Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2011, 04:30 PM   #16
Capt_hensley
Captain, USS Pabilli
 
Capt_hensley's Avatar
Default

Thanks Pete, we can tie it down to the Atlas V, now were need to figure out what model. Probably a 5 meter diameter with 2 Gem 60s or 502 as they call it.
Capt_hensley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 04:35 PM   #17
DaveS
Addon Developer
 
DaveS's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt_hensley View Post
 Thanks Pete, we can tie it down to the Atlas V, now were need to figure out what model. Probably a 5 meter diameter with 2 Gem 60s or 502 as they call it.
The Atlas V does not use GEMs(Graphite Epoxy Motors). The GEMs are made by ATK, while the Atlas V SRBs are made by Aerojet.
DaveS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 04:41 PM   #18
Tacolev
Orbinaut
Default

I think there's a possibility it'll just be a straight-up Atlas 402. Remember there's a marginal mass boost from having no payload fairing.
Tacolev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 05:19 PM   #19
ky
Director of Manned Spaceflight
 
ky's Avatar
Default

Yes.But I'll hopefully be able to model the rocket in scketchup once I know for sur which type of the Atlas V their using.
ky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2011, 06:15 PM   #20
Capt_hensley
Captain, USS Pabilli
 
Capt_hensley's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ky View Post
 Yes.But I'll hopefully be able to model the rocket in scketchup once I know for sur which type of the Atlas V their using.
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
Capt_hensley is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-04-2011, 07:04 PM   #21
ky
Director of Manned Spaceflight
 
ky's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt_hensley View Post
 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.
ky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 04:16 AM   #22
Spicer
Orbinaut
 
Spicer's Avatar
Default

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.
Spicer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 05:50 PM   #23
silent_protagonist
Orbinaut
 
silent_protagonist's Avatar
Default

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/...t-100-capsule/

Quote:
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...
silent_protagonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 04:14 PM   #24
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

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.
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2011, 08:39 PM   #25
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Boeing:
September 12, 2011
Space capsule tests aim to ensure safe landings
By Ed Memi




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
orb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2011, 09:01 PM   #26
N_Molson
Addon Developer
 
N_Molson's Avatar

Default

Quote:
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

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 :


Last edited by N_Molson; 09-13-2011 at 09:30 PM.
N_Molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-13-2011, 09:15 PM   #27
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011, 12:29 AM   #28
Codz
Lunar Advocate
 
Codz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Neo View Post
 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.
Codz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011, 12:47 AM   #29
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Default

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by T.Neo; 09-14-2011 at 12:54 AM.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011, 05:25 AM   #30
Codz
Lunar Advocate
 
Codz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Neo View Post
 

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...
Codz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.