Navy2k

While we wait for soon™, would you rather fly CST-100 or Dragon v2?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

to cover the next few days I would like to talk about what vehicle you would rather fly to LEO with given you had to chosoe on and why.

I guess it boils down to who would you rather trust with your live, a renowned old and possible sturdy firm like Boing or a relatively young agile enterprise out there to make a name in history.

Greetings

Ben

Edited by Navy2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put my life on CST-100 before Dragon 2. Not because I think SpaceX's vehicle will be that much less safe. But Boeing is going about their project without any rush. They're not expecting that same media and popular support, so they're doing things how they have always done things. Maybe more slowly, but it works well in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon V2 ftw!!!

Because it has touchscreens, advanced landing systems, awesome interior, and it looks like a real spaceship!

Edited by Spaceception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SpaceX fanboy in me says Dragon. but they both look like great ships. I'd be happy to fly on either of them.

(Y'know, if I was an astronaut.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the modern vibe with the touchscreens, but there's something in me that just want those cool Apollo-like switches that make a 'click' noise every time you flip them. I think I'd go with whichever one is on the closest launchpad to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon V2, unless there is some major safety concern that isn't present in CST-100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Navy2k said:

Hi,

to cover the next few days I would like to talk about what vehicle you would rather fly to LEO with given you had to chosoe on and why.

I guess it boils down to who would you rather trust with your live, a renowned old and possible sturdy firm like Boing or a relatively young agile enterprise out there to make a name in history.

Greetings

Ben

What's with the tiny text.

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Dragon V2 ftw!!!

Because it has touchscreens, advanced landing systems, awesome interior, and it looks like a real spaceship!

I would not trust touchscreens. Ever try to use an iPhone with gloves? Not fun. No idea why Elon decided to go with this, seems like a really bad idea.

I would thus rather go on CST-100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fredinno said:

What's with the tiny text.

I would not trust touchscreens. Ever try to use an iPhone with gloves? Not fun. No idea why Elon decided to go with this, seems like a really bad idea.

I would thus rather go on CST-100.

It does have a few buttons, like de-orbit and stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

It does have a few buttons, like de-orbit and stuff.

 

The touch screen is still a mission and safety hazard. What if the spacecraft needs to go to manual control right after launch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F35_cockpit_1267828237_7030.JPG

This is the cockpit of F-35; the most advanced fighter jet in production. Note how spartan it is compared to previous generation combat planes. And obviously it is not a safety hazard if glass cockpits have found their way inside the Lightning II; and most other modern aircraft for that matter. I mean even the latest version of the Cessna 172 has glass panel displays. Having looked at a photo of the Dragon V2 cockpit panel it does not look out of place compare against front office of the Lightning.

Obviously considering the Dragon V2 mock up is a mock up. Manual control features (like the stick, throttle lever and rudder pedals of the fighter plane above) will likely be incorporated as well as back up contingency systems.

Edited by Exploro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I allowed to pick which launch vehicle the CST-100 is stacked on? If so, I'd take CST-100 on Atlas V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tater said:

Am I allowed to pick which launch vehicle the CST-100 is stacked on? If so, I'd take CST-100 on Atlas V.

CST-100 is only launching on Atlas V for now  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they've talked about compatibility with Falcon and delta, too. Atlas V is pretty bulletproof, might as well take a launch vehicle with zero catastrophic failures :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, but they've talked about compatibility with Falcon and delta, too. Atlas V is pretty bulletproof, might as well take a launch vehicle with zero catastrophic failures :)

You would never see it on Delta (cost) or Falcon (rival).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delta would be very unlikely. Falcon would entirely depend upon the contracts, I think. It really is just another payload like a CRS for SpaceX when you think about it, and the crew missions are likely set well ahead of time, so if there was a crew mission required to ISS, and CST was ready to go, but say Atlas had a failure on another launch right before, instead of delaying the crew launch 6+ months while they sort Atlas, they might buy a Falcon launch if it could be had sooner. A launcher-agnostic crew capsule would actually be a selling point, I'd think.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tater said:

Delta would be very unlikely. Falcon would entirely depend upon the contracts, I think. It really is just another payload like a CRS for SpaceX when you think about it, and the crew missions are likely set well ahead of time, so if there was a crew mission required to ISS, and CST was ready to go, but say Atlas had a failure on another launch right before, instead of delaying the crew launch 6+ months while they sort Atlas, they might buy a Falcon launch if it could be had sooner. A launcher-agnostic crew capsule would actually be a selling point, I'd think.

There would have to be aerodynamics and integration simulations made to fix the CST-100 on the Falcon. Cygnus could do what you desxribed because it has in a payload fairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Execute command" - so, you would presume that it's indeed a toolbar, not just indicators.

Missed a little - and instead of "Cabin Depress" you get a quick "Deorbit Now"? It's sooo Kerbish...

Here would be two buttons more: "Don't Deorbit" and "Snacks".

 

interior_6.jpg

 

Btw, at 0:23 of the video you can see the left monitor with large buttons of a screen joystick.
Is this the only joystick available to a pilot? As in DOS flight simulators ("arrow keys and +/- for throttle")?  Why they don't just use WASD buttons?

 

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Budgie said:

I'd put my life on CST-100 before Dragon 2. Not because I think SpaceX's vehicle will be that much less safe. But Boeing is going about their project without any rush. They're not expecting that same media and popular support, so they're doing things how they have always done things. Maybe more slowly, but it works well in the end.

Boeing isn't slower than SpaceX, that's just a illusion because of the way both companies do things.

Boeing's develops CST-100 the same way they develop airliners or fighter jets. They spend years designing every part in 3D CAD systems, testing against requirements through modelization, selecting suppliers and finding customers. Only when everything fits together and works, when the supply chain is secured, and when they have enough preorders to ensure viability, do they actually start cutting metal and putting things together.

SpaceX does hardware development the old fashioned way. They build mockups and prototypes that they tinker to make things fit, and then they aren't afraid of blowing stuff up. They don't bother much with a supply chain because they make a lot of stuff in house, and they are more "guru-driven" than actually customer-driven.

The erratic process makes SpaceX more likeable (or even cultish), but I'd rather trust Boeing to get stuff right the first time. When was the last time you heard of Boeing crashing a prototype of an airliner or a fighter jet? They don't because they do it with 3D models instead of actual hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon V2, because it looks good. If I have to die in space I would at least want to die in something that has style.

And about those touch screens: I can imagine that the UI for them is probably simplified and has big on-screen buttons, which would help using them even in gloves. The spacecraft is probably mostly controlled from the ground anyway. Clicking the wrong button would alarm the mission control and prevent them from screwing up the whole mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2016 at 8:12 AM, Nibb31 said:

They build mockups and prototypes that they tinker to make things fit, and then they aren't afraid of blowing stuff up. They don't bother much with a supply chain because they make a lot of stuff in house, and they are more "guru-driven" than actually customer-driven.

This can also describe my actual work. I really need to fire myself...

On the actual topic, cst-100 will have more powerful abort engines and a safer rocket so I will take that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.