Dream Chaser suffers landing failure after first flight

[vt_hokie]

Both the A-12 and F-117 program had Class A mishaps when parts of the control system were incorrectly hooked up (SAS in the A-12, flight controls in the F-117). If something like that can happen to the Skunk Works (twice), then SNC is in good company.

The difference is those programs enjoyed enough political support to survive the inevitable failures.  As President Obama recently said in remarks that I caught on television, budgets reflect a nation's priorities.  So, regardless of what cheap lip service the administration gives to this human spaceflight effort, the budget tells the real story - it's really not a priority.

[mr. mark]

Well, for reasons I stated above, there was very little chance they were going to make this down select anyways. As for you being wrong, I can't say. But unless you work for SNC, what you've stated are not facts, they are reasonable assumptions.

What will be interesting is to see the PR reaction to losing the pretty face of the commercial crew program.  Let's face it, Dream Chaser is simply sexier than any of the capsules and its imagery tended to find its way onto a lot of press releases.  I'm guessing the reason we weren't allowed to see live footage of the drop or video footage in the wake of the failure is that it is deemed too politically ugly to see Lori Garver's poster child turning into wreckage in an ugly crash.  But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

I would argue that the face of the the Commercial Crew program at least to the public is Elon Musk. As long as SpaceX does well the commercial space program will survive. All eyes will be on the Dragon pad abort test next year. I will agree with you though that Dream Chaser is one pretty spacecraft. My person take is that this mishap will put Sierra Nevada too far behind to survive down select. It's just a personal observation though.

[dcporter]

Also, is the landing gear the same as it would use in flight, ...

No.

Not in response to anybody in particular, but it seems useful to quote this every couple of pages. The incident in no way impacts the engineering of the final vehicle, only the testing schedule, right?

[john smith 19]

Both the A-12 and F-117 program suffered "loss of vehicle"  mishaps when parts of the control system were incorrectly hooked up (SAS in the A-12, flight controls in the F-117). If something like that can happen to the Skunk Works (twice), then SNC is in good company.

Good point. You test stuff to find problems now, rather than later. 

What will be interesting is to see the PR reaction to losing the pretty face of the commercial crew program.  Let's face it, Dream Chaser is simply sexier than any of the capsules and its imagery tended to find its way onto a lot of press releases.  I'm guessing the reason we weren't allowed to see live footage of the drop or video footage in the wake of the failure is that it is deemed too politically ugly to see Lori Garver's poster child turning into wreckage in an ugly crash.  But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

I'll note 2 points.
1)While it is a NASA site I'll guess most of the test is being run by SNC staff, so it's company disclosure rules, not (necessarily) NASA.

2)It's a weekend. I'll guess they did not think they'd need their PR team in to deal with this sort of situation. 

[Jester]

The DC F-5E gear.

and a video as how it should normally deploy (on a F-5, not DC, but it should be mostly the same)

[rcoppola]

Well, for reasons I stated above, there was very little chance they were going to make this down select anyways. As for you being wrong, I can't say. But unless you work for SNC, what you've stated are not facts, they are reasonable assumptions.

What will be interesting is to see the PR reaction to losing the pretty face of the commercial crew program.  Let's face it, Dream Chaser is simply sexier than any of the capsules and its imagery tended to find its way onto a lot of press releases.  I'm guessing the reason we weren't allowed to see live footage of the drop or video footage in the wake of the failure is that it is deemed too politically ugly to see Lori Garver's poster child turning into wreckage in an ugly crash.  But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

I would argue that the face of the the Commercial Crew program at least to the public is Elon Musk. As long as SpaceX does well the commercial space program will survive. All eyes will be on the Dragon pad abort test next year. I will agree with you though that Dream Chaser is one pretty spacecraft. My person take is that this mishap will put Sierra Nevada too far behind to survive down select. It's just a personal observation though.

They were always too far away to survive any down-select that occurs in 2014. Regardless of this incident. That's one of a number of reasons why they did not get full funding last round. The first 6 flights to ISS will be split between Dragon and CST. SNC can offer DC later this decade since thy will most likely extend ISS beyond those 6 flights.

[clongton]

But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

VT I shared with you yesterday that there is absolutely nothing even remotely approaching "Soviet" in SNC's response thus far and I really wish you would stop making that ugly and completely untrue comparison. All that does is to confirm that you have no idea what the Soviet Union was actually like. If it were true then the SNC Senior Design staff would all have been demoted and transferred by now (or worse) and the Company president would be in a concentration camp of some kind with all his family's belongings "donated" to the state. THAT is "Soviet" and that is not this. This is not NASA where they are required to do everything in the open. This is corporate where everything is proprietary information to be released only where and when it serves their purposes, where there is absolutely no requirement of any kind to satisfy your insatiable curiosity for a media feeding frenzy. SNC owes you and me absolutely nothing what-so-ever, unless of course you have your own funds invested with them for Dream Chaser? If not, you can forget about seeing any pictures or videos of the test unless and until it suits them. They don't owe John-Q-Public anything.

[NovaSilisko]

My, a lot of doomsayers came out of the woodwork after this... 

[A_M_Swallow]

If you want video go and talk to the passer bys.  One of them may have filmed the crash.

Not releasing pictures is a standard PR action when their is trouble.  Without pictures the press will normally forget it in a few days.

[ChrisWilson68]

A landing gear failure is a pretty bad, basic mistake.  Lots of companies develop aircraft and test fly them without having landing gear failures.  It calls into question SNC's management and oversight practices.

Sounds vaguely similar to the Delta Clipper X. One landing gear failed to extend, it tipped over, and that was it's last flight. (Ground crew forgot to connect a hydraulic hose).

But yeah, if your management process isn't resilient enough to ensure that landing gear will extend, then your corporate structure has big problems.

It was one failure point among thousands they got right. I think bringing management and processes into this is incredibly premature. I mean come on, one point of failure and we are questioning an entire corporate structure? Let's dial this back a bit and wait for word from SNC.

It only takes one failure like this to kill a crew.  This particular failure was on something pretty basic that they really should have been able to get right.

[JBF]

It only takes one failure like this to kill a crew.  This particular failure was on something pretty basic that they really should have been able to get right.

With an actual crew aboard the pilot would have noticed the issue and done something about it.

[ChrisWilson68]

But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

VT I shared with you yesterday that there is absolutely nothing even remotely approaching "Soviet" in SNC's response thus far and I really wish you would stop making that ugly and completely untrue comparison. All that does is to confirm that you have no idea what the Soviet Union was actually like. If it were true then the SNC Senior Design staff would all have been fired by now (or worse) and the Company president would be in a concentration camp of some kind with all his family's belongings "donated" to the state. THAT is "Soviet" and that is not this. This is not NASA where they are required to do everything in the open. This is corporate where everything is proprietary information to be released only where and when it serves their purposes, where there is absolutely no requirement of any kind to satisfy your insatiable curiosity for a media feeding frenzy. SNC owes you and me absolutely nothing what-so-ever, unless of course you have your own funds invested with them for Dream Chaser? If not, you can forget about seeing any pictures or videos of the test unless and until it suits them. They don't owe John-Q-Public anything.

I completely agree that there's no comparison with the Soviet Union, and that companies have more right to keep things private.

However, John Q Public does have funds invested in this -- CCiCap funds.  This flight never would have happened without my taxpayer dollars.  It would be nice for SNC to recognize this and release the video as a courtesy to those taxpayers, even if they're not legally required to do so.

[Todd Martin]

SNC now has strong motivation to accelerate the schedule to finish the Flight Test Article (FTA).  As a result, there may be an opportunity to shorten their overall development time of DreamChaser in the face of a setback with the Engineering Test Article (ETA).

[rcoppola]

A landing gear failure is a pretty bad, basic mistake.  Lots of companies develop aircraft and test fly them without having landing gear failures.  It calls into question SNC's management and oversight practices.

Sounds vaguely similar to the Delta Clipper X. One landing gear failed to extend, it tipped over, and that was it's last flight. (Ground crew forgot to connect a hydraulic hose).

But yeah, if your management process isn't resilient enough to ensure that landing gear will extend, then your corporate structure has big problems.

It was one failure point among thousands they got right. I think bringing management and processes into this is incredibly premature. I mean come on, one point of failure and we are questioning an entire corporate structure? Let's dial this back a bit and wait for word from SNC.

It only takes one failure like this to kill a crew.  This particular failure was on something pretty basic that they really should have been able to get right.

Are you serious? You're talking about killing crew?

It's a TEST flight. This is why you test. What inference can you definitively draw from this one failure point? We only know that the gear failed. You don't know where the failure point was or why, i.e. mechanical, electric, systems / code. So how do you know how basic it is or not?

[rcoppola]

But not sharing it when NASA used to be open about its failures just feels a little too Soviet-era Russia to me.

VT I shared with you yesterday that there is absolutely nothing even remotely approaching "Soviet" in SNC's response thus far and I really wish you would stop making that ugly and completely untrue comparison. All that does is to confirm that you have no idea what the Soviet Union was actually like. If it were true then the SNC Senior Design staff would all have been fired by now (or worse) and the Company president would be in a concentration camp of some kind with all his family's belongings "donated" to the state. THAT is "Soviet" and that is not this. This is not NASA where they are required to do everything in the open. This is corporate where everything is proprietary information to be released only where and when it serves their purposes, where there is absolutely no requirement of any kind to satisfy your insatiable curiosity for a media feeding frenzy. SNC owes you and me absolutely nothing what-so-ever, unless of course you have your own funds invested with them for Dream Chaser? If not, you can forget about seeing any pictures or videos of the test unless and until it suits them. They don't owe John-Q-Public anything.

I completely agree that there's no comparison with the Soviet Union, and that companies have more right to keep things private.

However, John Q Public does have funds invested in this -- CCiCap funds.  This flight never would have happened without my taxpayer dollars.  It would be nice for SNC to recognize this and release the video as a courtesy to those taxpayers, even if they're not legally required to do so.

IT'S BEEN 2 DAYS! Give them some frakkin time.
Soviets, corrupted ineffectual corporate structure, taxpayer dollars, killing crew.
Sweet mother, what is everyone smoking today?

[vt_hokie]

Perhaps it's growing frustration from not having a real manned space program. It's been over two years since the last shuttle flight and we're starved for some actual flight footage!

[rcoppola]

Perhaps it's growing frustration from not having a real manned space program. It's been over two years since the last shuttle flight and we're starved for some actual flight footage!

Perhaps but why take it out on some of the very people who are dedicating their ives to help change that reality?

Besides, in a few years, we'll have 2 LEO capsules, a mini shuttle and the most capable BLEO capsule every assembled. This is like no other time in our collective 50 year space history.

One failure point, on one test flight of one sub-set of one system does not change any of that.

So I'm simply asking for people to take a moment and look at the larger, more promising and exciting picture.

[Lars_J]

It only takes one failure like this to kill a crew.  This particular failure was on something pretty basic that they really should have been able to get right.

With an actual crew aboard the pilot would have noticed the issue and done something about it.

I'm curious... What could a pilot have done if one was aboard this flight? Or what could they do if a leg deploy failed in an operational flight? This is not a particularly forgiving aircraft shape for handling off-nominal landings.

[OpsAnalyst]

Perhaps it's growing frustration from not having a real manned space program. It's been over two years since the last shuttle flight and we're starved for some actual flight footage!

Perhaps but why take it out on some of the very people who are dedicating their ives to help change that reality?

Besides, in a few years, we'll have 2 LEO capsules, a mini shuttle and the most capable BLEO capsule every assembled. This is like no other time in our collective 50 year space history.

One failure point, on one test flight of one sub-set of one system does not change any of that.

So I'm simply asking for people to take a moment and look at the larger, more promising and exciting picture.

Well said.

[clongton]

Perhaps it's growing frustration from not having a real manned space program. It's been over two years since the last shuttle flight and we're starved for some actual flight footage!

Perhaps but why take it out on some of the very people who are dedicating their ives to help change that reality?

Besides, in a few years, we'll have 2 LEO capsules, a mini shuttle and the most capable BLEO capsule every assembled. This is like no other time in our collective 50 year space history.

One failure point, on one test flight of one sub-set of one system does not change any of that.

So I'm simply asking for people to take a moment and look at the larger, more promising and exciting picture.

Correct. We are standing at the beginning of a paradigm shift in human spaceflight. Government sponsored space missions were never going to fulfill the desires for the kind of exploration that would satisfy average people. It would simply cost too much. Besides, exploration is not and never has been in NASA's charter. It's not what NASA is supposed to actually do. NASA should be an enabler, not a competitor. And now at this point in time we are witnessing one of the greatest transformations you will ever see; akin to the early days of flight, from a government run space program to a government supplemented space program to a government/commercial partnership space program to a pure commercial space program.  These are indeed exciting days and our kids and grandkids will look back at these days like we look at the era of the beginning of air flight. These are exciting times - enjoy and remember them. History is being made here and we are privileged to not only witness it, but able to connect with some of those that are actually making it happen here on NASA Spaceflight dot Com!

Go SpaceX. Go Boeing CST. Go SNC Dream Chaser. Go Blue Origin. Go - Go - Go!
If I forgot anybody then let me know and I'll edit my post.