Dream Chaser/F9H-R

[CitabriaFlyer]

I wanted to start a thread for readers to speculate on a future with Dream Chaser/F9H-R to bring orbital spaceflight to the masses.  I sure hope Virgin Galactic will buy a few of these stacks.

[sb]

What does virgin have to do with dream chaser or falcon??

[CitabriaFlyer]

Nothing yet.  Virgin, Delta, Emirates.  The point is it would be nice to see passenger service to LEO and I am thinking this combo has the best chance to make that a reality in the nearest time frame (about 5-10 years.)

[Jim]

Musk is going to want to use his own crew capsule.
Virgin has its own contractor with Scaled.
why F9H?

[Falcon H]

What does virgin have to do with dream chaser or falcon??

Well Dream Chaser drop tests were going to use White Knight II.

[ChefPat]

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. I just don't see Sierra Nevada needing the kind of lift necessary that an FH would provide. If an FH is used for a manned mission I see it launching support hardware & the manned ship being launched on a single stick.

[BrightLight]

let me interject for a moment - the question in my mind is:
is the cost for refurbishment and re-use of the Dream Chaser cheaper than the Manned Dragon?
if the Dragon can be shown to be cheaper spacecraft, then I suggest that the DC has no role with the Falcon F9H-R.  Conversely, if DC has a lower cost through its planned mission life - would SpaceX consider using its LV?
As I recall, Musk has other uses for Dragon that goes beyond ISS manned missions, thus the cost needs to include his "vision".

[CitabriaFlyer]

To answer Jim's question:
I was looking at Falcon 9 as a launch vehicle given the potential for booster reuse.  Wikipedia lists Dream Chaser weight as 25,000lbs (does not specify empty weight or max gross wt) and F9v1.1 performance as 28,0000 lbs to LEO.  However, it is my understanding that SpaceX expects to lose about a third of the lift capability if they recover a booster.  Of course, this assumes that refurbishing the three cores of F9H is cheaper than manufacturing a single core of F9.  I concede that that is a big assumption and that refurbishment may be far more difficult than manufacture.

I realize SpaceX would prefer to sell Dragons; however, customers may prefer a different spacecraft and I suspect SpaceX would be willing to sell boosters to whoever wants one.

I have been a instrument rated private pilot for 25 years and was a USAF flight doc so I bring those biases to my opinions about spacecraft.  I am a lay person.  I like capsules for BEO operations because Apollo proved it was a valid approach.  I like capsules for long term stays at space stations for assured crew return because the business end of their heat shield is covered until just prior to re entry.  I would be less comfortable having Dream Chaser stuck on Node 2 for with its thermal protection system exposed to the LEO MMOD environment for months on end.  Maybe it would be safer if it could be docked to the aft port of Zvezda but I don't know how feasible that is or the implications for Progress reboosts or ATV operations.

On the other hand if you are looking for a vehicle to carry people and light cargo up and down I like Dream Chaser.  I like the idea of numerous east coast aborts to runways during launch.  I would prefer a more gentle re entry profile.  And finally, I just think Dream Chaser is cool.

With the DC/F9H-R I see a pathway 5-10 years from now where we could be flying passengers to the Hilton or 4 payload specialists to ISS for a week of science operations several times per year (maybe every month) or flying a commercial station manufacturing some zero G widget.  Certainly this is not the only such pathway and frankly I would want to fly in space with whatever is available but I thought it was a topic worth a brief thread.

[JohnFornaro]

I wanted to start a thread for readers to speculate on a future with Dream Chaser/F9H-R to bring orbital spaceflight to the masses.  I sure hope Virgin Galactic will buy a few of these stacks.

Hey!  That's my idea!  I demand a Nobel Peace Prize or something:

I think DC is the best solution.  If it could be launched on a re-usable FH, that would be the way to go.

Maybe the LV is FH, and maybe the re-usable craft is DC-2, but still.  Yeah, they'd have to work out some contractural arrangements, but I think it would be a win-win for both companies.

[vulture4]

It is far from clear where economics favor a reusable capsule vs a reusable lifting body. Dragon has far better abort capability than Dreamchaser since it can land on land or water and does not require a runway. The big advantage of aerodynamic lift over either a parachute or rocket-powered descent is when the vehicle gets beyond a few tons. Landing a reusable orbital entry vehicle of 100 tons or more on land with parachutes or lift rockets appears impractical. Even as a lifting body it seems highly unlikely, which was why the lifting body concept was dropped for the Shuttle. But with wings, size is no limit.

[simonbp]

Landing a reusable orbital entry vehicle of 100 tons or more on land with parachutes or lift rockets appears impractical.

Way OT, but why? The fundamental physics of 100 ton reentry vehicle are not different from a 10 ton reentry vehicle like Dragon. Propulsive landing especially would just mean you scale the landing propellant tanks accordingly. And the landing facility can just be the ramp of standard airport.

And with wings (and lifting bodies), there very much is a limit, and that's runway length. The Shuttle Landing Facility is massive, and the Orbiter did use most of it during a nominal landing. There are very few places you could even build a runway that long, let alone where you could find one available.

Plus, winged and lifting bodies also have to deal with the issue of sonic booms over populated areas. Shuttle got away with it because it was a government vehicle, but a purely commercial vehicle would not. I'm not sure how FAA would license a DreamChaser coming in over the Gulf Coast from a low inclination orbit. A propulsive lander could kill its horizontal velocity at high altitude and then fall almost straight down the landing pad.