Author Topic: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly  (Read 79527 times)

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #80 on: 10/31/2013 03:06 pm »
Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2013 03:06 pm by mr. mark »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #81 on: 10/31/2013 03:30 pm »
Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
In my opinion SNC shot themselves in the foot by not releasing the footage.
Possibly, but they may already be feeling a bit defensive as following Sen. Wolfe's handiwork they only got 1/2 their preferred award.  :(
Quote
The flight did look quite good but we need to remember this isn't a plane competition it's a spacecraft competition. Do runways landing introduce an extra failure mode with the landing gear?
Do parachutes not opening introduce an extra failure mode relative to wings?
Quote
Personally I'd be a little annoyed if SNC was paid out for that test. It did not demonstrate it could land safely on wheels and skid from drop speed. They should be held accountable for their failure and try again. If they skimped on the landing gear by using salvaged parts that failed they need to own up to it.
The list of milestones for all competitors is redacted but AFAIK landing was not in fact one of them.

IOW if they pass the milestones they get the award. Simple.

Which seems a lot fairer than some programmes I've watched where they are late and don't meet their targets but get "re-baselined" although they still get the money.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #82 on: 10/31/2013 03:50 pm »
Personally I'd be a little annoyed if SNC was paid out for that test. It did not demonstrate it could land safely on wheels and skid from drop speed. They should be held accountable for their failure and try again. If they skimped on the landing gear by using salvaged parts that failed they need to own up to it.

Personally, I'd be annoyed if whatever payments are or are not made are not based on the contract, which specifies criteria for payment, based on what NASA wanted to see proven on this flight.

If what NASA was concerned about for this test was whether or not the landing gear of the F-5 Tiger works every time, then the portion of the payment linked to that system should be withheld.

But while I haven't seen the contract, I don't think NASA is that stupid.

I'm fairly certain they tied payment to demonstrating the elements required for maturing the Dream Chaser towards space flight status, and I know that they allowed SNC to build the glide test article as only partially flight representative in order to prove out the highest risk elements of the design on a reasonable budget.

So since NASA is probably not as worried about SNC's ability to ultimately develop flight-worthy landing gear as they are about developing a reliable automated control system for an unusual aerodynamic design, they were allowed to use landing gear that were already proven out. Which, of course, is still not a guarantee, as a web search for "A320 gear up landing" will similarly demonstrate.

Where this is most likely to affect NASA assessment of success is if there were test criteria related to the post-touchdown phase of the flight that the ETA was not able to demonstrate because the landing gear failure prevented it. I don't know whether there was or not.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #83 on: 10/31/2013 06:03 pm »
Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
I'd sure like to see a Capsule & a Lifting Body make the selection.
Were that the case though, I suspect the CST-100 would be the one cut & I doubt that their political connections would let that happen.

Excellent article Chris, thank you.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks again!

And as noted in a SN link earlier, we're also hearing positive noises from the NASA side, per test objectives.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #85 on: 10/31/2013 06:30 pm »
Before people can make absolute predictions on what vehicles survive any down select, does anybody here know NASA's criteria for a selection?  How important is it that one of the vehicles has a a wide cross range for landing opening more windows for landing?  How important is it that one of the vehicles has a low g-load during landing for returning experiments from orbit?  How important is it that a second vehicle is available in the same time frame as the first?  I don't doubt that lobbying has some influence on the decision, but I also do believe that questions like the ones I posed do have some weight in NASA's decision making process.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #86 on: 10/31/2013 06:34 pm »
Nice article. Of course, Dream Chaser most likely won't make the down select no matter how much space fans chear for it. We'll have to see how Sierra Nevada positions itself following the announcement. I have a feeling no matter what it's going to be a long haul and an uphill battle.
I'd sure like to see a Capsule & a Lifting Body make the selection.
Were that the case though, I suspect the CST-100 would be the one cut & I doubt that their political connections would let that happen.

Excellent article Chris, thank you.
This is not a zero sum game.

NASA wants these products asap. Which means Dragon and CST are better positioned for this round. But this isn't where it ends. Even if DC is not selected, they will continue and be able to offer up their services a few years later down the road. There are too many risks to mitigate and not enough funding to get them there soon enough to be selected for the initial set of flights. But they will continue and be cycled in at later date. I'm a huge fan of DC but there is a reason why they were not fully funded. NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #87 on: 10/31/2013 06:36 pm »
Before people can make absolute predictions on what vehicles survive any down select, does anybody here know NASA's criteria for a selection?  How important is it that one of the vehicles has a a wide cross range for landing opening more windows for landing?  How important is it that one of the vehicles has a low g-load during landing for returning experiments from orbit?  How important is it that a second vehicle is available in the same time frame as the first?  I don't doubt that lobbying has some influence on the decision, but I also do believe that questions like the ones I posed do have some weight in NASA's decision making process.
Right now it's time to market with least risk getting there. All other considerations besides perhaps costs are secondary.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #88 on: 10/31/2013 06:48 pm »
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.
I do agree on everything else though.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #89 on: 10/31/2013 07:12 pm »
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.
I do agree on everything else though.
Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system that they'll offer to NASA. Boeing has publicly stated they have been and/or will be talking with SpaceX on the options of using the F9 for CST. The primary reason for that discussion is cost related.

Atlas V is proven and working on being human-rated, F9v1.1 is being proven and was designed from the outset to be human-rated.

The schedule risk assessments and resulting funding profiles have primarily pointed to Crew vehicles, not the launchers.

(please pardon the slide into OT)

« Last Edit: 10/31/2013 07:13 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #90 on: 10/31/2013 07:23 pm »
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.
I do agree on everything else though.
Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system
I know, but Boeing is part owner of ULA...

Offline MP99

BTW, I like the thought that the apparent survivability of the crash may be seen as a valuable / attractive result in itself, even though unintended (and won't count towards milestones).

cheers, Martin

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #92 on: 10/31/2013 07:46 pm »
NASA put it's limited money into the products it felt could get to market fastest and with the least risk. Unfortunately, meeting this milestone will not change that equation. But does bode extremely well for DC in the not too distant future. Which is great.
I thought that part of the reason why SNC got less money was because they were using the same launch option as Boeing does. SpaceX also has its own launcher. So both Boeing and SpaceX have to do some launcher related work on top of the space craft.
I do agree on everything else though.
Remember, both Boeing and SNC would be sub-contracting out to ULA to provide the Atlas V as part of their integrated system
I know, but Boeing is part owner of ULA...
Doesn't matter. Different companies, different businesses units with different P&L columns.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #93 on: 10/31/2013 07:47 pm »
BTW, I like the thought that the apparent survivability of the crash may be seen as a valuable / attractive result in itself, even though unintended (and won't count towards milestones).

cheers, Martin
Yes, completely agree. Although not checked off on the milestone sheet, it is checked off in the psyche. And that has to account for something.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #94 on: 11/01/2013 12:16 am »
Since the ETA is going to be refitted for a piloted fight it might make sense for SNC to make use of the down time to refurbish the vehicle and do the mods in one step. They can then perform another drop test to validate all the systems prior to a piloted flight.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline mikegro

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Columbus, OH
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #95 on: 11/01/2013 03:31 pm »
I didn't see if anyone asked this yet (sorry if they did), but are the hydraulic systems on this DC ETA capable of retracting the landing gear in-flight if an anomaly like this happens again?  Better to do a belly landing with no gear than land with just one main and take a tumble, IMO.

-Mike
Part time F-16 and KC-135 Crew Chief, full-time spaceflight enthusiast!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #96 on: 11/01/2013 05:40 pm »
I didn't see if anyone asked this yet (sorry if they did), but are the hydraulic systems on this DC ETA capable of retracting the landing gear in-flight if an anomaly like this happens again?  Better to do a belly landing with no gear than land with just one main and take a tumble, IMO.

-Mike
I don’t believe that DC had the ability to retract gear enabled. There really would not have been enough time to cycle the gear much with a SkyCrane drop and extend 10-15s before touchdown. The F-5E main gear used on DC does originally come with gravity drop emergency gear extension.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2013 07:02 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #97 on: 11/03/2013 10:52 pm »
I believe this flight completes the last SNC CCDev-2 milestone. The last CCDev2 milestones was related to the free flight test:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf

CCiCap also had milestones related to the ETA flights.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2013 02:06 am by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Dream Chaser ETA review promotes positives despite anomaly
« Reply #98 on: 11/04/2013 01:57 am »
One thing that wasn't mentionned is that SNC will either do an another unmanned or a piloted test flight next (likely next year).

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dream-chaser-mini-shuttle-be-fixed-after-first-free-flight-8C11488071
« Last Edit: 11/04/2013 02:00 am by yg1968 »

Offline Chris Bergin

One thing that wasn't mentionned is that SNC will either do an another unmanned or a piloted test flight next (likely next year).


Oh really?

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/dream-chaser-eta-positives-despite-anomaly/
Quote
That original goal was to conduct one or two approach-and-landing free-flight tests with this ETA, before returning the vehicle to her home base in Colorado for outfitting ahead of the 2014 crewed version of the test flights.

SNC will evaluate if they will repair the ETA for another automated flight test, or if to ship her back to Colorado for outfitting.

“We will determine (that) if and when we receive enough data from this flight, because we were so successful we think we did receive all the data we need for testing,” Mr. Sirangelo continued. ”But we will determine if we do need that second flight, or if we want to bring the vehicle back for its next set of test flights early next year.”
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1