Author Topic: Dream Chaser through critical landing test, prepares for orbital flights  (Read 10865 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/dream-chaser-test-prepares-orbital-flights/

By Chris Gebhardt

Epic Uncrewed Dream Chaser L2 Renders - including the lead render - via NSF's Nathan Koga

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3919
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2606
  • Likes Given: 3342
Great article about my favorite upcoming VTHL spacecraft.

One popular question has been why Sierra Nevada didn't go with SpaceX for launching the Dream Chaser, but in looking at the picture of the spacecraft mounted inside of the Atlas V payload fairing it sure looks like the standard Falcon 9 payload fairing would not be tall enough for the Dream Chaser launch configuration. Can anyone confirm that?

On Wikipedia they reference a length of 6.9m, but that is just for the vehicle. The launch stack would also include the expendable cargo portion, which as the solar panels (and is jettisoned in space before return to Earth). Falcon 9 has a total payload length of 11m, but only 6.7m at the full diameter, so the standard fairing appears to be too short for Dream Chaser Cargo.

Nice to be seeing progress!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
We had the discussions previously and a number of people agreed that the current Falcon 9 fairing isn't tall enough for cargo DC. There was talk a while ago (in the 2013 Bigelow report) that the FH would have an option for a taller fairing. But we haven't heard of this taller fairing since that time (4 years ago).

During the presser someone asked if DC was committed to Atlas V (and Vulcan) for the entire CRS2 contract. SNC said that they had only commited themselves for the early flights (the first two flights will be on an Atlas V) and Sirangelo then added that DC was LV agnostic and that a decision had not yet been made for the later flights.

https://www.space.com/37636-dream-chaser-space-plane-on-atlas-v-rockets.html
« Last Edit: 11/24/2017 09:20 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Markstark

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 5
Great article. I had no clue they were doing Dream Chaser work at MAF.

Minor typo here "However, unlike a traditional CDR, which is when actual production would being, SNC is already well into the build for various elements of the first orbital Dream Chaser."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/dream-chaser-test-prepares-orbital-flights/

By Chris Gebhardt

Epic Uncrewed Dream Chaser L2 Renders - including the lead render - via NSF's Nathan Koga

Good article with lots of détails. Just the way we like it (on NSF)!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Great article. I had no clue they were doing Dream Chaser work at MAF.

Minor typo here "However, unlike a traditional CDR, which is when actual production would being, SNC is already well into the build for various elements of the first orbital Dream Chaser."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Welcome to the forum! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Thanks for the meaty article Chris G and the awesome renders by Nathan! 8) With some of the updates to Dream Chaser I wouldn't mind knowing what percentage the vehicle is toward a potential crewed version...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 172
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
« Last Edit: 11/25/2017 12:10 AM by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3919
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2606
  • Likes Given: 3342
Great article. I had no clue they were doing Dream Chaser work at MAF.

Lockheed Martin is building the next Dream Chaser composite structure at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).  Here is the press release:

Sierra Nevada Corporation and Lockheed Martin Expand Dream Chaser Orbital Vehicle Manufacturing
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Markstark

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 5
Great article. I had no clue they were doing Dream Chaser work at MAF.

Lockheed Martin is building the next Dream Chaser composite structure at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).  Here is the press release:

Sierra Nevada Corporation and Lockheed Martin Expand Dream Chaser Orbital Vehicle Manufacturing
Very cool thanks! Glad there will be additional uses of the MAF facilities.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
  • California
  • Liked: 3329
  • Likes Given: 2092
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...
Take it up with NASA pal...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 221
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...
That sounds more like a complaint that should be brought up in regards to commercial crew providers. Unless we're putting experiments above lives.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Liked: 695
  • Likes Given: 69
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...
That sounds more like a complaint that should be brought up in regards to commercial crew providers. Unless we're putting experiments above lives.

Commercial crew has way more tests than this, NASA added 6 parachute tests for each provider, that's on top of however many tests the providers originally planned.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 221

Commercial crew has way more tests than this, NASA added 6 parachute tests for each provider, that's on top of however many tests the providers originally planned.
Not to mention that extensive battery of inflight abort scenarios they'll test... Well one of them anyway... for the provider that's even doing one.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 01:42 PM by rayleighscatter »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Some folks just wish to believe that SNC pulled Dream Chaser out of their backside and if they did their research before they comment would realize that this is a follow-on program to the extensive design and testing performed by NASA on the HL-20.
https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/4/43/1992-04_HL-20_Model_for_Personnel_Launch_Systm_Research.pdf
https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/HL-20

Full scale wind tunnel testing:
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 03:10 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

Different risk postures and different production rates

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6668
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 139
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

Two successful tests, not one.

And didn't SpaceX do just one drop test of cargo Dragon?  I can't find another one.



Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
  • California
  • Liked: 3329
  • Likes Given: 2092
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

Two successful tests, not one.

And didn't SpaceX do just one drop test of cargo Dragon?  I can't find another one.

I think you are correct (for Cargo Dragon), but I did't say SpaceX was better in this particular instance, did I?  :) It was just a general observation.

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Elgin, IL
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 77
The dream of a crewed flight on Dreamchaser is still a goal of SNC.  There must be a substantial number of common parts between the cargo variant and the crew variant.  To take advantage of volume pricing, I wonder if SNC is stocking any common components for a crew variant while building the two cargo versions.  Being willing to inventory such items would help "buy down" the initial investment needed.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
We're going to be entertained by different sights and landing sounds as the new spacecraft return from space. The Dragon's "splash" (was hoping for a roar), the CST-100 "splat" and Dream Chaser's "double sonic boom followed by the screech"... Interesting times in my book... 8)
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 01:59 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
The dream of a crewed flight on Dreamchaser is still a goal of SNC.  There must be a substantial number of common parts between the cargo variant and the crew variant.  To take advantage of volume pricing, I wonder if SNC is stocking any common components for a crew variant while building the two cargo versions.  Being willing to inventory such items would help "buy down" the initial investment needed.

One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 02:17 PM by yg1968 »

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 214

One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).

I highly doubt it, as I suspect some of the differences are inherent to the airframe itself.  I have also wondered how easily DC could be modified to become a crew return vehicle only.  No launch abort requirements, etc.  Ever since the demise of X-38/CRV I suppose I've been a believer that a lifting body direct to landing facility return vehicle makes a lot more sense as an assured crew return vehicle than a high G reentry, remote splashdown/touchdown capsule. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828

One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).

I highly doubt it, as I suspect some of the differences are inherent to the airframe itself.  I have also wondered how easily DC could be modified to become a crew return vehicle only.  No launch abort requirements, etc.  Ever since the demise of X-38/CRV I suppose I've been a believer that a lifting body direct to landing facility return vehicle makes a lot more sense as an assured crew return vehicle than a high G reentry, remote splashdown/touchdown capsule.
I don't see why not with an ECLSS and a docking system, the de-orbit and landing system is already automated... Might be a good interim vehicle towards a future crewed launch vehicle...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1086
  • Likes Given: 7319
One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).
Obviously depends on how different they are.

NASA say it's hugely difficult to turn a cargo vehicle in to a crewed return vehicle.

ECLSS is needed and apparently it has to be "docked" rather than berthed because there is no "unberth" mode that a vehicle can manage without the intervention of the arm (which no one would be aboard the station to operate in an evacuation) evne if it was equipped with the necessary fine guidance and RCS thrusters.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).
Obviously depends on how different they are.

NASA say it's hugely difficult to turn a cargo vehicle in to a crewed return vehicle.

ECLSS is needed and apparently it has to be "docked" rather than berthed because there is no "unberth" mode that a vehicle can manage without the intervention of the arm (which no one would be aboard the station to operate in an evacuation) evne if it was equipped with the necessary fine guidance and RCS thrusters.
Mark Sirangelo at SNC is on record stating that they have the ability to produce a Dream Chaser in multiple configurations in which it is aided by being a composite structure... I see this as the way to go rather than a re-fit...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 221
The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
One thing that I have been wondering about is whether it would be possible to retrofit a cargo DC and make it into a crewed DC (if this retrofit were to happen, it would only be done once CRS2 is completed).
Obviously depends on how different they are.

NASA say it's hugely difficult to turn a cargo vehicle in to a crewed return vehicle.

ECLSS is needed and apparently it has to be "docked" rather than berthed because there is no "unberth" mode that a vehicle can manage without the intervention of the arm (which no one would be aboard the station to operate in an evacuation) evne if it was equipped with the necessary fine guidance and RCS thrusters.

The cargo version can either be docked or berthed according to SNC. 
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 08:46 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 08:50 PM by yg1968 »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 221
The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?

The knowledge will be lost over time as engineers retire or leave but the production methods are now common at many aerospace companies. It wouldn't be hard to farm out production of another craft.

I suppose the hybrid abort engines would be the most likely place to lose both knowledge and production ability.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 08:58 PM by rayleighscatter »

Offline whitelancer64

The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?

The knowledge will be lost over time as engineers retire or leave but the production methods are now common at many aerospace companies. It wouldn't be hard to farm out production of another craft.

I suppose the hybrid abort engines would be the most likely place to lose both knowledge and production ability.

Sierra Nevada switched from hybrid engines to liquid fueled engines. The redesign and subsequent delay to their development program is one reason why they were not selected for the commercial crew contract.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Docking was supposedly with hand controls and viewing though a window in the rear hatch IIRC for a crewed version...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1086
  • Likes Given: 7319
The cargo version can either be docked or berthed according to SNC.
I did not know that. The whole berthed/docked thing seemed a very big thing in the cargo Vs Crew Dragon designs. IOW a big thing demarcating a cargo vehicle from a crew vehicle.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 172

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 11:56 PM by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9580
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 849
The cargo version doesn't have windows, which would mean a converted crew version could only operate autonomously. And I wouldn't want to cut into an already flown composite body.

Production really isn't that expensive. It wouldn't really surprise me if the cost of new vs converted was nearly the same, or even cheaper.

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?

Answering my own question but it seems that windows are a requirement for commercial crew:


Quote from: 2016 CCT-REQ-1130
3.8.4.4 Windows for Crew Tasks

The spacecraft shall provide windows that are available for use by the crew through all phases of
flight that provide direct, non-electronic, through-the-hull viewing and the unobstructed fields of-view
necessary to perform crew viewing tasks. [R.CTS.177]

Rationale: Windows provide direct, non-electronic, through-the-hull viewing and are
essential to mission safety and success, as well as to maintaining crew situational awareness
and psychological and physical health and safety. They do not have the failure modes
associated with cameras and display systems that may not be operable during emergencies
when most needed and are essential for piloting and photography. They also permit stellar
navigation, vehicle anomaly detection and inspection, and environmental and scientific
observations. NASA experience is that two piloting windows are required to achieve the field
of view necessary to accomplish the breadth of piloting tasks. Because of the criticality of
windows to crew safety and success of the mission, windows must be a part of the spacecraft
design and available through all flight phases without obstructions to their use. Fixed
equipment, such as window instrumentation, hardware, or a condensation prevention system,
that would obstruct or obscure the field-of-view of the window from the normal crew viewing
position will interfere with crew tasks and must not be placed within the sight lines through
the window; however, the following are not considered obstructions: hardware used in
conjunction with piloting, such as a head's up display (HUD), crew optical alignment system
(COAS), or other similar equipment; the outer mold line and hull structure of the vehicle
itself; other windows and window mullions; and instrumentation applied to the window itself
within 13 mm (~0.5 in.) of the perimeter of the clear viewing area. For detailed design
considerations for inboard and outboard window view obscuration exclusion zones, consult
Sections 8.6.3.3 and 8.6.3.4 in NASA/SP-2010-3407, Human Integration Design Handbook
(HIDH), which also provides extensive guidance for window design considerations.

Quote from: 2016 CCT-REQ-1130
3.10.14.2 Hatch Windows

The CTS shall provide a window on all sealable hatches for direct non-electric visual observation
of the environment on the opposite side of the hatch. [R.CTS.174]

Rationale: Direct visual observation of the environment on the opposite side of a hatch
allows the crew to determine the conditions or obstructions, such as the presence of fire or
debris, on the other side of the hatch for safety purposes. Visibility is also needed for ground
crew viewing into the vehicle during pad operations and post-landing. Windows do not have
the failure modes associated with cameras and display systems that may not be operable
during emergencies when most needed.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.msg1650808#msg1650808
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 01:30 AM by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
Slight correction, the Shuttle was capable but never fully utilized... Except for the gear which you had to deploy... From out friend Wayne Hale:
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/breaking-through/
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 01:18 AM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 172

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
Slight correction, the Shuttle was capable but never fully utilized... Except for the gear which you had to deploy... From out friend Wayne Hale:
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/breaking-through/


Fair enough. (We have to drop the gear ourselves, too.)
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1086
  • Likes Given: 7319
As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
You missed the X37b. AFAIK all its landings are autonomous.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 178
As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
You missed the X37b. AFAIK all its landings are autonomous.
I think that is a safe bet, unless the airforce is keeping very quiet about its alternative manned program.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 34
Wouldn't need people on board to be non-autonomous. Approach and landing could theoretically be remote controlled, and would still be non-autonomous.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 178
True, but I was playing it for giggles and imagining an extremely bored airman stuck on the X-37b

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
Slight correction, the Shuttle was capable but never fully utilized... Except for the gear which you had to deploy... From out friend Wayne Hale:
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/breaking-through/


Fair enough. (We have to drop the gear ourselves, too.)
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 233
  • Likes Given: 320
Dream Chaser CCP accomplishments from:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
› Commercial Crew and Launch Readiness Process - Ms. Lisa Colloredo

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1086
  • Likes Given: 7319
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
As with all IT  systems when you have 2 units with a data link between them if you can make another unit that mimics one of them then you can replace that unit with your own.

And the Shuttle flight system was always one where the Pilot asked the flight computer to make a change of course.

Doing it with adequate reliability  (which for civilian blind land is 1 in 1x10^9 operating hours) is the tough part.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
As with all IT  systems when you have 2 units with a data link between them if you can make another unit that mimics one of them then you can replace that unit with your own.

And the Shuttle flight system was always one where the Pilot asked the flight computer to make a change of course.

Doing it with adequate reliability  (which for civilian blind land is 1 in 1x10^9 operating hours) is the tough part.
It was a "quip"... :D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline ejb749

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Troy, MI
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
Actually, in the Shuttle, the Pilot sat right seat, and the Commander sat left and actually did the flying.
So the pilot could ask the Commander to ask the flight computer....

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Do we have any details on the orbital cargo module? Construction, materials, in-house or out-sourced?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 660
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

I don’t understand this comment. In every industry, it’s not about declaring complete success, but about clearing the project to proceed to more extensive testing.

With as many things as can go wrong in space flight, what’s the point of practicing the landing again?
After the next test vehicle (hopefully) makes it through launch, orbit and reentry, the landing test is free! If the landing test fails, all other tests succeeded. If an earlier test fails, it won’t be landing anyway. So why worry?
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 11:41 AM by Norm38 »

Tags: