#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dream Chaser etc | Brian Gaff[_2_] | Space Station | 1 | January 10th 15 10:50 PM |
SNC Reveals DC4Science Dream Chaser Variant | David Spain[_4_] | Policy | 6 | October 26th 14 07:00 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 06:49 PM |
what TPS on Dream Chaser? | Joe Strout | Policy | 6 | June 30th 06 02:52 PM |