3 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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...