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

[Motokid600]

Whichever has a more capable launch escape system.

[Robotengineer]

Dragon. It's just so awesome. It also looks like (and is) the future, while the CST-100 looks like a mini Orion and still hearkens back to Apollo style capsules.

[kerbiloid]

Seems to me, CST-100 is the only one of those three (CST, Dragon, Orion), having any future.

Dragon is some strange, extravagant and doubtful thing.

• Strange engines. Too heavy for orbit maneuvers and landing, too weak as LES. (T/W=6, while orbiting needs 0.5, landing 2, LES 12..18 - just to unstuck from the rocket possessed with demons and to run away)
   
• Strange windows. Look: every spaceship designed for docking has docking viewports in the docking direction. Even while they weaken the hull structure.
  Gemini: 2 docking viewports, Apollo: 2 docking viewports, Shuttle: at least 2 in the cabin ceiling, Soyuz: a docking periscope and an additional docking viewport added later in its orbital module, TKS: 2 viewports above its docking node, CST: 1 docking viewport (and 1 aside), Orion: 2 again. 
  And only Dragon doesn't have any.docking viewport at all. Instead it has several giant and useless windows around the cabin  What for? To gaze at stars? Btw every of these windows is a giant hole in the cabin hull,
  OK, maybe computers/webcams/giant and stylish monitors replace them?
  Maybe, but:
  - CST and Orion are of the same generation with Dragon, so they can use similar computers, web-cameras, and their developers obviously hold to an opinion: at least one simple viewport is needed for the docking control, and a small eyehole in a side wall (better in the hatch door) — to ensure that you are deorbiting rather than accelerating from the Earth.
  - If monitors/webcams is enough for docking (why not? this is XXI cent!), then why those huge windows aside rather than three giant screens?
   
• Strange inner design. The capsule shown during the presentation looks like a playroom for nerds with stylish blue monitors, stylish space chairs, stylish shining walls, stylish giant windows.
  Monitors with a fake-looking command interface with a random "space-style" commands like "Orbit now", "Orbit next", "Cabin depress" and without dull real instruments uncommon to an average game player.
  Something like Bethesda's toy-pipboy for those who had pre-ordered their Fallouts.
  Looks like "Buy our stylish playroom and feel like a spaceman with your friends. (Steering wheel and pedals are included).", not like a real command module: "flying toilet with parachutes and instrument panel".
  Does its real cabin design already exist at all? Btw if V2 is supposed to be used in the near future, probably it would be already ready in whole. But is this what they call "a spaceship command module design"?.

 

Orion looks like a serious and realistic one. But:

• It was designed in 2004-2009, first launched in 2014, but the first manned flight is scheduled to 2021-2023.
  If a more-or-less ready-for-use spaceship was tested in 2014, why this 8 years delay before the first crewed test flight?
  If not-too-ready: then what have they launched in 2014 if it needs 8 years more to prepare it for a manned flight? The whole Space Shuttle was created from scratch and launched taking for this 10 years (1971-1981).
• Probably not the Orion itself is in a stagnation, but its purposes look blurry and unclear:
  - Flight to the Moon. Or maybe onto the Moon. Just a flight is just a one more Apollo expedition. Building a lunar base takes much more efforts than just to launch a spaceship. It's too expensive just for now? Well, let's return to this ten years later. Or twenty. Maybe.
  - To the asteroid - to grab it from the solar orbit and pull to the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot grab and pull and then Orion with a crew will study it on the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot not pull the asteroid but just to take a small stone from it and to put on the near-Earth orbit. And Orion will study this small stone. Probably the next step will be: why at all send that Orion, let's just take several stones and return them in a capsule.
  - Flight to the Mars. No Mars will be before a totally equipped Mars spaceship will fly around the Moon for 1.5 years with Moon landing(s). It's too expensive just for now? See above, about the Moon.

 

So, among this three, only CST-100 looks as something viable and having clear purposes.

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

Dragon. It's just so awesome. It also looks like (and is) the future, while the CST-100 looks like a mini Orion and still hearkens back to Apollo style capsules.

What's uncool about Apollo ?

You do realize that a modern 787 uses the same old shape that harkens back to the 707, or even the DC3...  That's probably because the laws of physics haven't changed and it's the best configuration for the job.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Seems to me, CST-100 is the only one of those three (CST, Dragon, Orion), having any future.

Dragon is some strange, extravagant and doubtful thing.

• Strange engines. Too heavy for orbit maneuvers and landing, too weak as LES. (T/W=6, while orbiting needs 0.5, landing 2, LES 12..18 - just to unstuck from the rocket possessed with demons and to run away)
   
• Strange windows. Look: every spaceship designed for docking has docking viewports in the docking direction. Even while they weaken the hull structure.
  Gemini: 2 docking viewports, Apollo: 2 docking viewports, Shuttle: at least 2 in the cabin ceiling, Soyuz: a docking periscope and an additional docking viewport added later in its orbital module, TKS: 2 viewports above its docking node, CST: 1 docking viewport (and 1 aside), Orion: 2 again. 
  And only Dragon doesn't have any.docking viewport at all. Instead it has several giant and useless windows around the cabin  What for? To gaze at stars? Btw every of these windows is a giant hole in the cabin hull,
  OK, maybe computers/webcams/giant and stylish monitors replace them?
  Maybe, but:
  - CST and Orion are of the same generation with Dragon, so they can use similar computers, web-cameras, and their developers obviously hold to an opinion: at least one simple viewport is needed for the docking control, and a small eyehole in a side wall (better in the hatch door) — to ensure that you are deorbiting rather than accelerating from the Earth.
  - If monitors/webcams is enough for docking (why not? this is XXI cent!), then why those huge windows aside rather than three giant screens?
   
• Strange inner design. The capsule shown during the presentation looks like a playroom for nerds with stylish blue monitors, stylish space chairs, stylish shining walls, stylish giant windows.
  Monitors with a fake-looking command interface with a random "space-style" commands like "Orbit now", "Orbit next", "Cabin depress" and without dull real instruments uncommon to an average game player.
  Something like Bethesda's toy-pipboy for those who had pre-ordered their Fallouts.
  Looks like "Buy our stylish playroom and feel like a spaceman with your friends. (Steering wheel and pedals are included).", not like a real command module: "flying toilet with parachutes and instrument panel".
  Does its real cabin design already exist at all? Btw if V2 is supposed to be used in the near future, probably it would be already ready in whole. But is this what they call "a spaceship command module design"?.

 

Orion looks like a serious and realistic one. But:

• It was designed in 2004-2009, first launched in 2014, but the first manned flight is scheduled to 2021-2023.
  If a more-or-less ready-for-use spaceship was tested in 2014, why this 8 years delay before the first crewed test flight?
  If not-too-ready: then what have they launched in 2014 if it needs 8 years more to prepare it for a manned flight? The whole Space Shuttle was created from scratch and launched taking for this 10 years (1971-1981).
• Probably not the Orion itself is in a stagnation, but its purposes look blurry and unclear:
  - Flight to the Moon. Or maybe onto the Moon. Just a flight is just a one more Apollo expedition. Building a lunar base takes much more efforts than just to launch a spaceship. It's too expensive just for now? Well, let's return to this ten years later. Or twenty. Maybe.
  - To the asteroid - to grab it from the solar orbit and pull to the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot grab and pull and then Orion with a crew will study it on the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot not pull the asteroid but just to take a small stone from it and to put on the near-Earth orbit. And Orion will study this small stone. Probably the next step will be: why at all send that Orion, let's just take several stones and return them in a capsule.
  - Flight to the Mars. No Mars will be before a totally equipped Mars spaceship will fly around the Moon for 1.5 years with Moon landing(s). It's too expensive just for now? See above, about the Moon.

 

So, among this three, only CST-100 looks as something viable and having clear purposes.

 

Orion's 2014 test was only the command module. The SM, LES, etc still need development. The CM itself was a prototype, and used as a test article for the Orion EM-1 test. Bascially, EFT-1 was akin to a Block I not-man rated flight test with only a command module. Granted, it was leaps and bounds more useful than Ares 1-X...

 

The Shuttle also had DOD support, BTW. The SLS project started in 2010, and has its first prototype flight in 2018, and its first manned flight in 2021/2022, depending on if they retire Block I early or not. That seems to run akin to the Shuttle development cycle. The problem is not really the development, that's apparently on schedule, according to NASASpaceflight, but the lack of a mission. I'm hoping the 2016 election will do good for it, and a real mission has not been chosen as it would likely be cancelled by the time someone else goes into office (the 2016 president will, on the other hand, see the fruits of the SLS program, and the first mission with an actual goal, if everything goes to plan. Almost certainly involving the Moon.

[Pixel of Life]

CST-100, simply because I like the fancy 787-ish interior lighting 

[Dr. Jet]

Russian PPTS "Federation". A month of self-sufficiency and much less chance to crash landing (it has an emergency spare chute).

[Exploro]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Strange inner design. The capsule shown during the presentation looks like a playroom for nerds with stylish blue monitors, stylish space chairs, stylish shining walls, stylish giant windows.

• Monitors with a fake-looking command interface with a random "space-style" commands like "Orbit now", "Orbit next", "Cabin depress" and without dull real instruments uncommon to an average game player.
  Something like Bethesda's toy-pipboy for those who had pre-ordered their Fallouts.
  Looks like "Buy our stylish playroom and feel like a spaceman with your friends. (Steering wheel and pedals are included).", not like a real command module: "flying toilet with parachutes and instrument panel".
  Does its real cabin design already exist at all? Btw if V2 is supposed to be used in the near future, probably it would be already ready in whole. But is this what they call "a spaceship command module design"

Odd you would levy that criticism of the Dragon. Have you seen what Boeing would like to do with the Starliner?

[Camacha]

I pick the Soyuz. That was not an option? I still pick the Soyuz. If I were to choose, I choose reliability over luxury.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, Exploro said:

Odd you would levy that criticism of the Dragon. Have you seen what Boeing would like to do with the Starliner?

Please, compare what you can see on the picture with CST and Apollo comparison — how small are windows and how close one to each other are the crew seats,
with artistic blue pictures "from inside" — with large square side window instead of the small round one, with 5 large forward windows on dark blue, with several more square windows to the right hand side from the crew and looks like the blue images are just an artist's representation of his vision or so.
All other images and photos picture the CST in less romantic colors: enough cramped to be the truth,

While Dragon V2 mockup from the presentation looks... er... different.

To compare: an old PPTS movie from youtube. You can see: there is a toilet, there are cases with snacks. Leaving the PPTS future aside, where is all this husbandry in the Dragon (if it was Dragon)?

 

 

 

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, Dr. Jet said:

Russian PPTS "Federation". A month of self-sufficiency and much less chance to crash landing (it has an emergency spare chute).

Yeah, so does Orion (well, almost a month of self sufficiency for 4 people). 

5 hours ago, Camacha said:

I pick the Soyuz. That was not an option? I still pick the Soyuz. If I were to choose, I choose reliability over luxury.

Then, CST-100 is the closest choice for you.  

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Please, compare what you can see on the picture with CST and Apollo comparison — how small are windows and how close one to each other are the crew seats,
with artistic blue pictures "from inside" — with large square side window instead of the small round one, with 5 large forward windows on dark blue, with several more square windows to the right hand side from the crew and looks like the blue images are just an artist's representation of his vision or so.
All other images and photos picture the CST in less romantic colors: enough cramped to be the truth,

While Dragon V2 mockup from the presentation looks... er... different.

To compare: an old PPTS movie from youtube. You can see: there is a toilet, there are cases with snacks. Leaving the PPTS future aside, where is all this husbandry in the Dragon (if it was Dragon)?

 

 

 

Not really a good comparison since PPTS is (was, probably cancelled now due to budget cuts) supposed to be used in the same way as Constellation Orion- a 7 person crew to LEO, or 4 people to the Moon.

[Dr. Jet]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

Not really a good comparison since PPTS is (was, probably cancelled now due to budget cuts) supposed to be used in the same way as Constellation Orion- a 7 person crew to LEO, or 4 people to the Moon.

He-he... Wishful thinking. Russia will never leave space. 

Quote

22 января 2016 стало известно что на строительство нового космического пилотируемого корабля до 2025 года планируется потратить более 58 млрд рублей, что на 8 млрд меньше чем планировалось, это почти в 3,5 раза меньше чем затраты NASA на строительство космического корабля Dragon.^[75]

At 22 of january 2016  it was reported that PPTS program budget till 2025 still has 58 billion roubles (8 billion cut from expected amount). It's over 3.5 times lesser than Dragon program budget.

BTW, since almost all parts and materials are local, dollar price won't make any significant difference.

Quote

Президент России Владимир Путин настаивает на том, что запуск Ангары должен состояться в конце 2021 года, а первый пилотируемый полет в 2023 году.^[72][73]

Putin insists that first launch of PPTS on Angara rocket should take place in 2021 and first piloted launch in 2023.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Dr. Jet

[fredinno]

11 hours ago, Dr. Jet said:

He-he... Wishful thinking. Russia will never leave space. 

At 22 of january 2016  it was reported that PPTS program budget till 2025 still has 58 billion roubles (8 billion cut from expected amount). It's over 3.5 times lesser than Dragon program budget.

BTW, since almost all parts and materials are local, dollar price won't make any significant difference.

Putin insists that first launch of PPTS on Angara rocket should take place in 2021 and first piloted launch in 2023.

Of course Russia will never leave space, it has Soyuz. I just can't see it having the PPTS program with a $500 Million budget. TBH, the Soyuz does just fine.

A program cost of 3.5 times lower than Dragon is bad news, and means it's going at a painstakingly slow pace, and possibly at risk of cancellation.

Edited March 14, 2016 by fredinno