Author Topic: Return of SpaceDev's Dream Chaser (Read 48019 times)

neilh · « **Reply #40 on:** 02/02/2010 05:45 am »

I wasn't sure if it was proper to resuscitate this thread, but 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.

thomson · « **Reply #41 on:** 02/02/2010 05:05 pm »

Quote from: neilh on 02/02/2010 05:45 am

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.

As far I as understand, $20M is nowhere near enough to have DreamChaser operational. If we wanted to speculate, what would be the status of DreamChaser after this 20M is spent?

Good to know that this project is not dead after SpaceDev was bought out by Sierra Nevada Corp.

yg1968 · « **Reply #42 on:** 02/02/2010 05:08 pm »

We will find out when the space acts agreements come out. It should have some details on the milestone payments.

Under its unfunded COTS agreement, SpaceDev had met its first 3 (or is it 4?) milestones:

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=284
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/180946main_SAA-SpaceDev.pdf

See also this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/20/333603/whiteknighttwo-could-air-drop-dream-chaser-prototype.html

Robotbeat · « **Reply #43 on:** 02/02/2010 05:32 pm »

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.

butters · « **Reply #44 on:** 02/02/2010 07:11 pm »

Anybody know what Dream Chaser uses for power? Does it have deployable PV, or just big batteries like X-38?

zaitcev · « **Reply #45 on:** 02/02/2010 08:16 pm »

I wish it were not so big. 7-person load means a huge ship.

strangequark · « **Reply #46 on:** 02/02/2010 08:22 pm »

Quote from: zaitcev on 02/02/2010 08:16 pm

I 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.

And interior of HL-20 mockup

neilh · « **Reply #47 on:** 02/02/2010 08:24 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 05:32 pm

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.

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?

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/drehaser.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser

(Also, the wiki page for Dream Chaser could probably use some updating...)

notsorandom · « **Reply #48 on:** 02/02/2010 08:41 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 05:32 pm

Bolden 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?

Robotbeat · « **Reply #49 on:** 02/02/2010 08:45 pm »

Quote from: notsorandom on 02/02/2010 08:41 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 05:32 pm
Bolden 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?

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.

Swatch · « **Reply #50 on:** 02/02/2010 08:49 pm »

Quote from: notsorandom on 02/02/2010 08:41 pm

The two engine Centaur hasn't flown yet so this could be the first payload to fly with it.

hasn't flown yet on Atlas V... 2-engine Centaurs have been flying since 1962.

(don't know why I wrote Atlas IV, I meant V)

theonlyspace · « **Reply #51 on:** 02/02/2010 08:53 pm »

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.

Downix · « **Reply #52 on:** 02/02/2010 08:56 pm »

Quote from: theonlyspace on 02/02/2010 08:53 pm

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.

Don't need to increase it's size, you just need to put it on a larger launcher, and have the "cargo" towed behind it. That way you now have a flexible design, able to bring modules where you need it. Or, can meet up with what you need while up in orbit.

Time to get to a post-shuttle mindset, past this one-size-fits-all mentality we seem stuck with. DreamChaser gives us flexibility due to it's small size, let us not throw that away.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #53 on:** 02/02/2010 08:57 pm »

Quote from: theonlyspace on 02/02/2010 08:53 pm

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.

NO! You're just recreating the Shuttle. Make your requirements as simple as possible. All the requirements are what made the Shuttle expensive. We want liquid boosters, anyway. They're easier to get away from in an abort in case they blow and they're easier to transport and cheaper to fuel and less toxic and can be made into flyback boosters with a little luck.

Serafeim · « **Reply #54 on:** 02/02/2010 09:10 pm »

Dreamchaser is just a crew only shuttle.Like Kliper which has cancelled.Its a good idea but I see the 9t mass to little.Dragon which is simple capsule wihout wings etc has 8t perhaps mass. It has been constucted or is a mockup?we have real photos?

notsorandom · « **Reply #55 on:** 02/02/2010 09:17 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 08:45 pm

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.

That is quite a bit of cross range. If the Centaur bites it which is the abort mode I think we are talking about Dream Chaser is going to have quite a bit of velocity already. Without knowing the trajectory and its L/D its hard to say this for sure but I bet that it can glide quite a distance hypersonicly. Something similar to a TAL abort with the Space Shuttle. Since its going to be flying to the ISS and launching over the same ground track it may even use the Shuttle abort sites.

Quote from: neilh on 02/02/2010 08:24 pm

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?

As the Direct guys are fond of saying margin is your friend. Once again I am speculating here but the trajectory may also be changed a little to give more benign abort modes. More range, better heating enviroment, ect. Does the 9,000kg mass include the LAS? It seems a little on the light side.

Quote from: Swatch on 02/02/2010 08:49 pm

hasn't flown yet on Atlas IV... 2-engine Centaurs have been flying since 1962.

Sorry I should have been a little more clear on that. The two engine Centaur flew recently as the Atlas IIIB. It is a configuration that has been kept with the Atlas V but has yet to have any customers.

Serafeim · « **Reply #56 on:** 02/02/2010 09:30 pm »

But for me is dreamchaser really launch it can be the best Leo crew vehicle.Surelly better than primitive Dragon capsule with sea splash etc.
and fully reusable,and can carry in the place of humans if needed
but has an escape system?

thats a big matter..

Now dreamchaser can fly on a rocket?how ready it is?compared to Dragon for example.And not very known around,like elon musk's capsule..

HMXHMX · « **Reply #57 on:** 02/02/2010 09:37 pm »

Quote from: Swatch on 02/02/2010 08:49 pm

Quote from: notsorandom on 02/02/2010 08:41 pm
The 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.

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.

zaitcev · « **Reply #58 on:** 02/03/2010 01:57 am »

Quote from: strangequark on 02/02/2010 08:22 pm

Quote from: zaitcev on 02/02/2010 08:16 pm
I 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.

Shuttle was humongous, but Dream Chaser is still plenty big. If it weren't so big, there would have more flexibility regarding launch options and the issue of launching on Atlas with solids would not even arise.

-- Pete

mmeijeri · « **Reply #59 on:** 02/03/2010 01:59 am »

Just out of curiosity, could it fly on Ariane 5?