Author Topic: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System  (Read 63091 times)

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« on: 03/17/2015 04:53 PM »
Looks like the announcement is coming up soon:

https://twitter.com/SNCspacesystems/status/577878296358051840

"SNC's Space Systems
‏@SNCspacesystems
Today we debut the Dream Chaser® Cargo System #backinblack #staytuned #CRS2"

Opening up new thread for discussion of the bid.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #1 on: 03/17/2015 06:20 PM »
https://twitter.com/SNCspacesystems/status/577912034383138816

"SNC's Space Systems
‏@SNCspacesystems
The Dream Chaser® Cargo System has a folded wing design to fit inside a standard fairing for multiple launch vehicles"

Cool picture. Kind of surprised they went with an in-fairing system. Maybe simplifies things significantly, when you don't have to worry about crewed abort cases.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #2 on: 03/17/2015 06:21 PM »
fits in a 5meter fairing. Has a support module on back. 5550 kg. press and unpress.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #3 on: 03/17/2015 06:23 PM »
Jeff Foust doing his thing again, too.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/577906902178234368

SNC’s Mark Sirangelo says this is “next step” in the evolution of Dream Chaser. Fits in Atlas 5 fairing, has module w/solar panels on back.
Steve Lindsey: cargo module attached to aft port of Dream Chaser accommodate add’l pressurized and unpressurized cargo. #satshow
Lindsey: can carry a total of 5,550 kg upmass (pressurized and unpress) to ISS, exceeds NASA requirements for CRS2. #satshow
Sirangelo: besides Ariane 5 and Atlas 5, can launch on Delta 4, H-2, possibly Falcon 9. #satshow
Lindsey: can return cargo gently (1.5g max in reentry), runway landing, quick access to cargo after landing. #satshow

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #4 on: 03/17/2015 06:24 PM »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/577913004425007104

Lindsey: will do a second Dream Chaser glide test by the end of this year (1st was in October 2013).

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #5 on: 03/17/2015 06:25 PM »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/577913512212635648

Lindsey: still working with Lockheed Martin on manufacturing the first orbital vehicle. #satshow

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #6 on: 03/17/2015 06:28 PM »
Inside the fairing? The folding wings seem like quite a change. Is this the smaller or full size DC?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4238
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #7 on: 03/17/2015 06:48 PM »
https://twitter.com/SNCspacesystems/status/577912034383138816

"SNC's Space Systems
‏@SNCspacesystems
The Dream Chaser® Cargo System has a folded wing design to fit inside a standard fairing for multiple launch vehicles"

Cool picture. Kind of surprised they went with an in-fairing system. Maybe simplifies things significantly, when you don't have to worry about crewed abort cases.

I'm thinking it eliminates the need for a custom aerodynamic adapter for each vehicle so you can treat it as a typical payload.
It being LV agnostic would free it from RD-180 supply issues or it's LV getting grounded due to an accident.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 06:48 PM by Patchouli »

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • Liked: 952
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #8 on: 03/17/2015 06:51 PM »
"Possibly" Falcon, interesting.  Is the Falcon9 PLF too short?  That would seem to be a "yes/no" kind of deal though.

IMHO this is SNC's only shot to get funding to develop a Dream Chaser variant.  Hope their proposal is competitive enough, I'd like to see it happen.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #9 on: 03/17/2015 06:52 PM »
another picture:

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #10 on: 03/17/2015 07:05 PM »
One major weakness: Still using a docking APAS (or whatever they're calling it these days), not a CBM. Means a smaller diameter for cargo, and no racks. This will carry up a large quantity of food, supplies, etc., but zero large experiments. I wonder how much of the Dragon downmass so far is experiment results that wouldn't fit through the smaller diameter hatch.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #11 on: 03/17/2015 07:07 PM »
I also think them calling out Ariane 5 and H-2 compatibility means they'd sell it to ESA or JAXA for any future cargo requirements. Maybe ESA barters out a few more crew slots in exchange for a couple Ariane 5's and a DCCV or two.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #12 on: 03/17/2015 09:11 PM »
I also think them calling out Ariane 5 and H-2 compatibility means they'd sell it to ESA or JAXA for any future cargo requirements. Maybe ESA barters out a few more crew slots in exchange for a couple Ariane 5's and a DCCV or two.
Italy would block such a deal, they want to develop their own mini shuttle.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Liked: 365
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #13 on: 03/17/2015 09:28 PM »
Were this to happen, it would be good and would prove the DC TRL for the full-scale vehicle.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 09:28 PM by Bob Shaw »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #14 on: 03/17/2015 10:36 PM »
Inside the fairing? The folding wings seem like quite a change.
Reminds me of BOR-4.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #15 on: 03/17/2015 10:50 PM »
I don't see any orbital maneuvering engines depicted in these graphics... I wonder what the plan is.

Also, here's an image from their Facebook announcement:

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #16 on: 03/17/2015 10:55 PM »
Copied from the Dream Chaser update thread:

http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=426

SPARKS, Nev. (March 17, 2015) – Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)  unveiled a new Dream Chaser® mission variant today, the Dream Chaser Cargo System, SNC’s complete system solution for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) contract.

The Dream Chaser Cargo System features include: an innovative folding-wing design which allows the Dream Chaser spacecraft to fit inside existing fairings, making it compatible with a suite of launch vehicles; the ability to exceed all of NASA’s cargo requirements for pressurized and unpressurized cargo during flights to the International Space Station (ISS); high reusability, allowing it to serve the required number of missions for the full life expectancy of the ISS; non-toxic, non-hypergolic propulsion system and other fluids; low-g entry to a runway landing with immediate access to cargo.

“SNC is proud to offer NASA a complete system that exceeds all criteria set forth by NASA in the proposal,” said Mark N. Sirangelo, corporate vice president and head of SNC’s Space Systems. “The autonomous and upgraded Dream Chaser Cargo System is a mission variant of the Dream Chaser Space System, whose heritage includes over 10 years of development and maturation, the last five of which were complete as part of an ongoing public-private partnership between SNC and NASA.  Our Dream Chaser Cargo System provides unrivaled capability for pressurized and unpressurized cargo transportation, including accelerated return of cargo and critical science on every mission. It also enables a wide portfolio of other space exploration capabilities, including servicing/construction for future space stations, satellite servicing and deployment, as well as retrieval and orbital debris removal.  SNC continues to grow its U.S. team which has expanded to 30 states.  We are also expanding our international partnerships, and have agreements in place with many of the current ISS partners and global space agencies.  Our SNC team looks forward to becoming a cargo transportation provider for NASA missions.”

« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 10:56 PM by AnalogMan »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #17 on: 03/17/2015 10:58 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5164
  • Likes Given: 1252
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #18 on: 03/17/2015 11:17 PM »
Video on youtube:



(Bonus points for accurately depicting the station reconfiguration!)

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #19 on: 03/17/2015 11:26 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Hmmm, if you ask me it looks like those thrusters are aimed at the solar panels...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779

Offline Mike Harris-Stone

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • United States
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #21 on: 03/18/2015 04:07 AM »
I also think them calling out Ariane 5 and H-2 compatibility means they'd sell it to ESA or JAXA for any future cargo requirements. Maybe ESA barters out a few more crew slots in exchange for a couple Ariane 5's and a DCCV or two.
Italy would block such a deal, they want to develop their own mini shuttle.

For What its Worth, an article in an Italian news blog last week reported a deal between the Italian Air force and SNC to study the use of DC.

http://www.legnostorto.com/ami-e-sierra-nevada-firmano-un-accordo-per-il-dream-chaser-11703.html


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #22 on: 03/18/2015 04:29 AM »
It looks to me like the Dream Chaser Cargo has a much higher development cost and schedule risk than any of the other known CRS2 proposals.  Not only do they have to do a huge amount of development on Dream Chaser itself, but they also have to develop a service module.  The service module probably won't be developed entirely from scratch since SNC has some experience in the area, but I think they're a lot farther away from a service module than LM is from Jupiter.

The service module is also going to add to their per-mission costs.  Being compatible with a variety of launch vehicles is definitely a step in the right direction on cost, but for CRS-2 they will have had to propose missions with a specific launch vehicle partner.  Launching on Ariane isn't allowed by the CRS-2 rules, as I understand them, so unless SpaceX signed onto their bid (which I highly doubt for competive reasons), they're still stuck with Atlas V.  With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.

So I don't think they can compete with SpaceX on price for downmass.  And OrbitalATK and LM proposals have much more cargo per trip, so I don't think they can compete with either of those bids.

I think it's not impossible Dream Chaser could pick up something from CRS-2, but it's a long shot.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #23 on: 03/18/2015 04:41 AM »
With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.
Is Boeing and Lockheed even allowed to give themselves special pricing?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #24 on: 03/18/2015 05:15 AM »
With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.
Is Boeing and Lockheed even allowed to give themselves special pricing?

ULA is a separate company.  ULA can choose who it wants to give better deals to.  Boeing and Lockheed don't dictate those decisions.  But ULA management knows who sits on its board and its probably not good for their careers to make Boeing and Lockheed unhappy.

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #25 on: 03/18/2015 06:04 AM »
One major weakness: Still using a docking APAS (or whatever they're calling it these days), not a CBM. Means a smaller diameter for cargo, and no racks. This will carry up a large quantity of food, supplies, etc., but zero large experiments. I wonder how much of the Dragon downmass so far is experiment results that wouldn't fit through the smaller diameter hatch.

Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4496
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3049
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #26 on: 03/18/2015 09:24 AM »
ULA is a separate company.  ULA can choose who it wants to give better deals to.  Boeing and Lockheed don't dictate those decisions.  But ULA management knows who sits on its board and its probably not good for their careers to make Boeing and Lockheed unhappy.

Maybe but I think what ULA really cares about is maximising their chances of at least one of the CRS2 providers using their LVs. After having significant guaranteed business ULA are having to adapt to what is becoming a competitive environment. They'll take whatever launch business they can get.

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • France
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #27 on: 03/18/2015 12:07 PM »
Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?

LM's proposal seems to use the CBM.

Besides, the ISS will only have 2 NDS ports. At least one will have a commercial crew vehicle attached to it at all times. The other has to remain available for contingency and crew rotations.

I don't see how an NDS-equipped commercial cargo vehicle can fit into that scheme.



Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #28 on: 03/18/2015 03:07 PM »
Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?

LM's proposal seems to use the CBM.

Besides, the ISS will only have 2 NDS ports. At least one will have a commercial crew vehicle attached to it at all times. The other has to remain available for contingency and crew rotations.

I don't see how an NDS-equipped commercial cargo vehicle can fit into that scheme.

I didn't even think of the ISS port utilization issues, but you're right - the cargo vehicles can't use the NDS port. But the renderings certainly don't look like a CBM, nor do I see a point for the arm to grab. That could be explained by using an old rendering model that used the NDS, but it always looked like a tight fit, so I wonder if the CBM would require a large structural redesign.

Or, possibly the entire reason for the service module is so you can put the CBM on *that*, and have the smaller interface into the reusable DC section, and so not doing a major structural redesign of Dream Chaser. In that scheme, you could put your CBM-diameter racks and ORUs into the service module, and DC would contain all the smaller items.

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #29 on: 03/18/2015 03:34 PM »
One major weakness: Still using a docking APAS (or whatever they're calling it these days), not a CBM. Means a smaller diameter for cargo, and no racks. This will carry up a large quantity of food, supplies, etc., but zero large experiments. I wonder how much of the Dragon downmass so far is experiment results that wouldn't fit through the smaller diameter hatch.

Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?

Berthing is preferred, but docking is permitted.

Quote from: CRS2 RFI
NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag.  If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter.

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • France
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #30 on: 03/18/2015 03:36 PM »
Or, possibly the entire reason for the service module is so you can put the CBM on *that*, and have the smaller interface into the reusable DC section, and so not doing a major structural redesign of Dream Chaser. In that scheme, you could put your CBM-diameter racks and ORUs into the service module, and DC would contain all the smaller items.

I agree, that would make sense, but the rendering specifically shows DC with an NDS port docking (not berthing) to a PMA.

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #31 on: 03/18/2015 05:04 PM »
NASA has a tough choice ahead, but DCSS could squeak in.

If SpaceX and Orbital get the primary CRS2 contracts as they did with CRS1, they'll again provide dissimilar services. SpaceX has its modest upmass thanks to the cramped capsule but also includes unpressurized upmass and extremely important return downmass capability. Orbital has much larger upmass due to the large volume of Cygnus and soon Enhanced Cygnus, and disposes of ISS's trash when it burns up after mission end.

DCSS can backstop both craft: SpaceX's unpressurized upmass and return downmass, as well as Cygnus' large volume (with both DC's internal space and the pressurized external pod) and trash disposal (when the pod detaches and burns up during reentry). And if DCSS flies on Atlas V, then that's a third rocket providing services to the ISS, after SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital's Antares (well, Antares II, I guess).

With those three flying CRS2 missions, if any provider is forced to stand down launches, NASA won't lose any capability.
TriOptimum Corporation
Military - Science - Consumer

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #32 on: 03/18/2015 07:27 PM »

NASA has a tough choice ahead, but DCSS could squeak in.

If SpaceX and Orbital get the primary CRS2 contracts as they did with CRS1, they'll again provide dissimilar services. SpaceX has its modest upmass thanks to the cramped capsule but also includes unpressurized upmass and extremely important return downmass capability. Orbital has much larger upmass due to the large volume of Cygnus and soon Enhanced Cygnus, and disposes of ISS's trash when it burns up after mission end.

DCSS can backstop both craft: SpaceX's unpressurized upmass and return downmass, as well as Cygnus' large volume (with both DC's internal space and the pressurized external pod) and trash disposal (when the pod detaches and burns up during reentry). And if DCSS flies on Atlas V, then that's a third rocket providing services to the ISS, after SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital's Antares (well, Antares II, I guess).

With those three flying CRS2 missions, if any provider is forced to stand down launches, NASA won't lose any capability.

I feel there is very little chance now especially that LM has thrown their hat into the ring. DCSS looks like it would take a lot of time & effort to get to where it needs to be & I just don't see that happening.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #33 on: 03/18/2015 07:31 PM »
It's reported as being able to perform station boosts.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #34 on: 03/18/2015 08:18 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Hmmm, if you ask me it looks like those thrusters are aimed at the solar panels...

To use the tail thrusters to slow down I would expect the Dream Chaser to be flying backwards. It would turn around after the burn.

Boosting the station! How? The thrusters point to wards to station. Unless there is an additional set of thrusters somewhere that point towards the nose of the spacecraft.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #35 on: 03/18/2015 08:26 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Hmmm, if you ask me it looks like those thrusters are aimed at the solar panels...

To use the tail thrusters to slow down I would expect the Dream Chaser to be flying backwards. It would turn around after the burn.

Boosting the station! How? The thrusters point to wards to station. Unless there is an additional set of thrusters somewhere that point towards the nose of the spacecraft.

There are RCS thrusters on the nose.

Shuttle didn't reboost with the big OMS engines, they use relatively small maneuvering thrusters.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #36 on: 03/18/2015 08:51 PM »
I also think them calling out Ariane 5 and H-2 compatibility means they'd sell it to ESA or JAXA for any future cargo requirements. Maybe ESA barters out a few more crew slots in exchange for a couple Ariane 5's and a DCCV or two.
Italy would block such a deal, they want to develop their own mini shuttle.

For What its Worth, an article in an Italian news blog last week reported a deal between the Italian Air force and SNC to study the use of DC.

http://www.legnostorto.com/ami-e-sierra-nevada-firmano-un-accordo-per-il-dream-chaser-11703.html
Hah, got to use my Italian today... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1249
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #37 on: 03/18/2015 10:45 PM »
It looks to me like the Dream Chaser Cargo has a much higher development cost and schedule risk than any of the other known CRS2 proposals.  Not only do they have to do a huge amount of development on Dream Chaser itself, but they also have to develop a service module.  The service module probably won't be developed entirely from scratch since SNC has some experience in the area, but I think they're a lot farther away from a service module than LM is from Jupiter.

The service module is also going to add to their per-mission costs.  Being compatible with a variety of launch vehicles is definitely a step in the right direction on cost, but for CRS-2 they will have had to propose missions with a specific launch vehicle partner.  Launching on Ariane isn't allowed by the CRS-2 rules, as I understand them, so unless SpaceX signed onto their bid (which I highly doubt for competive reasons), they're still stuck with Atlas V.  With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.

So I don't think they can compete with SpaceX on price for downmass.  And OrbitalATK and LM proposals have much more cargo per trip, so I don't think they can compete with either of those bids.

I think it's not impossible Dream Chaser could pick up something from CRS-2, but it's a long shot.

I agree on the development costs and the long shot.
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
Does Cargo Dream Chaser still include the Dual Engine Centaur?
(Does the LM's proposal use a single or dual engine Centaur?)
Isn't that another element to be developed?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #38 on: 03/18/2015 10:52 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Hmmm, if you ask me it looks like those thrusters are aimed at the solar panels...

To use the tail thrusters to slow down I would expect the Dream Chaser to be flying backwards. It would turn around after the burn.

Boosting the station! How? The thrusters point to wards to station. Unless there is an additional set of thrusters somewhere that point towards the nose of the spacecraft.

I'm not following. The solar panels are in the way of the thrusters regardless of whether you're flying forwards or backwards WRT the ISS. Also, you need the ability to brake/abort the approach in the last few moments before docking, i.e. you need these station-facing thrusters to be available. I think the obvious answer is the graphics are just wrong; in reality the panels would be hinged at a different location, and can be folded out of the way of the thruster plume during docking.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 10:54 PM by adrianwyard »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #39 on: 03/18/2015 10:57 PM »
It looks to me like the Dream Chaser Cargo has a much higher development cost and schedule risk than any of the other known CRS2 proposals.  Not only do they have to do a huge amount of development on Dream Chaser itself, but they also have to develop a service module.  The service module probably won't be developed entirely from scratch since SNC has some experience in the area, but I think they're a lot farther away from a service module than LM is from Jupiter.

The service module is also going to add to their per-mission costs.  Being compatible with a variety of launch vehicles is definitely a step in the right direction on cost, but for CRS-2 they will have had to propose missions with a specific launch vehicle partner.  Launching on Ariane isn't allowed by the CRS-2 rules, as I understand them, so unless SpaceX signed onto their bid (which I highly doubt for competive reasons), they're still stuck with Atlas V.  With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.

So I don't think they can compete with SpaceX on price for downmass.  And OrbitalATK and LM proposals have much more cargo per trip, so I don't think they can compete with either of those bids.

I think it's not impossible Dream Chaser could pick up something from CRS-2, but it's a long shot.

I agree on the development costs and the long shot.
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
Does Cargo Dream Chaser still include the Dual Engine Centaur?
(Does the LM's proposal use a single or dual engine Centaur?)
Isn't that another element to be developed?
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=691
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 01:17 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #40 on: 03/18/2015 11:01 PM »
Assuming Boeing delivers on its CST-100 commercial crew contract, then requiring Dual Engine Centaur for CRS-2 seems reasonable.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #41 on: 03/18/2015 11:35 PM »
It looks to me like the Dream Chaser Cargo has a much higher development cost and schedule risk than any of the other known CRS2 proposals.  Not only do they have to do a huge amount of development on Dream Chaser itself, but they also have to develop a service module.  The service module probably won't be developed entirely from scratch since SNC has some experience in the area, but I think they're a lot farther away from a service module than LM is from Jupiter.

The service module is also going to add to their per-mission costs.  Being compatible with a variety of launch vehicles is definitely a step in the right direction on cost, but for CRS-2 they will have had to propose missions with a specific launch vehicle partner.  Launching on Ariane isn't allowed by the CRS-2 rules, as I understand them, so unless SpaceX signed onto their bid (which I highly doubt for competive reasons), they're still stuck with Atlas V.  With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.

So I don't think they can compete with SpaceX on price for downmass.  And OrbitalATK and LM proposals have much more cargo per trip, so I don't think they can compete with either of those bids.

I think it's not impossible Dream Chaser could pick up something from CRS-2, but it's a long shot.

I agree on the development costs and the long shot.
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
Does Cargo Dream Chaser still include the Dual Engine Centaur?
(Does the LM's proposal use a single or dual engine Centaur?)
Isn't that another element to be developed?
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #42 on: 03/19/2015 12:12 AM »
I feel there is very little chance now especially that LM has thrown their hat into the ring. DCSS looks like it would take a lot of time & effort to get to where it needs to be & I just don't see that happening.

And Jupiter/ExoLiner won't take a lot of time and effort?

A full, autonomous space tug versus a pressurized tin can with a docking adapter on the end? A cargo version of Dream Chaser is likely simpler and easier than a crewed version -- what with not having to ensure astronaut safety and all, so no abort engines, no ECLSS -- and the crew version was only a couple of years from flying. Folding wings and a fairing simplifies things, and folding wings have been used for decades on military aircraft pulling higher Gs than DC will returning from orbit.

In the long run Jupiter is likely a better investment and would be very cool to see fly, but for the purposes of CRS2 -- which is all NASA is concerned with -- I'm not at all certain that DCCS wouldn't be a better choice.
TriOptimum Corporation
Military - Science - Consumer

Offline Mike Harris-Stone

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • United States
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #43 on: 03/19/2015 01:43 AM »
It looks to me like the Dream Chaser Cargo has a much higher development cost and schedule risk than any of the other known CRS2 proposals.  Not only do they have to do a huge amount of development on Dream Chaser itself, but they also have to develop a service module.  The service module probably won't be developed entirely from scratch since SNC has some experience in the area, but I think they're a lot farther away from a service module than LM is from Jupiter.

The service module is also going to add to their per-mission costs.  Being compatible with a variety of launch vehicles is definitely a step in the right direction on cost, but for CRS-2 they will have had to propose missions with a specific launch vehicle partner.  Launching on Ariane isn't allowed by the CRS-2 rules, as I understand them, so unless SpaceX signed onto their bid (which I highly doubt for competive reasons), they're still stuck with Atlas V.  With both LM and Boeing submitting competing CRS-2 bids, ULA probably didn't offer SNC a particularly special deal on Atlas V for DC for CRS-2.

So I don't think they can compete with SpaceX on price for downmass.  And OrbitalATK and LM proposals have much more cargo per trip, so I don't think they can compete with either of those bids.

I think it's not impossible Dream Chaser could pick up something from CRS-2, but it's a long shot.

I agree on the development costs and the long shot.
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
Does Cargo Dream Chaser still include the Dual Engine Centaur?
(Does the LM's proposal use a single or dual engine Centaur?)
Isn't that another element to be developed?
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...

Actually, the HL-20 itself was possibly going to have folding wings so it could meet the requirement of fitting in an orbiter's payload bay.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #44 on: 03/19/2015 05:11 AM »
NASA has a tough choice ahead, but DCSS could squeak in.

If SpaceX and Orbital get the primary CRS2 contracts as they did with CRS1, they'll again provide dissimilar services. SpaceX has its modest upmass thanks to the cramped capsule but also includes unpressurized upmass and extremely important return downmass capability. Orbital has much larger upmass due to the large volume of Cygnus and soon Enhanced Cygnus, and disposes of ISS's trash when it burns up after mission end.

DCSS can backstop both craft: SpaceX's unpressurized upmass and return downmass, as well as Cygnus' large volume (with both DC's internal space and the pressurized external pod) and trash disposal (when the pod detaches and burns up during reentry). And if DCSS flies on Atlas V, then that's a third rocket providing services to the ISS, after SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital's Antares (well, Antares II, I guess).

With those three flying CRS2 missions, if any provider is forced to stand down launches, NASA won't lose any capability.

I sure hope not.

The way to reduce costs is with more scale.  Dividing the work among more vehicles just means each one has less scale and costs more.

NASA shouldn't choose more than two providers for CRS-2.  That gives redundancy for getting cargo to the station, which is the most important thing.  In the CRS-2 timeframe, some additional downmass will be provided by the two commercial crew vehicles.  They don't need two different CRS-2 providers to both provide downmass.

Even if there is a failure of one of the CRS-2 systems, the downtime is unlikely to be very long, especially if it's one of the systems that is already in use for CRS-1.  It doesn't carry crew, so they don't have to be so paranoid after a failure.  It's OK to launch again if needed even before they are certain of the root cause.  And if it's one of the CRS-1 systems, a fundamental flaw that makes the system very likely to fail, such as the one Orbital is dealing with now, just isn't going to happen because the systems will already have flown to ISS so many times that any such fundamental flaws already would have been found.  Even if they find a flaw that makes it only 95% reliable, it's still OK to keep launching commercial cargo missions before they fix the flaw.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #45 on: 03/19/2015 05:21 AM »
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Yeah, but the carrier airplane wings are folded by ground crews.  They don't have to be folded autonomously in space.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible, just that it adds mass and complexity and cost.  None of those things helps Dream Chaser cargo compete against the other proposals, none of which have to deal with folding wings.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #46 on: 03/19/2015 05:28 AM »
I feel there is very little chance now especially that LM has thrown their hat into the ring. DCSS looks like it would take a lot of time & effort to get to where it needs to be & I just don't see that happening.

And Jupiter/ExoLiner won't take a lot of time and effort?

Not nearly as much as Dream Chaser.

A full, autonomous space tug versus a pressurized tin can with a docking adapter on the end?

That autonomous space tug is put together from existing, proven pieces.  The core of it is the same as MAVEN, which is in orbit around Mars right now.  SNC is starting with much less on their service module, and that doesn't even count Dream Chaser itself.

Remember, SNC's bid for Crew Dream Chaser was $2.4 billion.  Even if they can cut some of that for the crew version, that's a lot of money.

A cargo version of Dream Chaser is likely simpler and easier than a crewed version -- what with not having to ensure astronaut safety and all, so no abort engines, no ECLSS -- and the crew version was only a couple of years from flying.

And $2.4 billion away from flying.

Folding wings and a fairing simplifies things, and folding wings have been used for decades on military aircraft pulling higher Gs than DC will returning from orbit.

Folding wings may simplify some things, but it makes other things more complex.  There are no aircraft carrier crew members to fold/unfold and lock/unlock the wings.  They'll need to have actuators and locking mechanisms.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #47 on: 03/19/2015 06:04 AM »
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Yeah, but the carrier airplane wings are folded by ground crews.  They don't have to be folded autonomously in space.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible, just that it adds mass and complexity and cost.  None of those things helps Dream Chaser cargo compete against the other proposals, none of which have to deal with folding wings.

What makes you think the wings on carrier aircraft are folded by ground crew? Not that this small point makes any difference to the bigger argument, but there's no harm in being factually correct.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #48 on: 03/19/2015 06:24 AM »
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Yeah, but the carrier airplane wings are folded by ground crews.  They don't have to be folded autonomously in space.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible, just that it adds mass and complexity and cost.  None of those things helps Dream Chaser cargo compete against the other proposals, none of which have to deal with folding wings.

What makes you think the wings on carrier aircraft are folded by ground crew? Not that this small point makes any difference to the bigger argument, but there's no harm in being factually correct.

I can't see why they would build a carrier aircraft with wings that can be folded by the pilot from the cockpit.  It would be like designing a car that lets you remove the wheels from the driver's seat.  It seems obvious to me it's better to require someone to physically go up to the wheel with a lug wrench and unbolt the wheel, both because it prevents accidental, catastrophic removal of the wheel while driving and because it would be a bunch of extra complexity that's not needed because there's no reason to remove the wheel except when the vehicle is stopped and you can physically access it.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #49 on: 03/19/2015 06:43 AM »
Well you need to tell the Navy they're doing it wrong then! See F/A-18 and others.

The (very small) point for this discussion is that you are incorrect when you say SNC will be doing something new with a folding wing. It can still be a bad idea, just not a new one. Perhaps we can get back to bigger scale issues now?
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 06:44 AM by adrianwyard »

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #50 on: 03/19/2015 06:44 AM »
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Yeah, but the carrier airplane wings are folded by ground crews.  They don't have to be folded autonomously in space.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible, just that it adds mass and complexity and cost.  None of those things helps Dream Chaser cargo compete against the other proposals, none of which have to deal with folding wings.

What makes you think the wings on carrier aircraft are folded by ground crew? Not that this small point makes any difference to the bigger argument, but there's no harm in being factually correct.

I can't see why they would build a carrier aircraft with wings that can be folded by the pilot from the cockpit.  It would be like designing a car that lets you remove the wheels from the driver's seat.  It seems obvious to me it's better to require someone to physically go up to the wheel with a lug wrench and unbolt the wheel, both because it prevents accidental, catastrophic removal of the wheel while driving and because it would be a bunch of extra complexity that's not needed because there's no reason to remove the wheel except when the vehicle is stopped and you can physically access it.
While I might have supposed something similar...

We don't need suppositions when we have facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, the E-2C, the EA-6B, the V-22, and the F/A-18.  The last one is now the base platform for the vast majority of USAF carrier aircraft.


« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 06:48 AM by Burninate »

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #51 on: 03/19/2015 06:54 AM »
Lest you think this is new or expensive technology, the F-4U Corsair from 1944:


Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • France
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #52 on: 03/19/2015 07:28 AM »
The old Russian BOR-4 had folding wings too.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #53 on: 03/19/2015 10:03 AM »

We don't need suppositions when we have facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, the E-2C, the EA-6B, the V-22, and the F/A-18.  The last one is now the base platform for the vast majority of USAF carrier aircraft.


Not relevant.  None of those perform reentry,  have TPS on them or deal with high velocity hot gas.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 10:04 AM by Jim »

Offline Baranquilla

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #54 on: 03/19/2015 10:56 AM »

We don't need suppositions when we have facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, the E-2C, the EA-6B, the V-22, and the F/A-18.  The last one is now the base platform for the vast majority of USAF carrier aircraft.


Not relevant.  None of those perform reentry,  have TPS on them or deal with high velocity hot gas.

At least some of these aircraft are/were fighter jets (being able to take some serious g forces). Maybe we can conclude that making such a folding system (as far as structural integrity is concerned)  has been done BUT that combining that with a heatshield, etc is novel. This will indeed make for a higher risk factor and a higher price.

Personally I don't think it will get selected. That Trunk looks like it was conceived 5 minutes before the deadline.
PS: Maybe this should become a discussion thread.
Because it's there - George Mallory

Offline jsgirald

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #55 on: 03/19/2015 11:12 AM »
Just a crackpot idea.

That SM somehow reminds me of the Jupiter tug. Pairing the tug with the spaceplane might make a fully reusable orbital system.  8)
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert".

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #56 on: 03/19/2015 11:23 AM »
I must have missed it but why would the cargo Dream Chaser need to be inside a fairing?

Offline Baranquilla

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #57 on: 03/19/2015 11:27 AM »
I must have missed it but why would the cargo Dream Chaser need to be inside a fairing?

Aerodynamics, IMHO. Stresses on the launch vehicle are less in a payload fairing I think, plus hasn't SNC always said they want to be able to launch on several vehicles?
Because it's there - George Mallory

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #58 on: 03/19/2015 11:29 AM »
I must have missed it but why would the cargo Dream Chaser need to be inside a fairing?
It simplifies the aerodynamics for the launch vehicle and the avionics/guidance system with little modification from standard.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • France
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #59 on: 03/19/2015 12:47 PM »
Yes, but except for the new aft module with unpressurized bits and solar panels sticking out, the aerodynamics haven't changed since the CCDev proposal and the avionics should be the same.

Surely it would have been much lighter to just put a fairing around the aft module or make it fit inside the adapter.

Why does DC all of a sudden need a fairing and solar panels when the manned version didn't? Or was the original CCDev proposal too optimistic about the aero loads and avionics?

Online MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 624
  • Likes Given: 1091
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #60 on: 03/19/2015 12:53 PM »
I appreciate the concept that SNC offers, but, like some of you, it's the use of the IDA port and the extra service module that makes DC Cargo a strange beast to challenge SpaceX, Boeing, Orbital and Lockheed combined.

Using the Common Berthing Mechanism simply makes large cargo easy to manage. To mix crew apples with cargo oranges by occupying one of the IDAs, especially if a crew vehicle arrives and finds a technical problem that prohibits the use of the remaining IDA, is a serious challenge. A redesign of the service module to become an CBM port would fix this.

The DC certainly has the best recovery option in terms of speed. You can practically unload this ship moments after safeing it. But, speed of off-loading isn't a mission issue, is it? After all, there's no crew, and this isn't carrying luggage that needs to meet a connecting flight. So SNC's video creates a rather misleading notion that cargo transfer is important once back on Earth.

I think that DC Cargo has a slight edge over Lockheed's Jupiter in terms of cargo return. But with CST-100 Cargo also offering this, Boeing's clout shadow hangs once again over SNC's effort, I fear.

DC Cargo offer more upmass than Dragon and way more than CST-100 Cargo based on my checks, but Expanded Cygnus and Jupiter easily trump this. Downmass, it would be comparable to Dragon. The folding wing thing doesn't bother me any more than solar panels but it's an added technical step.

If so, that's their one saving grace--IF they can get past the use of the IDA. There's also the matter of SNC's one Achilles's Heel: They are the only competitor reliant on an LV from one of their other competitors. It would more beneficial, IMO, for them to lean to working with SpaceX and buying reused boosters once they start populating. I don't think SpaceX would have an axe to grind since they also have Commercial Crew and a lot of things going on.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #61 on: 03/19/2015 12:59 PM »
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 01:02 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 624
  • Likes Given: 1091
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #62 on: 03/19/2015 01:12 PM »
Sorry for the extra posting (I prefer to make one post and wait for thoughts, if any) but I just recalled that CST-100 Cargo would also use the IDA, too, so this is a balancing offset to DC-C's use of it, as well. As I said, I just think that every competitor owning their own LV generates a stronger advantage overall to SNCs offering.

But some could argue of Orbital's "reliability" with the ORB-3 failure, SpaceX's youth and ever-growing manifest, development time for Jupiter, and so on. If SNC could also promise a very fast development time, the LV issue might be less of a problem. Alliances within competitors might be advantageous. Just watch an episode of "Survivor," or read the ULA newsletter.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1249
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #63 on: 03/19/2015 02:00 PM »
The wing hinges fold so that the mechanisms have to hold them against the drag.  Sounds difficult.
The fairing simplifies the aerodynamics but adds cost and mass, which could mean extra solids on Atlas and even more cost.
The X-38 was to have folding wings so the idea is not "too off the wall"...
Aircraft carrier fighter airplanes have been using them for decades. It ain't rocket science.

Yeah, but the carrier airplane wings are folded by ground crews.  They don't have to be folded autonomously in space.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible, just that it adds mass and complexity and cost.  None of those things helps Dream Chaser cargo compete against the other proposals, none of which have to deal with folding wings.

You have to love NSF.  A small point gets such a response.  The videos of folding and unfolding aircraft are terrific.

People are correct: Automatic folding wings have been done.  Others like Jim are also right: These don't involve hypersonic flight. But the basic point was that this is an additional development task and additional complexity.

Beyond folding wings there are so many other additional development tasks for DCC vs. its DC predecessor that take additional time and money.  (Note that the $2.6B is not a relevant number, as it included (6?) crew carrying flights.)  It seems so much more complex than Jupiter/Exo-liner, and so far behind Dragon and CST-100.  (I have a friend working DCC who has commented on the enourmous expected workload if they win.) 

And it starts with the same Atlas V with DEC as CST-100 and Jupiter/Exoliner. 
I just don't see this as being competitive. 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #64 on: 03/19/2015 02:06 PM »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #65 on: 03/19/2015 02:18 PM »
ESA was to build components for the X-38. Perhaps this model is what SNC is planning to get their involvement in DC.

http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewnews.html?id=353
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #66 on: 03/19/2015 02:39 PM »
I've been giving some thought to the use of IDA for cargo delivery within the context of the CRS-2. And while CBM has capabilities that IDA obviously lack, it also sucks a lot of crew time. So, within the context of CRS-2, and considering that they already have the HTV, if they chose one additional CBM vehicle to make bulk transfers, they could use another IDA capable craft for increasing the visit opportunities without incurring in such a high crew time cost.
Besides, there will be two IDA ports, and since they appear to keep the crewed vehicle interleaved with Soyuz, they could simply launch the IDA capable cargo once the Commercial Crew is already docked, use the second port, and leave before the crew leaves. So, for each dock and undock of the crew, there would be two IDA's available, but they could use the secondary in the mean times (free use of five months in each six month period).
If they chose a third Cargo contractor, then they might even desire that the third contractor uses IDA.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #67 on: 03/19/2015 02:56 PM »
Yes, it is interesting that SNC chose IDA when it looks as though their service module is just about wide enough to accommodate a CBM.

While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.
_________
In prior threads it's been noted that the Cargo Dragon doesn't have enough internal volume to accommodate a full size ISS rack, but that's not seen as a major detriment.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #68 on: 03/19/2015 07:03 PM »
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.

Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.

Hmmm, if you ask me it looks like those thrusters are aimed at the solar panels...

To use the tail thrusters to slow down I would expect the Dream Chaser to be flying backwards. It would turn around after the burn.

Boosting the station! How? The thrusters point to wards to station. Unless there is an additional set of thrusters somewhere that point towards the nose of the spacecraft.

I'm not following. The solar panels are in the way of the thrusters regardless of whether you're flying forwards or backwards WRT the ISS. Also, you need the ability to brake/abort the approach in the last few moments before docking, i.e. you need these station-facing thrusters to be available. I think the obvious answer is the graphics are just wrong; in reality the panels would be hinged at a different location, and can be folded out of the way of the thruster plume during docking.

I was not worried about docking, that is easy just fit tiny RCS thrusters.

I was worried about (a) re-entry and (b) boasting the ISS. The video shows the Dream Chaser using its main engines to slow down for re-entry but firing in the same direction it is flying.

The tiny RCS thrusters could be used to boast the ISS but it will be a very long burn, certainly several minutes possibly hours.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #69 on: 03/19/2015 07:40 PM »
Dreamchaser was already going to have aerosurfaces for maneuvering that would have to move properly. Shuttle had elevons, a body flap, and a rudder that had moving surfaces under load with tps. Folding the whole stablizier isn't really breaking much new ground.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #70 on: 03/19/2015 08:18 PM »
If they chose a third Cargo contractor, then they might even desire that the third contractor uses IDA.

They might select a cargo contractor in spite of them using IDA, but I don't think they'd prefer it.  They have two of each kind of port and a third cargo contractor would mean two crew and two other cargo vehicles.  Do they really need three cargo vehicles at the same time?  Probably not.  And redundancy is probably more important for crew than for cargo, so they'd probably rather keep the IDAs clear for crew vehicles so if one is down they still have the other for another crew vehicle.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #71 on: 03/19/2015 08:22 PM »
I can't see why they would build a carrier aircraft with wings that can be folded by the pilot from the cockpit.  It would be like designing a car that lets you remove the wheels from the driver's seat.  It seems obvious to me it's better to require someone to physically go up to the wheel with a lug wrench and unbolt the wheel, both because it prevents accidental, catastrophic removal of the wheel while driving and because it would be a bunch of extra complexity that's not needed because there's no reason to remove the wheel except when the vehicle is stopped and you can physically access it.
While I might have supposed something similar...

We don't need suppositions when we have facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, the E-2C, the EA-6B, the V-22, and the F/A-18.  The last one is now the base platform for the vast majority of USAF carrier aircraft.

That's interesting!

As always, evidence trumps what we suppose would be the case. :-)

I'm really curious now why they chose to do it that way.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #72 on: 03/19/2015 08:26 PM »
Dreamchaser was already going to have aerosurfaces for maneuvering that would have to move properly. Shuttle had elevons, a body flap, and a rudder that had moving surfaces under load with tps. Folding the whole stablizier isn't really breaking much new ground.

Even if there are already similar things, it's still complexity and mass.  Also, the loads on the stabilizers may be a lot greater than the loads on those control surfaces.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #73 on: 03/19/2015 08:50 PM »
I can't see why they would build a carrier aircraft with wings that can be folded by the pilot from the cockpit.  It would be like designing a car that lets you remove the wheels from the driver's seat.  It seems obvious to me it's better to require someone to physically go up to the wheel with a lug wrench and unbolt the wheel, both because it prevents accidental, catastrophic removal of the wheel while driving and because it would be a bunch of extra complexity that's not needed because there's no reason to remove the wheel except when the vehicle is stopped and you can physically access it.
While I might have supposed something similar...

We don't need suppositions when we have facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, the E-2C, the EA-6B, the V-22, and the F/A-18.  The last one is now the base platform for the vast majority of USAF carrier aircraft.

That's interesting!

As always, evidence trumps what we suppose would be the case. :-)

I'm really curious now why they chose to do it that way.


Protects sailors. Fewer people running around the flight deck handling aircraft is better.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #74 on: 03/19/2015 09:28 PM »
If they chose a third Cargo contractor, then they might even desire that the third contractor uses IDA.

They might select a cargo contractor in spite of them using IDA, but I don't think they'd prefer it.  They have two of each kind of port and a third cargo contractor would mean two crew and two other cargo vehicles.  Do they really need three cargo vehicles at the same time?  Probably not.  And redundancy is probably more important for crew than for cargo, so they'd probably rather keep the IDAs clear for crew vehicles so if one is down they still have the other for another crew vehicle.
I specifically said that I was speculating that IDA has lower crew time requirements. The arm positioning and the crew practice plus actual operation takes a couple of days of crew time. IDA vehicles would need only final approach attention. That's the advantage over CBM. Thus, if they cover their bulk cargo needs (let's say by keeping Dragon and Super Cygnus) on five launches, an additional launch would add cargo but take away crew time. An IDA, would not. And if it is a CST-100, they earn one extra downmass opportunity, plus unpressurized and (if Boeing was aggressive enough on price) synergies with he crewed launcher. Under Commercial Crew, they might get as little as two flights. With this, they would get at least eight total (minimum of 2 crewed and 6 cargo). That's a plus on capabilities and demonstrated performance.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #75 on: 03/20/2015 01:20 AM »
There is a reason why ISS will have two CBM and two IDA ports. NASA would clearly *prefer* that the cargo supply vessels use the earth-facing CBM ports, to leave the IDA ports for commercial crew. The CBM earth facing locations also have the advantage of the approaching craft naturally drifting apart if there is a problem.

So while IDA is not forbidden, I would find it VERY implausible that two IDA cargo providers would be chosen. And the only one with a real chance is IMO CST-100, due to the overlap with the crew version.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #76 on: 03/20/2015 01:26 AM »
Dreamchaser was already going to have aerosurfaces for maneuvering that would have to move properly. Shuttle had elevons, a body flap, and a rudder that had moving surfaces under load with tps. Folding the whole stablizier isn't really breaking much new ground.


Not true.  All those aerosurfaces had hinge lines perpendicular to the air flow and not parallel as in a folding wing.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #77 on: 03/20/2015 02:41 AM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.

edit: add ISPR; edit: add NDS 120cm; add NDS petals; add possible M03 bag fit through NDS with one set of petals removed (not sure if that is possible).
« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 01:50 PM by joek »

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #78 on: 03/20/2015 03:07 AM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.
This is excellent.  Could you add external dimensions of a monolithic ISPR rack though?
« Last Edit: 03/20/2015 03:10 AM by Burninate »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #79 on: 03/20/2015 06:54 AM »
Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?

LM's proposal seems to use the CBM.

Besides, the ISS will only have 2 NDS ports. At least one will have a commercial crew vehicle attached to it at all times. The other has to remain available for contingency and crew rotations.

I don't see how an NDS-equipped commercial cargo vehicle can fit into that scheme.
Isn't in-direct crew handover still the plan?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #80 on: 03/20/2015 12:01 PM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.

edit: added ISPR.
for some reason the requirement of removable petals was deleted from the IDSS specification. But that would have allowed for a 1200mm circle. Could you draw it?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #81 on: 03/20/2015 04:37 PM »
updated diagram to show ISPR and NDS 120mm with petal impingement.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #82 on: 03/20/2015 07:18 PM »
Over all, for those worried about issues with Hypersonic buffeting on the folding wings; so long as the wings fully latch into place, in most cases with supersonic, including some HIGH supersonic aircraft, the system is actually more structurally sound than regular wing spars.

The problem is, making sure those wings mechanically latch into place.  There are a number of cheap and simple systems to check that the latches are engaged.  (If not else, lipstick cameras at each latch to make sure they are visually latched.

As a back up, one could always use Nichromium Springs, stretched out while heated, to help pull the wings into place as they cool.  (As a backup to electric servos to move them into place).

The latches could be made of steel and use neodinium magnets on the other side of the latches to hold the latches themselves in place after they have been put into place by electric servos.

Paranoid?  Not really.  I just figure Murphy is an inventive bugger and as many low mass backup systems that can be used (alternative systems) to act as a back up to a primary system, that would not be affected by a failure of a primary system, should be used.  Simple, low mass backups that won't affect the overall performance, are what I think is the safest route to if not foil Murphy, at least make it REALLY difficult for something to go catastrophically wrong.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #83 on: 03/20/2015 09:06 PM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline spacetech

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • San Francisco
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #84 on: 03/20/2015 10:37 PM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #85 on: 03/20/2015 11:54 PM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.
Deja vu.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #86 on: 03/21/2015 12:08 AM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.

This is getting farcical. But somehow I can't resist... See XB-70.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #87 on: 03/21/2015 12:26 AM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.
I think you got the wrong guy... :o
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #88 on: 03/21/2015 12:51 AM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.
Deja vu.

Wait, aren't they folded by the ground crew...

;-)

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #89 on: 03/21/2015 01:12 AM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.

edit: add ISPR; edit: add NDS 120cm; add NDS petals; add M03 bag fit through NDS.
Hold on a minute...

Are those petals really the bounding box?  Or are there petals on both androgynous sides of the port, creating an inscribed circle using six petals?  I'm not certain.

Edit: Attached is an image Wikipedia uses for the NDS.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 01:28 AM by Burninate »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #90 on: 03/21/2015 01:46 AM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.

edit: add ISPR; edit: add NDS 120cm; add NDS petals; add M03 bag fit through NDS.
Hold on a minute...

Are those petals really the bounding box?  Or are there petals on both androgynous sides of the port, creating an inscribed circle using six petals?  I'm not certain.

Edit: Attached is an image Wikipedia uses for the NDS.

If I understand correctly, I think what Joek is showing is a situation where the adapter on station has fixed petals, but the VV petals are removed, so the cargo can be threaded through one triad. Is that possible?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #91 on: 03/21/2015 01:53 AM »
Are those petals really the bounding box?  Or are there petals on both androgynous sides of the port, creating an inscribed circle using six petals?  I'm not certain.
If I understand correctly, I think what Joek is showing is a situation where the adapter on station has fixed petals, but the VV petals are removed, so the cargo can be threaded through one triad. Is that possible?
Yes, that was the intent... if one set of petals is removed, the potential size increases.  I do not know if it is possible to remove either set of petals.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #92 on: 03/21/2015 12:11 PM »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/577913004425007104

Lindsey: will do a second Dream Chaser glide test by the end of this year (1st was in October 2013).
It's going to be great to see the bird in the air again! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #93 on: 03/22/2015 12:47 PM »
I know they would like to sell concept using a “standard fairing” but I’m curious if they ever considered a modified fairing with slots cut-out for the fins. This would eliminate the need for folding fins; if the wind tunnel would confirm it and the faring integrity maintained without hanging on separation...
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 01:14 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #94 on: 03/22/2015 02:01 PM »
I know they would like to sell concept using a “standard fairing” but I’m curious if they ever considered a modified fairing with slots cut-out for the fins. This would eliminate the need for folding fins; if the wind tunnel would confirm it and the faring integrity maintained without hanging on separation...

Yes. Farings are cheap and the spacecraft does not require the faring to be airtight.

A couple of false fins on the opposite side of the faring may improve the aerodynamics by balance things.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4238
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #95 on: 03/22/2015 08:56 PM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.

Making the folding wing joints safe during reentry would not be much different of a problem then making the flaps and landing gear plasma tight.
In fact it's probably easier then then joints on the flaps since it doesn't need to move during reentry so people are pretty much worried about nothing.


« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 08:56 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #96 on: 03/23/2015 10:28 AM »
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
You do realize that almost every Navy jet has folded wings, including the F/A-18. I'm pretty sure the F-4 Phantom is the fastest jet with folding wings, with a top speed over Mach 2.

Making the folding wing joints safe during reentry would not be much different of a problem then making the flaps and landing gear plasma tight.
In fact it's probably easier then then joints on the flaps since it doesn't need to move during reentry so people are pretty much worried about nothing.
Once again... You too got the wrong guy...  :o I'm not one of those "worried folks", I'm just looking at options to KISS. :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3199
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #97 on: 03/23/2015 04:08 PM »
If the wings are unfolded before arrival at the ISS (which should be the nominal procedure of unfolding the wings after payload sep from LV), then any no latching problems prior to departure from the ISS can be solved.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1249
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #98 on: 03/23/2015 05:21 PM »
If the wings are unfolded before arrival at the ISS (which should be the nominal procedure of unfolding the wings after payload sep from LV), then any no latching problems prior to departure from the ISS can be solved.

I am with Rocket Science:  The folding fins are doable, but ignore KISS.  They ARE a complication.
Thinking of having the astronauts do an EVA to fix an undeployed fin is a HUGE complication.  I cannot see that being considered by NASA.  They would more likely just save the download mass for another download vehicle like Dragon.

But I disagree with Rocket Science's idea of fins on the fairing or through the fairing, wihch would still give the vehicle unique aerodynamic properties, as he acknowledged.  More complications.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #99 on: 03/23/2015 08:42 PM »
At some point you've gotta accept a little additional complication in order to move forward and gain desirable long-term capability.  Shortsighted, risk averse thinking that would have us flying expendable tin cans ad infinitum is NASA's biggest problem imo, and why we so desperately need the commercial upstarts to disrupt the status quo.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #100 on: 03/24/2015 06:29 AM »
At some point you've gotta accept a little additional complication in order to move forward and gain desirable long-term capability.  Shortsighted, risk averse thinking that would have us flying expendable tin cans ad infinitum is NASA's biggest problem imo, and why we so desperately need the commercial upstarts to disrupt the status quo.

I don't think that's an argument that's going to hold any sway when it comes to making this choice.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 06:36 AM by Star One »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #101 on: 03/24/2015 12:25 PM »
At some point you've gotta accept a little additional complication in order to move forward and gain desirable long-term capability.  Shortsighted, risk averse thinking that would have us flying expendable tin cans ad infinitum is NASA's biggest problem imo, and why we so desperately need the commercial upstarts to disrupt the status quo.

No you don't.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #102 on: 03/24/2015 12:51 PM »
have us flying expendable tin cans ad infinitum

And what is wrong with that?   What says wings are the right way and not capsules?   Maybe the original premise was wrong and the correction is to go back to capsules.   

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1519
  • Liked: 952
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #103 on: 03/24/2015 01:03 PM »
And what is wrong with that?   What says wings are the right way and not capsules?   Maybe the original premise was wrong and the correction is to go back to capsules.

Not only that, capsules can be reused, so "expendable tin cans" isn't even applicable.   In fact three of the four other entrants (CST cargo, Dragon, Jupiter) feature major reusable components; two capsules that return to earth and a reusable space tug.  So Dream Chaser being reusable is hardly a differentiating factor here.  The only fully expendable proposal is Cygnus.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #104 on: 03/24/2015 10:10 PM »
Press Release today:

Quote
SPARKS, Nev. (March 24, 2015) – Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Space Systems and the Houston Airport System (HAS) announce a new follow-on agreement to utilize Ellington Airport’s Spaceport as a future landing site for SNC’s Uncrewed Dream Chaser® spacecraft - SNC’s solution for NASA’s Cargo Resupply needs and other critical space operations.

Full release- http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/973

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #105 on: 03/24/2015 10:55 PM »
have us flying expendable tin cans ad infinitum

And what is wrong with that?   What says wings are the right way and not capsules?   Maybe the original premise was wrong and the correction is to go back to capsules.   

Depends on the long-term goal I guess.  If the goal is to make spaceflight more routine and accessible to more of humanity, reusability is the way to go.  If the goal is to maintain the status quo, then innovation is not required and we can just keep pouring billions into sending a few career astronauts into low Earth orbit for no particular reason.

In any case, with regard to cargo I'm thinking more of the "good enough" throw-away craft like Cygnus vs the possibility of additional down-mass capability and rapid return to a land facility offered by DC.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 11:13 PM by vt_hokie »

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #106 on: 03/25/2015 12:03 AM »
While the CRS-2 RFP talks about docking (IDA) and berthing (CBM) being options, it also says that they need a CBM solution in the mix because of its width. See Answer 20 here: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-003-001.pdf so that implies that at least SpaceX or Orbital ATK will get chosen.

CRS-2 RFP calls for (among other things) pressurized cargo up/down per-flight range of: M01 bag 0-10; M02 bag 10-TBP; M03 bag 0-6. How those bags fit with respect to NDS, Cygnus mini-CBM and CBM is shown in the attached figure below.

edit: add ISPR; edit: add NDS 120cm; add NDS petals; add M03 bag fit through NDS.
Hold on a minute...

Are those petals really the bounding box?  Or are there petals on both androgynous sides of the port, creating an inscribed circle using six petals?  I'm not certain.

Edit: Attached is an image Wikipedia uses for the NDS.

If I understand correctly, I think what Joek is showing is a situation where the adapter on station has fixed petals, but the VV petals are removed, so the cargo can be threaded through one triad. Is that possible?
Yes, that was the intent... if one set of petals is removed, the potential size increases.  I do not know if it is possible to remove either set of petals.

Can the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?
It may need a door.
What's the inner diameter? AIUI, astros prefer a big door with little chance of entangling.

NDS - The NASA Docking System has a passage for crew and cargo with a diameter of 685 millimetres (27.0 in), which can be increased to 813 millimetres (32.0 in) by removing the petals of the capture mechanism after mating.  IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_System
That's outdated info. The passthrough diameter is now 800 mm (31.5 in), the petals are no longer removable.
Is it the case that 3 petals in a mated pair are no longer removeable, or 6 petals in a mated pair are no longer removeable?
None.

So it seems they won't fit through that way per the final spec, according to manboy.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2015 01:20 AM by Burninate »

Online mtakala24

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #107 on: 03/25/2015 10:18 AM »
I couldn't find out if the main fuselage is still in the same scale as the crewed version was. Anyone know?

Online MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 624
  • Likes Given: 1091
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #108 on: 03/27/2015 02:41 PM »
Based on these screen caps from SNC's concept videos of DC-Cargo and Crew, I'd say that DC-Cargo is perplexingly smaller.

While both use the IDA for docking, the DC-Cargo is smaller to fit into a fairing with its service module, rather than being large enough to sit atop a ULA rocket, with a direct IDA port at stern, as shown in the crew video.

That also suggests that the rear of the DC-Cargo itself is either smaller than the IDA or wholly incompatible due to the size difference, else it would just dock directly to the PMA as its larger sister would have done.

Edit: But perspective is a bear. It might be larger than DC-crew.

« Last Edit: 03/27/2015 02:43 PM by MattMason »
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #109 on: 03/27/2015 02:55 PM »
Based on these screen caps from SNC's concept videos of DC-Cargo and Crew, I'd say that DC-Cargo is perplexingly smaller.

While both use the IDA for docking, the DC-Cargo is smaller to fit into a fairing with its service module, rather than being large enough to sit atop a ULA rocket, with a direct IDA port at stern, as shown in the crew video.

That also suggests that the rear of the DC-Cargo itself is either smaller than the IDA or wholly incompatible due to the size difference, else it would just dock directly to the PMA as its larger sister would have done.

Edit: But perspective is a bear. It might be larger than DC-crew.
If you look at the video of the unloading by the ground crew you see one guy in the tunnel area for some idea (1:39). Not a smaller DC for sure...
« Last Edit: 03/27/2015 02:58 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online mtakala24

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #110 on: 03/27/2015 07:19 PM »
Interesting. Now that there is the SAA to get Crew-DC to CDR or nearly there, there should be some more of that design available that can be applied to the cargo-DC if the main structure is the same size.

Might it also play a role in the buildup of the first flight article?

That is not to say that there won't be many design changes, such as removal of the large abort rockets, windows, crew flight systems, and addition of the wing folding system.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #111 on: 03/28/2015 12:17 AM »
I have a feeling that the cargo dream Chaser will be designed in such a way that it will be easy to put the crew systems back in.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 547
  • Likes Given: 5291
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #112 on: 03/28/2015 01:42 PM »
I have no idea whether SNC Dream Chaser will be selected for some contracted cargo delivery missions to the ISS, or not.  As many have noted, there are factors against their bid as well as for it, with likely more in the former category.

But isn't it a great era to find ourselves in in 2015:  private companies are bidding for space transport jobs by submitting bids for services!  And they are taking on financial risk just like in ordinary commercial enterprise. 

In other words, just like in ordinary markets, companies design and bid a product to make revenue from the delivery of services (here, cargo delivery runs), and it is up to the company to fund the development work necessary to make the product offering possible, and the profit of the venture is not assured from any one particular bid, but rather from the company's success or failure with advancing the overall product line, over time, with multiple customers.

Exciting times for spaceflight. Happy to see the innovation advancing in the US from the newer approaches of buying space services, and allowing the market process to encourage innovation!
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1497
  • Likes Given: 936
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #113 on: 04/07/2015 01:19 AM »
Dream Chaser® Cargo System Launches on Atlas V Concept of Operation Video

Published on Apr 6, 2015
Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser® Cargo System is a mission variant of the Dream Chaser Space System that exceeds all NASA cargo transportation requirements to the International Space Station (ISS). The Dream Chaser Cargo System utilizes a reusable, lifting-body spacecraft and is capable of transporting pressurized and unpressurized cargo concurrently - returning cargo and sensitive science payloads to a low-g and gentle runway landing.

Tony De La Rosa

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #114 on: 04/13/2015 09:12 PM »
Are those petals really the bounding box?  Or are there petals on both androgynous sides of the port, creating an inscribed circle using six petals?  I'm not certain.
If I understand correctly, I think what Joek is showing is a situation where the adapter on station has fixed petals, but the VV petals are removed, so the cargo can be threaded through one triad. Is that possible?
Yes, that was the intent... if one set of petals is removed, the potential size increases.  I do not know if it is possible to remove either set of petals.
It's not.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1497
  • Likes Given: 936
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #115 on: 07/08/2015 11:00 PM »
SNC’s Dream Chaser Crewed Space System Concept of Operations

Published on Jul 8, 2015
SNC’s Dream Chaser® spacecraft is a reusable, multi-mission space utility vehicle capable of crewed and uncrewed transportation to low-Earth orbit destinations, such as the International Space Station. The Dream Chaser spacecraft launches vertically and returns to a gentle, low-g, horizontal runway landing.

Tony De La Rosa

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #116 on: 07/10/2015 06:39 PM »
SNC’s Dream Chaser Crewed Space System Concept of Operations

Published on Jul 8, 2015

Odd, same video that's been around for months.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #117 on: 07/12/2015 02:15 PM »
SNC’s Dream Chaser Crewed Space System Concept of Operations

Published on Jul 8, 2015

Odd, same video that's been around for months.

not odd, CRS-2 announcement is near ???
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
  • Israel
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 351
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #118 on: 07/12/2015 03:03 PM »
In the videos DC cargo flies with 3 solids while the crew DC has none.
is that settled then ?
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5164
  • Likes Given: 1252
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #119 on: 07/12/2015 07:11 PM »
In the videos DC cargo flies with 3 solids while the crew DC has none.
is that settled then ?

I'm thinking that its two different videos from two different times.  The CRS-2 video is modern and with the most up-to-date info regarding LV configuration etc.  The crew video is from a few years ago, and hasn't been changed since it was first made.  I don't think its ever had the SRBs in it, but I doubt thats indicative of a recent change in configuration.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #120 on: 10/06/2015 05:35 PM »
Just because we've not reported on here for a while, and SNC promoted their CRS2 ambitions via congratulating ULA on the 100th launch....

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/10/dream-chaser-fighting-her-place-space/

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #121 on: 10/06/2015 05:44 PM »
I am happy to see this, SNC still has a chance to win the CRS-2 contract. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal (Thanks to D. Messier of Parabolic Arc) that LM was dropped from the CRS-2 competition , leaving SNC  and the Dream Chaser still in play.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lockheed-martin-eliminated-from-nasas-cargo-competition-1443725840.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1497
  • Likes Given: 936
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #122 on: 10/07/2015 08:48 PM »
SNC's Dream Chaser® Cargo System: A Transportation System to Deliver Cargo to the ISS for NASA

Published on Oct 7, 2015
This animated video represents Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser® Cargo System mission. The Dream Chaser Cargo System is an innovative complete cargo transportation system capable of transporting pressurized and unpressurized cargo to and from low-Earth orbit destinations such as the International Space Station. This system is designed to fulfill NASA’s current Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) and other fully autonomous missions.

The uncrewed Dream Chaser spacecraft launches inside a standard 5m fairing, transporting pressurized and unpressurized cargo concurrently. Further advantageous capabilities include cargo module disposal, low-g, gentle runway landing return of cargo and sensitive science payloads with immediate access, all attributes that are unique to the reusable, lifting-body Dream Chaser spacecraft.

Tony De La Rosa

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #123 on: 10/07/2015 11:11 PM »
Interesting, I wonder why the whole TPS is black except for two white stripes on top.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #124 on: 10/07/2015 11:15 PM »
Interesting, I wonder why the whole TPS is black except for two white stripes on top.

It looks to me like the white stripes are in the areas with the least need for TPS.  Those areas are probably fine without anything special beyond the normal skin.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #125 on: 10/07/2015 11:33 PM »
At one time, SNC put a down payment on an Atlas V launch. Anyone know if SNC is still planning on using that launch?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #126 on: 10/08/2015 01:04 AM »
Wonder if that nose first attitude during reentry is accurate!

Offline J-V

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #127 on: 10/08/2015 06:20 AM »
That looked like Atlas V 552. Is there a big difference in price compared to eg. 422 used by Starliner?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #128 on: 10/08/2015 06:34 AM »

At one time, SNC put a down payment on an Atlas V launch. Anyone know if SNC is still planning on using that launch?

I imagine that launch may now be dependent on the outcome of this competition.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #129 on: 10/08/2015 06:33 PM »
This from ISPCS conference.

Good point Mark.

Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 4:33 AM on Fri, Oct 09, 2015:
Q: what changes would you like to see in the CRS program? Sirangelo: no delay in the CRS-2 award. #ispcs
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/652144792231501824)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4238
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #130 on: 10/08/2015 10:01 PM »
I wonder if the cargo module can do extended missions like the Shenzhou OM after the primary mission is over?
Such as carry experiments that do not require recovery or deploy cube sats.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2015 10:01 PM by Patchouli »

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1961
  • USA
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 494
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #131 on: 10/08/2015 10:41 PM »
Looks like the cargo module can also be used for waste disposal. So pressurized and unpressurized up, waste disposal and pressurized down. All with fast access to timely experiments.

Gotta say, that's a nice, versatile option. My only hope is that they can properly compete on price since there are no more development funds. They need to compete against 2 other service providers that do not need as much development time and/or investment as DCC will. I guess the trick will be to amortize the dev costs over enough of the contact to stay competitive on the per-mission (or $/up & down mass) costs. I can only see this happening by being able to have a seriously reusable DCC with little refurbishment costs.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #132 on: 10/09/2015 05:22 PM »
Gotta say, that's a nice, versatile option. My only hope is that they can properly compete on price since there are no more development funds. They need to compete against 2 other service providers that do not need as much development time and/or investment as DCC will. I guess the trick will be to amortize the dev costs over enough of the contact to stay competitive on the per-mission (or $/up & down mass) costs. I can only see this happening by being able to have a seriously reusable DCC with little refurbishment costs.

Even then it would be questionable, since a significant part of the vehicle is an expendable cargo module that not only is a external cargo carrier and contains power/radiator systems, but also contains a human rated pressurized compartment that is necessary to access the DC itself.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #133 on: 10/10/2015 10:30 AM »
{snip}
Even then it would be questionable, since a significant part of the vehicle is an expendable cargo module that not only is a external cargo carrier and contains power/radiator systems, but also contains a human rated pressurized compartment that is necessary to access the DC itself.

That suggests a nice spin-off product, an air lock.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #134 on: 10/10/2015 03:04 PM »
{snip}
Even then it would be questionable, since a significant part of the vehicle is an expendable cargo module that not only is a external cargo carrier and contains power/radiator systems, but also contains a human rated pressurized compartment that is necessary to access the DC itself.

That suggests a nice spin-off product, an air lock.
So you're thinking something along these lines, perhaps?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #135 on: 10/22/2015 10:38 PM »
{snip}
Even then it would be questionable, since a significant part of the vehicle is an expendable cargo module that not only is a external cargo carrier and contains power/radiator systems, but also contains a human rated pressurized compartment that is necessary to access the DC itself.

That suggests a nice spin-off product, an air lock.
So you're thinking something along these lines, perhaps?


I do not know what was on the back of the Hermes but yes.

The air lock module could permit space walks from the Dream Chaser or from a spacestation it is left at.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1249
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #136 on: 10/23/2015 04:53 AM »
I wonder if the cargo module can do extended missions like the Shenzhou OM after the primary mission is over?
Such as carry experiments that do not require recovery or deploy cube sats.

There does not appear to be any engines or motors capable of attitude control or reentry targeting on the cargo module.  (edit: If there were, it would be needed for controlling and deobiting the DC.)
There is no obvious comm system either, and its likely a lot of the power system would be inside the DC. 
So, no, the cargo module could not do extended missions.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2015 04:56 AM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #137 on: 11/07/2015 08:11 PM »
Because I'm revisiting my CRS-2 predictions, I'm curious what people think Dream Chaser Cargo would cost?

-Assume 2 flights per year (12 flights total).
-Assume that SNC is trying to make a profit (they recoup CRS2 development costs within 12 missions).
-Assume that DC will fly on Atlas 552, as shown in PR material (>$200M per flight, could easily be $250M).
-Don't forget to account for the cost of the disposable cargo module on each flight.

I've got a range of estimates, but I'm curious what others come up with. If they can break a certain threshold, I believe their chances of being selected improve dramatically.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #138 on: 11/07/2015 10:46 PM »
ULA are trying to get Atlas 401 price down to $100-$110M so say <$160M for 552 especially with new lower cost OrbitalATK SRBs. The Vulcan should reduce that again as it will need less SRBs.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2015 10:47 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2478
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #139 on: 11/07/2015 10:52 PM »
ULA are trying to get Atlas 401 price down to $100-$110M so say <$160M for 552 especially with new lower cost OrbitalATK SRBs. The Vulcan should reduce that again as it will need less SRBs.

SNC can't bid based on assuming price reductions in the launch vehicle that might or might not ever come true.  They have to bid based on the prices they could negotiate ULA to commit to before the bids were due.  Even if SNC wanted to bid lower and risk bankrupting their company if LV prices didn't go down, their bid would be rejected for being financially too risky.

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Elgin, IL
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #140 on: 11/08/2015 01:26 PM »
My first reaction to SNC's cargo variant was negative.  It seemed like a step backward putting the craft inside a fairing, a step backward including a non-reusable service module, and the additional components imposed needless added cost and complexity.  DC by itself is a beautiful craft, but cargo DC is not so much.

SNC was right though.  The incremental cost of adding SRB's to 1 Atlas V launch is less than 2 separate launches.  A separate service module allows for pressurized disposal, which was a sole ability to Orbital's Cygnus craft.  You have to have the fairing in order to launch the service module.  Frankly, they didn't follow conventional wisdom and just scratch off the word "Crew" on their proposal for CRS-2, they got innovative.

The odds are now looking good they will get an award.  :)

Mr. Sirangelo's favorite quote rings true!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
 Mahatma Gandhi


Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #141 on: 11/09/2015 12:05 AM »
ULA are trying to get Atlas 401 price down to $100-$110M so say <$160M for 552 especially with new lower cost OrbitalATK SRBs. The Vulcan should reduce that again as it will need less SRBs.


Right now, Atlas V is cheap partly because of the high flight rate, and there's some concern about that over the period of the CRS2 contract. But if SNC can order an Atlas 552 for well under $200M, they're in good shape.

Here's where I'm going with this:

By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.

I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6421
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1613
  • Likes Given: 1435
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #142 on: 11/12/2015 04:36 PM »
Some very interesting Jeff Foust tweets

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664850098191486976

Quote
Olson adds that SNC is in “the final three” (with SpaceX and Orbital ATK) for CRS-2 contract. #ASGSR2015

So according to this Lockheed Martin is out with Boeing.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440

Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #143 on: 11/12/2015 05:14 PM »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #144 on: 11/12/2015 05:46 PM »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Have you seen indications of this? The RD-180 ban doesn't include NASA flights so it doesn't seem likely there would be a ban on the RD-181 which is only used on NASA flights.

However, if the RD-180 ban is extended and expanded to include the RD-181, then it only leaves SX until Vulcan come to fruition. Doesn't seem likely.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #145 on: 11/12/2015 06:14 PM »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Have you seen indications of this? The RD-180 ban doesn't include NASA flights so it doesn't seem likely there would be a ban on the RD-181 which is only used on NASA flights.

However, if the RD-180 ban is extended and expanded to include the RD-181, then it only leaves SX until Vulcan come to fruition. Doesn't seem likely.
Right - I have seen no direct indication of a wide ban on Russian rocket  hardware, but as I said [if the politics...].  It is my opinion that relying on Russian engines is a weakness, we shall see how NASA and congress view this.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #146 on: 11/12/2015 06:58 PM »
Yes, political winds are unpredictable. Going on a total ban of Russian engines, they only provider left is SX until Vulcan and whatever BO produces come on line. And extending from that premise, Congress could dump money into the AR-1.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #147 on: 11/12/2015 10:44 PM »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well). Falcon 9 is 18 for 19, with a lot to prove between now and when it becomes entrusted with human lives. That plus the inherent desire for dissimilar redundancy regardless and the fact that Orbital-ATK has both the Russian engine and the reliability question marks has to weigh in DC's favor imo.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #148 on: 11/12/2015 10:47 PM »
Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

If reported accurately that's a pretty solid number, even with some of the more dire cost estimates of the bigger Atlases. There's still some development cost left as well but it really is seeming more possible that we could see a lifting body in space.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #149 on: 11/13/2015 12:11 AM »
Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

If reported accurately that's a pretty solid number, even with some of the more dire cost estimates of the bigger Atlases. There's still some development cost left as well but it really is seeming more possible that we could see a lifting body in space.

$10M - $20M to refurbish DC, attach new cargo/power module, and integrate for launch?

Theoretically possible I guess, especially if this is just the direct cost of working on the spacecraft, and doesn't include profit/margin markups, salaries of SNC management/support staff, facility costs, etc.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #150 on: 11/13/2015 12:20 AM »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #151 on: 11/13/2015 12:45 AM »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).
They could always do a split between Atlas and Falcon. Gives you flexibility to put more expensive hardware on the LV with the better track record. This provides some of the cost advantages of falcon, some of the added reliability of Atlas, launcher redundancy if one fails and greater American content of the contract. NASA would probably want to avoid only having one baseline launcher for cargo and that is still achieved. SNC could even play the two lifters against each other to get a better deal.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #152 on: 11/13/2015 12:50 AM »
But it increases the engineering costs because you have to analyze 2 different launch vehicles. Might still be worth it, doesn't seem to have been a show-stopper for Orbital.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #153 on: 11/13/2015 12:55 AM »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).

I don't think that Cargo DC needs an Atlas V 552. It maximizes cargo with it but it isn't required. So a F9 should be more than enough. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #154 on: 11/13/2015 01:03 AM »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).

I don't think that Cargo DC needs an Atlas V 552. It maximizes cargo with it but it isn't required. So a F9 should be more than enough.
That's right, but I am still pretty sure that Full Thrust gets very close to 552 performance (and much more than other Atlas V variants). Based on this:
elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov (Performance query to 400km by 51.6, comparing v1.1 and 551)
and relative performance of 551 to 552, available from various sources (to ISS, 552 is likely to get about 10% better performance than 551) cited in Wikipedia article for Atlas V
and the fact that SpaceX has said Full Thrust should get ~30% better performance to GTO as v1.1 (and certainly a smaller improvement to ISS orbit, but still substantial)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #155 on: 11/13/2015 05:44 AM »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440

Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

I'm skeptical of that number, given that Cargo DC carries a rather large pressurized cargo component (that has to have a pressurized tunnel) with lots of equipment on every flight - unlike what the crew DC was planning to to.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2015 07:24 AM by Lars-J »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #156 on: 11/13/2015 05:58 AM »
I likewise wouldn't read much into that figure. It's certainly true, but from a "certain point of view", anything can be. It all depends what variables you choose to leave out of the whole.

Any process can appear cheaper if you don't factor every element of the process into your public cost estimates. Not saying that they're deliberately misinforming people, but they're probably talking about physical material costs only.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #157 on: 11/13/2015 02:45 PM »
Yes I agree. He didn't specify DC cargo plus if you fly DC very often, you can probably get to that 95% figure.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2243
  • Canada
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 453
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #158 on: 11/13/2015 03:08 PM »
Anyone got any ideas on how SNC is going to load the CRS Dreamchaser?

Guessing they will load the vehicle and attach module horizontally, close up and rotate the vehicle on it's tail with the CBM hatch on the bottom. Before encapsulation in a fairing. How very strange.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #159 on: 11/13/2015 03:42 PM »
Cost isn’t everything… SpaceX needs to come back from their "self-inflicted" wound first. When they can achieve Atlas V reliability at a lower price it would truly be a game changer. I know they are hard at work on it, I wish them the best.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #160 on: 11/13/2015 06:34 PM »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

Offline freakdog

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • USA
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #161 on: 11/13/2015 06:36 PM »
Anyone got any ideas on how SNC is going to load the CRS Dreamchaser?

Guessing they will load the vehicle and attach module horizontally, close up and rotate the vehicle on it's tail with the CBM hatch on the bottom. Before encapsulation in a fairing. How very strange.

Just like loading a U-Haul except everything is held in place.  I don't think there's a timeliness need on upmass as there is on downmass, so the family of gerbil-nauts is probably not going to be a cargo resupply mission.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
  • California
  • Liked: 2727
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #162 on: 11/13/2015 10:23 PM »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

I'm not sure why you (and many others) seem to be forgetting about the substantial expendable component of every cargo DC. Again, see this image:

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1961
  • USA
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 494
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #163 on: 11/13/2015 10:54 PM »
WRT loading...It doesn't look like Cargo DC will be capable of "Late" loading of certain bio cargo. But I suppose NASA would simply use the Dragon for any cargo that needed to be loaded at the last minute as there is no obstruction in accessing Dragon for late cargo loads. Dragon and DC would make a good team.

Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #164 on: 11/14/2015 03:10 PM »
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #165 on: 11/14/2015 06:11 PM »
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.

This is a very good point. SNC has shown a willingness to scale the DC design down for Stratolaunch, and given that NASA had worked on the 42% larger design it would presumably be even easier. You'd save the weight of the fairing, and retain the ability to tow some unpressurized cargo in the stage adapter. I wonder if you could even fit a CBM on the back; probably not. Trash would have to be brought all the way home - just like Dragon 2.

Given that they opted for the current proposal (developing an entirely new throw-away module plus folding fins), I'd guess that scaling turns out to be not that easy after all? Plus they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #166 on: 11/14/2015 08:12 PM »
...
By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.

I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.

They'll probably need to do better than $950M/yr.  CRS-2 budget estimated at an average of $1.0-1.4B/yr (NASA IG-14-031).  That number is inclusive, not just payment to providers.

I can't see NASA stretching the budget to include Dream Chaser.  Then again, maybe the proposals came in less than expected so NASA feels there is room.  Or maybe they came in higher than expected and DC is being offered at a price that's hard to refuse.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2243
  • Canada
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 453
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #167 on: 11/14/2015 08:25 PM »

This is a very good point. SNC has shown a willingness to scale the DC design down for Stratolaunch, and given that NASA had worked on the 42% larger design it would presumably be even easier. You'd save the weight of the fairing, and retain the ability to tow some unpressurized cargo in the stage adapter. I wonder if you could even fit a CBM on the back; probably not. Trash would have to be brought all the way home - just like Dragon 2.

Given that they opted for the current proposal (developing an entirely new throw-away module plus folding fins), I'd guess that scaling turns out to be not that easy after all? Plus they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.

Think SNC choose the folding fins in a fairing concept so the CRS DC can be put on top of any launcher capable of using a 5 meter fairing. Without the messy aerodynamic profile of the crewed DC and the specialized stage adapter for each launcher configuration.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #168 on: 11/14/2015 08:37 PM »
...they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.

To that point - and to rcoppola's late loading comment - wouldn't keeping the original overhead hatch from the crew version have some benefit? That would allow late loading of cargo.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #169 on: 11/14/2015 09:18 PM »
...
By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.

I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.

They'll probably need to do better than $950M/yr.  CRS-2 budget estimated at an average of $1.0-1.4B/yr (NASA IG-14-031).  That number is inclusive, not just payment to providers.

I can't see NASA stretching the budget to include Dream Chaser.  Then again, maybe the proposals came in less than expected so NASA feels there is room.  Or maybe they came in higher than expected and DC is being offered at a price that's hard to refuse.

2x DC + 2x Dragon is affordable at those prices. Depending on Dragon costs, they could add a third Dragon every year or two.

It's riskier and more expensive than the incumbents for sure, but it does offer NASA a way to hit the upmass goals in 5 or fewer flights as requested. And maybe SNC was able to persuade NASA that the low-G accelerated return is worth paying for?

I'm not a big fan of SNC and DC, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if they have a path to an award at all.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #170 on: 11/14/2015 09:21 PM »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

If SNC is worried about recovering the cost of a DC due to launch failure, the cost of a more expensive LV needs to be weighed against a lower cost LV plus the cost of insurance or reserves.

Also note that CRS-2 will likely require 4-6 missions/yr.  Given that there will be at least one other provider, that limits the number of potential DC flights and the ability of SNC to amortize costs.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #171 on: 11/14/2015 11:36 PM »
2x DC + 2x Dragon is affordable at those prices. Depending on Dragon costs, they could add a third Dragon every year or two.

It's riskier and more expensive than the incumbents for sure, but it does offer NASA a way to hit the upmass goals in 5 or fewer flights as requested. And maybe SNC was able to persuade NASA that the low-G accelerated return is worth paying for?

I'm not a big fan of SNC and DC, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if they have a path to an award at all.

Agree, but NASA has already dinged for being overly optimistic about transportation costs (cargo and crew).  There is no money for DC development other than SNC's pockets (presumably amortized over the CRS-2 contract) or what could be paid under CRS-2--which must come under ISS "initial" or "base" integration--and which is added to the evaluation price.  This is largely going to hinge on NASA's evaluation of DC's risk and how aggressive SNC is in pricing...

edit: See arachnitect's post below for clarification on price evaluation formula.

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.[1]  However, it would mean DC has an advantage over competitors who can lift less than 3750kg, as they would require at least three missions to DC's two (again, assuming all other things equal).

Not counting potential mission suitability points for accelerated return downmass or reduced number of missions (which are not included in the price evaluation)...

If DC can deliver >=3750Kg pressurized/mission AND the competition cannot deliver >=3750kg presurized/mission AND DC can do so at <= 50% per-mission premium over the competition (2 missions instead of 3) THEN DC has a very good chance in the pricing evaluation (which is the most important evaluation factor).  Add some mission suitability points and DC might get past the post.


[1] There is also an unpressurized component to the price evaluation but only if a standard mission is all unpressurized, in which case the evaluation is based on 1000kg unpressurized upmass; if it is a mix of pressurized and unpressurized only the pressurized value is used for evaluation.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 09:32 PM by joek »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2511
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1540
  • Likes Given: 2733
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #172 on: 11/15/2015 12:51 AM »
I find it interesting that Boeing and LM seem to have priced themselves out of the CRS-2 competition.

Especially with the first commercial crew contract, NASA seemed to set the expectation that they would gladly pay extra to more experienced and larger concerns, based on their supposed greater ability to achieve results.  With CRS-2, they appear to be going in the other direction, telling Boeing and LM that they don't get to put in big, fat bids and expect they will get the business, when the smaller, hungrier SpaceX, OrbitalATK and SNC are willing to provide the same services for less.

I think it's an important move.  The days when a contractor could place NASA "tightly over a barrel" by insisting their high bids be accepted based on intangibles may be passing...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #173 on: 11/15/2015 01:23 AM »
It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #174 on: 11/15/2015 01:54 PM »

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.
NASA will be evaluating based on multiyear program requirements, not per anum requirements.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #175 on: 11/15/2015 02:08 PM »


It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

There are failures of cargo vehicles that could lead to LoC.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #176 on: 11/15/2015 04:22 PM »
The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.[1]  However, it would mean DC has an advantage over competitors who can lift less than 3750kg, as they would require at least three missions to DC's two (again, assuming all other things equal).


I'm looking at section VII.C of the RFP and am confused.

First of all, is selection necessarily based on this number? I thought selection was based on actual proposed prices in the matrix at I.A.3. My understanding is that this "price at 50% upmass" is just the baseline the government is evaluating to document that prices are "fair and reasonable."

Also, it appears that the number of missions is prorated based on capacity, but multiplied by the unit price for the whole number of missions that would be required. E.G:

If SNC were offering 1 mission per year at (say) $600M, and 2 missions per year at $500M ea. (and assuming 5000kg. pressurized upmass).

7500/5000 = 1.5 x $500M = $750M

(see attached image).
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 04:23 PM by arachnitect »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #177 on: 11/15/2015 11:06 PM »
I'm looking at section VII.C of the RFP and am confused.

First of all, is selection necessarily based on this number? I thought selection was based on actual proposed prices in the matrix at I.A.3. My understanding is that this "price at 50% upmass" is just the baseline the government is evaluating to document that prices are "fair and reasonable."

Also, it appears that the number of missions is prorated based on capacity, but multiplied by the unit price for the whole number of missions that would be required. E.G:

If SNC were offering 1 mission per year at (say) $600M, and 2 missions per year at $500M ea. (and assuming 5000kg. pressurized upmass).

7500/5000 = 1.5 x $500M = $750M

(see attached image).

Thanks for clarifying the price evaluation formula.  Your calculation is correct.  The value should be prorated, including fractional, which I did not.

Price evaluation--which is the most significant selection factor--is based on the values determined in section VII.C.  Section I is the input to Section VII.C.  The prices in Section I are used in price reasonableness tests (details in FAR 15.404-1).  Proposals which do not pass that test would be rejected.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #178 on: 11/15/2015 11:21 PM »

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.
NASA will be evaluating based on multiyear program requirements, not per anum requirements.

The price evaluation is based on the sum of given and calculated per-annum not-to-exceed (NTE) pricing over the period CY2018-2024 for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass, plus ISS certification costs.[1]  E.g., perform the calculation given in Section VII using the prices in Section I (CLIN-001) for each year; sum them; add ISS certification price (CLIN-002A).  The total is the value used for price evaluation.

edit: [1] Excluding the unpressurized upmass calculation, which is very unlikely to play a part in the price evaluation.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 11:33 PM by joek »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #179 on: 11/15/2015 11:26 PM »


It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

There are failures of cargo vehicles that could lead to LoC.


Nothing short of an collision with the station or major malfunction while attached to the ISS would cause that. Loss of Cargo Vehicle would at most cause loss of mission by causing the ISS to be evacuated due to insufficient supplies.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #180 on: 11/16/2015 01:54 PM »
I find it interesting that Boeing and LM seem to have priced themselves out of the CRS-2 competition.
When it comes to cargo transport, the incumbents are SpaceX and OrbitalATK. And both failures have been LV, nothing wrong with the already certified and proven VV and ops. That's why I still expect SPX 3/2, ORB 1/2 and SNC 1/2 missions per year. If SNC was aggressive enough on price (which it appears they were).

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 194
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #181 on: 11/16/2015 09:25 PM »
I realized something else today that gives SNC a little more leeway in their price. It's a woman-owned business. Considering this is federal procurement that does give them a little extra leg up, as well as more leniency in price.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #182 on: 11/17/2015 02:24 AM »
I realized something else today that gives SNC a little more leeway in their price. It's a woman-owned business. Considering this is federal procurement that does give them a little extra leg up, as well as more leniency in price.

SNC will not receive consideration for being a woman-owned business, in particular with respect to price.  The price is evaluated as bid.  Nor can SNC subcontract with itself to raise its Small Business Utilization score, which in any case is 5% of the Mission Suitability score, and Mission Suitability is less important that Price.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #183 on: 11/17/2015 07:03 AM »

I realized something else today that gives SNC a little more leeway in their price. It's a woman-owned business. Considering this is federal procurement that does give them a little extra leg up, as well as more leniency in price.

Why should any consideration of the gender of the owner come into this?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #184 on: 11/17/2015 09:38 AM »

I realized something else today that gives SNC a little more leeway in their price. It's a woman-owned business. Considering this is federal procurement that does give them a little extra leg up, as well as more leniency in price.

Why should any consideration of the gender of the owner come into this?

The US Government has a weird definition of anti-discrimination, the laws are deliberately pro women and pro blacks. They have quotas for contracts.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #185 on: 11/17/2015 10:22 AM »
The US Government has a weird definition of anti-discrimination, the laws are deliberately pro women and pro blacks. They have quotas for contracts.
The policy is called "Affirmative Action", and has had both good and bad results over the past fifty years.  It is also very off-topic for this thread.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #186 on: 11/17/2015 01:33 PM »
Agree, but NASA has already dinged for being overly optimistic about transportation costs (cargo and crew).  There is no money for DC development other than SNC's pockets (presumably amortized over the CRS-2 contract) or what could be paid under CRS-2--which must come under ISS "initial" or "base" integration--and which is added to the evaluation price.  This is largely going to hinge on NASA's evaluation of DC's risk and how aggressive SNC is in pricing...

SNC has received about the same money under commercial crew ($312.5M) than Orbital ($288M) and SpaceX ($396M) did under COTS. If SNC gets selected for CRS2, the NASA funding of $396M for DC will have been money well spent.

I am hoping that NASA will pick three companies. I imagine that NASA will ask all three companies what their price would be if the awards are split between three or between two companies and will then make a decision based on their answers. 
« Last Edit: 11/17/2015 01:47 PM by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #187 on: 11/17/2015 09:26 PM »
SNC has received about the same money under commercial crew ($312.5M) than Orbital ($288M) and SpaceX ($396M) did under COTS. If SNC gets selected for CRS2, the NASA funding of $396M for DC will have been money well spent.

Agree, and that is the only thing that makes me think DC has a chance.  Assuming DC can effectively lift at least 3750kg pressurized upmass--which requires ~13m3 usable pressurized cargo volume--then the evaluation will be based on the price for 2 missions/year x 7 years = 14 missions total.  So figure 14 missions for SNC to amortize/recover DDT&E and ISS integration costs.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #188 on: 11/28/2015 03:40 AM »
Here is an interesting presentation on cargo DC.


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #189 on: 11/28/2015 03:41 AM »
One thing that was mentionned is that cargo DC can fly on FH (but not on a F9, it seems).

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #190 on: 07/18/2017 07:04 PM »
This article seems relevant to this thread.

Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser on the move in California

Quote
An atmospheric test model of Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser spacecraft, a cargo carrier for the International Space Station that will take off on top of an Atlas 5 rocket and land on a runway, is undergoing braking and steering checks in California ahead of a flight test later this year, the company said Monday.

The full-scale Dream Chaser is pulled behind a tow vehicle for the ground tests now underway, reaching speeds fast enough to gauge the craft’s braking performance and guidance, navigation and control systems.

Rolling on two main landing gear wheels and a nose skid, the Dream Chaser traveled down a runway Monday in Sierra Nevada’s latest tow test at Edwards Air Force Base, which is co-located with NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center.

Once cut free from its tow vehicle, the Dream Chaser slowed to a stop, allowing engineers to gather data on the craft’s brakes, steering system, and guidance, navigation and control sensors that will line the spaceplane up for landing, according to Eric Cain, a Sierra Nevada engineer who described Monday’s test on the company’s Twitter account.

More tests are planned in the coming months, including additional tow tests and a “captive carry” flight with the Dream Chaser suspended under a helicopter.

Quote
Sierra Nevada says the 2013 flight was successful until that point, and Dream Chaser’s autopilot landing system steered the craft toward the runway for a touchdown on the centerline.

Engineers blamed the mishap on a landing gear borrowed from a U.S. Air Force F-5E jet. Future Dream Chaser cargo missions to the space station will fly with a different landing gear, and the refurbished spaceship now in California features a gear more advanced then the one at fault in 2013.

“It’s much more close to the (configuration) of the orbital vehicle now, with flight software,” Sirangelo told Spaceflight Now earlier this year. “It’s fully autonomous, so it will use flight software that we’ll go to orbit with. All the control surfaces, and all the data gathering is all electronic.

“The computer systems are now the orbital version of the computer systems that we will manage with, so it’s structurally similar, but virtually the whole inside of the vehicle has been updated and changed.”

Meanwhile, technicians are building the space-rated version of the Dream Chaser that will fly into orbit on a cargo run to the space station as soon as 2019.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/17/sierra-nevadas-dream-chaser-on-the-move-in-california/

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1497
  • Likes Given: 936
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #191 on: 12/13/2017 05:43 AM »
Not office SN video but nice anyway.  Enjoy.

 Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animation


Hazegrayart
Published on Sep 12, 2017

Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqLrc_1Hoi8?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #192 on: 12/13/2017 04:10 PM »
Not office SN video but nice anyway.  Enjoy.

 Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animation


Hazegrayart
Published on Sep 12, 2017

Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animation


the cartoon wheels skid sound at the end made it worth watching :P
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #193 on: 12/13/2017 04:44 PM »
Made me smile, thanks Tony! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Tags: