Author Topic: Dream Chaser aims to use Space Shuttle’s legacy to its advantage  (Read 14031 times)


Offline RocketmanUS

That was read differently than other articles you have written.  8)
 

Hopefully they will get more money and there will be no down select. As I do hope the three teams all do well with the money they have been awarded so far.

How much do they estimate they will need till first launch?

If Atlas V is retired in the future for some reason, is there plans for another launcher that can bring Dream Chaser to orbit?

What names should be given to each new mini shuttle?

« Last Edit: 08/18/2012 05:05 AM by RocketmanUS »
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
As far as I know the Shuttles were not lifting bodies.

Offline mikes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Norwich, UK
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 42
Quote
"There’s never been a capsule – over the 60 years of its operation – that has returned to space after coming back home"

Gemini 2

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5394
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 661
  • Likes Given: 3749
As far as I know the Shuttles were not lifting bodies.
Correct. The Orbiters have a clearly separation between the wing and the fuselage. When push came to shove NASA did not have enough confidence in the concept to bet the Agency on it. They felt the risk/reward balance was just too high.

However it could be said that *all* NASA crewed orbital vehicles were "lifting bodies" in the sense the all derived some (all in the case of Gemini & Apollo) lift from their body. Only Mercury was a true "ballistic" capsule (probably because they figured just getting it into space was going to be hard enough) with no lift.

AFAIk the *only* true lifting bodies to achieve orbit were under the ASSET and PRIME programmes of the 1960's (and I'm hazy on one of them being an LB rather than a conventional wing/fuselage. I'd need to checkmy copy of  "Facing the Heat Barrier" SP-2007-4232 to confirm).

While DC has a lot of design heritage and probably draws on a long *systems* legacy it's implementation and concept is quite "heroic" (first composite construction human rated lifting body *ever*).

I believe that *all* 3 concepts are strong enough to get certification to go to ISS. The joker in this pack will be the "Certification" process, which NASA seem adamant will be under FAR25 rules, which may sink *all* the bidders under a superstructure of endless paperwork and *forced* changes to the design.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7690
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2031
  • Likes Given: 4700
Nice article Chris. :) There was a Gemini capsule that flew twice to space unmanned, so I guess for Mark that didn’t count. ;)  For all you non-believers, the Shuttle was a winged lifting body, it’s not all just black or white…

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/gemini-b.htm

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/events/regimes/space.html
« Last Edit: 08/18/2012 11:56 AM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
  • Florida
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 898
I could tell that this was a Chris Bergin article before I even read who wrote it :) nice to see the shuttle living on in some way in terms of actual operations. Needless to say, I look forward to seeing a glider land into KSC from space again soon.

Orbiter
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Williamsburg, VA
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 171
My biggest fear is that we spend all these taxpayer dollars on three worthy systems only to waste most of the effort. Talk of a downselect to one provider makes me nervous.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6578
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 132
Quote
"There’s never been a capsule – over the 60 years of its operation – that has returned to space after coming back home"

Gemini 2


Both suborbital, right?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7690
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2031
  • Likes Given: 4700
Quote
"There’s never been a capsule – over the 60 years of its operation – that has returned to space after coming back home"

Gemini 2


Both suborbital, right?
I know Gemini 2 was and have not located the details of the Gemin B flight yet... It is on display at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Museum, but you probably know that. If anyone knows please enlighten me, ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.0
http://historicspacecraft.com/Gemini_Capsules.html\
http://www.space1.com/pdf/news1096.pdf

And now back to Dream Chaser... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 91
Students of the Soviet space program may be able to confirm or deny this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that some Vostok style capsules used in various Earth observation programs were reused.
Douglas Clark

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7290
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
My biggest fear is that we spend all these taxpayer dollars on three worthy systems only to waste most of the effort. Talk of a downselect to one provider makes me nervous.

Hopefully it isn't something that will come to pass and we are left with at least two systems to use.

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 1
As far as I know the Shuttles were not lifting bodies.

Pardon me, but what is you definition of 'lifting bodies'?

I seem to recall that none of the returning shuttles landed
like a plummeting rock.

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • Mojave, CA
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 11
As far as I know the Shuttles were not lifting bodies.

Pardon me, but what is you definition of 'lifting bodies'?

I seem to recall that none of the returning shuttles landed
like a plummeting rock.

Lift provided by the main body of the vehicle, versus distinctly separate fuselage and wings. Shuttle was a little ambiguous, however
Don't flippantly discount the old rules of this industry. Behind each one lies a painful lesson learned from broken, twisted hardware. Learn those lessons, and respect the knowledge gained from them. Only then, see if you can write new rules that will meet those challenges.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
    • Klyde Morris dot com
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 8
Most elevated discussions concerning Lifting Bodies revolve around a given "Shape" or "the shape" and outside of that it depends on who is doing the talking. I generally stick to what Dale Reed set as the foundation. He, 100% connects the shuttle orbiter shapes to the assorted lifting body breeds.

Of course it also comes down to similar discussions as to what a wing actually is. Some insist that it has to be cambered and thus providing lift, yet lift can be generated by a flat plate or even a turning tubular shape et.al.

IMO, since Dale Reed, the father of lifting bodies, links the shuttle shapes as a form of lifting body- so it is... period. Read his book and decide for yourself.

Milt Thompson, however, was of the opinions that only the lifting bodies based on the M2 shape were "true lifting bodies" so, there are other well informed folks who have had a more narrow view.

BTW- if you do not know who the two people I've cited here are- you would do well to find out before posting farther.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1993
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 0
Remember capsules provide lift as well.

"The Apollo capsules were guided through the atmosphere — the center of mass of the capsule was offset from the center line. This angled the capsule's passage through the air, providing a sideways lift. Rotational thrusters were used to change the lift vector, allowing the capsule to be steered under either automatic or manual control". -  Wikipedia.com

 

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Ok zerm took your advice and looked it up.

Here's a couple of good links I found. I didn't know who these guys were before so thanks for enlightening me.  ;D

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2005/05-13_prt.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p018.html

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4129
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 191
Students of the Soviet space program may be able to confirm or deny this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that some Vostok style capsules used in various Earth observation programs were reused.

It was the Soviet TKS VA capsule that was reusable.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2012 05:50 AM by Patchouli »

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Most elevated discussions concerning Lifting Bodies revolve around a given "Shape" or "the shape" and outside of that it depends on who is doing the talking. I generally stick to what Dale Reed set as the foundation. He, 100% connects the shuttle orbiter shapes to the assorted lifting body breeds.

Of course it also comes down to similar discussions as to what a wing actually is. Some insist that it has to be cambered and thus providing lift, yet lift can be generated by a flat plate or even a turning tubular shape et.al.

IMO, since Dale Reed, the father of lifting bodies, links the shuttle shapes as a form of lifting body- so it is... period. Read his book and decide for yourself.

Milt Thompson, however, was of the opinions that only the lifting bodies based on the M2 shape were "true lifting bodies" so, there are other well informed folks who have had a more narrow view.

BTW- if you do not know who the two people I've cited here are- you would do well to find out before posting farther.

At the risk of dragging this even further OT, at various time BWB & Flying Wing aircraft have been called Lifting Bodies by their designers.  The term seems to have been flexibly used.  AIUI, just about any vehicle that uses the entirety of its' shape to generate lift while in atmospheric flight could be called a Lifting Body.

That said, I wouldn't care to argue the point with Eggers, Reed, Love, or Thompson.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7690
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2031
  • Likes Given: 4700
Just a reminder of a "one-stop shopping" for lifting body Q&A (arguments) ::) thread here... Play nice... ;D

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29126.0
« Last Edit: 08/19/2012 12:24 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Tags: