I hope they build so many, that at least a few get cool names. I'm over names like Tenacity, Curiosity, Perseverance and Ingenuity. When I was a kid, space ships had names like Spider, Falcon, Casper, Molly Brown, Gumdrop and Snoopy. 😁
@@plainText384 Well I thought Spider was a cool name for a Lunar Lander, because of its spindly legs. I just figured with so many of us geeks and nerds in space industry today, they'd be giving them names like Gandalf, Tardis, Twoflower, Jon Snow, Master Chief or Tatooine. Even Gilligan would be fun. 😅
Time frame 4:08: the front landing gear is a ski, simular as on MiG-105 but the skies on it was mounted on the SIDE of the craft and not requared the thermal protection.
TheSpaceBucket report Jan. 08, 2023 concerned a new cargo version of "Tenacity", the "DreamChaser 2.0". The Sierra Space graphic showed a sleek craft with extra wings and extra engines, still unpiloted. Question: with the production of "Reverence" underway, is Sierra Space still working on "Dreamchaser 2.0"?
I thinks it’s kind of a no brainer in the space launch business to not put all your eggs in one basket. And Dreanchaser is really like an egg - strong in its use case but fragile as anything outside those parameters. The floating debris issue is a case in point plus they had a landing failure. I would have thought building two from the get go would have been the prudent course but what do I know I’m just some random Internet commenter.
The cost of this program seems to be hard to find online. Why? Also, one test vehicle is a complete waste of money. There should have been multiple specimens to work out all of the kinks. SpaceX just finished its 3rd StarShip launch thinking that they had figured everything out, but they haven't. Each time they learn something new and make improvements based on lessons learned. I don't know why this space shuttle exists anyway. It can't compete with Falcon's cost or tonnage. At best it is a novelty. At worst, it was a poor decision.
If they get this one built within a year I'll take them seriously but the time these craft take to build makes me wonder if they're made out of gold or something, and relax w the "space is hard" comments...its old and worn out
After BOeRING F*****UP the Dreamchaser only alternative for Dragon, as it supposed to be from the start, and not to spend 4 billions on stupid starliner.
This is perfect. It's a much hurdle to build a cargo version first and it's much safer to iron out any issues before risking crew. Apparently though what most don't seem to understand is that NASA gave Sierra a cargo contract specifically because they are not happy with Boeing or SpaceX.
It's so frustrating to hear that these craft are expected to do missions in the single digits in their "lives". They should last DOZENS of missions MINIMUM before the airframe/chassis/structure is incapable of more trips.
Did Sierra Space build the classified US gov space plane in use today? I'm guessing they did and it serves as a proving ground for some Dreamchaser tech.
Where are they getting the freaking money to do all this stupid projects when people dont even have money to pay for a subway sandwich and IRS takes it all.
I disagree with your comment that it will be several years before the 2nd craft is completed. Now that one craft is built, they will have built processes and tools for building the craft, so construction of future craft should be much faster than the initial one.
Very nice and advance aircraft congratulations.. but i guess its kinda small size spaceplane and looks so complicated to build.... And seems over engineered with the looks of bunch of wiring for a small spaceplane.
For a first of its kind space vehicle it is understandable that it would appear over engineered because Sierra Space wants to get it right. There is after all little margin for error when going to space. Later iterations of this vehicle may result in a smoother and rapid construction, but as usual time will tell.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 i see yeah your right i guess other extra cables and extra instruments are for gathering data purposes so to make new improvements specially on safety
@@TheStrike101 That method of development works Space X, but it is not for everyone. But, I understand that the Space X fanboys can't see that there alternatives.
That's pretty conservative of Sierra Space to resistant to building a back up vehicle. Hell, SpaceX and Boeing has multiple vehicles (yes, Boeing has 2 capsules) Sierra Space should have like 2 vehicles with one in production with that slow of production line/testing proceeding to prep the vehicle date.
It’s a miniature version of the Space Shuttle. That’s all it is. Very similar to the USAF’s lifting body test flights from the 60’s. They didn’t follow that up because it wasn’t very practical.
They didn’t follow it up because it was not cost effective given the technology available decades ago. As launch costs continue to fall having the ability to return high-g sensitive cargo has a significant market. Hopefully a successful start to this program allows them to begin their crew rated variant. Currently only SpaceX, Russia & China have the capability. Given all of Boeing’s issues a further delay or all out cancellation of Starliner is possible. More competition is needed even if Boeing’s high priced solution comes to fruition.
@@ReinReads What ever. They didn’t follow it up because it wasn’t practical or cost effective. Ultimately…you still have to mount it on top of a booster to get it up there. When it returns it has to not only get through our atmosphere at an extremely high rate of speed, pressure and heat that it’s very design itself makes it dangerous and unpredictable. They knew that back in the 60’s and they definitely know it now. But here they go… right back down the same deadly trail. Having lost 14 astronauts in Shuttle burn ups. You might think that they would pursue a different approach to space. But nope. I predict that if this thing ever gets up there…it will not be long before a few more are kia’d. The technology is not yet where it needs to be to use this as a return vehicle. When all of the mad scientists figure out a non-explosive-chemical propulsion engine…it will become possible to leave and return at a more rational and less deadly speed…eliminating the 17,000+ mph currently required to get you up and back down. What that technology might be is anyone’s guess…but you won’t see it in our lifetime.
