Author Topic: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System  (Read 57818 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755

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: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
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: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
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: 343
  • 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: 3911
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2572
  • Likes Given: 858
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: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • 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: 169
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: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • 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: 130
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 407
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: 7995
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • 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: 896
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 393
  • Likes Given: 184
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: 8153
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 104
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: 456
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: 7835
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2106
  • Likes Given: 4960
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: 3886
  • Liked: 1213
  • Likes Given: 1037
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: 947
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 209
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: 7835
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2106
  • Likes Given: 4960
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

Tags: