Author Topic: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread  (Read 661642 times)

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1431
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 336
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1980 on: 02/11/2018 09:55 PM »
BTW I own a 1969 Triumph GT6 produced by the wonderful craftsmen of the British car industry... What became of them?? :(

It's complicated.. but in summary: after joining forces with several other small British marques (British Leyland), following many decades of fighting for survival they were conquered by the Germans (BMW) and the rest, as they say, is history.  ;D
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • UK
  • Liked: 1858
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1981 on: 04/16/2018 04:00 PM »
Why Sierra Nevada’s owners are betting big on Dream Chaser

Quote
To Fatih and Eren Ozmen, Dream Chaser is more than a spaceplane. It’s a vehicle to transform the entire industry.

Some highlights for me from the interview.

Talking about launchers for DC.

Quote
Eren: We also will be selecting the launch vehicle for future missions. We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe. After the first mission, we will have more opportunities to reduce the cost because a significant cost of our mission is the launch. We are looking at all those different partnerships with different companies, looking for synergies and strategic relationships. We are in very heavy discussions with all of them. That is helping us understand how the dynamics are changing and how to maintain our competitive place while launch costs come down and technology improves.

Talking about crewed DC.

Quote
Eren: Yes. The NASA crew contract that we got awarded is still open. And actually, we got an extension on that contract. There is no current funding right now because two other companies [Boeing and SpaceX] got the award. But the reason we didn’t get the crew contract is because supposedly we couldn’t achieve the schedule. Now you see the other two companies are behind schedule.

How they are paying for it all.

Quote
Eren: Yes. The NASA crew contract that we got awarded is still open. And actually, we got an extension on that contract. There is no current funding right now because two other companies [Boeing and SpaceX] got the award. But the reason we didn’t get the crew contract is because supposedly we couldn’t achieve the schedule. Now you see the other two companies are behind schedule.

What makes DC unique.

Quote
Fatih: A key discriminator between Dream Chaser and our competitors is that we are the only rocket-agnostic space vehicle. We are not married to any particular program.

With Dream Chaser, we have a lot of partnerships internationally. We have applications across the board, from the United Nations to working with pharmaceutical companies.

It is a unique approach that is different than what we’ve been doing for the last 40-50 years: sending capsules into space and bringing them back to splash down in the ocean. Dream Chaser lands like the space shuttle did and it leverages all the lessons learned over the years into a next-generation spaceplane.

http://spacenews.com/why-sierra-nevadas-owners-are-betting-big-on-dream-chaser/
« Last Edit: 04/16/2018 04:40 PM by Star One »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1982 on: 04/16/2018 06:41 PM »
Fatih: Dream Chaser doesn’t have to go up, it can come down. We can do an in-space crew version. It doesn’t have to be the same as what Boeing and SpaceX are doing today.

Eren: Actually, Dream Chaser was a rescue vehicle initially.

I could see one radical option, launch DC and Starliner together on NG. Have DC inside fairing and crew in Starliner on top of fairing, much same way SLS is being designed to launch crew and cargo.

Once in space crew have lot of living space between DC plus its cargo pod/airlock and Starliner. Crew can return in either vehicle or split crew sending some back early in Starliner. This could work for combined commercial astronuats + tourist flight. Have 4 tourists stay for a week then send them back in Starliner, 2 crew stay on for a month or two.

Crew can return in DC or wait for next Starliner or Dragon.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9690
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1983 on: 04/16/2018 06:49 PM »
The following parts of the interview are interesting:

Quote from: Ozmens
Fatih: We are going through a series of critical design reviews right now. We have a contract in place to do the first launch in 2020. That’s the next big milestone.

Eren: We also will be selecting the launch vehicle for future missions. We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe. After the first mission, we will have more opportunities to reduce the cost because a significant cost of our mission is the launch. We are looking at all those different partnerships with different companies, looking for synergies and strategic relationships. We are in very heavy discussions with all of them. That is helping us understand how the dynamics are changing and how to maintain our competitive place while launch costs come down and technology improves.

Quote from: Fatih Ozmen
That’s where we look at Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’ kind of vision. That’s when we talked to him about making space accessible and millions of people going to space, doing experiments, finding the next-generation solutions and making Earth more green, moving heavy industry up there. All these ideas from mining an asteroid to finding new habitats for humanity and making Earth a better place are symbolized in this one vehicle.

SNC says that it hasn't chosen its LV beyond the first mission. It would be interesting to see a partnership between Blue and SNC.

P.S. However, there may have been some confusion here because SNC has already ordered two Atlas V missions from ULA. So I think that they meant after the first (two) mission(s) and not just the first mission. 

https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2017/07/19/united-launch-alliance-signs-contract-with-sierra-nevada-corporation-to-launch-dream-chaser-spacecraft-to-deliver-cargo-to-international-space-station
« Last Edit: 04/16/2018 07:20 PM by yg1968 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1984 on: 04/19/2018 02:00 AM »
Also considering European (A6?)and Japanese LVs (H3?).

He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS. “We think it’s certainly feasible,” he said, adding that there was interest in launching Dream Chaser on vehicles outside the U.S.

Can see  ESA supplying A6 for there private DC missions, not sure about UN mission. ESA may offer A6 for ISS resupply missions in exchange for more access to ISS.

While DC is not LV depended it still costs a bit to match it to LV, would need a few flights to make it worthwhile.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5232
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1985 on: 04/19/2018 06:49 AM »
Also considering European (A6?)and Japanese LVs (H3?).

He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS. “We think it’s certainly feasible,” he said, adding that there was interest in launching Dream Chaser on vehicles outside the U.S.

Can see  ESA supplying A6 for there private DC missions, not sure about UN mission. ESA may offer A6 for ISS resupply missions in exchange for more access to ISS.

While DC is not LV depended it still costs a bit to match it to LV, would need a few flights to make it worthwhile.


Wrong. DC basically behaves like any other other unmanned payload. All that is needed to launch it on A6 is a right-sized payload adapter. The cost of a launch is, for the most part, not in the adapter.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1986 on: 04/19/2018 07:22 AM »
He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS.

I find this hard to believe, I think Orbital had to certify Antares contains enough US components to qualify as US launch vehicle when signing CRS1 contract. European and Japanese provided cargo vehicle in exchange for NASA sending their astronauts to ISS, I don't see how that is comparable to this situation.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1037
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1987 on: 04/19/2018 09:10 PM »
He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS.

I find this hard to believe, I think Orbital had to certify Antares contains enough US components to qualify as US launch vehicle when signing CRS1 contract. European and Japanese provided cargo vehicle in exchange for NASA sending their astronauts to ISS, I don't see how that is comparable to this situation.

Requirements changed between CRS 1 & 2. This may have been one of the changes. One can only assume that if SNC is spending the money to investigate foreign launch providers, that it must be possible.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • California
  • Liked: 1856
  • Likes Given: 4066
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1988 on: 04/20/2018 02:13 AM »
Can see  ESA supplying A6 for there private DC missions, not sure about UN mission. ESA may offer A6 for ISS resupply missions in exchange for more access to ISS.

That's not at all a possibility.  NASA and the CRS providers class these missions as pure commercial launches.  In fact, the companies themselves are the launch customers and NASA is only the customer for the cargo.  So, assuming the CRS2 contract doesn't explicitly require the use of a US launch vehicle, SNC could purchase a ride on A6 for Dream Chaser, but it would be a straight cash purchase with no in-kind swap between agencies. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5232
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1989 on: 04/20/2018 07:22 AM »
He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS.

I find this hard to believe, I think Orbital had to certify Antares contains enough US components to qualify as US launch vehicle when signing CRS1 contract. European and Japanese provided cargo vehicle in exchange for NASA sending their astronauts to ISS, I don't see how that is comparable to this situation.

Requirements changed between CRS 1 & 2. This may have been one of the changes. One can only assume that if SNC is spending the money to investigate foreign launch providers, that it must be possible.

I can tell you, based on source information, that your bolded IS in fact one of the changes.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • USA
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1990 on: 04/20/2018 07:40 PM »
He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS.

I find this hard to believe, I think Orbital had to certify Antares contains enough US components to qualify as US launch vehicle when signing CRS1 contract. European and Japanese provided cargo vehicle in exchange for NASA sending their astronauts to ISS, I don't see how that is comparable to this situation.

Considering that the reverse was bid for COTS and CRS1 (putting either HTV or ATV or Progress, or some derivative thereof, on an American launcher), it seems hard to believe that this wouldn't be an option

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1991 on: 04/22/2018 03:53 AM »
I thought the OTA had been under construction at Michoud in a JV with LM for a few years? Was that the Crew DC, maybe, and it was changed after missing the upselect?
« Last Edit: 04/22/2018 03:54 AM by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1037
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1992 on: 04/29/2018 01:05 AM »
A little surprising about possibly only a single flight vehicle being built since there isn't much (relative) cost in building a second craft. Although I also wouldn't be surprised for a second one to be built through whatever means.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8938
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 7487
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1993 on: 04/29/2018 12:02 PM »
Just musing about the topic of a second DC and since Mark always wanted a crewed vehicle and he could be building all the spares required up to the point where the vehicle could be either a cargo or crew version, lets say an 80% commonality point. Then depending on requirements SNC could construct the remaining components of whichever variant was wanted crew or cargo depending on the "space-landscape" at the time in the future which has a lot of uncertainty at this point with new political and LV/SC (Bigelow station?) players in the mix...
« Last Edit: 04/29/2018 03:52 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4401
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 359
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1994 on: 04/30/2018 05:52 AM »
Just musing about the topic of a second DC and since Mark always wanted a crewed vehicle and he could be building all the spares required up to the point where the vehicle could be either a cargo or crew version, lets say an 80% commonality point. Then depending on requirements SNC could construct the remaining components of whichever variant was wanted crew or cargo depending on the "space-landscape" at the time in the future which has a lot of uncertainty at this point with new political and LV/SC (Bigelow station?) players in the mix...

The crewed DC seemed fairly far along so I would not be surprised if the cargo variant had 80% or more commonality.

A lifting body or space plane does have several advantages over a ballistic reentry vehicle for tourism and medical evacuations.
Cross range,low g reentry,a proven safe landing mode,and lands close to civilization.


« Last Edit: 04/30/2018 05:55 AM by Patchouli »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9690
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1995 on: 04/30/2018 02:02 PM »
There is 85% commonality between cargo and crewed version of DC according to SNC:

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Lindsey: crew version of Dream Chaser “very much alive,” with 85% commonality between systems in cargo and crew versions.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/688067187257556993
« Last Edit: 04/30/2018 02:03 PM by yg1968 »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1037
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1996 on: 04/30/2018 09:08 PM »
Just musing about the topic of a second DC and since Mark always wanted a crewed vehicle and he could be building all the spares required up to the point where the vehicle could be either a cargo or crew version, lets say an 80% commonality point. Then depending on requirements SNC could construct the remaining components of whichever variant was wanted crew or cargo depending on the "space-landscape" at the time in the future which has a lot of uncertainty at this point with new political and LV/SC (Bigelow station?) players in the mix...

Interesting thought. I wonder if it would be possible to build a cargo craft that has some of the requirements for crew built in (windows, etc.) and in such a way that the remaining features can still be built in at a later date (ECLSS, crew accommodations & interface, etc.)

It would take a hit in upmass (mass certainly, some volume likely as well) but would be well positioned to be able to sell services to non-CRS clients.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1997 on: 04/30/2018 09:28 PM »
Also considering European (A6?)and Japanese LVs (H3?).

He noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS. “We think it’s certainly feasible,” he said, adding that there was interest in launching Dream Chaser on vehicles outside the U.S.

Can see  ESA supplying A6 for there private DC missions, not sure about UN mission. ESA may offer A6 for ISS resupply missions in exchange for more access to ISS.

While DC is not LV depended it still costs a bit to match it to LV, would need a few flights to make it worthwhile.

A lot of people seem to be reading this as 'Sierra Nevada' owns the DC launched on the foreign rocket.  I, however, read this more as a 'sales ploy'. 

"So, ESA/JAXA wants its own astronaut launch capability?  Here, buy a couple DCs from us, they'll work on your launcher with just a little fine tuning." 

"Hey Virgin Galactic.  Why spend all that money developing SS-3 in-house when we have a perfectly viable system to put in your hands."
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • USA
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1998 on: 05/01/2018 01:04 AM »
Interesting thought. I wonder if it would be possible to build a cargo craft that has some of the requirements for crew built in (windows, etc.) and in such a way that the remaining features can still be built in at a later date (ECLSS, crew accommodations & interface, etc.)

It would take a hit in upmass (mass certainly, some volume likely as well) but would be well positioned to be able to sell services to non-CRS clients.

Technically it should be easy, but it probably wouldn't be very useful. With fixed-position wings it can't fit in a fairing, meaning it can't carry the expendable module. Without that, pressurized volume drops by like half and it loses unpressurized capacity entirely, plus the scheduling benefit of being able to do IDS or CBM attachment. With the main launch options all being fully or mostly expendable, it seems difficult for such a craft to compete against the other CRS systems with such a drop in capability. It'd still need at least an AV N32 most likely, judging by the crew variant (less densely packed I assume) needing 2 boosters and 2 RL10s. Cygnus has over two times the pressurized volume, but requires no boosters and only 1 RL10 (~25-30 million dollars savings). And folding wings (even if deployed at liftoff, without a fairing) are likely a hard no for NASA crew missions

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8938
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 7487
Re: SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread
« Reply #1999 on: 05/01/2018 05:03 PM »
Interesting thought. I wonder if it would be possible to build a cargo craft that has some of the requirements for crew built in (windows, etc.) and in such a way that the remaining features can still be built in at a later date (ECLSS, crew accommodations & interface, etc.)

It would take a hit in upmass (mass certainly, some volume likely as well) but would be well positioned to be able to sell services to non-CRS clients.

Technically it should be easy, but it probably wouldn't be very useful. With fixed-position wings it can't fit in a fairing, meaning it can't carry the expendable module. Without that, pressurized volume drops by like half and it loses unpressurized capacity entirely, plus the scheduling benefit of being able to do IDS or CBM attachment. With the main launch options all being fully or mostly expendable, it seems difficult for such a craft to compete against the other CRS systems with such a drop in capability. It'd still need at least an AV N32 most likely, judging by the crew variant (less densely packed I assume) needing 2 boosters and 2 RL10s. Cygnus has over two times the pressurized volume, but requires no boosters and only 1 RL10 (~25-30 million dollars savings). And folding wings (even if deployed at liftoff, without a fairing) are likely a hard no for NASA crew missions
They would just go back to the original "fixed winglet" DC without a cargo module, an adapter plus abort engines for crewed flights or even back to the HL-20 adapter with SRMS for abort...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29126.20
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Tags: