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.
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.
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...
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: 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?