Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
In my opinion SNC shot themselves in the foot by not releasing the footage.
The flight did look quite good but we need to remember this isn't a plane competition it's a spacecraft competition. Do runways landing introduce an extra failure mode with the landing gear?
Personally I'd be a little annoyed if SNC was paid out for that test. It did not demonstrate it could land safely on wheels and skid from drop speed. They should be held accountable for their failure and try again. If they skimped on the landing gear by using salvaged parts that failed they need to own up to it.
Quote from: mr. mark on 10/31/2013 03:06 pmNice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle. I'd sure like to see a Capsule & a Lifting Body make the selection. Were that the case though, I suspect the CST-100 would be the one cut & I doubt that their political connections would let that happen.Excellent article Chris, thank you.
Before people can make absolute predictions on what vehicles survive any down select, does anybody here know NASA's criteria for a selection? How important is it that one of the vehicles has a a wide cross range for landing opening more windows for landing? How important is it that one of the vehicles has a low g-load during landing for returning experiments from orbit? How important is it that a second vehicle is available in the same time frame as the first? I don't doubt that lobbying has some influence on the decision, but I also do believe that questions like the ones I posed do have some weight in NASA's decision making process.
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
Quote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 10/31/2013 06:48 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system
Quote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 07:12 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 10/31/2013 06:48 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system I know, but Boeing is part owner of ULA...
BTW, I like the thought that the apparent survivability of the crash may be seen as a valuable / attractive result in itself, even though unintended (and won't count towards milestones).cheers, Martin
I didn't see if anyone asked this yet (sorry if they did), but are the hydraulic systems on this DC ETA capable of retracting the landing gear in-flight if an anomaly like this happens again? Better to do a belly landing with no gear than land with just one main and take a tumble, IMO.-Mike
One thing that wasn't mentionned is that SNC will either do an another unmanned or a piloted test flight next (likely next year).
That original goal was to conduct one or two approach-and-landing free-flight tests with this ETA, before returning the vehicle to her home base in Colorado for outfitting ahead of the 2014 crewed version of the test flights.SNC will evaluate if they will repair the ETA for another automated flight test, or if to ship her back to Colorado for outfitting.“We will determine (that) if and when we receive enough data from this flight, because we were so successful we think we did receive all the data we need for testing,” Mr. Sirangelo continued. ”But we will determine if we do need that second flight, or if we want to bring the vehicle back for its next set of test flights early next year.”