Sierra Nevada Launches New Dream Chaser 'Preferred Landing Site' Program

Illustration of SNC’s Dream Chaser® spacecraft commercial runway landing. Image Credit: SNC

Illustration of SNC’s Dream Chaser® spacecraft commercial runway landing. Image Credit: SNC

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) may not have been awarded a multi-billion dollar commercial crew contract by NASA, but that isn’t stopping the company from moving forward with plans for their Dream Chaser “spaceplane.” The fact is the spacecraft’s unique lifting-body winged design offers numerous potential applications that no other existing spacecraft can, and the aerospace and aviation communities are taking note regardless of NASA’s decision to select two capsules from Boeing and SpaceX for the same job of flying crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS).

Dream Chaser’s ultimate goal is to provide commercial services to a broader commercial market, rather than relying exclusively on NASA for contracts that may or may not come as we saw with the agency’s Commercial Crew Program, and the company just launched a new program to work with spaceports and commercial airports to become designated landing sites for Dream Chaser.

Sierra-Nevada-Corporation-SNC-Dream-Chaser-Commercial-Crew-NASA-posted-on-AmericaSpace

SNC Dream Chaser. Photo Credit: SNC

“The number of applicants requesting spaceport licenses both domestically and internationally has increased dramatically over the past 24 months,” said John Roth, vice president of business development and strategy for SNC’s Space Systems. “SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft is the only commercial space vehicle that is capable not only of a runway landing, but landing on runways that already support commercial aircraft. SNC has created this program based on the tremendous interest we have received to date from spaceports and airports around the world that want to host Dream Chaser landings as a stimulant to their local economies.”

SNC’s new “Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program” is based on similar work currently being done with Ellington Spaceport in Houston, Texas, and the Huntsville International Airport Authority (HIA) in Huntsville, Ala., and preliminary studies are currently underway in Huntsville to assess the feasibility of landing Dream Chaser at HIA. Should the preliminary studies prove successful, a second phase would begin by end of the year, paving the way for the FAA to issue a re-entry license to land Dream Chaser at HIA.

“SNC is offering three different levels of designation, with the highest level culminating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a re-entry license to SNC for the designated spaceport or airport,” noted the company in a statement issued Sept. 10.

HIA would become the first commercial airport to receive permission for Dream Chaser landings from a variety of low-Earth orbit missions for various government and commercial customers.

During the 2014 Space Traffic Management Conference at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) in Daytona Beach, Fla., SNC discussed in detail how they plan to ensure that their reusable spaceplane meets safety and environmental requirements, as well as operates within, or exceeds, existing and future procedures and policies.

Dream Chaser, which can fly with or without crew, does not require hazardous chemicals for its operation, and therefore can land at any suitable runway at least 8,000 feet long, anywhere around the world, without requiring specialized equipment. With a propulsion system fueled by Nitrous Oxide and propane this also means immediate access to the spacecraft after landing, with only 10-20 minutes needed to exit the runway and keep conflicts with other aircraft using the same area to a minimum. For a nominal (planned) landing this might not mean much, but in an emergency abort (unplanned) scenario such quick access to Dream Chaser would allow other airport operations to proceed with minimal or no impact from the spacecraft’s unexpected arrival.

Dream Chaser’s design allows unassisted crew egress at any landing site without the need for special equipment. This operation nominally occurs after the vehicle has been towed off the runway. The minimum equipment needed to quickly remove the vehicle from the runway is enabled by the low toxicity and low hazard levels of the Dream Chaser design, thus minimizing the impact on day-to-day operations at a public-use landing site. Image Credit: SNC

Dream Chaser’s design allows unassisted crew egress at any landing site without the need for special equipment. This operation nominally occurs after the vehicle has been towed off the runway. The minimum equipment needed to quickly remove the vehicle from the runway is enabled by the low toxicity and low hazard levels of the Dream Chaser design, thus minimizing the impact on day-to-day operations at a public-use landing site. Image Credit: SNC

That fact alone opens the door to broader landing locations and opportunities, allowing for frequent de-orbit opportunities to landing sites in the United States and the ability to perform runway landings on every orbit. United States’ landing sites will also take priority over other runways around the world should Dream Chaser become an operational reality too, unless otherwise directed by mission needs or emergency demands.

As outlined by SNC: “The reentry cross-range capability of 1,100 nautical miles (nmi) for the Dream Chaser exceeds Space Shuttle performance and allows the vehicle to maintain at least one runway landing opportunity every orbit. SNC has coordinated landing site usage with the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) in Florida, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and Houston’s Ellington Airport in Texas. SNC has also initiated discussions and assessments with multiple landing sites around the world.”

Dream Chaser’s unique ability to utilize public airports could prove particularly useful should an abort ever be needed during launch. The space shuttle always had a “Return To Launch Site” (RTLS) capability, but some veteran shuttle workers who maintained the fleet sometimes joked about RTLS as being more peace of mind knowing that some kind of abort option existed, rather than having none. Some even argued that a shuttle RTLS abort would likely not work, simply because the runway at Kennedy Space Center near the launch site was the only option; no other runways in striking distance could accommodate the shuttle, and thankfully we never had to find out.

Dream Chaser's abort sites along its Atlas-V ISS ascent flight path. With a cross range of 1,100 nmi the vehicle is capable of landing at any of the identified runways during ascent, thus representing a significant benefit for crew, payload, and vehicle safety. Image Credit: SNC

Dream Chaser’s abort sites along its Atlas-V ISS ascent flight path. With a cross range of 1,100 nmi the vehicle is capable of landing at any of the identified runways during ascent, thus representing a significant benefit for crew, payload, and vehicle safety. Image Credit: SNC

However, a launch-abort scenario for Dream Chaser would work up and down the U.S. East Coast because the vehicle offers a continuous runway landing capability from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex-41 through the Atlas-V/Centaur launch vehicle trajectory (SNC contracted ULA and their Atlas-V some time ago to launch Dream Chaser on its first orbital flight test).

Landing is one thing, but getting off the runway quickly is another issue. Dream Chaser does not have the ability to taxi like conventional aircraft, so landing at a public runway cannot be approached in the traditional sense. To overcome this, SNC has devised an efficient, new approach that is time-constrained in order to minimize time on a runway to allow airports to resume normal operations as soon as possible with minimal impact.

For example, gone are the days of crews getting off their vehicle while still on the runway, such as was done for all of NASA’s space shuttle returns. Instead, SNC’s approach is to have the crew remain on Dream Chaser until it is towed to a designated location off the runway where there are no time constraints to conduct all of the post-flight tasks. Alternatively, SNC could—after the vehicle is deemed safe to approach—begin three simultaneous operations, where one team attaches the appropriate ground support equipment (GSE) while another prepares the vehicle for towing. At the same time a crew member would be taking photos of pre-determined hardware to support post-landing evaluation and inspections.

Dream Chaser going to work atop a ULA Atlas-V rocket. Image Credit: SNC

Dream Chaser going to work atop a ULA Atlas-V rocket. Image Credit: SNC

While getting Dream Chaser off the runway would only take 10-20 minutes, post-landing operations for an uncrewed vehicle would be a little trickier, because a cargo-only Dream Chaser would be required to have a Flight Termination System (FTS), or self-destruct, which is usually ordnance-based. However, SNC is looking at alternative FTS options that eliminate an ordnance-based system all together.

Although SNC’s vehicle will be able to utilize many public airports, it can’t land on just any runway; there are specific infrastructure and operational requirements that must be supported, such as using runways made out of concrete instead of asphalt. Dream Chaser’s front landing gear uses a skid instead of a rolling nose wheel, and tests of the landing skid at Edwards Air Force Base in California have demonstrated that concrete runways are durable enough to withstand the vehicle’s existing skid material without causing unusual wear and degradation to the runway.

During the campaign, the nose landing skid imparted no damage to the runway, striping, or runway centerline lighting,” noted SNC. “Additionally, no damage was done to the runway when the test configuration left main landing gear did not properly deploy during an atmospheric flight test. The ground tow and flight testing proved that the skid material is compatible with existing concrete runways.”

Airspace coordination is another key factor in any future Dream Chaser landing at public airports. The vehicle’s high velocity and a high sink rate return (like shuttle) renders it incompatible with typical aircraft operations and requires special handling from Air Traffic Control facilities. All commercial aircraft operating at altitudes between 18,000 feet and 60,000 feet are required to operate on flight plans generally under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) requirements and must be in contact with FAA air traffic controllers. Below 18,000 feet, many aircraft are not on flight plans with a mix of IFR and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations and, depending on the geographic area, may not be in contact with air traffic controllers.

With that said, specific blocks of airspace must first be identified before Dream Chaser is cleared to land. Letters of Agreement among the various controlling agencies will establish the necessary procedures for reserving airspace and ensuring appropriate traffic management, and with a pre-authorized reservation in place, commercial air traffic can be routed around the intended flight corridor until Dream Chaser lands.

Other considerations are also being looked at as SNC moves forward with plans for Dream Chaser—everything from public safety, to FAA licenses, to the fact that an uncrewed Dream Chaser would technically be considered an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), for which the FAA is currently evolving its policies. Another obstacle is the fact that, while federal regulations prohibit most airports from favoring one type of aircraft over another, space vehicles are not currently defined as aircraft. Regulations also require a number of reviews be completed to demonstrate safety and compatibility with the reentry site, including a policy review, a safety review, a payload reentry review, and an environmental review.

Sonic booms over populated areas is another concern that SNC is looking at, because Dream Chaser will return with an airspeed in excess of Mach 5 above 100,000 ft, significantly slowing on the flight profile with a landing speed of less than 200 knots. While waivers can be granted, supersonic flight over land is generally prohibited by the FAA, and in order to determine the acceptability of the proposed landing flight corridor an analysis must be made of the potential for sonic booms to be heard on the ground. The FAA does not have specific guidelines for the level of sonic boom that is acceptable during the approach for landing, and approval depends on issues such as population density and environmental sensitivity of the overflight area.

“Dream Chaser is poised to lead the commercial space industry in reusable, low-Earth orbital flight,” said Mark N. Sirangelo, corporate vice president of SNC’s Space Systems. “The benefits of multiple landing sites would be significant to both the landing site community and to the Dream Chaser network of domestic and international partners. With each Preferred Landing Site designation, comes a greater opportunity to make commercial space an accessible reality.”

 

Be sure to “Like” AmericaSpace on Facebook and follow us on Twitter: @AmericaSpace

 

 

9 comments to Sierra Nevada Launches New Dream Chaser ‘Preferred Landing Site’ Program

  • James

    Yep, “The benefits of multiple landing sites would be significant to both the landing site community and to the Dream Chaser network of domestic and international partners. With each Preferred Landing Site designation, comes a greater opportunity to make commercial space an accessible reality.”

    We are on the cusp of some real improvements in both launchers and spaceflight propulsion.

    LEO is going to become much more busy than it currently is. The number of possible Dream Chaser missions per year year should continue to rapidly grow in the upcoming decades.

    It seems likely that the International Space Station will be modified and expanded during the 2025 to 2040 time frame.

    The ISS should continue to efficiently serve as a capable international space science and technology incubator while also being used for valuable new roles, including serving as a ‘base camp’ or transportation hub for staging human and robotic missions to the Moon, Ceres, Mars, and the rest of our Solar System.

    Woodward Mach effect impulse thrusters, Q-Thrusters, Electrodynamic Tethers, solar sails, large ion thrusters, and Positron nuclear thrusters all have the potential to dramatically change what is economically doable in LEO, cislunar, and beyond cislunar space.

    With these types of improvements in spaceflight propulsion the International Space Station may also eventually serve as an important equipment ‘maintenance and repair shop’ for various LEO spacecraft and space stations.

    In the next twenty years private space stations will be launched into LEO and become regular destinations for Dream Chaser missions.

    It is reasonable to expect that those new space stations will do ‘neighborly formation flying’ with the enlarged and diversely capable International Space Station in its orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees as a means to significantly lower risks and costs through dissimilar redundancy while also improving the mission capabilities, options, and efficiency during their decades long LEO spaceflights.

    During one mission a Dream Chaser could stop by to unload or pickup supplies, experimental samples, and crew members at several of the formation flying and neighborly space stations.

    The future of LEO and beyond LEO space development is excellent and various versions of the Dream Chaser can play important roles in meeting the diverse needs of many national and international spaceflight customers.

  • Arth

    So, is Lockheed still building the first vehicle at a slower pace?

  • James

    The current focus seems to be on testing the Thermal Protection System (TPS) which is made out of a material called TUFROC and is being tested at NASA’s Ames Research Center and Johnson Space Center to provide the data needed for the TPS subsystem Critical Design Review (CDR).

    According to the June 26, 2015 Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) news release, “Additional TPS certification testing is also planned at the centers beginning in the fall of 2015.”

  • Tim Andrews

    So how much is SNC planning to charge state and local governments to certify their airports as Dream Chaser Preferred landing sites? I would expect this would minimally include the purchase of a Dream Chaser tow bar, training for ground crews, and a feasibility study.

    Huntsville, AL has already dedicated money to fund a study of the feasibility of having Dream Chaser land at their airport.

    I get that SNC wants to get as many air strips as possible cleared for emergency landings, that’s absolutely in their best interest. But assuming they get to the point of flying, why would they want to land anywhere but near their launch site to have to add additional ground and or air transportation costs and logistics into the mix?

  • James

    Eventually, the Dream Chaser may have several launch sites.

    The launch sites and several, or even many, of the alternate landing sites may develop bad weather or poor visibility/nighttime landing conditions during the mission.

    Maximizing potential orbital abort and normal mission landing options to well-prepared and well-known airports with long runways is probably wise.

    The Dream Chaser’s onboard computers would be continually updated as to the best immediately, or soonest, available abort to ground option.

    If there are many potential Dream Chaser certified airports, then that abort to ground option should be more frequently available during the mission and thus decrease the possibility of a loss of vehicle and crew accident.

    Landing downmass zero ‘g’ research samples and products as close as possible to the relevant company labs or other users might minimize time and transportation issues for those high value items and thus be advantageous or even critical to selling the Dream Chaser orbital mission service.

    The flight’s customers may want a landing at a particular Dream Chaser certified airport for a diversity of privately held reasons.

    If you always only land at one particular airport, then your landing experience will be quite limited in a situation that requires a normal or an abort landing elsewhere.

    As long as a landing site doesn’t negatively affect the Dream Chaser’s or airport’s safety, then the customer, or customers, should have the option of paying extra for the choice of landing at a particular airport.

  • Tim Andrews

    “Eventually, the Dream Chaser may have several launch sites.”

    Eventually unicorns might fly out of my nose, but I don’t think it’s very likely. Dream Chaser is not a launch vehicle, so it can’t ever have its own launch sites. Dream Chaser launches are and will be limited to where a launch vehicle can boost it into orbit. Right now those are few, and the primary launch site that Dream Chaser has been planned to used is currently being planned to close down a few years from now.

    “The Dream Chaser’s onboard computers would be continually updated as to the best immediately, or soonest, available abort to ground option.”

    I agree with this completely, and it’s absolutely in SNC’s best interest to get as many spaceports cleared for landing as possible. However, it appears from this and other articles on the topic that SNC seems to be promoting this as if airports that get certified will be used on a regular basis for landing, and that will bring business – SPACE BUSINESS – to the surrounding communities. This is definitely the case for Huntsville.

    And surely, a customer might have a business need to land at a particular airport, at which point there might be reason for the airport to invest in becoming certified – but that’s back to my initial question – what’s the business case? Under what non-weather/emergency scenario would there be an advantage to landing far away from the launch site, rather than near?

    About the only one I can think of is space tourism, at which point landing half-way around the world would be the ideal “Yes, Luvvy, I just took the Dream Chaser to London for lunch”</Thurston Howell>.

    That would certainly be a legit reason, and I expect if we see Dream Chaser and other commercial orbiters flying we will see space tourists on them, but I find it hard to imagine – at least at the prices involves – that those will account for much more than a small percentage of payload/passengers.

  • James

    “That would certainly be a legit reason, and I expect if we see Dream Chaser and other commercial orbiters flying we will see space tourists on them, but I find it hard to imagine – at least at the prices involves – that those will account for much more than a small percentage of payload/passengers.”

    Yep, initially launch prices will be high. But if several launch companies develop reusable first stages and maybe even reusable second stages… I can remember the Mercury Redstone launches. Things do evolve.

    If the Dream Chaser is going to have a major impact on spaceflight business opportunities, it could, and should, eventually have more than one launch site.

    Tourists would most likely be accommodated with spaceflights that are also taking mission folks and supplies to the ISS and one or more of its neighboring space stations. The “percentage” of the payload dedicated to tourism may vary considerably for the various Dream Chaser flights.

    Some individuals might have once commented on the possibility that tourists might go to the International Space Station as being as likely as having “unicorns” that “fly out of my nose”. However, Russia has had a quite different perspective on the issue.

    Nationalism, local politics, time constraint issues, non-obvious economic advantages, advertising campaigns, security issues, and international recognition of having sophisticated aerospace options might be more than enough justification for the nations, businesses, and individuals that are the customers to want Dream Chasers to land at airports far from their launch sites.

  • Irek7

    Why to bother of such many places to land? Why not to choose Bermuda instead of those all East Coast airports (very busy)? 1100 nm is a cross range but on the map you have cross range of about 250 nm only. By using more available cross range you can choose less busy airports.
    What is the range in the case of abort of mission (measured on trajectory)?
    Trajectory for East Coast is not in coincydence with landing points in Europe (shown in article).

  • […] least 8,000 feet long, anywhere around the world, without requiring specialized equipment, and SNC has been looking into landing at commercial airports for some time, having launched their “Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program” program […]