Talk:Dream Chaser/Archive 1

Dream Chaser
someone really needs to clean up this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.193.210 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Status?
Has this project, or even Benson Space Company, survived the death of its founder James Benson? I can't find any news about this craft newer than 2007. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in business
They are BACK !!!! Hiberniantears (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Still, until this $20M grant, I don't see that there had been any tangible activity on this design. Was the project in mothballs pending funding? --IanOsgood (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the project was effectively mothballed until Sierra Nevada bought them, at which point Sierra Nevada was able to leverage the rights to the designs combined with their existing government contracts to present a plausibly viable proposal for the $20m. The jury is out, and we shall see... Hiberniantears (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
besides from being cleaned up someone needs to add pictures of the vehichle and i link to an example of it right here:

http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/images/atlas_DC.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.193.210 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 May 2007‎ (UTC)

There's another very nice one in a SNC press release: http://www.sncorp.com/news/press/pr10/snc_ccdev_spacenews.shtml

Is it based on HL-20 or HL-42 which was a later revision of the concept ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The photo shown currently (as of 2011-01-14), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser_mock-up_(301913758).jpg, is incorrect, as it depicts a mock-up of the older version, based on NASA's X-38 design. The currently planned version is based on NASA's HL-20 design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-axis (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong, if you look at a picture that shows the entire mockup than you'll see HL-20 on the rudder. In fact their mock-up looks like it's the same one made in 1990 for the HL-20. Both have the same landing gear, don't yet have flaps intended for the flight model, even the mock-up of the interior uses the same chairs, color scheme, lighting fixtures, has the same number of seats even though DreamChaser is intended to have less, and same exposed wire. The only differences are an added ladder (which could have been added while the mockup was still in NASA hands because some documentation mentions it) and the rear tunnel looks like its been extended.--Craigboy (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I grok the debate about whether the first photo in the article is of X-38 or HL-20 lineage. I'm sitting out that discussion.  But what I am interested in is:  Do we have a consensus that the subject photo does, in fact, actually depict a "Dreamchaser mockup" rather than an "HL-20 mockup" that was rolled out for a Dreamchaser photo op?  If is is the later, I would think we should pull the photo from the article.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty certain its the HL-20 mock-up but they're basically the same craft. "There are 1,400 wind-tunnel tests, [and] a variety of work that was being done. We largely kept the outer mold-line of the vehicle intact, so we were able to utilize much of the [previous] research" - Mark N. Sirangelo, corporate vice president of Sierra Nevada (Feb 19, 2010) So worst comes to worst we could get a better picture of the HL-20 and say it was being used as a mock-up for the DreamChaser. --Craigboy (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I've learned a lot about the lineage of the Dream Chaser in the past week or so.  As to the photo we were discussing, it appears to be irrelevent now as the photo has been deleted from the article due to some sort of copyright problem (see the article history).  I believe the two early-Feb 2011 photos, both originating from NASA, won't have that copyright problem.  N2e (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Suborbital DreamChaser
"Dream Chaser will become a fully capable suborbital vehicle on the way to reaching orbital capability." - Private Spaceflight Innovators Attract NASA's Attention (2011/02/07)

--Craigboy (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful source
Hearing on NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments and Challenges - Steven W. Lindsey (Oct 26th, 2011) --Craigboy (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1205/09sierranevada/index.html --Craigboy (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)--Craigboy (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

it hasn't a LAS
the DREAMchaser hasn't a LAS (Launch Abort System) since its two (30,000 lbf total) hybrid engines are TOO WEAK to act (also) as LAS, but can work ONLY as orbital engines, so, the DREAMchaser can't save the crew, if something goes wrong

please note that SpaceX and Boeing have already revealed all details of the LAS design of the Dragon and CST-100 and have already tested the SuperDraco and P&WR Bantam LAS engines, while SNC hasn't revealed anything about the DREAMchaser LAS, that means it hasn't ANY kind of LAS

posted August 19, 2012 by Gaetano Marano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.102.203 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does have a launch abort system. I found a source, and just added it to the article.  N2e (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Dream Chaser a "repurposed Soviet-era design"?
A recently published IEEE Spectrum article, Private Spaceflight: Up, Up, and Away, by experienced space journalist James Oberg makes the assertion that Dream Chaser is "a shuttle-shaped craft built by Sierra Nevada Corp. that repurposes a surplus Soviet-era design"

Is Dream Chaser really based in any way on some sort of Soviet design? And if so, I don't see this idea explicated in the current version (2011-12-31) version of the Dream Chaser article. Should it be? N2e (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See the Spiral programme, including the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105, BOR-4 etc and compare with the Dream Chaser, the resemblance is uncanny. I can understand the assertion being made.  Unfortunately as Jim didn't actually state which design we can't quote him in the article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its based off the HL-20, which is based off of the BOR-4 (source). And I think there were allegations that the BOR-4 was based off the American Martin X-23 PRIME.--Craigboy (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This may well be, ideas move both ways. However the HL-20 itself was derived from the BOR-4 rather than the X-23. I am not clear why we are still building wingless lifting bodies when a wing-fuselage configuration like the X-37 has much better lift to drag ratio and volumetric efficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwoodard (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lift-to-drag ratio on Dream Chaser is 4, IIRC it's 4 or 4.5 on X-37. Volumetric efficiency is a little better on lifting bodies.  Vstall is about the same on either craft.

✅—I finally found a good quality reliable secondary-source for the Russian connection, and have added it to the article with a brief sentence. I have maintained a more lengthy quotation from the journal article in the citation, so we won't lose the claims. From that source, it does appear that the Australian Air Force photo of a landed-in-the-ocean-following-a-test-flight Russian BOR-4 subscale test model, was given to the US CIA, and eventually made its way to NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia, where it did later influence the selection of modifications made to the HL-10 that were incorporated into the Langley HL-20 design, of which only scale-designs were wind tunnel tested and a full-size ground mockup was built at Langley, but which was eventually picked up, and extended, by Sierra Nevada to become the Dream Chaser. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * HL-20 and HL-10 are completely different designs and bear no relation to one another, other than that they are both lifting bodies. You might check out Mark Sirangelo's various lectures, in which he talks about his invitation to the remaining Russian engineers to view the first Dream Chaser launch, and his promise to include their names alongside the American team members' names in the first orbital launch. Voronwae (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means, do find citation sources to support the assertions about Sirangelo and his talks, and add it to the article.


 * From the sources in the article today, the source article only mentions that the Langley NASA center built the HL-20 after the HL-10 lifting body had been built by Langley; and that the very limited photos of the Soviet BOR-4 brought to Langley by the CIA influenced the HL-20 design. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

History section needs a copyedit
The History section needs copyediting.

For example, this paragraph "When the Dream Chaser was not selected under Phase 1 of the COTS Program, SpaceDev founder Jim Benson stepped down as Chairman of SpaceDev and started Benson Space Company to pursue the development of the Dream Chaser. In April 2007, SpaceDev announced that it had partnered with the United Launch Alliance to pursue the possibility of utilizing the Atlas V booster rocket as the Dream Chaser's launch vehicle." does not make clear the path for the intellectual property (IP) and how it got back to SpaceDev, for the second time. It does not make clear the role of Benson and the Benson Space Company; Benson stepped down from SpaceDev to pursue the Dream Chaser, presumably with some rights to the IP and whatever new technology development he could accomplish. But we find, with no explanation, that Sierra Nevada purchases SpaceDev, and ostensibly Dream Chaser IP but that is not explicated, and goes on from there. What was the Benson role? and in what time period? how did the IP move during those years? N2e (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In reading this article today, I notice that a good deal of relevant information regarding the project history is not contained in the actual history section, but rather as lengthy quotations in the reference section. Is this proper formatting? Wouldn't it be better to paraphrase the quoted material within the actual history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffejmopp (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hybrid engines
The article mentions "hybrid rocket engines" twice, but provides no details, nor specs, nor a description of the hybrid propulsion concept of operations for orbital missions to the space station. The previous commenter mentions 30,000 lbf hybrid engines, but of course that comment is not sourced. Anyone have a good source from which we might improve the article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Still lacking specs, but I did find one source that at least indicates the onboard propulsion are hybrid engines. N2e (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ On 2012-12-09, I added a stub section on the rocket engines, with citations. N2e (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"See also" section bloated
The "See also" section is a bit heavy. Most of those links are already in the Spaceflight and Spaceplanes templates. --IanOsgood (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree - I have removed most of it which is not related to the Dream Chaser programme. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Development Progress
In the "Flight Test Program" subsection of the "Development Progess" section, I corrected the date of the first captive carry test from 2013 to 2012, and re-worded the sentence it which the date appeared (rather than changing the sentence order). - Laurence Klein LaurencKlein@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.20.117 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad Sentence
The following sentence in the History section has a discontinuity in it: "The historical antecedents of the Dream Chaser go back nearly 50 years in the United States and Soviet airplane similar to Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 and lifting body research." Perhaps it was meant to be two sentences?192.249.47.204 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Indeed, that is a poor sentence.  Might have been meant to be two from the beginning or, as often happens, it may have made sense at one time and some succession of edits by various editors messed it up to bring it to its current state.  In any case, this is Wikipedia, and anyone can edit, so why don't you try looking at the sources and then fixing the misbegotten prose.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Flight test accident: Dream Chaser landing gear anomoly
Whoops. Dream Chaser Flips Over After Landing, that was on the landing following the maiden flight of the Engineering Test Article (ETA) on 26 Oct 2013. The ETA was dropped from a helicopter, made the initial landing successfully, and then "lost control when 'weight on wheels', and flipped over on the runway." No analysis of cause yet, nor any report on how badly the ETA is damaged. N2e (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a later (two days after the flight) story in another standard space news source:   Sounds like the problem was the failure to deploy of a (non-standard; not what the flight vehicle will be using) landing gear, and they may be able to meet the flight test objectives even with the landing gear problem on the landing at the end of the flight.  Will take a couple of weeks to complete the investigation into the accident.  No word yet on whether SNC will fly the ETA again.  N2e (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Space.com has a big scoop on everyone (see:|Private Dream Chaser Space Plane Skids Off Runway After Milestone Test Flight) since they have the real story of what happened: The Dream Chaser ETA vehicle did NOT tumble or flip over, instead it stayed upright, skidded off the runway and is in reasonable shape, and may even fly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.154.157 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * SNC has released this edited video of the first flight test. Cuts off before the landing anomoly; but does clearly show the landing gear failing to fully deploy.  Video of Dream Chaser Approach and Landing Test N2e (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that SNC - and Space.com, repeating the SNC line - do not actually deny that the craft tumbled. Instead they use language which suggests the incident was minor. They do not say that the vehicle remained upright, merely that it "came to rest on its normal horizontal position on its main landing skids". Unfortunately they have not released video footage showing the actual landing, or commented on the damage beyond saying that the pressure vessel remained intact. Interesting to find that a craft with wheeled landing gear has "main landing skids". This would seem to be a rare, perhaps unique, configuration. --Pete (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I consider that weasel wording. It seems like people are trying to cling to the senationalism and trying to connect this accident to the spectacular looking Northrop M2-F2 accident with the end-over-end tumbling.

Skid means what it means:

skid /skid/ verb verb: skid; 3rd person present: skids; past tense: skidded; past participle: skidded; gerund or present participle: skidding(of a vehicle) slide, typically sideways or obliquely, on slippery ground or as a result of stopping or turning too quickly

If SNC and NASA are not good enough sources for what happened, then you have to show that the secondary news sources, like the one cited that the vehicle tumbled, have some basis for their claim. |Spaceflightnow.com is also reporting that the ETA skidded and likely did not tumble.

"In any case, the Dream Chaser's flight software responded to the unbalanced load at touchdown, keeping the spacecraft's left wing off the ground as long as possible. But it eventually came down and the craft skidded off the runway in a cloud of dust."

"Sierra Nevada released a video of the landing test, but it stops just short of touchdown and the runway skid is not seen. Sirangelo said dust obscured the view, but the spacecraft was found right side up and engineers do not believe it flipped over."

Nothing there specifically denies a tumble might have occured, but all indications at this time suggest that the vehicle managed to keep itself stable for a while upon touchdown and then it skidded off once the left side came down.

As such, I would respectually ask that someone edit the article to provide a more balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.34.38 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * all indications at this time suggest that the vehicle managed to keep itself stable for a while upon touchdown and then it skidded off once the left side came down. Care to share your source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.126.65 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with the logic presented by the two IP editors. It appears the article was just edited when the (initial) information had it wrong, and in the end, was a bit too sensational.  But on Wikipedia, anyone can edit, so be bold and make the adjustments to the statement(s) in the article that you think you can provide a good reliable source for.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanger
Reading the article now seem to be a rather revionist attempt to point to the DynaSoar as the direct antecedent of Dream CHaser. So why not go all the way back to Silbervogel?Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Over-reliance on primary sources
Looking at WP:PRIMARY, and looking at the article, it seems that a very large proportion of our text is based on primary sources from SNC. Perhaps we could tidy these up in accordance with policy? --Pete (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll start looking for more secondary sources that aren't SNC press releases. I'm removing their press releases if there is already a good secondary source in the article. Also if an entire paragraph is supported by one citation, I'm putting that at the end of the paragraph, not at the end of every sentence.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it dead?
They didn't choose it. So why not make a section on that? --user:Ericl — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 16 September 2014‎


 * Not chosen" is in the article. Does it need a whole section? Maybe, in the light of the lawsuit, which is notable. I am sure the Department of Defense would like to hear it is dead, and mature their own Boeing X-37. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Commercial?
That reads like a commercial from SNC. From the lede: "The Dream Chaser is an American reusable crewed suborbital and orbital lifting-body spaceplane [...]" - No, it's not. At the moment, it's a helicopter cargo that was dropped and crashed. I'm sure it can crash again, but I sure hope it won't be crewed, and I doubt it would be dropped from the orbit.

Will it be something more than this in the future? Possibly. When the time comes, the article should reflect that, but right it should be described as what it is: A proposal, an early development, or a failed prototype.-87.142.195.138 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is still being developed for an unmanned format for ISS resupply under CRS2. I think they have largely dropped plans for developing as crewed vehicle so I think crewed should be dropped and an explanation that crewed development stopped but a source for that would be good and needed. As for commercial, it does say it is 'being developed' rather than giving impression it is operational but perhaps there is a better reword? crandles (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has significant financial and technical support, unlike the Mars One scam, ehm, show. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They still intend to develop a crewed version in the future, and may compete for the next round of commercial crew contracts in 2020. Also, you omitted the next few words of the description, which says that it's "being developed" (which makes clear it's in development). Shelbystripes (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Engine
Orbitec to provide rocket engine for DC. (See http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/orbitec-to-fly-high-in-sierra-nevada-s-dream-chaser/article_3b9aa641-e3ce-5d7e-8ead-da4908bd2c30.html) it seems like they have changed the design of DC's propulsion system. The hybrid engine may be dropped. Maybe related section in the article should be updated.PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

United Nations conceptual DC mission in 2021?
Source here: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/30/495954858/the-united-nations-is-launching-a-space-mission. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete Photo
Should we replace the obsolete File:Dream Chaser Atlas V Integrated Launch Configuration.tif (Artist's conception of the Dream Chaser Space System in the launch configuration) with something more current like the illustration at https://assets.cdn.spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/22160312/atlas5-dreamchaser.jpg, owned by ULA who will launch the spacecraft on its Atlas 5 rocket.

After all, the idea that we would launch without a payload fairing is rather dated. We can, though, keep the Dynasoar photo as it is representative of early designs that led to the Dream Chaser.

user:mnw2000 09:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

History and Prospected launch date need to be cleaned up
This article is a mess to read with 100's of proposed and cancelled launch/test dates. It has no value to keep every previous promised date wich makes it way too confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevival (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What does cargo version use to dock or berth at ISS
The rear of the DC is shown attached to the ISS. For the CRS-2 cargo version is this a docking adapter or a berthing ring ? Will it always attach to ISS via the Shooting Star expendable cargo module ? If so, what mechanisms are at the front and rear of the cargo module ? Rod57 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)