Gunbarrel company hopes to help fill shuttle void

[bad_astra]

For the Dreamchaser, not necessarily. Also the engines are hybrids, not solids, and there is no "ET". For a lifting body of spaceplane, I think sidemounting makes sense when you consider the aerodynamic load placed on putting it atop a stack and forcing the lv to have large fins to compensate.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/koss65mp.htm lists the Bor4 orbital launches from Kapustin Yar on a modified Tsyklon. Instead of side mounting, apparently a payload shroud was used.

[Mogster]

This is the concept art I saw, the central booster confused me.

http://www.space.com/images/h_dreamchaser_launch_02.jpg

Would detatching the spaceplane from the booster stack during launch work? I suppose you could use the smaller booster behind the Dreamchaser to take it clear of the larger boosters if they were shut down.

[bad_astra]

The nozzles on those boosters are huge. I don't know how much can be read into that image.

[Comga]

JesseD - 23/6/2006  9:33 AM

Space.com has an article with a really nice-looking picture.  ooo... fog.....

The Longmont Times article has a better picture.  (No fog)  It talks about a photo of the cockpit, but does not include it.  It also implies that people from out side the company were allowed to see and even go into the mock-up (It is NOT a prototype, as the reporter said.)  

Does anyone have an image of the interior? Any additional pictures at all?  Anyone on this forum get to see it?

Now will NASA favor Dream Chaser as "their" technology brought back or dismiss it because it has wings, which are now considered "bad"?

[simonbp]

Comga - 30/6/2006  10:25 PM
Now will NASA favor Dream Chaser as "their" technology brought back or dismiss it because it has wings, which are now considered "bad"?

Wings are "bad" when you are going to the moon, or more specifically coming back from it, because of the high entry velocities. Thus the lunar-optimised CEV woun't have wings. I don't think NASA would have a big problem if their COTS choice has wings/is a lifting body, as long as the company can prove its safe...

Simon

[Mogster]

Either a winged or lifting body vehicle that's capable of landing on a runway is needed if space tourism is going to blossom in any way soon.

Punters are going to want a reasonably comfortable ride for their large amount of money and a vehicle that can return them to an airport style terminal. The forces involved in a capsule re entry and being dumped in the middle of the ocean or desert somewhere just aren't going to attract anything but the hardcore few.

[nacnud]

"Punters are going to want a reasonably comfortable ride for their large amount of money..."

They are? I wonder if that is really true. What I would want is a reduction of cost and an assurance of safety. It seems capsules are inherently safer and cheaper than space planes. I'd rather take the reduced risk and cheaper flight please.

[hop]

Given the demonstrated market of people paying $20 million to fly something not much bigger than a bathroom stall, I'd say that isn't entirely true. People pay a lot of money to do uncomfortable and dangerous things.

The industry could reach a point where it had more capacity then there are tourists willing fly in those conditions, but it isn't obvious that will happen anytime soon. If all the current 'space tourism' companies of today succeed, you are talking about a flight capacity of hundreds or very low thousands of passengers per year for a long time to come.

That said, the assumption that you need a winged body for to have a roomy vehicle, or accurate landing is false. The assumption that capsules are inherently cheaper and safer than winged vehicles is also not certain. All else being equal, capsules do look simpler, but how that actually plays out for the real vehicles remains to seen. I suspect that for the first few generations, it will depend far more on the particular vehicle and the details of it's design.

[vt_hokie]

Tibbitts agrees that the more modern design should give his company an advantage.

“If I’m a kid, I’m not excited about flying in a capsule,” he said. “I’d be excited in flying in something that looks like (the Dream Chaser).”


Haha....guess I'm still a kid at heart, because that's kind of how I feel!  

[Mogster]

hop - 1/7/2006  10:42 PM

Given the demonstrated market of people paying $20 million to fly something not much bigger than a bathroom stall, I'd say that isn't entirely true. People pay a lot of money to do uncomfortable and dangerous things.

The industry could reach a point where it had more capacity then there are tourists willing fly in those conditions, but it isn't obvious that will happen anytime soon. If all the current 'space tourism' companies of today succeed, you are talking about a flight capacity of hundreds or very low thousands of passengers per year for a long time to come.

That said, the assumption that you need a winged body for to have a roomy vehicle, or accurate landing is false. The assumption that capsules are inherently cheaper and safer than winged vehicles is also not certain. All else being equal, capsules do look simpler, but how that actually plays out for the real vehicles remains to seen. I suspect that for the first few generations, it will depend far more on the particular vehicle and the details of it's design.

Surely there's a very limited number of people willing to pay tens of millions to be jammed into a claustrophobically small capsule and experince huge G loads for their space experience. I agree that there's always going to be some people who'll pay for that but there must be a much larger number that would pay up for an airline seat, lower forces and a large window to see out of. We are talking about tourism here after all.

Personally if I had the money and the seats were available I'd pay to ride the STS, but a Soyuz, maybe not.

[publiusr]

bad_astra - 25/6/2006  10:01 AM

For the Dreamchaser, not necessarily. Also the engines are hybrids, not solids, and there is no "ET". For a lifting body of spaceplane, I think sidemounting makes sense when you consider the aerodynamic load placed on putting it atop a stack and forcing the lv to have large fins to compensate.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/koss65mp.htm lists the Bor4 orbital launches from Kapustin Yar on a modified Tsyklon. Instead of side mounting, apparently a payload shroud was used.

Dreamchaser looks like a mini-Energiya Buran stack.

[publiusr]

Didn't one of the Kosmos LV launch some lifting bodies?

[VDD1991]

X-24C continued under USAF control after NASA cancellation of its portion of the program. USAF code name was Copper Coast and prototype reportedly first flew in 1981, but operational versions were allegedly cancelled in favor of the General Dynamics F-121 Sentinel (aka Centennial), which took over SR-71 recon duties. Once GD was taken over by Lockheed, the vehicle production returned to LM control. F-121 is a mach 3+ recon vehicle stationed at Groom Lake. There are four vehicles operating out of hangars 20-23. It has a 65 degree delta planform, with ventral air intakes blended into the fuselage.

The USAF codename for a research program to study hypersonic air-breathing SSTO concepts was codenamed Copper Canyon, not Copper Coast. Copper Coast was a codename for a USAF tactical evaluation and analysis program (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/names/c.html). There were rumors of a hypersonic successor to the SR-71 in operation service, but we know for experience fabricating workable scramjet engines and making the materials needed for hypersonic air-breathing flight that those rumors had no basis in reality.

More information about Copper Canyon can be found at these links:

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1989/8927/892707.PDF
http://www.astronautix.com/c/coppercanyon.html