn't have enough clearance for a CBM? I understand that if you take the petals out of the IDA you could pass a 1.2m cylinder. But will the APAS-IDA adapter have enough internal clearance?

CBM dimensions are not native, and were not a mojor consideration. It's on the Boeing site in a pdf on another subject alltogether. I'll bet with slight modification you could get real close. I don't think the cone shape and the accessory bays allow it though.

1.2m is a good approximation, it depends on the pettal itteration, that's still changing. But by design all pettals may be removed to accomodate the maximum diameter the rings and systems will accomodate. It's another reason why some designs have a second internal ring, with fluid transfer and additional electrical connections capabilities. I have no idea where they stand on this design feature, the ILIDS and IDA only show the one ring.

Crewed vehicles must be able to undock quickly and without robotics and CBM assistances.  CBM is *not* an option.  Move on :)
He just answered my question. And I was trying to find out the suitability for CRS 2 of CST-100. Let's remember that their pressure vessel is made out of a single billet, formed and machined. Thus, I understand that making adaptations is not that easy. And CBM is very important to CRS 2.
As stated before, adding an unpressurized section is not so simple with the CST-100, and the CBM seems incompatible. Which is a shame given that it is a lot roomier inside. Save for the CBM CST-100 would make an amazing pressurized cargo transport.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

how old is that CBM design anyhow?


The mechanical design passed the Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 PDR at MSFC in the spring of 1993. The general dimensions came well before that (circa 1988 towards the end of Phase B studies).
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #439 on: 06/24/2014 12:33 am »
how old is that CBM design anyhow?


The mechanical design passed the Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 PDR at MSFC in the spring of 1993. The general dimensions came well before that (circa 1988 towards the end of Phase B studies).

The CBM is great at joining modules together permanently - much easier than welding them.   Unfortunately, unlike LEGO bricks, it does not pull apart easily.

Tags: