Dream Chaser To Be Launched in 2016
SNC Announces First Orbital Flight of Dream Chaser
“Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) announces that it has confirmed that the first orbital flight of its Dream Chaser(R) Space System will occur on November 1, 2016. Dream Chaser will be brought to orbit on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket that is being built in Decatur, Alabama and will launch from Cape Canaveral, Florida.”
Keith’s note: So … who is paying for this launch? There’s no mention of that in the press release. No mention anywhere else either. These things are not cheap ….
I assume SNC is proposing for NASA funding as an extension of their existing SAA.
They won’t respond to questions as to who is paying for what ….
I suspect the answer is NASA will pay for the flight, possibly indirectly, if SNC gets the agreements. If SNC does not get the agreements then no one knows.
The next Commercial crew award:
Boeing 250 million
SpaceX 200 million
Sierra 75 million
Would be my guess with Sierra, Lockheed Martin and the state of floridia making up the rest to pay for the launch.
Bolden has said Nasa will select no more than 2 provider’s for the next round of commercial crew and the split of money is dependent on how much they get in this years budget.
Where’s the money going to come from for this flight if they don’t get selected for the next round of Commercial crew? I’m skeptical of that flight taking place in 2016. It’s probably just a placeholder.
Edit: well done to SNC for raising the money for the flight, this should make thing’s very interesting!
For some reason I assumed that Orion was going to have the O&C all to itself. But according to the article SNC will be using it also. Makes sense I guess, it’s a huge volume of space in there so apparently there is room for both. Just seems kind of ironic though that the Boeing capsule will be processed in a former OPF used by Shuttles, meanwhile the SNC spaceplane will be processed in the O&C used for Apollo capsules.
I’d “like” to see one capsule go forward and one the Dream Chaser. Two capsules is just redundant in my mind, and the Dream Chaser represents a unique capability like the X-37 does. While I’m not convinced that winged vehicles are THE way to go in the future, I do believe they deserve another test beyond the Shuttle to determine if they idea is practical or not.
More data on how Nature wants us to get into space would be VERY useful.
I would like to see as many capsule variations as there are automoblies.
as long as there is a market for several various capsule designs other than the government/taxpayers, I agree.
Wings are cooler:-)
And if public perception matters (if there’s data on this I haven’t seen it) capsules are boring. On the other hand I admit to being quite surprised as to the size of Orion.
This whole “spacecraft need wings” idea is just so bizarre to me. So very bizarre. They serve no purpose beyond LEO.
DC is riding a lot of goodwill based on Shuttle memory, but I don’t really see the hard logic behind it.
Once VTVL has been demonstrated to work in the next decade or two, and the public gets used to it, the idea of a winged spaceship will seem antiquated.
Wings have the advantage for low g-force return to Earth. Suppose you wanted to return something fragile from ISS?
SpaceX plans Draco engines for landing on land on their Dragon Spaceship. I wouldn`t say that was boring.
It sounds to me that spacex is doing parachute landing with thruster assist at the very end, to cushion the landing the same as the Russians have been doing for years. Safest is not always coolest. But a land anywhere vehicle is smartest.
Two questions
Do the Russians reuse any of their capsule??
Will Spacex be able to land their capsule without a parachute in an emergency as a backup to their parachute draco system??
I think it’s important to look at winged landers.
A while back NASA did a test with an inflatable doing earth reentry with it’s larger surface area helping reduce drag. I makes me wonder if Space crafts should be giant capsules or spheres. Imagine a giant winged shaped inflatable
No SpaceX`s Spaceship will do more than what the Russians do. The Russians use parachutes to bring themselves down then use thrusters to cushion the landing at the very last. SpaceX will use thrusters to slow themselves down for a thruster landing on landing legs. They will have parachutes for emergencies only. So in a way they will be safer than than airplanes which have no backup parachutes.
Seems to be some debate just how Spacex will use the chutes?? That’s whyiI asked or stated different than you said. I read in SLS thread about how reusable orion will be with water landings and just had to laugh!!! Why land in water unless it’s an emergency!!!! Lol. Crazy!!!
SpaceX will start with water landings first and develop the thruster landings as they go along. This is the way they have always done things for example they started with Falcon 1. They never bite off more than can chew at one time it allows them to gain knowledge as they go along. This is why they`ve been successful and why they will be successful in their attempts to develop a reusable first stage. With SpaceX.you are never finished. Things always evolve.
Its an interesting quandary. If NASA must down select to two in the next phase of Commercial Crew, there are three prominent choices – 1)SpaceX Dragon, 2)Boeing CST-100 and 3) SNC Dream Chaser. WHICH TWO DO YOU CHOOSE?
The collapsed landing gear on the drop test of Chaser was not very encouraging. Do we need two commercial Apollo-type capsules? Behind closed doors does NASA have enough confidence in Dream Chaser such that Lockheed-Martin is willing to back SNC with an Atlas V? Is it only logical that a Boeing CST-100 will also mean man-rating the Boeing Delta-IV? Dragon as cargo carrier in COTS has proven Avionics, Re-Entry and Chutes.
I hope Dream Chaser is selected. Development of NASA’s HL-10 technology of the 60’s should have led to a small Dream Chaser type vehicle and not Space Shuttle. Building Saturn 1Bs to launch cargo and Dream Chaser-type vehicles until re-usable conventional rockets evolved would have saved NASA 20 years and many $10s of Billions.
Both the HL – 20 and the HL – 42
Pretty sure Boeing plans to launch the CST-100 on the Atlas V. Who knows as to why. A Delta IV Heavy would make more sense, that way non-Beyond LEO Orion missions could use a unified, man rated Delta IV as well.
Pretty sure though there is no market for Orion, two capsules and a lifting body, that is unless these things will also be used as ISS escape pods, and / or we actually get a private space station for some reason (something I’m not holding my breath for).
I mean, wont the ESA start seeing more of the absolutely ridiculous turf wars that have plagued NASA the second they start becoming regular Dream Chaser customers? Don’t get me wrong, it’s brilliant to sell services to them (and is exactly what Commercial space flight should do), but with a budget less than one third NASA’s if they start putting Dream Chasers in $120m Ariane 5s, it’s going to add up pretty fast.
It would make more sense to launch a 10 ton capsule on a rocket that is designed for three times that amount?
You DO understand that Boeing is trying to keep the per seat cost under 40 million correct?
Either EELV of ULA – Atlas or Delta, are costly for lifting Dream Chaser or CST-100. About $200M per launch. Altogether, one is talking $250M and launches to ISS will remain at 3, maybe 4 astronauts per launch. This is $60M per seat. SpaceX Falcon 9 will presently cost about $60M, maybe altogether $100M for launching 4 astronauts; on the order of $25M per seat.
Either Lockheed Martin and Boeing have hidden projects to develop LVs competitive with SpaceX or they have abandoned the commercial launch market. Compared to other markets – DOD contracts, commercial aeronautics, the commercial launch industry might not be worth their investment to compete.
How long will Atlas V and Delta IV remain viable programs for their respective owners to maintain? The DoD and NASA are their only customers and both will be required and under pressure to select the most cost effective vehicles once the contracted vehicles from ULA (Atlas-es and Deltas) are used up. I think these two rockets, Atlas V and Delta IV, have limited lifetime. They need to be retired and replaced if their legacy programs are to survive.
“once the contracted vehicles from ULA (Atlas-es and Deltas) are used up”. What do you mean? NASA does not have a fleet of contracted Atlas vehicles. NASA buys them one at time and hence every Atlas it has bought since 2008 means it beat out Falcon 9. NASA has only bought one F9 during that timeframe. The USAF block buy has yet to be enacted and it does not apply to NASA.
So, your opinion that Atlas V and Delta IV have limited lifetimes holds no water. And your cost estimate is way out of the ballpark.
Additionally, Atlas V and Delta IV have only one owner, ULA.
“…every Atlas it has bought since 2008 means it beat out Falcon 9.” Wrong. Falcon 9 has not been in competition since 2008. First launch in June 2010, eight successful launches since. It has shown proof of reliability and performance. Furthermore, NASA projects must commit to a launch vehicle years in advance to proceed with design and implementation. So there are commitments that are hard not to change into contracted launches. The USAF does have ongoing contracts to sustain the Delta IV. Until now, the USAF or NASA could argue that the longer launch record of Atlas V (or Delta IV) was reason for choosing one over Falcon 9. Now that is effectively not an argument. Be it one owner ULA or parent companies – two, Atlas V and Delta IV will never match or come close to the price of Falcon 9 and Heavy. With no longer an edge, new mission proposals will be written with Falcon 9 specs and pricing. USAF will look likewise to Falcon as a easy means of saving $100M. The present Atlas V and Delta IV designs will not last through the decade.
Know something before posting. Falcon 9 has been available to NASA on the NLS contract since 2008.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq…
And again, SpaceX has failed to win these recent NASA contracts (i.e. mission proposals): Insight, OSIRIS-REx, ICESat-2, JPSS-1, SMAP, TDRS, GOES, etc.
The present Atlas V and Delta IV will last past the decade. SpaceX is not going to be the sole launch vehicle provider
Even if listed beginning in 2008, proposal writers have not been open to writing Falcon into their cost and designs – not until SpaceX had shown some success. As I said, they have now. The times are a changing. NASA despite being an agency to explore, is slow to change. This is why space advocates need to speak out and force this change over to lower cost solutions sooner. By the end of the decade, Atlas V and Delta IV will have run out their run of winning proposals that chose those LVs. The last ones will act as backups to Falcon in case of technical glitches and grounding. Lockheed Martin, Boeing — ULA are likely to be working on something competitive now that will replace them – by the end of the decade.
Wrong again. Proposal writers don’t get to chose which launch vehicle they get. Once a launch vehicle is on the NLS contract, the proposers have to make the spacecraft compatible with it. There is no difference in spacecraft design for one to fly on F9, AV or DIV. For example, the recent SES-9 that flew on F9 didn’t need any mods and it could have flown on AV, DIV, Ariane or Proton. F9 flat out lost the competition for OSIRIS-REx, ICESat-2, JPSS-1, SMAP, TDRS, etc. There is nothing in the spacecraft designs that could be changed what would give F9 an advantage. NASA is constantly competing for launches, so there is no “running of winning proposals”. It only contracts for launches to 2-3 years in the future. The list of missions I provided were won in 2013. There are more proposals in work ( for missions in 2016 and 17) and NASA will be announcing the next set of winners within two months. We will see who is right again.
Anyways, the EELV program is planned to last to 2025, and as in most space projects, they last longer than their planned end date.
Just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
Your arguments are incorrect and lack insight. To begin, you state, “Once a launch vehicle is on the NLS contract, the proposers have to make the spacecraft compatible with it.” Wrong. All a “proposer” needs to do is specify the most fortuitous LV – performance & cost, that is on NLS – not all. A proposer wants to keep cost estimates low to be competitive so long as performance specs are met. NLS II requires that projects select a LV 30 months (2 1/2 yrs) prior to launch with a 10% down payment. Falcon 9 was on NLS I but NLS I expired in 2010. As I mentioned, Falcon 9 first flight wasn’t until June 2010. NASA Mission proposals were not inclined or encouraged to list Falcon 9 as their proposed LV. Last year when I was involved in a mission concept, word only then began circulating at Centers that encouraged the use of Falcon 9 in proposals. Forget about NLS I. NLS II began in 2010 to run through 2020. Falcon 9 v1.1 was only added in 2012. And as I stated, now that it has launch success to LEO and GTO, F9 is now considered seriously as an option. Yes, we will see what LVs are chosen in coming months.
Another reason you are wrong. Three of the five missions you list are Earth observers that have been singled out to use the last of the 5 Delta II launch vehicles. Delta II is being phased out. ULA warned that the Delta II program could be shut down if they were not used soon. So 3 out of 5 missions were not lost because Falcon 9 couldn’t match performance or cost. Only one spacecraft of the five you list, likely because of its Delta-V requirement, chose Atlas V over Falcon 9 – OSIRIS-REx. Then TDRS-L, a high priority NASA communication satellite was just launched. The selection of Atlas was made over 30 months ago when Falcon 9 was still proving itself. The importance of TDRS to NASA operations singled out known reliability at that time. As part of the contract, probably both TDRS L & M bought Atlas V. So TDRS M is not in play now for an LV even though Falcon 9 would save NASA >$100M over an Atlas V. So only one spacecraft you mention of five can be considered a win to ULA.
Mission proposals are now beginning to use Falcon 9 in cost estimates. Even NASA SMD is slow to make change but for the next six years of NLS II, Falcon 9 (soon Falcon Heavy) will become the cost effective choice matching performance and reliability with Atlas or Delta.
If you read today’s news of DoD bulk contract with ULA, ULA had them over a (pork)barrel. Atlas V & Delta IV has been the preferred LVs for military and surveillance missions. Unless they bought in bulk, ULA would have sold their EELVs at premium prices. Furthermore, the DOD and NRO, needed to assure keeping them as an option. Without commercial contracts because ULA withdrew EELVs from competition (not cost competitive), ULA is depending on such a bulk contract to maintain their EELV production program. With growing pressure from the low-cost Falcon 9 and Heavy, this long term bulk contract saved ULA from losing military launches to SpaceX. The Spaceflightnow article says there is a packed launch schedule for ULA but look at what’s mentioned. It’s again mostly DoD launches and a couple of the last Delta IIs. The bulk contract is a sweetheart deal. The DoD has the demand and money to pay for it and they gave a long-term supplier the chance to develop replacements for their obsolete EELVs.
Despite this campaign by ULA with their EELVs – truly fine vehicles for their generation, reliability and performance will no longer be an edge over Falcons. Add to this the saving of $100 million or more per mission when a SpaceX vehicle is chosen. All you have proven is that you are blind to the facts and circumstances to the present and refuse to accept that time favors SpaceX over ULA in cost, performance and with matching reliability. ULA will have to begin phasing out Atlas V and Delta IV by the end of the decade to be competitive with SpaceX for NASA and DoD contracts.
HL-20 was the largest they should have considered. The human-rated HL-42 is just another station wagon Space Shuttle – ideal for neither cargo or humans.
Your comment on landing gear is interesting. I suppose I thought this wasn’t a big deal, since the vehicle was using modified fighter aircraft gear.
It’s often the case that as a non-technical person I learn more in comments from technical people by reading between the lines.
Lockheed-Martin is not backing SNC with an Atlas. Nor is logical that a Boeing CST-100 will also mean man-rating the Boeing Delta-IV because LM and Boeing do not operate Atlas and Delta, ULA does. Anyways, Boeing is using an Atlas for CST-100.
Looks to me if they are only choosing 2, SpaceX is the odd man out. They all agree they want Dream Chaser since is it is the most shuttle like. Since Boeing is the old established Company and their capsule will land on land right away where as SpaceX`s will land on water to begin with before it is developed enough to land on land using its Draco engines. I hate to say this as I would rather see SpaceX with their full reusability plans.
SpaceX would continue development with its own money, anyway
Depending on what ULA is going to sell their launch vehicles for it would look like sierra will be around 42 million a seat. Bigelow is already pricing Dragon at 26 million and CST-100 at 36 million. They will have to bring down their costs more as it is a part of the contract that will go foreward. Price is now an issue.
good news i can’t wait to see dream chaser fly in 2016 congress yall need to fund this fly to get us back in space can’t wait to see space x fly humans to in space as well go commercial crew congress please do the right thing
i can’t wait for dream chaser to fly good news congress yall need to fund the commercial crew 2016 will come can’t wait to see space x fly humans as well the usa need it’s own stuff back
Unmanned first orbital flight, I assume?
They said that they would also have a crewed flight a year later in ’17. So 2 rockets there. No mention was made of the rocket for the assumed in flight abort test. SpaceX is doing it so I assume everyone else would too. A lot of rockets. NASA may only be able to afford one system. SpaceX does not have on their schedule the launches for the in flight abort this year or for any crewed flight. They usually at least give the year. If they do the abort this year, I assume they will have a crewed flight next year. A full year before DC no crew flight which SpaceX will use the CRS flights for. They do have an optional milestone for crewed flight next year. I hope NASA picks it. $140m or so, though. They did not give much time at the news conference for questions. Will NASA have crew on the first flight and it will go to ISS and meet the ’17 first flight schedule? Boeing, I think, has the same schedule. SpaceX has the only chance of crew rotation in ’17 per the NASA schedule.
The Atlas Maven launch was $187M, just for the Atlas, as procured through the existing NASA Launch Services Program office.
See-
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq…
So, it still is quite a quandary to see Sierra Nevada firming up plans involving Atlas. Conservatively, the prior $187M was for the smaller 401 series Atlas, and Dream Chaser would need something near the higher end of the Atlas series, with a higher price tag. A series 541, for example, is going for $223M in a scheduled 2015 launch.
See-
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq…
Additionally, it’s reasonable to assume that the launch of a crew would carry some additional premium above the usual price from these prior buys.
Now with a commercial crew office budget (this year) of $696M, and a good possibility that the value hovers around that number for quite some time, this just does not add up very well for SNC and a couple of crew flights to the ISS a year. If the premium price on the larger Atlas for a crew carrying mission ends up near $300M, not a leap when starting at $223M already for satellite type missions, and with ULA constantly warning of potential price hikes, then what do we have?
We end up with SNC making less than $100M a year in order to pass along about $600M to ULA.
This just makes no sense.
Unless Lockheed gIves it to them at cost. just to increase the production run and increased flight rate, thereby given them even higher margins on their government launches.
The vehicle will use 2 RL-10. So 022 I think. Not a normal fairing. Does have one over the engines. It is the same diameter as the body so 4m. It may be 0 since not a normal fairing. It may stay with the engines. It may take 2 solids. They may add development costs. SpaceX is the only one that makes sense. The inflight abort this year, they may fly the booster back and also in regular operations saving even more.
The image shows 2 exhausts, but I remember something about a common duct. Looking at the cutaway it does not look like enough room side by side and keep the 1st stage diameter.
I’ve thought about this before. I think they may use the ‘4’ prefix because the vehicle won’t have the 5m fairing around the Centaur. Instead, they may instead use the prefix ‘C’ for crew vehicle, which would be common on the CST-100 and DreamChaser launchers.
Brilliant strategy, IMHO SNC may be making it difficult for Nasa not to pick them. You can’t ignore the investment in the Space Coast, nor the partnership with US and foreign companies. If Nasa doesn’t pick Dream Chaser and it becomes successful flying missions with ESA markings it may make Nasa, the Administration and Congress look really bad. The truth of the matter is for the mess this whole thing has become all three companies should get full funding.
Yes, I would like to see all three companies funded. For a, teeny-tiny fraction of the SLS budget, we should keep all three going.
Will not happen. Congress want to delay commercial crew program as much as possible to give any chance for overweight Orion and Senate Launch System.
Space News had this to say:
“Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Corporate Vice President Mark Sirangelo said Sierra Nevada will go ahead with the first orbital test flight of its Dream Chaser spaceplane in November 2016 whether or not his firm wins a Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract (CCtCAP). NASA’s solicitation for proposals closed Jan. 22.
“It is a confirmed launch date. It’s a confirmed payment on the launch to start the process working,” Sirangelo told reporters at a press conference”
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
Wonder what the terms of the deal were… dig Keith …dig … grins
do anybody know when Charles bolden will tell when the next round of the three commercial company will move forward
I can honestly see Congress in 2016 asking NASA how they can “catch up” with the commercial providers as if they were a threat to American crewed space flight.
I remember when Jim Benson’s company, SpaceDev, dreamed this up. The cartoon of the Dyna-soar on top of an Atlas pumped up the stock price for a week. It is amazing to see it come to life.
They should be careful ascending through wind shear so that they don’t snap it off.
Steve
I suspect there are a combination of factors in private funding for this flight if (when) NASA doesn’t cough up the dollars via commercial crew–
1) ULA/Lock-Mart probably cut a sweetheart deal with SNC on the price of an Atlas. Lockheed has been making lots of noises about making Atlas more “affordable.” In addition, they could write off part of the cost of the Dream Chaser flight for R&D towards a man-rated Atlas.
2) SNC made some noise recently about working with the Europeans. Exactly what that means is unclear, but I could see a minority stake in the Dream Chaser program in exchange for astronaut seats.
3) The Dream Chaser people have also hinted about various state and private investments. Everyone sees the Gulf States as the sugar daddy for any number of high profile projects and there’s already Gulf money in Virgin Galactic.
4) U.S. investor. If Tito doesn’t burn all of his money on Destination Mars, certainly he’d have a couple of bucks to put into Dream Chaser development. Near term, lower risk reward on investment.
Of course, Tito and Paul Allen aren’t the only billionaires with money in pocket. There have been hints of other people with some cash. What happened to the group that started the whole “We’ll run the Shuttle as a private business” discussion?
5) Extension of ISS operations to 2024. This might be the tipping point for investment. ULA suddenly sees the potential for manned Atlas V flights for a multi-year run. Investors may see 2024 ISS ops as the “anchor customer” to bigger and better things.
This flight would be unmanned, of course. The Complex 41 launch pad does not have crew access. That would be a significant mod for Dream Chaser for future flights. I wonder who would pay for that as well?
I can’t find any information about Dreamchaser’s propulsion other than it is hybrid. How much delta-V is onboard?
Smart move by ULA. They probably cooked up a sweet deal where SNC will pay back this “loan” later if they succeed. ULA can wedge themselves into the crew transport business with the (arguably) most reliable rocket in the US inventory. Dream Chaser is unique among the options and fighter jocks, astronauts prefer a winged vehicle they can “fly” instead of being spam-in-a-can, like monkeys that flew early. ULA is top notch with regards to engineering rigor and processes. Of course, these rockets are not cheap but as long as Uncle Sam is subsidizing the business, it is still the best ride to space one could hope for.