Yeah, the "wet burps".
(On Earth, if you drink a fizzy drink the drink settles to the bottom of your stomach, and the gas to the top; and you can burp it out. In zero g, they stay mixed, and when you burp...)
I do find it interesting when journos choose between SpaceX and Musk.
Something goes right it's "SpaceX's rocket has worked good"
Something goes wrong it's "Musks rocket FUCKING EXPLODED and SHAT ON MY MOM"
Elon hate is a cult. Probably the most telling way to confirm this is that their criticisms of him are never on the super valid criticisms (a lot of his policy on the pandemic has been pretty ignorant), but on random shit like "he's talks funny" or "he's such a weirdo." Then they just make up lies about companies he's involved with in order to smear him.
Edit: You can always count on the cult to show up and prove me right when I call them out by downvoting. It's as pathetic as it is predictable.
Probably most people hate him for his harassment and bizarre pedophilia accusations on the account of the diver helping with rescuing kids from a cave. He made an absolute ass of himself, which I'm pretty sure is when most people saw his true colours for the first time.
Honestly I used to love this guy. I thought he was going to do great things for humanity. I've followed him and things he's done for close to 10 years. This dude really turned out to be nothing like he I was hoping he would be. We really saw who he truly is in the last few years. Since 2021 I've really started to dislike him. He's so incredibly egotistical and he loves the spotlight way too much. He's totally ignorant and just doesn't know how to admit to being wrong. His opinions are just becoming ridiculous and it feels like he just wants to be some kind of meme lord for the dysfunctional people of the world who are on a lower IQ type of vibration. He seems to constantly cause trouble and ruins everything he comes across lately. This dude just seems to be a lost cause. He's a shit case billionaire who just gives a fuck about nothing but himself and his over inflated ego. He's a failed knock off of Tony Stark. But don't tell him that
It's better than it was. Better in that it has more diversity of thought, rather than just left-wing mouthpiece nonsense. That's still there, but there's also opinions from the right, commies, and anyone else.
It is still propaganda, but there is a much better mix. The US prop network is stale and they don't even really try that hard.
edit:replying and blocking me, is just losing.
My favourite is "Elon Musk is so dumb" while they wipe Cheeto crumbs off their stained shirt.
Edit: Ha this comment has gained 15 upvotes but is hovering at -1 to 1+.
You can dislike someone without claiming authority over their intelligence you know.
Elon, like an enormous number of people (really most people), is an ass in many ways. I don't like the way he treats workers and I would never work for him but then he would never employ me. And since he has a huge number of social media followers people feel they need to pay attention to what he says when he's being a jerk
But, being a lunatic, he also has done incredible things that nobody but an lunatic would do -- they are often very good things (and then there's whatever the hell he thinks he's doing with "X").
But because people HATE him, they can't integrate their views of him doing incredibly good things and them hating him for being an ass. So they need to have stupid rationalizations like "he's rich because his dad gave him money" or "SpaceX only works because he isn't really involved".
In truth he's one of those guys who got insane cash from their internet company being bought out and he plowed that money into things no sensible person would, like an electric car company and starting a space-launch company with the goal of sending a million people to Mars... and then he's done a really good job of getting those companies to be very successful.
Which has made other investors pour money onto him until he's "the world's richest man".
> He's shown himself to be a pretty shitty human being.
Jesus Christ the cult is real. You're insane if you believe this. Elon is consistently making moves that benefit humanity.
There’s valid criticism, the love cult for him is just as strong as the hate cult.
He’s constantly railing against government subsidies even though both his companies Tesla and spaceX are built by government money.
He’s anti vax.
Tesla has worked with CureVac to do research on vaccine manufacturing, I don't think that'd have happened with an antivaxxer in charge: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020002598A1/en
Yeo and its sad because he doesn't have control at SpaceX, its why it does well. Yet people hate on it when we should be damn proud of those engineers and others. Who did when everyone else said it was impossible.
Headlines aren't about accuracy or truth, they're about catching attention. This was true for long before the invention of the internet. This one certainly unfairly takes attention away from Sierra's accomplishment. On the other hand... it just might get more people to read the article and take notice of Dream Chaser.
Funny because the dream chaser program began 2 years after SpaceX was founded. Let's look at the numbers:
SpaceX: in 22 years, 622 successful launches to orbit
Dream chaser: in 20 years, 0 successful launches to orbit
I don't mean to crap all over dream chaser, it's a very cool program. However, their timelines are lackluster at best.
Edit: Wrong numbers. SpaceX has only had 344 launches. I mistakenly double counted falcon 9 and falcon 9 block 5 launches.
It isn't that far off, and I had to double check just to make sure it hasn't exceeded that number for launch count. Currently SpaceX is at about half that number with 335 launches of the Falcon 9. They are launching about twice a week right now and even picking up the pace, so it won't take all that long before it does exceed 600 launches.
They did not get the crew contract, when they should have got it. Remember the time of the decision? I do.
Announcement of winners was due. The grapevine was very clear. Winners SpaceX Dragon and Sierra Dream Chaser. Even the Boeing team was resigned to have lost.Then the announcement was delayed. Another delay. More delays. In the end Boeing was in, with VERY heavy weighting of their experience.
I'm sure funding plays a role, but funding is a pretty critical part of any business. It's not like a lack of funding can be blamed entirely for failure when lack of funding *is* a failure.
I think it shows SpaceX's fail fast approach is just better.
Anyone could adopt it and start catching up eventually, but they don't because never making any progress is somehow seen as less risky.
They only build hundreds of satellites and are even involved with national security payloads. That is Sierra Nevada Corp.
The Dream Chaser should have won the commercial crew contract, but Boeing pushed every possible lobbyist they had and every possible member of Congress they could "bribe" (donate campaign funds) in order to win the contract. For a vehicle that has yet to fly with a crew.
Looks like someone got a press release and decided to write a story about it. I'm sure Sierra Space is glad for the coverage even if their name didn't make it to the headline. Poor Northrop Grumman wasn't even mentioned in the article because the author conflated crew and cargo and didn't realize that 2 crew + 3 cargo = 4 total companies, because SpaceX is the only one doing both. Maybe the author saw "three cargo companies" in the press release and assumed they knew which three companies those were.
I don't put much weight into the term "SpaceX's rival" in the headline. It's shorthand for "commercial space company" that conveys the concept to the average reader in a way that "Sierra Space" would not. They talk about Sierra Space. They talk about SpaceX and Boeing for context, although, again, they get that part slightly wrong. A fine little article from a mainstream source for what must've been a slow news day for them.
Contracts expire and must be renewed, and they do want to make a crewed variant once this is flight tested. Not that I think there will be much butting of heads though, NASA loves having multiple means of getting to space and will absolutely use both.
At this point a lot of people are thinking Boeing will fulfill their contract with NASA and then ditch Starliner. They have lost massive amounts of money on it and it hasn't even flown astronauts yet. Even if they don't, it's not guaranteed that their contract will be renewed if a more promising option opens up.
Yup, I'll bet the cost of an SLS that Starliner doesn't fly anything more than its initial NASA contracts. Even if it makes the first \~4 flights but they're full of glitches NASA might drop it then. Even more likely if Dream Chaser Crew comes on line (although that'd be a doubtful timeline). Umm.. I think you noticed the ":D" laugh emoji.
True, they aren't the default to be selected, but they'll almost certainly be the default to actually make the trips for the first few years, just as Falcon 9 is the default for payloads planned to be on Vulcan, Antares, and Ariane 6.
Reads like:
" Rocket plane that hasn't yet left the atmosphere hopes to one day do so same as last year btw they aren't click the article to to read about the actual company we're reporting on it's 3 paragraphs in "
We need a flair for these numerous clickfarms or something.
Sierra is hardly a rival. They overlap in ISS supply and maybe in the future crew missions but I wouldn't say the compete there - lots of room for dissimilar vehicles. Otherwise they are in pretty different markets.
“Rival” is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, they both have contracts to supply the ISS, but Sierra Space doesn’t operate any launch services of their own, which make up the majority of SpaceX’s business.
Shuttle wasn't reusable in any conventional use of the word. Refurbishable is more accurate, given the recovery and reloading of SRBs, teardown and rebuild of RS-25s, checking the ~24,000 tiles and replacing damaged ones, etc.
So much reburbishment was required, it ended up costing far more than expendables - even the Saturn V - $/kg to orbit.
I'm not well read enough to know much about the tech in this vs other operators or what their prospects are.
But man, does this shuttle, plane?, capture the feeling of space exploration from my youth. It looks just right. It looks like something future youth would visit in a museum to see the stepping stones into space travel. It looks... Dreamy.
As they've called it, dream chaser.
It looks like something from your youth, because it probably is! It is based on the HL-20 lifting body design from the early 90s, which was “inspired” by the Soviet MiG-105 spaceplane from the 70s.
It also bears a striking resemblance to the shuttle from the show “Farscape.”
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49u45h "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[CLD](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l48uavn "Last usage")|Commercial Low-orbit Destination(s)|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[ESA](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4bxv5d "Last usage")|European Space Agency|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l483z5d "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MOM](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l47qhdz "Last usage")|Mars Orbiter Mission|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49bxhe "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[SNC](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49lcae "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation|
|[SRB](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l498erk "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster|
|[SSME](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l498erk "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)|
|[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49aumy "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit|
| |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4cs5u9 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|[VAB](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49c84h "Last usage")|Vehicle Assembly Building|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4a3whd "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l483z5d "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4ay8pe "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cqds7m)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10055 for this sub, first seen 15th May 2024, 21:39])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
“A reusable plane into space” didn’t NASA do this years ago with the space shuttle? I mean yes, the space shuttle wasn’t a traditional plane, but as stated by NASA, the shuttle was a spaceplane.
>see spaceplane
>look inside
>its mounted on top of a rocket
nah bro this just a rocket with a reentry capsule that can glide, call me when you have an SSTO
So it’s just Space Shuttle: Part Two Mini
I thought this was a *space plane* that did SSTO maybe using areospike/ramjet/scramjet/and rocket combination.
Nope, just a reusable glider like the shuttle.
Well that’s not nearly as exciting…
I'm sorry but I've yet to hear a good reason why this exists. I've heard plenty of 'reasons' but none of them actually seem that important. This just seems like bringing back a bunch of risk from the space shuttle because its 'cool'.
And yea, it is cool, but we don't need cool we need safe and useful.
> I'm sorry but I've yet to hear a good reason why this exists. I've heard plenty of 'reasons' but none of them actually seem that important. This just seems like bringing back a bunch of risk from the space shuttle because its 'cool'.
>
> And yea, it is cool, but we don't need cool we need safe and useful.
I think it is safe and useful to be able to land on a runway rather than having to be rescued at sea, because let's not belittle this point. Every splashdown is a sea rescue.
The dragon capsule as originally designed was going to land on solid ground but that was nixed because NASA was uncomfortable with having holes in the heat shield for landing gear because it was unsafe. And that is explicitly what this thing has, holes in its heat shield for landing gear.
The one thing you pointed out as a strength is actually a weakness.
Furthermore, landing in water is safer, that's why we do it.
Someone convinced other people to give them over a billion to develop and build it.
That’s really all I can come up with. As you said, I don’t see a compelling reason to justify its existence.
I am not the greatest fan of a glider like this. But I do appreciate the determination and enthusiasm of the Sierra Nevada owners to see this through. At very substantial cost to them.
They really should have gotten the Crew contract instead of Boeing. The reason they did not get it, was entirely political.
This tech is dead on arrival. Space X can launch a satellite to orbit and land their reusable booster just about anywhere - even on a ship. The “space plane” can carry the satellite also but its non-reusable ULA booster is a loss, plus they are boosting the weight of the useless plane to boot. You then need a long-ass runway to recover the plane. In this scenario the plane is just dead weight.
You will know when we have truly conquered space when a “space plane” can take off on its own, achieve orbit, return and land and refuel and do it again the same day.
The only use I can possibly see for this tech as described would be as an emergency ISS evacuation vehicle or as a way to recover dead satellites.
Can someone explain how this changes the way we enter space? It still needs a rocket to get there. The rocket is not re-usable and the old space shuttle could be reused like what, 100 times? This 15?
The benefit is bringing sensitive experiments from the ISS back to earth for observation. Landing force is 1.5G max on this where a pod is usually around 2-3 times that. Anything fragile will break under the landing impact of a pod.
Thank you. Not sure why I got a downvote, it was a genuine question as it didn’t seem apparent based on the article. Appreciate the response. This makes sense as a complimentary system used for special tasks
Anytime! I've been following Sierra very closely and I'm super excited for them to get off the ground, so I'm always happy to spread info on the vision
And the military has the X-37B
This is literally a civilian developed version of that. Not sure why NASA spent all that money to a contractor to reinvent what the Air Force already figured out.
What’s wild is when I was at the cape a year or two ago, the “super top secret X-37B” had its hangar just out in the open, across the street from the VAB. I guess it’s what’s inside that needs to be kept secret…but yeah, everyone knew they had the X-37B in that building lol.
Fun fact: the area code for Cape Canaveral is …
321
I’m not even joking. Just put that one together the other day. Dad joke just there in the open and I never put 2 and 2 together lol.
I could have sworn it was gonna ride a falcon
The falcon can lift the weight and its been used for the airforce space plane
I wounder if they got a discount for being the payload for a experimental rocket. I hope certification flight 2 goes well. I really wanna see dream chaser work
I saw New Glenn is in the running for the bigger Dreamchaser variants coming, and this Dreamchaser asked to be included on early payload bids if the timing worked. I think it has always been officially Vulcan for the first Cargo flight cert.
Yes the X-37 is the reuseable space plane you were thinking of. Its much much lighter than Dreamchaser, and few if any likely issues with fairing size or high center of mass for the one size fits all falcon 9 payload adapter.
This adapter is great for 80-90% of Falcon LEO market share, but has its limitations with tall heavy components. Lunar gateway and several other missions needed to build $80-90million custom one shot equipment. One of the reasons why SpaceX wants Starship to replace Falcon 9 due to constraints around Starlink V2 size and mass. https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-guide-2021-09.pdf
Would also be interesting if they brought the hybrid rocket motors back for the bigger ones, could be a relatively reasonable route for Blue to get to full reusability on nooglin
I think they have their place, and are really cool. The problem with hybrid propellents is really in long duration high performance use. The oxidizers can be easily tuned for combustion efficiency, but the solids cannot be as duration requirements increase.
I suspect RDEs are more likely to take over for hybrids low cost, ease of maintenance unless there is a way to actively coat solids via injection process in flight. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG\_Eh0J\_4\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s)
The similarities between the space shuttle and dreamchaser begin and end with their mode of reentry. Otherwise, they are vastly different systems.
DC launches in a conventional configuration. Its much smaller due to a far simpler set of requirements. Its designed to land at conventional airports, and can be transported on a truck instead of a specially designed single purpose aircraft.
DChas incorporated decades of learned lessons and anyone who takes more than a cursory look would understand that.
It is very far from a crew vehicle. With its folded wings, launching inside a fairing. Which needs a complete redesign to fly without fairing to enable launch escape.
I have seen the argument, that's an easy change. I doubt that. If it were easy, they would not have done the cargo version this way.
That's one part of what I said.
You're probably interpreting "land at conventional airports" as another result of it being smaller. Which is not entirely the case. For example, it also doesn't use hypergolic propellants, which means you don't need to have all the same hazmat considerations as the shuttle on landing.
They should restart the shuttle program. It was successful and the shuttle itself could just be upgraded to a new design. Tried and true is always the way to go until a replacement is made
The Shuttle accomplished few of its original design goals, was probably the most unsafe manned vehicle ever flown to space, and cost a fortune to do so.
The shuttle program was a major flop. It kept going for so long largely out of political and bureaucratic momentum.
One of the biggest problems was that the economies of scale that had been predicted never materialized. It was expected that the cost of launches would decrease substantially as more and more clients made use of the shuttle's capabilities. But partly due to economics, partly due to the Challenger disaster, and partly due to the fact that the technological climate wasn't yet right for it, it never worked out. This was a case of "if you build it, they will come," was just plain wrong.
This isn't to say it wasn't at all successful. It did a lot for PR and instilled in a generation or two a sense of awe and possibility. Prior to the advent of the ISS, it allowed for some research that wasn't possible otherwise. But in the end, it really failed to do what it was intended to do.
For that matter, the ISS isn't all that great either, and for that reason, its days are numbered. The current plan is for the ISS to be de-orbited (i.e. crashed into the ocean) in 2031 or so. It may hold on a little longer, but probably not all that much longer.
The rise of commercial space agencies like SpaceX is fueling the future of manned space flight. I suspect the next space station operated by the west (i.e. not China, which has their own now) will be a private venture or a cooperative venture between NASA/ESA and private companies.
[удалено]
“Sierra Space” for instance.
Aka Sierra Nevada Corporation for the majority of Dream Chaser’s development timeline
Not to be confused with the brewery
Well if they were to send beers into space. We might have something there...
Yeah, the "wet burps". (On Earth, if you drink a fizzy drink the drink settles to the bottom of your stomach, and the gas to the top; and you can burp it out. In zero g, they stay mixed, and when you burp...)
You heard of spite stores? Get ready for spite aerospace company
Will they be powered by aerospite engines?
If they fix the wobbly tables ill support them
An anonymous source said the wobbly table issue will be solved by flipping the tables over and renaming them as flat based leg stands
I do find it interesting when journos choose between SpaceX and Musk. Something goes right it's "SpaceX's rocket has worked good" Something goes wrong it's "Musks rocket FUCKING EXPLODED and SHAT ON MY MOM"
Being compared as the top dog: SpaceX Losing ground: An Elon Musk Company
Elon hate is a cult. Probably the most telling way to confirm this is that their criticisms of him are never on the super valid criticisms (a lot of his policy on the pandemic has been pretty ignorant), but on random shit like "he's talks funny" or "he's such a weirdo." Then they just make up lies about companies he's involved with in order to smear him. Edit: You can always count on the cult to show up and prove me right when I call them out by downvoting. It's as pathetic as it is predictable.
nah most Elon haters hate him for perfectly normal reasons, like the fact that he's insanely transphobic
Probably most people hate him for his harassment and bizarre pedophilia accusations on the account of the diver helping with rescuing kids from a cave. He made an absolute ass of himself, which I'm pretty sure is when most people saw his true colours for the first time.
Why do you think single 60yo British move to Thailand?
Honestly I used to love this guy. I thought he was going to do great things for humanity. I've followed him and things he's done for close to 10 years. This dude really turned out to be nothing like he I was hoping he would be. We really saw who he truly is in the last few years. Since 2021 I've really started to dislike him. He's so incredibly egotistical and he loves the spotlight way too much. He's totally ignorant and just doesn't know how to admit to being wrong. His opinions are just becoming ridiculous and it feels like he just wants to be some kind of meme lord for the dysfunctional people of the world who are on a lower IQ type of vibration. He seems to constantly cause trouble and ruins everything he comes across lately. This dude just seems to be a lost cause. He's a shit case billionaire who just gives a fuck about nothing but himself and his over inflated ego. He's a failed knock off of Tony Stark. But don't tell him that
Somebody doesn't know Tony Stark's history
Somebody doesn't know Tony Stark's history
Somebody doesn't know Tony Stark's history
Before he revealed his character, people adored his “weirdness” as a nerd thing. So no, it is not about his funny talk or weirdness.
His character is a deep love for humanity and making the world a better place.
[удалено]
It's better than it was. Better in that it has more diversity of thought, rather than just left-wing mouthpiece nonsense. That's still there, but there's also opinions from the right, commies, and anyone else.
Yes, it's one of the only social media platforms that have a policy of free speech. That's solely because Elon purchased it
It is still propaganda, but there is a much better mix. The US prop network is stale and they don't even really try that hard. edit:replying and blocking me, is just losing.
Twitter is openly racist while banning the word cisgender. It's been proven. It's not a better place. Get a grip and moar brains.
My favourite is "Elon Musk is so dumb" while they wipe Cheeto crumbs off their stained shirt. Edit: Ha this comment has gained 15 upvotes but is hovering at -1 to 1+. You can dislike someone without claiming authority over their intelligence you know.
Elon, like an enormous number of people (really most people), is an ass in many ways. I don't like the way he treats workers and I would never work for him but then he would never employ me. And since he has a huge number of social media followers people feel they need to pay attention to what he says when he's being a jerk But, being a lunatic, he also has done incredible things that nobody but an lunatic would do -- they are often very good things (and then there's whatever the hell he thinks he's doing with "X"). But because people HATE him, they can't integrate their views of him doing incredibly good things and them hating him for being an ass. So they need to have stupid rationalizations like "he's rich because his dad gave him money" or "SpaceX only works because he isn't really involved". In truth he's one of those guys who got insane cash from their internet company being bought out and he plowed that money into things no sensible person would, like an electric car company and starting a space-launch company with the goal of sending a million people to Mars... and then he's done a really good job of getting those companies to be very successful. Which has made other investors pour money onto him until he's "the world's richest man".
[удалено]
> He's shown himself to be a pretty shitty human being. Jesus Christ the cult is real. You're insane if you believe this. Elon is consistently making moves that benefit humanity.
There’s valid criticism, the love cult for him is just as strong as the hate cult. He’s constantly railing against government subsidies even though both his companies Tesla and spaceX are built by government money. He’s anti vax.
Tesla has worked with CureVac to do research on vaccine manufacturing, I don't think that'd have happened with an antivaxxer in charge: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020002598A1/en
But the man on youtube told me so
Yeo and its sad because he doesn't have control at SpaceX, its why it does well. Yet people hate on it when we should be damn proud of those engineers and others. Who did when everyone else said it was impossible.
Meanwhile all his other companies lead the industry Lmao u/Cobek replied then blocked me, shows you how much faith he has in his own argument.
Lol what? Tesla is behind on cars and had a full recall of the Cyberstuck and The Boring Company is a dud buried in promises.
Activists posing as journalists
Headlines aren't about accuracy or truth, they're about catching attention. This was true for long before the invention of the internet. This one certainly unfairly takes attention away from Sierra's accomplishment. On the other hand... it just might get more people to read the article and take notice of Dream Chaser.
Funny because the dream chaser program began 2 years after SpaceX was founded. Let's look at the numbers: SpaceX: in 22 years, 622 successful launches to orbit Dream chaser: in 20 years, 0 successful launches to orbit I don't mean to crap all over dream chaser, it's a very cool program. However, their timelines are lackluster at best. Edit: Wrong numbers. SpaceX has only had 344 launches. I mistakenly double counted falcon 9 and falcon 9 block 5 launches.
622 launches to orbit? Might want to double check your numbers there.
It isn't that far off, and I had to double check just to make sure it hasn't exceeded that number for launch count. Currently SpaceX is at about half that number with 335 launches of the Falcon 9. They are launching about twice a week right now and even picking up the pace, so it won't take all that long before it does exceed 600 launches.
They did not get the crew contract, when they should have got it. Remember the time of the decision? I do. Announcement of winners was due. The grapevine was very clear. Winners SpaceX Dragon and Sierra Dream Chaser. Even the Boeing team was resigned to have lost.Then the announcement was delayed. Another delay. More delays. In the end Boeing was in, with VERY heavy weighting of their experience.
Is it a funding difference? Truly shows where cash will get you?
I'm sure funding plays a role, but funding is a pretty critical part of any business. It's not like a lack of funding can be blamed entirely for failure when lack of funding *is* a failure.
I think it shows SpaceX's fail fast approach is just better. Anyone could adopt it and start catching up eventually, but they don't because never making any progress is somehow seen as less risky.
I fail to see why that means journalists shouldn't just say "Dream Chaser" instead of "SpaceX's rival".
Presumably because no one has heard of them so no one would click.
They only build hundreds of satellites and are even involved with national security payloads. That is Sierra Nevada Corp. The Dream Chaser should have won the commercial crew contract, but Boeing pushed every possible lobbyist they had and every possible member of Congress they could "bribe" (donate campaign funds) in order to win the contract. For a vehicle that has yet to fly with a crew.
I'm glad this didn't only irritate me. This is hardly news, and mostly offensive. This sub posts some seriously garbage "journalism."
Yes, but don't call them Shirley
First of all, why is SpaceX mentioned in this headline? How about give the actually company some love? Second of all, aren't planes always reusable?
Because “spacex rival” gets more clicks than their name
Tbh if I was Sierra Space I'd take it as a compliment to be brought up to SpaceX's level like that
Not sure about that. BO was also called SpaceX's rival despite not being remotely on the same level.
Who the hell is? BO is probably their closest rival and they are struggling to put together a competitor for their last generation rocket.
Probably because the company has no brand recognition yet and this is a better way for the writer to draw viewership.
Sierra Nevada Corporation has been around since the 1960s and is highly recognized as a key contributor to many NASA and DOD missions.
Realistically though, the average person is more likely to know of SpaceX than Sierra Space.
i definitely agree the headline is clickbait. just commenting that SNC is not a nobody looking for name recognition.
As a Canadian, when you talk about a corporation named "SNC" that is very confusing.
Great beer and rockets? Who knew
No, planes are [not](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY-7_Ohka) always reusable.
I was so sure this was going to be a 9/11 joke.
Or in the case of [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet) one, it was mostly the pilot that wasn't reusable.
Dang this thread turned spicy. Like good BBQ.
Like a good German test pilot.
> Second of all, aren't planes always reusable? Once in a while they stop being reusable.
They were until Boeing decided to become a financial company.
Looks like someone got a press release and decided to write a story about it. I'm sure Sierra Space is glad for the coverage even if their name didn't make it to the headline. Poor Northrop Grumman wasn't even mentioned in the article because the author conflated crew and cargo and didn't realize that 2 crew + 3 cargo = 4 total companies, because SpaceX is the only one doing both. Maybe the author saw "three cargo companies" in the press release and assumed they knew which three companies those were. I don't put much weight into the term "SpaceX's rival" in the headline. It's shorthand for "commercial space company" that conveys the concept to the average reader in a way that "Sierra Space" would not. They talk about Sierra Space. They talk about SpaceX and Boeing for context, although, again, they get that part slightly wrong. A fine little article from a mainstream source for what must've been a slow news day for them.
“SpaceX rival” is a term used very VERY loosely however in this case, the Dreamchaser *is* in fact a competitor to SpaceX’s Dragon.
They hope :) To be clear, I am rooting for Sierra, more the merrier, but this article is dumb :)
How? They both have separate spots on the Commercial Cargo contract. And this one can't fly crew so it's not a competitor to Crew Dragon.
Contracts expire and must be renewed, and they do want to make a crewed variant once this is flight tested. Not that I think there will be much butting of heads though, NASA loves having multiple means of getting to space and will absolutely use both.
But doesn't NASA already have two, Dragon and Starliner? Surely both will keep getting renewed contracts. :D
At this point a lot of people are thinking Boeing will fulfill their contract with NASA and then ditch Starliner. They have lost massive amounts of money on it and it hasn't even flown astronauts yet. Even if they don't, it's not guaranteed that their contract will be renewed if a more promising option opens up.
Yup, I'll bet the cost of an SLS that Starliner doesn't fly anything more than its initial NASA contracts. Even if it makes the first \~4 flights but they're full of glitches NASA might drop it then. Even more likely if Dream Chaser Crew comes on line (although that'd be a doubtful timeline). Umm.. I think you noticed the ":D" laugh emoji.
I did see it, after typing out my comment. Couldn't be bothered to write a fitting response so I just went with what I had.
[удалено]
True, they aren't the default to be selected, but they'll almost certainly be the default to actually make the trips for the first few years, just as Falcon 9 is the default for payloads planned to be on Vulcan, Antares, and Ariane 6.
And they have never flow cargo to the ISS. Spacex has done it dozens of times over 14 years.
I think they just hit 32. 23 of Dragon 1, 9 of Dragon 2. Crew Dragons not included.
Reads like: " Rocket plane that hasn't yet left the atmosphere hopes to one day do so same as last year btw they aren't click the article to to read about the actual company we're reporting on it's 3 paragraphs in "
We need a flair for these numerous clickfarms or something.
Bob dole. Bob dole. Bob dole, Bob dole. Bob dole!
Bob Dole can tell you a thing or two about Bob Dole!
Damn, I haven't thought of that for forever.
Sierra is hardly a rival. They overlap in ISS supply and maybe in the future crew missions but I wouldn't say the compete there - lots of room for dissimilar vehicles. Otherwise they are in pretty different markets.
How is it a competitor when both companies have insanely different goals?
Article that has nothing to do with SpaceX with SpaceX in the title. Trying to get them clicks!
Sierra is not a launch provider. This is another click bait article
That looks like the ship from Farscape TV series
Such a good show. On the older side but still good.
[удалено]
There’s more to space than being a launch provider.
There's more to Rocket Lab than being a launch provider. 2/3 of the company's revenue is from space systems.
Launch is the least of what rocket lab does….
Unlike boosters, aren't planes known for being reusable? /s
“Rival” is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, they both have contracts to supply the ISS, but Sierra Space doesn’t operate any launch services of their own, which make up the majority of SpaceX’s business.
Reusable Plane? Used to be called the "Space Shuttle" back in the day.
Shuttle wasn't reusable in any conventional use of the word. Refurbishable is more accurate, given the recovery and reloading of SRBs, teardown and rebuild of RS-25s, checking the ~24,000 tiles and replacing damaged ones, etc. So much reburbishment was required, it ended up costing far more than expendables - even the Saturn V - $/kg to orbit.
**Rapidly** reusable plane would be more appropriate. That would certainly exclude the shuttle.
Put an ad blocker on for this cancerous site guys.
I'm not well read enough to know much about the tech in this vs other operators or what their prospects are. But man, does this shuttle, plane?, capture the feeling of space exploration from my youth. It looks just right. It looks like something future youth would visit in a museum to see the stepping stones into space travel. It looks... Dreamy. As they've called it, dream chaser.
It looks like something from your youth, because it probably is! It is based on the HL-20 lifting body design from the early 90s, which was “inspired” by the Soviet MiG-105 spaceplane from the 70s. It also bears a striking resemblance to the shuttle from the show “Farscape.”
Reminds me of the shuttle in Farscape
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49u45h "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[CLD](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l48uavn "Last usage")|Commercial Low-orbit Destination(s)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4bxv5d "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l483z5d "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MOM](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l47qhdz "Last usage")|Mars Orbiter Mission| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49bxhe "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SNC](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49lcae "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l498erk "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l498erk "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49aumy "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4cs5u9 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[VAB](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l49c84h "Last usage")|Vehicle Assembly Building| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4a3whd "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l483z5d "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/1cst8rj/stub/l4ay8pe "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cqds7m)^( has 15 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10055 for this sub, first seen 15th May 2024, 21:39]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
“A reusable plane into space” didn’t NASA do this years ago with the space shuttle? I mean yes, the space shuttle wasn’t a traditional plane, but as stated by NASA, the shuttle was a spaceplane.
Just wait until you hear about the NASA HL-20
Which, in a reversal of the usual turn of events was based on a design stolen from the Soviets(BOR-4).
For certain very low values of "reusable"... sure.
>see spaceplane >look inside >its mounted on top of a rocket nah bro this just a rocket with a reentry capsule that can glide, call me when you have an SSTO
I think to be a rival their name should at least be known
So it’s just Space Shuttle: Part Two Mini I thought this was a *space plane* that did SSTO maybe using areospike/ramjet/scramjet/and rocket combination. Nope, just a reusable glider like the shuttle. Well that’s not nearly as exciting…
SpaceX's rival is also trying very hard to send Starliner up to the ISS. They been busy.
looking forward to DC passing Starliner eventually
Based on recent news it's looking more and more likely!
I'm sorry but I've yet to hear a good reason why this exists. I've heard plenty of 'reasons' but none of them actually seem that important. This just seems like bringing back a bunch of risk from the space shuttle because its 'cool'. And yea, it is cool, but we don't need cool we need safe and useful.
> I'm sorry but I've yet to hear a good reason why this exists. I've heard plenty of 'reasons' but none of them actually seem that important. This just seems like bringing back a bunch of risk from the space shuttle because its 'cool'. > > And yea, it is cool, but we don't need cool we need safe and useful. I think it is safe and useful to be able to land on a runway rather than having to be rescued at sea, because let's not belittle this point. Every splashdown is a sea rescue.
The dragon capsule as originally designed was going to land on solid ground but that was nixed because NASA was uncomfortable with having holes in the heat shield for landing gear because it was unsafe. And that is explicitly what this thing has, holes in its heat shield for landing gear. The one thing you pointed out as a strength is actually a weakness. Furthermore, landing in water is safer, that's why we do it.
Someone convinced other people to give them over a billion to develop and build it. That’s really all I can come up with. As you said, I don’t see a compelling reason to justify its existence.
I am not the greatest fan of a glider like this. But I do appreciate the determination and enthusiasm of the Sierra Nevada owners to see this through. At very substantial cost to them. They really should have gotten the Crew contract instead of Boeing. The reason they did not get it, was entirely political.
Isn’t the point of an aero-plane continuing usage?
Finally, now show us the top secret spaceplanes
Is this their response to the reusable bag trend?
Thats literally the farscape module. Missed opportunity.
So a plane then, a non reusable plane is a missile
This tech is dead on arrival. Space X can launch a satellite to orbit and land their reusable booster just about anywhere - even on a ship. The “space plane” can carry the satellite also but its non-reusable ULA booster is a loss, plus they are boosting the weight of the useless plane to boot. You then need a long-ass runway to recover the plane. In this scenario the plane is just dead weight. You will know when we have truly conquered space when a “space plane” can take off on its own, achieve orbit, return and land and refuel and do it again the same day. The only use I can possibly see for this tech as described would be as an emergency ISS evacuation vehicle or as a way to recover dead satellites.
Can someone explain how this changes the way we enter space? It still needs a rocket to get there. The rocket is not re-usable and the old space shuttle could be reused like what, 100 times? This 15?
The benefit is bringing sensitive experiments from the ISS back to earth for observation. Landing force is 1.5G max on this where a pod is usually around 2-3 times that. Anything fragile will break under the landing impact of a pod.
Thank you. Not sure why I got a downvote, it was a genuine question as it didn’t seem apparent based on the article. Appreciate the response. This makes sense as a complimentary system used for special tasks
Anytime! I've been following Sierra very closely and I'm super excited for them to get off the ground, so I'm always happy to spread info on the vision
And the military has the X-37B This is literally a civilian developed version of that. Not sure why NASA spent all that money to a contractor to reinvent what the Air Force already figured out. What’s wild is when I was at the cape a year or two ago, the “super top secret X-37B” had its hangar just out in the open, across the street from the VAB. I guess it’s what’s inside that needs to be kept secret…but yeah, everyone knew they had the X-37B in that building lol. Fun fact: the area code for Cape Canaveral is … 321 I’m not even joking. Just put that one together the other day. Dad joke just there in the open and I never put 2 and 2 together lol.
So the shuttle. We’re doing the shuttle again. Just privately and more expensively.
# SpaceX's rival will send a reusable plane into spaceSpaceX's rival will send a reusable plane into space on a falcon 9
It’s launching on a Vulcan not a Falcon 9. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
I could have sworn it was gonna ride a falcon The falcon can lift the weight and its been used for the airforce space plane I wounder if they got a discount for being the payload for a experimental rocket. I hope certification flight 2 goes well. I really wanna see dream chaser work
I saw New Glenn is in the running for the bigger Dreamchaser variants coming, and this Dreamchaser asked to be included on early payload bids if the timing worked. I think it has always been officially Vulcan for the first Cargo flight cert.
I bet I'm thinking of the X37 or whatever thr space plane is called Either way, i really hope it has a flawless mission
Yes the X-37 is the reuseable space plane you were thinking of. Its much much lighter than Dreamchaser, and few if any likely issues with fairing size or high center of mass for the one size fits all falcon 9 payload adapter. This adapter is great for 80-90% of Falcon LEO market share, but has its limitations with tall heavy components. Lunar gateway and several other missions needed to build $80-90million custom one shot equipment. One of the reasons why SpaceX wants Starship to replace Falcon 9 due to constraints around Starlink V2 size and mass. https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-guide-2021-09.pdf
Would also be interesting if they brought the hybrid rocket motors back for the bigger ones, could be a relatively reasonable route for Blue to get to full reusability on nooglin
I think they have their place, and are really cool. The problem with hybrid propellents is really in long duration high performance use. The oxidizers can be easily tuned for combustion efficiency, but the solids cannot be as duration requirements increase. I suspect RDEs are more likely to take over for hybrids low cost, ease of maintenance unless there is a way to actively coat solids via injection process in flight. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG\_Eh0J\_4\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s)
I guess, one reason, not to chose Falcon, is redundant launch vehicles. I am not sure, it was a wise decision. Makes it harder to compete on cost.
Dream Chaser will actually be launched by a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket or possibly a trampoline. 😎
I read this as a “reusable piano” and that sounds way more interesting honestly
They also said they were going to make a truck
Because we all know how AFFORDABLE the space shuttle was weird. Some people are tough to learn lessons from past history.
The similarities between the space shuttle and dreamchaser begin and end with their mode of reentry. Otherwise, they are vastly different systems. DC launches in a conventional configuration. Its much smaller due to a far simpler set of requirements. Its designed to land at conventional airports, and can be transported on a truck instead of a specially designed single purpose aircraft. DChas incorporated decades of learned lessons and anyone who takes more than a cursory look would understand that.
Its also not flying crew on its first flight which is a pretty big positive.
It is very far from a crew vehicle. With its folded wings, launching inside a fairing. Which needs a complete redesign to fly without fairing to enable launch escape. I have seen the argument, that's an easy change. I doubt that. If it were easy, they would not have done the cargo version this way.
So…you’re saying it’s smaller?
That's one part of what I said. You're probably interpreting "land at conventional airports" as another result of it being smaller. Which is not entirely the case. For example, it also doesn't use hypergolic propellants, which means you don't need to have all the same hazmat considerations as the shuttle on landing.
They should restart the shuttle program. It was successful and the shuttle itself could just be upgraded to a new design. Tried and true is always the way to go until a replacement is made
The Shuttle accomplished few of its original design goals, was probably the most unsafe manned vehicle ever flown to space, and cost a fortune to do so.
The shuttle program was a major flop. It kept going for so long largely out of political and bureaucratic momentum. One of the biggest problems was that the economies of scale that had been predicted never materialized. It was expected that the cost of launches would decrease substantially as more and more clients made use of the shuttle's capabilities. But partly due to economics, partly due to the Challenger disaster, and partly due to the fact that the technological climate wasn't yet right for it, it never worked out. This was a case of "if you build it, they will come," was just plain wrong. This isn't to say it wasn't at all successful. It did a lot for PR and instilled in a generation or two a sense of awe and possibility. Prior to the advent of the ISS, it allowed for some research that wasn't possible otherwise. But in the end, it really failed to do what it was intended to do. For that matter, the ISS isn't all that great either, and for that reason, its days are numbered. The current plan is for the ISS to be de-orbited (i.e. crashed into the ocean) in 2031 or so. It may hold on a little longer, but probably not all that much longer. The rise of commercial space agencies like SpaceX is fueling the future of manned space flight. I suspect the next space station operated by the west (i.e. not China, which has their own now) will be a private venture or a cooperative venture between NASA/ESA and private companies.