Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

23 posts in this topic

Posted

Boeing's CST-100 is a 7 passenger spacecraft under development as part of NASA's Commercial Crew program to provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. In this effort Boeing is partnered with Bigelow Aerospace - who plans to use commercial spacecraft to transport crews to their own commercial space stations.

CST-100 has the same mold line as Apollo, but is larger and has a smaller disposable service module with integrated launch escape, de-orbit and maneuvering engines. It has relatively little cargo capability compared to Dragon or the Dream Chaser. It lands on solid ground using several air bags to soften the touchdown and will initially launch on an Atlas V rocket, though it is launcher-agnostic and could easily fly on a Delta IV, Falcon 9 or an Ariane V.

Recently an early version of CST-100 built by Bigelow Aerospace performed a drop test of its parachutes and air bag landing system, Videos below, and images attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sfX7AU94bWM

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAqYQS6ufWc[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think that the commercial space age is making space exciting again. No longer are we limited to a stagnant space race limited by budget cuts. Space is profitable and this will bring us closer to everyday space launches which we imagined decades ago. More commercial projects will lower the overall cost with scale and competition which will underpin research projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This Boeing PDF is about a year old, but it should give you a good starting point of reference -

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think we are littearly starting a "space race" again, this time inside our own country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='neufuse' timestamp='1338660402' post='594905305']
I think we are littearly starting a "space race" again, this time inside our own country
[/quote]
Good, it's about darn time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Apollo style return to earth. Have we not moved past 1967. It would be great to have an spacecraft that could take off from earth and return landing on a runway. We had it half right with the Space Shuttle program. Come on now lets not go back 43 years in technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For on-orbit winged spacecraft like Dream Chaser are fine as they can land on most any runway, but they are not good for beyond Earth orbit (BEO) missions which capsules can easily be equipped to handle. Capsules are also more volumetrically efficient - a greater internal volume per kilogram of mass. For beyond Earth orbit (BEO) missions wings and other aircraft like features are heavy, and every kilogram of vehicle mass is a kilogram less cargo you can carry - food, fuel and other consumables etc.

A great example of this is the Shuttle - it could carry 24 metric tons to orbit, but it weighed 100 metric tons. This cost upwards of $1.5 billion per launch. On the other hand, a Heavy class launcher could lift this mass or much more (ex: Delta IV Heavy = 22+ tons, Falcon Heavy = 53++ tons, SLS = 75 - 130 tons) at a fraction of the price, and you'd have money left over to launch a smaller crew vessel with funds left over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


[url]http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/[/url]

[quote][b]Flight not guaranteed for Boeing's commercial crew capsule[/b]

Boeing may yet shelve future development of its CST-100 capsule, despite a recent award of more than $460 million from NASA's programme to transport astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

"Our base business case is based on transportation to ISS through 2020," says John Elbon, Boeing's vice-president of space exploration. Though not formalised, the company requires at least two flights per year from NASA to make the project viable.

"That's just for the ISS. That's kind of the basement," adds Elbon. More flights than those to the ISS are required he says, and Boeing is cautious about over-committing itself while future revenue streams are unclear.

NASA has funding for two full awards and one partial award in the commercial crew integrated capability (CCiCap) programme, to be doled out gradually according to established technical milestones. The two full grants were awarded to Boeing and SpaceX, while Sierra Nevada Corporation won the partial award.

Attached to each space act agreement, as the contracts are known, is an extensive list of optional milestones that takes the companies into flight testing.

While Boeing stands to gain at least $460 million by completing all 19 milestones during the 21-month base period, which would bring the CST-100 through the critical design review stage, an undisclosed, but significant, amount of additional funding may be gained through accomplishing 33 optional milestones.

But the base-period investment alone may not be enough for Boeing to justify continued funding, which may bring CST-100 development to an end.

While the cut-off point "wouldn't be at the end of this base period", says Elbon, it may be in the following option period.

"It's more important to have a definite market there. Obviously Boeing has significant resources, and if there's a business caseit's important that it's clear NASA is committed to the commercial crew programme going forward, that they're going to use it for flights to the ISS, and that we can grow some markets around that."

Boeing is working closely with space station manufacturer Bigelow Aerospace and orbital tourism company Space Adventures in an attempt to secure non-NASA revenue. While Bigelow and Space Adventures have racked up tangible success, neither has yet demonstrated a requirement for regular passenger trips into orbit.

The CCiCap contenders' business cases were among the criteria by which NASA evaluated their proposals. In a NASA justification document released after the selection announcement, Boeing's business case was described in "neutral" terms. It says: "Proposed corporate investment during the CCiCap period does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is an increased risk of having insufficient funding in the base period."

Boeing programme manager John Mulholland said it was difficult to compare the contributions made by companies. He said: "We are only counting things that are direct monetary contributions as an investment, we have a very conservative guideline that we use for what we call true investment. There is a lot of additional contributions we are making to the programme beyond that cash infusion."[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Updates have been sparse, but this one's quite interesting - first flight ~2016 and they may switch to Falcon 9 after the second Atlas V launch

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml

>
Boeing, with its CST-100, still aims to demonstrate the seven-person capsule on a three-day manned orbital test flight in 2016, says John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Commercial Programs. At the recent Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., he said CST-100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is odd, why would boeing go with SpaceX if they make the Atlas V, are they looking at retiring the Atlas V, is it to expensive for them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's complicated.

Lockheed-Martin makes the Atlas V

Boeing makes the Delta IV

But both are sold through a Boeing / L-M joint venture named United Launch Associates, meaning Boeing would have to buy the upgraded human-rated Atlas V at the going rate. Not cheap.

Delta IV is very expensive as well and it's not human rated, so even their own product presents cost issues. It would also take years to human-rate it. Congress wants spacecraft ready to test by 2015-2016 and operational by 2017. Dragon 2 flies its first crew in mid-2015. Dream Chaser in 2016. Boeing is short on time.

Boeing is committed to 2 development flights on Atlas V, but after that Boeing has to close the business case which means lower costs and a benign environment for us walking bags of mostly water. There have been rumors that if that case cannot be closed, and soon, Boeing might drop out of the commercial crew program.

As it is CST-100 would be the most expensive of the three commercial spacecraft; Dragon 2 being the cheapest and SNC's Dream Chaser spaceplane slightly more. Falcon 9 v-1.1 might be what's needed to keep Boeing in.

Falcon 9 v1.1 is the cheapest human rated launcher going - by a lot - and it's a pretty smooth ride. Even cheaper if the F9-R (F-niner) reusable version works out, and flight tests of its basic landing avionics systems start with the first F9 v1.1 flight in September. They plan to try "landing" it at sea off Vandenberg AFB, then once that's figured out attaching carbon composite legs and attempting a return to land on later flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Reveal of the CST-100 commercial crew engineering test article.

Like Dragon it's upgradeable to beyond Earth orbit operations, but there's been talk Boeing is having trouble making it commercially competitive. This is why there're now talking of launching it on Falcon 9 v1.1 instead of the much more expensive Atlas V.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/ars-hops-in-boeings-commercial-space-spaceship-the-cst-100/

Boeing took the curtain off its proposed commercial spacecraft this morning, allowing a limited number of press and media into one of its Houston facilities to crawl around inside a high-fidelity mockup. The spacecraft, designated the CST-100 (for "Crew Space Transportation"), is a large capsule, resembling a scaled-up version of the iconic Apollo command module.
>
>
Cost savings is one of the largest driving forces behind the spacecraft's design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Reveal of the CST-100 commercial crew engineering test article.

Like Dragon it's upgradeable to beyond Earth orbit operations, but there's been talk Boeing is having trouble making it commercially competitive. This is why there're now talking of launching it on Falcon 9 v1.1 instead of the much more expensive Atlas V.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/ars-hops-in-boeings-commercial-space-spaceship-the-cst-100/


cst-capsule.jpg

 

The first picture reminds me of the TV show called "I Dream of Jeannie" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The 'I Dream of Jeannie' Stardust spacecraft was actually the Mercury capsule on the original Atlas rocket. Same as John Glenn flew.

CST-100 is much larger and based on the Apollo mold line. Mercury had a crew of 1, Apollo had 3 and CST-100 will carry up to 7 - same as Dragon or Dream Chaser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yup. 'I Dream of Jeannie' spacecraft is small. I remember that but I was talking about the shape.

 

Impressive that they make big or small craft based on what they use for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Might want to check out this article on re-entry -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry

Some new birds

Apollo, Orion and Dragon mold lines (CST-100 halfway between Apollo & Orion with the same mold line. CST-100 and Dragon have 2 decks & carry 7. Orion carries 4-6, and Apollo carried 3)
640px-Size_comparison_of_Apollo%2C_Orion

Russia's new PPRS/PTK NP capsule (Soyuz replacement to fly on their new Angara booster)
5e106b47075e.jpg

India's coming crew vehicle (very Dragon-like w/more vertical side walls)
090211-sn-india-capsule-02.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Like I've said before, I still can't believe that we don't even have any type of star ship yet.

We are sooo far behind it's ridiculous. Our space programs are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Starships will require a type of propulsion that doesn't exist yet. Interplanetary drives are VERY close, as are effective radiation shields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

More progress on Commercial Crew....

A possible switch by Boeing to Falcon 9 v1.1 is on the table. While the announced Atlas V HR (human rated) is well along, and the dual-engine Centaur has passed PDR, the costs are high enough for Boeing to question the business case. The much cheaper Falcon 9 v1.1 with its proven engine-out capability (safer) could be the fix.

@BoeingDefense

Big milestone! MT @AerojetRdyne Good morning @Boeing & @Commercial_Crew! We finished dev testing of CST-100 engine http://tinyurl.com/nx9b7nb

Terry Lorier:

"In the past several weeks, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team conducted a series of eight tests on two Launch Abort Engines meeting or exceeding all test parameters,""The success of this most recent test series clears the way for our team to proceed into qualification and production of the engine in the next phase of the program."


post-10859-138723128787.jpg

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38731cst-100-launch-abort-engines-complete-testing-milestone

CST-100 Launch-abort Engines Complete Testing Milestone

WASHINGTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


CST-100 landing test: what happens if a landing air bag pops?

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeAbLlcpC4o[/youtube]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Per the Dragon CRS-7 presser, CST-100's orbital mission dates are slipping right.

Orbital Flight Test (Boe-OFT): July 2017 (was April 2017)

Crewed Flight Test (Boe-CFT): likely October 2017 (was July 2017)

Post Certification Mission 1 (PCM 1): December 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's nice to see common sense realized and hard choices being made......

 

Falcon ( v1.*) is proven and will be a cost effective solution to many...myself, I would like to see it lift the "Dream Chaser" ....great combo.....

 

Cheers.... :D  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.