Author Topic: Return of SpaceDev's Dream Chaser (Read 48020 times)

lewis886 · « **Reply #20 on:** 10/02/2008 03:14 pm »

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....

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?

Jim · « **Reply #21 on:** 10/02/2008 03:40 pm »

Quote from: lewis886 on 10/02/2008 03:14 pm

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?

1. Depends on the back end of Dreamchaser. The spacecraft is responsible for designing an interface that can mate to one of many launch vehicle adapters. As for bending loads, that might just mean launching on a less windy day

2. If spacedev and/or ULA require one, there will be one.

You forgot #3
3. Providing a method of access to the spacecraft while at the pad.

lewis886 · « **Reply #22 on:** 10/02/2008 03:51 pm »

ah yes... thanks for adding number 3... forgot all about that....

so, all that to say we have no idea yet? hehe
any guesses on how they will do that and how much work each of those might take?

Jim · « **Reply #23 on:** 10/02/2008 04:04 pm »

1 is up to Spacedev and the design of Dreamchase

2. ULA (LM) has worked on this in the past

3.?

guru · « **Reply #24 on:** 10/02/2008 09:04 pm »

Quote from: lewis886 on 10/02/2008 03:51 pm

ah yes... thanks for adding number 3... forgot all about that....

so, all that to say we have no idea yet? hehe
any guesses on how they will do that and how much work each of those might take?

I would guess that a 200 ft bucket truck could get a small work crew or a few astronauts to the top of an Atlas V.

docmordrid · « **Reply #25 on:** 10/03/2008 01:55 am »

Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2008 03:40 pm

You forgot #3
3. 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.

Apparently in a preview statement for AIAA 2008 (Sept. 9-11) SpaceDev says Dream Chaser will not use a fairing, at least theoretically making the hatch accessible.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE08_1872/PV2008_7837.pdf

Jim · « **Reply #26 on:** 10/03/2008 02:03 am »

Quote from: docmordrid on 10/03/2008 01:55 am

Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2008 03:40 pm

You forgot #3
3. 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.

Access TO the spacecraft, not into the spacecraft.
hatch doesn't do any good if there isn't a platform at the pad to get to it. Atlas doesn't have an MST or Umbilical tower with platforms at the pad

Comga · « **Reply #27 on:** 10/03/2008 04:19 am »

Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2008 02:03 am

(snip)
Atlas doesn't have an MST or Umbilical tower with platforms at the pad

Of course you are correct, but even the LM paper on a manned Atlas V 401 (with a capsule) discussed and had an illustration of an access tower. However, that is probably far from the most serious obstacle to flying a Dream Chaser on an Atlas.

simonbp · « **Reply #28 on:** 10/03/2008 06:52 am »

Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2008 03:40 pm

You forgot #3
3. Providing a method of access to the spacecraft while at the pad.

Can you say "rope ladder"?

Simon

kevin-rf · « **Reply #29 on:** 10/03/2008 12:25 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 10/03/2008 06:52 am

Can you say "rope ladder"?

Simon

Yeah, cable ladders are so much fun, especially when you have a heavy pack (like a space suit life support) hanging off your back trying to pull you head over heals backwards. Meaning you expend a large amount of energy keeping youself upright and not climbing. Not to mention with the height we are talking you need some sort of safety or belay.

Sorry after recently climbing a cable ladder with a pack and having a safety jam I am a little jaded. Should have just frogged the static line instead.

Your better off with a more efficent system like a rope walker ( http://www.onrope1.com/store/index.php?p=product&id=100&parent=18 ) and using a rack for egress (Trivia points : Which NASA employee invented it in his spare time and which center did he work at?). Nice thing about it is you can tandem up and down the rope. Just have to keep the fighter pilots from doing the hollywood style kick off let out 20' of rope with a hard recontact with the wall (rocket

) kick out again style of repel (Extra trivia points, why is the comon term repel the wrong term for decending on rope).

Toe Heal Toe Heal

nacnud · « **Reply #30 on:** 10/03/2008 12:59 pm »

Prussicing and jumaring is so much easier that ladders, still easier would be to just put in a lift. Only question then is quick escape from the tower.

synchrotron · « **Reply #31 on:** 10/03/2008 02:17 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 10/03/2008 12:25 pm

(Extra trivia points, why is the common term repel the wrong term for descending on rope).

It's 'rappel', not 'repel'. From the French for 'recall' meaning return home.

William Barton · « **Reply #32 on:** 10/03/2008 03:08 pm »

What's the biggest CherryPicker commercially available? Or the longest firetruck ladder, for that matter?

guru · « **Reply #33 on:** 10/03/2008 03:14 pm »

Quote from: William Barton on 10/03/2008 03:08 pm

What's the biggest CherryPicker commercially available? Or the longest firetruck ladder, for that matter?

Not sure what the tallest is, but I know both the cherry picker/bucket truck and firetruck ladder can be found with more than 100 m lifts.

lewis886 · « **Reply #34 on:** 10/04/2008 02:15 pm »

well.... so between the 2 companies.... they need to...

1) Finish design/development/construction of the Dream Chaser (obviously the most important, as all others are contingent on it).

2) Implement into Atlas any higher safety standards/features that might be required by either ULA or SpaceDev (which Jim pointed out they have already worked on in the past).

3) Creating some sort of means of access to the spacecraft while on the pad... whether a tower/scaffolding/cherrypicker/rope ladder/transporter from star trek/shooting astronauts out of a cannon and hope they hit the open hatch perfectly...

but still... this feels like a long ways away... i wish we knew a little more about what was going on.... was there a lot more in that article about how things are going with them? (don't have a subscription).

but from the sounds of this sentence you quoted... it sounds like they don't even have funding for it yet.... which makes it something of a dream at this point...

"... 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. ..."

oh well... i'm hoping they can find the funding and get this ship together...

savuporo · « **Reply #35 on:** 10/15/2008 01:28 pm »

I just happened to trace through the history and heritage of US lifting body concepts that Dream Chaser is now based off of, and its kinda sad to see how much the tempo of development has slowed down.

M2-F1 first flight March, 1963
M2-F2 July, 1966
HL-10 - December, 1966
X-24 April, 1969
M2-F3 June, 1970.
HL-20 around 1989-1991, never flew, studies
HL-42 1997, just a mockup ?
Dream Chaser ~2000 - 2008, still just a concept ?

marsavian · « **Reply #36 on:** 10/21/2008 06:01 pm »

Will it speed up now ?

SpaceDev signs Agreement to be Acquired by Sierra Nevada Corporation

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=287

Lampyridae · « **Reply #37 on:** 10/24/2008 05:50 am »

Not necessarily. They might want SpaceDev for their technical skillbase. Or perhaps they see a good potential for investment. Or it was a just a takeover to junk the company (unlikely, this only really happens in highly competitive environments). However, with the current financial crisis, there's a real feeding frenzy going on with a lot of companies folding, being bought out, etc. It's a good time to buy stuff if you have the money to do so. SpaceDev's stock wasn't so hot, but it may pick up in future as well with SS2 engine production, possibly Dreamchaser etc plus the usual aerospace biz.

lewis886 · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/27/2009 10:09 pm »

hmm.... so was that the end of them or not? certainly not much going on in the past 6 months since they were bought.

Smoothie · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/28/2009 03:00 am »

Quote from: lewis886 on 04/27/2009 10:09 pm

hmm.... so was that the end of them or not? certainly not much going on in the past 6 months since they were bought.

Nothing we know about anyway. A lot of these companies do stuff behind closed doors then whip it out to show everyone. Keeping your work from competitors prying eyes is usually a good thing. I guess all I am saying is don't write them off until yet. It sure would be nice if DC was still being worked on.