Boeing Unveils America's First Space Taxi, Unlocks Possibilities for Future 

What?

hahaha

Rob Speed as well as the safety of redundancy.

9

The CST-100 will land on dry land by using airbags and parachutes. So it'll be pretty much equivalent to the Dragon V2 (except that the heatshield won't be reusable on the CST-100). That is, if Boeing plans on launching their spacecraft on a reusable rocket. If not, it'll be much more expensive.

Alex Brown So they are behind SpaceX on progress to flight, cost and efficiency then...

In fairness to Boeing, they started the development of the CST-100 about the same time as SpaceX started work on the Dragon. It is a fair question to argue competitive advantages of using a particular product (like comparing a Ford to a Dodge) but I think it is awesome that both SpaceX & Boeing are making spacecraft like these. I've been looking forward to seeing both spacecraft flying for years already. I think it is interesting that Boeing is looking strongly at reuse of this spacecraft as well, noting that its heat shield can be replaced after each flight and all of the engineering and electronics can be used on another flight. That is a good thing and the proper direction that spacecraft builders need to go if space is going to become even remotely affordable for ordinary folks to go into space.

Don't compare.

Both Spacex's Dragon V2 and SNC's Dream Chaser are much more capable vehicles.

Patchuchan If the CST-100 weren't demonstrably viable, then it wouldn't have been selected for CCDev2. While the Dragon v2 and the Dream Chaser are cooler, this has the advantage of multiple launch vehicles AND a reliable design. I personally think the people at NASA know what they're doing.

Norr Stjarna I never said the CST-100 was not viable in fact from a technical standpoint it is the least risky design but that also is partly why it's does much less for the money then Dragon v2 and Dream Chaser. Though DC is a more complex design SNC was already in the metal bending phase as the drop test article is a prototype like how Enterprise was a prototype of the Shuttle. It's much closer to the flight vehicle then it is a boiler plate mockup.

All the CCDev2 vehicles are only meant for LEO. As far as I can tell, they're all equally capable; NASA just doesn't want one company to have a monopoly on private American spaceflight so they chose multiple vehicles. If you want a more capable vehicle, you'll have to find the Orion or the PPTV. And they're both government vehicles; one from NASA and one from RKA. As for the Dream Chaser, I honestly can't see much of an advantage to it being a lifting body. In fact, that probably just makes it more complex and accordingly less reliable.

Then they're going to use sextant, compass and dip their fingers into the fuel tank :)

Even it was old switches and the "system failed" it would not work

Tell that to the crew of Apollo 13 nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html

The space shuttle had everything go through the computer. Even when you were flying it manually, it could not fly without the computer running. They have everything important as analog switches for if the screens fail but they probably won't work in a total systems crash either.

They know better than to have a system that would fail easily and not have a backup. You talking about huge amount of engineers not some dumb people who decided to make a spaceship.

Yes it is. It's also their way to hog all the gov money to keep innovation out of the manned spacecraft business & keep us tied down to earth for 50 more years. If Boeing is chosen as the only provider, you can kiss CST-100 good-by after ISS is gone. They won't be able to close their business case commercially.

Too much

ride*

A-Town 92501 No, BOEING has had too much of the pie already. Werner had 1/1000 of the people and money and made exactly what they use today.. It is still a sausage that blows up if every screw is not tight. One launch vehicle, when so many could be designed and built with private money. Orville and Wilbur are probably laughing at how long it takes to complete a vehicle.

Fosters home for imaginary friends

play

playl

playl

There's a program where you pay $3000 and you get to be inside a Boeing aircraft doing different forms of gravity. Includ no zero g

+TheAllYouCan Watch Channel I mean including zero gravity

+TheAllYouCan Watch Channel yeah cause i just happend to have 3000 dollars in my pocket xD

+Andrew Hernandez Ever heard of skydiving? Duhhh.

+A. Mc that's not even close to experiencing something like zero g

Why? Every spacecraft to date has flown with max crew. The Apollo had room for 3 and flew with 3. Gemini had room for 2 and flew with 2. Soyuz has room for 3 and flies with three. The Shuttle had room for 7 and flew with 7. Mercury had room for 1 and flew with 1 (duh.) And CST-100 and Dragon V2 will have room for 7 and will fly with 7.

The ISS is only six people now because that's all two Soyuz can handle. They need the new craft to carry seven so they can add the seventh member to the crew. They'd like to be able to evacuate everybody without having to rely on the Soyuz capsules.

The reason why I said that is comfort. A person that pays all that money wants to be comfortable.

Herbert Grean If you want to use only 6 seats, you'll end up paying16 % more money for a seat. That's why they cram as many people as they can in (without compromising safety, of course).

Full HD doesn't land or launch the spacecraft, you know.

I know what you mean, not many 4k videos. Sad, always love watching those. So high-def.

First world problems

True. Boiengs capsule does feel like a step back in our space technology. Also, who in their right mind would pay for a trip in a flying (and failing) coffin? I'm glad other companies are smart enough to make roomier and more technology advanced spaceplanes.

The shuttle was only good because it didn't have to be replaced for each launch. Otherwise, it was not much better than a traditional rocket, and often less safe. A true SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) spaceplane would obviously be much more effective, but currently no-one has built one.

+Impwarhamer you should do some research before you post. The space shuttle was the crowning achievement for mankind for multiple reasons other than being reusable. Though a "true" SSTO spaceplane does not exist as of now (the amount of thrust necessary would be too great) Virgin Galactic has been very close to achieve this and is the most advanced model to date (2014). www.virgingalactic.com/overview/spaceships/

Merc Kirkmaximus Yes I know the shuttle was useful for other things than just 'being efficient', but i was just pointing out the advantages of a more traditional rocket.

The Space Shuttle, I'm sorry to say, failed on its promise. Its primary focus was to be a reusable craft to save on cost of building a new one each time. BUT, they didn't realize until after flying them, it cost more in manpower, equipment, and even cost to refurbish them after each flight than it would have to build a new one fresh. And even then, it was considerably less safe than the spacecraft previous. there was no launch abort capability. No escape options once the engines ignite. Hell, once the SRBs fire, you're stuck with them until they run out of fuel, or explode. Remember Challenger? There was NOTHING wrong with the spacecraft, it was the un-throttlable, uncontrollable, inescapable malfunctioning SRB rocket that spelled its demise. And lets not also forget that there were several safety features designed into the shuttle, including a seperatable crew cabin, ejection seats, inflatable escape pods, and parachutes.... and every single one of them was cut, because of budget constraints. ... MONEY taking precedent over Human lives..... You say returning to a capsule design is a step backward? I say the Space Shuttle was a step backward. And all it really was, was a giant space freight truck.

I love Strong Reactions From 13 year olds

Your Average videowatcher [Skeptic Commenter] What's the atmospheric structure of Saturn?

75% hydrogen and 25% helium also it has winds of up to 1800/km at the planets equator and the farther you get into saturn the more dense it is below the troposphere of saturn things get very werid clouds are made of ammonium hydrosulphide there it is werido.

here it is in picture form www.google.com/search?q=atmospheric+structure+of+saturn&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Eo4yVdCqEIekNsuUgZAM&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=799#imgrc=22FljJtCcNJUfM%253A%3B755xzFrg06AWEM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fzebu.uoregon.edu%252F~imamura%252F121%252Fimages%252Fsaturn_atmosphere.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fzebu.uoregon.edu%252F~imamura%252F121%252Flecture-13%252Fjupiter_atmosphere.html%3B600%3B400 sorry if its too long

Your Average videowatcher [Skeptic Commenter] So you don't know it. . . You Googled it. . . Smart.

***** there is nothing basic about any of this.

Jamie Godman Remember though, cutting edge does not always equal reliable or good. It doesn't matter how new and cutting edge spacex is if they aren't using reliable technology. and the best way to get reliable technology is to get PROVEN technology. You don't need to innovate. you just need to do your job.

Apollo was cutting edge for its time, so was the space shuttle. In fact almost every human rated spacecraft that has ever flown was cutting edge design at the time and not based on reliable technology. Apollo was a bit due to Gemini before it. I think your explanation is flawed. True the cst-100 will be reliable because it along with Orion are based off of Apollo, but DV2 will be just as reliable and inherently safer by design. Abort capability all the way to orbit, no LAS separation makes is safer and your not throwing it all away each launch. You also get dual use if you don't abort you can propulsively land. Nose cone is not ejected but reused and no fairing panels to cover mechanical solar panels. Dragons innovation will make it the safest spacecraft ever flown and have 2 different landing capabilities with 3 different landing options. No craft has ever had more than 1 way to land. How can dragon not be safer with these redundancies?

Jamie Godman xrddu

Jamie Godman l

+Jamie Godman the