Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)

[Jim]

I don't understand NASA dropping Dream Chaser like that. Duffy wasn't administrator for very long but some of his decisions were terrible ones and this was another one of them.

Wasn't his decision.

[deltaV]

Perhaps this is the problem with the CCDev program from which DC emerged. Trying to spur innovation by contracting for a critical near-term mission for a risk-averse agency just combines two conflicting goals. The counterpoint I guess is the improbable success of SpaceX. But if we are going to pursue reusable lifting body shuttles or anything really that requires a bit more room for development issues in the name of advancement, it can't be just for a few missions to an aging space station. I'm speaking off the cuff, so maybe my stream of consciousness is on the wrong track, but are we maybe seeing the same thing now with Starship vs Artemis and the desire to land on the moon in the near term?

IMO Dream Chaser’s woes are Sierra’s management’s fault for choosing to develop a lifting body reentry vehicle without a sound business model. Their only known customer, NASA, wanted cargo delivery, not lifting body R&D. Given that customer demand a capsule would have been a better choice. Lifting bodies have a few minor advantages over capsules such as lower gee loads, faster recovery, and being sexier, but no one seems interested in paying extra for those advantages so it was a mistake to build a lifting body anyway.

I fear that is NASA were to try to stack the deck in favor of innovative proposals it would end up funding a lot of proposals that sound cool but don't work out economically, like Shuttle, Dream Chaser, Delta IV, single-stage-to-orbit, and nuclear thermal, and not funding many innovations that actually work, like Falcon 9 and solar-electric. Obviously NASA should fund some ground-breaking R&D, but I don't think they should pay extra for R&D in short-term-focused programs like Artemis and Commercial Cargo unless the R&D is actually required for success.

[Tomness]

0128-EX-ST-2026 [Jan 16]

Requesting to operate the RALTs on the runway for final integrated and flight like validation of system functionality in order to ensure mission safety and support flight readiness.

[SNIP]

No more runway tests to get development milestones,  let's light this bad boi,  ISS could use it.  Vulcan is ready. Vast and Axiom need Cargo Delivery too

[JAFO]

Wonder if DC is getting another look in light of Crew 11?

SNC should just do like I do for the airplane I've been building for years: "She's going to fly on Wednesday. I'm not going to say which one."

[DanClemmensen]

Wonder if DC is getting another look in light of Crew 11?

Why? Availability of another crewed vehicle type would not have any effect on the Crew 11 situation. The only thing that might have helped would be having another crewed vehicle and its crew on short-notice standby, and NASA can choose to do this with Crew Dragon whenever they want to pay for it. Based on the actual events for the Crew-3 launch delay, the Crew-11 situation, and the StarlinerCFT/Crew-8/Crew-9 situation, NASA prefers to handle low-probability situations operationally by adjusting schedules instead of paying for standby launch capability.

[vt_hokie]

Why? Availability of another crewed vehicle type would not have any effect on the Crew 11 situation.

I took it to mean the advantage of direct return to a land facility via lower-G reentry profile and soft runway touchdown. (Not required luckily in the Crew 11 situation but potentially advantageous for returning sick or injured crew.)

Of course, the need for such will depend on whether we have a sustained human presence in LEO post-ISS.