Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

[Stargazer]

Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser

NASA INVESTMENT: $80 million, plus $25.6 million in optional milestones
PROFILE: Piloted lifting-body spacecraft
LANDING: Runway
CAPABILITY: Up to seven astronauts and cargo

NASA and Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) of Louisville, Colo., signed a funded Space Act Agreement (SAA) in March 2011 for the company’s Dream Chaser spacecraft. Under the $80 million agreement, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) and Sierra Nevada are working to advance the company’s reusable lifting-body spacecraft. Optional milestones also were approved, valued at $26.5 million.

The Dream Chaser is derived from NASA’s HL-20, which somewhat resembles NASA’s space shuttles and boasts years of development, analysis and wind tunnel testing by the agency’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.

Plans for the spacecraft include launching vertically and free-flight capabilities in low Earth orbit to dock with the International Space Station. Dream Chaser currently is the only Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) vehicle being developed with wings and the ability to land on a conventional runway.

Under the SAA, the company is developing non-toxic and storable propellants and assessing the vehicle’s flight control surfaces and associated mechanisms required for flight.

Milestones under the agreement include a captive-carry completed May 29 and free-flight test of a full-scale prototype to test the vehicle’s approach and landing performance. A simulator consisting of a physical cockpit layout and integrated simulation hardware and software also will assist Dream Chaser engineers in evaluating the vehicle’s characteristics during the piloted phases of flight.

The all-composite structure was designed by the SNC team and built in conjunction with SNC Dream Chaser team organizations AdamWorks of Centennial, Colo., Applied Composite Technology of Gunnison, Utah, and Scaled Composites of Mojave, Calif.


Image courtesy of Sierra Nevada Corp.

Source: Commercial Crew Development Round 2

For more on Sierra Nevada and Dream Chaser, visit http://www.sncorp.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.space.com/19551-dream-chaser-space-plane-flight-test.html

 

[airrocket]

Spiral- BOR4 - HL-20 - Dream Chaser connection. The Dream chaser is often hype'd up as being based on the mystical Soviet BOR4 design. The ressemblance is clearly imbedded however I am always amazed and question why The HL-20 and the Dream Chaser failed to retain the pivoting fins that really gave the BOR-4 its unique stability across the hyper to subsonic speed range. The pivoting tail fins were the key to the BOR's stability and lifting ratio. I have been told NASA thought fly-by would replace it? I have always thought what a blunder and oversight of NASA. I have asked the question but SN has never answered it. If I were to copy the BOR4 design the pivoting fins and resulting CG/CP and lifting shift would be the center piece of the design not the part I discard.

While I admire Dream Chaser effort to complete the work that funding of the Shuttle derailed years ago. I have to question if SN really did the lifting body homework and realized when they bought into the HL-20 that it was missing the main feature that gave the BOR-4 its unique range of stability. I wonder if it was an oversight. I think it was another oversight of both NASA and SN to overlook work done by the FDL. FDL research indicated the blunted design was not the optional design for a lifting body. The X-24B was proof of the sharper design attributes.

I do credit SN for going with the HL-20 design over the defunct dust gathering X-38 which used a parafoil???????

 

[Byeman]

1. I have always thought what a blunder and oversight of NASA. I have asked the question but SN has never answered it. If I were to copy the BOR4 design the pivoting fins and resulting CG/CP and lifting shift would be the center piece of the design not the part I discard.

2. While I admire Dream Chaser effort to complete the work that funding of the Shuttle derailed years ago. I have to question if SN really did the lifting body homework and realized when they bought into the HL-20 that it was missing the main feature that gave the BOR-4 its unique range of stability. I wonder if it was an oversight. I think it was another oversight of both NASA and SN to overlook work done by the FDL.

3. I do credit SN for going with the HL-20 design over the defunct dust gathering X-38 which used a parafoil? ??? ???

1. Based on what first hand knowledge or experience?
2. Again, based on what first hand knowledge or experience?
3. They are designed to different requirements. X-38 was a rescue vehicle and which meant that there wasn't necessarily a pilot onboard.

 

[airrocket]

1. CG/CP shift going from super sonic to subsonic, the concord moved fuel around to adjust spiral moved its winglets. Also was able to alter lift from hyper to subsonic.

2. Based on flying sub-scale lifting body and waverider models supersonic. Bor-4 use of pivoting winglets was known years prior to NASA developing the HL-20 certainly to those with Soviet era contacts prior to and after the fall of the wall. I was aware of it in the early 1990's. "Bor-4 could tilt its wings this changing their span".

About 2/3 on way down on the page linked below you watch the winglets cycle through the span range. Also read down aways for explaination of how the angle of winglets would alter the entry angle of the vehicle to max stability and to reduce heating. These are not minor attributes to be ignored.

htthttp://www.buran-energia.com/bor/bor-desc.phpp://

Also folding the wings into the up position during launch present a smaller more narrow profile (with or with a faring) thus placing the CP in a more favorable position for both control and less stress on the rocket booster structure. So why copy a design and then leave out the main advantage of the design? I would like it explained. Certainly raises questions of lacking a true understanding or awareness of the intent and function the of the Bor-4 design. Judging from pictures alone one could miss this unique design feature. And I think it was sadly overlooked....

HL-20 is based on the HL-10 which like many of early lifting bodies had roll couple issues including other stability problems. The X-24B was a huge improvement over the blunt planform with upturned winglets however the FDL-7 with the X wing/fins planform had best all around stability of teh lifting body designs. The X fins are key to hyper-trans-subsonic stability. You can clearly this was learned in the progression of Dale Reeds models from the early ones up to the Hyper-X.

I have no doubt modern fly-by-wire avionics can overcome these issues however why not start with a good basic stable design and save the energy wasted forcing the stability.

Thus video shows the winglets fully extended for final glide...huge change in lift and reduction in landing speed.......HL-20???????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6bEhw1K--0

Those Ruskies were very clever do not under estimate or overlook what they had achieved.

If you think the HL-20 is the ultimate in lifting body designs you have not done your homework. I think it is "good enough" given today's technology but it could have much much better.... I do not want to underscore what SN has achieved or the efforts they have put forth. Still in my mind the question lingers concerning the winglets. Perhaps there is very good logical answer as to why the winglets on the HL-20 and Dream Chaser do not pivot. If so I would very much like to hear it.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

New update on the development of the Dream Chaser.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57584836-1/dream-chaser-space-plane-to-begin-nasa-flight-tests/

If the Dream Chaser flight test program is successful, then NASA can draft a timetable to get the Dream Chaser into operational service as soon as possible, with the hope that American astronauts can no longer rely on the Soyuz.

 

[Byeman]

If the Dream Chaser flight test program is successful, then NASA can draft a timetable to get the Dream Chaser into operational service as soon as possible, with the hope that American astronauts can no longer rely on the Soyuz.

No, it still has to compete with Dragon and CST-100.

 

[archipeppe]

If the Dream Chaser flight test program is successful, then NASA can draft a timetable to get the Dream Chaser into operational service as soon as possible, with the hope that American astronauts can no longer rely on the Soyuz.

No, it still has to compete with Dragon and CST-100.

And Dragon is well along its way....

 

[carmelo]

And the winner is....CST-100.
Bet?

 

[Byeman]

And the winner is....CST-100.
Bet?

Boeing is wavering on its support of the program with NASA money drying up.

 

[blackstar]

And the winner is....CST-100.
Bet?

Boeing is wavering on its support of the program with NASA money drying up.

Boeing said many months ago that they needed a firm commitment to buying it in order to go forward. They never really wanted to put much of their own money into the vehicle because that's just not how they work for anything, even commercial aircraft.

 

[archipeppe]

And the winner is....CST-100.
Bet?

I do not agree.


Blackstar has well explained Boeing's mind about that.
DragonRider still take my dime betting on.... (even if Dream Chaser has also its chances to accomplish the job).

 

[Stargazer]

DREAM CHASER TAKEN OUT FOR A SPIN IN GROUND TEST

Sierra Nevada Corp. ran its flight vehicle through a series of tests at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California. The braking and landing systems were tests at speeds ranging from 10 to 60 mph.

http://www.space.com/22373-dream-chaser-taken-out-for-a-spin-in-ground-test-video.html

 

[Desert Dawn]

I don`t see how this program would be of any progress if compared to already existing programs that were cancelled. Designwise and engineeringwise it looks like a steady degress from what was being built in 70ies or even the cancelled x-33 RLV. They need to design a solid carrier that can haul cargo and modules as well, not building tinier and tinier and tinier vehicles that rather remind a scale demonstrator than a real vehicle. Sorry, I just don`t see solid engineering behind it.

It's progress and retro at the same time in many ways. First, it's a direct copy of the HL-20 which itself was a direct copy of the Mig-105-11 and Spiral project from Russia. Two, it's progress because those vehicles were not built out of carbon (which is a very easy and efficient method to manufacture a spaceplane very quickly, as proven by Scale Composites before). The X-37 is also built out of carbon fiber. That's the modern way. The old way was the flying oven type of metal structure of the original design from the Russians (1970's technology that's been updated with modern materials and modern computers).

Also, these people were looking at risk reduction (not trying yet another breakthrough concept that risk ending up as a failure due to unknown risks associated with untried concepts and technologies). The Mig-105-11 and Epos - Spiral shapes have the advantage of having been test flown, which is a huge risk reduction. The same thing was done when they built the X-38 CRV (i.e.: the X-24 A legacy).

It must be noted that X-33 was NOT new technology: the last version of the Flight Dynamics Laboratory 1960's early 70's FDL-5 was a carbon copy of what X-33 looked like, minus the rounded nose. Even it's 'revolutionnary' linnear aerospike was not new in the sense that a whole family of annular aerospike engines, small and big and very big had been built and tested by Rocketdyne during the 1960's for a variety of military programs, including FDL-5 and one of them was even proposed for the Space Shuttle (!). The only thing new about X-33 was that they wanted to make one of the tanks out of composites and the metallic skin panels were an improvement over the Space Shuttle more brittle tiles. And also they wanted to make the full size manned version, Venture Star, entirely automatic, without need for human pilots, which i don't personally think was an improvement. Human in the loop will always be needed for a variety of reasons. Otherwise, it used a mix of cautious solutions that had been proven before along with some improvements.

 

[Byeman]

. Even it's 'revolutionnary' linnear aerospike was not new in the sense that a whole family of annular aerospike engines, small and big and very big had been built and tested by Rocketdyne during the 1960's for a variety of military programs, including FDL-5

It was only J-2 sized engines and none flew

 

[Desert Dawn]

. Even it's 'revolutionnary' linnear aerospike was not new in the sense that a whole family of annular aerospike engines, small and big and very big had been built and tested by Rocketdyne during the 1960's for a variety of military programs, including FDL-5

It was only J-2 sized engines and none flew

I don't care if they were flown or not, the point is, they built the engines and they were hot fired and were new technology when they came out. Check my website, the FDL-5 and MRS vehicles would have used a smaller version of the large engine shown with the 2 engineers. Lockheed also went to the trouble of building a satellite (and having it launched into orbit) that used fluorine in its engine to test the idea Lockheed was putting forward to use fluorine for the FDL-5. If you are curious you can dig it out from one of the old Lockheed Horizons issues.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Here we go, from the mouth of the horse (read the caption under the test fire pic of the aerospike at the bottom of the page):

http://www.rocketdynetech.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm

 

[Stargazer]

The discussion about fluorine has been split from this topic and can be found here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20219.0

Please go to that new topic if you're interested in discussing that topic (albeit in a courteous and civilized way).

Now back to Dream Chaser!!!

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://aviationweek.com/space/sierra-nevada-turns-international-market-dream-chaser​

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Put that in your Funk & Wagnalls! :-D

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/sierra-nevada-stratolaunch-team-dream-chaser-space-plane-n215386

 

[Grey Havoc]

That came out of left field!

Crosslinking to the Stratolaunch thread.

 

[blackstar]

That came out of left field!

As a colleague (who coincidentally, works for NASA) put it, it looks like a desperation move. When you consider that the vehicle for Stratolaunch would apparently have to be a lot different than the one that they were developing for NASA, I have to agree. This is not really a continuation of their previous work, it requires them to shelve a lot of effort and start over.

 

[blackstar]

I read another assessment on a blog that made a point I had not considered before (well, at least not specifically, I kinda knew that something like this would be an issue): the vehicle they were designing for NASA had a specific ratio of internal volume to external surface area. Reduce the size of the vehicle and this ratio changes. More specifically, there's a lot less external surface area but it has to take more thermal load during reentry.

Translating that into less engineering-speak, it means that the exterior is going to take in a lot more heat per square unit during reentry. So the whole thermal system has to be reevaluated.

DC is a neat little vehicle (although I prefer other lifting body shapes that don't look like somebody stepped on them), but this is probably just never going to happen.

 

[Orionblamblam]

More specifically, there's a lot less external surface area but it has to take more thermal load during reentry.

Translating that into less engineering-speak, it means that the exterior is going to take in a lot more heat per square unit during reentry.

Insufficient data. Size and surface area are the wrong metric: *mass* and surface area are. 1000 kg and 1 sq meter gets roughly the same heat load as 10,000 kg and 10 sq. meters. If density remains the same, the smaller vehicle will in principle have it easier. Going from 10K to 1K kg means going from a unit length of 1 to a length of .46, which means area goes from 1 to .215. So you have 1/10 the mass but 21.5% the area... easier on the re-entry.

 

[Mustang1957]

now that we know the CST-100 and dragon won the contract,I heard they will be recovered over land? is this safe? ???

 

[TomS]

Why not? Soyuz does it; it's a rough ride but seems to be acceptable. And both of the new programs seems to have much better landing solutions than Soyuz. Boeing has tested the CST-100 parachute plus airbag system full-scale and it seems to work pretty well. SpaceX has a bit more proving to do with Dragon V2 and it's propulsive landing approach, but it has a bunch of fall-back modes. Initially it's going to reply mainly on parachutes, with the Super Draco rockets for a last-minute cushioning effect.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://aviationweek.com/space/sierra-nevada-unveils-unmanned-cargo-variant-dream-chaser

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/14/2321228/nasa-awards-sierra-nevadas-dream-chaser-an-iss-commercial-resupply-contract

Interesting.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-will-have-private-companies-taxi-supplies-to-the-i-1753025204

On another note:

ORIGINAL CAPTION: Sierra Nevada Corporation engineers and technicians prepare the firm's Dream Chaser test vehicle for tow tests on a taxiway at Nasa's Dryden Flight Research Center in Palmdale, California

Picture: Ken Ulbrich/NASA
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/12101018/Pictures-of-the-day-15-January-2016.html?frame=3549949​

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via the SNAFU blog:
https://youtu.be/eHvBUqfWDRs

 

[shedofdread]

Sierra Nevada (Louisville, CO, US) was recently awarded a contract from NASA to launch cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS). This news is seen as a win for a company that had lost out on a NASA contract to transport U.S. astronauts to and from the ISS. Sierra Nevada joins Orbital ATK (Dulles, VA, US) and SpaceX (Hawthorne, CA, US) to continue building on the initial resupply partnerships.

More at -
http://www.compositesworld.com/news/nasa-selects-sierra-nevada-for-space-station-cargo-transport-contract-

 

[Archibald]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgzhtRujTE
another video I like very much - Dream Chaser is a sexy spacecraft.

 

[Flyaway]

Sierra Nevada Corp. prepares for next round of Dream Chaser tests

http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-corp-prepares-for-next-round-of-dream-chaser-tests/

 

[Flyaway]

Sierra Nevada Corporation and the United Nations Announce First-Ever Dedicated United Nations-Dream Chaser® Space Mission

SPARKS, Nev. (September 27, 2016) – Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) and the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and have announced details of the first-ever United Nations space mission at the International Astronautical Congress today in Guadalajara, Mexico. The dedicated Dream Chaser® Mission is targeted at providing developing countries the opportunity to develop and fly microgravity payloads for an extended duration in orbit; however, all United Nations Member States will be able to propose payloads for the mission.

Innovating for Positive Impact
“At SNC our goal is to pay it forward,” said Eren Ozmen, SNC’s owner and president. “That means leveraging the creation and success of our Dream Chaser spacecraft to benefit future generations of innovators like us all around the world.”

This announcement builds on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in June 2016 between UNOOSA and SNC to collaborate on this historic United Nations space mission. The first-ever United Nations space mission is intended to launch in 2021 and will allow United Nations Member States to participate in a 14-day flight to low-Earth orbit (LEO) on SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft.

“One of UNOOSA’s core responsibilities is to promote international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space,” said Simonetta Di Pippo, director of UNOOSA. “I am proud to say that one of the ways UNOOSA will achieve this, in cooperation with our partner SNC, is by dedicating an entire microgravity mission to United Nations Member States, many of which do not have the infrastructure or financial backing to have a standalone space program.”

Making Space Affordable
According to Ms. Di Pippo, funding of the mission will come from multiple sources. “We will continue to work closely with SNC to define the parameters of this mission which, in turn, will provide United Nations Member States with the ability to access space in a cost-effective and collaborative manner within a few short years. The possibilities are endless.”

Countries selected to provide mission payloads will be asked to pay a pro-rated portion of the mission cost, based on the resources required to host the payload and their ability to pay. In addition, major sponsors are being sought to finance a large portion of the mission costs.

Path to Mission Launch
Over the next year, mission partners will conduct briefings to United Nations Member States and potential payload providers about the goals and framework of the mission and to solicit proposals for payloads. To make the program more accessible to nations without a highly developed space industry, UNOOSA will offer technical support to countries that lack expertise or experience in developing microgravity payloads. Payloads will be selected in early 2018 to allow time for development and integration into the Dream Chaser spacecraft for launch expected in 2021.

SNC’s Dream Chaser is the only reusable, lifting-body, multi-mission-spacecraft capable of landing at commercial airports or spaceports able to accommodate large commercial aircraft – anywhere in the world. This offers the opportunity to land the United Nations mission in any licensed Member State supplying a payload on the mission. SNC is currently working with airports and spaceports to be granted a Federal Aviation Administration reentry license for commercial Dream Chaser missions. Recently selected to provide cargo delivery, return and disposal services for the International Space Station (ISS) under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS-2) contract, Dream Chaser is a safe, affordable, flexible and reliable system capable of crewed and uncrewed transportation services to LEO destinations such as the ISS.

About Sierra Nevada Corporation
Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) provides customer-focused technology solutions in the areas of aerospace, aviation, electronics and systems integration. SNC has been honored as one of “The World’s Top 10 Most Innovative Companies in Space,” and one of America’s fastest growing companies. SNC’s Space Systems business area based in Louisville, Colorado, designs and manufactures advanced spacecraft, space vehicles, rocket motors and spacecraft subsystems and components for the U.S. Government, commercial customers, as well as for the international market. SNC has more than 25 years of space heritage, participating in more than 450 successful space missions and delivering 4,000+ systems, subsystems and components around the world.

For more information on SNC visit www.sncorp.com and follow us at Facebook.com/SierraNevCorp and Twitter @SierraNevCorp. Sierra Nevada Corporation and SNC are trademarks of Sierra Nevada Corporation.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Dream_Chaser_to_use_Europes_next_generation_docking_system_999.html

 

[Flyaway]

Using the dual engine Centaur configuration as to be used for manned space flight missions on the Atlas V, in this case it's for cargo in the 552 variant.

Sierra Nevada confirms ULA will launch first two Dream Chaser cargo missions

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/22/sierra-nevada-awaiting-direction-from-nasa-confirms-ula-will-launch-first-two-dream-chaser-cargo-missions/

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://aviationweek.com/space/dream-chaser-flying-restart?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170831_AW-05_862&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002229670&utm_campaign=11511&utm_medium=email&elq2=05424eba5bdc46f5a49880b66eb782b1

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.space.com/37998-dream-chaser-completes-test-carry-flight.html

 

[Flyaway]

Sierra Nevada Corp.’s Dream Chaser space plane glides successfully through a big test

Sierra Nevada Corp. said its Dream Chaser prototype space plane glided to a successful landing in California’s Mojave Desert today after being dropped from a helicopter.

Today’s uncrewed test at Edwards Air Force Base marked the first time the Dream Chaser flew freely through the air since 2013. That earlier flight was also judged successful, but the landing gear failed to deploy correctly, which caused the winged vehicle to skid off the runway and crash.

Over the years that followed, SNC repaired and upgraded the aerodynamic test vehicle in preparation for a new series of flight tests at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, within Edwards’ property.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/sierra-nevada-corp-s-dream-chaser-space-plane-glides-test-flight/amp/

 

[fredymac]

https://vimeo.com/242615668