NASA books space shuttle delivery truck NASA looks set to get back into the space shuttle business with the announcement of three International Space Station cargo delivery contracts, one of which has been handed to Sierra Nevada Corporation and its "Dream Chaser" vehicle. The Dream Chaser docked with the ISS. Pic: Sierra Nevada Corporation Coming soon to an ISS …
I believe that was real crash footage from some experimental vehicle.
If you want an in-depth answer then you should read "The Lifting Body Story" by Dale Reed, but the short(ish) version is this:
During the 60's and 70's NASA was experimenting with lifting body aircraft. One of the designs was known as the M2-F2, and the footage of a crash of that one ended up as the start to the $6M man.
Another design was the Northrup HL-10 (as seen in this cool picture). Later the design was refined to produce the HL-20 and X-23, and although the HL-20 never flew, it's design was used for both Farscape 1 (fictionally), and Dream Chaser (in reality).
So the space program now contracts out it's work, since contractors can skimp on safety and force workers to handle highly dangerous and fatally toxic materials with impunity, unlike NASA that not only has to follow safety regulations, but has to pay health care costs for injured workers.
So the space program now contracts out it's work, since contractors can skimp on safety and force workers to handle highly dangerous and fatally toxic materials with impunity, unlike NASA that not only has to follow safety regulations, but has to pay health care costs for injured workers.
If you understood the impact of government regulation, you would never, ever make such an asinine, uninformed statement. Ever. Now, go find a different bridge to live under.
Umm... what? Are you on drugs? If you are - stop. If you're not, take some and chill the fuck out.
Pretty sure you'll find the private enterprises have the same worker safety and materials handling requirements that NASA does. They just don't have the pork and other massive administration overheads.
Oh I think you'll find NASA outside contractors have plenty of pork. Oh dear yes. That's why United Launch Alliance already cost something like twice as much to launch satellites as SpaceX, and possibly more. Also, for the manned missions to the ISS in a few years time, I believe Boeing are costing twice as much money as SpaceX to do the same 6 launches each.
NASA have always used outside contractors anyway. Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc. The only difference is that now the contractors are also operating the kit, as well as supplying it.
since contractors can skimp on safety and force workers to handle highly dangerous and fatally toxic materials with impunity
Like hell. I work in the Central Florida aerospace industry and you can't fart in the factory without a material safety data sheet, work instructions specifying personal protective equipment, an OSHA safety audit, and the EPA climbing up your ass to look for hexavalent chromium and lingering organic poisons.
I've had an order of a new alloy of stainless steel banned by the corporate environmental, health, and safety group because stainless steel had chromium in it and I planned to "drill, weld, or machine" the chromium-containing material, never mind that 95% of the products in the factory currently have various stainless alloys in them (all 12% or higher chromium). They were terrified of Erin Brockovich showing up and suing about chromium, and pointing out that the entire cafeteria kitchen was made out of stainless (heated by natural gas flames) won me no points in the argument. All I managed was to scare some of the EHS interns into getting glass cookware for their dorms.
I pity any contractor that actually works on the Cape. It's surrounded by protected wetlands and Florida's state environmental regulations are sometimes tighter than the federal EPA's, like for oil spills. At my last job in the area, I was the (part-time) environmental, health, and safety coordinator for the facility when the backup diesel generator puked a few gallons of fuel down a storm drain. That was $10,000 of fun, and we weren't even fined because we jumped on the problem and cleaned up the drain line before it got to an open water area. The EPA didn't care because the spill was too small, but Florida's Department of Environmental Protection wanted a report and performed an on-site review afterwards. The expenses were for the specialty clean-up crews we had to hire that day, and it was much cheaper than letting the oil get to open water.
The real world of private contractors isn't like Hollywood's evil corporations. The private companies most likely to skimp on environmental regulations are little mom-and-pop car mechanics or dry cleaners who don't have the knowledge, labor, or budget to wade through the regulations for proper chemical handling. Bigger companies stick to environmental regulations because failing to do so is more expensive than skipping them - you can only get away with it for so long before some disgruntled (or sick, or sick and disgruntled) worker complains, then your federal contracts evaporate.
Clearly, ULA has made a great deal out of their 'no failures' approach. The issue with THEM is that they haven't done much to reduce cost and make space more accessible. SpaceX won't get away with a careless approach, but they are 'on their own' to improve stuff, rather than wait for NASA to manage the progress for them.
NASA privatized satellite manufacture in the 1990s, that is what NASA is SUPPOSED to do. NASA is about 'basic research'. They did the FASTRAC activity in the 1990s, while shuttle was still dominating the big-rocket work. FASTRAC was leveraged by SpaceX to build their rockets. SpaceX has done a LOT of own-thinking to improve on FASTRAC, but they never would have gotten capitalized without access to NASA's basic research.
@Christoph - well, they have built it already, and it has also done test flights in atmosphere. Granted they've yet to launch ito space and return, but everyone has to start somewhere. Despite my not being convinced that that type of reuasable craft has much of a future (short of the secret of Starlite heat-insulating paint being rediscovered), I still wish Sierra Nevada all the best in their endeavours, the more companies getting into space the better
It's like comparing a Mini with a tanker truck with a clever photo angle. A bit like the "really, I'm not fat" selfie.
A Shuttle is huge. I didn't know how huge until I started collecting 1/72 models and noticed that two Apollo CSMs would fit in the cargo bay, and that the Orbiter alone is bigger than a Mercury-Atlas or a Gemini-Titan.
I think nearly 4 Dreamchasers could fit in a Shuttle cargo bay.
This is a bone thrown to them to keep them alive. I think it's good to keep an alternative approach to the current fleet of capsules.
However I'm pissed that this is 100% duplicating the guidance and aerodynamics work done by X-37B. If NASA hadn't fumbled that so badly that the USAF stole it for a pittance, it'd be open research instead of a military secret.
the Shuttle was huge. All that mass hoisted to orbit just to bring back seven astronauts. (The contents of the cargo bay were almost invariably on a one way trip.) That was the tragedy of the Space Shuttle system - wonderful tech made horribly inefficient because the USAF thought they might like to snatch satellites from orbit.. Much better to provide a low-g landing system for just the cargo that needs it and dump the rest of the mass.
"the Shuttle was huge"
That was not a problem in itself.
The problem was the decree that they have one type of vehicle and they use it for everything.
Hence you get something akin to a petrol tanker truck being used for going to church on Sundays, taking the kids to soccer and driving through the McDonalds drive through on the way home.... as well as once in a while actually delivering a load of petrol.
I have a proposal that will save billions that can then be put to work to advancing other areas of space exploration/science:
Stop adding wings to stuff when it comes to space delivery. Go with the tried, proven, and aerodynamically and scientifically eminently more suitable droplet shape for manned/material delivery/return, and the solid-enough Tin Can approach for goods delivery/fiery-death re-entry disposal.
Whatever type of wings you put on the thing, it will still be only marginally more maneuverable than a brick, while adding tons of complexity and risk that are. not. necessary.
The fact that the Bureaucrats have signed off on this irrefutably tells you their inherent lack of suitability for the job they're supposed to be doing.
So, lots of potential payload mass wasted carting the lifting body shape and the undercarriage into space each flight.
Honest to goodness Apollo style parachutes work just fine, are far lighter, and do not result in loss of vehicle if the glide approach to the runway is screwed up (No Buran-style jet engines for a go around).
Why is NASA wasting money on this frivolity?
Hmmm - a couple of points need addressing here, I'll start with the last one, why should NASA want such a beast that can glide and land on a runway. The capsule method has been admitted to have quite a rough landing and this has caused concern that some of the more fragile payloads that need returning from the ISS will be damaged or destroyed on landing. The aerodynamic glide and landing has been shown (100 + space shuttle landings) to be very gentle and is considered to be more acceptable for fragile cargo. Also the cargo will be accessible much more quickly after landing because the vehicle will return to well equipped facility (usually the launch site).
Referring to the lifting body shape. This has been regarded as the best form of aerodynamic reentry vehicle since the sixties. As the body of the vehicle has the wing shape it is possible to pack the mechanisms of the craft into the vehicle much more efficiently than you would with the space shuttle. The shuttle's wings did indeed incur a mass penalty but this is not the case with a full lifting body design. The fins on the lifting body are not too much about lift, more directional control.
"Why is NASA wasting money on this frivolity?" To be seen to be doing the "right thing".
To go back to Apollo-syle kit looks like a huge step backwards to the 1960s (even if it isn't). They'll struggle to get hundreds of billions of gravy for that.
Going with wings is at least seen (and can be pitched as) an evolutionary tweak on the space shuttle formula. We did the right thing with the shuttle, now we're doing it better.... To step away from that formula risks lots of egg on face.
Yup. Same problem, same parameters ➡ similar solution (no surprise there).
I am worried a bit about the folding wings, though. Doesn't that mean there is a gap in the heat shield? (Yes, I'm aware it's there by design and they will have taken the problems into account. But still, the only parts that really can't fail are the parts you don't incorporate into the design.)
"Few would have imagined back in 2010 when President Barack Obama pledged that NASA would work 'with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable', that less than six years later we'd be able to say commercial carriers have transported 35,000 pounds of space cargo (and counting!) to the International Space Station - or that we’d be so firmly on track to return launches of American astronauts to the ISS from American soil on American commercial carriers. But that is exactly what is happening."
What a load of political crap. Anyone with a brain could see this coming for decades.
Or does anyone else see a problem with the first picture?
It looks like it has a wheel under each wing, and a support strut under the nose.
That gives you two options :
(1) Plow up the runway with the support under the nose.
(2) Land on the two wheels, which would destroy your heat shield in more than just one narrow strip.
Are there any plans to launch this on a Falcon 9?
For the first time since the shuttle launches in 80s it feels exciting to see spaceflight moving forward again. I doubt we will return to the moon in time for a 50th anniversary celebration but hopefully realistic planning witih dates might be underway for a permanent settlement.
NASA current rules require a consistent interface between the Payload-piece and the rocket-piece. You can launch Dragon-Crew on Atlas V and CST-100 on Falcon, because of these rules. The curious thing here is that the lifting body received unmanned workload. Why, then does it have windshields?
I am sceptical that a folding wing (or more precisely, an unfolding wing) is a good thing to rely upon when landing a great height.* I would be worried about the likelihood of getting man-rated. Complexity = problems, AFAIK. OTOH, SpaceX seem to have managed the complexity of reversing rockets to land vertically so maybe they'll manage the unfolding wing which doesn't break or remain folded.
* space.
"The CAIB made the final conclusion that the foam-shedding incident on Columbia's takeoff affected panel 8 of the RCC heat-shielding, which was located on the orbiter's leading edge. That foam strike punctured a hole in the RCC panel roughly 16 inches (41 centimeters) by 16 inches. Analysts estimated that a hole as small as 10 inches (25 cm) across could have caused the orbiter to be destroyed on re-entry through Earth's atmosphere."
[...]
"From a re-entry standpoint, Columbia broke up very late, at a low altitude, roughly 30 to 35 miles (50 to 55 kilometers) above Earth, where heating had almost ceased. The breakup was primarily mechanical, due to localized heating that occurred earlier in the re-entry process."
NASA confined itself to low earth orbit for half a century when it foolishly scrapped Apollo style capsules in favour of the winged Space Shuttle. Winged spacecraft have lower reentry speeds and squander payload mass boosting both wings and the undercarriage into space, which is why the Russians (Soyuz) and SpaceX have stuck with capsules and parachutes for re-entry and landing.
Let's hope that there is an outbreak of common sense before NASA wastes too much more money on winged or lifting body space vehicles..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
