Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2  (Read 521191 times)

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Italy
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #680 on: 10/23/2014 07:38 am »
Here it my contribution about the topic.

Thanks for the upload.  Just cause it was going to bug me the rest of the day, I rearranged the projections so that the capsule is never pointed sideways.  The drafter in me is lashing out.  ;D

Never mind. thanks for the re-arrangement.

Ciao
Giuseppe

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3568
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #681 on: 10/23/2014 04:27 pm »
SpaceX has completed half their CDR. Milestone 13A was completed a while ago and 13B was recently completed according to Reisman. We are not talking about a huge gap between the two companies.

Let's not confuse the methodology that Boeing and SpaceX uses to back up their claims during the CDR presentation that the design specifications presented are reasonably achievable.  SpaceX does it the old fashion way of actually building prototypes and then fitting them all together to determine if their design is achievable for a flight unit.  Boeing uses other data such as what has been achieved before to show that the specific designs can be met.  For more critical items such as structure strength margins and LAS propulsion subsystems Boeing actually did some prototypes and testing.  It's this difference in approach that is the major item in the CCtCAP costs differences for development.  Boeing has to produce all the subsystems prototypes and create a full up integrated test article. SpaceX already has nearly completed this step.

A CDR is the presentation of the design specifications for the complete systems and all subsystems showing the specifications for environment (thermal, EM, and acoustic), fit, location, weight, thermal, power and interfaces.  It also includes the reasoning that these specifications can be achieved within a reasonable amount of risk that the design would have to be changed for the actual flight units.  It is just that SpaceX without a large set of other space programs systems and experience to draw from uses actual prototype hardware to justify their designs.

Offline obi-wan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #682 on: 10/23/2014 04:57 pm »
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments  ;D

It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)

I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2650
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1439
  • Likes Given: 1074
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #683 on: 10/23/2014 05:19 pm »
It's quite entertaining to watch someone with very little actual knowledge of the CDR process actually try to stare down a professional expert. Thanks for the light-hearted moments  ;D

It's like listening to someone who's insisting to a physician that the body has chakras and that illnesses are the result of incorrect energy flows between those chakras. ::)

I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

It's also a good idea to share knowledge to establish credibility. Remember, this is a forum on the Internet. New members who are not familiar with previous posts don't know if other members are industry professionals or kids on their parents' computer.

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 1282
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #684 on: 10/23/2014 06:33 pm »
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

but this should work the other way around too... people who are not experts should not be arrogant and aggressively push their agendas just because they do not like what the experts are saying... or even accusing them of lying (even indirectly)... as is often happening on this forum...
and they should listen what the experts tell them... at least a little bit... and they should be glad that they have the opportunity to even talk to the experts, ask them questions...

show some respect... do not think you have all the knowledge in the world, as some of the non-experts are behaving here

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 959
  • Likes Given: 353
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #685 on: 10/23/2014 09:53 pm »
I really don't think it helps anything for people who have some experience to act smugly superior and denigrate others with different opinions. They are among the small fraction of people who actively support the space program, and deserve at least basic courtesy. After 40 years in the field I would match my experience and knowledge base against anybody here, but I try to remember that I can still learn new things, or even find out that something I thought was true may not be. If you think someone is wrong, tell them why; education is an obligation for those of us who have experience. If they don't want to accept it, that's their choice, but they still deserve some basic civility.

but this should work the other way around too... people who are not experts should not be arrogant and aggressively push their agendas just because they do not like what the experts are saying... or even accusing them of lying (even indirectly)... as is often happening on this forum...
and they should listen what the experts tell them... at least a little bit... and they should be glad that they have the opportunity to even talk to the experts, ask them questions...

show some respect... do not think you have all the knowledge in the world, as some of the non-experts are behaving here

And this is exactly the point. Logical detailed cases have been laid out, yet people with no understanding keep slamming those who do know what they're talking about. It is just silly. There comes a point at which experts get tired of laying out information over and over, only to have believers continually attempt feeble contradictions.

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #686 on: 10/24/2014 01:38 am »
Okay, so you've got one expert saying:
"The CDR is the Critical Design Review.  It is the second-most important milestone on an aerospace development program -- second only to first flight. ... Simply put, it is the gate between design and fabrication.  If you haven't passed CDR, you aren't in fabrication, you're still in design."

...and you've got others saying, "in reality, with concurrent engineering practices the wall between 'design' and 'fabrication' is largely broken down." and "neither of the main CDR goals (Is the design sound?  Is it ready for fabrication?) was advanced by the CDR.  The first had been settled long ago".

Apparently, if you listen to the experts unquestioningly, design is settled long before CDR, AND CDR means the design is "90% done" (and you know what they say about getting "90%" of something done: you still have to do the other 90%).  If you haven't passed CDR, you aren't in fabrication, you're still in design, AND the wall between 'design' and 'fabrication' is largely broken down.

I'm not against CST-100.  I've posted lots of positive things about it, and pointed out the ways I think it's better than either Dragon or Dream Chaser (mostly that I think it'll be the best lifeboat, and is the most suitable for an expensive launch platform like Atlas V, which can't have a lot of test flights, and of course, the reboost capability is a significant bonus for ISS).  I've been back and forth over whether I think SNC or Boeing has the stronger case as new information has come out and new arguments have been raised, but always admitted uncertainty over who should win the dispute.  What I'm against is misleading characterizations, bad logic, and incorrect information, in any discussion.

This isn't a cost-plus contract.  NASA's involved to lend a hand, and to evaluate what they're willing to pay for and fly astronauts on, NOT to specify the details of how they want the vehicles built and have their way on every point.  The customer CDR is not an essential part of the design process in this case.  These are commercial vehicles, which will be owned and operated by the companies building them, not by NASA, and they can be built without passing some single customer's CDR.  The companies designing them can and should push back against NASA feedback, to keep their vehicles economical and maximize their commercial potential.

SpaceX hasn't been shy about saying they were going ahead with or without NASA, and when SNC lost in the downselect (aside from disputing that decision), they immediately started shopping Dream Chaser around to other potential customers.  Only Boeing has said straight-up that they're not doing CST-100 without NASA, and therefore would definitely need to pass the NASA CDR to proceed.

I reject the "it is the second-most important milestone ... second only to first flight ... it is the gate between design and fabrication" position.  Regardless of who it comes from, I don't believe that's a correct assessment, as applied to these particular CDRs.

It's just a contract milestone here.  Completing it reasonably means that NASA is more satisfied with the design (and we know that independently about CST-100 because it won a contract, and leaked documents have said so), but not that the design is actually more complete.

(edit: something funny happened when I tried to post it the first time, and it ended up posting an earlier revision I had previewed but didn't intend to post)
« Last Edit: 10/24/2014 01:58 am by Nindalf »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11359
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8406
  • Likes Given: 6736
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #687 on: 10/24/2014 02:55 am »
There is way too much casting of aspersions in this thread for my taste.  We have a lot of experts here and a lot of interested amateurs. Give people the respect they are due, be willing to concede that others may have something to bring that you don't (information you don't have since you don't work in the industry... a fresh perspective from not working in the industry, or even just a different set of facts) and in general be excellent to each other.

I just downselected a few posts. Some of them are still referenced in other ones, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Please turn the excellent-ness level up a notch or 3 ( from its current setting of -1...)  Less bashing of Boeing, of each other, of everything. Thank you.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #688 on: 10/25/2014 03:02 pm »
Have there been any updates on the CST-100 lately?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 1166
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #689 on: 11/06/2014 07:27 pm »
Have there been any updates on the CST-100 lately?

Two bits of news:

The CST-100 mockup visited Abu Dhabi on November 5. Opinion: While the report notes that the visit is to promote education interests for children, you could read more in this when a spacecraft concept visits a country with a lot of millionaires.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/boeing-s-cst-100-debuts-in-abu-dhabi-114110500447_1.html

And UTC Aerospace has been tapped by Boeing to make the CST's ECLSS (that's "life support system" for the tragically anagram-impaired).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/utc-aerospace-systems-supports-boeing-cst-100-vehicle-2014-11-06?reflink=MW_news_stmp
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 1166
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #690 on: 11/06/2014 07:30 pm »
A more detailed report on the Abu Dhabi visit in this article from the Khaleej Times:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness

EDIT: Corrected spelling
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 10:09 pm by MattMason »
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #691 on: 11/06/2014 08:25 pm »
A more detailed report on the Abu Dhabi visit in this article from the Kaleej Times:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/uaebusiness/2014/November/uaebusiness_November65.xml&section=uaebusiness

Thanks for pointing to this article.

I do have a question about one of Ferguson's answers.

To the question "Who were Boeing’s competitors in launching this space vehicle?",

Ferguson replies "We were up against some new companies that are doing some very innovative and creative things to bring down the cost of human space flight but Space X and Boeing are both still in the running, so it’s still a competition. We have our test flights guaranteed to us from Nasa but the next major hurdle is who will be the first one to take Nasa passengers to lower orbit. That decision will be made in May 2015."

Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #692 on: 11/06/2014 09:37 pm »

Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.
Because of the long-lead planning. It takes months... years of forward planning before the launch actually takes place. NASA could theoretically wait until a system is online and then start the 2-3 years process, which means Commercial Crew wouldn't reach station before 2020, and we'd need to buy another 4-8 Soyuz launches.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1150
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #693 on: 11/06/2014 10:15 pm »
It can take 2 to 3 years between a decision to launch a specific payload and when that payload actually flies, but it does not have to and rarely does. Everything about the crew flight will use NASA standard hardware, either purchased directly from NASA (CCST-100) or built to NASA standards (SpaceX). Nothing unusual. If there was an emergency aboard ISS which required a crew vehicle launch and dock to ISS NASA could pull that off in weeks, providing both spacecraft were ready, and depending on LV availability. Weeks, not years.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #694 on: 11/11/2014 01:17 am »
Does anyone know what this decision is to be made in May 2015? Seems to me that the first one ready would be the first one to transport astronauts to orbit. And NASA will know when someone is ready when they are ready, not in 7 months. So I am confused as to what Ferguson is referring to when referencing a NASA decision to be made this coming spring.

Call me paranoid but I suspect that will be when a "decsion" is made on if there is going to be another "down-select" and Boeing is planning on the answer being "yes" and one guess who they expect to "win" that one :(

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #695 on: 11/11/2014 01:27 pm »
You are paranoid :-P

The decision is who will fly first.  Someone has to be first.

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #696 on: 11/11/2014 04:30 pm »
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #697 on: 11/11/2014 04:39 pm »
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #698 on: 11/11/2014 05:04 pm »
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.

I can certainly accept that crews must be trained for these spacecraft. But my response is, why not train crews for both vehicles? I thought NASA was planning on using both spacecraft in perpetuity (or until ISS is decommissioned) for dissimilar redundancy in getting crew to and from the ISS?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 capsule updates & discussion THREAD 2
« Reply #699 on: 11/12/2014 12:51 am »
Thanks for all the replies, but I am still confused. May be a personal problem  :o 

But I would hope I can liken the CCtCap program with the COTS program. CCtCap has two firms (Boeing and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of astronauts to ISS) whereas COTS had two firms (Orbital and SpaceX) on track to reach the same goal (delivery of cargo to ISS). For COTS both Orbital and SpaceX progressed through their milestones until they ultimately reached the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering cargo to ISS. So why would CCtCap be any different? Wouldn't (shouldn't) NASA allow both Boeing and SpaceX to progress as rapidly through their milestones as they are able to reach the goal of demonstrating the capability of delivering astronauts to the ISS?

I would hope the objective for NASA is to demonstrate that capability as soon as possible. Why would NASA make a decision in May 2015 about who will be first when they have no crystal ball to see who will actually be ready first? For that matter, the firm they choose in May 2015 may not even be ready by their goal of 2017 due to unforeseen challenges. May 2015 is just not a rational decision point from my, perhaps naive, perspective.

One key difference is that NASA has to select and train the crews that will fly on these spacecraft -- as opposed to cargo, which just sits there.

I can certainly accept that crews must be trained for these spacecraft. But my response is, why not train crews for both vehicles? I thought NASA was planning on using both spacecraft in perpetuity (or until ISS is decommissioned) for dissimilar redundancy in getting crew to and from the ISS?

Yes, each company will move along at their milestone pace.  I don't think ther eis anything magic about Mayish except for maybe CRS2.  But ISSPO will not be locking in a provider at that point I believe.

NASA will not be trainign the crews - the providers do.

it is not practical to train crews for both.  We will never have a person go up/down on different (excelt *maybe* a tourist) and the flights for an ISS increment are too far aprt to train for both.  Probably you will get generic training both until it is clear what vehicle you are taking up.  Even though they are autonomous vehciles they are too complicated to train for both as a pilot/CDR.

NASA has never said anything about using both forever.  After the certs and first few flights NASA will recompete.  One or both could win or lose based onc ost, customer satisfaction, frequent flyer programs...

Tags: