Dream Chaser spacecraft Free Flight Test, 11 November 2017

[@2150dalek]

Had to clap after the successful landing. Incredible the way this was tested. I never saw this in any news.

[@Toolgdskli]

2019, still chasing dream

[@Alex76773]

2020, still chasing dream

[@bolinha9939]

2021 , este é chassi de fusca.

[@jonaruo]

2020, still chasing dream.. with corona

[@marcoplayz7911]

2021 lift off?

[@andrewbodrov421]

2021: still chasing dream, maiden flight postponed to 2022

[@buurakarakaya]

An engineering wonder spacecraft that proves the extraordinary effects of little things. Congratulations SNC!

[@giovannisabaini907]

amazing and fabulous mini space shuttle

[@neonone9164]

Beatiful touch down. Gentle landing i expected a harder landing due to snub wings that lifting body makes more lift than i imagined

[@dugnology]

This space-craft is an updated version of the MiG 105 (BOR-4). It went under several iterations as the HL-20 and was supposed to be a "life raft" for the ISS. SNC took over the project. I really wish this had been chosen by NASA in the COTS program rather than the Boeing CS-100. The Space-x dragon 2 was the obvious choice as a primary capsule, but he SNC DC would allow science packages and crew to be brought back at a lower G-Rates and land on a runway for experiments/crew for expedited transfer rather than waiting for a recovery ship to return to port.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

Suggest you look up SV-5, PRIME and ASSET. The U.S. Airforce was testing this body shape in the mid 60's, 15 years before BOR-4 existed.

[@dugnology]

The x-23/24 were similar, but even NASA admits that the design is a copy of the BOR-4 with the shovel nose.

[@SciNewsRo]

Be polite, here is NASA's page www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/hl20-recognition.html

[@virgilius7036]

Nasa never admits a false fact. BOR-4 was designed much later.

[@Hal09i]

I agree-- we are going to have Orion, which of course is a capsule design. Then there is the SpaceX Dragon, a capsule design. And also the Boeing CS-100-- capsule again. Why not not have a shuttle design for a little different capability?

[@abineshkumar1669]

Finally, it's ready to chase its dreams and launch its schedule this year.

[@ZemplinTemplar]

Cutest spaceplane ever. :-) Good luck to SNC.

[@Komrade_Krunch]

2:00 I don't like how that back wheel is shaking

[@haruspex1-50]

Neither do I. I suppose thats why they test though. Hopefully they can iron out all these issues. The thought of a commercial space race is so exciting.

[@sureshkmaran]

The wheel make have to shake so that it compensates for the ground unevenness, so that the body of the craft remains stable.

[@barrett2724]

Suresh Kumar is there a reason it uses that form of nose gear I am just guessing that it is because of space in the cockpit area

[@stupidgoose356]

@@barrett2724 or maybe it uses to slow down the aircraft while it is landing because the aircraft might be approaching the runway in high speed?

[@rocketman4103]

This called 'shimmy'. Early Boeing airplanes experienced same problem.

[@DrFrankensteam]

Amazing what you can do with a old Volkswagen Bug!

[@MsOthmar]

I am so pleased that the concept of Space Shuttle has continued and develop."Just Hearthbreaking ".All the best for NASA & ESA Daum Othmar.

[@SandorNemeth-k9g]

Very Cool- couldn't believe the size- just imagined at least 4 X of size . Lot of imagination and cool gadgets. Front nose curls up - better heat transfer- glide. What a difference from Apollo- Shuttle - Chaser and Others. Dreams are possible.

[@hkmorhsi]

The way it glides.... some big brains made all this and that's very cool to know. God I love engineers

[@richardsantalone9380]

dream chaser: hello father space shuttle: hello son

[@Айхай-х7и]

His father project “spiral”

[@UNSCPILOT]

Can't help but feel Starship is the bigger younger brother in this arrangement, irregardless I wish them the best of luck and many successful flights and missions to Space

[@Messier42-handle]

@@UNSCPILOT meh, starship dont fly, it not a shuttle in my eyes

[@luizleao]

Beautiful! No parachute!

[@davewitter6565]

The shuttle had a large cargo bay. If you just need to get some astronauts and minimal cargo back and forth it just might to the trick and be cost effective.

[@Marade]

the shuttle was also ridiculously expensive and dangerous

[@scottholman3982]

@@Marade The shuttle was a ridiculous compromise forced upon NASA by Richard Nixon. It was supposed to be a prototype, then it became a fleet model, with projected 7 orbiters. This was before it ever flew. The shuttle had to be a heavy lift launch vehicle, which the original designers never anticipated. They envisoned something like this Dream Chaser, taking off horizontally on a carrier wing.

[@justanaturalcarguy4031]

Its really cool that the dream chaser can stop without using a dragchute!

[@chrisduggan85]

From an altitude if 12 km yes, but coming in from orbit at mark 17 to 27 is another ball game.

[@Messier42-handle]

@@chrisduggan85 hardly a difference, considering youll wind up gliding at around 2000m/s after reentry plasma is cleared. whilst being the pilot of a "flying brick" is inefficient, it also has the advantage of the fact that you can just nosedive to get to the thicker air with more drag, slowing you down. may be a bit unnerving for the ISS visitors experiencing 3G but its better then touching down at mach 1

[@normandedgerly8445]

What's with the little antique skid?

[@jaymac7203]

Now THAT was impressive 😮

[@wwiilliiaann]

2020 e continua sendo um sonho...

[@DrogoBaggins987]

Is the skid supposed to kneel down like that? It looked like it departed the center line by quite a bit. Why is the drag in front of the center of mass like that? It seems that it would be more stable and less expensive to have a nose wheel for better steering and two skids like the x15 had.

[@scottholman3982]

Retractable nose wheel gear are heavy. Steering can be done by individual control of main wheel brakes. Landing speeds are very high, to insure control right to the ground, and this allows a nose up attitude for a while after touchdown, reducing stress on the nose support. The X15 landed at something like 230 mph on a lake bed, which at least one pilot referred to as a 'controlled crash.'

[@gerrieberrie6032]

1:59 Looks like the left main landing gear is undergoing some shimmy.

[@kinglevidevicusvg6400]

Probably just the runway being hella hot.

[@22airjordan1]

Good catch. Could be the antiskid braking being a bit too aggressive. Either way they need to take a look at that

[@sfsaviation]

K05 T4R it probably was controlled remotely,I don’t see a reason for them to put crew in it

[@sunspotpixie]

"heat waves"

[@jeffedwards2334]

It was the door cover on the landing gear ... It is attached by three connections

[@nagara3170]

Would be nice if they had an attachable utility capsul when at spacestation to use when servicing satelites..

[@joeylantis22]

It has an attachment area in the back. When it is launched it almost doubles payload capacity. There'd be no problem fitting an airlock in there if they wanted. Sadly NASA choose Boeing over this, so it's not human rated to fly. This would have been amazing to ferry humans back and forth from the space station.

[@rundownpear2601]

joeylantis22 the dream chaser will still be human rated for commercial flights according so SNC recently

[@quakethedoombringer]

How does it manage to land so smoothly

[@brunoheggli2888]

Magic!

[@daylight44492]

gear looks a little jittery.

[@robertgorham3755]

indeed...why no nose wheel?

[@bravosium6295]

robert gorham to increase friction so it can stop faster

[@TobiasStevens137]

@@bravosium6295 to decrease volume too i suppose

[@sultros]

@@robertgorham3755 A number of reasons. Its to reduce over all complexity, weight, and it's one less tire to worry about. There are issues with taking an inflated tire to space and back. Steering is now achieved through differential braking.

[@broderp]

So why no front wheel? The skid may mean proprietary landing fields, because I wouldn't want that thing damaging my runway....

[@danzstuff]

it wont damage the runway bru, you even saw it land

[@dr.darkroom]

Landed it but sure looked wobbly up there, maybe the control surfaces move too quickly? I say mold the entire thing in titanium laced alloy and wrap that in carbon fiber followed by heat tile material.

[@typerightseesight]

might sound dumb, but why would they not put a wheel on the front?

[@sergeyshtoks165]

The glider Drim Cheyzer is copied from the Spiral, avionics of course modern, but in 1965 it became clear that it is an optimum form of the orbital plane

[@rundownpear2601]

Well it’s closer to MiG but is officially a continuation of the HL-20 program

[@JigilJigil]

It is based on Boeing X20 Dyna-Soar in 50s, long before the MIG 105 and Bor-4.

[@fresh2211]

2020, still chasing dream

[@lawrencei818]

Im scared that dream catcher will become hella expensive to refurbish like the space shuttle.

[@andrew-hv1hv]

Was that thing GLIDING the entire way down?? And with no engine assistance to slow its descent? I'm no aerospace engineer but daim that looked fast.

[@juvenilesiren6918]

Андраш Фншерь that’s what the shuttle did, and all the way from space too.

[@flylikealbatross7441]

Yeah. Like the shuttle. The last engine power is recived in orbit while the deorbit burn. Since that point the shuttle and the Dream Chaser have to glide to their small little runway.

[@_Andrew2002]

It needs to travel fast because lifting bodies don't produce a lot of lift. Smaller winged vehicles need to travel faster to stay airborne, it's just how aerodynamics work

[@choopsk6734]

Because it is a lifting body Why don't the landing gear doors close again after the wheels are out?

[@FourSeasonsHD]

This was Jim Benson's masterminded idea to employ the Soviet/NASA design for future use.

[@JaimeGomez-fv9sz]

Original Shuttle looks alot stable than that immitation when about to land. Where's the front wheel?

[@geomodelrailroader]

well done #DreamChaser that was a nice landing on Runway 22 at Edwards now #DreamChaser is ready for flight. a few more X37 flights and #Dream Chaser can go up using the same configuration.

[@SciNewsRo]

Why do you use # ? Your comments are marked as spam as a result.

[@RapnuzeI]

can someone explain to me why there isn’t a front wheel in the landing gear?

[@momimlost]

guess it doesnt need one?

[@williamcelecia8636]

probably to maximize the stopping speed

[@shaggydawg5419]

forgot to put one

[@darrylfoster6260]

Ran out of budget

[@rundownpear2601]

To reduce stopping distance

[@williamduffy1227]

Checking in in 2023. Sierra Corp. still preparing Dreamchaser - Cargo for NASA. Still slated for launch on an Atlas V for its first launch as far as I know. After that on Vulcan? Antares 330 ? 430? 😄 Falcon 9? 😅😅

[@SciNewsRo]

Dream Chaser will be launched by Vulcan Centaur rockets kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHelfmmtmbd5eac

[@nickolsky]

When will space test ? I think it maybe more fun than Dragon-2. )

[@PachoForeroD]

NET September :)

[@nocknock4832]

why is the front not a wheel?

[@Sfsneptune]

Fun fact:dream chaser will be launched either in these to rockets 1.Atlas v 402 2.vulcan centaur

[@hastekulvaati9681]

Finally a Space Shuttle I can park in my front yard!

[@jaysperling3912]

This is a plane right, how fast does it go???

[@ilazlo]

The NS landing gear vibrating or just optical illusion??

[@user-un5dd1xm5y]

Pretty similar to MiG 105 constructed by Soviet Union the first flight was in 1976.

[@rundownpear2601]

This is based off the OSP and HL-20 which were based off the MiG

[@clostridiumtetani9947]

Lifting bodies look the same no matter who makes them.

[@JigilJigil]

It is based on Boeing X20 Dyna-Soar, Soviet Mig-105 and BOR-4 were in 60s and 80s respectively while US was working on X-20 Dyna-Soar in 50s.

[@renanfeitosa101]

Sadly it lost for the crewed missions

[@jimbodeek]

Well, at least it will fly.

[@Ryan-eu3kp]

@@jimbodeek Glide

[@MrAngel2U]

Looked like a shaky flight and that left wheel wanted to wobble right off upon touchdown. overall great test, still successful.

[@____-gy5mq]

Dang I love the design

[@arabica7]

Why dream chaser has the nose gear without wheels?

[@kirillshklyar896]

Looks like Soviet tech from 70-s

[@rocketman4103]

Article from Wikipedia: На начало программы «Спираль» повлияло начало работ по американской программе «Dyna Soar».[9] Выбор облика орбитального самолёта «Спираль» производился не совсем на пустом месте. При выборе компоновки и алгоритмов управления орбитального самолёта «Спираль» конструкторы внимательно следили за американскими работами и испытаниями беспилотных аппаратов «ASSET[en]»(1963-1965), «SV-5D[en]»(1966-1967). К моменту выпуска в СССР аванпроекта «Спирали» в США уже проводились исследование пилотируемых гиперзвуковых летательных аппаратов на малых скоростях полета («PILOT») и полеты пилотируемых аппаратов «M2-F1[en]», «M2-F2[en]» и «HL-10», также предусматривались летные исследования «X-24[en]». Результаты этих испытаний были известны в ОКБ Микояна.

[@markthompson4885]

Why no Nose wheel?

[@adaliojacare1505]

Porque não tem róda na frente

[@РыбинИван-у4ф]

mig 105 spiral

[@JigilJigil]

NO, Boeing X20 Dyna-Soar, Dyna-Soar was in 50s, long before the Soviet Spiral.

[@markensam]

It looks as if this thing has a cockpit. Was there a pilot inside for this test flight?

[@SciNewsRo]

@Marc Van de Velde No, a future version will transport astronauts.

[@barrybend7189]

Lets petition the first one to be named Farscape.

[@reviwedandtranslated4416]

lol

[@дядяПетя-э5б]

В СССР был проект Бор-4 в 70-х, тоже летал в космос. Очень похож на этот аппарат, и старт такой же был.

[@SciNewsRo]

Был вдохновлен БОР-4 ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

[@Android_NoSchicklgruber]

И где теперь СССР ?

[@JigilJigil]

It is based on Boeing X20 Dyna-Soar, actually Mig-105 and BOR-4 were based on USA Dyna-Soar, Mig-105 and BOR-4 were in 60s and 80s respectively while United States Air Force was working on X-20 Dyna-Soar in 50s.

[@fredricful]

Nor drar vi?

[@ms.550]

What type of front landing gear was that ?

[@SciNewsRo]

Skid, made by Triumph www.triumphgroup.com/triumph-expands-space-applications-with-contract-for-dream-chaser-spacecraft-landing-gear-system/

[@GumballAstronaut7206]

Would love to fly this

[@cheesegrease8247]

Am I trippin or is that a ski???

[@cozz124]

It’s a hole new level of the space shuttle

[@shermancouch9964]

It begins well.

[@mavzer1754]

Good Job guyz

[@fredericusscheffer9992]

New space shuttle era . But still it's falling like a brick even faster than the original shuttle

[@abderrahimnouaiti6364]

fantastic

[@ilf2gfe]

Awwwwwwww baby New born dreamy :3

[@jaypaint4855]

And it’s STILL better than the Starliner!!!

[@jaysperling3912]

That is too smart too!!

[@jaysperling3912]

People must be smarter???

[@gahrie]

I still say they should fly these on Falcon 9s to make the system totally reusable.

[@anisswu4807]

This one still needs a second stage which is not reusable even with falcon 9

[@Yusuke_Denton]

Starship*

[@RafaGaretto]

Why is a wheel missing? what is the advantage?

[@BlackMeowgic]

Increased friction and slowing down faster apparently

[@squidwardfromua]

@@BlackMeowgic Do you know what's the friction coefficient? Do you know what has bigger friction coefficient - rubber wheel or heat tile? What brakes better - wheel with brakes on or a ski?

[@HNN_CBEPXCNCTEM_CCCP_NM._COBbl]

Ух ты, БОР-6 приземлился, афигительно! :)

[@JigilJigil]

It is based on Boeing X20 Dyna-Soar, Mig-105 and BOR-4 were in 60s and 80s respectively while United States Air Force was working on X-20 Dyna-Soar in 50s.

[@sunspotpixie]

Can this thing survive re-entry?

[@jukkatakamaa7274]

It is an re-entry system.

[@ModelAviationStation]

Why is there no wheel on the front gear?

[@Andrecio64]

Simplicity i think

[@fiev]

To stop momentum I think, for the brake

[@squidwardfromua]

@@fiev Rubber wheel with ABS on brakes much better than any ski.

[@richardgordon8110]

can they mount dreamchaser so that it wont blow up like challenger 51L.

[@SciNewsRo]

Dream Chaser will most likely launch on Atlas V, one of the most reliable rockets

[@fortknoxguy]

"That's not flying! That's falling....with style!"

[@Thanhhoaparadi]

That’s is free flight test ! Huuuuummmmm

[@horsebee1]

Why a skid and not a nose wheel

[@ralphmadera4366]

They gonna have to re pave the runway after each landing,if the main landing gear has wheels ,why not the front ?

[@rundownpear2601]

To create more friction while landing, and probably not it isn’t that heavy

[@squidwardfromua]

@@rundownpear2601 Rubber's friction coefficient is much bigger than heat tiles or what they're using to touch ground, if they wanted to brake as quickly as possible - they'd use wheel.

[@gantamk]

Was it piloted during the test?

[@tianlan3229]

N

[@realmebkl5277]

New model better than old version

[@kaburgess69]

What is the advantage of no nose wheel?

[@rundownpear2601]

Shorter stopping distance because more friction

[@yashsvidixit7169]

@@rundownpear2601 No, that's not the reason. Maximum static friction is higher than dynamic friction. So a rubber tyre braking at the very limits of static friction has more stopping capability than a skid dragging in the runway.

[@rionshin3556]

You guys forgot the design of the front landing wheel.

[@rundownpear2601]

This gives it a shorter stopping distance

[@squidwardfromua]

@@rundownpear2601 Lol no, rubber's friction coefficient is much bigger than heat tiles or what they're using to touch ground, so if they wanted to brake as quickly as possible - they'd use wheel. It's for simplicity.

[@zlozlozlo]

I'm a big SpaceX fan and I think they'll render all competing orbital vehicles obsolete in a few years, but I still want the Dream Chaser to succeed just because it looks hella cool.

[@jukkatakamaa7274]

SpaceX actually hasn't got anything but a Apollo era Dragon like capsule...with a window possibly.

[@zlozlozlo]

@@jukkatakamaa7274 SpaceX has now committed their full R&D resources to developing Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR) whixh will make everything else that's ever flown to space look like toy rockets in comparison.

[@ecurb10]

Yep me too. I think they should team up....it would be ready to fly by now if SpaceX was involved!

[@scottholman3982]

At some point in time, a space plane will be desirable, as reentry with low g-forces is best for certain payloads. Also, landing on a runway is a much more civilized way to come back to Earth. Horizontal takeoff also may be superior for launching crew, as there are many abort options which do not involve destroying the launch vehicle. Using a catapult that also supports the orbiter would eliminate the need for a long, thick runway, as well as avoiding a heavy undercarriage.

[@Riyuuta]

これは🚁🌏新型三段式の先端部🚀の👩🏼‍🚀スペースシャトル2🌔開発実験中ですよね？スゴイ‼️

[@jamesbarratt593]

Real nice

[@ИгорьЯковлев-ь5г]

Что с передней стойкой??

[@ankanhalder8341]

Wow that's what I call awesome

[@phvaguiar]

No more updates??

[@rundownpear2601]

Go to SNC’s Instagram, they basically lost evry time they add skemthing to the vehicle

[@windowcreek1798]

Looks like a spare tire for the space shuttle....

[@red2838]

how do they control this thing, are there any moveable parts???

[@brad300ZXS16]

Would much rather see this than having to watch SpaceX splash down like they did 60 years ago.

[@phippsa3]

Why no nose wheel? That skid is surely going to damage the runway

[@rundownpear2601]

To reduce stopping distance, and no it probably won’t the thing isn’t too heavy

[@drgentlewolf]

curious to know.. why doesn't she use the front wheel ? I guess she's giving some damage on the Runway.

[@lucabobenrieth6760]

because it needs to slow down rapidly without using braking parachutes I think.

[@squidwardfromua]

​@@lucabobenrieth6760 Rubber's friction coefficient is much bigger than heat tiles or what they're using to touch ground, if they wanted to brake as quickly as possible - they'd use wheel.

[@GESSO217]

I thought the project was canceled.

[@rundownpear2601]

HL-20 was, this is a private continuation of it

[@inshrektorgadget1546]

It looks like something I made in KSP, and I've never even played the game

[@dmitriin1488]

Так это же "Спираль"

[@rocketman4103]

Из Википедии: На начало программы «Спираль» повлияло начало работ по американской программе «Dyna Soar».[9] Выбор облика орбитального самолёта «Спираль» производился не совсем на пустом месте. При выборе компоновки и алгоритмов управления орбитального самолёта «Спираль» конструкторы внимательно следили за американскими работами и испытаниями беспилотных аппаратов «ASSET[en]»(1963-1965), «SV-5D[en]»(1966-1967). К моменту выпуска в СССР аванпроекта «Спирали» в США уже проводились исследование пилотируемых гиперзвуковых летательных аппаратов на малых скоростях полета («PILOT») и полеты пилотируемых аппаратов «M2-F1[en]», «M2-F2[en]» и «HL-10», также предусматривались летные исследования «X-24[en]». Результаты этих испытаний были известны в ОКБ Микояна.

[@whendeathdeclareswar7458]

Could someone explain that front landing "leg"

[@aaronjacobs3980]

Its a drag plate, it increases friction and slows the craft down faster

[@squidwardfromua]

@@aaronjacobs3980 You should learn friction physics Ski is for simplicity

[@bishop0028us]

Farscape cool

[@Mutlap]

front nose gear, explain that

[@dansmith3vdhrj]

All that's needed for a craft that doesn't take off horizontally, and has no need to taxi. It's probably much cheaper and lighter, just a guess.

[@sunilkonatham4482]

Mini space shuttle

[@alenakapova]

GREAT //

[@emman.5995]

Hopefully it would fly to the ISS soon.

[@marhuuk2670]

2023/2024 i believe