Military Review

РљРѕРјРїР ° РЅРёСЏ Sierra Nevada сделР° ет РєРѕСЂР ° Р ± Р »СЊ Dream Chaser Р ± еспл РѕС‚РЅС ‹Рј

38
The Dream Chaser spacecraft (the “Runner for a Dream”) widely known in the aerospace community of the company SNC (Sierra Nevada Corporation) has previously dropped out of the fight for the right to deliver astronauts to the ISS in the future. However, in addition to the astronauts, various cargoes need to be delivered on board the International Space Station. Therefore, the spacecraft still has a small chance to visit space, but already in the role of an unmanned cargo ship.


The creation of the Dream Chaser spacecraft was carried out as part of the NASA program to transfer the organization of space flights and supply the ISS to private aerospace companies. The original Dream Chaser spacecraft was created solely to take part in the NASA Commercial Crew Program, in which the reusable spacecrafts were to deliver astronauts and cargo to the ISS and return with them back to Earth. However, to participate in this program the ship will not succeed. But he has a chance to catch on with the NASA Commercial Resupply Services 2 program (CRS2) for delivering cargo to the space station, this program covers the period from 2015 to 2024 a year. To participate in the competition to conclude a contract with NASA, Sierra Nevada presented its new version of the Dream Chaser spacecraft, capable of delivering various cargoes to Earth orbit, this time it is an unmanned spacecraft.

While all competing projects resembled a return to technology as early as the 60s of the 20th century, SNC offered a different approach - a real space plane with a carrier fuselage, which was able to take on board up to 7 passengers. This unit could fly as an ordinary plane during its return to Earth, completing its flight on an ordinary runway of the most ordinary airfield. It can be noted that the design of the Dream Chaser spacecraft was significantly different from the designs of the spacecraft of competitors represented by SpaceX and Boeing. This is not surprising, considering that the project from the SNC was a reincarnation of the shuttle and could fly in the atmosphere of the Earth, like an ordinary plane.



But the task of developing such a spacecraft turned out to be very difficult, so the specialists from Sierra Nevada completely lost the competition to their main competitors, the company Boeing with its spacecraft CST-100 and the company SpaceX with the spacecraft Dragon Grew. NASA experts decided to give preference to the standard capsule ships. It is already known that the US space agency is ready to allocate 2,6 a billion dollars to SpaceX for the development of the Dragon capsule and 4,2 a billion dollars to Boeing for the development of the ship CST-100.

Despite protests by lawyers from SNC, representatives of the US Government Accountability Office, the US Department of Public Responsibility, left the decision taken by NASA unchanged. Now the company is again preparing to enter the “arena of struggle” with competitors, but with a renewed ship. This is an automatic unmanned cargo ship Dream Chaser. Now the company wants to conduct its spacecraft as a transport, delivering cargo on board the ISS.

According to the available information from the Sierra Nevada company, their unmanned version of the Dream Chaser spacecraft is almost the same ship as before, it is not far from the first option. The spacecraft is driven by a unique hybrid rocket engine that uses special plastic (hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, HTPB) as fuel and nitrous oxide as an oxidizer. Unlike the manned version of “Running for a Dream,” an unmanned cargo ship will receive unsealed and sealed compartments, and its wings will have a folding structure. Thanks to the folding wings, the truck can be easily “packaged” inside a standard protective capsule used on Atlas V and Ariane 5 launch vehicles.



The Dream Chaser spacecraft is launched into orbit with the help of an Atlas V rocket, while the ship is located at the top of the rocket, in contrast to its lateral position, as was the case with the Space Shuttle. This arrangement makes it impossible to damage the spacecraft at the time of launch. Landing - horizontal aircraft. At the same time, the possibility was provided not just of planning, like that of shuttles, but a full-fledged independent flight with the possibility of landing on any runways with a length of at least 2500 meters. The case of the device is made of composite materials and has ceramic elements of thermal protection.

Currently, the spacecraft continues to undergo tests of its systems for the commission of a future first flight into space, although NASA did not choose this type of spacecraft to deliver astronauts onboard the ISS. The next stage of the tests conducted under the number 15 proves that the jet control system of the Dream Chaser spacecraft is able to operate in vacuum conditions close to real space conditions. This system should help the prospective shuttle to perform various maneuvers while in space, as well as control the spacecraft during takeoff and landing.

“Overcoming this test line, we will be able to test the reliability and safety of our motor system,” says Mark Sirangelo, who is vice president of Sierra Nevada’s Space Systems Division. “Successfully overcoming this phase of testing will bring us closer to the first orbital flight of our new space shuttle.” It is worth noting that Sierra Nevada has already successfully completed all but one of the 13 test phases, which are conducted in accordance with the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Agreement (CCiCap).



The promising space shuttle Dream Chaser is expected to continue flight testing at the end of 2015. It is assumed that the tests will be conducted at Ellington Airport in Houston, which will be used as a landing site. As the official representative of Sierra Nevada said, Ellington International Airport has already received permission to use it as a “cosmodrome”.

The report of the head of the corporation Sierra Nevada Mark Sirangelo says that the agreement with the Houston airport will allow the company to realize all the advantages of the spacecraft "Dream Chaser". This can provide us with the opportunity to deliver materials and goods of particular value to scientists from Houston directly from space. Earlier in the press there was information that the first unmanned orbital flight of the new space shuttle was to be held on November 1 of the year 2016.







Information sources:
http://www.ridus.ru/news/182420
http://24space.ru/138-kosmicheskiy-korabl-dream-chaser-prodolzhaet-ispytaniya.html
http://www.nanonewsnet.ru/news/2015/kompaniya-sierra-nevada-predstavlyaet-bespilotnyi-gruzovoi-variant-svoego-kosmicheskogo-ko
http://www.spacedev.com
Author:
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kair501
    Kair501 April 10 2015 06: 47 New
    12
    In the union, this was developed forty years ago
    1. Grenader
      Grenader April 10 2015 08: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: Kair501
      In the union, this was developed forty years ago

      Precisely molded "Spiral". Have you sold it? "Spiral" is a space fighter, it looks like the Americans are transferring the arms race into space, and we, as always, will catch up. But the development of this project began with us in the 60s. It seems all the same that someone sold the project to the Americans. The most vile betrayal. Find the culprit and shoot.
      1. erg
        erg April 10 2015 09: 26 New
        +3
        Devices operating in similar conditions will usually have the same design, differing in details, often invisible during a surface inspection. It is unlikely that someone sold something to them. They have enough of their smart people. And they have more experience in the construction and operation of reusable systems.
        1. midshipman
          midshipman April 10 2015 14: 13 New
          +3
          They sold a lot and very cheaply, practically for nothing - in the literal sense of the word, and not only mattresses but yellow-faced "new friends", to deny this is upwardly stupid .., forgive me, I will not be so categorical. And the "spiral" project is visible to the naked eye.
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet April 10 2015 12: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Grenader
        Precisely molded "Spiral". Have you sold it?

        Did they sell us the Shuttle too?
        1. midshipman
          midshipman April 10 2015 14: 14 New
          +2
          But Nothing that the Shuttle and Buran have a different design?
          1. erg
            erg April 10 2015 15: 36 New
            -1
            And in what? More details please. Do not touch the carrier that displays the orbital plane (the shuttle according to theirs). There are really different designs.
            1. saag
              saag April 10 2015 18: 23 New
              0
              Quote: erg
              And in what?

              The engine, the supply of external power, well, if you do not take into account the internal filling, then nothing more
            2. Aljavad
              Aljavad April 12 2015 18: 38 New
              0
              And what is it (different design)? More details please. Do not touch the carrier that displays the orbital plane (the shuttle according to theirs). There are really different designs.


              The shuttle does not have a "launch vehicle" as a class. He himself is a carrier with a hanging tank and TTU.
              And Buran has a "Launch vehicle".

              In more detail - google.
              1. erg
                erg April 13 2015 13: 13 New
                0
                Read my question carefully. I asked to point out the differences in the spacecraft, and not the entire system. I already know that Buran was taken out by the Energiya carrier rocket, which is an independent system and could be used to withdraw other cargo. Our entire system was called Energy - Buran. The shuttle was withdrawn with the help of boosters and an outboard tank, but the booster tank was also supposed to be used as an independent system for the withdrawal of other cargo. But the Americans did not begin to develop this "theme", considering that it would not justify itself. Difficult and expensive. Since both the tank and the boosters had to be modified in order to launch other cargoes into orbit. But what is the difference between our and theirs orbital aircraft, which allows us to say that these are fundamentally different designs? Nothing. They are identical designs to each other. Not copies of each other, but similar, using common principles in the design and operation of units. Naturally, they differ in individual nodes.
          2. Bayonet
            Bayonet April 10 2015 17: 00 New
            +2
            Quote: michmanchariton
            But Nothing that the Shuttle and Buran have a different design?

            And the new ship of the Americans is a 100% copy of the Laptya?
          3. Simple
            Simple April 10 2015 22: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: michmanchariton
            But Nothing that the Shuttle and Buran have a different design?

            aerodynamic design, withdrawal method, descent method, TK coating are basically the same
            http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_preview/6/9/4/316496.jpg
            RD-170 did not fit into the dimensions of the stern (and this is minus the snowstorm, the most valuable disappeared)
            ============================================






            even air transportation methods - like brothers



      3. Bayonet
        Bayonet April 12 2015 07: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Grenader
        Precisely molded "Spiral".

        Visual image of the Spiral orbital aircraft.
      4. Aljavad
        Aljavad April 12 2015 18: 25 New
        0
        Precisely molded "Spiral". Have you sold it? Spiral is a space fighter


        The "Spiral" fighter was designed as a purely military vehicle. Single, with a minimal possibility of interaction with the OKS (passage through open space in a spacesuit).

        There was no need to sell much. It's just that in the years of "the triumph of universal human values" everything and everyone was shown. The Statesmen borrowed the Spiral's aerodynamics and the Bohr launch method. But their car is much larger - 7-seater.

        We would like that.
    2. avt
      avt April 10 2015 10: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Kair501
      In the union, this was developed forty years ago

      In in! Ahhh ... get angry! The bast is pure. request
      Quote: erg
      Devices operating in similar conditions will usually have the same design, differing in details, often invisible during a surface inspection.

      And compare our "Boras" and theirs of the time X sy, what they threw from the planes.
      Quote: erg
      . It is unlikely that someone sold something to them.

      fool You were in the 90s where ????? And the ISS, or rather its main unit is that ?? They sold and not only to them - but also pumpkinavts from China inherited from the sale of the USSR.
      Quote: erg
      . They have enough of their smart people.

      Clever - yes, they also buy it all over the World, but von Braun’s caliber ... yes, it actually ended with it.
      1. erg
        erg April 10 2015 15: 43 New
        +1
        Our burs and their X's, which flew a little earlier, are different in type and purpose. Although it would be necessary to clarify which American devices you mean. They almost always have experimental machines, regardless of their destination, have an index of x. And then, I wrote, as a rule, which means the presence of other components.
        1. avt
          avt April 10 2015 16: 53 New
          +1
          Quote: erg
          specify which American devices you mean.

          Yes, even with the X owls that Yeager and Everest flew around - rocket planes, or rather their descendants with the so-called “carrier body.” Ours started with the devices that the captured Tsyze flew around on the Pe-8, practically the starting position was the same - from, , gloomy German genius ", and with the help of captured Germans both here and overseas. The roots are the same, but in the "architecture" then they diverged quite specifically and the usovskie so on "Lapot" and on "Bor" were not similar. Well, if you want, like the Yak on the P-51.
        2. avt
          avt April 10 2015 17: 09 New
          0
          Quote: erg
          Our burs and their X's, which flew a little earlier, are different in type and purpose.

          No. I do not agree in principle, albeit with a delay. laughing All this, both with us and with the US, and the Germans, went in the same direction - into space for the atmosphere, another thing is that later, in the course of the race for the result, they came to disposable capsules - "spaceships", but the spacecraft and the King with with wings in notebooks he sketched, by the way, in the form of one or two local versions of the descent vehicle, talked about this with Lavochkin, well, at least that's what the old people from the first in the smoking room told. "missiles on a ballistic trajectory were launched with a return.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 12 2015 07: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Kair501
      In the union, this was developed forty years ago

      In the picture, the MiG-105.11 is a subsonic analogue of the combat
      Spiral Project Orbital Aircraft
      Air Museum in Monino (Moscow Oblast)
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb April 10 2015 07: 19 New
    +3
    In my opinion, this apparatus with aerodynamic contours is very similar to some developments of the USSR.
    -Coincidence?
    - I don’t think so ...
    PS
    Figure taken here:
    http: //www.buran.ru /htm/bors.htm
    (remove spaces from the link)
  4. Aleksiy
    Aleksiy April 10 2015 08: 03 New
    +1
    Here on such examples, and we must learn. To start at least with cars, in Russia there are enough specialists to copy American technology in the automotive industry, I'm not talking about electronics. Here UAZ is a good car, but they cannot create any engines they own, they would take and copy them.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 April 10 2015 16: 08 New
      +1
      UAZ - shit. UAZ Patriot is upgraded every year, but only spoils even more. As if on purpose. Big car, but stupid. Simple Oise - those whose national name the local filter removes, and loaves are generally brewed in a collective farm workshop.
    2. saag
      saag April 10 2015 18: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Aleksiy
      To start at least with cars, in Russia there are enough specialists to copy American technology in the automotive industry

      So who will tell me that the American automatic transmission Borg Warner was not copied like that, on the basis of it did everyone else in the world do it?
  5. Aquarius
    Aquarius April 10 2015 08: 30 New
    0
    Ours flew into space more than once! (unmanned)
    1. avt
      avt April 10 2015 10: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Aquarius
      Ours flew into space more than once! (unmanned)

      "Lapot" didn’t fly, and they didn’t even make an accelerator, "Boras" did. Lozino-Lozinsky offered to revive "Mriya" on the basis, but as always - there is no money ....
      Quote: Falcon
      Here at the Americans, capsule systems won. Our create PPTS is also capsular.

      Because "Russia" was designed on "Energia", so we were talking to our "Dragons".
      Quote: Falcon
      I don’t understand why everyone is abandoning spaceships created as a shuttle (airplane).

      Ask those who, "Clipper" hacked to death.
      1. Magarych
        Magarych 22 May 2015 08: 37 New
        0
        "bast" flew, and more than once. In the 60s he flew, and before the launch of "Buran", he worked out thermal protection on it.
  6. Falcon
    Falcon April 10 2015 08: 38 New
    +1
    I don’t understand why everyone is abandoning spaceships created as a shuttle (airplane).
    Here at the Americans, capsule systems won. Our create PPTS is also capsular.

    I understand the space shuttle and Buran were huge and expensive, but modern projects are compact. Why then the choice falls on the capsule?
    1. erg
      erg April 10 2015 09: 18 New
      +4
      Let me explain with an example. In order not to burn out in the atmosphere during landing, the ship has thermal protection. Due to the weight characteristics, the greatest thickness is at the bottom of the apparatus, that is, in that part of the apparatus with which it enters the atmosphere. Why is the entrance carried out at the bottom, and not, for example, nose first? First, aerodynamic braking occurs, which reduces the entry speed and, accordingly, the heating temperature. Secondly, since the apparatus heats up anyway, with this method of descent, the lower part is exposed to the greatest heating, the upper is less. This means you can save on weight by protecting the bottom more than the top of the device. When entering, for example, nose forward, the entire apparatus will be heated, and additional aerodynamic brakes will be required to reduce the speed, which will complicate the design. Now about the problems of launching such a device. It is necessary to accurately maintain the angle of entry, for which the rudders on the wings serve. A slightly larger angle - the entry speed is lower, the heating is slightly less (but still sufficient to destroy the apparatus), but the time of exposure to high temperatures increases. And despite the thermal protection, the structure may collapse (the metal expands under the influence of temperature). The smaller the angle - the speed is higher, the heating is greater, and the less protected parts of the apparatus are exposed to more intense temperature. The result is the same - destruction. In addition, as can be seen from what has been written, such devices are very "sensitive" to the state of thermal protection. The slightest flaw and disaster. Which is exactly what happened in the last shuttle accident.
      1. Falcon
        Falcon April 10 2015 09: 54 New
        +1
        Thank you!
        Rarely can you meet the comments of experts!
      2. lazy
        lazy April 10 2015 16: 28 New
        0
        harder to agree, but with mass flights, it should be much cheaper. Imagine that we would carry out all air transportation with one-time airplanes, how much would a ticket from Moscow to Anadyr cost? Yes, even to Peter? reusability is an inevitable step
    2. adept666
      adept666 April 15 2015 16: 46 New
      0
      I understand the space shuttle and Buran were huge and expensive, but modern projects are compact. Why then the choice falls on the capsule?


      In addition to the problems described by Mr. Erg below, there is one more: we and the Americans dream of the Moon / Mars, where either there is no atmosphere at all, or it is too thin and therefore a spacecraft made according to the "glider" scheme is not suitable for landing on their surface.
  7. Amur
    Amur April 10 2015 08: 52 New
    0
    beautiful pictures, samopiar however
  8. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y April 10 2015 09: 52 New
    +2
    Not only I have "deja vu" ...
  9. tchoni
    tchoni April 10 2015 09: 56 New
    0
    The benefits of such reusable spaceships when supplying the same ISS or what they are planning to get in the near future are not entirely clear ... Do not assemble automation and control systems every time - it doesn’t work ... It may be easier and cheaper to make a return unit using parachute systems?
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 April 10 2015 16: 18 New
      +1
      Someday the parachute will not open. After all, it was. Or a capsule will sit on someone’s head. Not yet, but surely it will be early and late. They are uncontrollable after entering the atmosphere, as you know. It can be planted only in deserted steppes or in the sea. You can drown in the sea. Or get directly into a random ship. Or into the water, but right at his rate. How it will be later depends on good luck.
  10. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 10 2015 16: 34 New
    +1
    Does he, Chayzer, have a front wheel? Likely took an example from the Spiral. She didn’t have them at all. And in vain. It was stupid. Any bump will be caught during an emergency landing, and that’s it. And take off on an airplane is impossible. A spiral of watermelon peels was launched. Comedians. And public relations must be taken into account. Everything for space should be beautiful. Otherwise, they will not give finances (which happened there, and it happened to the Spiral), and people don’t get excited.
  11. Navy7981
    Navy7981 April 10 2015 19: 02 New
    +1
    Of course "Spiral" !!! And the e mers did not even try to hide anything! Again, the next ghouls managed to sell!
    1. avt
      avt April 10 2015 19: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Navy7981
      ! Again the next ghouls managed to sell !!!

      There was such a tricky program - "commercial pokatushki" into orbit, well, like that Ryan who recently broke the device for which he had already sold tickets. we will build here in your Zhukovsky a commercial spacecraft and we will row money with a shovel of $ 100-200 thousand of dead spinners. They let him go to "Lapta" and "Pterodaktel" - "Geodesy", so they say from him, the American said, tourists on your "Lapta" and we will launch them. This is how, for a fraction of the time, the US hero of this article appeared, absolutely similar to "Lapot".
  12. Tishka
    Tishka April 11 2015 01: 49 New
    +3
    Sorry to interfere, but then quite by accident I got into the development of the Myasishchev Design Bureau. I was always surprised, his approach to the topic was not standard, the person thought in a completely different plane, and always found non-standard solutions, and his planes, and that reusable spacecraft for flying into space, is just a masterpiece! Some of his ideas were implemented in metal, but in other KB. Both Buran and the Shuttle, this is all in the past, we need to move forward, and not fiddle with a one-time "Hangar", in which there is nothing new, well, except for fuel. Both Lapot and Myasishchev's ideas. But descent is like a term, damping speed due to the atmosphere, diving. On capsule descent vehicles, this is not possible, for the reason that on the descent trajectory, it is not controllable, and only the direction of the wind leads to where it lands. And helicopters are watching the descent vehicle to know exactly where it landed. If you land on an airplane, then the number of dives in the atmosphere is practically unlimited, anyway, then you can adjust the descent and land on the airfield. and the launch, it is better to make in the equator, where it is, with refueling. will fully fly under its own power. Of course, not everything is so easy and simple, and there will certainly be difficulties, but in Russia, the Kulibins have not yet died out, and they will always find a solution to how this can be fixed! So, the matter is small, after all, stop marking time, and be proud of past results, and move forward!
  13. Mwg
    Mwg April 11 2015 13: 47 New
    0
    Almost a copy of the Soviet reusable spacecraft of the 70-80s, current increased and stuffed with modern electronics. The USA has nothing of its own. All ideas are ours. Vertuhi - Sikorsky from Russia, Spaceships - copies of Russian, engines for rockets - Russian, HARP system - bought from Russia, the concept of laser weapons from Russia bought. The eternal American approach is to take someone else's and scream to everyone that it was theirs and always has been. And who does not believe - will get on the head)))
  14. Aljavad
    Aljavad April 12 2015 18: 29 New
    0
    Crying bitterly!
    There was Spiral! There were "Boras"!

    Why not make a compact, economical multi-purpose and reusable device for vertical launch and horizontal landing ?!

    We were one step away from this! All system components were available ...
  15. dzeredzavkomimu
    dzeredzavkomimu April 17 2015 00: 46 New
    0
    Nobody canceled the laws of aerodynamics, who drew from whom, the question is rhetorical, differences in nuances, we stole the spiral from America and brought it to mind