Dreamchaser re-designed

holmec · May 25, 2007

This cannot be good for Benson. This tells me that something bad has happened with Dreamchaser project: http://www.space.com/adastra/070524_dreamchaser.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"During the past two months a small, highly experienced team has taken a fresh look and concluded that we can do better," Benson noted in a press statement.<hr /></blockquote> Sounds like Benson got a new team. I wonder what this will do for the idea of putting Dreamchaser on Atlas, or maybe this is an adaptation for the Atlas rocket (just speculating). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

christine16 · May 25, 2007

what is this HL-20 type landing?

holmec · May 25, 2007

Suppose so. But what about this new configuration? I can't imagine landing would be slow since its a take off of the starfighter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

radarredux · May 25, 2007

> This tells me that something bad has happened with Dreamchaser project:/i> To effectively throw away their initial work and start from scratch, and then claim that they will have commercial operations in two years? I don't think so. Getting the paperwork through the government will probably take longer than that.

jimfromnsf · May 25, 2007

"Getting the paperwork through the government will probably take longer than that." What paper work?

gunsandrockets · May 26, 2007

<A lifting body such as the HL20 glides at high speed and at a very high angle relative to the ground...> What is the approach angle?

holmec · May 26, 2007

FAA paperwork at least. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

radarredux · May 26, 2007

> What paper work?/i> Not sure of which permits, but both Carmack and Musk have commented on how much longer it took them to get the paperwork through than they expected.

drwayne · May 26, 2007

It is a natural, recurring evolution that paperwork evolves from serving some semi-legitimate purpose to simply serving itself. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

MeteorWayne · May 26, 2007

See ISO 9000 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

gunsandrockets · May 26, 2007

< ...and the glideslope, the path relative to the ground. > I was refering to the glideslope. <The [glideslope] is not constant, but starts very high, on the order of -25 degrees. Preflare and flare maneuvers lower that in the final seconds to a value within the safe range for touchdown. /> I presume that glideslope angle was for the HL-10, which was hardly the last word in lifting body designs. I'd be more interested in finding data for the X-24b. I've been looking but no luck yet. I did find data for the Space Shuttle. It's approach angle to the runway is 20 degrees! Not much better is it? <A quick Google for "HL-10 glideslope" finds some of them. The HL-10 is similar to the HL-20 numbers, but with the advantage that these come from real, not theoretical, flight testing. /> Some links I've found suggest NASA was planning to tweak the HL-20 design by improving the L/D to 3.8 because of results from simulator flight testing. The same paper suggested the nominal HL-20 had a L/D of only 3.2.

rocketwatcher2001 · May 26, 2007

I think my approach into Kansas City yesterday was about 20 degrees. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rocketwatcher2001 · May 26, 2007

It was at MCI, the controller left us high for a while and had just cleared us down to 4,000 and we broke out at about 4,050 when he cleared us for the visual. I had planned on a nice ILS and was just begining to slow down from 250 down to about 210 to begin my flap extensions. When we broke out the airport was right there off the wing and I dropped the gear, normally not done until flaps 15, and put my nose down. The 727 won't slow down clean, but with gear down it does whatever you want, and I got the flaps configured. It was actually a lot of fun, and it gets my heart pumping. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimfromnsf · May 26, 2007

"Not sure of which permits, but both Carmack and Musk have commented on how much longer it took them to get the paperwork through than they expected." That is because they are launching into orbit from a national range. Rutan didn't have the same issues

thereiwas · May 26, 2007

Only 20 degrees? Bah. I used to have a Briegleb BG-12 glider. BIG flaps. You hold off dropping them until you are within a few hundred feet of the runway, then put them full on (45 deg). Simultaneously put the stick nearly full forward to keep up the air speed. Literally standing on the rudder pedals. If you chicken out and flare too soon you'll stall. If you chicken out and don't use full flaps you'll float the entire length of the runway. And no landing gear; just a wheel that extends about 5" below the keel, so you have to touch down perfectly level. Pretty exciting to watch from the ground as well. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

rocketwatcher2001 · May 26, 2007

Awesome! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

holmec · May 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That is because they are launching into orbit from a national range. Rutan didn't have the same issues<hr /></blockquote> Rutan did have simular issues. Because the point of departure was not legally in the air but Mojave Airport/Spaceport. Musk might have had different issues because of using a rocket while Rutan used a plane. In fact legislation had to be created and acted upon after SpaceShipOne flights. FAA Commercial Space Transtportation Office: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/ they: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Office of Commercial Space Transportation issues launch licenses for commercial launches of orbital rockets and suborbital sounding rockets. The first U.S. licensed launch was a suborbital launch of a Starfire vehicle on March 29, 1989. Since then, AST (including its predecessor, OCST) has licensed more than 180 launches.<hr /></blockquote> Including Scaled Composites. After Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne flights: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />With the enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (CSLAA), on December 23, 2004, the FAA now has an experimental permit regime for developmental reusable suborbital rockets. Under the CSLAA, FAA, through the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, can issue experimental permits rather than licenses for the launch of and reentry of reusable suborbital rockets for the purpose of research and development to test new design concepts, new equipment, or new operating techniques; to show compliance with requirements as part of the process for obtaining a license; or for crew training prior to obtaining a license for a launch or reentry using the design of the rocket for which the permit wou</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

jimfromnsf · May 26, 2007

Spacex issues are with the ranges. FAA approval is peanuts compared to Range safety approval on a national range. Addtionally, an environmental impact statement has to filed. Most of Spacex's dealings are not with the FAA but with the ranges

holmec · May 26, 2007

yes. FAA paperwork being peanuts.....well, red tape is red tape and Federal government is Federal government and we all know how that goes. BTW maybe that a plus for air launched space vehicles .... less red tape and regs. On the other hand I can't imagine Vandenburg AFB and Space Command not being in the loop of SpaceShipOne's suborbital flights. Wouldn't want a rocket colliding with it. So getting back to the topic....I would imagine FAA would be the primary agency Benson will have to deal with for the Dreamchaser. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 26, 2007

Ok, Jim Please explain the issues with the different ranges. 1. what agency governs them? 2. where are the ranges and how many do we have? 3. Please provide links. You got my curiosity and I can't seem to find anything on them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 26, 2007

LOL! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> My kind of pilot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

jimfromnsf · May 26, 2007

SS1 was nowhere near Vandenberg or orbital altitudes. Anyways, the FAA takes care of that with NOTAMS.

jimfromnsf · May 26, 2007

Eastern Range and Cape Canaveral AFS - USAF Western Range and VandenbErg AFB- USAF Reagan Test Range and Kwaj - Army There are many more like White Sands Missile Range but the ones I listed are the major launch ranges. Links? You can google AFSPCMAN 91-710 has the range safety requirements for the USAF

docm · May 27, 2007

Changing tack a bit.... Finally figured out where I'd seen 90% of the new DC's lines: The Ark from the flick "When Worlds Collide" (below) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gunsandrockets · May 27, 2007

<...the new DC's lines: The Ark from the flick "When Worlds Collide"> Hah! Yep, you nailed it exactly.

Dreamchaser re-designed

holmec

Guest

christine16

Guest

holmec

Guest

radarredux

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

holmec

Guest

radarredux

Guest

drwayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

holmec

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

docm

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page