I really like the focus the article puts on the launch vehicle configuration. It's an Atlas 4xx because it flies with the Centaur exposed rather than enclosed; it has no fairing.
I read another article that said the Dream Chaser was going to have thousands of tiles. It doesn't seem like it is going to be very cost efficient totally replacing all damaged tiles, even if only scratched.
And it doesn't seem like it will have early abort capability.
QuoteQuote from: sdsds on 06/23/2012 12:33 amI'm a bit confused though about emergency egress. I get the bit shown in the photo where a gangplank from the existing mobile launch platform gets the crew into the vehicle. But what if they need to get down in a hurry? (I'm hoping the answer involves a zip-line! For a launch pad abort, SNC is looking at a separation of Dream Chaser from the Atlas V 402 stack and subsequent landing on a nearby runway, thereby eliminating the need for an emergency egress system for the crew at the pad. How that Pad Abort going to happen? I'm not sure. But that's what Mark Sirangelo noted in his interview with Lee Jay.
Quote from: sdsds on 06/23/2012 12:33 amI'm a bit confused though about emergency egress. I get the bit shown in the photo where a gangplank from the existing mobile launch platform gets the crew into the vehicle. But what if they need to get down in a hurry? (I'm hoping the answer involves a zip-line!
I'm a bit confused though about emergency egress. I get the bit shown in the photo where a gangplank from the existing mobile launch platform gets the crew into the vehicle. But what if they need to get down in a hurry? (I'm hoping the answer involves a zip-line!
Atlas 4xx has a limit of about 20,000 lbs for payload. Does the DreamChaser really have such a low weight?
I read another article that said the Dream Chaser was going to have thousands of tiles. It doesn't seem like it is going to be very cost efficient totally replacing all damaged tiles, even if only scratched. Plus the docking adapter is only one time use?...
The entire booster is only used one time, why worry about the docking adapter? Consider it part of the booster. Seriously, if it's cheaper to make a new one than to refurbish the old, what's the problem?
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 06/23/2012 02:56 pmQuoteQuote from: sdsds on 06/23/2012 12:33 amI'm a bit confused though about emergency egress. I get the bit shown in the photo where a gangplank from the existing mobile launch platform gets the crew into the vehicle. But what if they need to get down in a hurry? (I'm hoping the answer involves a zip-line! For a launch pad abort, SNC is looking at a separation of Dream Chaser from the Atlas V 402 stack and subsequent landing on a nearby runway, thereby eliminating the need for an emergency egress system for the crew at the pad. How that Pad Abort going to happen? I'm not sure. But that's what Mark Sirangelo noted in his interview with Lee Jay.What would the pad crew, who is assisting the astronauts, do, if they need to get away from the pad and the rocket in a hurry? (Or the astronauts, when they are not settled in yet.)
Quote from: laszlo on 06/24/2012 12:36 pmThe entire booster is only used one time, why worry about the docking adapter? Consider it part of the booster. Seriously, if it's cheaper to make a new one than to refurbish the old, what's the problem?Because it is not part of the booster. It is a integral part of the spacecraft and its pressure vessel.
So much for using humorous rhetorical questions to make a point. It's still not a problem. It's the 21st Century and we have bolt & gasket technology. Don't confuse integral with permanent.
Quote from: laszlo on 06/24/2012 01:23 pmSo much for using humorous rhetorical questions to make a point. It's still not a problem. It's the 21st Century and we have bolt & gasket technology. Don't confuse integral with permanent.Your point and humor failed because it is wrong. Don't confuse technology as a fix for proper engineering.
Quote from: Jim on 06/24/2012 01:30 pmQuote from: laszlo on 06/24/2012 01:23 pmSo much for using humorous rhetorical questions to make a point. It's still not a problem. It's the 21st Century and we have bolt & gasket technology. Don't confuse integral with permanent.Your point and humor failed because it is wrong. Don't confuse technology as a fix for proper engineering.Doesn't SpaceX jettison Dragon's docking adapter before entry?
From what I'm hearing, a two month turnaround at best for Dreamchaser. So what is being advertised to the public as a quick turnaround vehicle is just not so.
Quote from: Danderman on 06/23/2012 03:11 pmAtlas 4xx has a limit of about 20,000 lbs for payload. Does the DreamChaser really have such a low weight?The DC might not actually have such a low weight. There are several factors that could benefit the (required) performance. - No payload faring, reducing weight on the Atlas.- Altlas 402 (x02?), not the 401 we are used to. Better performance to LEO because of the dual engine Centaur.- DC might do an OMS-2 or even an OMS-1 style burn, lowering the dV requirement on the Atlas.
For that matter, how is replacing the docking adapter after the flight different from swapping out any other component?