Author Topic: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)  (Read 1064690 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1300 on: 07/28/2015 01:47 am »
So the CST-100-200 comes with a reusable service module? Or if not, in what other ways does it remain competitive vs. a Dragon 2?

I suppose in my fictional account Boeing's HL-20 derived bid is perceived to be worth it to NASA despite it being more expensive than Dragon - due to dev costs you noted.

(In CC1 Boeing's higher price was justified because they offered a conservative design/program. Apparently in 2020 they get the extra $ by offering unique capabilities NASA wants.*) 

* Jim has argued there are few or none.

I agree with Jim on this.  I haven't seen any evidence of NASA really wanting anything only Dream Chaser could provide.

If there was a need for such capabilities, NASA would have selected Dream Chaser for CCtCap.

And even farther back, if there were such a need by NASA, then Boeing, SpaceX, and/or others likely would have submitted different commercial crew bids to begin with.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1301 on: 07/28/2015 01:55 am »
The evidence is on your side when you consider the Commercial Crew program. But if you want to make your arguments from historical NASA interest then you have to account for the money spent on the NASA HL-20 and X-38 in the 1990s/2000s, and the STS before that.

Can we really say that all of NASA now agrees that work on HL-20, X-38 and STS was all a mistake in retrospect?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1302 on: 07/28/2015 02:01 am »
The evidence is on your side when you consider the Commercial Crew program. But if you want to make your arguments from historical NASA interest then you have to account for the money spent on the NASA HL-20 and X-38 in the 1990s/2000s, and the STS before that.

Can we really say that all of NASA now agrees that work on HL-20, X-38 and STS was all a mistake in retrospect?

Whether all of NASA agrees doesn't matter.  What matters is what the commercial cargo/crew program wants, and their focus is just on supplying the ISS in the near term.

Also, just because Dream Chaser isn't the right choice for commercial crew and cargo compared to particular alternatives doesn't mean those previous programs were a mistake.

Finally, when you're wondering what NASA thinks of those previous programs, consider that they were all cancelled and no follow-on program was funded for any of them.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1303 on: 07/28/2015 02:10 am »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1304 on: 07/28/2015 02:32 am »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...

The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".

Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP.  I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list.  They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed.  The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are.  If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1305 on: 07/28/2015 02:49 am »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...

The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".

Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP.  I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list.  They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed.  The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are.  If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.

That's exactly what NASA did for CCtCap. Cost was supposed to be the main criteria but NASA changed it to value to the government. Value to the government wasn't on the RFP but NASA still based their decision on it.  The GAO didn't have any problems with this.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2015 02:51 am by yg1968 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1306 on: 07/28/2015 03:38 am »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...

The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".

Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP.  I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list.  They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed.  The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are.  If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.

That's exactly what NASA did for CCtCap. Cost was supposed to be the main criteria but NASA changed it to value to the government. Value to the government wasn't on the RFP but NASA still based their decision on it.  The GAO didn't have any problems with this.

I disagree.  It's not the same at all.  Cost was always supposed to be only one of several listed criteria, and CST-100 was rated higher on several of those other listed criteria.

There is no listed criterion for CRS-2 on which a cargo Dream Chaser could reasonably be expected to outperform the leading contenders.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1307 on: 07/28/2015 12:10 pm »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...

The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".

Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP.  I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list.  They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed.  The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are.  If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.
Take it up with him pal, those are his words during the ISS hearing... He's the guy who makes the choices and who then gets the money You were happy with his choice last time.... Secret selection criteria? How about doesn’t blow up..?
« Last Edit: 07/28/2015 01:23 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1308 on: 07/28/2015 02:01 pm »

     Considering the loss of the DC-X and the rejection of any shuttle like craft, I almost suspect that NASA, et al, are deliberately rejecting any sort of technologies that would lead to a completely reusable SSTO type space craft.

     No, I do NOT think that they are REALLY deliberately doing this, but itr almost seems as though everytime some promising technology that COULD lead to SSTO type craft starts developement, after a couple of setbacks, the program is immediately abandonded, and the project shelved until, "the technology is further matured".

     What bothers me is, how can a technology become further matured, when any work on that technology is abandoned?

     Essentially, unless SNC get's a contract sufficent to support further construction and developement of the Dreamchaser type craft, this will be another technology that will be abandoned, because in the case of corporations, no company is going to further develope a project that there is no immediate market for.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1309 on: 07/28/2015 02:13 pm »
Considering the loss of the DC-X and the rejection of any shuttle like craft, I almost suspect that NASA, et al, are deliberately rejecting any sort of technologies that would lead to a completely reusable SSTO type space craft.

There's zero reason to believe, as far as I can see, that Dream Chaser would be any progress at all toward a reusable SSTO craft.

Experimental lifting-body craft have already proven that lifting bodies are feasible.  Dream Chaser's shape isn't even new, it's just a copy of an old design.  Making this into an operational craft isn't going to help with any of the things that make a reusable SSTO infeasible.

If you really want a reusable SSTO, you're much better off investing in research on materials and engine technologies.  Those are the gating factors for a practical reusable SSTO.

Even better, stop obsessing over SSTO and recognize that staging is really a wonderful technology and staging is really the way to get a practical reusable launch system.  Reusability is what matters, not SSTO.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1310 on: 07/28/2015 05:18 pm »
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...

The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".

Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP.  I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list.  They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed.  The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are.  If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.

That's exactly what NASA did for CCtCap. Cost was supposed to be the main criteria but NASA changed it to value to the government. Value to the government wasn't on the RFP but NASA still based their decision on it.  The GAO didn't have any problems with this.

I disagree.  It's not the same at all.  Cost was always supposed to be only one of several listed criteria, and CST-100 was rated higher on several of those other listed criteria.

There is no listed criterion for CRS-2 on which a cargo Dream Chaser could reasonably be expected to outperform the leading contenders.

1- Perhaps. But NASA never should have tried to fudge things by saying that Boeing brings the best value to the government. That wasn't a criteria in the RFP and it gave the appearance of a bias towards Boeing.

2- As far as DC is concerned, they might be competitive on costs for CRS2. They were more competitive than Boeing for CCtCap and it will be interesting to see how competitive they are with OrbitalATK for CRS2. The selection criteria  for CRS2 are very similar to the ones for CCtCap. Cost is also supposed to be the main criteria for CRS2.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2015 05:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1311 on: 07/28/2015 05:27 pm »
2- As far as DC is concerned, they might be competitive on costs for CRS2. They were more competitive than Boeing for CCtCap and it will be interesting to see how competitive they are with OrbitalATK for CRS2. The selection criteria  for CRS2 are very similar to the ones for CCtCap. Cost is also supposed to be the main criteria for CRS2.

DC in CCtCap was vastly different from DC in CRS2 because in CCtCap it was up against competitors that also needed to have their development costs paid for by the contract.  That's not the case with CRS2, which puts them at an enormous disadvantage.  Boeing, Orbital, and SpaceX all have far more modest development costs to adapt existing systems for CRS2 than SNC would have to make a cargo Dream Chaser a reality.  And it doesn't look like they could make it up by having lower recurring costs by being reusable because their CRS2 proposal has a huge non-reusable module on each flight.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1312 on: 07/29/2015 04:56 am »
2- As far as DC is concerned, they might be competitive on costs for CRS2. They were more competitive than Boeing for CCtCap and it will be interesting to see how competitive they are with OrbitalATK for CRS2. The selection criteria  for CRS2 are very similar to the ones for CCtCap. Cost is also supposed to be the main criteria for CRS2.

DC in CCtCap was vastly different from DC in CRS2 because in CCtCap it was up against competitors that also needed to have their development costs paid for by the contract.  That's not the case with CRS2, which puts them at an enormous disadvantage.  Boeing, Orbital, and SpaceX all have far more modest development costs to adapt existing systems for CRS2 than SNC would have to make a cargo Dream Chaser a reality.  And it doesn't look like they could make it up by having lower recurring costs by being reusable because their CRS2 proposal has a huge non-reusable module on each flight.

I am not so sure about. DC has received a lot more development funding than either SpaceX or Orbital received under COTS. Certification for COTS/CRS is a lot easier than certification for commercial crew. DC would not bother entering CRS if it didn't have a bid that is somewhat competitive.  As far as reusibility, none of the cargo spacecrafts are currently being reused. So they are not at a disadvantage on this front. But I still think that the incumbents (SpaceX and Orbital ATK) hold an advantage over the others. But I am hoping that NASA will choose 3 CRS2 providers. 
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 02:37 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1313 on: 08/17/2015 03:37 pm »
There was what looked like "news" that I saw on a local tv news the other day.  Haven't been able to find it again.   All about Huntsville.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/sierra_nevada_announcement.html

Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser could make Huntsville the first commercial landing site for space craft
« Last Edit: 08/17/2015 04:36 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1314 on: 09/10/2015 04:45 pm »

Through the Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program, SNC is offering three different levels of designation, with the highest level culminating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a re-entry license to SNC for the designated spaceport or airport.  This program was created based on similar work currently being done with Ellington Spaceport in Houston, Texas and the Huntsville International Airport Authority (HIA) in Huntsville, Alabama.

Huh?  What use would any of the other two lower designations be to anyone? 

I suppose one of the three levels could be launch capability, but not reentry.  And the lowest level is simply a paved runway 10,000 feet or longer.
Bring the thunder!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1315 on: 09/11/2015 12:00 am »

Through the Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program, SNC is offering three different levels of designation, with the highest level culminating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a re-entry license to SNC for the designated spaceport or airport.  This program was created based on similar work currently being done with Ellington Spaceport in Houston, Texas and the Huntsville International Airport Authority (HIA) in Huntsville, Alabama.

Huh?  What use would any of the other two lower designations be to anyone? 

I suppose one of the three levels could be launch capability, but not reentry.  And the lowest level is simply a paved runway 10,000 feet or longer.

Two levels of meaningless PR.

Local politicians get to be in the news and sound like they're doing something related to space that will bring jobs to their community.  And they get to do it twice!  Meaningless Cannot-actually-re-enter Level 1 and Meaningless Cannot-actually re-enter Level 2.

Why is it that the less actual technical work a company is doing, the more PR fluff it generates?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1316 on: 10/06/2015 11:05 pm »
Thanks for the great article Chris. :) No "clipping of the wings" for Dream Chaser just a "folding" thus far.... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1317 on: 10/07/2015 12:26 am »
I'm actually a little more convinced that DC still has a fighting chance. NASA's solicitation said they wanted to reduce the number of visiting vehicles, and with ATV done and HTV's future a bit fuzzy NASA would need to select a proposal that can carry a lot more mass/volume uphill. SNC and LM had to two proposals for big haulers and with scuttlebutt that LM may already be out of the contest it leaves SNC with the only proposal that can carry a large volume in a single flight. Even if they aren't the cheapest I think if SNC submitted a bid that's at least somewhat competitive then they genuinely may still be able to see Dream Chaser fly.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1318 on: 10/07/2015 02:05 am »
I'm actually a little more convinced that DC still has a fighting chance. NASA's solicitation said they wanted to reduce the number of visiting vehicles, and with ATV done and HTV's future a bit fuzzy NASA would need to select a proposal that can carry a lot more mass/volume uphill. SNC and LM had to two proposals for big haulers and with scuttlebutt that LM may already be out of the contest it leaves SNC with the only proposal that can carry a large volume in a single flight. Even if they aren't the cheapest I think if SNC submitted a bid that's at least somewhat competitive then they genuinely may still be able to see Dream Chaser fly.

The enhanced Cygnus (which will be used for all later CRS-1 and presumably the CRS-2 bid) has a cargo volume of 27 cubic meters and 3,200 kg with Antares or 3,500kg with Atlas.  I can't find a volume number for Dream Chaser Cargo, but the mass limit is 5,000kg.  ISS cargoes are typically volume-limited.  If the volume scales as the mass, that's 42% to 56% more per mission.  And volume isn't changed by the launcher, so it's more likely 42%.  Is that really enough to warrant the huge development cost and development risk for Dream Chaser cargo?  It seems unlikely.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)
« Reply #1319 on: 10/07/2015 03:49 am »


I agree with Jim on this.  I haven't seen any evidence of NASA really wanting anything only Dream Chaser could provide.

If there was a need for such capabilities, NASA would have selected Dream Chaser for CCtCap.

And even farther back, if there were such a need by NASA, then Boeing, SpaceX, and/or others likely would have submitted different commercial crew bids to begin with.

No, need wouldn't mean they'd select it. Orbital would also have to have the ability to deliver, and that was the big doubt.
 Need doesn't have to come first. Offering a unique service can generate the "need" if it's a big enough advantage.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0