Return of SpaceDev's Dream Chaser

[Downix]

Just out of curiosity, could it fly on Ariane 5?

Cannot see why it couldn't.  Ariane 5 can lift 21,000 kg while the Dream Chaser only weighs 9,000 kg.

[Serafeim]

a question .Where dreamchaserhas the docking port?on the back?I cannot see it on pictures..

Ariane 5 is for heavier(moon maybe) vehicles llike the Atv derived,or maybe a light orion.Dreamchaser is for leo only like soyuz,dragon etc..medium launvhers,cheap and the best for the job.soyuz or zenit(10t) better can launch  it.

[8900]

Falcon 9 will be able to lift it?

[Serafeim]

yes ,but falcon with dragon is an competitor.

[Downix]

a question .Where dreamchaserhas the docking port?on the back?I cannot see it on pictures..

Ariane 5 is for heavier(moon maybe) vehicles llike the Atv derived,or maybe a light orion.Dreamchaser is for leo only like soyuz,dragon etc..medium launvhers,cheap and the best for the job.soyuz or zenit(10t) better can launch  it.

Look for pictures of the HL-20 mounted on the rocket, as the Dreamchaser is based on the HL-20.  it would be on the back using an adaptor.

[kevin-rf]

But ULA wants a considerable amount of money to bring the 402 configuration on line.  Further, the 402 overloads the Centaur/adapter interface in bending.  Adding a winged body on top will only make matters worse.  There is a substantial investment required to make a 402+HL-20 work.

I think people should be reminded two engine Centuar does not presently exist. As has been discussed in prior threads, the current Centuar uses electronic actuators, the two engine Centuar used hydraulic actuators and has not been upgraded to electronic actuators.

ULA needs to either to do the engineering to update the two engine Centuar actuarors, or bring back the Centuar with the Hydraulic actuators.

In the mix, ULA has been talking about a new common Atlas/Delta upper stage.

So yeah, I can see them wanting money... So what is a better ULA investment? A new upper? two engine Centaur? RL-60 Centaur?

[Robotbeat]

But ULA wants a considerable amount of money to bring the 402 configuration on line.  Further, the 402 overloads the Centaur/adapter interface in bending.  Adding a winged body on top will only make matters worse.  There is a substantial investment required to make a 402+HL-20 work.

I think people should be reminded two engine Centuar does not presently exist. As has been discussed in prior threads, the current Centuar uses electronic actuators, the two engine Centuar used hydraulic actuators and has not been upgraded to electronic actuators.

ULA needs to either to do the engineering to update the two engine Centuar actuarors, or bring back the Centuar with the Hydraulic actuators.

In the mix, ULA has been talking about a new common Atlas/Delta upper stage.

So yeah, I can see them wanting money... So what is a better ULA investment? A new upper? two engine Centaur? RL-60 Centaur?

The two-engine centaur would probably be the cheapest option, though I'm not privy to all the details of a trade study on this subject. I'd vote for the RL-60, though, if they have the time and money. Double the thrust and greater Isp than the RL-10A-4-2 (465-470+ s vs. 451s).

[butters]

RL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle.  Anything bigger needs a gas generator.

If I could play fantasy lego rocket, RL-60 would be the only hydrolox engine in my architecture.  Everything smaller would be hypergolics, and everything bigger would be kerolox.  Maybe an RL-60 methane variant for Mars ISRU lander.

[yg1968]

Here is a cool image and some information on the Dream Chaser:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/picture-dreamchaser-docks-with.html

Sierra Nevada's Mark Sirangelo told Hyperbola: "We are planning to mature our rocket motor system and develop an early prototype drop test vehicle under this programme and supplementing it with our own resources.  It is only an eight month programme in its current form. Our programme goal is to have a usable orbital vehicle in service by 2014. The vehicle will take seven crew and critical cargo to and from [low Earth orbit] destinations and be able to land on a 3,000m [9,800ft] runway.  Our team consists of seven prominent space companies and universities all with considerable experience."

Edit: please do not embed images, attach them instead.

[Antares]

But ULA wants a considerable amount of money to bring the 402 configuration on line.  Further, the 402 overloads the Centaur/adapter interface in bending.  Adding a winged body on top will only make matters worse.  There is a substantial investment required to make a 402+HL-20 work.

Didn't OSP prove that wasn't a problem?

[HMXHMX]

It takes money. Almost anything can be made to work with enough.

[Patchouli]

RL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle.  Anything bigger needs a gas generator.

If I could play fantasy lego rocket, RL-60 would be the only hydrolox engine in my architecture.  Everything smaller would be hypergolics, and everything bigger would be kerolox.  Maybe an RL-60 methane variant for Mars ISRU lander.

I think you can go bigger with an expander cycle on aeropike engines but that's a different subject.

[butters]

RL-60 also has a killer T/W ratio because it maximizes the practical single-nozzle thrust potential of the hydrolox expander cycle.  Anything bigger needs a gas generator.

I think you can go bigger with an expander cycle on aeropike engines but that's a different subject.

Maybe, but aerospike nozzles are relatively heavy, and that kinda defeats the point of high T/W ratio.  RL-60 with kerolox TAN seems like a neat idea to get high thrust and altitude compensation.