Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Dream Chaser Space Plane
Quote | Reply
Sierra Nevada Corporation has developed the Dream Chaser, a 30-foot-long "space utility vehicle" it's marketing as a crew and cargo transport device to get both into low Earth orbit, or LEO.

I think this is a great development and the public-private model (i.e. NASA and various commercial enterprises) is the way to go for at least the LEO stuff. My hope, though, is that we'll break out of low Earth orbit soon and start heading ' out there' -- whether first back to the Moon or to Mars and beyond, someday -- because that's where we're meant to be.

We're an explorer species, after all. So let's go exploring, because the effort we put into such space exploration has always led to uncounted positive developments -- such as inventions across a wide spectrum of endeavor -- that benefit the entirety of the human race.

"At 30 feet long, it looks like a Matchbox car crossed with a stingray. But it has outsize ambitions. Its maker, Sierra Nevada Corporation, calls it a “space utility vehicle,” marketing it as a crew and cargo transport to low Earth orbit. After delivery, the idea goes, it will fly down to the kind of runways that line big-city airports. That could make it a uniquely accessible piece of space infrastructure—for NASA, other nations, or even companies that want to try their hands at spaceflight.

During today’s “captive carry” test, Sierra Nevada aimed to see whether its SUV rides as expected at the altitudes where it will later free-fly. But it’s not ready to go that high on its own, so the Chinook lifted it there, flying it around in loops like a parent keeping a hand on the back of a kid’s bike seat.

The Dream Chaser’s basic design came from Russia—or, to be more precise, from spying on Russia."

Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser Hitches a Ride With a Helicopter | WIRED




"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
I think this is a great development and the public-private model (i.e. NASA and various commercial enterprises) is the way to go for at least the LEO stuff. My hope, though, is that we'll break out of low Earth orbit soon and start heading ' out there' -- whether first back to the Moon or to Mars and beyond, someday -- because that's where we're meant to be.
Here you go - https://www.nasa.gov/...distant-destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Gateway

The intent is to hand LEO over to the free market while NASA focuses on deeper space. I personally didn't see it going anywhere but have been surprised at the political and $$$ support it has been receiving.

big kahuna wrote:
The Dream Chaser’s basic design came from Russia—or, to be more precise, from spying on Russia."
Rather, the heritage is all US. Lifting bodies were a big topic in the '50s and '60s, and the Soviets took influence from us. Dream Chaser, to me, shares much more from various X-projects and the HL-xx lifting bodies. BTW, back in the mid 90s to early 2000s, I worked on the X-38, which was originally to be the crew return vehicle for the ISS. That vehicle was actually a scaled up version of the old X-24A. The scale-up allowed us to utilize the existing aerodynamic data rather than engage in exhaustive wind tunnel testing. Unfortunately Congress decided to squeeze the funding and we stopped. But it was fun while it lasted. Spent many days out at Edwards for captive and drop tests.
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
I think this is a great development and the public-private model (i.e. NASA and various commercial enterprises) is the way to go for at least the LEO stuff. My hope, though, is that we'll break out of low Earth orbit soon and start heading ' out there' -- whether first back to the Moon or to Mars and beyond, someday -- because that's where we're meant to be.

Here you go - https://www.nasa.gov/...distant-destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Gateway

The intent is to hand LEO over to the free market while NASA focuses on deeper space. I personally didn't see it going anywhere but have been surprised at the political and $$$ support it has been receiving.

big kahuna wrote:
The Dream Chaser’s basic design came from Russia—or, to be more precise, from spying on Russia."

Rather, the heritage is all US. Lifting bodies were a big topic in the '50s and '60s, and the Soviets took influence from us. Dream Chaser, to me, shares much more from various X-projects and the HL-xx lifting bodies. BTW, back in the mid 90s to early 2000s, I worked on the X-38, which was originally to be the crew return vehicle for the ISS. That vehicle was actually a scaled up version of the old X-24A. The scale-up allowed us to utilize the existing aerodynamic data rather than engage in exhaustive wind tunnel testing. Unfortunately Congress decided to squeeze the funding and we stopped. But it was fun while it lasted. Spent many days out at Edwards for captive and drop tests.

Awesome info. I've been following the ups-and-downs of US space exploration for a while now, especially since we parked the last space shuttle several years ago. Hopefully, all of this going to reach a critical mass soon and off we'll go. :-)

Disclosure: I'm kicking around a story related to the space shuttle and getting to Mars, for various reasons (and the old shuttle couldn't get out of LEO for lack of propellant, so I had to solve that problem, at least for science fiction purposes, first, and then the matter of conjunction-class missions and whatnot), which is how I stumbled across Dream Chaser lately. I'd also been following Robert Zubrin's advocacy for Mars Direct, and learned a great deal from his efforts. We need to get back 'out there' eventually, and hopefully it'll be sooner rather than later.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.

You just touched on every single issue I had to research on in order to make this fantastical (because that's what it is: fantastical ;-) space-shuttle-to-Mars concept work, at least in a science fiction sense. LOL! What did they say in "The Martian?" That they had to "science the sh*t" out of the problems they faced? ;-).

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
I think this is a great development and the public-private model (i.e. NASA and various commercial enterprises) is the way to go for at least the LEO stuff. My hope, though, is that we'll break out of low Earth orbit soon and start heading ' out there' -- whether first back to the Moon or to Mars and beyond, someday -- because that's where we're meant to be.

Here you go - https://www.nasa.gov/...distant-destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Gateway

The intent is to hand LEO over to the free market while NASA focuses on deeper space. I personally didn't see it going anywhere but have been surprised at the political and $$$ support it has been receiving.

big kahuna wrote:
The Dream Chaser’s basic design came from Russia—or, to be more precise, from spying on Russia."

Rather, the heritage is all US. Lifting bodies were a big topic in the '50s and '60s, and the Soviets took influence from us. Dream Chaser, to me, shares much more from various X-projects and the HL-xx lifting bodies. BTW, back in the mid 90s to early 2000s, I worked on the X-38, which was originally to be the crew return vehicle for the ISS. That vehicle was actually a scaled up version of the old X-24A. The scale-up allowed us to utilize the existing aerodynamic data rather than engage in exhaustive wind tunnel testing. Unfortunately Congress decided to squeeze the funding and we stopped. But it was fun while it lasted. Spent many days out at Edwards for captive and drop tests.

Steve Austin was flying an M2-F2 lifting body when he crashed.

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why do we need to rely on rockets to get to LEO? What happened to the ideas of launching piggyback style or using a maglev track?
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [Trieatalot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trieatalot wrote:
Why do we need to rely on rockets to get to LEO? What happened to the ideas of launching piggyback style or using a maglev track?


Rockets are sexy and fast and they attract public attention. You can escape LEO with relatively small amounts of thrust if you have the time and the patience and the propellant, I'd say. I'm no science boffin, believe me, but I don't see huge physical problems with getting out there. Cost is another matter entirely, at this stage (see what I did there? ;-), however.

Once you're out into space, all manner of propulsion to get us from Point A to Point B exists. Light sails, Bussard ramjets, you name it. We could even build a space elevator -- using existing technology -- right now to get us into space and, from there, we can choose any manner of systems to leave LEO and head for the moon, Mars, the outer planets and the stars, given enough time (and energy). Again, it's about cost. And will. Do we have the will anymore? To me, that's an open question.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Last edited by: big kahuna: Aug 31, 17 11:47
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.

not to mention when you get there (air, water. food).
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
True, but they might just move the goal posts. The current limits on radiation are only for LEO missions, their technically is no established limit for Deep Space Exploration. You can also pretty much solve the problem by taking old men.
Quote:
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
agree, but SLS will have a VERY big fairing. And the volume issue is probably going to his the ascent vehicle more than the crew hab.

Quote:
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
I'll disagree with this one. Being remote from a medical facility will be an issue, but impacts on the body from micro gravity have been pretty much solved as long as you get the crew to actually do their exercises. And you really only need 6 months before you are in a gravity well
Quote:
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.
This will be a balance with 3). the more complicated your environmental support, the lest robust it might be. In the end taking along more consumables might be off set by reduced spares and risk of failure.
You missed the two of the biggies for a Mars mission: getting down to the surface and mental health.
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [Runguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Runguy wrote:
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.


not to mention when you get there (air, water. food).

Most scenarios envision sending those items ahead, including O2 generation units and such. At about $10,000 just to boost a pound of whatever into space, let alone what it costs to get to Mars, it'll be quite an expenditure of money. But we spend money on all kinds of stupid stuff down here on Earth, most would say. So why not spend the money on stupid stuff in space? ;-)

Once on Mars, it's possible -- given what we know about the planet -- to either grow or make all those things there, theoretically. Frozen water may be bound up in the Martian soil, and if not we can make it through chemical processes that have been around since the mid-19th century. The soil itself is iron-rich (but potassium poor), and it's easy enough to make oxygen, which is very scare in the atmosphere. But there's no doubt that Mars will try to kill you dead every second of your time there. No way around that.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [torrey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
torrey wrote:
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty

True, but they might just move the goal posts. The current limits on radiation are only for LEO missions, their technically is no established limit for Deep Space Exploration. You can also pretty much solve the problem by taking old men.


Excepting the occasional solar flare (currently projected to be about two in a six-month period, though if Mars and Earth are aligned correctly, a trip there could be shaved to four months), radiation exposure would probably be about 60 rem (probably...I'm not a radiation health physicist, either).

That would be about 30 rem there (or 300 mSv) and 30 rem back, with additional exposure if down on the Martian surface for any length of time. A 200 to 300 rem exposure can bring about radiation sickness, while a 400 to 1000 rem dose would bring on early death. Anything above 1000 to 5000 rem would bring on death in just a few days.

As as has been alluded to, shielding of some sort, such as surrounding yourself with the provisions aboard the ship and any other barriers that can be interposed between you and the radiation, can mitigate much of it.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [torrey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
torrey wrote:
Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO)
may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
agree, but SLS will have a VERY big fairing. And the volume issue is probably going to his the ascent vehicle more than the crew hab.[/quote]SLS will indeed have a very big fairing, but that big fairing only arrives with Block 2. Don't know how official the proposed timeline is at https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Space_Launch_System, but even that shows 2029 for the Block 2 upgrade with DSG starting well before that. Also, early DSG concepts have been downsized to reflect that late SLS upgrade.

torrey wrote:
Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK. I'll disagree with this one. Being remote from a medical facility will be an issue, but impacts on the body from micro gravity have been pretty much solved as long as you get the crew to actually do their exercises. And you really only need 6 months before you are in a gravity well
Problem is, you may not be able to fly all those same exercise devices and they only a address a subset of the physiological issues of spaceflight. Things like the ISS treadmills take up a lot of rack space. I'm no expert in flight medicine, so I have to give my trust to flight docs. Things like https://ntrs.nasa.gov/....gov/20150009516.pdf are still an active area, particularly for DSG.

torrey wrote:
You missed the two of the biggies for a Mars mission: getting down to the surface and mental health.
Yep. Mars re-entry is a whole other issue.Don't think humans want to land like some of the past JPL missions :)
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes you have to shield against solar flares (little known fact, but if there had been a solar flare during any of the Apollo missions the crew would have been killed. It was an unknown risk and they just got lucky.) But that can be done with a "storm shelter" since they are short events. That makes EVAs tricky since you have to get back into your shelter in whatever warning time you are given.

The real issue is galactic cosmic rays. There is no known shielding against them at the moment, but they also won't cause immediate problems like radiation sickness. At least not anything practical, but I am hearing some promising things about very strong magnetic fields. But those may cause more harm than good. The NASA rule is based not on your actual exposure, but you increased risk of dying from radiation induced cancer. So one fix would be to cure cancer and the NIH is working on that. Using old men works because they are more likely to die from things like strokes and heart attacks before the cancer finally does them in. Or they could use genomics to select the crew. The ethical implications of using age, sex or genes for crew selection might just result in them doubling the risk from 2% to 4% and the problem is solved for a 3 year mission.
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [torrey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
torrey wrote:
Yes you have to shield against solar flares (little known fact, but if there had been a solar flare during any of the Apollo missions the crew would have been killed. It was an unknown risk and they just got lucky.) But that can be done with a "storm shelter" since they are short events. That makes EVAs tricky since you have to get back into your shelter in whatever warning time you are given.

The real issue is galactic cosmic rays. There is no known shielding against them at the moment, but they also won't cause immediate problems like radiation sickness. At least not anything practical, but I am hearing some promising things about very strong magnetic fields. But those may cause more harm than good. The NASA rule is based not on your actual exposure, but you increased risk of dying from radiation induced cancer. So one fix would be to cure cancer and the NIH is working on that. Using old men works because they are more likely to die from things like strokes and heart attacks before the cancer finally does them in. Or they could use genomics to select the crew. The ethical implications of using age, sex or genes for crew selection might just result in them doubling the risk from 2% to 4% and the problem is solved for a 3 year mission.

I knew about the solar flares-Apollo issue. I'd built my first Saturn V model rocket, complete with removable LEM and CSM, in 1968 (it was pretty tall and I think Revell made it ;-). Those were exciting years for US space exploration, and I wish we could recapture that excitement and spirit of exploration.

If I recall corretly, the James Michener novel "Space" touched on the problem of solar flares when one of the astronauts on the Moon was caught out in the midst of a large one and was bombarded by solar radiation, dying in the process.

Galactic ionizing radiation is also an issue, no doubt. Maybe some sort of artificially generated magnetic field is possible? I even hear talk of setting up some sort of artificially generated magnetic field in front of Mars to at least shield it from solar radiation. These are all fantastically expensive propositions, but not out of the realm of possibility, either engineering-wise or fiscal-wise.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [Runguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Runguy wrote:
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.


not to mention when you get there (air, water. food).

In the case of air, we can put a 2 tesla magnet at Mars' L1 Langrange point and establish a workable atmosphere in 40-60 years. It's not quite *that* simple but it's a very elegant solution to dealing with solar winds.
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GreenPlease wrote:
Runguy wrote:
tigermilk wrote:
Probably the biggest issues associated with going to Mars:

1) Radiation - how to protect people without a significant weight penalty
2) Volume - do you want to be crammed in a small can for months? Inflatables (not a new technology, and NASA was building TransHab before Congress shut that one down too; Bigelow licensed the technology and now has BEAM on ISS along with one or two "free flyers" in LEO) may be an answer, but also things like better packaging of hardware, loss of redundancy, etc.
3) Repairs - don't have the luxury of Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, Progress, and Soyuz to deliver spare parts. 3D printing in space could be a big issue.
4) Astronaut health - what can be done to create an artificial gravity environment? For those longer than 6 month missions, the body really does need some gravity to keep all those organic systems OK.
5) Environmental systems - need efficient systems to scrub air, turn urine into drinking water, etc.

Really going to deep space is just like the early nautical explorers; you had to have the supplies on deck to survive the trip. But here you can't even drop a line in the ocean to fish. So you need to launch a ton of provisions. But the rub is that there's only so much volume you can put underneath the fairing of an expendable rocket. It's a fun challenge.


not to mention when you get there (air, water. food).


In the case of air, we can put a 2 tesla magnet at Mars' L1 Langrange point and establish a workable atmosphere in 40-60 years. It's not quite *that* simple but it's a very elegant solution to dealing with solar winds.

Sounds like we can do it. So why don't we? Lack of (long range) vision? Lack of will? Lack of resources? All patent excuses, I think.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dream Chaser on its captive carry test on August 30th. "Mini-space shuttle?" Perhaps. But the science fiction possibilities for me are very attractive. Back to the Atomic Rockets website to plumb some more of the science behind getting this little bird out of LEO and into LMO. ;-)



"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here was one of our captive carry flights - or rather, drop test. Even though it landed with a parafoil, it was a guided landing. Control lines allowed the vehicle/parafoil to make turns and have a targeted landing in a small diameter (as in just a few hundred meters) circle.



Lifting bodies are fun!
Quote Reply
Re: Dream Chaser Space Plane [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigermilk wrote:
Here was one of our captive carry flights - or rather, drop test. Even though it landed with a parafoil, it was a guided landing. Control lines allowed the vehicle/parafoil to make turns and have a targeted landing in a small diameter (as in just a few hundred meters) circle.



Lifting bodies are fun!

That's awesome! :-)

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply