From "Space 'taxis' could cut the cost of spaceflight" * 27 September 2008 http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926756.300"... The spacecraft can carry up to nine passengers, and with full funding it could be ready for crewed flights within three years, says Frank Taylor, manager of the company's space technology programme. ..."
Return from where?
Quote from: Jim on 09/28/2008 01:36 pmReturn from where?Limbo.Reading between the lines Space Dev has been talking to Congress.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/28/2008 01:50 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/28/2008 01:36 pmReturn from where?Limbo.Reading between the lines Space Dev has been talking to Congress.It was never in limbo. It has be just quiet while they work.There is nothing between the lines that says they have been talking to congress.You are making something out of nothing. Just clueless comments.
The other company that showed interest in making a manned vehicle to ride Atlas is Spacehab and their Arctus vehicle though their vehicle is more of a cargo transport like progress.
That all depends on where the extra $100 million COTS-D money is going.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/senate-pass-nasa-bill-for-extra-funding
...Congress isn't going to fund any specific contractor
Quote from: Jim on 09/29/2008 11:10 am...Congress isn't going to fund any specific contractorwasn't keeping an ATK contract part of the congressional mandate for the VSE? at least i think i've read something like that on here.... don't know if any of the other companies were mandated as well... sorry, a little OT.
"The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program, use the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle."
I own shares in SpaceDev (Only only a few hundred and I am down $1.50 per share in the 6 or 7 years I've owned them) and I am not holding my breath. They should do well once Virgin Galactic starts flying but its a long long way from providing that engine to flying an orbital crew transport. Even a cool looking one.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 09/29/2008 01:53 amI own shares in SpaceDev (Only only a few hundred and I am down $1.50 per share in the 6 or 7 years I've owned them) and I am not holding my breath. They should do well once Virgin Galactic starts flying but its a long long way from providing that engine to flying an orbital crew transport. Even a cool looking one.Actually, Scaled Composites dumped SpaceDev. For SS2, they are trying to make the hybrid rocket themselves.As everyone knows, they had a little setback. SpaceDev was already out of the picture during the cold-fire test that killed 3.
Quote from: DaveJes1979 on 09/30/2008 10:35 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 09/29/2008 01:53 amI own shares in SpaceDev (Only only a few hundred and I am down $1.50 per share in the 6 or 7 years I've owned them) and I am not holding my breath. They should do well once Virgin Galactic starts flying but its a long long way from providing that engine to flying an orbital crew transport. Even a cool looking one.Actually, Scaled Composites dumped SpaceDev. For SS2, they are trying to make the hybrid rocket themselves.As everyone knows, they had a little setback. SpaceDev was already out of the picture during the cold-fire test that killed 3.Actually, Spacedev is back on the SS2 team
Quote from: Jim on 09/30/2008 10:56 pmQuote from: DaveJes1979 on 09/30/2008 10:35 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 09/29/2008 01:53 amI own shares in SpaceDev (Only only a few hundred and I am down $1.50 per share in the 6 or 7 years I've owned them) and I am not holding my breath. They should do well once Virgin Galactic starts flying but its a long long way from providing that engine to flying an orbital crew transport. Even a cool looking one.Actually, Scaled Composites dumped SpaceDev. For SS2, they are trying to make the hybrid rocket themselves.As everyone knows, they had a little setback. SpaceDev was already out of the picture during the cold-fire test that killed 3.Actually, Spacedev is back on the SS2 teaminteresting... when and how did that happen, jim?
anyway... that could be very interesting.... how much work would it take for the "Atlas V 431" to be ready to launch a dreamchaser? i would think that it would take less time to adapt the Atlas to dreamchaser than it will be to actually design/build/test the dreamchaser
Quote from: lewis886 on 09/30/2008 10:03 pmanyway... that could be very interesting.... how much work would it take for the "Atlas V 431" to be ready to launch a dreamchaser? i would think that it would take less time to adapt the Atlas to dreamchaser than it will be to actually design/build/test the dreamchaseranybody have any guesses or info on those questions?and thanks marsavian, for posting that article
1. well... there are 2 obvious things... the first being just the basic hardware that would be needed to mate the dream chaser to the launch vehicle.... will it take any modifications of the atlas to allow that sort of vehicle to be mounted on top? there won't be fairings... does that change how it has to be made? those sorts of things....2. and second... are there going to be any additional sensor packages or other similar monitoring and safety hardware/software added to it. (such as would be needed for any sort of NASA human rating for a launch vehicle).obviously some of those things will be provided by spacedev (such as LAS, etc), but how much will need to be done to the atlas itself?
ah yes... thanks for adding number 3... forgot all about that....so, all that to say we have no idea yet? heheany guesses on how they will do that and how much work each of those might take?
You forgot #33. Providing a method of access to the spacecraft while at the pad.
Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2008 03:40 pmYou forgot #33. Providing a method of access to the spacecraft while at the pad.3. All their graphics since day one show the Dream Chaser has a hatch over the cabin besides the hatch/tunnel in the rear.
(snip) Atlas doesn't have an MST or Umbilical tower with platforms at the pad
Can you say "rope ladder"? Simon
(Extra trivia points, why is the common term repel the wrong term for descending on rope).
What's the biggest CherryPicker commercially available? Or the longest firetruck ladder, for that matter?
hmm.... so was that the end of them or not? certainly not much going on in the past 6 months since they were bought.
Sierra Nevada got CCDev funding ($20M of the $50M total funding), likely to develop the Dream Chaser (or at least some sort of lifting body/HL-20 derivative) to launch on an EELV.
I wish it were not so big. 7-person load means a huge ship.
Bolden said DreamChaser will be launched on an Atlas 402, which doesn't have SRBs (fewer separation events).EDIT:...And is one of the cheaper configurations of the Atlas.
Bolden said DreamChaser will be launched on an Atlas 402, which doesn't have SRBs (fewer separation events).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 05:32 pmBolden said DreamChaser will be launched on an Atlas 402, which doesn't have SRBs (fewer separation events).Yeah, I noticed that too. All the documentation and illustration I saw up to this point had it launching on a 431. It makes sense to go with a 402 configuration if they can. I asked about this on another thread and Jim said that the two engine Centaur doesn't have engine out. It is still probably safer then with the SRBs. The two engine Centaur hasn't flown yet so this could be the first payload to fly with it. Thinking to the future is it possible for a lifting body craft like the Dream Chaser to renter from a faster lunar or interplanetary return trajectory or is this design a LEO only craft?
The two engine Centaur hasn't flown yet so this could be the first payload to fly with it.
I think the Dream Chaser is a really good place to start. Now make it a little bigger so it could carry a modest payload along with the six crew would be a really good space plane!!!Launch it on top a Atlas V but replace the Atlas side boosters with a smaller version of the Space Shuttle Solid rocket boosters and have NASA own the Dream Chaser ships.
I don't know the answer to your last question, but I think the DreamChaser has 1600km of cross-range and can land on a regular runway, so even if it is launched suborbitally, it can probably still land safely.
Interesting. Dream Chaser mass is 9,000kg, while Atlas V-402 payload to LEO is 12,500kg. I'm guessing that should be sufficient margin?
hasn't flown yet on Atlas IV... 2-engine Centaurs have been flying since 1962.
Quote from: notsorandom on 02/02/2010 08:41 pmThe two engine Centaur hasn't flown yet so this could be the first payload to fly with it. hasn't flown yet on Atlas IV... 2-engine Centaurs have been flying since 1962.
Quote from: zaitcev on 02/02/2010 08:16 pmI wish it were not so big. 7-person load means a huge ship.It's not that big. Based on HL-20, which is shown to scale with Shuttle below.
Just out of curiosity, could it fly on Ariane 5?
a question .Where dreamchaserhas the docking port?on the back?I cannot see it on pictures..Ariane 5 is for heavier(moon maybe) vehicles llike the Atv derived,or maybe a light orion.Dreamchaser is for leo only like soyuz,dragon etc..medium launvhers,cheap and the best for the job.soyuz or zenit(10t) better can launch it.
But ULA wants a considerable amount of money to bring the 402 configuration on line. Further, the 402 overloads the Centaur/adapter interface in bending. Adding a winged body on top will only make matters worse. There is a substantial investment required to make a 402+HL-20 work.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/02/2010 09:37 pmBut ULA wants a considerable amount of money to bring the 402 configuration on line. Further, the 402 overloads the Centaur/adapter interface in bending. Adding a winged body on top will only make matters worse. There is a substantial investment required to make a 402+HL-20 work.I think people should be reminded two engine Centuar does not presently exist. As has been discussed in prior threads, the current Centuar uses electronic actuators, the two engine Centuar used hydraulic actuators and has not been upgraded to electronic actuators. ULA needs to either to do the engineering to update the two engine Centuar actuarors, or bring back the Centuar with the Hydraulic actuators.In the mix, ULA has been talking about a new common Atlas/Delta upper stage.So yeah, I can see them wanting money... So what is a better ULA investment? A new upper? two engine Centaur? RL-60 Centaur?
Sierra Nevada's Mark Sirangelo told Hyperbola: "We are planning to mature our rocket motor system and develop an early prototype drop test vehicle under this programme and supplementing it with our own resources. It is only an eight month programme in its current form. Our programme goal is to have a usable orbital vehicle in service by 2014. The vehicle will take seven crew and critical cargo to and from [low Earth orbit] destinations and be able to land on a 3,000m [9,800ft] runway. Our team consists of seven prominent space companies and universities all with considerable experience."
RL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle. Anything bigger needs a gas generator.If I could play fantasy lego rocket, RL-60 would be the only hydrolox engine in my architecture. Everything smaller would be hypergolics, and everything bigger would be kerolox. Maybe an RL-60 methane variant for Mars ISRU lander.
Quote from: butters on 02/03/2010 09:17 pmRL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle. Anything bigger needs a gas generator.I think you can go bigger with an expander cycle on aeropike engines but that's a different subject.
RL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle. Anything bigger needs a gas generator.
