3 ms·

> roughly half of the [NASA space] shuttle's habitable volume > it features an add-on cargo module that is not reusable. It's hard for me to get excited about

> roughly half of the [NASA space] shuttle's habitable volume > it features an add-on cargo module that is not reusable. It's hard for me to get excited about this when Starship dominates it in size and (I'm guessing) cost per kg to orbit, on a similar time frame. It's only useful in a world where Starship fails its reusability goals. While Starship's success isn't certain, I wouldn't bet a company on its failure.

avmich 3y ago
At least the landing mode of the Dream Chaser is different and allows landing on a runway, not to a Mechazilla installation.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  It’s Super Heavy (the first stage) that requires stage 0/mechazilla. Starship (the second stage) will land on a concrete pad, similar to the Falcon 9.
dotnet00 3y ago
Comparisons with Starship are not really warranted in this case since that's not the sort of thing this is meant to do in the first place. This is supposed to dock to the ISS, and these current versions aren't crew capable. Starship is more than likely simply too large and heavy to dock to the aging ISS, it'd stress the structure a lot and the ISS's attitude control likely couldn't handle it, so there would be all sorts of complexity involved to allow Starship to use its own hot gas thrusters to assist in attitude control. The value of current dreamchaser is in providing a more competitive alternative to Cargo Dragon in bringing stuff back down to the ground (compared to the embarrassment that is Starliner). In particular, Dreamchaser should offer a smoother descent with easier handling of time sensitive materials since it'd be down at a runway rather than needing to be fished out of the water and the material flown over with a helicopter.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  The original space shuttle was built with the cold war in mind, a predecessor of sorts to the current hypersonic gliders and space planes. I am not sure what the dream chaser is trying to achieve. It really ought to be bigger if it wants to get a good return on investment.
- modeless 3y ago
  If Starship can't dock to ISS then use a small capsule as a tender. The capsule wouldn't need long term life support or large engines or a heat shield, it could be relatively simple and cheap. Or better, why even go to ISS, one Starship has more habitable volume than the whole thing...
audunw 3y ago
Just because Airbus A380s exist doesn’t mean A320s don’t have a role. If you just need to get two people to a certain place in orbit, why would you launch a starship if a dreamchaser would do? Just need to strap it on a fully reusable booster. I suspect in the long term Starship will be limited by the number of suitable landing locations. They’re loud when landing. Another allegory may be trains vs cars. I suppose Starships will mainly fly to huge stations, and to build new stations, while something like Dreamliner will fly to smaller stations, to service or deorbit small satellites, to quickly ship packet back to anywhere on earth or as emergency escape vehicles for stations.
- modeless 3y ago
  If A380s were cheaper per flight than A320s, we'd use them for almost everything. Airport too small? Make it bigger and save money. If reusability works as planned, Starship could be cheaper per launch than this thing, which is not fully reusable.

avmich 3y ago

At least the landing mode of the Dream Chaser is different and allows landing on a runway, not to a Mechazilla installation.

marcusverus 3y ago
It’s Super Heavy (the first stage) that requires stage 0/mechazilla. Starship (the second stage) will land on a concrete pad, similar to the Falcon 9.

dotnet00 3y ago

Comparisons with Starship are not really warranted in this case since that's not the sort of thing this is meant to do in the first place. This is supposed to dock to the ISS, and these current versions aren't crew capable. Starship is more than likely simply too large and heavy to dock to the aging ISS, it'd stress the structure a lot and the ISS's attitude control likely couldn't handle it, so there would be all sorts of complexity involved to allow Starship to use its own hot gas thrusters to assist in attitude control. The value of current dreamchaser is in providing a more competitive alternative to Cargo Dragon in bringing stuff back down to the ground (compared to the embarrassment that is Starliner). In particular, Dreamchaser should offer a smoother descent with easier handling of time sensitive materials since it'd be down at a runway rather than needing to be fished out of the water and the material flown over with a helicopter.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
The original space shuttle was built with the cold war in mind, a predecessor of sorts to the current hypersonic gliders and space planes. I am not sure what the dream chaser is trying to achieve. It really ought to be bigger if it wants to get a good return on investment.
modeless 3y ago
If Starship can't dock to ISS then use a small capsule as a tender. The capsule wouldn't need long term life support or large engines or a heat shield, it could be relatively simple and cheap. Or better, why even go to ISS, one Starship has more habitable volume than the whole thing...

audunw 3y ago

Just because Airbus A380s exist doesn’t mean A320s don’t have a role. If you just need to get two people to a certain place in orbit, why would you launch a starship if a dreamchaser would do? Just need to strap it on a fully reusable booster. I suspect in the long term Starship will be limited by the number of suitable landing locations. They’re loud when landing. Another allegory may be trains vs cars. I suppose Starships will mainly fly to huge stations, and to build new stations, while something like Dreamliner will fly to smaller stations, to service or deorbit small satellites, to quickly ship packet back to anywhere on earth or as emergency escape vehicles for stations.

modeless 3y ago
If A380s were cheaper per flight than A320s, we'd use them for almost everything. Airport too small? Make it bigger and save money. If reusability works as planned, Starship could be cheaper per launch than this thing, which is not fully reusable.