Bigelow Joins Commercial Spaceflight Federation

This is the first time I've heard an "official" name for the Boeing CCDev capsule: CST-100.

Wow, This is absolutely huge. This will be a giant boost to CSF and to commercial HSF. Thanks to visionaries like Bigelow and Musk, I truely believe that low or at least lower cost HSF is just around the corner and true commercialization of space will be realized within my lifetime.

Go Bigelow, go commercial.

Bigelow on new NASA rockets:

"It strains the bounds of credulity to claim that any new rocket would be able to trump the safety of a system [like Atlas V] that has an extensive record of flawless operations."

Bigelow on commercial capability to transport crew:

"Why is it that Boeing, the company that constructed the ISS itself, can't safely build a capsule that would go to their own space station?"

Bigelow on opposition to the new NASA plan:

"Pernicious misconceptions are being perpetuated"

"It strains the bounds of credulity to claim that any new rocket would be able to trump the safety of a system [like Atlas V] that has an extensive record of flawless operations."

While Mr. Bigelow has a point, he is undoubtedly familiar with NASA NPR 8705.2B and its associated documents.`

Currently, Atlas V does not meet the specifications (albeit topical) and would need to meet them before it could be used as a booster system for manned flight.

Meet them and fly. It's not that difficult to understand, grandstanding aside.

CharlesBoyer:

Human rating a launch system by whose standards? NASAs? Let's not forget that NASA human rated the Shuttle launch system which included solid rocket boosters and no pad escape system worth speaking of!.

Stupid decisions can be made in the human rating business as we've learned (the hard way). Human rating standards a myth perpetrated by the folks that cost us seven lives.

If you were in the commercial space business would you trust NASA to make those kinds of decisions?

Hardly!

tinker

Folks:

On a lighter note, if the Boeing capsule is going to have a diameter of 16 feet (over five meters) than they will have to make some sort of interesting payload adapter for the Atlas Vs 12 foot (4 meter) diameter.

So it looks like we'll end up with a "stick" after all. A short stick! ;)

tinker

Back in May, P&W Rocketdyne signed a $1.8 million contract
with ULA for work to help design and develop an Emergency
Detection System (EDS) for human spaceflights to be
proposed for Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles.

The pending issues which could dissuade ULA team from
developing a human launch capability are strictly monetary.
Will NASA develop the Orion to a point that would give
Lockheed Martin an unfair advantage over Boeing? Do you
have fixed price, or fixed price + bonus, cost plus contracts?

Boeing did a presentation for the Augustine commission
saying that it would cost $500 million to human rate the
Delta IV.

Boeing did a presentation for the Augustine commission saying that it would cost $500 million to human rate the Delta IV.

That includes pad modifications, maybe even a brand new pad.

"if the Boeing capsule is going to have a diameter of 16 feet (over five meters) than they will have to make some sort of interesting payload adapter for the Atlas Vs 12 foot (4 meter) diameter."

Atlas V comes in 5 meter configurations as well....so that could make it close enough. I would think if push came to shove I'm willing to bet Boeing and ULA could make it work.

spaceman:

Ah yes, but the five meter part of the Atlas V is for the payload fairing, not the core stage diameter. So picture the Atlas V with a shorter, pointed (probably with an escape tower) version of the five meter fairing on top and you'll get what I mean. Since the Atlas V has flown with the five meter fairing it's not a long shot to guess that the Boeing capsule is doable from an aerodynamic standpoint.

tinker

Folks:

I found a picture on Photobucket that illustrates how I expect an Atlas V/Boeing capsule configuration would look like:

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb156/FerrisValyn/indexphpactiondlattachtopic18323-1.jpg

tinker

Tinker: if you think that Bigelow or anyone else is going to carry NASA astronauts without meeting NASA's standards, then you are being foolish.

Secondly, I have been told by Boeing engineers that they would meet those standards, and I am very willing to bet you that those people have designed more working space hardware than you ever have or will.

CharlesBoyer wrote"

"...Currently, Atlas V does not meet the specifications (albeit topical) and would need to meet them before it could be used as a booster system for manned flight..."

You're simply, flat out wrong.

Those of us that know, know better.

CharlesBoyer:

Actually I think Boeing can easily meet and surpass NASAs human rating standards for their capsule and will not make the same mistakes NASA has made in the past. Like Spacex they can avoid the political infighting that led to a "less than safe" Space Transportation System (the Shuttle). Now that Spacex has (literally) blazed the trail Boeing will use a similar business model. They'll succeed without NASA, Congress and the Senate breathing down their necks.

tinker

"Bigelow on commercial capability to transport crew:

"Why is it that Boeing, the company that constructed the ISS itself, can't safely build a capsule that would go to their own space station
?"

Because the job Boeing has done on ISS is so bad I wouldn't trust them to build anything that flies in space. Their whole management's focus is on not fixing their POS software and just getting MOD to work around it to save them money. If wasn't for NASA flight controllers pushing them to fix their mistakes Boeing would never fix anything. The node 3 software was so badly written that I don't even want to think about the hidden problems that probably exist.

Using Boeing as an example of how commercial can safely fly humans without close NASA oversight is not a winning arguement. Their is a reason Lockheed Martin won the Orion contract.

Given your logic then Delta, Southwest, United, Boeing and Airbus should be blowing off the FAA because of course there have been numerous airline accidents that killed people while the FAA is in charge so therefore their expertise in aircraft certifcation standards and airline operations requirements is invalid.

Also I guess we shouldn't let the military conduct their own pilot training and certification of their aircrew operations since they have had accidents as well. We should leave that to average citizen's who have never had a car accident because they obviously no better on how to conduct safe military operations.

"Currently, Atlas V does not meet the specifications (albeit topical) and would need to meet them before it could be used as a booster system for manned flight."

Currently Atlas V meets/exceeds all NPR 8705.2A requirements levied on the LAUNCH VEHICLE.

ex_navy:

Actually a good point there so let me clarify. I didn't say anything about dropping certification rules for launch vehicles or spacecraft. Of course we let the FAA and NASA set the bar. But instead of letting NASA be the architect and treating the companies as sub-contractors NASA should let the companies be both the architect and the builder of hardware as well.

We've seen what happens when NASA is the architect in the past. The Apollo program set the standards for political interference by making sure that the Saturn V stages and the Apollo spacecraft were parceled out to different contractors. The Space Transportation System and the ISS followed the same architecture. Both were over-budget and less capable then originally proposed. There was no way that the "powers that be" would relinquish power once they had it. As we can see in the Senate and House committee meetings they're fighting to keep it still.

Spacex has accomplished the design, manufacture and operation of launch vehicles at a twentieth the cost of a NASA managed program. Part of this is because they do as much work as they can in house. Like most manufacturers, they want to provide a complete product to put on the store shelves for people to buy. Also, "integration" for them is simply a matter of popping over to the next cubicle and working things out. The complete launch vehicle, capsule, infrastructure package means that the whole system can evolve and stay integrated.

Notice that Boeing and LockMart are beginning to see the light and are both considering programs the follow the Spacex baseline.

tinker

"spaceman:

Ah yes, but the five meter part of the Atlas V is for the payload fairing, not the core stage diameter."

Understand....that is why there is a transitional boattail between the core and the fairing to transition to the differing diameters. In any effect, its the Centaur upper stage that is at that transition point, not the payload adapter. The payload interface plane is well up inside a 5 meter fairing.

Both were over-budget and less capable then originally proposed.

Huh? The original requirement for the Saturn V was to deliver 90,000 lbs to TLI. The Saturn ended up delivering about 115,000 lbs through various upgrades to the engines and operating regimes.

The Shuttle was 15% over budget and three years late. The orbiter, ET, and SRB's were built on time. It was the SSME's that were the problem.

We would love to have a program the size of the Shuttle program come in only that much over budget and late today.

I do agree that the SpaceX manufacturing plan is superior to NASA's but NASA's problems in this area are an inevitable consequence of the modern way of doing business in the government. The Von Braun team designed and built the first Saturn 1 in house and only after the design was proven was it turned over to Chrysler. The first Saturn 1 only cost $40M dollars (1961 dollars) to put together.

Dennis:

I meant the Shuttle program and ISS were over budget. Yes, the Saturn flew better than spec and, in the end, it didn't matter how much it would cost. It was also the last time that kind of architecture worked.

tinker

"Given your logic then Delta, Southwest, United, Boeing and Airbus should be blowing off the FAA because of course there have been numerous airline accidents that killed people while the FAA is in charge so therefore their expertise in aircraft certifcation standards and airline operations requirements is invalid..."

OK but then you state this

"Because the job Boeing has done on ISS is so bad I wouldn't trust them to build anything that flies in space"

those two statements are contradictory.

If the FAA had certified an airplane where the manufacture had done the same job you state Boeing has done on ISS...we would have a real problem with the certification system and the people involved in it.

Yet you argue that the very folks and system that allowed Boeing to do such work, accepted it, claims that it is safe...should be the ones who have a role in certifying private space vehicles?

No thanks.

The FAA should have the role for a lot of reasons (and not just that NASA HSF has done things like the software you mention throughout the last 30 years).

The FAA is aware of three things:

1. There is a balance between technology, cost, and risk. Yes it would have been great to have all twin engine airplanes that carry passengers have Part 25 engine out capability; but the FAA understood that this was not technically affordable until the DC-3 came along. It still is not in "private twins" (Part 91 operations).

2. New technology gets new rules. ETOPS

3. There is a interaction between certification, enforcement, and regulation but they are all different groups.

NASA HSF has no expertise in these critical matters. That is why they accept O rings that dont seal as temps get lower, RCC tiles that are brittle, and ISS software that is not "trustable" and who knows what else. As for the engineering expertise...it can be hired.

Robert G. Oler

Mr. Oler,
The RCC is not tiles. Your comments would be more credible if you evidenced any knowledge of the shuttle. Don't get your info from Wikipedia.