Author Topic: Dream Chaser through critical landing test, prepares for orbital flights  (Read 27152 times)

Online Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Wouldn't need people on board to be non-autonomous. Approach and landing could theoretically be remote controlled, and would still be non-autonomous.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
True, but I was playing it for giggles and imagining an extremely bored airman stuck on the X-37b

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523

I don't know if the windows are a requirement but I suppose that a periscope (or cameras) could also be used.

Sirangelo said (a while ago) that making a DC wasn't that expensive. So you are right about that. But I sort of wonder if you don't make the crewed DC right away, is that capability lost after a while?
Good question. Another issue is how much such a craft is actually "piloted"

As much or little as they design into it. Shuttle was not capable of autoland, Buran was fully autonomous. Heavy airliners can do fully automated CAT IIIb/Land 3 (0' vertical vis, 150' horizontal) approaches, I imagine that would be easy to build into Dream Chaser.
Slight correction, the Shuttle was capable but never fully utilized... Except for the gear which you had to deploy... From out friend Wayne Hale:
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/breaking-through/


Fair enough. (We have to drop the gear ourselves, too.)
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Dream Chaser CCP accomplishments from:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
› Commercial Crew and Launch Readiness Process - Ms. Lisa Colloredo

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
As with all IT  systems when you have 2 units with a data link between them if you can make another unit that mimics one of them then you can replace that unit with your own.

And the Shuttle flight system was always one where the Pilot asked the flight computer to make a change of course.

Doing it with adequate reliability  (which for civilian blind land is 1 in 1x10^9 operating hours) is the tough part.
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 Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Nice to know one can be replaced by a relay and a software update... ;D
As with all IT  systems when you have 2 units with a data link between them if you can make another unit that mimics one of them then you can replace that unit with your own.

And the Shuttle flight system was always one where the Pilot asked the flight computer to make a change of course.

Doing it with adequate reliability  (which for civilian blind land is 1 in 1x10^9 operating hours) is the tough part.
It was a "quip"... :D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ejb749

Actually, in the Shuttle, the Pilot sat right seat, and the Commander sat left and actually did the flying.
So the pilot could ask the Commander to ask the flight computer....

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Do we have any details on the orbital cargo module? Construction, materials, in-house or out-sourced?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
So no more ALT tests, or TBD?
None planned, next stop space! 8)

In any other industry, they would be laughed out of the room for declaring success after just one successful test...

I don’t understand this comment. In every industry, it’s not about declaring complete success, but about clearing the project to proceed to more extensive testing.

With as many things as can go wrong in space flight, what’s the point of practicing the landing again?
After the next test vehicle (hopefully) makes it through launch, orbit and reentry, the landing test is free! If the landing test fails, all other tests succeeded. If an earlier test fails, it won’t be landing anyway. So why worry?
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 11:41 am by Norm38 »

Tags:
 

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