Dream Chaser progress ahead of CRS2 as SNC keeps crew version alive

[Chris Bergin]

Acts as a round up of the latest news in one article and thread:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/dream-chaser-progress-crs2-snc-crew-version-alive/

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1121468278306746368

[A_M_Swallow]

Can the crew version of the Dream Chaser reenter from the Gateway's lunar orbit? Or only from LEO (ISS)?

[Rocket Science]

Great article Chris, thank you... The dream lives on!

[Rzeppa]

Nice article! SNC is a customer of mine. I make 3D printed models of some of their spacecraft, including their LOP-G proposal under the NextSTEP-2 program, which leverages some of the hardware they've already developed for Dream Chaser. Picture below is a 1/3 scale model that hangs in their lobby at their Louisville Colorado facility.

[yg1968]

Interesting conclusion to the article! See below:

Depending on just how much work is taking place on the crew Dream Chaser, NASA could – in theory – providing funding to ramp up the work on the Dream Chaser crew vehicle and create a back-up option in case of further issues with the two primary Commercial Crew vehicles.

Despite the issues with Crew Dragon and Starliner, NASA is far more likely to continue to purchase more Soyuz flights to ensure it can launch American astronauts to the ISS and to provide an uninterrupted US presence on the orbital outpost.

I agree. Technically, CCtCap does have an on-ramp clause that could allow new entrants such as SNC (or Blue) into the crewed program but in practice, NASA is unlikely to get the extra funding for a third crew provider. SNC's best hope for crewed DC would likely be if NASA were to create a follow on program after CCtCap.

[Patchouli]

I agree. Technically, CCtCap does have an on-ramp clause that could allow new entrants such as SNC (or Blue) into the crewed program but in practice, NASA is unlikely to get the extra funding for a third crew provider. SNC's best hope for crewed DC would likely be if NASA were to create a follow on program after CCtCap.

I think they should have kept SNC in the running since both persent commercial crew providers hit a snag.
If NASA didn't like the integrated abort system they could have done the HL-20 style abort system as a second option.

[wings_no_capsules]

With space-X crew dragon recent failure is dreamchaser more of a consideration?

Edit I need to read more. Do we have any updates here?

I know Congress does NOT like buying Russian Seats to the ISS.

[TrevorMonty]

With space-X crew dragon recent failure is dreamchaser more of a consideration?

Edit I need to read more. Do we have any updates here?

I know Congress does NOT like buying Russian Seats to the ISS.

SNC focus is cargo Dreamchaser for CRS2 missions. Once that is flying I'm guessing they will focus on crew version, but at more leisurely pace.

If NASA was to help fund it then SNC could pickup the pace, but they are quite few years behind Dragon2 and Starliner.

[Rocket Science]

With space-X crew dragon recent failure is dreamchaser more of a consideration?

Edit I need to read more. Do we have any updates here?

I know Congress does NOT like buying Russian Seats to the ISS.

SNC focus is cargo Dreamchaser for CRS2 missions. Once that is flying I'm guessing they will focus on crew version, but at more leisurely pace.

If NASA was to help fund it then SNC could pickup the pace, but they are quite few years behind Dragon2 and Starliner.

I like your line of thinking but there may be nothing to fly to if they splash ISS...

[Rzeppa]

I like your line of thinking but there may be nothing to fly to if they splash ISS...

Quite the contrary, when I have been up there in Louisville meeting with the SN Corp team, one of the recurring themes in our conversations is how many other customers Dream Chaser will have other than NASA. Unlike all these capsules, Dream Chaser can return from orbit with relatively low Gs, to any commercial airport, which is a big deal for a lot of returning payloads. There are a lot of commercial, academic and governmental entities interested in Dream Chaser's unique capabilities.

[Rzeppa]

Can the crew version of the Dream Chaser reenter from the Gateway's lunar orbit? Or only from LEO (ISS)?

Really good question, which I have asked in person while visiting SN Corp, and haven't gotten an answer. The integration engineers I have worked with were in other programs than Dream Chaser (Next STEP-2 and STPSat-5), and they are kind of compartmentalized as far as technical details of the different programs.

I suspect that Orion is the only vehicle in production specifically designed to withstand re-entry from those kinds of velocities. Obviously Starship is being designed to be, but I doubt Crew Dragon, Starliner or Soyuz are up the the task of withstanding re-entry faster than LEO.

[Rocket Science]

I like your line of thinking but there may be nothing to fly to if they splash ISS...

Quite the contrary, when I have been up there in Louisville meeting with the SN Corp team, one of the recurring themes in our conversations is how many other customers Dream Chaser will have other than NASA. Unlike all these capsules, Dream Chaser can return from orbit with relatively low Gs, to any commercial airport, which is a big deal for a lot of returning payloads. There are a lot of commercial, academic and governmental entities interested in Dream Chaser's unique capabilities.

These missions are not necessarily for a crewed Dream Chaser...

[Steven Pietrobon]

I suspect that Orion is the only vehicle in production specifically designed to withstand re-entry from those kinds of velocities. Obviously Starship is being designed to be, but I doubt Crew Dragon, Starliner or Soyuz are up the the task of withstanding re-entry faster than LEO.

Soyuz was originally designed for Lunar missions and has successfully flown around the Moon without the orbital compartment. The biggest changes are to add a thicker heat shield and add long distance communications equipment, which can all be done to the existing vehicles for Lunar flyby missions. Lunar orbit will require either bigger service modules or an added transfer stage.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-lok.html
http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-l1.html

[Rocket Science]

Just to add to Steven's post there are no real show stoppers for a lunar Dream Chaser (not saying it would be my first choice or not). Flying a lifting body to the moon goes back to a USAF proposal called LUNOX way back in 1958 and as for an orbital module one was proposed for the "orbital X-24A"...
http://www.astronautix.com/l/lunex.html

[Rzeppa]

Just to add to Steven's post there are no real show stoppers for a lunar Dream Chaser (not saying it would be my first choice or not). Flying a lifting body to the moon goes back to a USAF proposal called LUNOX way back in 1958 and as for an orbital module one was proposed for the "orbital X-24A"...

I don't think the fact that it's a lifting body is the issue, it's whether the thermal protection system is up to the task. As Steven points out above, with a capsule and ablative heat shield you can make the heat shield thicker (although that might entail other mods, such as attachment to SM, etc.), I don't know if Dream Chaser is designed with either enough TPS or whether it can be easily augmented for the faster re-entry from a lunar mission.

[Rocket Science]

Just to add to Steven's post there are no real show stoppers for a lunar Dream Chaser (not saying it would be my first choice or not). Flying a lifting body to the moon goes back to a USAF proposal called LUNOX way back in 1958 and as for an orbital module one was proposed for the "orbital X-24A"...

I don't think the fact that it's a lifting body is the issue, it's whether the thermal protection system is up to the task. As Steven points out above, with a capsule and ablative heat shield you can make the heat shield thicker (although that might entail other mods, such as attachment to SM, etc.), I don't know if Dream Chaser is designed with either enough TPS or whether it can be easily augmented for the faster re-entry from a lunar mission.

The TPS upgrade is a given... Might I suggest you read though the many great threads here full of information prior to asking such a obvious question and I recommend an L2 subscription for even more informative-exclusive content!

[Rzeppa]

Just to add to Steven's post there are no real show stoppers for a lunar Dream Chaser (not saying it would be my first choice or not). Flying a lifting body to the moon goes back to a USAF proposal called LUNOX way back in 1958 and as for an orbital module one was proposed for the "orbital X-24A"...

I don't think the fact that it's a lifting body is the issue, it's whether the thermal protection system is up to the task. As Steven points out above, with a capsule and ablative heat shield you can make the heat shield thicker (although that might entail other mods, such as attachment to SM, etc.), I don't know if Dream Chaser is designed with either enough TPS or whether it can be easily augmented for the faster re-entry from a lunar mission.

The TPS upgrade is a given... Might I suggest you read though the many great threads here full of information prior to asking such a obvious question and I recommend an L2 subscription for even more informative-exclusive content!

In re-reading what I wrote, it's kind of hard to see anywhere I was "asking a question". I was making a statement. And I have read thousands of posts in hundreds of threads here over the years. I don't recall ever seeing anything about whether Dream Chaser's TPS could be easily augmented, or if it is adequate as-is for Lunar re-entry. If you are aware of the existence of this information, please by all means provide a URL to the thread.

[Rocket Science]

Just to add to Steven's post there are no real show stoppers for a lunar Dream Chaser (not saying it would be my first choice or not). Flying a lifting body to the moon goes back to a USAF proposal called LUNOX way back in 1958 and as for an orbital module one was proposed for the "orbital X-24A"...

I don't think the fact that it's a lifting body is the issue, it's whether the thermal protection system is up to the task. As Steven points out above, with a capsule and ablative heat shield you can make the heat shield thicker (although that might entail other mods, such as attachment to SM, etc.), I don't know if Dream Chaser is designed with either enough TPS or whether it can be easily augmented for the faster re-entry from a lunar mission.

The TPS upgrade is a given... Might I suggest you read though the many great threads here full of information prior to asking such a obvious question and I recommend an L2 subscription for even more informative-exclusive content!

In re-reading what I wrote, it's kind of hard to see anywhere I was "asking a question". I was making a statement. And I have read thousands of posts in hundreds of threads here over the years. I don't recall ever seeing anything about whether Dream Chaser's TPS could be easily augmented, or if it is adequate as-is for Lunar re-entry. If you are aware of the existence of this information, please by all means provide a URL to the thread.

I never said the current TPS is certified for lunar return. "If" SNC chose to it is not a technical barrier...