Author Topic: Which commercial crew vehicle would you choose to be transported on? (Read 36759 times)

TomH · « **Reply #40 on:** 08/31/2013 07:02 pm »

Quote from: ClaytonBirchenough on 08/31/2013 04:51 pm

Yeah, if a mod sees this please change this thread into a poll thread.

Well if it is changed to a poll, it would need to specify whether you go as a passive passenger (which isn't much different than being cargo) or you get to be the commander and be in control of the spacecraft (which means you get to pilot DC on the trip down).

Oli · « **Reply #41 on:** 09/02/2013 03:54 am »

The safest would be CST-100. Parachutes and airbags, no toxic fuels.

Dreamchaser would be the coolest and most comfortable.

I'd pick Dragon for landing on Mars.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #42 on:** 09/02/2013 04:00 am »

CST-100 uses regular old hypergols.

brihath · « **Reply #43 on:** 09/06/2013 01:21 pm »

I would be happy to fly on any ofthe vehicles, but my emotional preference is the Dream Chaser. There is just something about being able to step out of the vehicle onto a runway after returning from orbit, as compared to those crew members in the Soyuz who land, get rolled around and end up sitting upside down in their couches.

Lars_J · « **Reply #44 on:** 09/06/2013 03:14 pm »

Quote from: brihath on 09/06/2013 01:21 pm

I would be happy to fly on any ofthe vehicles, but my emotional preference is the Dream Chaser. There is just something about being able to step out of the vehicle onto a runway after returning from orbit, as compared to those crew members in the Soyuz who land, get rolled around and end up sitting upside down in their couches.

Then you will be happy to know that the nominal landing for Dragon and CST-100 is right side up, with a much reduced chance of rolling around like Soyuz.

Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #45 on:** 09/06/2013 03:32 pm »

Quote from: brihath on 09/06/2013 01:21 pm

I would be happy to fly on any ofthe vehicles, but my emotional preference is the Dream Chaser. There is just something about being able to step out of the vehicle onto a runway after returning from orbit, as compared to those crew members in the Soyuz who land, get rolled around and end up sitting upside down in their couches.

Huh? Neither of the other two options (three, if you still include Blue Origin) would give you that result.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #46 on:** 09/07/2013 03:02 am »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2013 03:14 pm

Quote from: brihath on 09/06/2013 01:21 pm
I would be happy to fly on any ofthe vehicles, but my emotional preference is the Dream Chaser. There is just something about being able to step out of the vehicle onto a runway after returning from orbit, as compared to those crew members in the Soyuz who land, get rolled around and end up sitting upside down in their couches.

Then you will be happy to know that the nominal landing for Dragon and CST-100 is right side up, with a much reduced chance of rolling around like Soyuz.

Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

My preference is the Dragon & Falcon 9 combo. With the CST-100 and Falcon 9 combo a close second. IMO the Atlas V will price itself off the commercial crew program.

If the Dreamchaser ditches in the sea, there is a chance it will pop up and cartwheel like most modern airliners. Also putting a liftbody airframe exposed on top of a LV will be interesting on the way up.

dchill · « **Reply #47 on:** 09/07/2013 06:00 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2013 03:14 pm

Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

I believe they have the ability to bail out and can/will carry parachutes, individual life rafts, life jackets and handheld radios. The ascent does mostly follow the coastline, so I think most aborts still have an excellent chance of getting to a runway anyway.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #48 on:** 09/08/2013 04:51 am »

Quote from: dchill on 09/07/2013 06:00 pm

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2013 03:14 pm
Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

I believe they have the ability to bail out and can/will carry parachutes, individual life rafts, life jackets and handheld radios. The ascent does mostly follow the coastline, so I think most aborts still have an excellent chance of getting to a runway anyway.

That would interesting since I don't recall the astronauts will be carrying the extra mass in escape & survival gear. Never mind how they are going egress from the vehicle's rear hatch after reentry while still in the air.

Lars_J · « **Reply #49 on:** 09/08/2013 04:54 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/08/2013 04:51 am

Quote from: dchill on 09/07/2013 06:00 pm
Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2013 03:14 pm
Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

I believe they have the ability to bail out and can/will carry parachutes, individual life rafts, life jackets and handheld radios. The ascent does mostly follow the coastline, so I think most aborts still have an excellent chance of getting to a runway anyway.

That would interesting since I don't recall the astronauts will be carrying the extra mass in escape & survival gear. Never mind how they are going egress from the vehicle's rear hatch after reentry while still in the air.

Yeah, that seems hard to believe, especially if it happens pretty early during ascent. But they could have sufficient margins. I look forward to seeing more details about abort options.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #50 on:** 09/08/2013 06:05 am »

I look forward to how in heck they're going to get the hybrid motors to work as well as they need them to.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #51 on:** 09/08/2013 01:32 pm »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/07/2013 03:02 am

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2013 03:14 pm
Quote from: brihath on 09/06/2013 01:21 pm
I would be happy to fly on any ofthe vehicles, but my emotional preference is the Dream Chaser. There is just something about being able to step out of the vehicle onto a runway after returning from orbit, as compared to those crew members in the Soyuz who land, get rolled around and end up sitting upside down in their couches.

Then you will be happy to know that the nominal landing for Dragon and CST-100 is right side up, with a much reduced chance of rolling around like Soyuz.

Dream chaser does sound good, but my greatest question about it is how it would handle ditching into the sea, which would occur if an abort was made during most of the ascent.

My preference is the Dragon & Falcon 9 combo. With the CST-100 and Falcon 9 combo a close second. IMO the Atlas V will price itself off the commercial crew program.

If the Dreamchaser ditches in the sea, there is a chance it will pop up and cartwheel like most modern airliners. Also putting a liftbody airframe exposed on top of a LV will be interesting on the way up.

Most aircraft that cartwheel when ditching is due to an engine pod or wingtip catching a wave. Have a good look at Dream Chaser's lifting body shape; looks a bit like a boat doesn’t it?

Oli · « **Reply #52 on:** 09/08/2013 06:28 pm »

^

Water at that speed (354 kph) is like concrete. As long as the surface of the water is not absolutely flat I guess ditching Dreamchaser would tear it apart. Also I'm not sure for how long it would float.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #53 on:** 09/08/2013 08:38 pm »

Quote from: Oli on 09/08/2013 06:28 pm

^

Water at that speed (354 kph) is like concrete. As long as the surface of the water is not absolutely flat I guess ditching Dreamchaser would tear it apart. Also I'm not sure for how long it would float.

See Convair F2Y Sea Dart...

Overflow · « **Reply #54 on:** 09/09/2013 11:15 pm »

Dreamchaser. I can't help it. I'm a fan.

Plus it looks pretty cool too.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #55 on:** 09/10/2013 04:41 am »

Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/08/2013 08:38 pm

Quote from: Oli on 09/08/2013 06:28 pm
^

Water at that speed (354 kph) is like concrete. As long as the surface of the water is not absolutely flat I guess ditching Dreamchaser would tear it apart. Also I'm not sure for how long it would float.
See Convair F2Y Sea Dart...

The Convair F2Y got water ski landing gears that is almost half the length of the plane and was powered. Nothing like dead-sticking a liftbody onto water.

Oli · « **Reply #56 on:** 09/10/2013 07:43 am »

^

And apparently it came down at only 231.5 kph.

Or 125 knots vs Dreamchaser's 191 knots.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #57 on:** 09/10/2013 10:27 am »

Quote from: Oli on 09/10/2013 07:43 am

^

And apparently it came down at only 231.5 kph.

Or 125 knots vs Dreamchaser's 191 knots.

So at least you learned that you can land a stout closed coupled airframe on the ocean either by regular ops as the Sea Dart and in an emergency with Dream Chaser. Ditch testing behavior is part of design studies in a water tank. As I pilot I have been trained for water landings and technique is similar to a soft field one. This has been discussed over and over again on the main DC threads. Have a look!

Oli · « **Reply #58 on:** 09/10/2013 03:46 pm »

^

Have I? What about Zed_Noir's points?

Also, as has been mentioned in another thread before, HL-20 was supposed to do ocean landing with parachutes and airbags. Is there any official info on this from SNC?

Rocket Science · « **Reply #59 on:** 09/10/2013 08:25 pm »

We talked about all that as well. No chutes on Dream Chaser... The DC threads are really worth having a look at, great discussions!