Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/24/2015 04:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 11:47 pmQuote from: Vultur on 12/23/2015 11:26 pmDream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.I am not sure that it needs less refurb than the Dragon capsule does. The TPS is rather demanding in this regard. I remember something about 2 weeks for TPS inspection.That's not too bad, actually.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 11:47 pmQuote from: Vultur on 12/23/2015 11:26 pmDream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.I am not sure that it needs less refurb than the Dragon capsule does. The TPS is rather demanding in this regard. I remember something about 2 weeks for TPS inspection.
Quote from: Vultur on 12/23/2015 11:26 pmDream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.
Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?
As a believer in VTVL, I really want to see DC fly. It is the most logical incarnation of a winged design, and so it should get its chance to shine.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/26/2015 02:10 amAs a believer in VTVL, I really want to see DC fly. It is the most logical incarnation of a winged design, and so it should get its chance to shine. Nit: VTHL. :-) Cheers, Martin
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/24/2015 04:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 11:47 pmQuote from: Vultur on 12/23/2015 11:26 pmDream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.I am not sure that it needs less refurb than the Dragon capsule does. The TPS is rather demanding in this regard. I remember something about 2 weeks for TPS inspection.I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, but do we know if NASA would allow Dreamchaser space frames to be reused? I ask because, as I understand it, the Dragon capsules used by SpaceX under the current CRS contract are claimed to be reusable; however, NASA requires a new capsule for each mission.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/24/2015 12:38 pmThe 5,000kg payload would only apply if they had the necessary volume. I undestand that the DC internal volume is 14m3, how much do they add with the disposable module?Let's remember that Enhanced Cygnus can do 3,500kg in 27m3, so you would need something like 38m3 for 5,000kg.16m^3 for the crew variant if I recall.It really does hinge on the disposable module which we know almost nothing about. But SNC must think 5,000kg is possible if they selected an Atlas V 542 as a LV. If they were volume constrained they could have gone with a cheaper Atlas.
The 5,000kg payload would only apply if they had the necessary volume. I undestand that the DC internal volume is 14m3, how much do they add with the disposable module?Let's remember that Enhanced Cygnus can do 3,500kg in 27m3, so you would need something like 38m3 for 5,000kg.
2.1.1 A minimum usable pressurized cargo density of 65 Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE) per 1000 kg of pressurized cargo shall be used. Useable pressurized cargo volume is defined as the volume which can accommodate ISS cargo and payloads types as defined in SSP 50833, paragraph 3.1, Pressurized Volume Area Cargo Requirements.
I think it would be fair to say that neither the Cygnus or DC in their current proposed configurations could accommodate delivery of unpressurized payloads such as BEAM and the Docking adapters...?Also...Any word on the contract awards?
Quote from: rcoppola on 01/09/2016 05:52 pmI think it would be fair to say that neither the Cygnus or DC in their current proposed configurations could accommodate delivery of unpressurized payloads such as BEAM and the Docking adapters...?Also...Any word on the contract awards?Would it be really that hard to mount something to the Cygnus or DC inside the payload fairing? For companies that do rocket science, that doesn't sound like rocket science.
That's really not the question though, since I clearly included the discriminator of "current proposals" not what is theoretically possible.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 01/09/2016 06:41 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/09/2016 05:52 pmI think it would be fair to say that neither the Cygnus or DC in their current proposed configurations could accommodate delivery of unpressurized payloads such as BEAM and the Docking adapters...?Also...Any word on the contract awards?Would it be really that hard to mount something to the Cygnus or DC inside the payload fairing? For companies that do rocket science, that doesn't sound like rocket science.That's really not the question though, since I clearly included the discriminator of "current proposals" not what is theoretically possible. As for it not being rocket science...actually that's exactly what it is. Where exactly would you attach the BEAM in the current DC configuration?
Cygnus can do additional missions after leaving ISS and carry very bulky cargo.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2016 02:37 pmCygnus can do additional missions after leaving ISS and carry very bulky cargo.Can it? I recall it was mentioned that the opening of the berthing port is much smaller for Cygnus than for Dragon. That would limit them for diameter. They can carry a lot though.
Charles A. Lurio@TheLurioReportSome in DC saying very likely that the winners of the second set of ISS cargo supply contracts to be announced Thursday (CRS-2).
