NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos

T-U-P

The Punisher
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Very good news on the first flight of the Dream Chaser being announced.

I am hoping it wins the competition and becomes the go forward vehicle. If I was 15 or 20 years younger I might make an all out effort to work on that program...or the Ford carriers, or the Burke IIIs, or the F/A-XX...err, well, you get the picture. LOL!.


[video=youtube;oljpxs7YhCM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oljpxs7YhCM[/video]

It'll be a good crew transport, as said in the video, but it's not a direct replacement to the space shuttle, at least not in terms of replacing the capabilities of the space shuttle. The space shuttle could transport more people, much more cargo, and construct+repair space stations/satellites/telescopes. None of the currently planned next generation crew transport system under development (dragon, orion, etc.) have this capability. There was a panel in the recent AIAA conference talking about the space shuttle by people from NASA, including a guy that was on the Columbia investigation board. They all agree that the environment (political, economical) has changed from what it was when the space shuttle was designed. The politicians no longer see a need for a direct space shuttle replacement. They don't think that we need the crew AND cargo transportation capabilities in the same ship, or they don't see the need for such systems to justify the cost of such investment. Because of this, they speculate that any future orbital construction (if we want to build a new space station for example) would have to rely heavily on unmanned systems and robotics.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It'll be a good crew transport, as said in the video, but it's not a direct replacement to the space shuttle, at least not in terms of replacing the capabilities of the space shuttle. The space shuttle could transport more people, much more cargo, and construct+repair space stations/satellites/telescopes. None of the currently planned next generation crew transport system under development (dragon, orion, etc.) have this capability. There was a panel in the recent AIAA conference talking about the space shuttle by people from NASA, including a guy that was on the Columbia investigation board. They all agree that the environment (political, economical) has changed from what it was when the space shuttle was designed. The politicians no longer see a need for a direct space shuttle replacement. They don't think that we need the crew AND cargo transportation capabilities in the same ship, or they don't see the need for such systems to justify the cost of such investment. Because of this, they speculate that any future orbital construction (if we want to build a new space station for example) would have to rely heavily on unmanned systems and robotics.
Oh yes, you are excatly right.

Any new large scale construction wil use heavy lift vehicles to insert the equipment and material into orbit (or onto planets, asteroids, etc. for that matter) and then the people will arrive (if necessary) via vehicles like the Dream Chaser, or Orion.

Now, Dream Chaser can carry a very limited amount of cargo, and can perfrom a limited amount of "space lab" activities...but it is extremely limited when compared to what the Space shuttle could do. Heck, the Dream Chaser could fit into the Space Shuttle Cargo Bay.

As to crew, for the Shuttle, a minimum of two were required for flight, but the normal number of astronuats was five to seven. It never carried more than seven astronauts into space. But the shuttle could carry up to 53,600 lbs of cargo to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), or up to 28,000 pounds to Polar Orbit (PO), or 8,400 pounds to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GSO). The Dream Chaser is also designed to carry up to seven astronauts into space, but its cargo carrying capacity is far, far less than that of the Space shuttle. But is is also easier to operate, safer, can do fly arounds, has a throttable engine, etc. Lots of nice features.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Incredible craft that Dream Chaser is. I noticed the frame of the fuselage is almost like one whole piece, very little welding or rivets on them, resulting in a much stronger space craft.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Here is a picture pof the Rocknest area taken by Curiosity in November of 2012. For all the world it looks like it could be in Nevada or Arizona:


1024px-PIA16453-MarsCuriosityRover-RocknestPanorama-20121126.jpg


Here is a Mars sundown taken by Curiosity in February 2013:


1024px-Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg


One of Curiosity later images from the NASA website:


farley-4-pia17603.jpg


You’re correct. It is truly amazing. With the color of the sky and the look of the terrain it does look like places here on earth. I keep expecting to see a lizard of some desert creature pop up behind a rock….
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
No its not you equation, Dream chaser doesn't have a nose wheel. It uses a skid strip. This was intended. As dream chaser lines up and extends its gear the idea is for her to maintain a slight angle as she slows her nose would level until she stalls and the skid touches ground. This "pop-a-wheelie" method was chosen to save on weight. Because Dream chaser is launched off a rocket the nose wheel is actually not a need. On a conventional aircraft that taxis a takeoff a nose wheel is critical but since dream chaser is only meant to land on and be moved around on her wheels at such a small scale, the nose wheel is a fifth wheel... Pun intended. All the wheels on the shuttle and Dream chaser are there for is to let her burn off speed. So she can do that on two wheels just as well as three.
additionally If you think about it pressurized tires in space are a bt of a troublesome idea . Remember tires are pressurized, in the extreme of orbit where the atmosphere is just about nonexistent any pressurized soft body is going to swell. By using only two wheels SNC hopes to minimize risks associated with this.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Subcommittee Discusses Updating the Commercial Space Launch Act
Press Release Source: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology DemocratsPosted Tuesday, February 4, 2014
image
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space held a hearing, “Necessary Updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act” to examine the various changes in the commercial space launch industry and what, if any, accompanying changes are necessary to the Commercial Space Launch Act. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Dr. Alicia Cackley, Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment at the Government Accountability Office (GAO); and Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of Space Policy and International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, at The George Washington University.

The Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) and associated amendments provide authority to FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) to license commercial space launches and spacecraft reentries, to license commercial spaceports, and to regulate those activities to protect the property and safety of the uninvolved public should an accident occur. The Act and associated amendments also give FAA’s AST both a regulatory role and a commercial space launch promotional role.

Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee, Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), said in her opening statement, “Looking back to when the Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984, followed by the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments in 1988, and the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act in 2004, it is fair to say that the commercial space industry has come a long way. Not only has it come a long way, but it’s growing and changing as companies and entrepreneurs continue to generate new ideas and technical concepts for potential commercial space transportation systems and related operations. Mr. Chairman, this is the type of ingenuity and innovative spirit that defines our nation and our economic potential, and I want to see it succeed.”

Members and Witnesses discussed a number of questions including, shared-liability indemnification and how the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) is calculated; the dual role FAA has as advocate and regulator of the commercial space industry and whether this causes a conflict of interest; how the investigation of a commercial space launch accident would be handled and what agencies would handle it; if the “informed consent” approach space operators currently use to inform participants of the risks of launch and reentry is adequate; and whether there are viable alternatives to the current shared-liability indemnification program such as shifting to an insurance pool approach that should be considered as Congress looks to the future of this industry.

Ms. Edwards said, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I want to fly as a passenger one day. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the recognition that there are number of questions about this growing industry that remain unanswered, and issues that need to be resolved. I raise them because they are questions of national policy and safety that deserve our due diligence and that help us, as Members of Congress, to fulfill our responsibilities to the American taxpayers…[T]he recently passed extension of the third-party liability and indemnification regime for three years means that we have the time for a thoughtful examination of these questions, and I look forward to our Subcommittee conducting future hearings to address them.”

Translation:" Ah... you Guys got a nice industry here.... BE such a shame if something "BAD" were to happen..."
* something breaks*
"Oops so Sorry"
*Smirk.*
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Translation:" Ah... you Guys got a nice industry here.... BE such a shame if something "BAD" were to happen..."
* something breaks*
"Oops so Sorry"
*Smirk.*
Well, we'll see.

There are definitely those who view it that way.

But I also believe there are growing numbers who can see how the COTS systems are being developed very rapidly to achieve and compliment, and even directly assist NASA in its efforts, and so therefore blunting or squelching it too much will be counter productive.

I think we will see the commercial effort continue to grow, and that it is here to stay. Particularly if some of these initial efforts work out and pay off without major mishap and people actually start getting flights into the upper atmosphere and ultimately into low earth orbit. You will see more and more people paying to do that, and the profitabililty of those firms will increase, which means the technology they can develop and bring forward will also increase.

At the same time, there are tremendous risks. Having paying customers signing up for this has to include some indemnification clauses to protect these customers from huge lawsuits, but that will not help them if non involved people are in any way hurt or killed, or their property destroyed.
 
Top