Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 215280 times)

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 101
  • 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: 101
  • 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...

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17070
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5561
  • Likes Given: 712
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from the start as the "test" vehicle launcher, and some speculation at the time had Starliner moving to Delta IV (no longer valid) or Falcon 9, with accompnaying rendreings appearing on this and other websites.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: 9708
  • UK
  • Liked: 1850
  • 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: 2318
  • California
  • Liked: 1856
  • Likes Given: 4058
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: 4757
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 598
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: 101
  • 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: 9708
  • UK
  • Liked: 1850
  • 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 »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
  • Liked: 2613
  • Likes Given: 1407
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: 60
  • 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.





Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4757
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #452 on: 10/20/2018 12:19 AM »
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1053359460767416320
DEC arriving at the AOC for storage and horrizontal offline processing before heading to the DOC for vertical offline processing and stacking.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1053366447424958466
« Last Edit: 10/20/2018 03:39 AM by russianhalo117 »

Online Olaf

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Germany
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 220

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 1504
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #454 on: 10/25/2018 04:27 PM »
Cross-post:
Commercial Crew Teams Practice Triage and Medical Evacuation

Anna Heiney Posted on October 25, 2018
Commercial Crew Program, Kennedy

NASA and the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support (HSFS) Office have a long history in preparing for human spaceflight missions. As NASAís Commercial Crew Program prepares to begin launching astronauts once again from American soil, it is vital teams prepare for launch day operations, including possible but unlikely emergency scenarios, and simulations are key to getting teams as ready as possible.

Today, teams from NASA, HSFS and SpaceX are conducting a joint medical triage and medical evacuation (medevac) training exercise at NASAís Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This is the second of two emergency medical services simulations to be performed before commercial crew flight tests, which are scheduled for 2019. The first exercise was conducted at Space Launch Complex 41 and integrated teams from NASA, Boeing and United Launch Alliance.

ďIn the business of human spaceflight, we go to great lengths to design away or to control all the known hazards,Ē said Steve Payne, NASA Simulation Test Director and CCP Launch Integrator. ďHowever, when the unexpected happens, we must be ready to respond. We develop and practice our procedures to handle the worst possible scenarios on launch day, but we hope we never have to use them. NASA is working closely with both our commercial partners and the Department of Defense to do everything possible to keep our flight crews and ground teams safe.Ē

For todayís exercise, teams are practicing a worst-case scenario, pad emergency and subsequent hypergolic fuel leak. Starting at the base of the egress system at Launch Complex 39A, volunteer ground crews are evacuating the pad perimeter using three Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles. Three helicopters, emergency services, and the triage team are meeting the evacuated crews at triage site 8, between Launch Pads 39A and B.

As part of this exercise, evacuated personnel are undergoing a toxic vapor check. Kennedy Fire/Rescue teams are treating the crews as if contamination were detected and are performing decontamination measures. Following the medical evaluations, the simulated patients are being stabilized and prepared for transport. Selected patients are being evacuated to several area hospitals in order to validate all emergency procedures.

This simulation is a recent example of how safety is being built into systems, processes and procedures. These simulations are designed to exercise various components of emergency procedures, as well as triage and medevac response during the unlikely event of an emergency during launch operations. It is standard practice to conduct these exercises, and was regularly done during the Space Shuttle Program.
Support your local planetarium!


Offline eeergo

Full commercial crew (latest round up) update article.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/commercial-crew-training-prepares-flight-hardware/ - By Thomas Burghardt

In the last sentence of the article:

Quote
If schedules hold, the DM-2 mission will be the first launch of astronauts from U.S. soil in almost six years.

Wouldn't it rather be eight (STS-135 launched July 8th, 2011)?
-DaviD-

Offline TGMetsFan98

Math is hard. Fixed!


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10606
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2731
  • Likes Given: 1009
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #459 on: 11/07/2018 11:08 PM »
Chris, what is that banging noise?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags: