Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 03:26 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 pmPressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris). The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998. So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.I know Thales Alenia did not start from a clean slate, but I tend to put fabrication on a higher pedestal than others, so I guess my bias is showing.https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-alenia-spaceQuoteOrbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators....after decades of unending analysis, design reviews, conceptual reviews, etc, I'm tired of paper milestones. I prefer metal being bent (or carbon fiber being laid up, if you will).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 pmPressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris). The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998. So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Orbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.
Quote from: newpylong on 10/06/2014 01:13 pmQuote from: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 pm...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS........Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
Quote from: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 pm...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS........Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
Quote from: TomH on 10/06/2014 08:57 pmQuote from: newpylong on 10/06/2014 01:13 pmQuote from: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 pm...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS........Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.Boeing's CEV competitor based on OSP designs (as Jim said) was competing with Orion. The CST-100 we have now is nothing like what was proposed at the time other than a capsule design. The requirements are completely different.
Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us).
As opposed to the ~$8b that CCrew will cost? ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist. And, yes, I know the CCrew figure includes 12 flights.) Cheers, Martin
Except when the one is Boeing. In that case you can expect cost to balloon even from the already highest bid as soon as they are the only provider. I know it is a completely unbased assumption.
Remember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 10/08/2014 08:56 pmRemember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs.
Quote from: CraigLieb on 10/09/2014 06:30 pmQuote from: Wayne Hale on 10/08/2014 08:56 pmRemember, its a 'Firm, Fixed Price Contract' not the old "Cost Plus Award Fee" type of contract. Cost to the government is not supposed to increase under this mechanism.And Boeing and the other defense contractors are masters at looking for scope creep and forcing change orders that are paid for on top of firm fixed cost projects. Anything the govt asks for that is beyond the strict bounds of the contract language can become a point for expanding costs. And what's that matter with that. The onus is on the gov't to have well defined requirements.
.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/09/2014 11:43 pm.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...Right, everybody is a crook.
Quote from: Jim on 10/10/2014 12:38 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 10/09/2014 11:43 pm.. because no-one who works for the government could possibly have an incentive to make billable hours for the contractor...Right, everybody is a crook.Weeellllll... not a 'crook'. That implies self-awareness of openly dishonest intent. You ask most people who do things like this and they'll insist that it is 100% legal and honest (if possibly dubiously ethical) and all they're doing is getting the maximum legal amount out of a contract. "Milking it for all that it is worth but not a cent more" is one way I've heard it described.But we digress.
It's the nature of military projects that there is an enemy and the enemy is not predictable, the enemy is always evolving new tactics, and the enemy is always fielding new technology.
Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.
And, according to Boeing, the heat shield drops off at 5,000 feet so the air bags can deploy. Can't see it being reused either.Link....QuoteAfter reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.
After reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.
“In October, we’ll have a whole new series of tests with 12 new airbags, and we will do extensive drop tests at White Sands Missile Range [in New Mexico], where the CST-100 will actually land,” said McKinney. He also said there will be approximately 20 tests that will allow this test data to be used to verify that simulation models are accurate.
578
Author
Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2 (Read 520957 times)
