A Closer Look At The Inside of Dream Chaser Tenacity!

[@Ionee-q4f]

im so incredibly excited for dream chaser, not just cause we'll have ANOTHER spacecraft capable of running supply missions to the iss and other future stations, but cause i just really love lifting bodies lmao

[@FerociousPancake888]

Me too. And it’s just a perdy little space plane, what’s not to like?

[@i-love-space390]

I am glad that Dream Chase Cargo will use the berthing technique to connect to the ISS. Berthing Ports are wider, so bulkier cargo can be carried. It also doesn't use up the limited docking ports of ISS. When Dragon 2 was set up for Docking, rather than berthing, it created a certain amount of headaches for NASA to juggle the limited docking adapters for Crew Escape vehicles and Cargo vehicles.

[@dereks1264]

Well, that answers my question about why there's no nose wheel.

[@TerpstraMark]

Its hard to believe we actually have flight hardware ready to go, been such a long journey..

[@juliancrooks3031]

Hopefully a manned version will be available soon.

[@icin.9530]

The X37b was docked onto the I.S.S. not to long ago.

[@Wurtoz9643]

No?

[@jbx.7995]

​@Wurtoz9643 oh yes I did catch the X37b docked onto the I.S.S. tap on to the icon circle to the left, my kid don't lie

[@i-love-space390]

Interesting that the Crew version of Dream Chaser is so different from the Cargo version. It has wings in addition to the lifting body. Did NASA and the commercial partners demand more cross range capability?

[@SnowmanTF2]

The initial version that will fly cargo is not as different as the version 2 highlighted in the video. It may be coming from when they shifted from crew to cargo they redesigned it to launch inside a payload fairing, so needed the winglets to fold and became constrained by existing fairing designs. The version 2 eliminates the folding and probably will drop the fairings too; which likely saves weight, allows for larger internal volume, and more latitude in external design changes. They have had around two decades of research/design since their first design really seems to have solidified, so it makes sense there is plenty of things they have found to refine the design since then. Also they wanted it to fly crew from the start, and indications are still want to in the future, which means are going to need to drop the launch inside fairings to have abort capabilities.

[@ghostmourn]

This is my favorite of all the new and upcoming launch vehicles becasue it looks amazing! Space planes have that cool factor

[@nicholasmaude6906]

I can't wait to see on TV the Dream Chaser's first flight.

[@btingey]

Has great military applications… doesn’t it.

[@amminecanarychirpchirp8987]

I'm shopping for a 2026 model cargo version Optimus version 5 will be the navigation . I hope when they are mass produced the price tag is less than 1billion per spaceplane. How much $$$$ ???? Without options. Delivered to florida .

[@alanmcmillan6969]

This is the future.

[@RN4L84]

Why not just build a UFO spacecraft we have the technology already 👽🇺🇸

[@SnowmanTF2]

If we had one, it would not be unidentified

[@Cup815]

Ive seen the version with a proper cockpit and a white top instead of a sleek black top, which ones the crewed version? Didn't they fly a crewed plane in like 2014 or something with a cockpit and land it?

[@Wurtoz9643]

It was a landing test for the initial design for the commercial crew program, however they did not get the contract, they instead got the commercial resupply service contract. Therefore they don’t need a proper cockpit anymore since it won’t launch humans… yet.

[@DemPilafian]

*30 feet long?* Are you trying to get _Dream Chaser_ to follow in the steps of _Mars Climate Orbiter?_

[@classydave75]

What are you talking about? 🙄

[@DemPilafian]

@@classydave75 I'm talking about $193M of taxpayer money (or $367M in today's dollars).

[@classydave75]

@@DemPilafian They aren't the only ones taking subsidies...

[@operatorismail6038]

that was orbital calculations lol not spacecraft dimensions

[@DemPilafian]

@@operatorismail6038 Imperial units have no place in orbital calculations (or really anywhere for that matter).

[@Tek-eo3li]

How long before we see a CCP copy of this too.?

[@FishyAltFishy]

spaceplanes >>>>>>> capsules

[@devinh.7632]

Anyone know why some of the top thermal tiles are black? I was under the impression that one side is usually white on space craft to reflect radiant heat in space

[@dissaid]

😎😎😎

[@TheGpaul]

Nice but too small and it can’t go up on it own power just like the space shuttle,not a lot progress sense, the shuttle

[@RichardShelton]

Another excellent delivery. Thank you.

[@raytribble8075]

This is going to be an epic advancement in space cargo and eventual human space travel. This and crew dragon are perfect. Starliner… sorry… but has been a waste of money and hopefully the doors will not blow off like Boeings airplanes. That being said… can you imagine a Starship docking with ISS? It will look like an aircraft carrier docking with an ice cream truck. ISS: ding dong Starship: Dominos

[@kennethferland5579]

I think immagination is going to be as far as that image goes.

[@SnowmanTF2]

Selecting Starliner was also about getting insurance for the program from their lobbing power, unfortunately their final product also highlights why Boeing has not been commercially competitive in launch services for a few decades.

[@FerociousPancake888]

Sierra has so much going for them. Can’t wait to see what they do.

[@NoobNoob1986]

Can't wait to see a bigger version

[@jolinar.setesh]

that won't going to happen 😀

[@PCMcGee1]

If they would just skin it in American Flags, it would be invulnerable.

[@imstevemcqueen]

Not impressed with this vehicle

[@cube2fox]

It seems Starliner will be better overall because it will be able to transport crew to the ISS in the near future, while Dream Chaser will, at best, do crew missions for Orbital Reef in several years. But Starliner can also ferry crew to Orbital Reef, so it is unclear why they would invest any more in Dream Chaser.

[@nisenobody8273]

We need as many vehicles as possible. Axiom Station, Starlab, Orbital Reef, Vast Space future modular station, etc, we don't know how many of these projects will prosper, but in any case an economy dominated only by SpaceX and Boeing is suboptimal.

[@julianfp1952]

It will be interesting to see how reusability compares. According to the Wikipedia article Starliner capsule is expected to be reusable for 10 missions. I’m not sure how many reuses of a single Dream Chaser is expected. The cost and time of readying each reusable section of the vessels for their next launches will also be interesting to see. If Dream Chaser is significantly better than Starliner in this respect that could be important. The other aspect I can think of is one mentioned in this video, the ability of Dream Chaser to subject returning cargo to a maximum of 1.5g. That could be important if/when space manufacturing starts ramping up and fragile products (maybe in the medical arena) need to get back to Earth. I don’t know what the maximum g force is for a Starliner reentry but since Sierra Space talks up its 1.5g figure I assume that Starliner’s figure is higher.

[@kennethferland5579]

Dream Chaser being a lifting body offeres things that a capsule can't, it expereinces lower g-force on entry, can land on nearly any runway on Earth and has cross range gliding ability while doing so. All this together makes it able to return to Earth within a very short timespan compared to a capsule and is thus idea medical evacuation vessel for ISS. When not used in that emergency capacity the same benifits are utilized for delicate and time sensitive experiments. Also given the whole debacle that Starliner turned out to be shows that NASA should have spent that money on Dream Chaser in the first place, had it gotten the funding which went to Starliner then Dream Chaser would have been operational years ago. Sierra kept the project alive untill NASA saw the error of its ways.

[@kennethferland5579]

@@julianfp1952 Capsules generally hit 3 g's on reentry.

[@Tek-eo3li]

Dream Chaser exists because starliner has been nothing but failures...where have you been?

[@rogerscottcathey]

Whats with these stupid names. Why not "Hubris"? Or "Bill" or "Silly Ass" as names?

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

What name do you consider stupid?

[@rogerscottcathey]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom : "Tenacity"

[@kennethferland5579]

@@rogerscottcathey Are you unaware of what the word means? Considering this was a project that Sierra space kept working on privatly after NASA rejected them to then finally bring to fruition the name is actually REALLY appropriate.

[@rogerscottcathey]

@@kennethferland5579 : So it's meaningful to them. An inside hurrah to themselves, a kind of "in your face" epitaph? Why should that be meaningful to the rest of the world? It's egoistic. Meanwhile while we observe the special neutrality of the world towards Antarctica, the moon and the space above is just a field day for eventual commercial exploitation. Not into it. The moon is a pristine wilderness already polluted. Moon and space are deemed as military high ground. "Tenacity" might even be seen as a motto for a tyrant bent on conquering the universe. "Curiosity", even is just another tag the majority of humans cannot share. A great deal of the entire history of space exploration is classified or said to be "lost". Can't FOIA destroyed information.

[@classydave75]

Yeah well, others in the industry have far more stupid sounding names than that one for their products...This one is pretty OK for a spacecraft and ties well into the company history.