I thought I read that the TPS was easily replacable, since it was part of a lower shell that comes off in 1 piece. All they need to do is build up a supply of flight-ready TPS. I doubt any vendor will need to re-fly the same vehicle in less than 2 months anyway.
But regardless of the nature of Dream Chasers landing, Sierra Nevada is currently looking at a two-month turn-around of the vehicle between flights to LEO.In those two months, large-scale sections of the spaceplanes Thermal Protection System tiles would be replaced if needed with whole tiles being replaced (even if just for a scratch) instead of repaired, as was the case with Shuttle.
The problem with this is not the availability of the vehicle but the cost of servicing it. 2 months of work for highly specialized personell means a lot of cost, not to mention the materials for the TPS itself.This will make it difficult for the DC to compete with the capsules.
Hopefully thats true, their only shot I would think is to be able to beat SpaceX on cost? But then the Atlas V is much more expensive than a Falcon 9
Slight update to the article, I've removed the White Knight 2 graphic showing Dream Chaser as that is now confirmed to be no longer an option.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2012 01:10 amSlight update to the article, I've removed the White Knight 2 graphic showing Dream Chaser as that is now confirmed to be no longer an option.That's disappointing; that would have been a beautiful air drop (maybe even air launch test using the hybrid engines) to watch. Phooey.
Quote from: TomH on 12/13/2012 08:59 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2012 01:10 amSlight update to the article, I've removed the White Knight 2 graphic showing Dream Chaser as that is now confirmed to be no longer an option.That's disappointing; that would have been a beautiful air drop (maybe even air launch test using the hybrid engines) to watch. Phooey. This doesn't mean they aren't going to do this, it just means they aren't going to do it with that particular carrier aircraft.
Would it be possible to use an Air-Crane helicopter again (as they did for the captive-carry test) or does it have to be an airplane?
Can they get up to the altitude / flight speed they want with the Air Crane ? Does NASA still have a B-52 that can be used as a carrier aircraft, or is the DreamChaser too big to fit under the wing ?
I'm thinking, is it too late to bring the last SCA out of retirement to carry Dream Chaser? It looks like there is some precedent with Phantom Ray.
Using a flying B-52 might still be possible such as the plane that flew the X-51 (B-52, tail number 050), a pylon "extension" would probably be needed and one was built for the X-38. I don't know if that extension still exists as the aircraft it was used on was retired (Tail number 008). If that extension is available and SNC was able to use and modify it, then a B-52, in theory, can be used for the drop tests.
Can anyone tell me why the WK is no longer an option for the DC drop tests? I must have missed that part.
Gliders are frequently towed. If the Dream Chaser can take off on its wheels then a fast, high flying aircraft may be able to get it into the air.