 Space News space history and artifacts articles Messages space history discussion forums Sightings worldwide astronaut appearances Resources selected space history documents Websites related space history websites |
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
| ||||||||
| Jay Chladek | All things considered, I was probably pulling for SNC the most, given that they are going with a design that probably has the highest risk, yet the capability for the highest reward in fast turnaround with it being potentially fully reuseable and capable of land landings on a runway. I just wish they could potentially have gotten more funding compared to the other two contractors. If they are less than a year away from approach and landing tests, do they plan to conduct those with a manned vehicle, or will it be an RPV version of the craft? | |||||||
| Robert Pearlman | According to the information released by NASA today, the only milestone under SNC's CCiCap award that involves flight testing uses an engineering test article. | |||||||
| Robert Pearlman | Space.com reports that the Dream Chaser is slated to fly on its own for the first time in the next six to eight weeks, a key drop-test milestone in the vehicle's quest to fly astronauts on roundtrip space missions. The Dream Chaser spacecraft, built by aerospace firm Sierra Nevada Corp., will be released by a carrier helicopter at an altitude of 12,000 feet (3,657 meters) or so, then fly back and land autonomously on a runway at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California. | |||||||
| Lou Chinal | quote:I have to agree with you Jay. I've done some calculations and have concluded that a small solid rocket could lift "Dream Chaser" high enough and with enough speed to make an approach to a runway. Assuming there is a runway next the launch pad. You would have to establish winds at launch for energy management. Now the question is would you want to reenter with that engine? | |||||||
| Jay Chladek | A solid motor for aborts likely won't be needed since the Dreamchaser will have a pair of OMS type motors onboard. Plus, the abort modes for the craft won't be as potentially nasty for the bird on an Atlas V rocket according to a couple of the Dreamchaser guys I talked with at STS-135 in 2011. Reason being, the Atlas being a liquid rocket can be shut down during an abort so the rockets needed to get the craft free don't require as much thrust. With the Orion Ares 1 stack (and indeed with SLS) with solids under thrust, the ATK designed LAS system needs to be as powerful as it is the get the capsule far away from a potentially out of control solid ASAP (or at least far enough away from the solid for range safety to detonate it). How the Dreamchaser would fare during recovery I would say is going to depend on its ditching characteristics. Shuttle was NOT a good craft to ditch in (thank goodness nobody ever had to put that to the test in real life), but the Dreamchaser being a lighter vehicle (although one with still a rather high wing loading) might do better. Still, a runway landing would be a much better prospect for the crew to survive such a worst case scenario. | |||||||
| Lou Chinal | Congress may insist on such a safety factor. | |||||||
| Jay Chladek | quote: I doubt Congress will have much say in the matter either way. Sure, they might dictate to NASA to ensure that the commercial services contractor has done as much as possible with a specific configuration for safety. But NASA would still have to make the final determination and with NASA, it will likely come down to running the numbers and statistical analysis to determine if such an abort motor system for Dreamchaser would indeed be an asset or a liability. Dreamchaser will have its own onboard OMS motors and they will likely provide more thrust than what the shuttle's did (because shuttle was a much heavier craft). Man rating the Atlas V might also involve setting up the upper stage for use as an abort motor as well (but I am just guessing there). | |||||||
| Lou Chinal | After everything is said and done, Congress is going to have put up the money. | |||||||
| dabolton | Love the fuzzy dice in the Dream Chaser engineering test article's cockpit. | |||||||
| Jay Chladek | quote: Yup, I just noticed that when I downloaded the high resolution images from NASA's image gallery. Rather cute I think. By the way, anyone else notice that Dream Chaser (and the shuttle for that matter) seem to have the same color scheme as dice (and for that matter, so did the Saturns)? There are some interesting parallels and ironies there when you think about it. | |||||||
| Aeropix | Of all the COTS companies, SNC seems most quiet about flight schedules, it's been very hard to find any current / recent news about them anywhere on the web. Does anybody know and can post their potential schedule for:
Is it just my impatience or does their development schedule seem ridiculously slow? I mean, the Space Shuttle announced in 1972 flew its ALT just 5 years later and all-up launch only 9 years later. SNC on the other hand announced the design for the vehicle in 2004 and hasn't even done the first ALT 9 years later, for a vehicle based on the HL20 while the shuttle was a clean sheet design first tested in 5 years? Makes me sad to see how little we can accomplish in America these days. Twice the money for half the success. Any thoughts? | |||||||
| issman1 | It all comes down to having sufficient financial resources. What has clearly impeded progress is whomsoever controls the purse strings. It seems commercial crew development has fast fallen out of favour with some of your elected representatives. Rumours abound that NASA will be forced to select only a single provider. Dream Chaser's shuttle heritage may not be enough, compared to the simplicity of Dragon Rider or CST-100. | |||||||
| SkyMan1958 | Let's not forget that SNC is also getting only half the amount of money that Boeing and SpaceX are getting from NASA. | |||||||
| Robert Pearlman | SNC delivered its engineering test article (ETA) to Dryden in May, and is now preparing it for a series of tow, captive-carry and free-flight tests to be conducted this year. A truck will tow the craft down a runway to validate performance of the nose strut, brakes and tires. The captive-carry flights will further examine the loads it will encounter during flight as it is carried by an Erickson Skycrane helicopter. The free flight later this year will test Dream Chaser's aerodynamics through landing.Specific dates for these tests have not been released, in part because they are driven by the pace of work and the outcome of each test. SNC is currently building its second Dream Chaser, a flight test vehicle (FTV) for additional drop tests, which will be followed by its first orbital vehicle (OV) to launch on an Atlas V in the 2015-16 timeframe. As with the other CCDev competitors, Dream Chaser is slated to be ready for its first flight to the International Space Station in 2017. It should be noted that NASA's agreement with the commercial spacecraft providers does not require public disclosure, and for now at least, the space agency is letting the companies decide how much (or how little) advance information is being released. But from this journalist's perspective, SNC has been as, or in some cases, more open about its development plans than Boeing and SpaceX. | |||||||
| GACspaceguy | quote:Not that bad in my books. Using my own background in Business Aviation, Honda Jet had first flight in December of 2003 and is still chasing certification which is now scheduled for 2014. Honda has put a lot of money in their program and it has still taken 10 years for them as a new entry in the field. | |||||||
| Aeropix | Thanks for the updates and analysis. | |||||||
| 328KF | I think SNC is the real sleeper in this competition and will rapidly pick up momentum and favor once they start their flight test program. There is a great desire to have a vehicle capable of a gentle, low-G re-entry to return more fragile equipment and samples from ISS, as well as an easier ride for a sick or incapacitated crewmember. There is probably a little cultural preference for a piloted landing to a runway, since NASA has nearly perfected that over the last 30 years. Of course, Orion is different, and is designed for a completely different mission. SNC has stacked the deck by hiring several former shuttle pilot types and they are likely looking to fly again, so I don't think they'd go to work for a runner-up operation. It seems there is a perception that SpaceX is in the lead due largely to Dragon's successful cargo runs, but as is often the case in government funded projects, particularly in aerospace, the first one out of the gate isn't always the first across the finish line. | |||||||
| Robert Pearlman | quote:SNC, Boeing and SpaceX have all hired former space shuttle commanders, some publicly acknowledged, some not yet. | |||||||
| 328KF | Yes, of course, but my point was that those astronauts would not have taken the job if they didn't think Dream Chaser had a chance. These guys are not being hired just for their flying skills and technical knowledge. They are being hired for their contacts within NASA and potential influence over the selection. Nobody wants or needs any "token astronauts" at this critical stage. I'll bet there is one group who thinks the only dignified way to return from space is by flying to a runway. Then there's another group who doesn't care how they get into space or back, so long as they get there. | |||||||
advertisement