-
#1520 by kevinof on 17 Jun, 2020 20:19
-
...but but but. These vehicles are automated - there is nothing to really play with on the screens during launch or re-entry (in high-g) and if there is (something that needs manual control), Nasa/SpaceX took care of that with a couple of important buttons at the bottom of the touch screens. No real need to have everything old school.
Why couldn't Boeing? Again I suspect they went with what they were used to and comfortable with, rather than challenging and pushing the design.Well Nasa and SpaceX appear to be ok with touch screens with gloves and high-g vibrations.
I suspect the reasons for (Boeing) sticking with this display is simply a reluctance to change.
The Boeing 777X will have a touchscreen display interface, replacing the cursor control devices featured in the original 777 and the 787. Starliner is a throwback even by 1990s widebody airliner standards.The iPad electronic flight bag was love at first sight for pilots, and the touchscreen-ification of the cockpit became inevitable much quicker than most had anticipated.And another cockpit photo.
Almost certainly a setup pilots will generally be happier with. But I can't help but think that Crew Dragon's approach is going to be more like the way forward for 21st century spacecraft.
The reason Boeing - and Orion - went with those screen interfaces even though touch screens were available was because of concerns of how they would perform with gloves on especially under high-g vibrations.
Starliner (Atlas V) and Orion (SLS) both ride on vehicles with SRBs, and thus the crew will experience significantly more vibration than a crew in a Dragon (Falcon 9) will.
That said, it is also possible to be concerned about something without being so concerned as to not approve it. Realistically, I suspect that the vibrations will make the SpaceX touch screen significantly more difficult to use during launch than Boeing's buttons. But the people on these vehicles are astronauts, and are more than capable of managing and overcoming such challenges, and NASA knows that. -
#1521 by JEF_300 on 17 Jun, 2020 20:24
-
...but but but. These vehicles are automated - there is nothing to really play with on the screens during launch or re-entry (in high-g) and if there is (something that needs manual control), Nasa/SpaceX took care of that with a couple of important buttons at the bottom of the touch screens. No real need to have everything old school.
Why couldn't Boeing? Again I suspect they went with what they were used to and comfortable with, rather than challenging and pushing the design.
Ok, see this is where you're losing me. Of course Boeing could have also chosen to use touch screens. I'm not arguing that they couldn't. What I'm saying is that their reasons for choosing not to use touch screens go beyond, 'we're not familiar with them'. There is a logic to it. -
#1522 by butters on 17 Jun, 2020 23:31
-
The primary problem with Ares I thrust oscillations was that the vibrations would make it impossible for the crew to read the displays. They came up with a clever solution for Orion by synchronizing the frame rate of the displays with the frequency of the oscillations so that the astronauts would be able to read the instruments. I wonder if Boeing has taken a similar approach with Starliner. That could explain why they're using a similar type of display unit.
-
#1523 by Lars-J on 18 Jun, 2020 00:33
-
The primary problem with Ares I thrust oscillations was that the vibrations would make it impossible for the crew to read the displays. They came up with a clever solution for Orion by synchronizing the frame rate of the displays with the frequency of the oscillations so that the astronauts would be able to read the instruments. I wonder if Boeing has taken a similar approach with Starliner. That could explain why they're using a similar type of display unit.
One mans "clever solution" is another's "desperate band aid patch".
Fixing the oscillations? Nah... 
Thankfully Ares I is history.
-
#1524 by spacenut on 18 Jun, 2020 00:41
-
Would the use of strap on solids cause vibrations in Atlas V that would affect Starliner?
-
#1525 by Comga on 18 Jun, 2020 05:09
-
<snip>
But what if something were to go wrong with the spacecraft? Something that would obviously make it impossible to use (major MMOD hit or something)?
The reason being that their spacecraft stays with them.
Well obviously there is no spare room in the Soyuz that is for the return of the astronauts launched in it.
A new unmanned spacecraft would have to be sent to the ISS to recover them.
Emphasis mine.
Exactly. It is this very scenario which has already happened on Salyut and Mir missions. CCP will copy the solution (send up a spare spacecraft) if this scenario ever plays out.
"No" says Yoda "There is another."
Check out my avatar
Apollo CM-119
Modified for five seats.
It depends on how badly a rescue is needed.
If they had to rescue 5 or 6, they might find a way.
It depends.
[/size] -
#1526 by woods170 on 18 Jun, 2020 09:35
-
The Boeing 777X will have a touchscreen display interface, replacing the cursor control devices featured in the original 777 and the 787. Starliner is a throwback even by 1990s widebody airliner standards.The iPad electronic flight bag was love at first sight for pilots, and the touchscreen-ification of the cockpit became inevitable much quicker than most had anticipated.And another cockpit photo.
Almost certainly a setup pilots will generally be happier with. But I can't help but think that Crew Dragon's approach is going to be more like the way forward for 21st century spacecraft.
The reason Boeing - and Orion - went with those screen interfaces even though touch screens were available was because of concerns of how they would perform with gloves on especially under high-g vibrations.
I see that this myth is persistent.
Doubts that touch screens could be used with modified gloves under high-g loads were effectively put to rests even when the shuttle was still flying.
The fact that Orion and Starliner don't have touch screens has more to do with a basic unwillingness to implement new ways of doing things.
Another fine example is the very shape of the outer mold line of Orion and Starliner. Geometrically they are identical to the shape of Apollo CM. Never mind that there is a more volumetrically efficient shape for almost the same mass (bell shape such as used by Soyuz and Crew Dragon).
A third fine example is that Orion is using the same antiquated primary heat shield material that was used on the Apollo CM. When NASA made that choice they knew that there were more modern materials out there that could do the job just as fine, but were cheaper and more efficient to produce, as well as adding less mass to the spacecraft. But a basic fear of "this hasn't been done before on this scale" led them to spend a cr*pload of money on a completely outdated technology with unnecessary high mass penalties for the spacecraft.
-
#1527 by ugordan on 18 Jun, 2020 10:28
-
Another fine example is the very shape of the outer mold line of Orion and Starliner. Geometrically they are identical to the shape of Apollo CM. Never mind that there is a more volumetrically efficient shape for almost the same mass (bell shape such as used by Soyuz and Crew Dragon).
I can understand this argument for Starliner as it's a LEO capsule, but isn't part of the argument for Orion to have such a shape that it allows higher lift to reduce peak g loads during high energy reentries? The side walls being further from the plasma sheath produced by the primary heat shield? -
#1528 by JEF_300 on 18 Jun, 2020 20:17
-
The reason Boeing - and Orion - went with those screen interfaces even though touch screens were available was because of concerns of how they would perform with gloves on especially under high-g vibrations.
I see that this myth is persistent.
Doubts that touch screens could be used with modified gloves under high-g loads were effectively put to rests even when the shuttle was still flying.
I absolutely agree that concerns about G-load are unfounded, but concerns about vibrations seem plausible to me, particularly since the Starliner will launch atop solids. I'm not saying it would be a critical issue, but it would be something to consider when selecting control methods.Another fine example is the very shape of the outer mold line of Orion and Starliner. Geometrically they are identical to the shape of Apollo CM. Never mind that there is a more volumetrically efficient shape for almost the same mass (bell shape such as used by Soyuz and Crew Dragon).
As was pointed out above, the Apollo shape provides lift benefits for a high-speed reentry, which is of course the only type of reentry Orion is supposed to do. 'What about Starliner' you may ask, to which I would respond by asking if we'd all already totally forgotten about Cis-Lunar 1000. There was a reason to design Starliner around lunar reentries.A third fine example is that Orion is using the same antiquated primary heat shield material that was used on the Apollo CM. ...
This third point I have no counter to. That said, this is the Starliner thread, and that has nothing to do with Starliner.
My point here, to be explicit, is not that Starliner is a good design. But, whatever your opinion may be of Boeing, or Boeing Management, or Boeing designs, the reality is that Boeing engineers are good engineers. Those Boeing engineers are the ones who made all the design decisions around Starliner, and, right or wrong, they reached the decision that they did for a reason, and only after many hours spent studying the alternatives. We shouldn't just dismiss this work off-hand as:... a basic unwillingness to implement new ways of doing things.
-
#1529 by Athelstane on 18 Jun, 2020 21:24
-
We shouldn't just dismiss this work off-hand as:... a basic unwillingness to implement new ways of doing things.
In one notable respect, Boeing *did* undertake a new thing: the choice of the innovative pusher LAS in the service module over a traditional puller tower LAS. Credit where credit is due.
Otherwise, Starliner is clearly a very conservative design, a tool designed for the job, and only for the job. That is defensible. What is not defensible is failing so badly at what was supposed to be a Boeing virtue: delivering a safe and reliable product. -
#1530 by Lars-J on 18 Jun, 2020 22:28
-
My point here, to be explicit, is not that Starliner is a good design. But, whatever your opinion may be of Boeing, or Boeing Management, or Boeing designs, the reality is that Boeing engineers are good engineers. Those Boeing engineers are the ones who made all the design decisions around Starliner, and, right or wrong, they reached the decision that they did for a reason, and only after many hours spent studying the alternatives. We shouldn't just dismiss this work off-hand as:
... a basic unwillingness to implement new ways of doing things.
All engineers walks into a projects with existing biases. Pretending that this does not happen is not realistic. Every organization has an element of "all we have is a hammer so every problem is a nail" philosophy.
So you can - if you want - pretend that every engineering project begins with engineers walking into a room with zero preconceptions and clean sheet, and that the outcome is the objectively best approach... But I can tell you that is not the case. Not at Boeing, not at SpaceX, not anywhere. The only question is how experience is weighed against out of the box thinking, and there is no simple answer there either. -
#1531 by clongton on 18 Jun, 2020 22:48
-
What I'm saying is that their reasons for choosing not to use touch screens go beyond, 'we're not familiar with them'. There is a logic to it.
Sounds like an article of faith. Care to be more explicit? -
#1532 by TrevorMonty on 18 Jun, 2020 23:05
-
Starliner design is sound and innovative, they use pusher LAS/SM, airbags for land landing. Landing on land makes refurbishing easier and gives quicker access to crew and cargo.
Testing is where Boeing has dropped ball especially in regards to SW.
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
-
#1533 by Athelstane on 18 Jun, 2020 23:18
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I've been curious whether the NASA required seating configuration for Dragon can be readily modified by SpaceX for non-NASA private flights?
Not that they would really want to do that for something like the weeklong medium earth orbit mission they're looking at for 2022, given how cramped that would make things...but it might have value for Axiom flights, since the completed Axiom segment/station is supposed to be able to support up to 8 crew by itself on a sustained basis. -
#1534 by ChrisWilson68 on 18 Jun, 2020 23:43
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I've been curious whether the NASA required seating configuration for Dragon can be readily modified by SpaceX for non-NASA private flights?
Not that they would really want to do that for something like the weeklong medium earth orbit mission they're looking at for 2022, given how cramped that would make things...but it might have value for Axiom flights, since the completed Axiom segment/station is supposed to be able to support up to 8 crew by itself on a sustained basis.
I think it's likely that even with fewer seats a Dragon launched on a reusable Falcon 9 is going to be cheaper on a per-seat basis than CST-100 on Atlas V or Vulcan.
But it doesn't really matter because there will be few if any private human orbital flights before Starship is online.
-
#1535 by Athelstane on 19 Jun, 2020 01:39
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I've been curious whether the NASA required seating configuration for Dragon can be readily modified by SpaceX for non-NASA private flights?
Not that they would really want to do that for something like the weeklong medium earth orbit mission they're looking at for 2022, given how cramped that would make things...but it might have value for Axiom flights, since the completed Axiom segment/station is supposed to be able to support up to 8 crew by itself on a sustained basis.
I think it's likely that even with fewer seats a Dragon launched on a reusable Falcon 9 is going to be cheaper on a per-seat basis than CST-100 on Atlas V or Vulcan.
But it doesn't really matter because there will be few if any private human orbital flights before Starship is online.
1. Can't disagree with your first point.
I am curious, however, if anyone can cast some light on the difficulty of reconfiguring the seats to add more of them for non-NASA flights.
2. I can readily grok the possibility that SpaceX will get an orbital Starship test flight by the end of 2021. What is harder to estimate is when crewed flights take place (even for a non-NASA client, or just SpaceX personnel), because they're going to want to fly it a fair number of times before they even try that - and that doesn't even get into how much time will be needed to put together the life support, controls, etc.
That being the case, I'm not so sure we won't see a number of private Crew Dragon missions before crewed Starship ones. They've already got two booked, after all; and with Dragon actually in operation now, the market may be more seriously tested. All this prescinds from demand connected with the Axiom station beginning in 2024, since it's hard to make out just how and when it's really going to unfold. -
#1536 by ChrisWilson68 on 19 Jun, 2020 01:54
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I've been curious whether the NASA required seating configuration for Dragon can be readily modified by SpaceX for non-NASA private flights?
Not that they would really want to do that for something like the weeklong medium earth orbit mission they're looking at for 2022, given how cramped that would make things...but it might have value for Axiom flights, since the completed Axiom segment/station is supposed to be able to support up to 8 crew by itself on a sustained basis.
I think it's likely that even with fewer seats a Dragon launched on a reusable Falcon 9 is going to be cheaper on a per-seat basis than CST-100 on Atlas V or Vulcan.
But it doesn't really matter because there will be few if any private human orbital flights before Starship is online.
1. Can't disagree with your first point.
I am curious, however, if anyone can cast some light on the difficulty of reconfiguring the seats to add more of them for non-NASA flights.
2. I can readily grok the possibility that SpaceX will get an orbital Starship test flight by the end of 2021. What is harder to estimate is when crewed flights take place (even for a non-NASA client, or just SpaceX personnel), because they're going to want to fly it a fair number of times before they even try that - and that doesn't even get into how much time will be needed to put together the life support, controls, etc.
Yeah, there's definitely some uncertainty there.
But Starship is designed from the ground up to be cheap to fly -- by people who have loads of experience making F9 and Dragon as cheap as possible to fly.
I think once they have Starship's working, they'll be able to fly it over and over very quickly. I think it very likely it will soon have 20 re-entries under its belt, while Dragon 2 will not. A lot of people would consider it better-tested than Crew Dragon at that point.
As to life support, controls, etc. -- that's al a valid concern. We don't know how long it will be to work out all of that after Starship is working for cargo. But given that SpaceX just finished exactly the same thing with Crew Dragon, it seems like they know exactly how to do it and they just need to repeat what they did in a larger volume.
-
#1537 by MoaMem on 19 Jun, 2020 01:55
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I think you're wrong here, Crew Dragon is perfectly capable of seating 7 astronauts. It's just NASA that required only 4 at a time. Exactly the same as Starliner!
Do you have any source for this? -
#1538 by Lars-J on 19 Jun, 2020 05:08
-
If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
I think you're wrong here, Crew Dragon is perfectly capable of seating 7 astronauts. It's just NASA that required only 4 at a time. Exactly the same as Starliner!
Do you have any source for this?
Being capable of seating 7 is not the same as being able to support 7, nor having enough room for stowage of space suits and other cargo. NASA is concerned that having more than 4 is impractical for various reasons. (they are running tests on ISS now with 4 of the crew to see how much room there is)
So since NASA only wanted a crew of 4, it is possible that some of the life support currently only supports 4 crew. (just like landing on land was de-scoped because NASA did not want it)
But this is a Starliner thread... -
#1539 by MoaMem on 19 Jun, 2020 06:26
-
Being capable of seating 7 is not the same as being able to support 7, nor having enough room for stowage of space suits and other cargo. NASA is concerned that having more than 4 is impractical for various reasons. (they are running tests on ISS now with 4 of the crew to see how much room there is)
Maybe, maybe not. My point was that BOTH Starliner AND Crew Dragon were said to be capable of seating 7 but NASA only allowed for 4.
So since NASA only wanted a crew of 4, it is possible that some of the life support currently only supports 4 crew. (just like landing on land was de-scoped because NASA did not want it)
It was to answer TrevorMonty who was saying that Starliner could seat 7 while Crew Dragon could only seat 4 therefore SL could cost double CC and sill have the same price per seat. Which is obviously false. See here :If Starliner can keep its 7 seats for commercial launches maybe competitive with Dragon which has been forced to go with 4 seats. Those extra 3 seats mean their missions costs can be twice SpaceX and still charge same per seat. I'm assuming one seat for crew.
But this is a Starliner thread...
This is a price comparison between Starliner and Dragon 2, so I still think it's relevant... But in any-case I was only correcting TrevorMonty's assumptions who brought up this subject. Take it up with him.
Fixing the oscillations? Nah... 
Thankfully Ares I is history.