Author Topic: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)  (Read 415045 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #40 on: 01/26/2008 02:35 AM »
Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

BTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.

That's why you aren't making the decisions.  NASA was just as involved with X-33 and it was also another LM division

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #41 on: 01/26/2008 02:38 AM »
Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

I say just design the capsule to be safe and roomy and then up rate the rocket to fit it vs all this dorking  around.

If the stick can't lift it then don't use the stick use something else you will get a safer spacecraft and it'll fly sooner.

.

HUH?  You lack a basic understanding of the whole program if you think it is that easy to fix

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #42 on: 01/26/2008 02:38 AM »
Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

I'd go with a hybrid because an SDV is very unlikely to explode on the pad but it is likely to develop trouble later in flight.

.

Hybrids haven't even proven themselves yet for spacelaunch.  SS1 is not proof.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #43 on: 01/26/2008 12:41 PM »
Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

BTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.
The X-33 was not a total failure. There was a lot of really good things that worked really well from the progran, for example the aero-spike emgines. X-33's problem was that the composite LH2 tank in such a wierd shape was a "leap too far" for the composite state of the art. With more time spent pushing that envelope, the X-33 might have worked just fine. But - out of schedule, out of money, see ya later bye.

See the thtead: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #44 on: 02/01/2008 10:15 PM »
Quote
clongton - 26/1/2008  8:41 AM

Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

BTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.
The X-33 was not a total failure. There was a lot of really good things that worked really well from the progran, for example the aero-spike emgines. X-33's problem was that the composite LH2 tank in such a wierd shape was a "leap too far" for the composite state of the art. With more time spent pushing that envelope, the X-33 might have worked just fine. But - out of schedule, out of money, see ya later bye.

See the thtead: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened

I have to agree...LM always seems to get the blame on here for the X-33 failure. It just had a major issue and the absolute wrong time. With more money and more time looking over the issue, they would have solved all of the problems.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #45 on: 02/02/2008 01:21 PM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2008  6:15 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/1/2008  8:41 AM

Quote
Sid454 - 25/1/2008  9:30 PM

BTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.
The X-33 was not a total failure. There was a lot of really good things that worked really well from the progran, for example the aero-spike emgines. X-33's problem was that the composite LH2 tank in such a wierd shape was a "leap too far" for the composite state of the art. With more time spent pushing that envelope, the X-33 might have worked just fine. But - out of schedule, out of money, see ya later bye.

See the thtead: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened

I have to agree...LM always seems to get the blame on here for the X-33 failure. It just had a major issue and the absolute wrong time. With more money and more time looking over the issue, they would have solved all of the problems.
Absolutely. It was not an unsolvable condition. It was just a little too much of a stretch for the available composite state of the art. Composites have advanced even further now than they were then, and under today's conditions I would wager they wouldn't have that same proble. It's unfortunate that the budget and schedule just wouldn't support, because that would have been a good forward evolution.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline CommSpaceAdvocate1

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #46 on: 02/03/2008 03:35 PM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2008  5:15 PM

I have to agree...LM always seems to get the blame on here for the X-33 failure. It just had a major issue and the absolute wrong time. With more money and more time looking over the issue, they would have solved all of the problems.

I don't like the word "blame", as it takes the focus of "lessons learned" (and focusing on the future), and leads to CYA, but there are important issues here that are relevant to current initiatives.

If you recall, the X-33 was a "space act agreement" that required private investment (very similar to COTS in many ways).  Meaning it was Lockheed's responsibility to put more money into the project if it incurred cost overruns.  

In addition, nobody made Lockheed bid a system that had so much technical risk.

So, Lockheed has major responsibility for the X-33 results.  I know it is a lot to ask for, but it would be a breathe of fresh air if they accepted some responsibility for the result.

That said, NASA MSFC also shares some responsibility for the X-33 results.  MSFC specifically chose the high-risk Lockheed option over two lower-risk approaches BECAUSE it had extra new technology in it.

So there is plenty enough responsibility for MSFC and Lockheed to share.  (NOTE:  The MSFC desire for extra new technology in X-33 reminds me of the current COTS competition in many ways.)

The real tragedy of X-33 is that instead of "learning a lesson" on how not to structure an x-vehicle program, and using those lessons learned in the next RLV x-vehicle attempt, we stopped.  

If you study the history of x-vehicles, the most successful x-vehicles usually targeted 1 or 2 new key technologies to demonstrate.  The X-33 had too much technical risk, only because MSFC chose the most technically risky system.

Today, I hear the mantra "Don't blame us ... RLVs are just too hard."  This ignores the fact that the other X-33 proposals were lower risk, and much more achievable.

The X-33 history provides some relevant lessons learned for the current COTS competition.  A few lessons include:

1) Don't pick the highest risk bidder just because you like new technology.  You set the program up for failure by choosing too much new technology.

2) If COTS does fail, don't blame the whole concept of COTS (funded space act agreements).  Look first to see if there are lessons learned on how to more effectively manage a future COTS-like competition.

3) If COTS does fail, consider that maybe ... just maybe ... it was because NASA (again) picked winners with too much new high risk technology.  

3A) Alternatively, if you really really want to pick winners that are so high risk, consider using a portfolio risk diversification strategy with a large number of winners the next time.  

4) If SpaceX or the winner of the current COTS competition have technical problems or cost overruns, they need to put more money in.  It will not be NASA's responsibility to bail them out.  NASA may choose to do so, but they are not required to do so, and the COTS winner should not expect it.

5) If SpaceX or the winner of the current COTS competition ultimately fail ... don't pull a RpK and blame NASA for your failure.  Nobody forced you to bid.

- CSA1


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #47 on: 02/03/2008 04:05 PM »
COTS I can fail and it doesn't jeopardized anything.  

I take that back.  Actually, it is virtually impossible for COTS I to fail.  COTS I purpose:
"NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the International Space Station (ISS)"

Since COTS II will be competed before COTS I is finished, the competitive market will have been created.  Whether it is sustained or not, doesn't matter


Offline CommSpaceAdvocate1

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #48 on: 02/04/2008 04:24 AM »
Quote
Jim - 3/2/2008  11:05 AM

COTS I can fail and it doesn't jeopardized anything.  


If COTS I succeeds, it proves out a "new approach" to space development.  It will be much more likely that this kind of "new approach" will be used again.  It will be used as a justification to do more in the nature of privatizing space activities.

If the two COTS I competitors fail at achieving any significant success, the opposite is true.

That said, I do agree that COTS II could succeed, while COTS I fails.

- CSA1



Offline Navidran

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #49 on: 02/06/2008 04:37 PM »
I have a suggestion for Dreamchaser.  They should figure out how it can launch to orbit atop an Atlas 401.  Also it should have a high degree of autonomy.  Then it would be a clear favorite over the other possibilities for the recent Bigelow announcement.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #50 on: 02/06/2008 04:56 PM »
Quote
Navidran - 6/2/2008  12:37 PM

I have a suggestion for Dreamchaser.  They should figure out how it can launch to orbit atop an Atlas 401.  Also it should have a high degree of autonomy.  Then it would be a clear favorite over the other possibilities for the recent Bigelow announcement.
SpaceDev already has a MOU with ULA for this very configuration. ULA for its part has completed preliminary analysis of the entire flight environment and all required interfaces. They concluded that the Atlas-V 401 and DreamChaser are a good match with no known impediments to the pairing. Dreamchaser is being designed for autonomous flight to enable the return of an incapacitated crew. As of yet there is however nothing beyond the MOU, at least that is publically available. But work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Navidran

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #51 on: 02/06/2008 05:02 PM »
I have only seen Atlas 5 mentioned with the 431 or 432, not the 401.  Or is the 401 a general term for all "400-class" vehicles?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #52 on: 02/06/2008 05:08 PM »
Quote
Navidran - 6/2/2008  1:02 PM

I have only seen Atlas 5 mentioned with the 431 or 432, not the 401.  Or is the 401 a general term for all "400-class" vehicles?
The 431 and 432 use non-man rated solids. That makes them non-starters for potential NASA use. The 401, with no solids, is the only viable configuration for the foreseeable future. But anything is possible once the pair actually flies.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Navidran

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #53 on: 02/06/2008 05:15 PM »
I assume then the 401 and Dreamchaser pair would have enough delta-v to reach orbit.  Very interesting.  Well I hope you are right.  That would be neat to see.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #54 on: 02/06/2008 06:05 PM »
Quote
clongton - 6/2/2008  1:08 PM

The 431 and 432 use non-man rated solids. That makes them non-starters for potential NASA use. .

Not applicable for Dream Chaser

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #55 on: 02/06/2008 06:32 PM »
Quote
Jim - 6/2/2008  2:05 PM

Quote
clongton - 6/2/2008  1:08 PM

The 431 and 432 use non-man rated solids. That makes them non-starters for potential NASA use. .

Not applicable for Dream Chaser
Only for commercial flights (FAA). But if wanting to capture any NASA business, solid boosters would need to be man rated. Hence no 431/432 for now.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #56 on: 02/06/2008 06:58 PM »
Quote
clongton - 6/2/2008  12:56 PM

But work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.

I'd love to see it, but where is the funding coming from?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #57 on: 02/06/2008 07:33 PM »
Quote
vt_hokie - 6/2/2008  2:58 PM

Quote
clongton - 6/2/2008  12:56 PM

But work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.

I'd love to see it, but where is the funding coming from?
I don't have that information, which is why I hesitated to share what I do have. But it sure is tantilizing, and if it actually comes to be as I think it might, that will be very satisfying.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Navidran

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #58 on: 02/06/2008 11:27 PM »
So in your opinion who is the likely capsule provider on the 401 for Bigelow?  My guess is Dragon.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)
« Reply #59 on: 02/06/2008 11:32 PM »
Quote
Navidran - 6/2/2008  7:27 PM

So in your opinion who is the likely capsule provider on the 401 for Bigelow?  My guess is Dragon.

Dragon is not flying on Atlas.  That is not Spacex's modus operandi

Tags: