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.
Very cool. Just curious for people's opinion, but what are the chances that Dream Chaser actually makes it to crewed flights?
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?