A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dream Chaser



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 19, 09:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Dream Chaser

Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Ads
  #2  
Old January 8th 19, 01:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default Dream Chaser

In article ,
says...

Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.


It could be a problem for Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems because
Sierra Nevada's (partially reusable) Dream Chaser could be cheaper than
their expendable Cygnus, especially if launched on a Falcon. Dream
Chaser also offers (some) cargo return (with some trash disposal in the
expendable "service module" type of thing). which Cygnus doesn't offer.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


That was the original goal. It could have some advantages over capsules
like lower reentry and landing Gs (they advertise 1.5 Gs for reentry and
landing).

It's a heavy vehicle though and comes with a fairly large expendable
"service module" type of thing. They, of course, try to spin this into
a "feature" on their website:

Disposable cargo module that attaches to the Dream Chaser vehicle,
greatly increasing the amount pressurized and unpressurized cargo
that can be carried

But for a crewed vehicle, to me, this just means the reusable section is
going to be fairly cramped compared to a capsule which has a better
volume to surface area ratio.

We'll see. I welcome the competition though.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #3  
Old January 8th 19, 04:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Dream Chaser

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


They'll try, but I doubt it will ever see daylight. Too dangerous in the
case the launcher explodes and rips off the wings. NASA will never allow it
to carry astronauts.

As a rescue craft it may see use, but even that is doubtful in light of the
emphasis on returning to the Moon.

But it's staggering how many options NASA has now that they've handed crew
transportation over to the commercial sector. And it has cost them only a
fraction of what it would have cost if they'd developed it themselves. NASA
tried to develop the HL-20 in the '90's but was getting nowhere after
spending a sizeable amount of money. Now they have 2 and possibly three
options for getting crews into space.


  #4  
Old January 8th 19, 09:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default Dream Chaser

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.


It could be a problem for Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems because
Sierra Nevada's (partially reusable) Dream Chaser could be cheaper than
their expendable Cygnus, especially if launched on a Falcon. Dream
Chaser also offers (some) cargo return (with some trash disposal in the
expendable "service module" type of thing). which Cygnus doesn't offer.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


That was the original goal. It could have some advantages over capsules
like lower reentry and landing Gs (they advertise 1.5 Gs for reentry and
landing).


Yeah, I can see that lower G's being a big advantage there. And honestly for
some experiments.
And too, while SpaceX has gotten good about retrieving the Dragon in a short
period of time, I've got to imagine, landing on a runway where vehicles can
drive right up soon after probably helps some experiments where time may be
of the essence.


It's a heavy vehicle though and comes with a fairly large expendable
"service module" type of thing. They, of course, try to spin this into
a "feature" on their website:

Disposable cargo module that attaches to the Dream Chaser vehicle,
greatly increasing the amount pressurized and unpressurized cargo
that can be carried

But for a crewed vehicle, to me, this just means the reusable section is
going to be fairly cramped compared to a capsule which has a better
volume to surface area ratio.

We'll see. I welcome the competition though.


Ayup.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #5  
Old January 8th 19, 09:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default Dream Chaser

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?



What I don't understand is, why the assumption SpaceX will sell them a
launch? Sure, it's money, but in this case it's direct competition and cuts
into their bottom line.

The only real reason I can see if if SpaceX wants to eventually cut back on
CRS to focus on other activities and interface less with NASA.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #6  
Old January 8th 19, 10:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Dream Chaser

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Tue,
8 Jan 2019 15:09:39 -0500:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .

Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


What I don't understand is, why the assumption SpaceX will sell them a
launch? Sure, it's money, but in this case it's direct competition and cuts
into their bottom line.


Well, actually it doesn't cut into their bottom line at all. After
the fiasco of the "all our eggs in one basket" Space Shuttle, NASA and
USAF are pretty adamant about maintaining at least two sources in
every mission space. SOMEBODY is going to get cargo services besides
SpaceX and SpaceX makes more money if that 'someone' is launching on
Falcon 9 (while maintaining the capability to launch on a ULA booster
if Falcon 9 is grounded for some reason) than they do if that someone
is NG launching on their own boosters.


The only real reason I can see if if SpaceX wants to eventually cut back on
CRS to focus on other activities and interface less with NASA.


See above. SpaceX can turn a profit on launches of Dream Chaser or
they can get zero dollars for launches on ULA boosters or NG Cygnus on
NG boosters. Why WOULDN'T they sell launch services for Dream Chaser?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #7  
Old January 8th 19, 10:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Dream Chaser

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 8 Jan 2019
07:00:20 -0500:


It's a heavy vehicle though and comes with a fairly large expendable
"service module" type of thing. They, of course, try to spin this into
a "feature" on their website:

Disposable cargo module that attaches to the Dream Chaser vehicle,
greatly increasing the amount pressurized and unpressurized cargo
that can be carried

But for a crewed vehicle, to me, this just means the reusable section is
going to be fairly cramped compared to a capsule which has a better
volume to surface area ratio.


Looking at their website it looks to me like for Space System (the
manned version) the whole vehicle is reusable and only the Cargo
System has the extra pod. The Space System vehicle has fixed wings
(they fold on the Cargo System) and looks larger than the Cargo System
(seating 7).


We'll see. I welcome the competition though.


I like the idea of recovery to almost anywhere with a reasonable
runway plus the 'kinder, gentler' reentry. The design seems odd to me
for a pure cargo vehicle, but I've always favored the "small reusable
spaceplane for people plus big dumb heavy lifter for cargo" paradigm.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #8  
Old January 10th 19, 02:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default Dream Chaser

In article ,
says...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Looks like Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is getting solidly
established. NASA has approved production and barring any disasters
it could create a problem for the current 'second source' holder,
Northrop Grumman.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...ome-a-nig.aspx

Wonder if they'll progress to a manned version?


They'll try, but I doubt it will ever see daylight. Too dangerous in the
case the launcher explodes and rips off the wings. NASA will never allow it
to carry astronauts.


I wouldn't discount Dream Chaser that much. It does offer a very low
1.5 Gs during reentry and landing, which is perfect for returning to
earth after a long duration ISS stay.

As a rescue craft it may see use, but even that is doubtful in light of the
emphasis on returning to the Moon.

But it's staggering how many options NASA has now that they've handed crew
transportation over to the commercial sector. And it has cost them only a
fraction of what it would have cost if they'd developed it themselves. NASA
tried to develop the HL-20 in the '90's but was getting nowhere after
spending a sizeable amount of money. Now they have 2 and possibly three
options for getting crews into space.


That's due to the way the contracting was handled, not the technologies
involved. Both Dragon 2 and Starliner have been far cheaper to develop,
due to their milestone driven fixed cost payments than the cost plus
style Orion has been to develop.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dream Chaser etc Brian Gaff[_2_] Space Station 1 January 10th 15 11:50 PM
SNC Reveals DC4Science Dream Chaser Variant David Spain[_4_] Policy 6 October 26th 14 08:00 PM
Dream Chaser, any chance of this actually being flown? Brian Gaff[_2_] Space Station 6 August 25th 14 09:25 PM
Dream Chaser, the SUV of spacecraft? Anonymous Remailer (austria) Policy 32 February 11th 14 07:49 PM
what TPS on Dream Chaser? Joe Strout Policy 6 June 30th 06 02:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.