Dream Chaser damaged by crash landing

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Dream Chaser damaged by crash landing in California

A test article of the lifting body Dream Chaser spaceship built by Sierra Nevada Corp., one of several companies receiving NASA funding to develop a commercial space taxi, made a crash landing on a runway at California's Edwards Air Force Base on Saturday, sources and news reports said.

Engineers blamed the mishap on a problem during deployment of the Dream Chaser's left landing gear, which is derived the main gear used by the U.S. Air Force's F-5E Tiger fighter jet.

Read more...

[Waspie_Dwarf]

SNC's Dream Chaser First Free-Flight Approach-and-Landing Test

On October, 26, 2013 Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) performed its first free-flight approach-and-landing test of the Dream Chaser® spacecraft. The vehicle successfully released from its carrier aircraft, an Erickson Air-Crane helicopter, as planned at approximately 11:10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. Following release, the Dream Chaser spacecraft automated flight control system gently steered the vehicle to its intended glide slope. The vehicle adhered to the design flight trajectory throughout the flight profile. Less than a minute later, Dream Chaser smoothly flared and touched down on Edwards Air Force Base's Runway 22L right on centerline. While there was an anomaly with the left landing gear deployment, the high-quality flight and telemetry data throughout all phases of the approach-and-landing test will allow SNC teams to continue to refine their spacecraft design. SNC and NASA Dryden are currently reviewing the data. As with any space flight test program, there will be anomalies that we can learn from, allowing us to improve our vehicle and accelerate our rate of progress. Please continue to monitor, www.SNCDreamChaser.com, for more information.

Credit: Sierra Nevada Corperation

Source: SNC Space Systems

Edited October 29, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf
typo

[highdesert50]

Although the landing gear failure is unfortunate, it does provide meaningful data regarding survivability. I suppose in those instances, the crew could avail itself of the nitrous oxide fuel source. Humor aside, is great to see a low earth orbit replacement for the shuttle in the works.

Edited October 30, 2013 by highdesert50

[Calibeliever]

Awesome. Just one thing I'd like to put out there. Landing gear not deploying is not a glitch. That causes the plane to crash, not land.

[paperdyer]

Awesome. Just one thing I'd like to put out there. Landing gear not deploying is not a glitch. That causes the plane to crash, not land.

But it was a "safe" crash evidently. Also depends on your definition of glitch. I agreed that the landing gear not deploying is more than a minor glitch, but still fits into the general definitiion of glitch:

glitch<p>

gliCH/

informal

noun

noun: glitch; plural noun: glitches

1. 
   1.
   
   
   
   a sudden, usually temporary malfunction or irregularity of equipment.
   
   
   "a draft version was lost in a computer glitch"
   
   
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
     an unexpected setback in a plan.
     
     
     "this has been the first real glitch they've encountered in a three months' tour"
     
     
   • 
     
     
     
     Astronomy
     
     
     a brief irregularity in the rotation of a pulsar.
     
     
     
     

verb

verb: glitch; 3rd person present: glitches; past tense: glitched; past participle: glitched; gerund or present participle: glitching

1. 
   1.
   
   
   
   suffer a sudden malfunction or irregularity.
   
   
   "her job involves troubleshooting when systems glitch"
   
   

[seeder]

This is great news! Cheers for posting!

It was a test flight, nobody on-board, so we cant beat down on the landing gear issues too much. Better it happened in testing eh? Leaving time to work the gremlins out. And I liked the curled wing design over the original shuttles flatter ones...

[pallidin]

I would agree. A "glitch" is considered semi non-cosequential unless on a hard level, but a failure on landing gear deployment is potentially fatal.

Waspie, please do not try to refute that. I know you will try, as the craft "slided"

Edited October 30, 2013 by pallidin

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Waspie, please do not try to refute that. I know you will try, as the craft "slided"

Don't tell me what I (or anyone else ) can or can't say. Not only is it annoying it is also against the rules of this site:

5. Etiquette In the interests of maintaining constructive and friendly discussions:

5f. Balanced debate: Do not make posts forbidding opposing viewpoints or make derogatory personal observations designed to dismiss or belittle another member's opinion ( such as accusing them of being mentally ill or being paid to post. ) All sides of a debate should be represented.

Besides I don't need to refute it, SNC have already done that, and they really DO know what they are talking about. When you have designed and flown a prototype spacecraft you will be in a position to argue with them.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf

[pallidin]

OK, so how exactly is a "glitch" in a failure of the landing gear be considered other than a MAJOR potentially catastrophic event?

I do not view that as a "glitch", rather a substantial concern. That's my view anyway.

Thank you, and sorry for my previous perceived attack.

Edited October 31, 2013 by pallidin

[DONTEATUS]

Is there any footage of the Dream Chaser going off the end ?

[seeder]

Is there any footage of the Dream Chaser going off the end ?

No I already looked, they said they are holding that footage back for 'analysis' etc

[Uncle Sam]

And I thought NASA wasn't going to get a replacement for the space shuttle. I thought for sure that the space shuttle would be the last of its kind, leaving NASA unable to repair any equipment that they have up there that is not connected directly to the space station. This is very good news! ... Obama better not kill this shuttle before it gets a chance to shine or I will be extremely p***ed.

I would agree. A "glitch" is considered semi non-cosequential unless on a hard level, but a failure on landing gear deployment is potentially fatal.

Waspie, please do not try to refute that. I know you will try, as the craft "slided"

Most fatal accidents happen during re-entry of the atmosphere. By the time the shuttle halfway towards landing, it's airspeed is very close to a regular jet landing and can easily incorporate ejector seats in it to protect the crew. We also have high altitude atmosphere sky diving suits being designed in-case they need to bail out of the shuttle earlier. Combine those two with ejector seats and new High Atmosphere Diving Suits being developed, I can promise the rate of survival of a deadly event happening has sky-rocketed. Much like the first world war when pilots had no paracutes, now look at today where majority of the pilots survive.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Uncle Sam

[Leonardo]

Fluffy dice in the cockpit!

[skookum]

The wheel failure may have actually done them a favour in a strange sort of way. I understand it survived the incident very well and all onboard equipment was unscathed.

[seeder]

Heres a quote:

"Everything worked well for the automated Dream Chaser model until the end, when the left landing gear deployed too late and the test vehicle skidded off the runway".

Company space systems chief Mark Sirangelo said Tuesday that damage was minor. "The left gear was still attached and the tire wasn't even shredded, he said. The crew cabin area was unscathed and astronauts would have been uninjured, he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479658/Baby-shuttle-stellar-takeoff-landing-gear-deployed-late-skidded-runway.html

[DONTEATUS]

ITs still a Step into the Right Directions ! Keep-em-Flying !