Updates Boeing's CST-100 Starliner

[ky]

Velcro has a great set of ULAs Delta and Atlas rockets, all models, and Duh I was thinking of Delta. A 402 sounds fine, thanks for reminding me about the mass boost. Duh again. "Caffeine, I need Caffeine" Harley Stone, Split Second

I'd rather make it my self.If I can't i'll use velcro rockets.

 

[Spicer]

I was reading an article today that mentioned that there would be ONE strap on SRB. I think many of us have a tough time imagining that it's ok to use just one SRB on a launcher.

 

[silent_protagonist]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/atlas-v-wins-boeing-selects-launcher-cst-100-capsule/

According to Dr Sowers, the Atlas V will fly in the 412 configuration, involving one solid strap-on booster and a dual-engine Centaur Upper Stage.

One SRB...and I thought the Shuttle was the most ungainly looking LV ever designed...

 

[FADEC]

As far as I understand, the CST-100 is supposed to be a LEO vehicle solely. That's nice for COTS. But going to LEO shouldn't be a problem anymore these days. And that's not what I am personally looking forward to see in the long-term. I want to see humans flying BEO again. If we compare human space flight with seafaring, we paddle in a flooded gravel pit for 39 years. Also, anything below the Space Shuttle is a huge downgrade. They have thrown away an enormous capability and now are looking for small soapboxes.

NASA at least also should advertsie something like CBEOTS instead of drawing rockets all along that will never be build obviously.

 

[orb]

Boeing:

September 12, 2011​

Space capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings
By Ed Memi

(Video is in the article)​

In the Mojave Desert in southeast California, Boeing and teammate Bigelow Aerospace recently conducted a series of successful air bag drop tests for the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 mock capsule, which, like airbag tests done in cars, will help ensure that the seven crew members inside the capsule land safely after reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. Boeing is one of four companies competing to develop a commercial crew transportation system that will restore the United States' capability to provide access to the International Space Station by 2016.

After reentering the atmosphere, the CST-100's three main parachutes open at an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet. When the capsule reaches about 5,000 feet, the base heat shield drops away and six air bags inflate with a mixture of air and nitrogen two minutes before landing to cushion the passengers from the impact.

For the drop tests, the team used a mobile drop rig built from a semi-truck and a trailer-mounted crane to drop the test capsule and be able to evaluate a combination of horizontal and vertical drop impacts, as shown in the video above. The horizontal rig used for these drop tests was designed, built, and operated by Bigelow Aerospace.

The drop tests provided information about the test capsule and its new electronic measurement system, while collecting preliminary data to refine engineering models to ensure a safe landing.

“These tests allowed us to do early computer simulation models and begin validating those models,” said John McKinney, the Landing and Recovery System lead for Boeing’s Commercial Crew Development program. “The Landing System team also is acquiring valuable hands-on experience in understanding air bag systems and maturing the technology for application to the Crew Space Transportation capsule.”

Using an array of high-definition cameras and electronics to measure acceleration, pressure and movement, a laser triggers the drop of the test capsule. The test capsule’s vertical drop simulates a 27-feet-per-second descent of the deployed parachute, while the horizontal movement mimics the impact of the wind at speeds varying from 10 to 30 feet per second.

“In October, we’ll have a whole new series of tests with 12 new airbags, and we will do extensive drop tests at White Sands Missile Range [in New Mexico], where the CST-100 will actually land,” said McKinney. He also said there will be approximately 20 tests that will allow this test data to be used to verify that simulation models are accurate.

The air bags, manufactured by ILC Dover, a leader in inflatable products, use the same technology as the Mars Pathfinder and Mars Exploration Rover programs. Those programs were responsible for the Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars. McKinney, an expert in air bag design, analysis and testing for the past 15 years, has worked on NASA’s Mars Pathfinder and Orion capsule projects.

Boeing is conducting the testing under the second round of its Commercial Crew Development Space Act Agreement with NASA. The CST-100 can carry up to seven people and will fly people to low-Earth orbit destinations such as the International Space Station and Bigelow Aerospace’s planned space station. As part of the second round, Boeing will also test the capsule’s launch abort engine, emergency detection system and propellant tanks and test the vehicle in a wind tunnel.



Parabolic Arc: Video: Boeing Tests CST-100 Air Bag Landing System

 

[N_Molson]

NASA at least also should advertsie something like CBEOTS instead of drawing rockets all along that will never be build obviously.

Give them a chance. The current economical context isn't exactly thriving and the work they are doing on the SLS/Orion is pretty serious, I think. Maybe in 10-15 years. I'm a little tired by naysayers that say "this will never work..." and so on...

No, super-plasma-powered-VTOL-spaceplanes are not a realistic answer to space travel this century. Maybe in 500 years.

CBEOTS is a nonsense. There is nothing commercial Beyond Earth Orbit (saying that sending people to the ISS and back is commercial is already a little exagerated). Deep space is currently the place for exploration and science. Maybe there will be colonies on other planets in several centuries, but I guess we we all die of age before that. What we can expect is one or more scientific expeditions on Mars this century, but not much more. Unless there is some technological or economical revolution, which can happen.

I might be overreacting, but come on, some enthusiasm about space projects would be a good start. I will be very happy to see the next manned vehicle lifting off, no matter which one it is. Boeing, ATK, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Sierra Nevada, private or governemental, no matter, really :yes:

To conclude, the Boeing CST-100 seems to be a promising project, like the other ones in this competition.

Oh and a pic of the mockup :

And an interesting diagram :

 

[T.Neo]

Give them a chance. The current economical context isn't exactly thriving and the work they are doing on the SLS/Orion is pretty serious, I think. Maybe in 10-15 years. I'm a little tired by naysayers that say "this will never work..." and so on...

It isn't an issue of "this will never work". The engineering of an in-line Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle is sound, but the problem is that it is unecessary and that the motivations for it are entirely political and illegitimate.

NASA has had their chance multiple times over. We already have vehicles that work well, we don't need another vehicle that we also do not need.

CBEOTS is a nonsense. There is nothing commercial Beyond Earth Orbit (saying that sending people to the ISS and back is commercial is already a little exagerated). Deep space is currently the place for exploration and science. Maybe there will be colonies on other planets in several centuries, but I guess we we all die of age before that. What we can expect is one or more scientific expeditions on Mars this century, but not much more. Unless there is some technological or economical revolution, which can happen.

Of course there can be commercial incentive for BEO. What people keep on ignoring is the fact that NASA would be the customer for commercial BEO services. There's no reason for commercial companies to pay to go to BEO destinations themselves, just as there is no reason for commercial companies to perform LEO manned spaceflight with their own money. But NASA is paying them for a service, based on a demand created by the ISS. It's the same thing, really.

Alas, another thread derailed. :dry:

 

[Codz]

It isn't an issue of "this will never work". The engineering of an in-line Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle is sound, but the problem is that it is unecessary and that the motivations for it are entirely political and illegitimate.

NASA has had their chance multiple times over. We already have vehicles that work well, we don't need another vehicle that we also do not need.

Oh, I didn't know you were paying out of pocket for NASA's endeavors....

Why do motivations matter if it works? Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury were all done to beat the Soviets. That's not exactly a pure intention either.

Unneccesary? Who else is working on a porpose built vehicle to get to BEO? Please don't say SpaceX because they are purely doing LEO, and don't go on about the potential of Dragon either because any BEO Dragon is purely conceptual.

 

[T.Neo]

Oh, I didn't know you were paying out of pocket for NASA's endeavors....

Could you rephrase? Are you complaining about me not being a US taxpayer, or something like that? :dry:

Why do motivations matter if it works? Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury were all done to beat the Soviets. That's not exactly a pure intention either.

Not exactly a pure intention?

Geez, I didn't know that national prestige was not a "pure intention".

Manipulating legitimate government programs to garner political support sounds like a heavily 'impure intention'. That speaks of some of the worst political mangling I can think of, like something out of a third world "banana republic".

And no, SLS does not "work". Engineering wise... the vehicle could be built, it could launch into space, it could get that 70-130 tons up there, but that isn't my point. It is totally unecessary and will needlessly suck money and capabilities away from NASA that could be put to use for so many other things. Like unmanned spaceflight. Or technology development. Or putting it to use within the space station program.

Or, of course... actually developing the spacecraft and technologies needed for BEO exploration.

The SLS requirement was drawn up by politicians with vested interests. Not by engineers, not by people who actually want to further the cause of space exploration.

Unneccesary? Who else is working on a porpose built vehicle to get to BEO?

You don't want to design a vehicle for BEO only. Since most missions for the forseeable future will be to LEO, it helps to have a flexible vehicle. That is, a vehicle that can perform both the LEO and BEO roles relatively well.

Please don't say SpaceX because they are purely doing LEO, and don't go on about the potential of Dragon either because any BEO Dragon is purely conceptual.

I will say SpaceX, because their Dragon spacecraft most definitely exists as more than a PowerPoint presentation. It has actually flown, and at least some within SpaceX (i.e. the CEO) seem to believe that it is capable of BEO flight. It has been designed with a heatshield to withstand reentry from BEO velocities, for example.

If Dragon needs to be modified for BEO operations, it should not be that problematic. After all, modifying a spacecraft should be far less problematic than building an entirely new one. Especially considering the much higher costs of the 'competing' program.

SpaceX isn't limited to LEO flights just because you say so. And while BEO Dragon might need departure stages or habitats or whatnot to operate in BEO, so will Orion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really have anything against the Orion design... it is just the cost and the contract setup that I don't think should be tolerated.

This thread continues to derail.

 

[Codz]

It has actually flown, and at least some within SpaceX (i.e. the CEO) seem to believe that it is capable of BEO flight.

Of course the CEO would want to advertise his product. I'd like someone else (NASA, ESA, etc) to say it's capable of BEO.

Also to rephrase I meant you seem rather caught up in the cost of this program...

 

[DanM]

Am I the only one who thinks that the CST-100 is like the capsule from Kerbal Space Program?

 

[T.Neo]

Of course the CEO would want to advertise his product. I'd like someone else (NASA, ESA, etc) to say it's capable of BEO.

So, wait: a CEO saying something about his product cannot be trusted whatsoever, but politicians with vested interests and no engineering/spaceflight experience whatsoever can be totally trusted all the time?

Musk wouldn't advertise capability that isn't there. If he is completely off the mark, I'd like someone (like NASA) to call him out on that fact.

Also to rephrase I meant you seem rather caught up in the cost of this program...

Yes, I am. It's a cost that isn't needed. That is money that could go towards improving the space program.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Boeing CST-100 Wind Tunnel Tests Nearly Complete:

A scale model of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft undergoes wind tunnel tests at NASA Ames Research Center. (Credit: Boeing)

Boeing is nearing completion of wind-tunnel testing for a new spacecraft to ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station.

Engineers have been testing the spacecraft, called the Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100, since Sept. 17 at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. The test team is using a 12-inch-wide, 14-inch-long aluminum model that is about 1/14th the size of the operational space capsule that Boeing plans to build. Testing is scheduled to conclude by the end of October.

{...}

 

[Capt_hensley]

Thanks for the post, this will help a bit with the shape of the SM RCS Pods, and placement of the 4 cut outs of the windows and hatch.

 

[Wood]

Thanks for the post, this will help a bit with the shape of the SM RCS Pods, and placement of the 4 cut outs of the windows and hatch.

There's a few more images from the testing on Boeing's website.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Re^ According to the pics in the slide show, the launch abort engines arn't placed symetricaly, the graphic image depicts a differnet RCS configuration, only three real windows(one is in the hatch), there seems to be only three RCS motors per SM RCS Pod on the bottom, No Upper angled mini motors on the top of the pods, but they seem to have been included in the pods, the unbilical conduit seems smaller, The heat shield has changed from a Apollo all round, to a skewed overlap of the CM hull, like the Dragon re-entry angle, the LIDS ring is flush with the cap mate line, rather than elevated slightly as I had made, The roll thrusters are also different, placement wise.

What I think I will do is make my current mesh complete,then modify the mesh to re-create this depiction, and the 4 window version getting three versions in all.

Current: v1: released as DRM 2011
v2: released as Wind Tunnel (4 window, DRM RCS)
v3: released as DRM 2012 (3 window, Altered RCS config)

Chime in if you have any further thoughts...

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: New Private Space Capsule Passes Wind Tunnel Tests

 

[orb]

Aviation Week: Boeing Focuses On Abort In CST-100 Tests:

Tests of Boeing’s CST-100 commercial crew vehicle in a supersonic wind tunnel at NASA’s Ames Research Center are focused on gathering data that will be needed to keep a four-person crew alive during a launch failure and return them to Earth safely.

The high-definition, 12-in.-dia. aluminum tunnel-test model includes pressure sensors and simulated thrusters to determine the aerodynamics of a launch abort. The work will involve “flying” the 1/14-scale model through more than 20 different positions and using the data to validate computer models of the way the capsule will handle in an abort.

“It’s a really high-def model,” says John Elbon, vice president and general manager for space exploration at Boeing Defense, Space and Security. “They pipe it for thrusters so you can fire thrusters when it’s in the wind tunnel and measure the disturbances that you get.”

Engineers are moving the Boeing capsule toward preliminary design review next February or March, Elbon says. Also on the agenda are drop tests from a helicopter to assess the parachute/airbag combination Boeing plans to use in easing the capsule back to the ground if its Atlas V launcher fails on ascent. The company already has run low-cost tests from a moving tractor-trailer, dropping the capsule off the back to add lateral motion to the landing simulation.

“There’s a small airbag inside a larger one, and when you land there are flaps in the larger one, and there are explosive ties on those flaps, and at the right point in time the explosive ties cut the flaps open, and then the larger, outer airbag deflates and you settle on the smaller airbags, so it takes all the g-force out,” Elbon says.

{...}

 

[orb]

Universe Today: Commercial Crew Assessments Carry On with CST-100 Wind Tunnel Tests

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Good New for Florida: Boeing Chooses Discovery Hangar for CST-100 Work