Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
ISS Space NASA

Slick New 'Dream Chaser' Space Plane Set For Launch in 2021 (syfy.com) 38

Posted by EditorDavid from the SUV-for-space dept.
Syfy reports: Soaring into the wild blue yonder and beyond, the planet's only non-capsule, private orbital spacecraft, Dream Chaser, is slated to make its first flight sometime next year shuttling supplies and cargo to the International Space Station for NASA.

This stylish unmanned space plane was recently given its official name, Tenacity, and a pair of exotic composite material wings to complete its sleek design. Constructed by the Colorado-based aerospace firm Sierra Nevada Corporation, Dream Chaser is meant to launch vertically atop a booster rocket and completes its missions with gliding runway landings similar to NASA's retired fleet of space shuttles... NASA chose Dream Chaser as one of the flagship services for its Commercial Resupply Services 2 program, selecting Sierra Nevada to embark on 12 uncrewed cargo trips to the ISS by 2024.
The company's communications director calls it "an SUV for space -- a Space Utility Vehicle.

"Our dream is to have a whole fleet of space planes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slick New 'Dream Chaser' Space Plane Set For Launch in 2021 More

Slick New 'Dream Chaser' Space Plane Set For Launch in 2021

Comments Filter:

  • Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YuppieScum ( 1096 ) on Saturday August 22, 2020 @11:41AM (#60429689) Journal

    Now, if they can launch them on top of a SpaceX first stage, we'll finally have a completely reusable stack...

    • Not quite there yet.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Insanity Defense ( 1232008 )

        Not quite there yet.

        Read again the original poster. He said to mount this on TOP of the FIRST stage. That would make the Dream Chaser the 2nd stage and the composite craft fully reusable.

        • And how is it going to get to orbit? Falcon's second stage is a simple tank with a 20:1 wet/dry mass ratio, and ~100 mt of wet mass, since that's what you need to get 10-15 mt (plus the stage's dry mass) from ~3 km/s into orbit. Where's the room inside Dream Chaser for a comparable amount of propellants?

    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday August 22, 2020 @02:23PM (#60430039) Homepage
      Doesn't work by itself. The first stage of the Falcon 9 is pretty weak (that's part of why it can do propulsive landing; it isn't that high or that fast when it reaches MECO). The first stage isn't nearly strong enough to push the Dream Chaser to a usable orbit. That said, a Falcon Heavy with a Dreamchaser instead of a second stage might be doable if one upgraded it to have asparagus staging (where while the center core burns before the boosters detach it gets the fuel to do so from the boosters). But asparagus staging is much easier to do in things like Kerbal Space Program than real life for a whole bunch of technical reasons. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/31849/is-asparagus-staging-possible [stackexchange.com]. Also, neither the Falcon 9 nor the Falcon Heavy are designed to have the second stage replaced with the fairing. This would require massive redesign, to the point where between that and the asparagus staging, this would be essentially completely building a new rocket.
      • The Dreamchaser uses a second stage to get to orbit. Watch the animation in the linked article. The Crew Dragon is 500kg heavier and carries 1000kg more to orbit. than the Dreamchaser. I would think a Falcon 9 could launch it as well.
        • Yes, it needs a second stage, that's the point. The second stage is not by itself reusable, unless I'm missing something basic here. What the comment I was replying to was suggesting one attach the Dreamchaser directly to the Falcon 9 first stage.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          I wonder if anyone has done the math comparing multiple launches of Dreamchaser, then landing it at Mojave Airport and rolling it into a hanger vs the entire recovery crew, ships, special equipment, etc. of Crew Dragon.

          I'm betting the per launch cost of going and and coming down is far less

          • Unfortunately, accounting for this sort of reuse is tough. Also, it isn't in general easy to predict how much this sort of thing will cost until one has a lot of empirical data.

          • A splaceplane capsule-alternative is indeed interesting.

            Of course even more interesting would be if NASA had given the green light for propulsive Dragon capsule landings. Then a Dragon could gently land on its rockets *anywhere*, not even a landing strip needed.

    • You wants new feelings ? add me. You won't bedisappointed! write me ==>> http://gg.gg/loix1 [gg.gg]
    • Commercial Resupply Services. How much per pound does this supplier charge? The reason NASA was butchered was it was considered too expensive. The new NASA mission is to subcontract, getting supplies up at the lowest cost per pound. Previously Russian rockets won out on Cost. The French and the Chinese would also like to put in a bid. Forget the magic warm fuzzy feelings.This is about lowest priced bidder, and the cost should not be secret. I would fire the guys at NASA if the answer that came back was 'Abo

  • I hope it flies and I pray that the crew is safe. Fascinating technology!

    • It's un-manned...

      • Maybe the OP meant the crew of the ISS?

      • ...for now.

        They actually applied to NASA for the Commercial Crew Program but got nixed because NASA wasn't quite sure they could pull it off. I'll admit that SpaceX and Boeing were "safer" choices. So now Sierra's bidding on the next generation of the Commercial Cargo Program. Not a bad thing--show NASA it works, see what kind of all-around savings you get, etc.

        I'm sure they'll be involved with the Next Gen Commercial Crew Program.

  • It looks like an Orca [wikipedia.org] in the photo in TFA -- probably as close to sharks in space as we'll get.

    I like it.

  • While space planes undeniably look cool - what is their big benefit compared to capsules? They seem overly complicated.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      They can control their reentry and landing. That means you can set one down pretty much anywhere that has a runway, instead of in a big patch of empty ocean or desert. Landing back where you took off is critical if you're ever going to have a fast turnaround. It's not the only way; Starship is going to do it with flaps and rocket engines. But Dragon requires a recovery ship, crew, and a long slog back to land.

      • Of course the Dragon capsule was originally designed to be far more flexible and perform a controlled propulsive landing pretty much anywhere *without* a runway. But NASA nixed that plan in favor of parachutes and a splashdown.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Dragon has a pretty big landing ellipse, relative to a spaceplane. I've seen some speculation that it's about 1.5 km in diameter. That's not putting it down on the numbers on a runway. The propulsive landing combined with the original design of a movable ballast apparently was expected to get land-back-on-the-pad type accuracy though. Still, your landing site would have to be quite close to your orbital track. The more lift you can generate, the more flexibility you have.

  • Just the other day I happen to be thumbing through an encyclopedia from the later 60s, photo showing a M2F2 in flight, “A wingless glider may bring future astronauts back to the earth after spaceflight. This experimental model was tested in 1966.” At this time the Space Shuttle was only a concept, now in the 21st it is a museum piece.

    • The Dyna-Soar, canceled in 1963, was also to have been a space plane, launched into orbit atop a Titan II or III (other boosters were proposed as well).

  • 2010 called.
    It wanted to remind the Salshdot "Editors" that the Dream Chaser is 10 years old.
    One would assume the "Editors" would issue a correction.
    Or admit to themselves that they are not really doing the job of "Editor".

  • This is like the Apollo modules, but with space shuttle like capability.

    I am not even going to pretend to be an expert, so feel free to say my post is bullshit, but I feel the Space Shuttle was way too big and cumbersome to be used for regular space missions. They should have had one or two regular space shuttles for the really heavy lifting of whatever big they had to put into orbit, and a fleet of smaller space planes like this for the more routine missions.

    • Or a heavy booster for cargo or other large craft, and a smaller booster + manned space craft (which might or might not have wings). This was von Braun's early Earth Orbit Rendezvous plan for getting to the moon, before the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous became the plan. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/Hi... [nasa.gov]

  • Farscape-1 (Score:3)

    by samwichse ( 1056268 ) on Saturday August 22, 2020 @09:03PM (#60430733)

    I just hope it doesn't get sucked into a wormhole on its first mission and spend 4 seasons and a miniseries getting back to earth...

  • Steve Austin want his ship back (Score:3)

    by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Sunday August 23, 2020 @12:05AM (#60431033)

    the photo in the article made me think of Austin's ship, right before it crashed. :)

  • On reentry the garbage from the ISS is jettisoned to 'burn up'. Will it? All of it? You should have doubts.

  • The Dream Chaser made an appearance in the director’s version of “The Martian,” in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Matt Damon’s character Mark Watney can be seen peering out a window at the Dream Chaser as he prepares to return home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Calling something that has no pilot on board a plane rather than a drone sounds like a lie. Making the shape of the front of it look like it's designed to have windows rather than using the most aerodynamic shape for a drone looks like a lie. It's another orbital drone with an appealing, friendly look, because someone doesn't want you to think that it could do the same job as a predator drone from orbit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by twosat ( 1414337 )

      It was originally designed by Sierra Nevada Corporation to have a crew and windows. When they lost out to the SpaceX Dragon and the Boeing Starliner for a crew transfer contract for the International Space Station, they redesigned it to be an automated cargo carrier and won a contract for resupply instead. They are trying to maintain maximum commonality in designs so that at a later date they have the option to produce the original, crewed version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • I can see how that would be what the designer's want, but someone has to buy it, and the buyer has to pay for the extra fuel that goes with the less aerodynamic design. I can't see them doing that if they do consider that they're getting something in return, and the only value for them I see is "another space plane," which makes people have cool feelings about orbital drones. I've got no particular issue with us using orbital drones, but when I see them being disingenuous, I have to wonder why they think t

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Computer made me do it."

Close