The Sierra Nevada Corp. space plane landed at Edwards Air Force Base on November 11, 2017 after a successful test. More about the flight on Space.com: www.space.com/... Credit: NASA
It's fun to see all of the different spacecraft we will have in the United States within the next few years. The US orbital spacecraft will include, Dragon, Cygnus, Dragon V2, Starliner, Orion, Dreamchaser and of course Blue Origin is sure to be working on an orbital vehicle to put on top of their New Glenn rocket. SpaceX is also working on the ITS.
Well coming back to this we have cargo dragon, Dragon, Blue Origins sub-orbital craft same with Virgin Galactic, Cygnus and Strainer while we are waiting for Dream Chaser, Orion, Shooting star, and Starship. Exciting future.
@@locusambulare7297 Yeah...at the moment I think Starship is the future of everything spaceflight. It has the internal volume of a space station. There seems to be little need for the Lunar Gateway when the spaceship docking with it is larger than the space station. Just modify a Starship with the instruments you need and park it there.
Wheels are fairly efficient too. The skid will save a bit of weight but wear out faster. Also with only rudder steering which is only effective at higher speeds, that could be an issue especially if a main tire blew out.
I absolutely love and miss the NASA Space Shuttle Orbiters that where built by Rockwell International ( Boeing ), but I'm also a big proponent of this Sierra Nevada Corporation Dream Chaser! I love the SpaceX Crew Dragon, Boeing CST-100 Starliner, and Lockheed Martin Orion also! What can I say I love spacecraft! The Russian Space Shuttle Orbit Buran and the Soyuz are also favorites of mine as well as the old Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury Spacecraft too. Would love to ride into space on this one! That Boeing 234 Chinook Helicopter ( Civilian version of the CH-47 ) is awesome too. Now even though it's unmanned the Boeing "Phantom Works" X-37B OTV is my favorite unmanned reusable spacecraft along with the Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" Venturestar and X-33 that never flew.
Mighty bold of them to use only two wheels. This is space travel, so if it saves weight and works fine then I can't argue with it, but still. Part of me wonders if it leaves a big black skid mark down the length of the runway, lol.
In fact SNC believes this glide test was sufficient and that it won't need to perform another glide test... If NASA agrees, the next flight will be into orbit
ATM this design only has the thumbs-up to deliver cargo to the ISS. But with a design like that, it's obviously capable of so much more. Does anyone know more about what capabilities the Dream Chaser was originally designed to meet? What were/are the plans? TL;DR: WHAT IS THIS THING
ok, reading the wiki it seems that it's like a mini space-shuttle, and it overcomes a lot of the disadvantages of the original shuttles: - Carries upto 7 ppl. - Has a built-in launch escape system. - Can land on any airport runway, and is safe to handle immediately after touchdown. - Ablative tiles will last for several flights.
Dream chaser is based on NASA's HL20 lifting body. It's limited to low earth orbit operations only. It's can't go to the moon but would work great for transport of humans and cargo to LEO space stations. It's capable of landing at most airports throughout the world which is a plus. The U.N. Is interested in Dream Chaser.
The key elements are that it's a reusable space plane that lands on runways and that uses non-lethal propulsion which brings down some costs of maintenance and I think it bring down some risk factors. Downside is that it is only meant for low Earth orbit and not deep space. It would be good for ISS or any commercial space station. It is rocket independent, so it has to contract to get into space.
Wonder if it'd fit onto the top of a Falcon-9 1st stage, to replace the 2nd stage. That way the whole system would be completely reusable! (Doesn't even need a fairing) edit: The top of the Falcon-9 would need some kinda small fairing tho. Coz i doubt it's designed to handle Max-Q on it's 90deg top edges. (Falcon-9 does re-entry backwards afterall, not head-first)
Like the SpaceX Dragon, and Boeing's CST-100 (aka 'Starliner'), it's for commercial transport to orbit. Not just to ISS, but to any commercial orbiting platforms from Bigelow Aerospace and Axiom Space.
Sun Shield with plasma o hydrogen Proton o Neutron addaptiv! The Engine for 90000 meters and then Roket bust Engine 9.2 meters lenght 1 block incluse Roket Boost Nebula Shield
As a Pilot, I would hate to touchdown with a skid plate as my front landing gear member at the speed this craft lands at. Come on guys, use a better technology than a skid plate on a spacecraft.
Differential braking is just about as good as steerable nose gear, and saves lots of weight and prevents failure modes involving front tire failure and another heatshield opening.
Ambient Morality I use differential braking to steer when I taxi both conventional and tricycle configured aircraft and it does work quite well. But upon landing and take off I never apply any pressure to the brakes unless it is evenly applied to both mains. Not applying even brake pressure could cause a ground loop or other unintended maneuvers and unusual attitudes. I see that it does save weight and a point of failure. I’m just speaking from the perspective of the person landing the craft, I think it would be rather difficult and uncomfortable.
