It's clear the failure of Starwaster is putting Boieing/ULA to shame and they're not interested in a third-party client besting them to space. On the other hand, I dont see SpaceX blasting off a competitor to Crew Dragon. Arianne 6 is rolling to pad today. That's their only option. Should that new, non-reusable, rocket actually works.
they want use wasteful one time use rockets on reusable ship which kind makes Dreamchaser mission null and void rather than using SpaceX Falcon9 reuseable systems
That would require 70 BE4 to be delivered and work 100% Also sadly for Sierra Space, Vulcan is not going to be human rated. And New Glenn needs 7 BE4s.
@MaruAdventurer Sierra and DreamChaser will never contract with SpaceX. Most of the money Sierra gets comes from Jeff the Bozo Bezos and the partnership with his Body Odor company that can't even build the rocket engines for ULA's rockets. This is why he is trying to delay the Starship launch by suing the FAA and SpaceX for the 3rd time.
Falcon Heavy is currently the only launch vehicle capable of carrying the Chaser. The other option would be to use the Starship booster which is also capable of launching the Chaser
The detail most of these comments are missing is that ULA is the victim here, not Sierra Space. Dreamchaser isn't ready to fly yet, Sierra Space is months away from being ready to launch. If Dreamchaser was ready to launch today, ULA would take their money and launch DC, rather than eating the cost of the launch themselves. But, they can't afford to wait any longer.
Does ULA have the BE-4's for their contracted upcoming launches? Blue Origin is going to be hard pressed to supply ULA and New Glenn for all the promised launches and something tells me the only thing that can be counted on will be delays.
Not that I wish this on them, but there would be a certain karma if one of the BE-4s were to fail during the Vulcan test launch and cause a RUD or prevent the rocket reaching orbit.
I would think that NASA must be taking a serious second look at Dream Chaser, due to the ongoing issues with Starliner. I understand ULA's need to certify Vulcan Centaur quickly for national security missions, but it's disappointing that Dream Chaser has to give way because of this. Would it make sense to hitch a ride on a Falcon 9?
@@Wi2Low I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I have to admit that ULA also has a reputation of competence because of its 100% launch success record. I think what happened is that delays in Dream Chaser caused Vulcan Centaur's 2nd launch, and its ensuing launch schedule, to be pushed back. This threatened ULA's goal to be national-security certified with Vulcan Centaur by the end of 2024, so they had to re-arrange things to push on to try to meet the deadline. But if Dream Chaser becomes ready while ULA is still focussing on other certification launches, I wonder if Falcon 9 could launch it instead.
@@thomaswakefield6889 ULA's launch platform for Dream Chaser is Vulcan Centaur. Atlas V might have previously been an option, but due to its Russian RD-180 engines the Russia/Ukraine War put an end to this. Delays in BE-4 engines from Blue Origin delayed Vulcan Centaur's 1st launch until early this year, and this meant that the national security certification launches that were required by the end of 2024 had to go as planned to fit the time allowed. Because of Dream Chaser delays they didn't, so ULA had to re-arrange things. However, starting in 2025 I would think that Dream Chaser might be well positioned for consideration by NASA again.
@victorkrawchuk9141 what ULA launch success records? ULA has delayed and lost multi billion dollars contracts because they can't get a rocket into space. Hell, they lost 2 NASA and 3 Air Force contracts because they can't launch rockets into space, and what little they were actually able to do has been delayed by years.
Because the people willing and able to spend the exorbitant price for a quick joy ride want to be able to list 'astronaut' on their Facebook pages. Total vanity on display.
They cross the Karman line. Internationally recognised as space above 100km (62-miles). At that altitude a vehicle would have to exceed orbital velocity to achieve enough aerodynamic lift to be “flying” Veritable Atmospheric conditions mean in real terms the altitude this condition is can be as little as 80km but also can be much higher than 100km.
I think to technically be considered an astronaut you only have to go higher than the Karman Line. It's like orbit is just a trick that lets you stay up there longer. To me this is like saying you can ski moguls, but all you really do is just traverse the trail from side to side and create big ruts that break the rhythm of the moguls.
Yes it gets barely over the karma line but it doesn't stay in orbit cuz they're not traveling fast enough to stay in orbit. New Glen only reaches mach 3. You need mach 8 or 9 to stay in orbit. That's were most people get confused is if they don't stay in orbit, you're not an astronaut. But since it goes above the karma line, they need life support and are there for about an hour or 2, they are astronauts
I don't think ULA had any alternative but to serve the interests of the military. Dream Chaser was not ready to fly and is still not ready to fly. They had to go forward or give up the projects to a competitor; Space X. I think Dream Chaser will be successful but I wouldn't put money on it. It is a very complex vehicle and difficult to maintain. Not unlike the shuttle and even the Starliner. In the long run we need such a vehicle for orbital support but I think it will have to be less complex, more affordable and require less maintenance. Probably do less things than they claim it will do in the future. Of course, it still has to survive reentry and land - safely. None of that has been proven so far. By the time they get a human rated version approved, SpaceX will have already developed a support vehicle to use in conjunction with the Starship Musk has had it in mind from day one. I remember seeing a drawing of it. The propulsive Dragon with trunk.
The Falcon sized fairing will not work. A new one would be necessary, PLUS SPACEX would rather use Falcon Heavy with capability to put the vehicle into a higher orbit than Falcon 9 could.
SpaceX is pretty focused on Starship. Once that reaches its potential, a lot of other rockets (Including the Falcons) will be less viable. If they manage their dream of rapid reusability a Starship launch might end up costing less than a Falcon 9 launch. This according to Musk.
@@gregsteele806Starship is literally going to be a massive failure. Cost alone will make it not worth it most of the time, plus not to mention who tf is launching 50 tons to orbit? Almost no one lmao!
I was involved in the original development of Dream Chaser by Space Dev before Sierra Nevada Corp bought them out, some of the problems that wasn't solved back then(2001-2002) was how to launch with people aboard. Problem 1 was the rocket that was planned to be used was the AtlasV which at the time wasn't man rated, Problem 2 was getting people aboard and then closing the fairing if it was man rated, and finally Problem 3 NASA likes launch escape systems not that they have ever saved a life but you never know however Dream Chaser has no launch escape system and buttoned up inside a fairing makes escape not possible at certain points of the flight even if there was an escape system.
I will never understand why Sierra Space did not have an out in their contract to use a different launch vehicle. Terrible management at Sierra Space like this makes me think Tenacity may suffer from the same type of issues that Boeing is having. I had high hopes but this situation really dampens those.
Between Fail liner & Old Glenn ,Orion, SLS is old outdated tech, end all non performance corps and launch vehicles like Starliner Blue Onion Orion SLS All a waste of tax payer funds, let's fund progress NOT EMPTY PROMISES LIKE SUE ORIGIN
So basically, ULA is incapable to satisfy multiple customers needs. What would it take to convert SLC 37 to Atlas or Vulcan? Dream chaser is not yet human rated could fly on Vulcan, why not use AtlasV for Dream chaser crew? Please ULA by fire Boeing, You are going down with that Boeing Ship! What a load of cr...
Hey, it's their gig, but I just don't see how Sierra Space is going to get into this CRS-2 thing with ULA being their only option. The ISS is being scheduled for de-orbit in 6 years. Hard seeing how this will be profitable if you get back burnered by the Gov't or other commercial payloads. ULA doesn't seem to be able to supply the demand. Just my observation. Someone with the engineering knowledge would have to answer this question: could a Falcon 9 lift a loaded Dream Chaser to the desired orbit? Is there truly other options out there for Sierra Space and Dream Chaser?
I suppose, to be fair, we should stop comparing everyone else to SpaceX, but maybe everyone else should start taking some lessons from SpaceX instead of taking the excuses and Bozo lawfare route. Even Gemini and Apollo didn't take 10+ years. SpaceX would be OK launching Dream Chaser and not rub in the competition factor, Elon has said he accepts good competition.
You state that the failure of the Peregrine Moon Lander was unrelated to ULA's Vulcan, but didn't it fail because of greater than expected vibrations from Vucan and its BE4 engines? Maybe the launch wasn't as "silky smooth," as Tory Bruno claimed.
Sorry Nigeria, but paying for a rocket assisted fair ground ride isn't a space program, it is Jeff Bezzo selling seats to make money for himself. The key words are 'for profit'. A ground launched rescue vehicle is needed now as illustrated by Boeing's 'Old Leaky' now parked at the ISS and the latest near miss due to Russian debris. A crew rated Dream chaser could evacuate all the ISS crew in one trip launching on Falcon 9. ULA would take far too long to ready and launch an expendable Vulcan, whereas SpaceX's has multiple Falcon 9s of proven reliability. Dragon was never meant to be more than temporary until Starship was operational. Dreamchaser will still be needed for the next generation space stations.
ULA is sticking with "Gov't" launches because it is TOO BIG, too Invester focused to compete on level ground. If it wasn't for our tax dollars ULA and Vulcan would not exist.
Launch swap, at the request of the US Military isnt a CANCEL, but a sensible chnage in order, equally ULA booster become certified in the process, this chnage in order should have take place after the first ULA launch, with the third booster available in the next three months.
No steerable a nosewheel is a recipe for a mishap. Look at other non-steerable tri-cycle aircraft like the B-25 and review the accident/mishap data. The only steering capabilities after a high speed landing is by differential braking? Give me a brake (pun intended) and don't count on an automatic directional braking system that would fail when you needed it most. Stupid idea.
Sierra Space better get on it while there is still an ISS to launch too. They plan to deorbit ISS in 2030. Thats only five years. With the all-too-common delays in space development it could be years before the ISS replacement is ready. It would suck to just get your platform off the ground only to have it collect dust for 10 years while you wait on the next station to get operational.
Jeff Bozos called Tony and told ULA to stall and keep the Sierra Space Plane on the ground until Blue Origin gets their rocket flying. All joking aside I could actually see this happening, BO can only make so many Rocket Engines and the ones they did make are already spoken for.
I would veer off of other launch vehicals in the future, except a falcon. Proven over over agian the reliability. But you know....( stupid conrtacts) I bet their pissed.
Poor Bruno! He was the top dog in the industry but caught up in his game and didn't bother pushing the technology and then Elon rolled in. Now ULA sold to BO to keep it afloat but still dinosaur texh
The Falcon Heavy has the lift capacity. May or may not be possible to recover the core booster. You would need a custom fairing which are more difficult to design and build than you might think.
Lets be clear, Vulcan Centaur is too expensive and cannot be produced in quantity, that's why they cancelled the Dream Chaser flight. They simply don't have enough production and money for that, so they have to prioritise. On the other hand, we have SpaceX's Falcon, it can be launched next Tuesday, so to speak, for a fraction of a Centaur cost. If they wanted true interoperability and "objectives alignment", they would ride the Dream Chaser on a Falcon and get done with it.
So is there significant hate between Sierra Space and SpaceX? Falcon 9 launches seem to happen every week. I'm sure if Sierra Space really wanted to make a deal, they could. There is also the ESA, with the Arianne rockets. The "interdependent nature of space missions", may not be the best way forward for human expansion into the solar system. Someone will always drop the ball.
Falcon Heavy and the Starship boosters are the only current active systems capable of launching Dream Chaser. Unfortunately, Sierra has a co tract with ULA and Jeff Besos' Amazon Chinese product called Blue Origin(also known as paper machete)
New shepherd can get people app to space and back but they can't get things into orbit that rocket's gonna have to be redesigned to be able to get things to enter a stable orbit. I think dream chaser is a really good design mainly because it sits on top of the rocket and it can land at a conventional airport
Sadly not politically likely, Even though Falcon 9 is human rated so a crewed version of Dream Chaser could also fly. There is also no intention to human rate ULA's Vulcan. Blue Origin one day hope to human rate its New Glenn, but in my view that is many years away.
Falcon 9 already has an operational crew module. The only thing Dream Chaser brings to the table is the ability to land at an airport . From Space X's point of view that's not worth the effort or cost of making an adapter.
While a Falcon 9 clearly has the capacity to lift Dream Chaser into orbit, an adapter ring and payload fairing would have to be designed. That might take a year, or more.
You're going on a "normal" timeliness for developing rocket parts. Spacex is developing an entire new class of rockets at a staggering rate - give them the dimensions, and they'll knock out what they need in months...
