Author Topic: Which commercial crew vehicle would you choose to be transported on?  (Read 31150 times)

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6694
  • Liked: 1005
  • Likes Given: 140
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"

Are we not currently paying for seats on that vehicle?  Seems pretty commercial to me.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Don't be pedantic, lee jay, you know *exactly* what is meant by the title of this thread. If not, this is a good starting point for research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
CST-100. Most proven lift vehicle and simple design of spacecraft.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8736
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.
So a minimum of 8 years since they worked on constructing an aerospace flight vehicle, with wings.

And how long since they have built a capsule?

I'm aware of the theory that capsules are simpler than winged vehicles but I think people get into habits of thinking. People talk of carbon fibre as "black Aluminium," which sometimes works, sometimes has ended badly.

In the same way the "It's just like Shuttle, but simpler" meme can start to propagate. Maybe (mostly) it's correct, but sometimes it won't be.

My instinct is a company that did something a long time ago is probably a less safe bet than one that has never done something before. The latter knows they are completely ignorant of the subject and (if well managed) make strenuous efforts to prepare for all eventualities.  :(

The former is (potentially) more prone to the "We did it in 19xx's, we know what we're doing" syndrome.

That's why despite their funding I've got Boeing at #3 on my list.   :(
« Last Edit: 10/28/2013 01:20 pm by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1586
Much as I like what SpaceX is doing, if I were to fly, I'd want to ride Dream Chaser... for the view!
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 252
CST-100. Most proven lift vehicle and simple design of spacecraft.

CST-100 seems awfully similar to Orion to me.  I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense for a cash-strapped agency to be funding two similar but separate capsules, in addition to Dragon. 

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 0
CST-100. Most proven lift vehicle and simple design of spacecraft.

CST-100 seems awfully similar to Orion to me.  I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense for a cash-strapped agency to be funding two similar but separate capsules, in addition to Dragon.

Big differences. CST-100 is smaller than Orion(only slightly bigger than Apollo) and lands on land and is planned to be reusable. The reason why the choose that shape was because the aerodynamics of the Apollo capsule are well known. Orion is seperate and it is Congress that wants Orion more than anything else.

Online rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • USA
  • Liked: 1430
  • Likes Given: 624
#1 Dream Chaser on a Falcom 9. As long as I get to sit in the front.
#2 Propulsive landing Dragon. Second (Top) seating level.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline WmThomas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • An objective space fan
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 1441
Isn't right answer: whichever you can afford? I bet Dragon is likely to be most affordable.

Tags: