-
#20
by
okan170
on 14 Oct, 2016 01:01
-
My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
This appears to be the same company that did the earlier Starliner CG. If so, they also did the Crew Dragon, Falcon Heavy, SLS 1B and DreamChaser Cargo animations! (and years before that, Constellation and the first concepts of what would become F9-R!)
-
#21
by
Rocket Science
on 14 Oct, 2016 01:51
-
New Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488
Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
The rendering is great, the subject's appearance now... meah...
-
#22
by
GWH
on 14 Oct, 2016 02:22
-
Ugh. I can't wait for Vulcan.
Might want to wait for Vulcan ACES before the stack looks proper. This is with the old skirt but still...
Credit to okan170 for this rendering.
Also won't ULA have switched over to the Orbital ATK solid boosters with the conical noses by the time Starliner flies?
-
#23
by
Wolfram66
on 14 Oct, 2016 02:28
-
New Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488
Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
There appears that there is no boattail blending into the S2 fairing skirt
-
#24
by
woods170
on 14 Oct, 2016 07:04
-
Here is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs.
I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.
It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game.
- Ed Kyle
The first major delay of CST-100 (of roughly six months), as announced by Boeing last May, was mostly caused by the need to do this "design patch" and fix an overweight problem.
And now, another slip of roughly six months because Boeing screwed up the lower dome of spacecraft number 2. Let's see, in the space of less than six months the first crewed mission of CST-100 has slipped almost a year.
Ouch...
Clearly, the Boeing way of doing things is not as beatific as some had claimed here.
Nor is cheap points scoring welcome here.
I was voicing my opinion. Which, in case you had failed to notice, is not prohibited in a discussion thread. And yeah, I was taking it out on those members here proclaiming "The Boeing way is better than the SpaceX way!". And yeah, you will also find posts here were I'm taking it out on members proclaiming "SpaceX is better than Boeing!" But again: you failed to notice this.
But I digress.
-
#25
by
mfck
on 14 Oct, 2016 08:41
-
New Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488
Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
The rendering is great, the subject's appearance now... meah...
Sure. Meah is an understatement. It's ugly to a point where one starts to doubt its flight qualities
-
#26
by
SimonFD
on 14 Oct, 2016 09:10
-
New Boeing video, complete with the new skirt:
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/786643807810879488
Wow. Kudos to Boeing for ponying up for top-shelf animation.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt I've ever seen a render of such quality (judging mostly by the still frame). Moore's law, I guess... but still, somebody really wants it to be real.
The rendering is great, the subject's appearance now... meah...
Sure. Meah is an understatement. It's ugly to a point where one starts to doubt its flight qualities
'As long as it flies I don't think it matters what it looks like', I thought.
Then I watched the video...
-
#27
by
Star One
on 14 Oct, 2016 09:25
-
Here is a photo of a wind tunnel model. You can see two SRMs.
I can't understand why ULA and NASA refuse to show the base of the aeroskirt. I doubt it is open, because hydrogen gas might accumulate, but since it extends down the side of the Centaur LH2 tank, I can't see how it could taper or close.
It seems to me an unsettling design patch, late in the game.
- Ed Kyle
The first major delay of CST-100 (of roughly six months), as announced by Boeing last May, was mostly caused by the need to do this "design patch" and fix an overweight problem.
And now, another slip of roughly six months because Boeing screwed up the lower dome of spacecraft number 2. Let's see, in the space of less than six months the first crewed mission of CST-100 has slipped almost a year.
Ouch...
Clearly, the Boeing way of doing things is not as beatific as some had claimed here.
Nor is cheap points scoring welcome here.
I was voicing my opinion. Which, in case you had failed to notice, is not prohibited in a discussion thread. And yeah, I was taking it out on those members here proclaiming "The Boeing way is better than the SpaceX way!". And yeah, you will also find posts here were I'm taking it out on members proclaiming "SpaceX is better than Boeing!" But again: you failed to notice this.
But I digress.
That seems a rather strawman justification as I haven't noticed that many being that constructive towards Boeing in comparison to some other companies, and certainly not much in the way of baseless cheerleading for them, mostly it seems to slide towards criticism without any overly great attempt at balance.
-
#28
by
zodiacchris
on 14 Oct, 2016 09:43
-
Children, children, be excellent to each other!
-
#29
by
AncientU
on 14 Oct, 2016 11:12
-
So now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort?
If not, why not.
(And the answer cannot be the same group engineered it away...)
Or maybe it can...
Even before Tuesday’s announcement, Boeing officials signaled that engineering challenges—particularly the crucial test of the crew emergency escape system—could upset flight schedules. The test escape system is vital for the project, because it is the only way astronauts can survive a rocket failure from before launch all the way to cutoff of the main engine during ascent. NASA has to sign off on the test results before crew transportation can begin.
Chris Ferguson, Boeing’s deputy program manager, told a space conference in Long Beach last month that a so-called emergency pad abort test, which blasts a stationary capsule off the launch pad, was slated for late 2017. But he said Boeing intended to use simulations to demonstrate that the emergency escape system will work later in the mission, when the rocket is climbing toward orbit.
“We’re pedaling as quickly as we can,” Mr, Ferguson told the conference, calling it “a very aggressive schedule.” He also said “we’ll fly when we’re ready.” If it ultimately “takes a couple of extra months” to certify a safe vehicle, he added, “then we’ll do just that” because “that’s what the country wants, and specifically what the astronauts want.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-sees-costs-from-delayed-space-taxi-1476204375Edit: added WSJ reference.
-
#30
by
AncientU
on 14 Oct, 2016 12:55
-
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.
How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
-
#31
by
Jim
on 14 Oct, 2016 13:40
-
So now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort?
How is the "original engineering" been "has proven so deficient"?
And also, quit with the snipes.
-
#32
by
rocx
on 14 Oct, 2016 13:52
-
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.
How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
-
#33
by
AncientU
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:11
-
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.
How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
If you crush (detonate) the Centaur when the launch abort thrusters lite off, you could damage the thrusters, nozzles, or the heat shield (as discussed by a former head of engineering at ULA, moments before getting fired). Maybe escape would still be successful; their in-flight demo will confirm... oh wait, they aren't doing an in-flight demo.
-
#34
by
Hauerg
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:18
-
So now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort?
How is the "original engineering" been "has proven so deficient"?
...
Ahem, by redesigning the stack?
-
#35
by
muomega0
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:23
-
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.
How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
If you crush (detonate) the Centaur when the launch abort thrusters lite off, you could damage the thrusters, nozzles, or the heat shield (as discussed by a former head of engineering at ULA, moments before getting fired). Maybe escape would still be successful; their in-flight demo will confirm... oh wait, they aren't doing an in-flight demo.
Timing is everything....hardware in the loop testing?....so now one has to simulate the flight conditions..?
So now that the original engineering has proven so deficient, will there be a required in-flight abort?
How is the "original engineering" been "has proven so deficient"?
1)
Solids and non common configurations 2) economics "10 flights to achieve 100M/ea"
3) multiple configurations and testing (expendable and
why certify a LV (Atlas with Solids) that will be retired and the new LV with solids (Vulcan V0) will eventually replace the solids, but cannot be reused to reduce costs?)
-
#36
by
edkyle99
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:30
-
Here's a quick and dirty estimate for the gross dimensions of this thing, derived from the ULA 400 series drawing. I'm guessing about the aeroskirt interior support. I'll try to improve this as more information becomes available.
- Ed Kyle
-
#37
by
RonM
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:38
-
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.
How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
If you crush (detonate) the Centaur when the launch abort thrusters lite off, you could damage the thrusters, nozzles, or the heat shield (as discussed by a former head of engineering at ULA, moments before getting fired). Maybe escape would still be successful; their in-flight demo will confirm... oh wait, they aren't doing an in-flight demo.
The escape thrusters were on the inside in the previous design.
-
#38
by
edkyle99
on 14 Oct, 2016 14:48
-
The escape thrusters were on the inside in the previous design.
Yes, and I believe there were blow-out panels, or the suggestion of them, on the tapered adapter section below the thruster nozzles. The new aeroskirt will likely have to have some type of blow out panels as well, not to mention accommodations for Centaur boil-off venting and for service tower umbilicals, etc..
- Ed Kyle
-
#39
by
vapour_nudge
on 14 Oct, 2016 15:15
-
Why is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket?
