Observation on the drawings - on#20 the "front view" is actually the "Rear view", and the occupants/astronauts are facing backwards
Quote from: BrightLight on 11/19/2012 04:06 pmObservation on the drawings - on#20 the "front view" is actually the "Rear view", and the occupants/astronauts are facing backwardsMany Thanks BrightLight, I miss such information.BTW I have a question: I suppose that pilot and co-pilot are facing through the windows while the other ones are facing backwards, is it correct?
Quote from: BrightLight on 11/19/2012 04:06 pmObservation on the drawings - on#20 the "front view" is actually the "Rear view", and the occupants/astronauts are facing backwardsin my opinion, you are wrong.in picture n. 20, the Dream Chaser, by my point of view, is cutted between the second and the third row of seats, and then viewed front side.ciaopeppe
Quote from: corgius on 11/20/2012 08:27 amQuote from: BrightLight on 11/19/2012 04:06 pmObservation on the drawings - on#20 the "front view" is actually the "Rear view", and the occupants/astronauts are facing backwardsin my opinion, you are wrong.in picture n. 20, the Dream Chaser, by my point of view, is cutted between the second and the third row of seats, and then viewed front side.ciaopeppeSo, let me made up my mind.Corgius has taken my point, Slide 20 view is correct.I cut (ideally, of course) the DC looking backward (from front to back, I mean) so the view is correct (by drawing point of view).
Here it is.CiaoGiuseppe
Quote from: archipeppe68 on 11/19/2012 12:59 pmHere it is.CiaoGiuseppeVery cool but the seats on both the HL-20 and DreamChaser are spaced further apart to create a very narrow aisle between the two groups to allow the crew to exit through the rear of the craft.
Quote from: manboy on 11/20/2012 06:45 pmQuote from: archipeppe68 on 11/19/2012 12:59 pmHere it is.CiaoGiuseppeVery cool but the seats on both the HL-20 and DreamChaser are spaced further apart to create a very narrow aisle between the two groups to allow the crew to exit through the rear of the craft.Point of clarity - is this a HL-20 mock-up or a Dream Chaser mock-up.
In June 2006, NASA Langley removed it from storage, resembled it and shipped it to Space Dev (which is now owned by Sierra Nevada).
Quote from: manboy on 11/20/2012 10:01 pm In June 2006, NASA Langley removed it from storage, resembled it and shipped it to Space Dev (which is now owned by Sierra Nevada). Wrong, the HL-20 was displayed at the Virginia Air and Space Museum fully assembled, it was not in storage or in pieces. I witnessed it there quite often. The Virginia Air and Space Museum is also the Visitor's center for LaRC.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 11/21/2012 01:16 amQuote from: manboy on 11/20/2012 10:01 pm In June 2006, NASA Langley removed it from storage, resembled it and shipped it to Space Dev (which is now owned by Sierra Nevada). Wrong, the HL-20 was displayed at the Virginia Air and Space Museum fully assembled, it was not in storage or in pieces. I witnessed it there quite often. The Virginia Air and Space Museum is also the Visitor's center for LaRC.Than what's going on here? http://archive.org/search.php?query=HL-20%20Full%20Scale%20Mockup%20Loading%20and%20Transport
Very cool. Just curious for people's opinion, but what are the chances that Dream Chaser actually makes it to crewed flights?
Various sources have stated that there will likely only one provider chosen to deliver crew and erioladastra has stated that Dream Chaser is behind Beoing and SpaceX.
Quote from: manboy on 11/25/2012 10:42 pmVarious sources have stated that there will likely only one provider chosen to deliver crew and erioladastra has stated that Dream Chaser is behind Beoing and SpaceX.Having a single provider would defeat the biggest advantage of commercial crew which is redundancy.It should be noted Dream Chaser's method of decent and landing is well tested the same cannot be said for Spacex's chosen method for the crewed version of their vehicle.
Giuseppe,First of all, thank you for this. Very well done.A couple of suggestions:1 - On slide 6, the school should be NC A&T (North Carolina A&T).2 - I noticed you did not include either the origin of Spiral, the Tsybin PKA, or the sub-scale BOR-1, -2, -3, or -6?V/R,
Having a single provider would defeat the biggest advantage of commercial crew which is redundancy.
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/25/2012 08:05 pmVery cool. Just curious for people's opinion, but what are the chances that Dream Chaser actually makes it to crewed flights?Various sources have stated that there will likely only one provider chosen to deliver crew and erioladastra has stated that Dream Chaser is behind Beoing and SpaceX.
Here it is the updated slide 8 since I've done a couple of errors (LaRC not DFRC while it was developed in 1993 rather than 1997).I wanna thanks Dr. Ted Talay to allow me correcting the HL-42 infos.CiaoGiuseppe
Yea, be interesting to think about an alternative history where HL-20, and then HL-42 was developed to fly axially on some type of ELV, specifically to service a space station.Would have been a much more moderate first stab at reusability and space planes than going from Apollo to the Shuttle.
Much has been made about Dream Chaser's advantages in terms of being able to land at a benign environment on many runways around the world but I have not read anything about its performance during a boost phase. In the event of an engine shutdown during the boost phase does Dream Chaser have a better chance of getting to an East Coast runway and NOT dumping the crew into the North Atlantic?
SpaceDev is mentioned briefly in this discussion, but I suspect that most people have no idea about SpaceDev’s role in reviving the HL-20.