NASA books second Boeing space taxi NASA reckons it's well on the way to restoring US human spaceflight capabilities with confirmation of the second booking for Boeing's CST-100 Starliner. Boeing - along with SpaceX and its Crew Dragon spacecraft - is moving towards establishing space taxi services to the International Space Station as part of the Commercial …
They could swop that straight into the Smithsonian to replace Apollo and few would spot the difference.
Looks like we need a third contender with something a little different and a tad more exciting. George Lucas launching something from Pinewood Studios? I would have said Stanley Kubrik who really knew how today's space vehicles should look back in 1968. Imaginative use of plywood. We could even save a bit of a forest and use this 'Starliner' as a double for Dr. Dave Bowman's Pod.
My lips never moved.
I would think that things would have changes in 50-odd (very odd) years; but, on the other hand, some things are just defined by what they do. Mayhap the engineers 50 years ago picked the ultimate best-function design, and as far as the shape and form, we've not had any significant updates to improve it.
It would be ungood to go changing things to make it look "more modern", that way lies joss sticks and whalesong, not to mention nasally fitted fire.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
If they're flying within WIFI range or in orbit in WIFI range, they're welcome to do whatever they want to do.
Seriously, if they are in orbit or flying alongside of a hypersonic rocket headed into orbit, do you honestly think they'll be breaking WPA2 Enterprise encryption?
and not 1965
So how does this capsule differ from the Mecrury ones of the mid 1960's. Sure there is some more high tech but shirley the all mighty USofA could come up with some new designs or was there no money left in the NASA budget for even a slight re-design.
Sad. How the mighty have fallen.
The chinese must be laughing at them.
Errr... I think the Chinese are pretty much mimicking the US and the Russian designs.
There are only so many variations on a shape which can sit on top of a rocket, contain personnel and equipment, be robust enough to maintain itself as a pressure vessel through multiple pressurisation / depressurisation cycles and have the requisite aerodynamics and toughness to survive multiple re-entries. The mention of a weld-less design indicates they are working on the durability,welds are a real point of weakness in a pressure cycling equipment.
What were you expecting? Something out of Flash Gordon with a control desk and decked out with vanes and pointy bits?
"What were you expecting? Something out of Flash Gordon with a control desk and decked out with vanes and pointy bits?"
That would be a good start. Then it needs rocket engines that sound like a blocked up vacuum cleaner and light up like a bunch of sparklers giving little, if any, apparent thrust while it lands softly on it's belly with no supporting thrust.
"So how does this capsule differ from the Mecrury ones of the mid 1960's."
We can tell that you're ignorant on the subject. Mercury was a 1950's program, Apollo was the entire 1960's through 1972.
Let's see, modern materiel, more leg room, different and much improved electronics, for starters.
The physics doesn't change because the year is different.
AFAIK the CST100 hasn't even left the Earths atmosphere (first flight Jan 2017 if it doesn't slip) whereas Dragon has done 3? cargo runs already. OK its not the crew version but surely it warrants better treatment than Boeing's paltry effort?
Can anyone say Pork?
I look forward to watching the Boeing date slip and Nasa having to go cap in hand to Space-X.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
