Reviving crewed Dream Chaser?

[JAFO]

Just wondering, with the delays being encountered by Dragon 2 and Starliner, how much it would take for NASA to say "Let's revive this program as a third option."? I know SNC has been saying the Cargo Dream Chaser is about 85% compatible with the manned one, would NASA have to redo the bid?

[MATTBLAK]

It's rather unlikely, but a part of me really wishes that a small but excellent manned spaceplane was going into service sometime Probably more chance of Dreamchaser being upgraded than the unmanned X-37 being scaled up and turned into a crewed vehicle.

[QuantumG]

My (small) hope is that Dream Chaser will receive some more attention from capital after Dragon and Starliner start carrying crews. As many of you know, I'm sceptical that either of these vehicles will carry non-government customers. Dream Chaser will be well positioned for that role.

[IRobot]

Perhaps this slightly irrational fascination with space planes goes away in new generations.

[MATTBLAK]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

[bad_astra]

Cargo Dreamchaser proving herself over and over is the best way to one day have a crewed version. I don't really care if its a capsule or wings, as long as we have a means up and back.

[yg1968]

Perhaps this slightly irrational fascination with space planes goes away in new generations.

It's a good thing that DC is a lifting body then.

[IRobot]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

[TrevorMonty]

Cargo Dreamchaser proving herself over and over is the best way to one day have a crewed version. I don't really care if its a capsule or wings, as long as we have a means up and back.

The revenue from cargo version should help with development of crew version. DC does need lower cost RLV, Blue NG comes to mind.

[yg1968]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

One the space show, in response to my question, Sirangelo mentioned that DC could land in the water in an emergency.

[yg1968]

Just wondering, with the delays being encountered by Dragon 2 and Starliner, how much it would take for NASA to say "Let's revive this program as a third option."? I know SNC has been saying the Cargo Dream Chaser is about 85% compatible with the manned one, would NASA have to redo the bid?

To answer your question, CCtCap has an on-ramp clause which is meant for new entrants such as DC or Blue. But the harder part is finding funding for it.

[MATTBLAK]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

You are of course, correct. I had many of the same arguments/discussions on other forums. I like 'capsules' very much. But I want them to be reusable. SpaceX and Boeing are pioneering that now, thank goodness. There used to be this annoying clown on space.com and other places who kept raging against capsules; using the term 'retro spam can' in literally every paragraph, whether it was on topic or not. Lifting bodies and spaceplanes are cool. That is their major virtue. I can't offer much else...

[Lar]

Cargo Dreamchaser proving herself over and over is the best way to one day have a crewed version. I don't really care if its a capsule or wings, as long as we have a means up and back.

The revenue from cargo version should help with development of crew version. DC does need lower cost RLV, Blue NG comes to mind.

or Falcon. Studies were already done I think. SpaceX would not refuse the business.

[rayleighscatter]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

There's more runways than recovery ships.

[GWH]

Runways are a much better alternative to landing in the ocean or tossing your heatshield down onto the desert surface IMO.

[IRobot]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

There's more runways than recovery ships.

F9 doesn't seem to be bothered with that. And air traffic control says "thanks!".

Runways are a much better alternative to landing in the ocean or tossing your heatshield down onto the desert surface IMO.

If you focus only on the final meters of your long trip, yes, you are right.

And that's the problem of driving design from a single requirement. This space plane fascination makes people wanting to justify the plane-shape by all means, like making the landing the single most important requirement.

[BrightLight]

It's only irrational if someone advocates them for beyond LEO. There are not essential for Earth Orbit activities; they merely have desirable crossrange attributes and runway landing abilities. But of course you would know that.

Crossrange? The requirement that ruined the Shuttle? And that was in the end useless?
Runaway? Only needed by the fact it is a spaceplane.

There's more runways than recovery ships.

F9 doesn't seem to be bothered with that. And air traffic control says "thanks!".

Runways are a much better alternative to landing in the ocean or tossing your heatshield down onto the desert surface IMO.

If you focus only on the final meters of your long trip, yes, you are right.

And that's the problem of driving design from a single requirement. This space plane fascination makes people wanting to justify the plane-shape by all means, like making the landing the single most important requirement.

It's just my opinion but I think a manned craft landing safely is the most important requirement.

[Archibald]

capsule vs spaceplanes, or the never-eding debate. It's like DBZ power levels. 

[vt_hokie]

I think a good argument could be made for the lower G reentry profile and direct return to a land based facility via soft runway touchdown in the assured crew return vehicle role, where an injured or ill crew member requires immediate attention.

[TripleSeven]

I think a good argument could be made for the lower G reentry profile and direct return to a land based facility via soft runway touchdown in the assured crew return vehicle role, where an injured or ill crew member requires immediate attention.

I am a natural skeptic of Dream Chaser because I think that there is only so much "room" in the next 10-15 years for crewed up and down lift (no I dont see hundreds flying in space anytime soon ) but I do have a passing acquintance with the couple that owns SNC and they are well thought of here (among other things they have been on my airplane a few times and the idea is novel

If they can get Dream Chaser off the ground in some form or fashion, in my view it will become the prime down mass vehicle for things "done" on ISS due to its control and low gravity entry profile.  and with that if "we" are lucky and ISS grows and so does commercial investment in it...that might push it into a crewed vehicle

because in my view while it has the advantage you mention (ie low g for an injured crew member) it has the potential to evolve to the premier up and down lift vehicle for PEOPLE if the metric is limited to Boeing/SpaceX and Dream Chaser

the disadvantage of a winged vehicle is that it has to carry the mass of the lifting shape which is useless in space...but the advantage of the winged vehicle for crews is a lot

First the vehicle should have the easiest time being made reusable which should help increase the flight rate. SpaceX was in the running to have the most reusable vehicle until land return was nixed...now no

second with o water abort options, eventually someday when inevitably the requirement to use space suits goes away...then in theory the DC should have the the easiest "passenger" training accomadtions of the three vehicles

third I suspect it scales better.

If we ever get to a point where vehicles are going to "ISS" or private space stations associated with it...every say 3 months instead of say every 6 and there are say 20ish people in space that need up down just not 4...well these could all be important.

we might do that in 10-15 years