Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

46 replies on “Strange Marketing Claims by SNC”

  1. By pressurized cargo, could he mean astronauts? As if that was the only pressurized cargo Shuttle ever carried.

    1. I think they’re referring to a combination of pressurized cargo volume in DC’s cabin + the volume of its pressurized trunk. Like Dragon’s, It’s disposable.

      1. Still far smaller than the shuttle crew cabin and the pressurized volume in an MPLM (which was used to transfer pressurized cargo to ISS through the large CBM hatches).

    2. That’s funny. I sure remember a lot of Shuttle missions (22 alone in support of my work) with a Spacelab or SpaceHab module carrying tons of pressurized cargo. Must have been my imagination.

      1. That and MPLMs for ISS cargo resupply. These were an advantage over Spacelab and SpaceHab since the CBM hatch was far larger than the hatches on the ISS docking mechanisms. For example, an MPLM could transfer entire ISS racks, which would not fit through the docking hatches.

  2. Probably means the size of the crew compartment and number of astronauts. Of course Shuttle had a large payload bay in which they carried ISS modules, Spacelabs, Spacehabs, a module for Mir…each of those was the size of the crew compartment or larger.

  4. No doubt they mean the 5,000 kg in-cabin cargo capacity, conveniently forgetting that (1) the shuttle used SPACEHAB for an additional 4,500 kg of pressurized cargo, and (2) the Dragon’s internal capacity is 6,000 kg.

  5. Do they mean what the shuttle could take up in mid deck lockers for cargo they can take that much? Obviously they are discounting/ignoring a pressurized mplm in the payload bay full of supplies in this comparison

  6. However the marketing claim has served its purpose as it enabled Dream Chaser to break through the social media clutter to get folks talking about it 🙂

    1. Like Space X’s first stage landings and reuse, once Dream Chaser begins flying and landing back on Earth, reminding everyone of 30 years of Shuttle, everyone will wonder, why did we ever give that up in favor of landing in the middle of the ocean.

      1. By the time Dream Chaser is flying, commercial crew will likely be flying too. Flying both commercial crew and commercial cargo to ISS is going to be cheaper than flying the shuttle to ISS simply to do crew rotations and cargo resupply.

        1. I was talking about winged flyback capability. As far as expense, that was not a consideration at the time commercial cargo or crew started. NASA was backed into a corner when they figured out Orion wouldn’t make it (remember it was supposed to fly to ISS by 2011). At that point NASA ‘leadership’ was just hoping someone would come up with something.

          1. Since flying a.s.a.p. was the goal, capsules have proven to be faster to develop than winged vehicles. I just wish SpaceX had not cancelled vertical landing development for Dragon V2 because dunking any aerospace hardware into the ocean’s salt water is bad for the hardware.

          2. I am not sure about that. Orion (safe, simple, soon) started before everyone else and as we’ve just heard, they are still about 5-10 years from human spaceflights. They say about 5 yrs from now, but based on their experience, they will add a year for every year they do not fly. SNC was moving every bit as fast as Boeing/CST and SX/Manned Dragon, and then they were put on a hiatus while the others were given contracts. Dream Chaser was doing flight tests in 2013, and they are just now getting back to where they were then. They also lost many of their experienced personnel, thanks to the NASA deferral; some of those people traced their heritage to X-38.

          3. “SNC was moving every bit as fast as Boeing/CST and SX/Manned Dragon.”

            SNC was farther behind in development on their vehicle than either Dragon or Starliner, which was noted in the CRS decision report. I very much look forward to seeing Dreamchaser in action, but there were legitimate reasons to opt for Starliner over Dreamchaser – starting with the fact that Starliner would be ready to fly sooner.

          4. Also both capsules had their own launch vehicle. Dream Chaser would have had to buy launch vehicles at retail prices while the other two where getting theirs at cost. No free rides in space and every pound you lift has to be paid for. DC was 10,000 pounds heavier .. at 2000 dollars a pound for retail lift it was going to always add at least 20 million in additional costs for a DC launch.

          9. Orion is apples and oranges when compared to commercial cargo and commercial crew simply because of the way the contracts were structured. Even Boeing moved faster on commercial crew than one would have expected using “conventional” NASA contracting methods.

            Of course, it doesn’t help that Orion can “only” be launched by SLS. SLS is the biggest problem with NASA’s budget, IMHO.

          10. As far as I can tell it was not Musk’s choice. NASA required extensive testing for man-rating but would not permit testing the propulsive landing system on unmanned ISS cargo return missions because of the perceived risk to ISS return payloads.

          11. Well, yes and no. Capsules being at best a stop-gap method of landing, it was obvious that developing bespoke tech made no sense.

            Mr. Musk has been clear about this. Capsules are a legacy method of getting from space to ground. But SX’ approach is different: just land the entire ‘ship.’ SX has shown concept drawings of MCT and BFR doing exactly that.

            There is a straight line from Grasshopper to reusable F9 to BFR. Capsules are a side trip.

          12. Yes, but its a side trip that would have provided an early option for sending large payloads to the Moon or Mars. But NASA said no and will probably do the same for BFR.

            After all, if parachutes and ocean landings were good enough for Apollo its good enough for today’s NASA astronaut. But then they are still flying T-38’s from the Apollo era as well 🙂

            Besides, how would it look to land Dragon capsules at a spaceport while NASA needs to use a navy task force to recover the Orion when it finally flies. Folks might get the idea NASA is behind the times or even outdated in their ideas of spaceflight. 🙂

          13. Re side trip: this is the kind of Hobson’s Choice the NASA leaders must make all the time. I don’t envy the responsibility (although I feel entirely comfortable criticizing them…).

            And you know I thought the same thing- appearances and all- when SX started landing boosters. Over on the NASA side you’ve got stunning infrastructure, including a huge tractor that, as it turns out, is undersized by NASA safety margin requirements, among lots of other stuff in the VAB to support SLS.

            Then you’ve got the SX side of the Cape, where minimalism is surely finding a new definition; rockets put together horizontally, for instance, then pushed upright (something the Russians know about).

            SLS takes off and gets splashed. SX takes off and comes back. What a sight!

          14. I know there is more than a little sarcasm in there, but you’ve suggested two questions.

            How would you expect NASA say no to BFR? They are partially funding Dragon 2, and the contract has them partially involved in the requirements and necessary testing. That puts them in an easy position to veto things like powered landing. But BFR development is privately funded. Are you hinting that NASA could drop a shoe into the machinery for regulatory and launch approvals?

            Second, are they really planning on a Navy task force for Orion recoveries? I’d expect landing precision to be much better than it was for the Apollo missions, and the capsule could be broadcasting GPS-based coordinates as it descends on the parachute. A ship for recovery is called for, and a ship with deck space for more than a couple helicopters. But a whole task force? Isn’t that a bit much?

  7. perhaps they are referring to mid-deck cargo? after all, Spacelab/Hab and the MPLMs were payloads and technically their cargo volume could be counted as separate from the orbiter, still I wonder why SNC would feel the need to make such claims

    1. I’m sure they are referring to the quite limited space shuttle mid-deck cargo. But that is entirely disingenuous for an ISS resupply mission which had the option of using a pressurized module in the cargo bay to store more pressurized cargo. Dream Chaser has no such large payload bay, so it is far less flexible in that regard.

  8. I would ask: who is the target of these tweets; and is this target currently or soon to be engaged in a hearing or other decision-making activity?

  9. There is no uniform answer to the question of whether winged designs with higher L/D during hypersonic entry and subsonic landing are better or worse than capsules. The DC appears likely to be heavier and more expensive than a capsule of similar cargo capacity, and fifty years after they were initially tested in the 1960’s we have yet to see any wingless lifting body perform a runway landing at a realistic mass for orbital flight. The wing-and-fuselage X-37 is performing well but it is not clear how well this approach would scale to a larger vehicle for which a fairing would not be feasible for launch.

    At this point the Starliner seems to have the optimal landing system because it can be recovered on essentially any piece of level dry ground and because of the intrinsic simplicity and robustness of the airbag system, but airbags are limited in mass and deceleration profile. It is unfortunate that SpaceX was not permitted to test propulsive landing, which is more complex but is the only system that combines an efficient capsule shape, complete flexibility in deceleration profile, scalability to any required mass, and pinpoint landing on land.

    2. “[…] propulsive landing, which is more complex but is the only system that combines an efficient capsule shape, complete flexibility in deceleration profile, scalability to any required mass, and pinpoint landing on land.”

      only?
      No.

  10. Meanwhile Dream Chaser made a successful test flight today, gliding to a landing at Mojave Air and Space Port. Congratulation Sierra Nevada!

    1. And THAT is the big news of the day, as you point out. While the Virginia frankenrocket is blasting into a very uncertain future, Sierra Nevada, having pulled a rabbit out of a hat, marches on.

      1. Yes, and to hit on one of Keith’s themes, SNC is both owned and run by a woman entrepreneur, Fatih Ozmen. Although not as well known as Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, she also has the dream to make humans a space faring society.

        1. A slight correction, Professor? Your point about the CEO sent me scurrying to make myself smart via the interwebs, where I learned that Eren Ozmen is the wife of Fatih Ozmen. Apparently they are both active managers of SNC. (Wikipedia reads like a press release).

          These are two imposing people. I wasn’t able to learn where they got their money, but did find out they spend it wisely, including impressive philanthropy.

  11. They may be wrong about DC 12,000lbs cargo capacity also like Dragon was. That may be weight, but a typical NASA cargo may have too much volume to make the weight as Dragon is. Great NASA test showing again that our space program is great.

  12. Folks should calm down about the Dreamchaser.

    First the crewed and cargo versions are not the same vehicle.

    Second the crewed Dreamchaser launch abort capability is somewhat doubtful in the current design. Using a pair of Hybrid motors for launch escape seems to have low chances of crew survival.

    Third the crewed Dreamchaser will have to demonstrated an ascend on top of a launch vehicle stack. It will be an interesting aerodynamics experiment.

    Fourth as stated in previous posts the Dreamchaser got the BFS competing for an in service date. Interest in a small spaceplane will disappeared with the introduction of a high cargo capacity reusable launch system in both mass and volume.

    Even with all that. Hope the Dreamchaser will at least get a chance to carry someone up.

    1. Where do I start: with the SNC CEO’s chart and tweet that makes no differentiation between cargo and crew variants.

      1. The cargo version of the Dreamchaser:

        is going up hill inside a payload fairing
        no cockpit or crew accomadations
        folding wings
        lack of orbital maneuver engines
        no launch escape systems
        reduce life support
        different launch vehicle variant
        attached pressurized mini cargo module

        With those exceptions there is no differentiation between cargo and crew variants.

    2. It will be an interesting aerodynamics experiment.

      I wondered about that as well. I imagined, in the simplistic way that non-specialists imagine about lots of things, that DC would require the same up-protection as any other cargo? My reasoning was that if not enclosed DC would dramatically affect the flight characteristics of the booster.

      1. I’m not enthusiastic about the idea of flying something like Dream Chaser without a fairing. But it might be possible. Launch vehicles do have some ability to compensate for off-axis forces. Otherwise they could only fly in dead calm weather. The same attitude control could compensate for the aerodynamic forces from an unenclosed Dream Chaser. But… That’s control authority going to compensating for the payload and not available for other needs. That would certainly have an affect on allowable weather for a launch.

        I’m not sure what Dream Chaser’s wingspan is. The X-37B can fit in a four meter (five meter?) fairing, but someone mentioned folding wings for the unmanned, encapsulated Dream Chaser. Folding wings would involve the heat shield, and that doesn’t give me a warm, comfortable feeling either.

Comments are closed.