3 ms·

NASA obviously needs a new, reliable horse in this race. If only the development of Sierra Space's Dream Chaser wasn't moving at a snail's pace. (That project

NASA obviously needs a new, reliable horse in this race. If only the development of Sierra Space's Dream Chaser wasn't moving at a snail's pace. (That project started back in 2004; they're currently hoping for the first test flight, of an unmanned cargo version, to happen in 2025.)

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Why Sierra Space vs Blue Origin ?
- imglorp 2y ago
  Apples and oranges. Sierra is making a reuseable orbiter which needs a launcher and is pretty agnostic which one. Blue is making an orbital launcher but doesn't have a orbital spacecraft.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    OK, but surely NASA would like multiple suppliers for all components, and the launcher is the hard part, so Blue Origin seem closer to being a (single vendor) alternative to SpaceX. They were also tendering for the Artemis moon landing vehicle.
    - imtringued 2y ago
      I'm not sure the launcher is the hard part. Heat shield tiles and re-entry seem to be much harder problems. Boeing Starliner had no trouble launching, returning on the other hand was risky. SLS worked flawlessly, but the returning Orion capsule's heat shield was severely damaged and the heat shield does not appear to be safe enough for crewed missions. Starship's super heavy booster landed as planned, but the upper stage got damaged during re-entry and just barely managed to perform a landing. STS/The space shuttle disaster was caused by damage from the launch, but arrived safely in LEO. The catastrophic loss occured during re-entry.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Pretty much. With both more time and vastly more money than Sierra, BO has yet to reach orbit with anything. Medium lift rockets are not particularly scarce...vs. there's only one decent non-Russian, non-Chinese manned orbital vehicle. And it took even SpaceX almost a decade to go from Cargo Dragon to Crew Dragon.
dylan604 2y ago
I love how Bezos' company is never mentioned in these discussions. Seriously, why is he not competing in this space?
- Retric 2y ago
  They skipped the small/midsized orbital rocket stage and went straight to a huge orbital launch system which has been in development for a long time and is still unproven. New Shepard, their suborbital demonstrator, had it’s first flight 9 years ago. They could quickly prove themselves, but such a long period in development without successful orbital launches destroyed the hype.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Right, but they've sued NASA over not receiving bids that SpaceX won, so they clearly "feel" like they should be in the running. Seems like if they were so desperate to win bids, they should be challenging Boeing. Clearly, I'm not privy to internal NASA discussions on awarding bids, but at this point, there has to be serious discussions on looking for another vendor as Boeing is just not reliable and shows no signs of improving. If I were part Bezos' entourage, I'd have a crew capsule design ready to go to approach NASA with. The time has never been more ripe for a spoiler to enter the discussion.
    - Retric 2y ago
      They have won other government contracts so they are in the running, I’m just talking about how the public feels. As to moon missions, building a capsule from scratch would take at least 5 years and more likely a decade plus a few billion dollars at this point. Putting another company in charge of Boeing’s operations could be viable, but having a 3rd party show up just doesn’t seem viable on any kind of reason timescale.
    - imtringued 2y ago
      There isn't really a need for a competitor to Starliner or even Crew Dragon, because they were both designed for LEO re-entry. Crew Dragon in particular was overbuilt for LEO so that it can be used multiple times. While lunar re-entry is indeed possible, the vehicle wasn't designed for more than a one off mission. The missing link is a low cost reusable crew vehicle designed for carrying people between LEO and NRHO/LLO. Basically a competitor to Orion. While it is true in theory that a Starship could carry people to the moon and land them directly on the surface, the return trip isn't that easy and basically boils down to a second starship picking up astronauts from NRHO.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

Why Sierra Space vs Blue Origin ?

imglorp 2y ago
Apples and oranges. Sierra is making a reuseable orbiter which needs a launcher and is pretty agnostic which one. Blue is making an orbital launcher but doesn't have a orbital spacecraft.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  OK, but surely NASA would like multiple suppliers for all components, and the launcher is the hard part, so Blue Origin seem closer to being a (single vendor) alternative to SpaceX. They were also tendering for the Artemis moon landing vehicle.
  - imtringued 2y ago
    I'm not sure the launcher is the hard part. Heat shield tiles and re-entry seem to be much harder problems. Boeing Starliner had no trouble launching, returning on the other hand was risky. SLS worked flawlessly, but the returning Orion capsule's heat shield was severely damaged and the heat shield does not appear to be safe enough for crewed missions. Starship's super heavy booster landed as planned, but the upper stage got damaged during re-entry and just barely managed to perform a landing. STS/The space shuttle disaster was caused by damage from the launch, but arrived safely in LEO. The catastrophic loss occured during re-entry.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Pretty much. With both more time and vastly more money than Sierra, BO has yet to reach orbit with anything. Medium lift rockets are not particularly scarce...vs. there's only one decent non-Russian, non-Chinese manned orbital vehicle. And it took even SpaceX almost a decade to go from Cargo Dragon to Crew Dragon.

dylan604 2y ago

I love how Bezos' company is never mentioned in these discussions. Seriously, why is he not competing in this space?

Retric 2y ago
They skipped the small/midsized orbital rocket stage and went straight to a huge orbital launch system which has been in development for a long time and is still unproven. New Shepard, their suborbital demonstrator, had it’s first flight 9 years ago. They could quickly prove themselves, but such a long period in development without successful orbital launches destroyed the hype.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Right, but they've sued NASA over not receiving bids that SpaceX won, so they clearly "feel" like they should be in the running. Seems like if they were so desperate to win bids, they should be challenging Boeing. Clearly, I'm not privy to internal NASA discussions on awarding bids, but at this point, there has to be serious discussions on looking for another vendor as Boeing is just not reliable and shows no signs of improving. If I were part Bezos' entourage, I'd have a crew capsule design ready to go to approach NASA with. The time has never been more ripe for a spoiler to enter the discussion.
  - Retric 2y ago
    They have won other government contracts so they are in the running, I’m just talking about how the public feels. As to moon missions, building a capsule from scratch would take at least 5 years and more likely a decade plus a few billion dollars at this point. Putting another company in charge of Boeing’s operations could be viable, but having a 3rd party show up just doesn’t seem viable on any kind of reason timescale.
  - imtringued 2y ago
    There isn't really a need for a competitor to Starliner or even Crew Dragon, because they were both designed for LEO re-entry. Crew Dragon in particular was overbuilt for LEO so that it can be used multiple times. While lunar re-entry is indeed possible, the vehicle wasn't designed for more than a one off mission. The missing link is a low cost reusable crew vehicle designed for carrying people between LEO and NRHO/LLO. Basically a competitor to Orion. While it is true in theory that a Starship could carry people to the moon and land them directly on the surface, the return trip isn't that easy and basically boils down to a second starship picking up astronauts from NRHO.