Space Shuttle was the most expensive cost per launch vehicle ever. Dream Chaser is similar to the shuttle and will be a very expensive option. SpaceX Starship can probably hold 100 Dream Chasers and is 1000x cheaper. We don’t need a space craft that looks like a fighter jet, just need to get from point A (earth) to point B (space)

Imagine if Sierra had been alloted the billion$ Boeing and ULA have received over the last decade. Best wishes for a bright future for Tenacity and Sierra

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

❤❤❤❤

Dream Chaser is pretty awesome and it offers different capabilities than a capsule like SpaceX Dragon. There is no reason at all to continue to waste money on another redundant capsule that Boeing has screwed up so badly.

@techmap9

25 күн бұрын

Yeah. Dream chaser is a space plane so we hope that it can change the game

@stephensfarms7165

24 күн бұрын

Amen, stop spending more money on a dead horse.

While Starship needs to be designed for vertical landing for the Moon and Mars, Aircraft style landing systems should be used for Earth only transport. That's why I love this space plane. More countries and companies should design these.

It would be cool and generally beneficial to resurrect as contenders both Dream Chaser/ Shooting Star and Alpaca on the moon. IMHO

Yes, sure. Such vehicles should be produced in series, they can land on almost any international airport, and can deliver time sensitive materials on any spot of the planet.

Yes

It’s not about money, it’s about engineering. What happens to the money spent/wasted by Boeing ?

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

That money probably wasn't spent on engineering

@twotone3471

24 күн бұрын

Congressional Campaign donations and Executive bonuses.

It would be more informative when stating that Starliner or Dreamchaser would probably not be launched using a Falcon9 booster, whether that is because of technical or non-technical reasons...it sounded more non-technical

@DarkSyster

24 күн бұрын

Non-technical. DreamChaser is launch vehicle agnostic. Atlas, Vulcan, or Falcon 9, it can be launched from. StarLiner is not launch vehicle agnostic. It's designed for Atlas and Vulcan. It could be adapted for Falcon but it's not designed for Falcon.

When a politician is placed as the head of NASA you expect fiscal responsiblity?

If it's Boeing I'm not going!

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Astronauts have no options

When it comes to Government it`s all about Looking after Friend`s

@miguelmouta5372

23 күн бұрын

Woke government, one should remark.

The only possible issue is the wing folding operation. All the rest poses no arguments against. Specially if the tests in course signs well.

Just how much loud noise will a payload experience during a launch?

@swapshots4427

24 күн бұрын

He meant acoustic vibrations. But ya.

Yes!

I am dream chaser supporter however the crew Ingress process made me realize the shortfall of its design. It’s going to be hard for dream chaser to be crew rated as its port is really in terrible place for human rating.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Can you explain more about it's port? What wrong?

But Starliner has a heat shield that won't crack

@johncherish7610

24 күн бұрын

Yeah your right it won't crack only big chucks get blown out of it on reentry

The ISS will be de orbited by the time Star-liner is usable.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Chinese rocket can fly and deliver cargo and crew with older clone design!!!!

Nasa is too late to realize on it, after spending 4,6 billion for nothing in Starliner.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Do u think Boeing will refund that money?

While Dream Chaser uses heat shield tiles as Starship does and as the Space Shuttle did those tile surfaces will at least be protected from aerodynamic forces by a fairing during launch. Tile damage caused the destruction of Shuttle COLUMBIA and remains a problem for the development of Starship. Starliner has become such an boondoggle for Boeing I suspect that their corporate management might not be too upset if NASA dispensed with further commitments for the spacecraft. They've raked in plenty of money from the program already and further efforts may well just eat away at their bottom line.

Starliner's next launch is still scheduled for the 25th. Here's a radical idea: Why don't we wait until then and see what happens?

@DarkSyster

24 күн бұрын

What we're seeing is that, even if successful, Starliner doesn't have staying power in this race. Every mission has a bottom line. Dragon is already far ahead. If (or should that be "When" considering the tenacious progress Sierra Space has made) DreamChaser is successful, StarLiner, because of it's lack of re-usability, means it loses in the competition for dollars and gets sent to history. We can all see this. If I were the head of ULA, since the BE-4 is re-usable and restartable, I'd work with Blue Origin on making a re-usable Vulcan. That would keep ULA in the game. Boeing, ever since the suits took over from the pocket protector crowd, is having issues that they need to resolve to really stay in the game anywhere.

@TheCNYMike

24 күн бұрын

@@DarkSyster Thank you for saying that even if Starliner flies on Saturday, it doesn't count. But that's the pattern of SpaceX fans, so no surprises there. Meanwhile, Starliner stays "in this race" as long as NASA wants it as part of the commercial crew program.

@DarkSyster

24 күн бұрын

@@TheCNYMike That is true, but in the longer view, NASA does not have unlimited funding. The government keeps restricting funding. And that was my core point. The economics of StarLiner are not there. My arguements about this topic are based purely on economics. Boeing has a contract, but even the President of Boeing has said that SarLiner is costing them money. It will cost them even more money at this point if they don't deliver than if they do. But come the end of contract, StarLiner will likely be dead. StarLiner from Boeing was chosen because NASA felt it was a safe bet going with a company with a long history of doing this kind of thing before. Their design was based on proven Apollo tech. It should have been "safe". NASA had nothing and needed something. Their decision was not unreasonable when they made it. Hindsight is always 20-20. No one expected Dragon to be the success it is. We still don't know about DreamChaser. Sierra Space will make it work technically, but can they make it work economically? We don't know yet. In the end, it's all about dollars and cents. And in the game of dollars and cents, the StarLiner design doesn't have longevity. I very much don't want us relying on SpaceX for everything. We need healthy competition. That's why I want to see DreamChaser atop a ULA Vulcan-Centaur and I want to see Vulcan become more than it is. It has the potential, if taken in the right direction, of competing against SpaceX. But that might require some of the top brass getting boots to the head. But just a reminder, the BE4 engines in Vulcan are built by Blue Origin, the first company to re-actively land a rocket from space. SpaceX is the second. If ULA doesn't watch their butt, Blue Origin will pull a SpaceX on them.

yes

NASA will send Bill Nelson to say that space is difficult and NASA is doing "its" best yadadi yadada. Bill is jinxed. 😂

Since when is Starliner a space plane? looks like an enlarged Apollo capsule to me.

Dream chaser is cool but why don't they build a new updated space shuttle ??? or do we need anything at all can you say STARGATE !!!

Good Morning. "YES." We basically had a space plane with the shuttle program. The idea of a space plane should have never been put on the back burner. You have the technology. Expound on it make it better. The Starliner is an undated version of an old idea. Not that it's a bad idea. But you always have to be looking forward. In my opinion you must always be trying to build a better mouse trap. Same thing with the Artemis program. Get better at what you do. Great Episode.

@techmap9

25 күн бұрын

Well said!

@mr_obscure_universe

24 күн бұрын

I would not put the Space Shuttle in the same category. In the late 1960s, the original space shuttle was a compact personnel carrier that piggy backed on a mothership. (Not unlike Rutan's later design). When the USAF put demands on the mission, the shuttle ballooned into the "space truck". Ironically, the USAF later dropped its support and mission requirements - but it was too late. And the Space Shuttle was stuck with the exterior fuel tank and strap ons. . . both of which contributed to the two crashes. (Thanks USAF!)

Dream chaser aka the space tennis shoe! lol I hope he it works great!

Yes too bad about the Boeing StarBoner. 😢

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Starboner? Why you call that😂😂😂

When NASA selected Starliner over Dream Chaser, it declared the Shuttle and the concept of the space plane was a failure and that capsules were the way to go

@twotone3471

24 күн бұрын

And then they did the go-ahead for the X-37 unmanned spaceplane and found that it wasn't so bad after all.

@scoutdynamics3272

24 күн бұрын

@@twotone3471 Actually, NASA abandoned the X-37! The Air Force took it over

@twotone3471

23 күн бұрын

@@scoutdynamics3272 DARPA, and now the Space Force you mean?

Dreamchaser>$tarliner.

it seems clear that the Starliner was THE king's choice in 2014! The Winner designated in advance! ! SpaceX's Dragon-crew, the outsider, seems to have been selected just to prove that there is "fair competition" Sierra Space's Dreamchaser, the ugly duckling, had to be eliminated because it looked too similar to the STS shuttle results: the Starliner is at least 7 years behind schedule and a future subject to discussion the Dragon-Crew has an active regular service as for the Dreamchaser: once out of official competition, Sierra Space may have been able to develop its project away from the somewhat inquisitive gaze of NASA; at its own pace, without objectives imposed by "supposed experts" external to the company and it has a good chance of being the second active US crew transport system

Expensive mistake 😢

I really liked Boeing, but with all that wasted money and political mess . . . I was sceptical of Tenacity. I really liked it way back then. I'm glad to see Dream Chaser FINALLY showing us what we can do. I'm sad for Starliner, but Tenacity looks safer.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Dream Chaser is a space plane, so if it works it will be better than even Dragon

BRO dream chaser SUCKS too

Boeing airplanes are falling apart. Would you ever get on one of these rockets knowing what we know today?

@techmap9

25 күн бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thought

Let me guess.. NASA's good old boys were looking after their old buddies at Boeing. All were in place to long and not up to the tasks.

@markallen2536

22 күн бұрын

More so certain congressmen in the States where the stuff was being built than Boeing itself. Ditto for the RS25 engines.

@DavidSiebert

16 күн бұрын

Probably more a case of tradition. Boeing bought Rockwell who at one time was North American. Boeing also built parts of the Saturn V, and North American - Rockwell built Apollo. Add in the fact that Boeing was known for a long time as a company that prided itself on engineering excellence. They had the reputation and the institutional knowledge so it seemed like the safe choice. The sad truth is that Boeing seems to have been taken over by the McDonald Douglas management team. They are all about the next quarter now. It is a deplorable state of the world, but the US has a problem that the accountants are running engineering companies. Space X and Sierra Nevada are still more or less owned by the founders so they still feel the need to do things correctly.

Don’t get ahead of your Nelson, it’s never flown before like Dragon.🐉. No one can bet SpaceX and Dragon 🐉, just wasting more money. Starliner and Dreamchaser will never bet Dragon 🐉.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

Thanks for cmt. Dream Chaser, although can not bet Dragon, at least it can support Dragon somehow. Do u agree?

@stephensfarms7165

24 күн бұрын

@@techmap9 Yes, agree on support, because nothing out there can bet Dragon 🐉.

Imagine a Full sized Space Shuttle with Air breathing Jets for flying like a jet after re-entry on top a Starship Booster. Now that would be cool.

Dream Chaser should fit in Rocket Lab’s Neutron reusable rocket.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

yeah, great

@johncherish7610

24 күн бұрын

It could also fit on a reusable starship first stage quite easily with room to spare.

Twiddling with over Nerded POS designs isnt gonna get what we need. Elon is on the right path with fabricated stainless. but on the wrong path with tiles for heat shield, and everybody in comments can see it, but Rocket Enginerds cant. Ditto on Dream Chaser, Mediocre hull design, based on 40 year old tech, then over complicated, with high tech stuff cobbled onto more high tech base, in an attempt to get passing function. Too slow to build, no durability factor, too expensive, and all the Science Nerd testing in the Universe wont fix it. Better start with a clean sheet of paper and start over. Maybe do actual research into metal additives to stainless to make more plasma erosion resistent, and maintain strength at higher temps... Like the steel for sky scraper structual framing. its designed to stay rigid red hot. RXR spikes are kinda similar, you need them hotter to forge. So that with stainless, and the plasma erosion resistence increase. and perhaps a multi mission ablative coating. Then redesign the ship for a serious glide ratio at extreme altitudes, so using less air density for velocity reduction to keep heat down and plasma effects away. And go to longitudinal gore construction, using flat sheets so you put the spendy heat resistant metal on the lower chines where needed and can use cheaper 304L everywhere else. Stick Dream Chaser in a Space Museum, and these repetive testing nerds as tour guides... Never ask a scientist to design anything practical.... You need Blue Collars for that...

@johncherish7610

24 күн бұрын

Stainless steel has a specific melting point. There is no such thing as reentry plasma resistant stainless steel. It melts at the temperature that is characteristic of what it is made of. If you need a higher temperature material that would be titanium but there are trade offs of Titanium fabrication such as the welding of it and its cold temperature fragility. It all comes down to materials science technology

@garylester3976

24 күн бұрын

@@johncherish7610 Theres a lot of different kinds of stainless, I've only worked with a few of them. Basically an alloy,. Major ingredient is iron, Then probably nickle. then minor amounts of other stuff, iron can be alloyed like in building structures to be able to maintain strength at high temps, there done for fires. So I'm suggesting such, and redesigning ship to do a much longer re entry profile so that the heating is spread over more time, in thinner air, and you arent melting the metal. Also now talk of return to the water cooling concept. Which I thought good when they first talked about it. And stainless is pretty good with heat erosion thru oxidation, which is why you dont cut it with an old school cutting torch. You can melt it but it doesnt oxydize well like mild or carbon steel. Which is why its used around flames. There might be a chance of creating a stainless with boron and silicates, which would normally be considered impurities. silicates in slag. boron is what makes glass Pyrex, there are other types of high temp glass, moden kitchen Pyrex isnt the original mix, you can read about it online studying cookware. Boro silicate glass is incredibly hard to melt, an oxy/acet torch will barely do it. I have played with it like that. I suspect the biggie is flight profile. And there are signs of beginning realization on that. The main thing is that the tiles are not a reliable choice, have already killed a crew. We really need to get away from them.

Apples and oranges here. This is a Cargo ship and not Human rated. That is not a trivial difference.

A 🤡💩🥪 with wings, Boeing the junkyard of space😂

Yes Boeing stopped focussing on quality airplanes and turned to maximise profit at the expense of safety after being taken over by McDonnel-Douglass failed management. NASA selected their two most expendable astronauts for the first flight on Boeing Starliner.

@techmap9

24 күн бұрын

"two most expendable astronauts" what do u mean?

Tesla will own Boeing soon enough!

@techmap9

25 күн бұрын

Hopefully

@robertarmstrong3478

24 күн бұрын

Why would Spacex buy Boeing? Would Tesla buy GM? What tech have either got that Musk would want?

@greglight3745

24 күн бұрын

Or Blue Origin?

@biomechanique6874

24 күн бұрын

I wouldn't buy Boeing even for a dollar.

I think NASA should reclaim any shuttle not chopped up. They could seal the cargo bay, convert it to "POD" style living, remove current engines, install 2 raptors, and updated avianics for space use only. No heat shield needed if placed in space and never return.

@johncherish7610

24 күн бұрын

You forgot an important engineering issue the space shuttle needed to open the cargo bay doors to expose the cooling system to dissipate heat so you cant weld them shut

Boeing is going to exhaust its supply of hamsters and gerbils.

Yes

Yes !!!

Yes

@techmap9

25 күн бұрын

😍😍😍

Yes

Yes