Dream Chaser Q&A (including suggestions and improvements)

[kkattula2]

Hire T/Space (Scaled Composites?) to build a CXV?  A 401 will lift that easily. Have to add an LAS though.

[Sid454]

Another atlas the could be a contender would be the atlas heavy just three CBCs with no non man rated srbs.
As for what would fly on atlas for Bigelow most likely dream chaser followed by the t/space CXV.

DC would make a a lot of sense because it can land at a normal airport which would pretty much fit in the whole Bigelow luxury style.
It also makes sense with LM since they also are doing an atlas configuration for spacedev plus they seem to really want to try lifting body concepts pretty bad anyway just look at the X33, and the LM CEV before nasa decided to dictate what design to use.

One thing they could do to get more payload out of the 401 is to make dream chaser's LAS able to ripple fire in such a manner that causes no more then 2 to 4g for nominal missions like on Klipper acting like a third stage vs being dead weight.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

Also any expendable service modules could be a strike against a contender.

Two very important requirements here are both cost of operation and low g reentry.
 A big plus would be if they can get the physical requirements for flight lower then those needed for Soyuz and other competitors DC has a 1.5g reentry.
A lot of potential space tourists have to be turned away by the Russians because they fail the physical.

Though even  Apollo like vehicles such as Dragon and Orion have more benign g profiles then Soyuz .
I believe both have a 3g nominal reentry loading for LEO returns.

[Jim]

Sid454 - 9/2/2008  2:53 AM


1.  One thing they could do to get more payload out of the 401 is to make dream chaser's LAS able to ripple fire in such a manner that causes no more then 2 to 4g for nominal missions like on Klipper acting like a third stage vs being dead weight.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

2..Also any expendable service modules could be a strike against a contender.

1.  not viable. See all the CEV LAS threads.  it increases complexity which reduces the  reliability2,

2.  your source or proof of this

[Lampyridae]

clongton - 7/2/2008  5:33 AM

vt_hokie - 6/2/2008  2:58 PM

clongton - 6/2/2008  12:56 PM

But work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.

I'd love to see it, but where is the funding coming from?

I don't have that information, which is why I hesitated to share what I do have. But it sure is tantilizing, and if it actually comes to be as I think it might, that will be very satisfying.

Hmm, this is interesting. The only funding source I can think of at the current time is Bigelow Aerospace... they have had two publicly succesful demonstrations of their tech, and if they have lots of signatures or better yet, cheques (checks as you yanks write), then they might be well on the road. Dreamchaser should be able to carry 7 people, or modifiable to such?

 I've changed my opinion on Dreamchaser after a long look at the HL-20's lineage. The design is re-entry and runway-landing proven by the Russkies a ways back, so that aerodynamic stumbling block is licked. TPS is well advanced these days, and the motors are also proven. I'd given up hope on it after being initially very excited (heck, Bigelow too).

Very exciting, but perhaps there are other customers.
1. Bigelow - reasons as mentioned
2. ESA? Not likely, they are probably not going to even bother with human spaceflight post-ISS.
3. SpaceDev getting COTS money? Hmm, could be.
4. Virgin Galactic? Surely they would have made a big song and dance about it.

[Patchouli]

I have a question on the dream chaser vehicle could it perform lunar reentries using the multiple skip reentry technique esp since it has a large amount of built in delta V to correct it's course between each skip?
I don't have the needed modeling software or a super computer to find out if the TPS will be happy though in theory a double skip should keep things with in limits.

[clongton]

Patchouli - 22/2/2008  2:16 AM

I have a question on the dream chaser vehicle could it perform lunar reentries using the multiple skip reentry technique esp since it has a large amount of built in delta V to correct it's course between each skip?
I don't have the needed modeling software or a super computer to find out if the TPS will be happy though in theory a double skip should keep things with in limits.

Dream Chaser is a carefully crafted and efficiently designed LEO people taxi. It does not have the capability to sustain a crew on a round trip to the moon; it is designed for atmospheric operations, hence its shape, so the question is really moot. Sorry.

[A_M_Swallow]

clongton - 22/2/2008  12:57 PM

Patchouli - 22/2/2008  2:16 AM

I have a question on the dream chaser vehicle could it perform lunar reentries using the multiple skip reentry technique esp since it has a large amount of built in delta V to correct it's course between each skip?
I don't have the needed modeling software or a super computer to find out if the TPS will be happy though in theory a double skip should keep things with in limits.

Dream Chaser is a carefully crafted and efficiently designed LEO people taxi. It does not have the capability to sustain a crew on a round trip to the moon; it is designed for atmospheric operations, hence its shape, so the question is really moot. Sorry.

A Dream Chaser would not need to sustain a crew on a round trip to the Moon, just dock with something that can.  On returning to the Earth it would dump the mission module.

[ChefPat]

Patchouli - 21/2/2008  11:16 PM

I have a question on the dream chaser vehicle could it perform lunar reentries

It's very unlikely DC has the radiation protection for a Lunar mission.
SpaceDev had a video of a Lunar mission on their website a while back. It's not there anymore though. I have it & can e-mail it to you if you'd like it. It's 99 mb though.

[Jim]

ChefPat - 25/2/2008  8:55 PM

It's very unlikely DC has the radiation protection for a Lunar mission.

It would have no less than Apollo

[Smoothie]

It seems pointless to me to drag all the dead weight the TPS to the moon and back.  Leave the hypersonic glider in orbit docked to a "way station" and take a stripped down "fuel tank and crew cabin with engines" type of lunar transfer vehicle to the moon.

[nacnud]

But then you have to take the prop with you to slow down back into LEO, and that is heavier still. Best off with a capsule.

[lewis886]

any recent news having to do with the SpaceDev Dream Chaser? 
Haven't heard anything lately.

[lewis886]

nobody knows anything new at all?? 

[rank amature]

Did you read the article from MSNBC? http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/06/1250678.aspx
"Q: Are you working with an existing organization?

A: Some of the think tanks are reluctant to take a position that runs counter to the “stay the course” option that exists now at NASA with regard to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, called COTS – which involves private-sector stimulation -  and the Defense Department’s EELV program. The Defense Department and NASA have had an atrocious record of trying to come together for unified efforts to support space activities.

Maybe there are commercial interests who could stimulate the Commerce Department to step in and indicate a preference, in a way that the Defense Department or NASA might find inappropriate because of their previous commitments and programs.

I’m quite sensitive to the fact that the Europeans have a ministerial meeting in November to decide the future of the European space program. They could decide whether they should support Russian programs to low Earth orbit or American programs. The Japanese have indicated the same preference as the Europeans, for a lifting body and a runway lander. I’m sure the Indians would like to not just duplicate the Chinese with a capsule lander, but would like something more advanced. Again, that would be a lifting body and a runway lander.

That’s what I feel we should have as a redundant spacecraft capability in the American space program – to be redundant to the Orion spacecraft and the launch vehicle to put it into orbit and carry it beyond.

Q: That would be an area where you’d like to depart from the current course – because in the COTS program, both of the companies receiving NASA money are developing space capsules as well.

A: You’re very observant, following my well-chosen words. I’m quite aware that a number of years ago, the Russians had a design that they tested with scale models. We re-engineered and studied it and renamed it the HL-20. … My group of engineers thought it was very, very attractive, and together with Raytheon we were working on a proposal… It really surprised us when the upper management said they’d make no bid for COTS. …

So I and my engineers searched around and looked for ways of teaming with different people. Initially it was not too satisfying to work with SpaceDev, but after a change of management, it became very appropriate. I’ve been pursuing that personally and somewhat organizationally ever since. I think that would be a very good alliance to work with, including foreign partners like ESA, JAXA and ISRO [the European, Japanese and Indian space agencies].

I haven’t taken steps yet, but hopefully the Commerce Department may choose to provide a preferential announcement. That would be kind of gutsy for somebody to do. … I think we need to fill the gap, and I’d sure like to see the gap filled early by a lifting body and a runway lander."

Sounds like a joint strike fighter type economic model. IMHO

[Jim]

Commerce Department isn't going to take a role wrt to a manned spacecraft.

[rank amature]

Even if they put someone like Patti Grace Smith

http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/smith/

on the board of directors to cut through the paper work?

[Jim]

Even if they put someone like Patti Grace Smith

http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/smith/

on the board of directors to cut through the paper work?

She didn't do the leg work at the FAA, so she wouldn't be of help.

BOD's don't do real work.

[rank amature]

What do you mean by "real work"?
Do CEO's and CFO's do real work?

[Jim]

What do you mean by "real work"?
Do CEO's and CFO's do real work?

Exactly

[pippin]

What do you mean by "real work"?
Do CEO's and CFO's do real work?

Yes.
They do the day's job of running/managing something.
While BOD's job is just oversight.