Author Topic: Which commercial crew vehicle would you choose to be transported on? (Read 36756 times)

Oli · « **Reply #60 on:** 09/10/2013 11:19 pm »

^

From what I can tell the debate in DC threads in nonconclusive. Can you point me to source which confirms DC will ditch in the case of abort?

Rocket Science · « **Reply #61 on:** 09/11/2013 08:34 pm »

The discussions about ditching were raised by various member about what if scenarios. SNC claims no black zones so it is possible to RTLS or any 7000’ runway around the world. With on board motors they could throttle them to extend the DC’s glide to a landing if needed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.msg736399#msg736399

Lars_J · « **Reply #62 on:** 09/11/2013 10:29 pm »

No balc

Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/11/2013 08:34 pm

The discussions about ditching were raised by various member about what if scenarios. SNC claims no black zones so it is possible to RTLS or any 7000’ runway around the world. With on board motors they could throttle them to extend the DC’s glide to a landing if needed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.msg736399#msg736399

No black zones just means that there are survivable abort options at any stage. It does NOT have to mean that RTLS or a forward runway is necessarily reachable at any point. There is a difference - unless SNC considers landing with no runway a non-survivable event.

I still find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be points during the ascent where an abort would end up short of a trans-Atlantic landing strip.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #63 on:** 09/11/2013 11:05 pm »

Hey Lars!

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the black zones, it was just one example. I didn’t want to go too far OT what might be better discussed on the DC threads...

go4mars · « **Reply #64 on:** 10/24/2013 01:33 pm »

Dragon. Preferably around the moon. Fine with diapers and powerbars.

bad_astra · « **Reply #65 on:** 10/24/2013 07:40 pm »

Don't care, just put me in a seat.

john smith 19 · « **Reply #66 on:** 10/27/2013 11:20 am »

Quote from: bad_astra on 10/24/2013 07:40 pm

Don't care, just put me in a seat.

Fair point.

Right now Spacex has to be in pole position. It's the one racking up actual flight experience. DC potentially has the best in terms of cross range and low landing g's, which is handy if you're injured.

No doubt both Boeing and SNC will argue that flight experience is not that important (BTW when was Boeing's last crewed space vehicle that they built? Is anyone from those times still with the company?) but I simply disagree on this.

It's actual flight experience that teaches the difference between what is theoretically important to success, and what actually matters.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #67 on:** 10/27/2013 12:00 pm »

If I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #68 on:** 10/27/2013 12:50 pm »

Dragon, redundant landing equipment ie thrusters with backup parachute. DC 2nd. Dont like CTS reliance on parachutes only, also can't be steered after reentry.

Hauerg · « **Reply #69 on:** 10/27/2013 01:17 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pm

If I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?

1. Claustrophobia?
2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.

RonM · « **Reply #70 on:** 10/27/2013 01:32 pm »

I'd like to try all three and Soyuz too. While we are playing make believe, I wonder if the Chinese have an empty seat?

Getting back to the question, I'd would pick Dragon. Let's pretend its 2018 and all three are flying, Dragon's flight heritage would be the deciding factor for me. Of course, that assumes they haven't lost any capsules in that time.

Falcon H · « **Reply #71 on:** 10/27/2013 01:43 pm »

I would have to say Dragon. Of all the CCDev spacecraft SpaceX(I think)has made the most progress. Dragon will have an amazing LAS system, besides who wouldn't like to land on Super-Dracos like that. And last of all I'm a SpaceX fan boi so of course I'm going to pick Dragon.

arachnitect · « **Reply #72 on:** 10/27/2013 05:19 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/27/2013 11:20 am

Quote from: bad_astra on 10/24/2013 07:40 pm
Don't care, just put me in a seat.
Fair point.

Right now Spacex has to be in pole position. It's the one racking up actual flight experience. DC potentially has the best in terms of cross range and low landing g's, which is handy if you're injured.

No doubt both Boeing and SNC will argue that flight experience is not that important (BTW when was Boeing's last crewed space vehicle that they built? Is anyone from those times still with the company?) but I simply disagree on this.

It's actual flight experience that teaches the difference between what is theoretically important to success, and what actually matters.

Boeing is the lead contractor for ISS.

baldusi · « **Reply #73 on:** 10/27/2013 11:55 pm »

Endeavour was built from 1987 to 1992. And the shuttle fleet rebuilt in 2004/5 was done by them, too. Not to mention maintenance engineering while the fleet flew. Btw, the CST-100 is based all the work on the Boeing bid for what was later awarded to LM as Orion.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #74 on:** 10/28/2013 12:16 am »

Quote from: baldusi on 10/27/2013 11:55 pm

Endeavour was built from 1987 to 1992. And the shuttle fleet rebuilt in 2004/5 was done by them, too. Not to mention maintenance engineering while the fleet flew. Btw, the CST-100 is based all the work on the Boeing bid for what was later awarded to LM as Orion.

CST-100 and Orion seem so close that I don't see how in this era of tight budgets it makes any sense to be funding both (along with Dragon of course). How many different flavors of capsule does NASA need? I can't tell you how much I wish Boeing had gone with an X-37 based crew transport (especially with Dream Chaser seeming like an increasingly long shot).

Lar · « **Reply #75 on:** 10/28/2013 01:13 am »

My vote hasn't changed despite the recent events. Even though I am a SpaceX fan boi I still like DC, it's just the coolest

Avron · « **Reply #76 on:** 10/28/2013 01:29 am »

no question ... Dragon

Lee Jay · « **Reply #77 on:** 10/28/2013 02:08 am »

Quote from: Hauerg on 10/27/2013 01:17 pm

Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pm
If I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?
1. Claustrophobia?
2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.

I have the opposite of Claustrophobia (I like tight confined spaces and believe me I've been in some way smaller than Soyuz) and Soyuz' flight history seems to support a conclusion that this is a reliable, proven system.

Avron · « **Reply #78 on:** 10/28/2013 02:14 am »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/28/2013 02:08 am

Quote from: Hauerg on 10/27/2013 01:17 pm
Quote from: Lee Jay on 10/27/2013 12:00 pm
If I have to go on CST-100 or Dragon why wouldn't I just go on Soyuz?
1. Claustrophobia?
2. If primary landing device fails on the Soyuz, you become a hero.

I have the opposite of Claustrophobia (I like tight confined spaces and believe me I've been in some way smaller than Soyuz) and Soyuz' flight history seems to support a conclusion that this is a reliable, proven system.

I just cannot see how Soyuz would qualify as a "Commercial crew vehicle"

Patchouli · « **Reply #79 on:** 10/28/2013 02:20 am »

Despite the landing gear problem on the drop test vehicle Dream Chaser is still first on my list because the issue will be solved on flight vehicles.
Remember the first Orion drop test and the first Soyuz test flight ended with the vehicles making a crater.
Second would be Dragon because it seems roomy and lets face it landing with rockets is pretty cool.