There’s an interesting story on it over at Space News.
I know Keith pretty well. He’s a good guy, and will try very hard to make this happen. And I think that it will happen a lot faster (and for much much less cost) than Ares I/Orion would have.
10 thoughts on “Boeing’s Capsule”
Comments are closed.
I found it interesting that Boeing’s capsule will be short duration.. I imagine missions like taking crews up for a day or two to do experiments or maintenance on experiments. But it does rule them out of the lifeboat competition: http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/06/lifeboat-politics.html
Hmm… Kind of looks like Spiral 1 from their old CE&R study back in ’04
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65843main_boeing.pdf
that was a most annoying website; the ad kept popping up and blocking the lead paragraph, despite my efforts to close it.
It doesn’t sound like the CST-100 is going to be very competitive, but that’s one of the things that competition makes apparent. I’m glad to see Boeing stepping up to the plate to play ball.
I think Boeing is realizing that LEO is the new aerospace passenger vehicle market and intends to compete strongly there. Note the passenger capacity is the same as Dragon’s. They obviously are running similar numbers on their business case.
I’ll note in 1933, Boeing’s Model 247 commercial passenger aircraft, with a 10 passenger capacity, competed against Douglas’ DC-1 with 12 passenger capacity, and the quickly introduced DC-2 with 14 passengers.
Prior to this, the Ford Trimotor carried 8-9 passengers and three crew, starting in 1925. A total of 199 Trimotors were built. 6 are still in flying service.
Folks should note how similar many of these numbers are to those we speak of in this nascent age of commercial space travel. It is good to see Boeing so intent on repeating history. In 50 years time I hope this means we will be flying Boeing Jumbo-Rockets to the moon with hundreds of passengers on board.
Good post, Mike.
Is the main reason it’s a “short duration” vehicle due to radiation and the needed shielding?
Because a dumb “garage” or bay of some sort would seem to provide the longer term protection needed for a lifeboat to park at ISS. If it is more than just shielding, it would require a more elaborate bay.
If the reason is just “insufficient space for needed supplies for a longer trip” – well.
Al, I expect it is because they recognize trying to build a vehicle that can compete with the capabilities of Soyuz is a great way to go bankrupt without flying anything… so just build something you can make money from flying and improve from there.
Is the main reason it’s a “short duration” vehicle due to radiation and the needed shielding?
I don’t think so. A long duration vehicle requires certain design choices that may not be necessary for a short term vehicle. For example, if you want to keep a vehicle parked in lifeboat mode for 6 months, you pretty well have to use storable (hypergolic) propellants. Those are corrosive, toxic, and generally nasty. If your maximum stay is much shorter, say a week or two, then you could use other choices. Likewise, you have to have a long lasting power supply on a lifeboat such as solar arrays instead of a potentially simplier technology like fuel cells or even batteries.
Actually a lifeboat has very different requirements from a transit vehicle.
Most ships have lifeboats and a captains gig or whaleboat.
The lifeboat is sealed, sits for months between inspection, designed for worst case deployment by unskilled crew and suitable for single use, but keeps medical supplies, food, water survival gear.
The gig is designed for multiple use, often restricted to fair weather operations, uses skilled crew, aside from life vests has no survival gear.
If I wanted a really simple iss lifeboat I may look at cold gas thrusters, a big retro solid, and a simple design. Chemical batteries, simple guidance….