Author Topic: Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements) (Read 784268 times)

tnphysics · « **on:** 09/20/2007 11:31 pm »

Would Dream Chaser be able to do an abort using its SVPMs as an LAS?

How many of the SVPMs would be necessary to deorbit the spacecraft if the others failed, or would the RCS alone be able to do this?

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/20/2007 11:46 pm »

SVPM's ?

tnphysics · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/21/2007 12:13 am »

SVPM stands for Space Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion Module.

Jim · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/21/2007 12:29 am »

Which Dream Chaser config are you talking about. there is no longer a version that flies on a Delta-IV heavy looking vehicle. There is the orbital version that flies on the Atlas V and looks like the HL-20 and the suborbital version that looks like an X-37

tnphysics · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/21/2007 01:37 am »

I mean the one for the Atlas V 431(?)

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/21/2007 01:58 am »

It doesn't use SVPM

vt_hokie · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/21/2007 03:26 am »

I'd really like to know what a realistic monetary figure is for development of the orbital Dreamchaser and a man-rated Atlas V.

Comga · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/21/2007 06:02 am »

There is on the web a AIAA published paper by two guys at ULA that says that the Atlas V 401 (i.e. no solid rockets) meets the man rating safety factor of 1.4 for all but one component, and that man-rating this low capacity version would be quite tractable.

As a manned vehicle would not use a standard fairing, the distinction between the V 401 and V 501 may be moot IIRC.

pippin · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/21/2007 07:42 am »

Quote

Jim - 21/9/2007 3:58 AM

It doesn't use SVPM

So what are the abort modes for Dreamchaser? Any escape capability?
How do they maneuver in orbit and deorbit? RCS?

kkattula2 · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/21/2007 07:43 am »

Wouldn't a manned vehicle be an Atlas V 402? Single engine US is usually for GTO, dual engine for LEO. Higher payload weight requires more thrust.

bad_astra · « **Reply #10 on:** 09/21/2007 04:07 pm »

I think they renamed the suborbital X2 looking version to something else to avoid confusion.

JIS · « **Reply #11 on:** 09/21/2007 04:30 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 21/9/2007 4:26 AM

I'd really like to know what a realistic monetary figure is for development of the orbital Dreamchaser and a man-rated Atlas V.

Why to man-rate Atlas to NASA standards? It's not likely that they will ever use it for NASA personnel.

Dreamchaser would get $175m of money what has left from RpK COTS. It has to be enough. The question is who would pay the launcher for test flights.

bad_astra · « **Reply #12 on:** 09/21/2007 04:38 pm »

That's the problem. SpaceDev is publically traded, so it's beyond the realm of angel investors, and yet at the same time they have no guarantee they'll be picked up for COTS 2, nor do they have any public word from Bigelow that they'd be the vehicle used to ferry passengers and consumables.

It's not really a win/win situation, that's for certain.

Jim · « **Reply #13 on:** 09/21/2007 04:41 pm »

Quote

JIS - 21/9/2007 12:30 PM

Quote
vt_hokie - 21/9/2007 4:26 AM

I'd really like to know what a realistic monetary figure is for development of the orbital Dreamchaser and a man-rated Atlas V.

1. Why to man-rate Atlas to NASA standards? It's not likely that they will ever use it for NASA personnel.

2. Dreamchaser would get $175m of money what has left from RpK COTS. It has to be enough. The question is who would pay the launcher for test flights.

1. If it is to carry NASA astronauts, COTS phase D, it is required

2. If SpaceDev got the money, not "dreamchaser", Spacedev is responsible for everything, spacecraft and booster.

marsavian · « **Reply #14 on:** 09/21/2007 04:48 pm »

Quote

JIS - 21/9/2007 11:30 AM

Quote
vt_hokie - 21/9/2007 4:26 AM

I'd really like to know what a realistic monetary figure is for development of the orbital Dreamchaser and a man-rated Atlas V.

Why to man-rate Atlas to NASA standards? It's not likely that they will ever use it for NASA personnel.

Dreamchaser would get $175m of money what has left from RpK COTS. It has to be enough. The question is who would pay the launcher for test flights.

It isn't enough, Spacedev have put a $500m total price tag on Dreamchaser and I think $600m is a more realistic figure. They are in the same boat as RpK, they need to find hundreds of millions more even with a COTS I award.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/cotsact_0625.html

marsavian · « **Reply #15 on:** 09/21/2007 04:52 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 21/9/2007 11:38 AM

That's the problem. SpaceDev is publically traded, so it's beyond the realm of angel investors, and yet at the same time they have no guarantee they'll be picked up for COTS 2, nor do they have any public word from Bigelow that they'd be the vehicle used to ferry passengers and consumables.

It's not really a win/win situation, that's for certain.

It's not beyond the realm as all they need to do is print more shares like they did recently for OHB

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=187

antonioe · « **Reply #16 on:** 09/26/2007 12:56 am »

Quote

bad_astra - 21/9/2007 11:38 AM That's the problem. SpaceDev is publically traded, so it's beyond the realm of angel investors, and yet at the same time they have no guarantee they'll be picked up for COTS 2, nor do they have any public word from Bigelow that they'd be the vehicle used to ferry passengers and consumables.

What would happen if Bigelow said in public that Dream Chaser would be the vehicle used to ferry passengers and consummables?

tnphysics · « **Reply #17 on:** 09/27/2007 12:50 am »

Dragon will probably get that award.

tnphysics · « **Reply #18 on:** 09/29/2007 10:48 pm »

Are their any abort motors on DreamChaser?

What would happen if their was a Delta II-like explosion of an SRM?

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 09/29/2007 10:52 pm »

Quote

tnphysics - 26/9/2007 8:50 PM

Dragon will probably get that award.

What award?