NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[Dante80]

Why do you think they will still be testing propulsive landings in 2019?

Because dragon V2 will fly 1st time in 2017 most likely. And NASA will not allow landings without parachutes on CCtCap until this is a proven landing system.

A cargo dragon carrying downmass (especially experiments) would be as viable as a crew dragon to not get approval.

The real answer here is that SpaceX is planning on using a stepped development approach via the Dragonfly program, which is rumored to have already started. If that goes well, then propulsive landing can be introduced to cargo or crew missions, also in a stepped manner.

[Lobo]

So maybe I missed it catching up on the several pages of this thread.

Will this cargo DC be the full sized version now I assume?  That they aren't trying to squeeze it onto Stratolaunch?

With folding wins to fit in the Atlas PLF?

[dkovacic]

Why do you think they will still be testing propulsive landings in 2019?

Because dragon V2 will fly 1st time in 2017 most likely. And NASA will not allow landings without parachutes on CCtCap until this is a proven landing system.

A cargo dragon carrying downmass (especially experiments) would be as viable as a crew dragon to not get approval.

The real answer here is that SpaceX is planning on using a stepped development approach via the Dragonfly program, which is rumored to have already started. If that goes well, then propulsive landing can be introduced to cargo or crew missions, also in a stepped manner.

Dragonfly will not come back from the orbit - it is a precursor just like Grasshopper was to S1 landing.

I agree that experiments recovery is important, but not as important as astronaut lives. Thus it is obvious that SpaceX will push for testing propulsive landings on cargo flights.

[ChrisWilson68]

But a lifting body does help to minimize that as it's wings are small and it derives part of it's lift from the body itself.  So they aren't as much of a detriment as a true "space plane" as it were.   And they allow of a "passive" landing system.  No parachutes or landing engines to fail.   If landing gear fail it can still be bellied in relatively safely (as we saw with the DC test article landing).  At least compared to what you get if landing engines or a parachute fails on a capsule.  So redundancy needs to be built into those systems.  But there's really no need for a redundancy with a passive system like aerodynamic landing....other than redundant landing sites.

I wouldn't call a lifting body entry passive -- it still depends on control surfaces moving.  In fact, for most of the descent a capsule will work fine with a completely passive, ballistic re-entry (more g-loads, but not enough to kill people).  With a lifting body, that's not the case.  It needs to be actively controlled all the way down.

[ChrisWilson68]

So maybe I missed it catching up on the several pages of this thread.

Will this cargo DC be the full sized version now I assume?  That they aren't trying to squeeze it onto Stratolaunch?

With folding wins to fit in the Atlas PLF?

My understanding is that this is full-sized Dream Chaser.  In fact, even that isn't really big enough, so they're tacking on a disposable pressurized module to up the cargo capacity.

And yes, it folds its wings/tail surfaces to fit in the payload fairing.

[Lobo]

But a lifting body does help to minimize that as it's wings are small and it derives part of it's lift from the body itself.  So they aren't as much of a detriment as a true "space plane" as it were.   And they allow of a "passive" landing system.  No parachutes or landing engines to fail.   If landing gear fail it can still be bellied in relatively safely (as we saw with the DC test article landing).  At least compared to what you get if landing engines or a parachute fails on a capsule.  So redundancy needs to be built into those systems.  But there's really no need for a redundancy with a passive system like aerodynamic landing....other than redundant landing sites.

I wouldn't call a lifting body entry passive -- it still depends on control surfaces moving.  In fact, for most of the descent a capsule will work fine with a completely passive, ballistic re-entry (more g-loads, but not enough to kill people).  With a lifting body, that's not the case.  It needs to be actively controlled all the way down.

Fair point.

[Lobo]

So maybe I missed it catching up on the several pages of this thread.

Will this cargo DC be the full sized version now I assume?  That they aren't trying to squeeze it onto Stratolaunch?

With folding wins to fit in the Atlas PLF?

My understanding is that this is full-sized Dream Chaser.  In fact, even that isn't really big enough, so they're tacking on a disposable pressurized module to up the cargo capacity.

And yes, it folds its wings/tail surfaces to fit in the payload fairing.

Ok, thanks for the info Chris.

At least the data they've collected so far with that airframe will be fully applicable to this version.

[Star One]

NASA said that it has no intention of building another space station. They will let commercial companies such as Bigelow do that in LEO.

A lot can change with a new president.

So you gripe about the costs of this cargo contract in regards to others than Space X but see no issue with a new president spending billions on a new space station.

[ChrisWilson68]

NASA said that it has no intention of building another space station. They will let commercial companies such as Bigelow do that in LEO.

A lot can change with a new president.

So you gripe about the costs of this cargo contract in regards to others than Space X but see no issue with a new president spending billions on a new space station.

What?  You're projecting an awful lot that I didn't say into my answer.

I was expressing no opinion about whether building a new space station was a good idea or not, just pointing out that it's not a foregone conclusion that there will be no space station after 2024.

In fact, I think most likely the ISS will be extended long past 2024.

But we don't really know.  Plans change, particularly with a new president.  That was my point -- we don't know.

[AncientU]

Why do you think they will still be testing propulsive landings in 2019?

Because dragon V2 will fly 1st time in 2017 most likely. And NASA will not allow landings without parachutes on CCtCap until this is a proven landing system.

A cargo dragon carrying downmass (especially experiments) would be as viable as a crew dragon to not get approval.

The real answer here is that SpaceX is planning on using a stepped development approach via the Dragonfly program, which is rumored to have already started. If that goes well, then propulsive landing can be introduced to cargo or crew missions, also in a stepped manner.

They already fly Dragons through reentry and all the way to parachute deployment(well subsonic) -- and do it quite accurately as shown by the proximity of their small retrieval craft to the landing capsules. 

Next step is to do that over land, deploy the parachute, and then land gently with SuperDracos.  This landing can be practiced repeatedly with Dragonfly and high helicopter flights before using it on an actual cargo Dragon 1 with downmass (reuse Dragon modified as pad abort Dragon -- now Dragonfly -- was by adding SuperDracos).  Could happen in next year or two (2016-2017).

Following that, they'll do the fully-propulsive landing with parachute back-up.  This can also be practiced repeatedly with Dragonfly and helicopter drops before actual cargo landings. This could happen in 2017-2018.

By 2019, they could be landing crew Dragon on land, fully propulsively, with parachute back-up and cargo in the same manner back at the Cape.  It would be much harder to imagine waiting all the way until 2019 to start this sequence.

[meekGee]

I am not a DreamChaser fan.

Big win for ULA Atlas. They got 1/3, and maybe even 2/3 if Orbital decides.

People may call me cynical, but I think all of the effusive affection for Dream Chaser is misplaced adoration for the shuttle. Personally, I loathed the shuttle, so I kind of loathe Dream Chaser.

Think about it this way - it's the ultimate "put up or shut up" for winged designs. You can't put down winged designs based on Shuttle since Shuttle was flawed in so many other ways.

But this is the most sensical winged design that's on the books.  Let it fly, and see how it does. It already has a poor mass fraction, but as SpaceX have shown, mass fraction is not everything.  I'm sorry it didn't win the manned bid, since this is what it was built to do, but there will be enough data.

It's going up against the most sensical vertical lander, in a comparable class...

And we get to watch 

[Hauerg]

THE downside in my view is, that you have an easy to reuse vehicle (if things work as expected) but you are using te most expensive expendable launcher.
If you fly only 6-8 times in total, that might be OK, but in the long run it would need something like reusable F9-whatevertheversion.

[mulp]

Is there a sense that three vendors were selected because the bids were lower than expected?

Certainly a minimum of two vendors would be required to ensure parallel development streams to reduce risk of a showstopper impacting ISS viability.  But the option to fund three vendors with greater diversity in technical and business strategy promotes the commercial industry on the taxpayer dime under the guise of providing generic cargo trucking to the ISS.

(A number in Congress would approve, just as Congress created scheduled passenger air service with postal subsidies. At one point, the Congress mandated airmail subsidies resulted in airlines sending up to 20,000 airmail letters to themselves to pay for the flight with or without passengers - they were paid more than the postage per letter to carry them. Congress changed this, but after passengers were taking regular flights instead of hiring a plane, but that was the intention of the author of the bill, while many considered the airlines to be exploiting taxpayers.)

And I approve. Three vendors doing three solutions seems like a sweet spot. Not so many as during the cold war when the dozens of military suppliers created lots of waste, but too little money to each so great products were delivered. But not the single track that gave us the shuttle with three vendors splitting block of tax money.

[Star One]

NASA said that it has no intention of building another space station. They will let commercial companies such as Bigelow do that in LEO.

A lot can change with a new president.

So you gripe about the costs of this cargo contract in regards to others than Space X but see no issue with a new president spending billions on a new space station.

What?  You're projecting an awful lot that I didn't say into my answer.

I was expressing no opinion about whether building a new space station was a good idea or not, just pointing out that it's not a foregone conclusion that there will be no space station after 2024.

In fact, I think most likely the ISS will be extended long past 2024.

But we don't really know.  Plans change, particularly with a new president.  That was my point -- we don't know.

I can't see ISS going beyond 2024, if for no other reason than the waining interest by ESA in it. Also I expect servicing charges will increase as it starts to go beyond that point with its increasing age.

[MP99]

It also helps SNC uses the Atlas, so if/when the new Antares fails, NASA won't be stuck with SpaceX.

Given how CRS flights "only" carry tang, t-shirts and toilet paper, who wants to bet that the first Vulcan flight will be of DC? Probably a ship that's already done many flights in case it is lost.

Cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

THE downside in my view is, that you have an easy to reuse vehicle (if things work as expected) but you are using te most expensive expendable launcher.
If you fly only 6-8 times in total, that might be OK, but in the long run it would need something like reusable F9-whatevertheversion.

Actually, it would need the FH. The F9FT wouldn't be enough according to SNC.

[Dante80]

Where has SNC said that?  (its an interesting subject)

[yg1968]

See this post and the presentation in the post right above it:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37049.msg1450331#msg1450331

[abaddon]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

[yg1968]

Here is an interesting presentation on cargo DC.

See above.