-
#300
by
docmordrid
on 06 Apr, 2018 21:54
-
Wall Street Journal's take,
Doesn't this effectively merge Boe-CFT with Post-Certification Mission-1?
WSJ....NASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be Delayed
Revised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019
NASA and Boeing Co. have agreed to turn the initial test flight of the companys commercial crewed capsule into an operational mission, one of several recent signs officials are hedging their bets on when U.S. spacecraft will start regularly ferrying astronauts to the international space station.
Thursday's disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018, is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020 and would likely carry one additional crew...{paywalled}
-
#301
by
ZachS09
on 06 Apr, 2018 23:41
-
Here's a few options I can think of for a third astronaut should that plan turn true:
Either they can bring up another one of NASA's Commercial Crew cadre;
They can bring up a space tourist for a long-duration mission since this mission might last six months;
They might bring up another Boeing test pilot;
Or they might send up an international astronaut from either ESA, Russia, Canada, or Japan.
-
#302
by
Ike17055
on 07 Apr, 2018 14:08
-
How does this signal a delay in regular flights? I dont have access to the Journal article, so perhaps it is explained there, but we are only looking at an expansion of the already planned flight, as this summary reads.
-
#303
by
gongora
on 07 Apr, 2018 14:13
-
How does this signal a delay in regular flights? I dont have access to the Journal article, so perhaps it is explained there, but we are only looking at an expansion of the already planned flight, as this summary reads.
The reason for expanding the test flight would be to avoid having a gap in the crew when the schedule slips.
-
#304
by
Ike17055
on 08 Apr, 2018 09:39
-
So the slip would occur after this “test flight” while awaiting certification as “operational” vehicle - is that it? — despite the fact the test flight served as an operational flight? But The first crew flight (being a test) would still occur roughly “on schedule.” Is this what we are saying...sorry to be dense.
-
#305
by
gongora
on 08 Apr, 2018 14:21
-
Right now you've got Soyuz flights going up about every three months (not exactly that duration, but close) so that after a 3-person crew has been on orbit for 5-6 months their replacements come up on another Soyuz. With the planned initiation of U.S. crew flights the future Soyuz flights have been cut back so that Soyuz and U.S. crew vehicles would alternate. On the last FPIP we've seen it looks like the crew going up in March 2019 will be replaced by another Soyuz flight in September 2019, but the crew going up in May 2019 doesn't have a replacement Soyuz scheduled. That means around November 2019 either the U.S. flies up some crew or the number of crew on ISS gets cut in half.
Both of the U.S. crew vehicles are scheduled to be flying by then, but there isn't really a guarantee they will be. Basically if a first crewed test flight happens in early 2019 then it could just take the two astronauts already scheduled and then we could have a post certification mission around November. If the first crewed test flights slip into the summer (or later) then the test flight may need to expand its scope to keep the ISS crew size from shrinking in November 2019.
-
#306
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 Apr, 2018 10:15
-
-
#307
by
chipguy
on 09 Apr, 2018 17:33
-
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
-
#308
by
okan170
on 09 Apr, 2018 17:55
-
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
Its almost the same as the other spacecraft. People are more excited for a certain company's hype.
-
#309
by
kevinof
on 09 Apr, 2018 18:17
-
I don't want to take this off topic but neither excite me. Dragon 2 would have been a big step forward by landing on land with the Dracos. That's gone and their dunking it in the ocean which is what they did 50 years ago.
Same with CST. It's basically the same as Apollo 50 years ago but with modern avionics. No re-using anything, not pushing the boat out on anything. Kind of meh!
So for me neither one get the juices going much.
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
Its almost the same as the other spacecraft. People are more excited for a certain company's hype.
-
#310
by
rockets4life97
on 09 Apr, 2018 18:27
-
No re-using anything [snip]
This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
-
#311
by
kevinof
on 09 Apr, 2018 18:34
-
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis. So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me.
And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.
Just kind of lost it's spark for me.
No re-using anything [snip]
This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
-
#312
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Apr, 2018 18:40
-
No re-using anything [snip]
This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.
-
#313
by
Prettz
on 09 Apr, 2018 19:45
-
No re-using anything [snip]
This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Soyuz, just with a different method of making the touchdown non-destructive. It's still a very hard landing, out in the middle of the wilderness. The crew still has to wait out in the middle of nowhere for a convoy to come rescue them.
-
#314
by
erioladastra
on 10 Apr, 2018 01:03
-
No re-using anything [snip]
This is wrong. Boeing will be re-using parts (even the whole pressure vessel I believe).
Plus it lands on land using airbags, which is new compared to Russians and New Shepard retro engines.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Soyuz, just with a different method of making the touchdown non-destructive. It's still a very hard landing, out in the middle of the wilderness. The crew still has to wait out in the middle of nowhere for a convoy to come rescue them.
Not correct. CST-100 will land nominally at a designated site where there will be personnel ready to get them out and recover the vehicle very quickly. Only an emergency off-nominal landing on land or in the water would there be any wait.
-
#315
by
erioladastra
on 10 Apr, 2018 01:05
-
I don't want to take this off topic but neither excite me. Dragon 2 would have been a big step forward by landing on land with the Dracos. That's gone and their dunking it in the ocean which is what they did 50 years ago.
Same with CST. It's basically the same as Apollo 50 years ago but with modern avionics. No re-using anything, not pushing the boat out on anything. Kind of meh!
So for me neither one get the juices going much.
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
Its almost the same as the other spacecraft. People are more excited for a certain company's hype.
Well yes, you have a capsule but some times the best design is the same design. After thousands of years we still make boats look like, well boats. But the CST-100 does have some big difference over Apollo, not the least one being that it is autonomous. Should be able to launch,. dock and come home without needing the crew to do anything (but they can if something goes wrong).
-
#316
by
erioladastra
on 10 Apr, 2018 01:06
-
Here's a few options I can think of for a third astronaut should that plan turn true:
Either they can bring up another one of NASA's Commercial Crew cadre;
They can bring up a space tourist for a long-duration mission since this mission might last six months;
They might bring up another Boeing test pilot;
Or they might send up an international astronaut from either ESA, Russia, Canada, or Japan.
Won't be 2 Boeing pilots. Boeing only has one and NASA would not use a seat that way.
-
#317
by
erioladastra
on 10 Apr, 2018 01:07
-
Wall Street Journal's take,
Doesn't this effectively merge Boe-CFT with Post-Certification Mission-1?
WSJ....
NASA, Boeing Signal Regular Missions to Space Station to Be Delayed
Revised Boeing contract signals capsule won't fly with crew until 2019
NASA and Boeing Co. have agreed to turn the initial test flight of the companys commercial crewed capsule into an operational mission, one of several recent signs officials are hedging their bets on when U.S. spacecraft will start regularly ferrying astronauts to the international space station.
Thursday's disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018, is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020 and would likely carry one additional crew...{paywalled}
Basically, yeah.
-
#318
by
woods170
on 10 Apr, 2018 07:04
-
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis. So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me.
And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.
Just kind of lost it's spark for me.
That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.
And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.
This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:
- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).
- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.
- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.
All courtesy of NASA.
But I digress.
-
#319
by
TrevorMonty
on 10 Apr, 2018 10:06
-
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis. So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me.
And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.
Just kind of lost it's spark for me.
That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.
And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.
This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:
- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).
- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.
- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.
All courtesy of NASA.
But I digress.
The customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.