Not necissarily. Assuming an intact abort, the range and cross range that the DC offers actually allows one to know where it is coming down as opposed to just dropping somewhere in the water and waiting for someone to come and fish them out.
I've done Pad Aborts with the HL-20 in Orbiter. It's a real "no-brainer" for any pilot. Should be the same for DC on the SLF and or what used to be the "skid strip"...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/27/2012 07:10 pmI've done Pad Aborts with the HL-20 in Orbiter. It's a real "no-brainer" for any pilot. Should be the same for DC on the SLF and or what used to be the "skid strip"...It sounds a little complex for the vehicle design to me.On the one hand, you have a fully-loaded ~25,000 pounds vehicle that has to accelerate hard straight up against gravity to get away from an exploding launch vehicle, while on the other hand the same engines need to serve the same purpose as the OMS system on Shuttle - precisely and delicately altering orbital parameters. So, you need engines that can apply anywhere between ~10g to a fully-loaded vehicle and 0.1g to a mostly-empty vehicle. I don't understand how they're doing that with those hybrid motors.[/quote I agree with you about the motors Lee Jay. We talked about it a while back on the main Dream Chaser thread. Seems like SNC has had some breakthgrough in that area that they are not telling us yet and I guess they don't have to reaveal it to anyone.
Would the Atlas V be in a 401 or 402 config?
Do we have any experience with exposing a pilot to those kind of instant g-loads (pad abort) and then having them perform an un-powered landing? Again not trying to throw cold water on it just sounds quite a bit hairier than going along for the ride.
Quote from: Pheogh on 01/27/2012 08:54 pmDo we have any experience with exposing a pilot to those kind of instant g-loads (pad abort) and then having them perform an un-powered landing? Again not trying to throw cold water on it just sounds quite a bit hairier than going along for the ride.What, you don't think you could accurately pilot a low-glide-ratio lifting body seconds after being rear-ended by a train to escape a massive explosion?Since the pad abort test is going to be uncrewed to a horizontal landing, I wonder if it even matters.
Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that in the article. Yes, no fairing needed.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 01/27/2012 08:57 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 01/27/2012 08:54 pmDo we have any experience with exposing a pilot to those kind of instant g-loads (pad abort) and then having them perform an un-powered landing? Again not trying to throw cold water on it just sounds quite a bit hairier than going along for the ride.What, you don't think you could accurately pilot a low-glide-ratio lifting body seconds after being rear-ended by a train to escape a massive explosion?Since the pad abort test is going to be uncrewed to a horizontal landing, I wonder if it even matters.Your second statement makes the most sense. If it was designed to be automated from the start then that would be really amazing IMHO.
Quote from: Pheogh on 01/27/2012 09:06 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 01/27/2012 08:57 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 01/27/2012 08:54 pmDo we have any experience with exposing a pilot to those kind of instant g-loads (pad abort) and then having them perform an un-powered landing? Again not trying to throw cold water on it just sounds quite a bit hairier than going along for the ride.What, you don't think you could accurately pilot a low-glide-ratio lifting body seconds after being rear-ended by a train to escape a massive explosion?Since the pad abort test is going to be uncrewed to a horizontal landing, I wonder if it even matters.Your second statement makes the most sense. If it was designed to be automated from the start then that would be really amazing IMHO.Well Buran and the X-37 did it...
So it needs 2 to fly it to ISS? If so why not just 1?
Quote from: Pheogh on 01/27/2012 08:54 pmDo we have any experience with exposing a pilot to those kind of instant g-loads (pad abort) and then having them perform an un-powered landing? Again not trying to throw cold water on it just sounds quite a bit hairier than going along for the ride.It should not be too different from performing a 9+ g turn in a fighter.
I'm not intending to go OT with all this or be argumentative I am just trying to picture what a winged vehicle flying vertical off the pad at more than 9g's then righting itself horizontally to glide back to a landing strip just a few miles away.
Also, wasn't there a Soyuz abort at one point and do we know how the cosmonauts felt during the experience other than being relieved to be alive?
It is a step in the right direction, crew and cargo to LEO. Having a fly back runway landing shuttle and also capsules is a good mix to have ( flexible future option ).Once the Dream Chaser and CST-100 are flying then it would be good to see a team make a launcher for them that is low cost and reusable.
Going forward, I'm concerned as to whether Dream Chaser will get a 'fair hearing' for CCDEV-3.... I'm concerned that there might be 'pressure' - from within NASA, by the old guard, and also from without - to ensure that an 'experienced' company (code word for Boeing) is also selected, regardless of what is in the nation's' long-term interest. If the above conjecture is true, it would leave possibly the most innovative proposal - and one that has been worked on much longer than Boeing's - ie SNC's, out. And that would be unfortunate.