Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 205456 times)

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #440 on: 09/20/2018 08:57 AM »
Still doesnt answer any questions asked.  And ignores the fact that vulcan may not be commercially viable in a crowded marketplace with cheaper, reusable options.  It is still a very speculative venture. Starliner however now exists and needs alternatives.  Honestly, The snark and scorn approach belongs on other sites. This question doesnít deserve the pissy approach. Can anyone (who knows what they are talking about) discuss whether Blue or SpaceX are viable options for Boeing?

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #441 on: 09/20/2018 08:59 AM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16626
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5427
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #442 on: 09/20/2018 12:03 PM »
John Mullholland stated a few weeks back that Starliner would be exploring different launch vehicles, presumably as part of the phase out of Atlas V.  in fact, Atlas V was announced from the start as the "test" vehicle launcher, and some speculation at the time had Starliner moving to Delta IV (no longer valid) or Falcon 9, with accompnaying rendreings appearing on this and other websites. 

Do we have any indication of what this exploration by Boeing might now look like, other than the obvious inference of Vulcan as a possible successor? Do we know if other specific launchers are on the table for consideration? Could Space X or Blue Origin make a compelling case to provide one of their existing systems to carry Boeing's space taxi? Since X-37B already has launched on Falcon 9, it would seem that Boeing has no issue with NASA utilizing a nominal competitor's booster any more than Apple does in utilizing Samsung screens for iPhone. What's the most logical outcome, with what we currently know?

The current plan that anyone knows about is that CST-100 will be launching on Vulcan after Atlas V retires. I don't know of any other plans that have been made public. I certainly don't see CST-100 launching on Falcon 9, but a possibly might be New Glenn if there's a problem getting Vulcan off the pad.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9631
  • UK
  • Liked: 1816
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #443 on: 09/20/2018 01:21 PM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Not really a relevant comparison. That was a highly speculative project, Vulcan isnít, in fact some might argue itís quite a conservative response to the market.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2301
  • California
  • Liked: 1836
  • Likes Given: 3992
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #444 on: 09/20/2018 09:00 PM »
John Mullholland stated a few weeks back that Starliner would be exploring different launch vehicles, presumably as part of the phase out of Atlas V.  in fact, Atlas V was announced from the start as the "test" vehicle launcher, and some speculation at the time had Starliner moving to Delta IV (no longer valid) or Falcon 9, with accompnaying rendreings appearing on this and other websites. 

Do we have any indication of what this exploration by Boeing might now look like, other than the obvious inference of Vulcan as a possible successor? Do we know if other specific launchers are on the table for consideration? Could Space X or Blue Origin make a compelling case to provide one of their existing systems to carry Boeing's space taxi? Since X-37B already has launched on Falcon 9, it would seem that Boeing has no issue with NASA utilizing a nominal competitor's booster any more than Apple does in utilizing Samsung screens for iPhone. What's the most logical outcome, with what we currently know?

As itís a Boeing built vehicle why would it be anything other than Vulcan, they are hardly going to give work to their biggest rivals.

They might look into launching it on top of an Ariane 6 for a couple of manned missions on behalf of the EU or ESA.  It certainly wouldn't be a cheap option as many alterations to support crewed launches would need to happen for A6's launch site/pad, but it would offer a path to some more substantial prestige for them if they can say they are using their own launch vehicle even if the capsule was procured from the US.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4688
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #445 on: 09/20/2018 09:55 PM »
Uhhh...because Vulcan might never be built, is a pretty good reason. Otherwise, why would Mullholland even introduce the possibility of looking at other launchers?
Vehicle qualification a test hardware is already well into manufacturing for the various stages made by both NGIS and ULA. Full scale GEM-63 Static Fire testing is about to start for Atlas V, Vulcan and OmegA and later a follow on motor for the GBI-BV programme.

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #446 on: 09/20/2018 10:28 PM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Not really a relevant comparison. That was a highly speculative project, Vulcan isnít, in fact some might argue itís quite a conservative response to the market.

sorry, but that is pretty lame excuse making depending on verbal sleight of hand. both vehicles are able to be listed as "questionable" in terms of FEASIBILITY and their certainty of availability: one for technical reasons, one for marketplace/economic reasons. the question is the same because the result is the same: it is not known, and reasonably speculative, if the vehicle in both of these examples will /would have exist(ed) in the next few years after fabrication and testing.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9631
  • UK
  • Liked: 1816
  • Likes Given: 183
Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #447 on: 09/20/2018 10:54 PM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Not really a relevant comparison. That was a highly speculative project, Vulcan isnít, in fact some might argue itís quite a conservative response to the market.

sorry, but that is pretty lame excuse making depending on verbal sleight of hand. both vehicles are able to be listed as "questionable" in terms of FEASIBILITY and their certainty of availability: one for technical reasons, one for marketplace/economic reasons. the question is the same because the result is the same: it is not known, and reasonably speculative, if the vehicle in both of these examples will /would have exist(ed) in the next few years after fabrication and testing.

See Russianhaloís post above as to why this post is nonsense.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2018 10:55 PM by Star One »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4606
  • Liked: 2528
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #448 on: 09/21/2018 02:34 AM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Not really a relevant comparison. That was a highly speculative project, Vulcan isnít, in fact some might argue itís quite a conservative response to the market.

sorry, but that is pretty lame excuse making depending on verbal sleight of hand. both vehicles are able to be listed as "questionable" in terms of FEASIBILITY and their certainty of availability: one for technical reasons, one for marketplace/economic reasons. the question is the same because the result is the same: it is not known, and reasonably speculative, if the vehicle in both of these examples will /would have exist(ed) in the next few years after fabrication and testing.

See Russianhaloís post above as to why this post is nonsense.

GEM-63 does not guarantee Vulcan will be built. Nor does any of the current qual and test hardware being built.

The only thing that guarantees Vulcan will be built is if it wins USAF funding in the current EELV competition - which does seem likely, but is not certain.

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #449 on: 09/21/2018 05:11 AM »
Parts were fabricated for X-33 / Venturestar too, but it ainít flying...

Not really a relevant comparison. That was a highly speculative project, Vulcan isnít, in fact some might argue itís quite a conservative response to the market.

sorry, but that is pretty lame excuse making depending on verbal sleight of hand. both vehicles are able to be listed as "questionable" in terms of FEASIBILITY and their certainty of availability: one for technical reasons, one for marketplace/economic reasons. the question is the same because the result is the same: it is not known, and reasonably speculative, if the vehicle in both of these examples will /would have exist(ed) in the next few years after fabrication and testing.

See Russianhaloís post above as to why this post is nonsense.

GEM-63 does not guarantee Vulcan will be built. Nor does any of the current qual and test hardware being built.

The only thing that guarantees Vulcan will be built is if it wins USAF funding in the current EELV competition - which does seem likely, but is not certain.

There is another thread for this:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44391.440
 ;)

Offline TrevorMonty

Still doesnt answer any questions asked.  And ignores the fact that vulcan may not be commercially viable in a crowded marketplace with cheaper, reusable options.  It is still a very speculative venture. Starliner however now exists and needs alternatives.  Honestly, The snark and scorn approach belongs on other sites. This question doesnít deserve the pissy approach. Can anyone (who knows what they are talking about) discuss whether Blue or SpaceX are viable options for Boeing?
If they use NG with Starliner would want to use additional surplus performance. At 45t to LEO that is well over 25t of surplus performance. Use if for delivering fuel or additional payload module. A similar configuration to SLS 1B where Orion launches with payload module.




Tags: