Dream Chaser is about to LAUNCH and NEW ONE shows up...to beat Starship!

Dream Chaser is about to LAUNCH and NEW ONE shows up...to beat Starship!
===
00:00-00:21: Intro
00:22-04:06: Maiden Flight of Dream Chaser Update
04:07-05:45: The Second New Spaceplane
05:46-08:10: How does Dream Chaser fly to the ISS?
===
Dream Chaser is about to LAUNCH and NEW ONE shows up...to beat Starship!
It's been quite a while since we discussed Sierra Space's Dream Chaser project, right?
But brace yourselves because there will be plenty of surprises revealed for the upcoming first flight after nearly two decades of development of the Dream Chaser spaceplane. Not only that, the emergence of a second Dream Chaser will surely leave you amazed.
So, let's find out on today's episode of Alpha Tech:
Dream Chaser is about to LAUNCH and NEW ONE shows up...to beat Starship!
After SpaceX's Dragon, the most hopeful thing right now is probably Dream Chaser. Imagine, just for a second, stepping into a world where space travel isn't just for astronauts, but for everyone, including you.
Now, picture the Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser spaceplane and its Shooting Star cargo module, all lit up in soft blue lights at NASA’s Neil Armstrong Test Facility in Sandusky, Ohio.
Dream Chaser is about to LAUNCH and NEW ONE shows up...to beat Starship!This isn't just some cool tech on display; it's a peek into a future where space could be part of your everyday life and allow you to travel beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
This towering 55-foot-tall spaceplane, named Tenacity, is the beginning of a journey that might one day take us and cargo out of this world.
If all goes according to plan, by the end of this year, it will be the first spaceplane to land on a runway after 13 years since the conclusion of the space shuttle program in 2011.
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#starship
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: / @alphatech4966
===

[@dagger4146]

You forgot the X-37B. It has landed at KSC 6 times since it first launched in 2010.

[@classic_sci_fi]

The X-37 has landed on a runway since the Shuttle.

[@cadennorris960]

1:03 Correction: The USAF operated the X37 after the shuttle program and now the USSF has that role. The X37 has landed multiple times over the past decade.

[@riparianlife97701]

The fact it can land at any airport, and even relight its engines for a go-around, makes it amazingly useful.

[@montylc2001]

Ah...the X-37 has landed on a runway several times since the last Space Shuttle.

[@vilehans9665]

The best partner for Sierra would be only one! Just SpaceX !

[@gabrielsierra6890]

Sure thing!

[@michaelseymour7211]

Bravo! Bravo! Much applause!

[@gabrielsierra6890]

It could also serve as an escape pod for the ISS crew. I remember the movie "Marooned".

[@ronaldlebeck9577]

Why did the name "Helen Keller" appear as a quote title? She lived from 27 June 1880 to 01 June 1968. 🤔 Just curious.

[@willierants5880]

Wait, first quarter of what year? We are already past the first quarter of THIS year.

[@michaelperlbach3438]

Not true that Dream Chaser will be the only Spacecraft landing on a runway since the demise of the Shuttle - there is also the Boeing X-37.

[@genonote228]

About...about...about to launch... Delayed...delayed...delayed to launch. Meanwhile, Starship 4 launching in May...😮😮😮

[@executivesteps]

How do the budgets compare?

[@TrumpIsGoingToPrison]

NASA SAVED SpaceX with GRANTS early on.

[@fractalelf7760]

You don’t “beat starship” when you were in development for a generation and ride on someone else’s rocket.. 😂

[@willierants5880]

That and comparing this to Starship is like comparing a micro car to a Bus. Was this written by a spaceX hater? Or perhaps they are just a DC fanboy. I think there is room for both and that both server very different rolls. I also think that the DC will have many of the same issues as the Shuttle. Time will tell.

[@alanhart9992]

It has potential. We will see how it goes.

[@alphatech4966]

Yeah! That’s right!

[@paulboger3101]

Totally agree

[@cannonfodder4812]

Beat starship? They are not rivals.

[@donporter8432]

Never heard of it. Thanks for informing us!

[@marvinellis1517]

Cargo capacity ? Crew safety capsule ? Things that have to be addressed . ❤ 🎉

[@dugnology]

Yeah, maybe someone should think about that while setting up the constraints.

[@StEvEn-dp1ri]

Well, we'll see. Starliner was hyped up to and after the first launch until it glitched and couldn't find its way to the ISS. After the first flight, we can either sing the praises of Dream Chaser or meme the s**t out of it.

[@brad8183]

I like the Dream Chaser but it's not really anything that new. It's basically a scaled down shuttle that rides on a booster rocket.

[@rocistone6570]

You guys have the nicest commercials!

[@rauckr09]

I love it!!

[@tomdarco2223]

Right On

[@rocroc]

Currently the cargo Dream Chaser is at least three years behind schedule. The second Dream Chaser was being built out of spare parts because of NASA concerns about meeting future commitments if the first one should have a problem. It was recently announced that the third manned Dream Chaser was already under construction. Even the cargo version is a very complex vehicle, very costly, and takes a long time to build. Early photos of it showed a fleet of Dream Chasers surrounding a space station and being used as an escape alternative. None of that will ever happen unless they come up with a scaled down version that overcomes all of the negatives. There is already another less costly escape alternative being pictured that would make the Dream Chaser unnecessary. I've always thought they needed the Dream Chaser and was disappointed when it wasn't approved the first time. SX has so many things on the board related to the Starship that I just don't think the manned Dream Chaser will ever fly. First, we will have to see if all of NASA's initial concerns have been dealt with the cargo version. With the Starliner, that will give us two unaffordable alternative.

[@StEvEn-dp1ri]

Your entire statement is true. They don't talk about the little problems that together make a noteworthy issue.

[@rauckr09]

When will we see a crew-rated Dream Chaser?

[@IanSlatas]

Dreamchaser is not the first space plane to fly since the shuttle. The X-37b is a reusable space plane and has been flying since 2010 and lands on runways. The most recent mission launched on a Falcon Heavy in December and is still in space right now. Also, Jake Ingram is factually incorrect. Not everything else is a capsule landing in the water. The Soyuz capsule famously lands on land, as does the Starliner and the Shenghzu. Only the Dragon and Orion are capsules regularly landing in water. The previous two falsehoods are not required for Dreamchaser to be exciting. This video is very suspect.

[@mikalnaylor]

Dragon was originally designed to propulsively land on land w/o parachutes, by using the superdraco thrusters.

[@IanSlatas]

@@mikalnaylor Could have been awesome. As I understand it, NASA had safety concerns about relying solely upon retro-propulsion and was requiring parachutes as a backup. The concept was just too ahead of its time. However, I don't believe a human rated craft has yet landed via propulsion alone with people on board. We shall see if Starship is the first.

[@ald1144]

I really love it as a piece of technology, but I'm still not clear on how it fits into the space program or what capability it brings that we already don't have. How much quicker is turnaround time with a runway landing?

[@zotfotpiq]

i played a 4 year game of kerbal without time compression. a small space plane attached to a space station in leo is a game changer. to be able to do a job and then just... land. magnifique! nasa is going to love it, especially the manned version. way more function than people are imagining.

[@rationalmuscle]

It's cool, but it's a fraction of the payload of Starship. If the only goal was to put "Starship" into orbit, that's much easier than launching the equivalent of the Empire State Building into space as well.

[@MultiCconway]

A Dream Chaser should be permanently stationed at the ISS for emergencies.

[@kevinbissett293]

When they start making the next Dreamchaser. It will be exciting to see the engineering and update changes will be made. Will it be larger to carry a bigger payload? More detailed? Reverence is a interesting name. Great Update. Great Episode my Friend. Keep going. What's new with Blue Origin? Who's rocket will launch it? I hope it's not on a ULA, BE-4 rocket. I don't think for a maiden voyage that would be a good idea. Again Great Episode...

[@chrisbragdon5901]

I’d like to see a revamped Shuttle Orbiter on top of a SpaceX Superheavy booster.

[@TheHatManCole]

Bro, this thing is way to small to stick atop super heavy. It is small enough for a falcon 9

[@cadennorris960]

@@TheHatManCole”Revamped shuttle orbiter” not dream chaser.

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great Video ! The Dream Chaser is what the NASA Space Shuttle should have been ! NASA leadership killed two Crews of the NASA Space Shuttle program and none have gone to prison... The Sierra Space Cargo Dream Chaser will launch when a docking port on the ISS opens up ! The Dream Chaser is contracted to land at the KSC. The Cargo and Crew Dream Chaser can support a new low inclination LEO CSS heading East from the KSC at about a 28.5 deg. orbit. This orbit can be reached from and supported by the ESA launch pad ! The LEO CSS can be supported by a nearby Fuel Depot to support missions to the moon and/or Mars ! tjl

[@Knights_of_Zurg]

What Dream Chaser doesn't have, that the Dragon does (both cargo and crew versions) is a reusable launch platform. Sure, Dream Chaser itself is reusable, but the way it gets into orbit is not. Until it does, Dream Chaser will never be cost-competitive with Dragon. Still, it's pretty cool, and I hope they come to a deal with SpaceX to launch it on the inexpensive, reusable Falcon-9.

[@Oblivionsurveyor]

Did you see the Interview with Elon's brother? He mentioned a talk with one of the Generals when they were negotiating SpaceX rocket contracts. The General wanted to pay way more than what Elon was asking. The reason was to artificially make it seem that Space flight was still too costly, It seems to me the military has a vested interest in limiting progress in space.

[@cadennorris960]

@@OblivionsurveyorOh yes what a great source, the unknown family member of a well known celebrity who totally isn’t spouting nonsense trying to make a name for himself while leveraging his brothers influence. The space force / national reconnaissance office launch satellites on falcon 9 regularly. Elon’s brother can say whatever he wants but real examples say otherwise.

[@dugnology]

it can fly on a Falcon 9.

[@dugnology]

The Boeing Star liner is a 'never should have been'. The Dragon capsule fit the job at almost half the price, and the Dream Chaser, despite the stupid name, would enable a lower G reentry while landing on a runway that would enable experiments to be taken quickly.

[@DennisMurphey]

It feels like a huge money sink for old space firms that have used old complex project build methods to get old results. Tell me I am wrong. D

[@BetterThanLifeProd]

This looks like a model that I saw decades ago, at the "Hall of Science" in New York City. It also looks like the lifting body from the x-plane series.

[@jamescobban857]

Sierra-Space screwed the pooch by tieing itself to ULA. If they had the nerve they could have flown months ago on Falcon9, for a lower price. When it becomes operational Dreamchaser will be able to deliver 5.5 tonnes to the ISS. This is admittedly more than the 3.3 tonnes of the SpaceX Cargo Dragon, although that is just what the CRS-2 contract requires, in competition with N-G's Cygnus (also now launched by Fakcon 9). But by then Starship will be capable of delivering 55 tonnes! The Starship docking adapter has already been tested in preparation for docking with the Lunatic Gateway. The biggest trick will be docking the 300 tonnes of Starship to the 400 tonne ISS! There will be a role for Dreamchaser, but like Crew Dragon or the Boing CST-100 Starliner it is a one trick pony. Its only market is two flights a *year* to the ISS. SpaceX in 2024 will fly Dragons *six* times to the ISS plus at least 138 *other* missions for the Falcon 9. And NASA, that is taxpayers, have already spent billions on Dreamchaser, and will need to spend far more for each CRS mission which is taken away from the current contractor, who won the contract by the lowest bid.

[@TrumpIsGoingToPrison]

No matter which side you're on, EVERYONE has to admit that Dream Chaser is a BEAUTIFUL Spacecraft.

[@shanehumphrey4827]

It is. And much safer way to land back on earth

[@shanehumphrey4827]

It can land on a highway im sure

[@jtjames79]

​@@shanehumphrey4827 We don't git gud because it is easy, but because it's efficient. I love everything Sierra Space is doing. Particularly the Dream Chaser. I just don't see its economic niche. I want them to succeed, but I don't attribute very good odds. If they were publicly traded I would still invest, but I would consider it, essentially gambling, poorly, for the fun of it. YMMV

[@larrymansfield9393]

You beat me to it. I would love to see this enter orbit attached to a Falcon. That would be too cool. Although I do like the aesthetics, I would much prefer the payload capacity of Starship.

[@shanehumphrey4827]

@@larrymansfield9393 well it. Could very well be developmental scaled down !! Maybe a bigger one is coming ??

[@jessiemartinfostersr.6067]

SEEMS THAT STAR TRECK ACTUALLY MAY HAPPEN THIS GENERATION IF IT WORKS OUT ...

[@alphatech4966]

Thank you for your comment! Have a good day!

[@ald1144]

You mean the part of Trek lore where we go to deep space or the part where we blow ourselves up first? I just want to know if I should retire to Greece or near some missile silo in Montana.

[@SouthBayPoliticsAndMore-tt9zg]

"First spaceplane to land on a runway in the past 13 years"... except for the Boeing X-37 and the Virgin Galactic suborbital spaceplanes.

[@Mauitaoist]

It's not a space plane

[@professorg8383]

X-37 is a military vehicle so a lot of its capabilities are not known. But we do know that military concepts sometime make it into the civilian world. I can accept looking at X-37 a bit differently. And Virgin Galactic really isn't a space plane. It's more like its own thing and doesn't really go into "space".

[@JeffDM]

What SNC said is the crewed dream chaser is a different design. As far as I've seen, they've not said why they moved to a different crewed design.

[@peronik349]

So if the first is named "Tenacity" and the second "Reverence", both seem to be cargo versions! When will there be a crew version with the name, why not, “Phenix”? ? Wasn't DreamChaser originally a competitor to CST100 and Dragon-V2

[@michaelperlbach3438]

To some extend, yes. But without any funding from NASA they were only able to create the cargo version.

[@Jake-yx7ct]

first quarter is done. Now that saw Fall. It looks great but lack of flights means they are having trouble keeping the doors closed. Boing.Just put the money into what is working.

[@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands]

"We can rebuild him".... remember?

[@gabrielsierra6890]

Yep!

[@russchadwell]

So, can Dream Chaser actually use a Falcon 9, or Falcon Heavy?

[@dugnology]

Yes, it is booster agnostic.

[@erojohn2]

Spacex sierra space merger. Makes sense for now.

[@user-di3js6hx5w]

談了那麼久了，到底飛不飛呢？

[@AdvantestInc]

How will this influence the global space economy?

[@MarioP9511]

Dream chaser still needs a launching system. There's none (1st and 2nd stage) totally reusable.

[@professorg8383]

Vulcan seems like a good option. ULA is looking at applying "smart reusability" to parts of the system. You seem to think that total reusability makes the most sense. If you have to make major changes to the desired mission to achieve reusability, it really doesn't make sense. Starship os a good example of making a bunch of dumb compromises in favor of reusability. As it turns out, sometimes one time use or disposability actually makes the most sense. And it isn't always about cost. Take disposable diapers for example. Reusable diapers are cheaper, but most people feel the higher cost is worth it. Arguably, most will tell you that disposable diapers are far better in multiple ways. You may think it's not a valid analogy, but I disagree. The thing is that applying a concept like reusability always being better, is a flawed approach to many things. Case by case analysis actually is the more logical approach.

[@101spacecase]

thing is so cool

[@alphatech4966]

That’s right!

[@marshallwebber9682]

I don't think "Helen Keller" at 4:45 was the quote you meant to leave in there. Time to fix, rerender, and republish

[@JoshKaufmanstuff]

Yeah it looks like the editor forgot to swap out the template text. It does raise some doubt as to the due diligence of the fact checking of the whole video.

[@dootless3819]

A minor mistake doesn't break the video as a whole

[@JoshKaufmanstuff]

@@dootless3819 It just goes to show that almost no one pays attention to labels 😆

[@setlik3gaming80]

👍🖖🏽

[@palladen1933]

Yea yea

[@noncanot]

so it's just a weird shaped reentry capsule, nothing more... cool I guess, but nothing revolutionary. It's gonna be obselete with with all the new reusable rockets being developed.

[@dugnology]

This capsule allows a lower G reentry and landing on a runway so experiments can be unloaded quickly. The Dragon lands in water, and the Starliner lands in a desert. Neither can be offloaded quickly.

[@executivesteps]

It’s reusable, aiming for 10 missions per vehicle.

[@noncanot]

@@executivesteps I know, I saw the video. And so is dragon. It's still a slightly improved reentry capture, but people act like its a space revolution. There is a revolution happening in the space industry, but it's not dream chaser, not by a long shot

[@noncanot]

@@dugnology so a glorified reentry capsule...

[@jamessimmer725]

Nearly 2 decades of development and it has never had a test flight? It's being towed around by a pickup truck. How much did this cost and what kind of missions could it possibly execute?

[@stiffydart1558]

It has flown unpowered glides to safe landings after being dropped from a helicopter.

[@leschortos9196]

Most likely test and develop as they go, not everyone has money to burn and 100 million dollar rockets to crash. Just to see if it works now. .... we'll see how it goes.

[@bryanr.4947]

Did I read that correctly, the guy's name is Helen Keller?

[@chrisbragdon5901]

Why don’t they put a wheel on the nose gear?

[@stiffydart1558]

Saves weight, development costs and it acts as a very cheap and simple brake.

[@norhishanabaziz9968]

Why do all aliens space shuttle in round form, but humans just look like airplanes? 😅😅

[@stratcat3216]

You watch too much sci-fi. lol.

[@agl1138]

By 'everyday life' you mean for anyone with $100,000 to spare? even the most optimistic projection is not going to get space flight, per person, below that. And that is very optimistic, in that it assumes no accidents

[@Paul1958R]

NASA - No taxpayer dollar left unwasted

[@mitseraffej5812]

0:30 “ Space travel for every one” Two Space Shuttle lost out of 135 flights, apply this loss rate to the current world airline industry and it equates to over 120,000 catastrophic crashes per year. NASA has stated that an acceptable loss rate would be 1 in 500. Apply this acceptable rate to the airline industry and you get around 20,000 crashes per year. Considering the hoopla over a couple of 737 Max crashes and a few other incidents, and there are 10s of thousands of Max flights per year, who in their right mind is going to ride on a rocket? Plenty I guess until the first one blows up on launch or disintegrates on re entry.😂

[@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136]

I too have done these numbers and I came up with about 400 airline crashes. Every day! The Shuttle was the most dangerous transport system ever conceived. But for a chance to go into space…it would be tempting to ride one.

[@avgnbrkids]

@@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136and that s why she was one of the greatest to ever Fly

[@ScottSummerill]

For the military. Period.

[@michaelg6686]

that's not even Touch Screen. You gotta go back to the Drawing Board.

[@joesun8853]

no window the hell

[@stiffydart1558]

Cargo doesn't need windows.

[@dugnology]

its unmanned at present

[@Mauitaoist]

It's not a space plane it's a lifting body

[@jonstephenson609]

Its a russian design lifting body...

[@PeteSty]

right

[@oidpolar6302]

Ferring will block human rating certification

[@Feetonthesand]

The problem, Dream Chaser can't be mass produced like Starship.

[@michaelperlbach3438]

As it is reusable 10 or 12 of them might suffice. And they might be mass produced at a later time.

[@floridagunrat1625]

Why can't they be mass produced?

[@RussellOsborne-mh6ck]

Yeah we all might be that rich😮 not

[@garylester3976]

Its too high tech, too complicated to construct, and not durable enough. Will soon be superceeded by a fabricated space plane, and depending whats learned from next Starship flight profile, it will have a different design entirely... Way more wing area, body low/wings high, wings will likely be gull style with shoulders, and then down at the outer edges to create an air channel to captivate thin air, could have ups at the tips too for stability side slipping and some V ruddering aft. Body pretty wide, Some of Elon's finest engines in a row.. Wont need vibrator tested or vacuum tested, they'll just pressure up the cockpit and tanks and eye the welds carefully. Ask the military where they wanna bolt on the Laser pods, and what the hole and bolt pattern is for a nice flush mount.. it'll need a smaller hatch or two into the crew cabin, and bay doors for cargo. probably a hatch between crew and cargo areas, Engine area also pressurized and accessed from the other spaces. It will have a minimum size due to stainless contruction, need to get enough volume to weight... it can have fuel tankage everywhere possible, preferrably insulated. And of course big enough you'll need a Starship booster to launch it... Maybe a crew of a dozen or so.. Fuselage might be a double decker inside in some places... Name the first one; "Revenge" (for my Ex Wifey.) 🤣

[@stratcat3216]

Fantastic.. 20 year old tech.. smh

[@alphatech4966]

Yeah!

[@eustace2c2]

Well I mean capsules and water landings are from the 60's. You can add bells and whistles to them, and even make them more than one use, but a capsule is a capsule. Once Space X has launched and landed a Starship a couple of times then we've got something to talk about. I've longed for a true space plane that can take off like a plane, make orbit and return and land on a runway but that seems impossible since nobody has done it.

[@hidden-treasures]

Has NASA learned anything from this? It killed Dream Chaser in the first round, and greased the skids for Starliner. SpaceX fought its way to the front of the line, despite NASA's efforts to slow it down. I have supported NASA procurements on other programs, but hate the crap I saw with this one. The Augustine Report was right on target. Hopefully, the NASA culture is evolving...

[@axeman3d]

The Starship is a step backwards in many ways. It is almost impossible to 'man rate' it because of the total lack of a viable escape system and the whole suicide burn landing and belly flop. If you are coming down with human crew, sensitive cargo or lots of fuel or other liquids the last thing you want to do is try flipping over at the last minute. Wings & wheels bring much more controlled landings that do not require reigniting engines or carrying tons of fuel back with you. You have way more safety and options.

[@FlyByWireYT47]

That is only true for Earth operations. You don't need wings and wheels anywhere else. Wings like on dreamchaser are fine for low earth orbit for comfortable travel to and from stations, but if you go to the Moon and further, wings are dead and useless weight. Better to practice propulsive landings, bc we'll need them the most.

[@jamescobban857]

SpaceX is not dependant on NASA approval of its launch escape system. Let NASA find another HLS supplier in the next 30 months! From a practical point of view in 63 years of human spaceflight only ONCE has a launch escape system been activated to take a crew away from a failing, not exploding, booster. When on IFT1 SpaceX deliberately blew up the booster it took 35 seconds to take effect. Meanwhile the second stage could be accelerating away at 25m/ss. After 35 seconds it would be over two km away! Who needs a launch escape system. NASA is just paranoid because its politically driven decision to not include a launch escape system on the Space Transportation System KILLED 14 of its employees and passengers. SpaceX is committed to not carrying passengers on Starship until it has flown more than 100 times. NASA insisted on flying crew on the very first flight of the STS, and is now planning to risk four humans on only the SECOND flight of the Senate Launch System after the first test was a failure. So which organization is *really* demonstrating concern for safety? If push comes to shove SpaceX could just mount a Crew Dragon on the lee side, and have the crew sit in it until after separation!

[@djohannsson8268]

​​​​@@jamescobban857Until Starship is launch and re-entry manned qualified, dragon could be the crews taxi, docking with Starship in orbit, crew transfers to Starship. Eliminates a host of starship issues. Like transferring the crew "after" Starship's orbital refueling once it is successful. Before starship reentery the crew transfers back to Dragon. This allows Starship to accomplish many manned operations before the 100th successful launch/reentry. Guess it depends on if Space X wants to take advantage of the possibility.

[@Agent77X]

Dream Chaser can only hold 6 people! Starship can hold 120 people!

[@alphatech4966]

Starship has always been hard to beat

[@professorg8383]

Starship doesn't hold any bodies as of yet!! Dream Chaser likely flys a lot of manned missions before Starship gets loaded with 120 future corpses! Dream Chaser makes good sense, Starship does not!

[@roychase1104]

Back in the 50s there was the ( lifting body ) and this is nearly a spot on replica ..didnt work then and the new tech will not alter Physics. Its a Failer i assume that is why they call it Dream chaser

[@yoshyoka]

The shuttle was a lifting body and it worked and in the 50s they had no CAFD simulation systems. We will not have to wait for long to see if it works

[@roychase1104]

@@yoshyoka i worked there all you know is what is released for Public Information ...there is a whole other faction that works silently behind the scenes.. The Shuttle , it only glided down to earth for a landing. Atleast that is what everyone was expected to believe. The Lifting Body was designed to be dropped inside the Atmosphere and Lift itself outside threw the Atmosphere into Space . With a little more technology it may be possible ..as the Lifting Body faied to accomplish ..Maybe with todays High Tech now they might just make it work.. ?

[@yoshyoka]

@@roychase1104 That might be, yet again, we just have to wait and see a few months.

[@jaredharris1970]

The technology at the time was limited they didn’t have computer simulations to run every possible scenario all they could do is a few wind tunnel tests before they could actually build a full sized prototype strap it to a high altitude bomber release it and hope it would work like they wanted it to all they could rely on is mathematical calculations today we can design something on a computer and run simulations before the actual vehicle is even built we know how it will perform

[@roychase1104]

Thank you for that info .pretty awesome now what tech can do before the build.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro, Boeing stole dream chasers money . Not another penny to Boeing

[@paulboger3101]

BE-4 delays have caused this delay!!

[@stephensfarms7165]

It’s too small. It will never do much. And who is going to launch it. No one is flying like Falcon 9 is.

[@dugnology]

It can fly on a Falcon 9

[@TheCNYMike]

Dream Chaser is unmanned. Starship's next crewed flight is scheduled for this Saturday.

[@1moredayof]

Starship hasn't had a manned flight yet and there is no news about when that might happen.

[@TheCNYMike]

@@1moredayof No, SpaceX's starship has never flown manned. Boeing's Starliner has been pushed back to the 21st because of a helium leak in the service module.

[@MykePagan]

AI generated

[@alphatech4966]

Oh no!!!

[@sferrin2]

Just came here to downvote the click-bait.

[@loudelk99]

Way too small to be useful.

[@blackoppsman702]

yikes video

[@vandalorian8777]

No doubt it’s a cool machine but telling lies about it doesn’t help. It is not the first space plane to land on a runway since the shuttle stopped flying the Chinese have a space plane as does the US Air Force. Let’s also be honest yeah it’s fancy, but it’s not as cost competitive as SpaceX, not even close. NASA needs to stop paying for programs like this that just waste money with no real benefit. Also the Artemis program needs to be canceled, it’s another beyond expensive program that has no chance of having a benefit. It’s the reason we never went back to the moon. Mars is another pipe dream. We will never colonize mars because there is no financial or other benefit to doing so. Not only that but the radiation will kill us

[@earth_ling]

Piece of junk chasing a dream of being a thing again. Mini shuttle thats all it is and bound to take more lives

[@cadennorris960]

Bot

[@XX-fq8kp]

THERE ARE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE USA, HUNGRY AND SLEEPING ON CARDBOARD 😢😢

[@michaelperlbach3438]

and?

[@bryanr.4947]

What's your point? The space program didn't put them there. They did that to themselves.

[@agl1138]

No one in the world is poor because of programs like this.

[@professorg8383]

@@bryanr.4947 It's not accurate to say they did it to themselves, but I agree that space programs didn't put them there, it's a far more complex issue.

[@floridagunrat1625]

So, do you think we should send more money to Ukraine?

[@tomjohnson571]

All these space wannabes will be gone in ten yrs as SpaceX TOTALLY dominates the field.

[@RussellOsborne-mh6ck]

It would take 900 of them to fill a starship hahaha