Were the fuzzy dice still hanging?
I'm not an aeronautical engineer or a rocket scientist, but from my layman's perspective, it would have been more worrisome if it had exhibited instability in flight, even if the gear deployed properly and it made a successful landing.
Here is the first X-15 unpowered drop test in 1959, with Scott Crossfield at the controls. Note the pitch oscillation just before landing.
So all things considered, I'd say the Dream Chaser test was mostly successful.
I've just seen the video released today. Wonderful to see that everything was hugely successful and that there were no problems except for a tiny anomaly that was so itsy bitsy that it wasn't even worth showing on the video. Good of them not to insult us with any images of trouble. I'm off to watch "M2F2 Crash" on YouTube now, and to ponder the meaning of the following fact. Russian showed the entire Proton crash this summer, live. Remember when the USSR hid its failures while NASA showed its problems in full detail? (For those wondering who is leading in space today - that (showing it all) was leadership.) - Ed Kyle
We didn't get video of the SpaceX first stage falling apart when it hit the water either. This isn't NASA. They get to decide what video they want to release.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 10/29/2013 11:29 pmWe didn't get video of the SpaceX first stage falling apart when it hit the water either. This isn't NASA. They get to decide what video they want to release.This aspect makes me less supportive of the "commercial crew" program in general. Personally, I think they'd generate more good will by just being open, and also avoid overly pessimistic rumors and speculation when in fact the actual situation might be much more positive than censoring things would imply. We don't get to see the cool stuff that goes on at places like Groom Lake, and our inept government has left our space program an empty shell of its former self, so I think some of us are just frustrated and starved for some actual progress that involves seeing some hardware in flight!
Of course, all of us genuine enthusiasts want to see the full video, or better yet, live coverage; but unfortunately, the companies have to worry about hostile members of Congress and a generally ignorant and sensation-seeking news media.
Quote from: rickl on 10/29/2013 11:47 pmOf course, all of us genuine enthusiasts want to see the full video, or better yet, live coverage; but unfortunately, the companies have to worry about hostile members of Congress and a generally ignorant and sensation-seeking news media.Bingo.
SNC will eventually release the full video, after they have a couple of completely successful flights under their belt.
Quote from: rickl on 10/29/2013 11:47 pmSNC will eventually release the full video, after they have a couple of completely successful flights under their belt.SpaceX is still sitting on video of its 2006 and 2008 failures. - Ed Kyle
The new version of NASA’s space shuttle, being designed by Sierra Nevada Corp., is vying to carry astronauts to and from the international space station in four or five more years.
I was wondering how long it'd take before that argument found its way to this thread...
How about focusing on what SNC has stated and the media has reported? If you have concerns or disagree with the accuracy of those statements or reports, then by all means state them. If your complaint is lack of transparency, then learn to live with it. No program, government, private, or otherwise has ever been completely transparent. Availability or lack of video of any particular event is no indicator of transparency.In short, IMHO if SNC released complete video of the landing and aftermath, it would matter naught other than to a few.
Did it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/30/2013 03:21 amQuote from: rickl on 10/29/2013 11:47 pmSNC will eventually release the full video, after they have a couple of completely successful flights under their belt.SpaceX is still sitting on video of its 2006 and 2008 failures. - Ed KyleExactly what is the problem Ed? You don't let a chance go by to display your dismay with commercial companies not showing their failures. This is not NASA. The things these companies do are not public domain. They have every legal right to keep information about these failures from the general public, regardless of them being financed with tax-payers dollars. This is the world of proprietary information. This is how it works. This is how commercial PR works. You celebrate the things that go right, and you downplay the things that went wrong.That's not new. It has been standard MO since the very start of the aerospace industry.
Thanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.
Hi Chris, Thanks for the great article, as always! I have one question - was the airspeed at landing for this test flight similar to what would be expected on an actual reteurn from orbit? Mark
Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2013 11:56 amThanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.But that would have happened as she scrubbed off speed and diverged from the runway unto the soft sand, which although allowed DC to dig on to her left and presumable over, but cushion the impact.Does that sound fair Chris?
Exactly what is the problem Ed? You don't let a chance go by to display your dismay with commercial companies not showing their failures. This is not NASA. The things these companies do are not public domain. They have every legal right to keep information about these failures from the general public, regardless of them being financed with tax-payers dollars. This is the world of proprietary information. This is how it works. This is how commercial PR works. You celebrate the things that go right, and you downplay the things that went wrong.That's not new. It has been standard MO since the very start of the aerospace industry.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/30/2013 12:13 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2013 11:56 amThanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.But that would have happened as she scrubbed off speed and diverged from the runway unto the soft sand, which although allowed DC to dig on to her left and presumable over, but cushion the impact.Does that sound fair Chris?I think that's fair. I also think it's fair to say it "looked" a lot worse than it was, with all the sand/dust/fake TPS. I'm betting that's a good reason as to why they haven't released that part of the video. Could easily be dramatized (not by the space flight media).....and it would do them no good to have screenshots of that all over websites and news papers.
I can imagine Elon Musk telling prospective customers that there's a possibility you'll end up a bionic man after a flight on DC, while not telling them about the minor glitches on each and every SpaceX mission.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 07:52 amExactly what is the problem Ed? You don't let a chance go by to display your dismay with commercial companies not showing their failures. This is not NASA. The things these companies do are not public domain. They have every legal right to keep information about these failures from the general public, regardless of them being financed with tax-payers dollars. This is the world of proprietary information. This is how it works. This is how commercial PR works. You celebrate the things that go right, and you downplay the things that went wrong.That's not new. It has been standard MO since the very start of the aerospace industry.As far as I'm concerned, these are still essentially public projects. They would not exist without our (taxpayer) money. They are competing to carry our astronauts to our space station. We should know the facts, at least to the extent that NASA previously provided the facts. By the standards you describe, if SLS-51L had been a "commercial" launch someone would have pushed a big red button to cut off the NASA-TV feed (which would have been a delayed feed) when the failure occurred. No news media would have been invited to witness the launch either. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: MarkM on 10/30/2013 12:09 pmHi Chris, Thanks for the great article, as always! I have one question - was the airspeed at landing for this test flight similar to what would be expected on an actual reteurn from orbit? MarkThey told me that the planned return from orbit landing speed was 191 knots.
And your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.
I also want to thank you for a great article, Chris. It was your usual factual and thorough reporting, but with an eye on the larger picture, which I appreciated. It was also an enjoyable read, with a style and tone I found most engaging.It seems to me that NASA's upcoming review of this 1st ALT flight will be key, and whether they concur that the milestone was met or not. If not, hopefully the repairs & landing gear correction can be made in a short period of time, and she can repeat the flight with a smooth landing rollout as a conclusion.Edit: Hey, I reached my 1000th post! Where's my NSF coffee mug?
Quote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 03:00 pmAnd your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.Was CRS-2 an operational flight? Someone hit the big red button during that mission. - Ed Kyle
Edit: Hey, I reached my 1000th post! Where's my NSF coffee mug?
SLS-51L
I have worked in several industries over my career. One common thread I noted is that all corporations are loath to publicize safety issues, including accidents and incidents.
3) One of my end of year feature articles is going to be based an overview (no restrictions on it) of all the Dragon flights so far, where all the little faults are overviewed. They did the same with the ASAP too. So how they act with the media is not the same as how open they are with the likes of ASAP, NASA, etc.Bloody heck, everything revolves back to SpaceX!
In my opinion SNC shot themselves in the foot by not releasing the footage.
In my opinion SNC shot themselves in the foot by not releasing the footage.That Proton explosion was on the nightly news around the world.All press is good press, people would say "Hey what is that cool space plane?" and find out more.Anyway the article was great and covers everything about the test.
Sandra Bullock would have gotten that gear down.
I already posted this on the Gravity thread, but it's too good not to put it here as well.In this Washington Post article, a commenter said:QuoteSandra Bullock would have gotten that gear down.
Some of the arrogance displayed in this thread is unbelievable, quick tip: Just because you paid for a product or service does NOT entitle you to see everything related to that product or service, it all depends on the contract. i.e. just because you paid a few hundred dollars for a plane ticket does not give you the right to see the cockpit during flight operations, let alone viewing Boeing or Airbus' test flights. NASA signed the contract on behalf of the tax payers, and I think we can safely assume it does not include a clause for public disclosure of test flight videos. If this is the case, then SNC does not own you, the public or the tax payer anything, as long as they are executing the contract, they're doing what they're supposed to do.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/30/2013 07:07 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 03:00 pmAnd your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.Was CRS-2 an operational flight? Someone hit the big red button during that mission. - Ed KyleWhat red button? When?
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/30/2013 08:14 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/30/2013 07:07 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 03:00 pmAnd your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.Was CRS-2 an operational flight? Someone hit the big red button during that mission. - Ed KyleWhat red button? When?SpaceX cut the video feed without explanation when Dragon failed to pressurize its RCS just after it separated from the second stage. On previous flights it maintained video until the solar arrays deployed. We were left wondering what happened for some time until Elon Musk himself provided an update via. Twitter. Even then we didn't know the real issue. I raised this example of a commercial firm cutting off the video when failure occurred while asking why we should expect any different during a crewed flight performed for NASA by the same, or by any other, commercial firm. - Ed Kyle
The video feed lasted as long after launch as it had on COTS-2 and CRS-1. We just didn't see the solar arrays deploy because they decided to wait a few orbits to do that.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/31/2013 04:33 amThe video feed lasted as long after launch as it had on COTS-2 and CRS-1. We just didn't see the solar arrays deploy because they decided to wait a few orbits to do that.Video was purposely cut off. That's the point.- Ed Kyle
Please make a new thread about this; space censorship et cetera or something like that.There you can talk about SpaceX feeds and why Orbital is communist for not showing dream chaser till it came to a full stop.
Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
The flight did look quite good but we need to remember this isn't a plane competition it's a spacecraft competition. Do runways landing introduce an extra failure mode with the landing gear?
Personally I'd be a little annoyed if SNC was paid out for that test. It did not demonstrate it could land safely on wheels and skid from drop speed. They should be held accountable for their failure and try again. If they skimped on the landing gear by using salvaged parts that failed they need to own up to it.
Quote from: mr. mark on 10/31/2013 03:06 pmNice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle. I'd sure like to see a Capsule & a Lifting Body make the selection. Were that the case though, I suspect the CST-100 would be the one cut & I doubt that their political connections would let that happen.Excellent article Chris, thank you.
Before people can make absolute predictions on what vehicles survive any down select, does anybody here know NASA's criteria for a selection? How important is it that one of the vehicles has a a wide cross range for landing opening more windows for landing? How important is it that one of the vehicles has a low g-load during landing for returning experiments from orbit? How important is it that a second vehicle is available in the same time frame as the first? I don't doubt that lobbying has some influence on the decision, but I also do believe that questions like the ones I posed do have some weight in NASA's decision making process.
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
Quote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 10/31/2013 06:48 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system
Quote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 07:12 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 10/31/2013 06:48 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 10/31/2013 06:34 pmNASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.I do agree on everything else though.Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system I know, but Boeing is part owner of ULA...
BTW, I like the thought that the apparent survivability of the crash may be seen as a valuable / attractive result in itself, even though unintended (and won't count towards milestones).cheers, Martin
I didn't see if anyone asked this yet (sorry if they did), but are the hydraulic systems on this DC ETA capable of retracting the landing gear in-flight if an anomaly like this happens again? Better to do a belly landing with no gear than land with just one main and take a tumble, IMO.-Mike
One thing that wasn't mentionned is that SNC will either do an another unmanned or a piloted test flight next (likely next year).
That original goal was to conduct one or two approach-and-landing free-flight tests with this ETA, before returning the vehicle to her home base in Colorado for outfitting ahead of the 2014 crewed version of the test flights.SNC will evaluate if they will repair the ETA for another automated flight test, or if to ship her back to Colorado for outfitting.“We will determine (that) if and when we receive enough data from this flight, because we were so successful we think we did receive all the data we need for testing,” Mr. Sirangelo continued. ”But we will determine if we do need that second flight, or if we want to bring the vehicle back for its next set of test flights early next year.”
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/04/2013 01:57 amOne thing that wasn't mentionned is that SNC will either do an another unmanned or a piloted test flight next (likely next year).Oh really?http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/dream-chaser-eta-positives-despite-anomaly/QuoteThat original goal was to conduct one or two approach-and-landing free-flight tests with this ETA, before returning the vehicle to her home base in Colorado for outfitting ahead of the 2014 crewed version of the test flights.SNC will evaluate if they will repair the ETA for another automated flight test, or if to ship her back to Colorado for outfitting.“We will determine (that) if and when we receive enough data from this flight, because we were so successful we think we did receive all the data we need for testing,” Mr. Sirangelo continued. ”But we will determine if we do need that second flight, or if we want to bring the vehicle back for its next set of test flights early next year.”
So much talk about the landing gear, but it is actually the door that doesn't open.How much of the door is actually custom? After all, even on the test article, it should be designed to withstand re-entry heat. Something an F5 never need to do.Part of that must be that it is completely closed. Superheated gases cannot enter, so it must be better sealed than a standard gear door.Could this be the root cause? The door sealing?
Nice little piece on DC on the show Daily Planet... November 13th show at 6:30 min into video.http://www.discovery.ca/dp/videos/
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/14/2013 11:09 pmNice little piece on DC on the show Daily Planet... November 13th show at 6:30 min into video.http://www.discovery.ca/dp/videos/Thanks for posting this. I'm watching it now.
Quote from: Overflow on 11/17/2013 12:47 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/14/2013 11:09 pmNice little piece on DC on the show Daily Planet... November 13th show at 6:30 min into video.http://www.discovery.ca/dp/videos/Thanks for posting this. I'm watching it now.You're welcome, maybe Chris can get us all some of those "Dream Chaser Crew" t-shirts...