https://twitter.com/SNCspacesystems/status/577912034383138816"SNC's Space Systems@SNCspacesystemsThe 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 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.
Inside the fairing? The folding wings seem like quite a change.
http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=426SPARKS, 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.”
The is video on web showing the thrusters, 3 small ones on each side.Can't compete with Dragons trunk for bulky unpressurized cargo.
Quote from: Malderi on 03/17/2015 07:07 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/18/2015 04:29 amWith 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?
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.
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.
Is a CBM even an option, or is NDS implicitly mandated?
Quote from: Burninate on 03/18/2015 06:04 amIs 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.
Quote from: Malderi on 03/17/2015 07:05 pmOne 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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2015 10:58 pmThe 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...
Quote from: adrianwyard on 03/17/2015 11:26 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2015 10:58 pmThe 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.
Quote from: gosnold on 03/17/2015 09:11 pmQuote from: Malderi on 03/17/2015 07:07 pmI 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
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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/18/2015 04:29 amIt 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?
Quote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/18/2015 04:29 amIt 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"...
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.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 03/18/2015 10:57 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmThe 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.
Quote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmThe 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"...
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.
Quote from: Star One on 03/18/2015 07:27 pmI 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2015 11:35 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 03/18/2015 10:57 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmThe 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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2015 05:21 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2015 11:35 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 03/18/2015 10:57 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmThe 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.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 06:04 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2015 05:21 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2015 11:35 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 03/18/2015 10:57 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/18/2015 10:45 pmThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Burninate on 03/19/2015 06:44 amWe 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.
I must have missed it but why would the cargo Dream Chaser need to be inside a fairing?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/18/2015 08:18 pmQuote from: adrianwyard on 03/17/2015 11:26 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2015 10:58 pmThe 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.
If they chose a third Cargo contractor, then they might even desire that the third contractor uses IDA.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2015 06:24 amI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Burninate on 03/19/2015 06:44 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2015 06:24 amI 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.
Quote from: baldusi on 03/19/2015 02:39 pmIf 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.
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.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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.
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 03/20/2015 09:06 pmOK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... 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.
Quote from: spacetech on 03/20/2015 10:37 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 03/20/2015 09:06 pmOK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;DYou 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.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 03/20/2015 09:06 pmOK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;DYou 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.
OK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... ;D
Quote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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.
Quote from: joek on 03/20/2015 02:41 amQuote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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.
Quote from: Burninate on 03/21/2015 01:12 amAre 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?
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.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/577913004425007104Lindsey: will do a second Dream Chaser glide test by the end of this year (1st was in October 2013).
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...
Quote from: spacetech on 03/20/2015 10:37 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 03/20/2015 09:06 pmOK folks, don’t get all “un-hinged” about the folding fin concept... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: vt_hokie on 03/23/2015 08:42 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.
Quote from: arachnitect on 03/21/2015 01:46 amQuote from: Burninate on 03/21/2015 01:12 amQuote from: joek on 03/20/2015 02:41 amQuote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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.
Quote from: Burninate on 03/21/2015 01:12 amQuote from: joek on 03/20/2015 02:41 amQuote from: adrianwyard on 03/19/2015 02:56 pmWhile 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?
Quote from: Burninate on 03/21/2015 02:06 amQuote from: manboy on 07/19/2014 01:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2014 04:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan 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_SystemThat'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.
Quote from: manboy on 07/19/2014 01:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2014 04:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan 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_SystemThat'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?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2014 04:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan 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_SystemThat's outdated info. The passthrough diameter is now 800 mm (31.5 in), the petals are no longer removable.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan 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
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan 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.
Can the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.
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.
Quote from: arachnitect on 03/21/2015 01:46 amQuote from: Burninate on 03/21/2015 01:12 amAre 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.
SNC’s Dream Chaser Crewed Space System Concept of OperationsPublished on Jul 8, 2015
Quote from: catdlr on 07/08/2015 11:00 pmSNC’s Dream Chaser Crewed Space System Concept of OperationsPublished on Jul 8, 2015Odd, same video that's been around for months.
In the videos DC cargo flies with 3 solids while the crew DC has none.is that settled then ?
Interesting, I wonder why the whole TPS is black except for two white stripes on top.
At one time, SNC put a down payment on an Atlas V launch. Anyone know if SNC is still planning on using that launch?
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.
{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.
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/09/2015 05:22 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.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2015 10:30 amQuote from: Lars-J on 10/09/2015 05:22 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 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.
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.
Olson adds that SNC is in “the final three” (with SpaceX and Orbital ATK) for CRS-2 contract. #ASGSR2015
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015
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.
Quote from: BrightLight on 11/12/2015 05:14 pmIf 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.
QuoteJohn Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015If 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.
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)....
Quote from: vt_hokie on 11/12/2015 10:44 pmThe 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).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/13/2015 12:20 amQuote from: vt_hokie on 11/12/2015 10:44 pmThe 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.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440QuoteJohn Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015
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.
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.
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.
...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.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/14/2015 03:10 pmThis 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.
...they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.
Quote from: arachnitect on 11/09/2015 12:05 am...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.
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.
It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.
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).
Quote from: joek on 11/14/2015 11:36 pmThe 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.
Quote from: deltaV on 11/15/2015 01:23 amIt'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.
I find it interesting that Boeing and LM seem to have priced themselves out of the CRS-2 competition.
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.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 11/16/2015 09:25 pmI 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.
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.
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.
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.
Not office SN video but nice anyway. Enjoy. Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animationHazegrayartPublished on Sep 12, 2017Dream Chaser Visits the ISS animation