Sierra Space Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread (was SNC)

[Tywin]

Yeah I don't undestand the delay...it was almost ready for flight this year!?

[Jim]

Yeah I don't undestand the delay...it was almost ready for flight this year!?

No, it wasn't

[catdlr]

NSF - NASASpaceflight.com@NASASpaceflight

Not good news on the Dream Chaser front.

"NASA and Sierra Space have mutually agreed to modify the contract as the company determined Dream Chaser development is best served by a free flight demonstration, targeted in late 2026"

[Tony - it would not surprise me that NSF will produce a Breaking News video shortly]

and here it is.....

NASA Cancels Dream Chaser - Will It Survive?

[catdlr]

NSF Article on the above

NASA’s contract overhaul puts Dream Chaser’s ISS future in jeopardy
written by Ryan Caton and Chris Bergin September 25, 2025

https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1971415821433151597

[thespacecow]

It's dead. They claim they'll pivot to defense market, which is space industry code word for "we're giving up on this junk"

Without firm ISS contract, what's the motivation for them to even fly the free flyer mission? There is none.

If you look at online rumor mills, this company is a hot mess inside, not every company is SpaceX or Orbital Sciences, time to move on.

[woods170]

Wow. Is this as significant as it sounds? It sounds like Sierra Space / Dream Chaser is taking all of the risk here, for the same reward they already were entitled to before. It really seems like they are getting shafted here. Is it due to non-performance?

NASA is distancing itself from Dream Chaser mostly due to Sierra Space financial under-performance.

Right now, relying on Dream Chaser to complete its once-intended share of CRS missions is unwise, given the continued (financial) trouble during Dream Chaser development, and associated delays in getting the vehicle operational.

Sierra is not "getting shafted" by NASA. They did this to themselves. Sierra Space is learning that this is Firm Fixed Price contracts doing what they are intended to do: move the financial risk from the customer (NASA) to the provider (Sierra Space). Sierra Space is now learning, the hard way, the lesson already learned (kinda) by Boeing and Rocketplane Kistler.

[StraumliBlight]

Ars Technica: Sierra’s Dream Chaser is starting to resemble a nightmare [Sep 25]

Although the NASA news release does not detail the space agency's concerns about allowing Dream Chaser to approach the station, sources have told Ars the space agency has yet to certify the spacecraft's propulsion system. The spacecraft is powered by more than two dozen small rocket engines, each capable of operating at three discrete levels of thrust for fine control or more significant orbit adjustments. Certification is a necessary precursor for allowing a vehicle to approach the orbiting laboratory.

[vt_hokie]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[sstli2]

Sierra is not "getting shafted" by NASA. They did this to themselves. Sierra Space is learning that this is Firm Fixed Price contracts doing what they are intended to do: move the financial risk from the customer (NASA) to the provider (Sierra Space). Sierra Space is now learning, the hard way, the lesson already learned (kinda) by Boeing and Rocketplane Kistler.

It certainly sounds like the the big primes made a smart business decision when they said they were going to stop bidding on fixed-price contracts. In the short-term, when you have SpaceX willing to do everything, and doing it well, this may work out fine. In the long-term, after you have pushed out everyone, and failed to cultivate a diverse and competitive space industry, this dog-eat-dog approach may come back to bite NASA and the government.

Of course, the inevitable retort is going to be - do better, compete, don't be incompetent etc. - the real world is not that simple. Just look at the US domestic chip industry if you want to see a good example of this mentality going awry.

[DanClemmensen]

Sierra is not "getting shafted" by NASA. They did this to themselves. Sierra Space is learning that this is Firm Fixed Price contracts doing what they are intended to do: move the financial risk from the customer (NASA) to the provider (Sierra Space). Sierra Space is now learning, the hard way, the lesson already learned (kinda) by Boeing and Rocketplane Kistler.

It certainly sounds like the the big primes made a smart business decision when they said they were going to stop bidding on fixed-price contracts. In the short-term, when you have SpaceX willing to do everything, and doing it well, this may work out fine. In the long-term, after you have pushed out everyone, and failed to cultivate a diverse and competitive space industry, this dog-eat-dog approach may come back to bite NASA and the government.

Of course, the inevitable retort is going to be - do better, compete, don't be incompetent etc. - the real world is not that simple. Just look at the US domestic chip industry if you want to see a good example of this mentality going awry.

Historically, NASA has been willing to fund a second fixed-price contract in parallel with the first, even when that second contract is twice as expensive. This happened for CRS, CCP, and HLS. The lesson to learn: don't bid for a fixed price contract unless you can accurately estimate your cost and schedule. NASA breaks these procurements into phases. The phases with the most uncertainty happen first. By the time you get to the big final phase (e.g., CCtCap) you have already spent the earlier NASA development money and you should have a really good idea of cost and schedule going forward.

[jarmumd]

The bigger issue isn’t that it won’t be docking, but the timeline, imho.  I had thought the Vulcan Centaur was the hold up, guess not. 

Well, that's disappointing news.  Maybe there is some assistance they could obtain to secure contracts for supplying AXIOM and/or the VAST space stations.

Not sure DC has a future beyond ISS.  It needs a crew/arm/CBM port on CLD unless you spend even more time+money on a docking system.  It's not clear to me (beyond concept graphics) if CLD stations will have CBM ports.  AXIOM does have a CBM port, so they are a maybe, but I worry AXIOM and Sierra are in the same boat regarding their performance.

My guess is that the minimum requirements and the most value for human space flight come from Vast's Haven-1 + SpaceX Dragon 2.  My guess would be that all other concepts (Starlab, Orbital Reef, LIFE) and transportation elements (Starliner, Cygnus, DC, etc) all drop out unless NASA pays to develop them.  This has been the benefit of the ISS, giving so many companies a place to go and something to do in space.  I just haven't seen the actual market for research beyond NASA or tourism or manufacturing, that would need a bigger station than Haven-1.

[sstli2]

The lesson to learn: don't bid for a fixed price contract unless you can accurately estimate your cost and schedule.

As we're talking about shareholder/profit-driven companies, the reality of this is that those who bid will pad their cost and schedule estimates by an exorbitantly large amount, requiring the government to either forgo a second option (as originally happened with HLS), or pay a very large amount for that redundancy option (for example, NSSL Phase 3).

Eric Berger had a prescient article on this last year: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-just-stomped-the-competition-for-a-new-contract-thats-not-great/

More so for NSSL than for NASA, but it is a very precarious position for the government to have only 1 option (SpaceX) that can fulfill your contracts and stay financially sound while doing so. And blaming the contractors might be useful for scoring internet points but it isn't useful if you're the government looking for an actual solution.

[woods170]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Same here. The mission profile for the "free flyer mission" is actually simpler than a "berthing-at-ISS" mission would have been. Yet somehow there's multiple more months of delay. I'm scratching my head... It definitely reeks of financials-induced-delay and/or technical-trouble-induced-delay.

[JayWee]

Well, that's disappointing news.  Maybe there is some assistance they could obtain to secure contracts for supplying AXIOM and/or the VAST space stations.

Not sure DC has a future beyond ISS.  It needs a crew/arm/CBM port on CLD unless you spend even more time+money on a docking system.  It's not clear to me (beyond concept graphics) if CLD stations will have CBM ports.  AXIOM does have a CBM port, so they are a maybe, but I worry AXIOM and Sierra are in the same boat regarding their performance.

My guess is that the minimum requirements and the most value for human space flight come from Vast's Haven-1 + SpaceX Dragon 2.  My guess would be that all other concepts (Starlab, Orbital Reef, LIFE) and transportation elements (Starliner, Cygnus, DC, etc) all drop out unless NASA pays to develop them.  This has been the benefit of the ISS, giving so many companies a place to go and something to do in space.  I just haven't seen the actual market for research beyond NASA or tourism or manufacturing, that would need a bigger station than Haven-1.

Is there a rough idea how much would a Dreamchaser resupply flight cost? (vs Cygnus vs Dragon)?

[jarmumd]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Same here. The mission profile for the "free flyer mission" is actually simpler than a "berthing-at-ISS" mission would have been. Yet somehow there's multiple more months of delay. I'm scratching my head... It definitely reeks of financials-induced-delay and/or technical-trouble-induced-delay.

SS quote:
"Sierra Space remains focused on completing the final phases of testing and preparation to ensure Dream Chaser’s successful first flight, planned for late 2025 and now anticipated in late 2026 due to launch vehicle availability" 
So is it availability of VC?

[woods170]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Same here. The mission profile for the "free flyer mission" is actually simpler than a "berthing-at-ISS" mission would have been. Yet somehow there's multiple more months of delay. I'm scratching my head... It definitely reeks of financials-induced-delay and/or technical-trouble-induced-delay.

SS quote:
"Sierra Space remains focused on completing the final phases of testing and preparation to ensure Dream Chaser’s successful first flight, planned for late 2025 and now anticipated in late 2026 due to launch vehicle availability" 
So is it availability of VC?

That would suggest that Vulcan Centaur availability is the cause of a one year delay. But without further evidence to back this up I find that highly unlikely. Remember: originally Dream Chaser was to launch on the very first or second VC vehicle. VC has now been launched three times and ULA has been showing off a factory full of VC vehicles in production. So, something is "off" here. A nearly one year delay due to LV availability? I'm not buying that based on a SS quote alone.

[DanClemmensen]

Well, that's disappointing news.  Maybe there is some assistance they could obtain to secure contracts for supplying AXIOM and/or the VAST space stations.

Not sure DC has a future beyond ISS.  It needs a crew/arm/CBM port on CLD unless you spend even more time+money on a docking system.  It's not clear to me (beyond concept graphics) if CLD stations will have CBM ports.  AXIOM does have a CBM port, so they are a maybe, but I worry AXIOM and Sierra are in the same boat regarding their performance.

My guess is that the minimum requirements and the most value for human space flight come from Vast's Haven-1 + SpaceX Dragon 2.  My guess would be that all other concepts (Starlab, Orbital Reef, LIFE) and transportation elements (Starliner, Cygnus, DC, etc) all drop out unless NASA pays to develop them.  This has been the benefit of the ISS, giving so many companies a place to go and something to do in space.  I just haven't seen the actual market for research beyond NASA or tourism or manufacturing, that would need a bigger station than Haven-1.

Is there a rough idea how much would a Dreamchaser resupply flight cost? (vs Cygnus vs Dragon)?

I have no numbers at all, sorry. However, you will need to consider the launch costs (F9, Antares, Vulcan) and the cost of the expended element (the whole Cygnus, the Dragon trunk, the DC's "shooting star"). You also need to consider differences in refurbishment costs for Dragon and DC. You will also need to somehow account for differences in capabilities, especially but not limited to payload return to Earth.

[DanClemmensen]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Same here. The mission profile for the "free flyer mission" is actually simpler than a "berthing-at-ISS" mission would have been. Yet somehow there's multiple more months of delay. I'm scratching my head... It definitely reeks of financials-induced-delay and/or technical-trouble-induced-delay.

SS quote:
"Sierra Space remains focused on completing the final phases of testing and preparation to ensure Dream Chaser’s successful first flight, planned for late 2025 and now anticipated in late 2026 due to launch vehicle availability" 
So is it availability of VC?

That would suggest that Vulcan Centaur availability is the cause of a one year delay. But without further evidence to back this up I find that highly unlikely. Remember: originally Dream Chaser was to launch on the very first or second VC vehicle. It has now been launched three times and ULA has been showing off a factory full of VC vehicles in production. So, something is "off" here. A nearly one year delay due to LV availability? I'm not buying based on a SS quote alone.

That's my feeling also, but the original plan was to use a high-risk early launch, probably at a bargain price. But Vulcan now has real paying customers, including high-priority NSSL launches. The "availability" may be a competition for launch slots out of VIF-G, not actual LVs.

[catdlr]

Had the free flyer announcement coincided with a near-term launch date, I might feel a bit of optimism. Late 2026 doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Same here. The mission profile for the "free flyer mission" is actually simpler than a "berthing-at-ISS" mission would have been. Yet somehow there's multiple more months of delay. I'm scratching my head... It definitely reeks of financials-induced-delay and/or technical-trouble-induced-delay.

SS quote:
"Sierra Space remains focused on completing the final phases of testing and preparation to ensure Dream Chaser’s successful first flight, planned for late 2025 and now anticipated in late 2026 due to launch vehicle availability" 
So is it availability of VC?

That would suggest that Vulcan Centaur availability is the cause of a one year delay. But without further evidence to back this up I find that highly unlikely. Remember: originally Dream Chaser was to launch on the very first or second VC vehicle. It has now been launched three times and ULA has been showing off a factory full of VC vehicles in production. So, something is "off" here. A nearly one year delay due to LV availability? I'm not buying based on a SS quote alone.

That's my feeling also, but the original plan was to use a high-risk early launch, probably at a bargain price. But Vulcan now has real paying customers, including high-priority NSSL launches. The "availability" may be a competition for launch slots out of VIF-G, not actual LVs.

  Perhaps offer a discount during the initial launches of RL Newtron.  Maybe too heavy?

[jstrotha0975]

Maybe Sierra Space could market or sell Dream Chaser to the ESA or JAXA?