4 ms·

Its incredible to see the Dream Chaser being a contender. Is essentially a small-ish space shuttle and designed to be mounted as-is on top of a larger rocket. I

Its incredible to see the Dream Chaser being a contender. Is essentially a small-ish space shuttle and designed to be mounted as-is on top of a larger rocket. Its surprising to see continued interest of a lifting body in space, but I guess the DoD is fond of the X-37B's shuttle-eque design. It does seem like a waste of resources considering Orion is being developed as well as the Dragon capsule. Do taxpayers need to pay for a shuttle clone? I'd rather see a new robotic mission or telescope instead of yet another human vehicle design that will never see space.

adastra 14y ago
NASA needs multiple winners so they will never be dependent on a single vehicle again. The multi-year standdowns after the shuttle accidents and being dependent on Russia for astronaut transportation are both pretty highly undesirable, to say the least. They could have picked only two winners, but there's a risk one of them could drop out. Boeing has said they might shut down their program if NASA doesn't address their liability and indemnification concerns, for example. Having two leaders plus a back-up is a sound strategy. The real waste of resources is Orion. NASA is spending more on Orion than all these other spacecraft combined, yet despite Lockheed first beginning development on Orion 6 years ago, it won't do an unmanned flight until 2015, three years after SpaceX. The total cost will be almost $10 billion. That's why the Obama Administration tried to cancel it... but Congress had other ideas.
- api 14y ago
  I'm gonna hazard a guess that SpaceX will have a reusable Falcon 9 test by the time Orion is ready for a real mission.
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  >The multi-year standdowns after the shuttle accidents and being dependent on Russia for astronaut transportation are both pretty highly undesirable, to say the least. Meh, the time from Apollo to shuttle was 7 years I think. We survived just fine. I just hate the idea that we're draining the budgets of good space missions because of our obsession with basic human transport to LEO, which we can buy from the Russians. The heavy rockets and their accompanying capsules are interesting because they can out of LEO, but I hate that we're blowing hundreds of millions on things that will never, ever fly thanks to congressional input and defense cronyism. The Dream Chaser should never, ever been part of this. I wonder how many good robotic missions or telescopes that boondoggle has cost us. Heck, the Dream Chaser is LEO only, which is a shortsighted waste of resources. Orion/SLS as a main with Dragon/Falcon as a commercial backup is more than enough. Elon Musk isn't going away anytime soon.
velodrome 14y ago
Variations of transportation vehicles can provide a better cost-optimized solutions for different scenarios. If they can reuse the shuttle a couple of times in space before they have to take it back to earth - that could be a cost saver. They use the dragon capsule (or boeing equivalent) to take people up to the station and use the shuttle to transport them around them in space. I can see a lot of cost savings doing this. Less weight = less fuel = more money saved.
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  The dream chaser mounts on an Atlas V. Its a completely expendable 250 million dollar rocket. Not sure if there's substantial savings as opposed to mounting a existing (or soon to be existing) capsule on a smaller rocket. > use the shuttle to transport them around them in space. What LEO destinations are there other than the ISS? I guess you have edge cases of Hubble repair, but a whole delivery system just for that seems like overkill.
zevets 14y ago
Judging from the shape of the SpaceX capsule, it seems pretty like it has a limited maximum re-entry velocity, whereas orion is designed pretty explicity for a high speed re-entry. I think when space-x says that dragon is capable of returning from the moon, they intend on using the capsule draco thrusters to enter the atmosphere as slowly as possible.

adastra 14y ago

NASA needs multiple winners so they will never be dependent on a single vehicle again. The multi-year standdowns after the shuttle accidents and being dependent on Russia for astronaut transportation are both pretty highly undesirable, to say the least. They could have picked only two winners, but there's a risk one of them could drop out. Boeing has said they might shut down their program if NASA doesn't address their liability and indemnification concerns, for example. Having two leaders plus a back-up is a sound strategy. The real waste of resources is Orion. NASA is spending more on Orion than all these other spacecraft combined, yet despite Lockheed first beginning development on Orion 6 years ago, it won't do an unmanned flight until 2015, three years after SpaceX. The total cost will be almost $10 billion. That's why the Obama Administration tried to cancel it... but Congress had other ideas.

api 14y ago
I'm gonna hazard a guess that SpaceX will have a reusable Falcon 9 test by the time Orion is ready for a real mission.
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
>The multi-year standdowns after the shuttle accidents and being dependent on Russia for astronaut transportation are both pretty highly undesirable, to say the least. Meh, the time from Apollo to shuttle was 7 years I think. We survived just fine. I just hate the idea that we're draining the budgets of good space missions because of our obsession with basic human transport to LEO, which we can buy from the Russians. The heavy rockets and their accompanying capsules are interesting because they can out of LEO, but I hate that we're blowing hundreds of millions on things that will never, ever fly thanks to congressional input and defense cronyism. The Dream Chaser should never, ever been part of this. I wonder how many good robotic missions or telescopes that boondoggle has cost us. Heck, the Dream Chaser is LEO only, which is a shortsighted waste of resources. Orion/SLS as a main with Dragon/Falcon as a commercial backup is more than enough. Elon Musk isn't going away anytime soon.

velodrome 14y ago

Variations of transportation vehicles can provide a better cost-optimized solutions for different scenarios. If they can reuse the shuttle a couple of times in space before they have to take it back to earth - that could be a cost saver. They use the dragon capsule (or boeing equivalent) to take people up to the station and use the shuttle to transport them around them in space. I can see a lot of cost savings doing this. Less weight = less fuel = more money saved.

drzaiusapelord 14y ago
The dream chaser mounts on an Atlas V. Its a completely expendable 250 million dollar rocket. Not sure if there's substantial savings as opposed to mounting a existing (or soon to be existing) capsule on a smaller rocket. > use the shuttle to transport them around them in space. What LEO destinations are there other than the ISS? I guess you have edge cases of Hubble repair, but a whole delivery system just for that seems like overkill.

zevets 14y ago

Judging from the shape of the SpaceX capsule, it seems pretty like it has a limited maximum re-entry velocity, whereas orion is designed pretty explicity for a high speed re-entry. I think when space-x says that dragon is capable of returning from the moon, they intend on using the capsule draco thrusters to enter the atmosphere as slowly as possible.