The NASA Dream Chaser Space Plane Update Is Here!

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
  • The NASA Dream Chaser Space Plane Update Is Here!
    Last Video: The Real Reason Rockets Fail!
    • The Real Reason Rocket...
    ► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
    ► Patreon: / theteslaspace
    ► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
    Mars Colonization News and Updates
    • Mars Colonization News...
    SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
    The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
    ► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
    Business Email: derek@ellify.com
    #Spacex #Space #Mars
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 385

  • @party4keeps28
    @party4keeps28 Рік тому +140

    I don't know why it's taking so long to develop crafts like this. I made one in a few minutes with Kerbal Space Program.

    • @byssmal
      @byssmal Рік тому +12

      Be patient. Even KSP 2 took years to be developed.

    • @breadtoasted2269
      @breadtoasted2269 Рік тому +5

      The political situation doesn’t want anything to progress atm, to much change is bad for business

    • @cyril-rr2jk
      @cyril-rr2jk Рік тому +5

      We were almost done developing this concept 20 years ago as a lifeboat for the ISS. Then Bush 43 killed the program and the USAF bought the remains and developed it into their drone spaceplane.

    • @popcatgoldexperence172
      @popcatgoldexperence172 Рік тому +3

      A fellow ksp player ☕️🗿

    • @party4keeps28
      @party4keeps28 Рік тому +1

      @@popcatgoldexperence172 Such a great game.

  • @xermionthesecond4396
    @xermionthesecond4396 Рік тому +73

    Clarification at 4:35: Yes, there have been fatalities on capsule return. Soyuz 11's crew died when their capsule depressurised during reentry, and Soyuz 1 had a parachute failure.

    • @riogrande5761
      @riogrande5761 Рік тому +5

      I believe the narrator was speaking of never having a capsule fatality in the US. That appeared to be the context of the statement.

    • @PrinceAlhorian
      @PrinceAlhorian 11 місяців тому +1

      @@riogrande5761 Apollo 1? Sure it's not a return but burning alive on the pad?

    • @riogrande5761
      @riogrande5761 11 місяців тому +2

      @@PrinceAlhorian Also very bad. I spent several years on an Air Force base that got renamed Grissom after one of the astronauts that died in that fire. Pure oxygen and a spark, what could go wrong?

  • @whacked00
    @whacked00 Рік тому +6

    A few corrections from a former Dream Chaser... Dream Chaser is directly adapted from the HL-20, but there is an interesting history relating to HL-10 and other lifting bodies - including the Russian BOR-4. When it flies this year, DC is the first of this family to make to orbital use. It's aero shape was adapted from tHL-20 by altering fins and aerosurfaces based on wind tunnel testing and improved aerodynamic modeling. Additionally, it makes use of latest technologies and subsystems, and includes updated Thermal Protection materials. You are incorrect that there has never been a capsule fatality. Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 accidents during entry killed 4 crew members. Also, there were many near misses. One of the more unusual characteristics of the Dream Chaser is its use of High Concentration H2O2 with Kerosene for its attitude Control and and Maneuvering thrusters - which operate at several thrust levels - making the use of low and high thrust engines unnecessary. This is a first, and it remains to be seen if this approach is reliable.

    • @hudsonshuck9578
      @hudsonshuck9578 Рік тому

      Thanks for the clarification! That’s really interesting info

  • @Earthmoonstars-el6rd
    @Earthmoonstars-el6rd Рік тому +48

    Hope dream Chaser will evolve as time progresses.

    • @ronschlorff7089
      @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому +4

      yes, into "dream catcher"!! LOL

    • @anekdoche7055
      @anekdoche7055 Рік тому +3

      space shuttle 2.0

    • @ronschlorff7089
      @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому +2

      @@anekdoche7055 more like 0.15 LOL ;D

    • @michaelclentworth1283
      @michaelclentworth1283 Рік тому +2

      Given time, the manned version will eventually make it into orbit. And then Musk's monopoly will be broken.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +1

      @@anekdoche7055 That's what Starship is going to be.

  • @michaelparks6120
    @michaelparks6120 Рік тому +58

    IMHO, this is the coolest looking spacecraft in years. I realize that this is not exactly a rational/scientific observation....but, I like it ! 😃

    • @gregknipe8772
      @gregknipe8772 Рік тому +4

      way to model humility here.

    • @drill_fiend1097
      @drill_fiend1097 Рік тому +7

      spaceplanes are pretty underrated design. They allow for gentler, controlled gliding terrestrial landing without carrying additional fuel to vertically land on Earth or be restricted to plunging onto the open water (or a very flat open field as for Soyuz capsules). Depending on the design, it could allow making orbital changes using thin upper atmosphere if the orbiter is in an elliptical orbit, although only robotic ones like X-37B tried that.

    • @petermcgarrymusicandflying
      @petermcgarrymusicandflying Рік тому +4

      I like it too

    • @xSOVEREIGNx07
      @xSOVEREIGNx07 Рік тому

      It's nice but personally I prefer the Dragon 2, Starship is more capable but Dragon looks nicer imo

    • @mandelaandrew7092
      @mandelaandrew7092 Рік тому

  • @JoseRivera-qj1iz
    @JoseRivera-qj1iz Рік тому +15

    Hope this moves forward with success. It has many years of R & D behind it.

  • @johnstewart579
    @johnstewart579 Рік тому +23

    Agreed, pretty darn good spacecraft with great potential

  • @tidepoolclipper8657
    @tidepoolclipper8657 Рік тому +12

    That thing reminds me of Dyna-Soar. Which would have been safer than the Space Shuttle.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      And you draw this conclusion based on what?

    • @tidepoolclipper8657
      @tidepoolclipper8657 Рік тому +4

      @@odysseusrex5908
      It wouldn't have been strapped to the side of a foam covered fuel tank and its wings seemed better designed. Dream Chaser's wings are closer to the Dyna-Soar in that regard.

  • @jamescobban857
    @jamescobban857 Рік тому +11

    SpaceX benefitted enormously from its Commercial Resupply contract. Cargo Dragon tested every feature of Crew Dragon except the Super Draco abort system. That meant that by the time Crew Dragon first flew passengers, you cannot really call them crew, to the ISS it had already flown most of the system over a dozen times.
    My only concern is that it will cost more to launch Dreamchaser with 5 tons of cargo to LEO on a Vulcan Centaur than it will to launch Starship with 150 tons!

    • @scotthaskin1509
      @scotthaskin1509 Рік тому +1

      SpaceX did test the Super Draco system, NASA balked at them landing on the ground instead of a splashdown.

    • @dapeach06
      @dapeach06 Рік тому +1

      ​@Scott Haskin yes, but Cargo Dragon and the commercial supply program didn't test it

  • @yannisepitropoulos
    @yannisepitropoulos Рік тому +4

    No inspiration from the HL10 (@3:15). Inspiration from the Soviets. You missed the critical fact that Drem Chaser's design is basicaly stolen from the Soviet BOR-4 test vehicle. In 1983 an Australian P-3 Orion photographed it while it was recovered by the Soviets from the ocean after its flight. Then Australians gave the photos to the Americans that made 3D models out of them. They realised that BOR-4's design worked much better than any of their designs up to that date (X-20 Dyna-Soar, Northrop M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin X-24A and X-24B and Martin X-23 PRIME). Then based on the BOR-4's design, around 1990, Americans developed the HL-20 whitch is Dream Chaser's predecesor. Watch Scott Manley's recent video about Dream Cheser :)

    • @xqqqme
      @xqqqme Рік тому

      I was hoping someone (who was aware of the Soviet craft) would point this out.

  • @liamerridge1935
    @liamerridge1935 Рік тому +6

    The only thing is that it needs to be totally reusable so connect to starship type booster to complete! Going forward this is useful for the private future space station.

  • @i-love-space390
    @i-love-space390 Рік тому +6

    A small space plane like Dream Chaser is a better bet for reliability than the huge Space Shuttle. It is a lifting body and it is protected by a shroud on liftoff. Even if it is unshrouded on liftoff, it is at the FRONT of the booster and can avoid foam shedding or ice.
    It looks almost like the realization of the Dyna Soar that was canceled in 1963. I would have liked to see them use a metal heat shield like Dyna Soar, but perhaps they have made those silica tiles more durable.
    They seem to be a good and well managed company that has taken a careful approach to expanding their business. That is what make me think they will be successful. The more the merrier.

    • @tedtomoyasu8438
      @tedtomoyasu8438 Рік тому +1

      Love the Dyna Soar analogy! Both Dream Chaser and Starship follow the model of a reusable upper stage that could safely separate from their main booster in an emergency and rocket away for a safe landing.

  • @sauceboss1846
    @sauceboss1846 Рік тому +4

    Fun fact Huntsville international Airport was certified to land dream chaser meaning even commercial airports can be certified to land it. (To be fair the only reason it was certified is because its right next to marshall spaceflight center which could be useful to return certain science payloads directly there)

    • @t.w.7731
      @t.w.7731 Рік тому

      That's not a fun fact. It's an absurd lie. The airfield was evaluated in 2021 and deemed insufficient for this purpose. The runway was not properly reinforced. The local communities on the approach paths were to densely populated. The emergency services were under equipped.
      You need to delete this comment. This is how false information spreads.

  • @charlesrovira5707
    @charlesrovira5707 Рік тому +4

    I'd like to see some sort of *DreamChaser* mission *_on_** Mars.*
    It's one thing to fly to/from *Earth* and *Mars* (I'd go nuts in that small craft,) but perhaps it might be enough to fly to/from *Mars* orbit.
    Maybe they want to hire a *StarShip* to carry a *DreamChaser* to *Mars.*

    • @tedtomoyasu8438
      @tedtomoyasu8438 Рік тому +4

      Unfortunately the atmosphere of Mars is too thin for Dreamchaser to work without some kind of parafoil or propulsive assist.

  • @jfc_montreal
    @jfc_montreal Рік тому +2

    Always great content ! Thanks

  • @Itzyaboyjammy
    @Itzyaboyjammy Рік тому +5

    Gg I like the smoothness of the clips and how they just blend in

  • @ti994apc
    @ti994apc Рік тому +2

    Advantages landing. However, major disadvantages: Launch. If they need fairings, one you never want people inside. Second the cost of fairing is much much more than plucking Dragon out of the water.

  • @1003196110031961
    @1003196110031961 Рік тому +2

    Good, informative video. Well done 👍

  • @redstone51
    @redstone51 Рік тому +5

    This design was researched way back in the 60's and 70's by NASA. Any one who remembers a show called THE 6 MILLION DOLLAR MAN saw it gliding during the show intro. They were referred to as LIFTING BODIES!!!👌

    • @jesterdevelopment4734
      @jesterdevelopment4734 Рік тому +1

      Also you might remember a Sci-fi series made in Australia called "Farscape". They used the same design for Krytons' ship.

    • @bob_the_bomb4508
      @bob_the_bomb4508 Рік тому

      It’s also the rescue vehicle in the 1969 film ‘Marooned’.

    • @SewolHoONCE
      @SewolHoONCE Рік тому

      LIFTING BODY is the generic name; DYNASOAR was the vehicle under development in the ‘50’s that got shelved by Kennedy’s order to get men to the moon before the end of the decade. Ask Werner von Braun - reusable is best, but disposable is easier on a deadline.

  • @nicholasklangos9704
    @nicholasklangos9704 Рік тому +1

    Also thought that Dream Chaser could have a cargo/work/construction module it could link with in or at to assemble the new space stations like Reaf etc!! Good Idea!!

  • @alanpareis734
    @alanpareis734 Рік тому +2

    Nice summary of Dream Chaser development and company,thanks.

  • @jamingaming9499
    @jamingaming9499 Рік тому +5

    Great video!

  • @ianreid2226
    @ianreid2226 Рік тому +3

    Great content as always! Love this and Tesla Space! Thank you for the breaks in never ending UA-cam scrolling!!! 🙏 Always watch out for your new vids! Almost to 100K subs here, Let’s Go!!! 👍 😁

  • @thepro2412
    @thepro2412 Рік тому +2

    omg i love this new style of videos

  • @iknujbyhvtgcrfxedw-nb6ew
    @iknujbyhvtgcrfxedw-nb6ew Рік тому

    thank you very much

  • @leverman7517
    @leverman7517 Рік тому +2

    Is "ULA" still for sale? I thought I saw it on Craig's list....

  • @joshdabeard3681
    @joshdabeard3681 Рік тому +2

    A great spacecraft,more competition the better.Using an extra hull as a garbage disposal is a smart idea!

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      Spoken like a true garbage man. LOL!

  • @icare7151
    @icare7151 Рік тому

    The military and satellite 🛰️ repair opportunities for the crew version is a game changer.

  • @ronschlorff7089
    @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому +4

    Nice vid, the return of Steave Austin's lifting body!! LOL. It looks like the crew quarters of the shuttle, similar size, whereas as the shuttle was a semi-truck this will be a space car. Pretty cool, and modules can be added like a semi again out the back. Should be a fun ride.
    I think some accommodation needs to be made for us "schlubs" however, maybe a lottery, with big ticket price, few thousands of bucks, and limit of ten to be bought to get a better class of schlub don't you see. Would increase the interest in space travel by the general public and even allow some of the aerospace worker bees a chance to buy on to the rides, if lucky. And make space travel accessible to all "schlub-kind" so as to "boldly go where no schlub, of any background or persuasion, has gone before"!! Move over Captain Kirk!! ;D LOL

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому +1

      LOL - exactly - can't wait for the first bionic trans woman to fly to our space station!

  • @neilhaas
    @neilhaas Рік тому +1

    NASA Dream Chaser Space Plane is replacing the space shuttle orbiter. 12 years that's amazing.❤😊

  • @Perich29
    @Perich29 Рік тому +1

    Love the new shuttle craft.

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      It's old - not new - 60s tech. Watch the 6 million dollar man... just like UAL is old flawed space shuttle, this thing is a soon to be grounded fledgling.

  • @dirttdude
    @dirttdude Рік тому +1

    its an unparalleled Earth landing vehicle for human beings but without a thick atmosphere it wont get much lift therefore it would need a fairly long runway and there's no cement / concrete on the moon or mars. its excellent for space station missions, I mean it has limitations but it's good at what it does

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      LOL - not designed for low atmosphere Mars (google mars drone - very different than Earth drones) or the moon that has NO ATMOSPHERE - wings don't work!

  • @keithscott1926
    @keithscott1926 Рік тому +1

    I know it cost money but I hope at least they keep re-search up and going as they developed the next spacecrafts.

  • @ScaledVideo
    @ScaledVideo Рік тому +2

    You said there has never been a fatality with a capsule re-entry. The soviets lost a crew in a capsule upon re-entry due to a faulty valve.

    • @ronschlorff7089
      @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому

      I think there is a Western bias to this, but yes accurately stated.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +1

      That was Soyuz 11. Komorov was also killed when the parachutes on Soyuz 1 failed properly to deploy.

    • @ronschlorff7089
      @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому

      @@odysseusrex5908 yes, space is not for the faint at heart, it's dangerous and those who have survived space flight have been very lucky, a thousand things could go wrong. Best example of cheating certain death in space is the Apollo 13 mission, of course!!

  • @glenkeating7333
    @glenkeating7333 Рік тому

    I'm a big fan of Spacex but I also like this concept. I look forward to seeing this launch.

  • @nerdwatch1017
    @nerdwatch1017 Рік тому +4

    I’d like to know if there planning to make a Dream Chaser V2-V3 that could possibly use 2 different engine types both powerful enough that the DC could either take off like a plane get to a certain altitude then switch to future hypersonic scramjet engines to gain enough lift/speed to get to LEO then use the onboard rocket engines to make LEO!!

    • @lextoonstudio6090
      @lextoonstudio6090 Рік тому +1

      given the size of it i dont think so. shuttle could have the abilty but a smaller shuttle with a ssto setup. you would think powerful jets will help you but it suprisingly doesnt save much and the amount of heating would cause it to blow up if it could especially if you want rocket fuel in there too.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      No. The Dream Chaser itself has no engines beyond maneuvering thrusters and has no place to put them. If you want engines with that kind of capacity, and the fuel for them, on your space plane, you have to have something more like the size of the Shuttle.

  • @bernieeod57
    @bernieeod57 Рік тому +1

    Both Shuttle fatalities were the result of criminal negligence, not design flaws. Challenger was launched outside of established design parameters. Columbia had a known foam strike and NASA ignored it. The original Shuttle operating parameters was that the Shuttle was never to fly without post launch TPS inspection and EVA & TPS repair capability. NASA waived this requirement.

    • @TheEvilmooseofdoom
      @TheEvilmooseofdoom Рік тому

      The fact that foam could strike was the flaw. And once it happened there was next to nothing that could have been done.

  • @drock9083
    @drock9083 Рік тому

    Whoa, those numbers. Somebody looking for investors with those predictions

  • @bidav2114
    @bidav2114 Рік тому

    1:42 Kudos to the couple. The management probably didn't listen to the employees so they bought the company.

  • @bananenasphalt2172
    @bananenasphalt2172 Рік тому

    Got a little wet in my eyes. And beeing from Cologne in Germany I have to say that even our little airport (CGN) is build for an emergancy spaceshuttle landing 🙂
    Thx for that brilliant video.

  • @rolflandale2565
    @rolflandale2565 Рік тому +1

    With just a canister vessel, slightly longer than the original space shuttle, DChaser could've taken off a 747 or 737, even the Stratolauch plane model. Perhaps a faster SR-71 similar new form, as the first stage body, neck mount a second & DChaser stage.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      Umm, and what rockets, using what fuel, are supposed to propel the ship off of the 747?

  • @Rat-nl1xe
    @Rat-nl1xe Рік тому +1

    still can't believe it wasn't picked and we're still waiting fir the first flight.

  • @scurge1971
    @scurge1971 Рік тому +2

    I would love to see the Dream Chaser atop a Falcon 9....Help em out Elon!!!

  • @2150dalek
    @2150dalek Рік тому

    I want to see that cool space craft fly. This is a more pragmatic space shuttle.

  • @atomicdesignshop
    @atomicdesignshop Рік тому +1

    Interesting future we have ahead of us!

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      This is old future... 60s tech.

  • @angelstrong792
    @angelstrong792 Рік тому +2

    Godspeed, NASA Dream Chaser, and more success, just remember, if we hold on together, our dreams will live forever!

  • @andymouse
    @andymouse Рік тому +2

    Steve Austin was the first test pilot and was critically injured in an accident. Austin subsequently disappeared from public life, his rehabilitation was rumoured to have cost the American taxpayer $6.000.000. After a brief flirtation with the press he once again fell off the face of the earth was believed (Unconfirmed) to be involved with covert, Black Ops operations again for the American government however no one department was ever cited. Found footage appears to show Austin demonstrating abilities that made him 'stronger,faster' but the footage validity is not confirmed....cheers.

  • @dumitrulangham1721
    @dumitrulangham1721 Рік тому +1

    ❤❤❤❤❤❤ I do have hope for the dream chaser can prove that space plane as a future! And I think once dream chaser proves itself i can see some companies possibly developing a space plane

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      Why? The shuttle proved the space plane sucked, blew up, killed people and wasn't quickly re-usable unlike the Falcon 9 and hopefully the Starship. Only thing Obama did semi right, besides giving our money to the Russian's space agency was funding Space X.... sadly Blue Origin sucks, ULA SUCKS, but one out of 3 isn't bad for government. Old military space planes are like ULA - old and expensive - they suck.

  • @WhatHappens23
    @WhatHappens23 Рік тому

    This is interesting😮

  • @davidmuir4321
    @davidmuir4321 Рік тому +1

    I've seen slot of space vehicles in 57 years ... This little space hotrod just needs some awesome flames painted down along its shell .,, let's make it happen today !!!
    It will also go faster .. reds always faster..
    Essential to space hotrod vehicles .
    JUST DO IT SPACEMAN GODS AND MORTAL SPACE HUMANS.
    THAAAAANKSSSS

  • @henrysantos121
    @henrysantos121 Рік тому +1

    Matatan.🤔. Ribirin HS,
    👇
    What an excellent documentary well done,

  • @nicholasklangos9704
    @nicholasklangos9704 Рік тому

    There is also the alternative shuttle landing site at Rhoda Spain if it’s still available with minimal repairs??

  • @BlackDragon95912
    @BlackDragon95912 Рік тому

    that NASA Dream Chaser look cool ,I wonder how long it takes to see space vehicles like Normandy sr2, or shuttles from Mass Effect 2 and 3 🤔

  • @hael8680
    @hael8680 Рік тому +1

    That will take the boredom out of space capsules. Hope it will be success!!

    • @tidepoolclipper8657
      @tidepoolclipper8657 Рік тому

      Space capsules are notable safer and can easily handle higher temperatures than any shuttle.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      @@tidepoolclipper8657 How are they safer? One Shuttle was lost on reentry, due to damage sustained on launch. Despite what the video claimed, two capsules suffered catastrophic failures on reentry or landing, killing their crews.

  • @dimetime35c
    @dimetime35c Рік тому +1

    Wonder how feasible switching this to a falcon 9 or heavy if Blue origin can't deliver the BE-4

    • @TheEvilmooseofdoom
      @TheEvilmooseofdoom Рік тому

      Hard to say but BO has already delivered the first flighty ready BE-4s. How well they'll do is still to be answered.

    • @dimetime35c
      @dimetime35c Рік тому

      @@TheEvilmooseofdoom I hope that's an option. The last flight of a blue origin rocket ended in failure. We haven't heard a peep from then since

  • @Arturo-lapaz
    @Arturo-lapaz Рік тому

    what is the glide ratio?

  • @malakiblunt
    @malakiblunt Рік тому +2

    Space port Cornwall - were astronaughts go for pasties

    • @ronschlorff7089
      @ronschlorff7089 Рік тому +1

      yup, in the old days of NASA, legend has it, that some of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts, in the 60's, went to bars in Florida to see, and pick up girls with only some "pasties" on their tits!! I suppose that was part of having "the right stuff" for their jobs back then! LOL ;D

    • @sunixjester
      @sunixjester Рік тому

      Any other space ports?

    • @DougietheBIGRed
      @DougietheBIGRed Рік тому

      This ^ guy!! Amusing 😅

  • @moresugartradercc2744
    @moresugartradercc2744 Рік тому +1

    interesting video I understand how they get into space but can someone educate me how they land are they planning on gliding in like the space shuttle

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +1

      Yes, exactly. Although the Russian space shuttle, Buran, had jet engines to make a powered landing, there is no room for any such thing on Dream Chaser.

    • @moresugartradercc2744
      @moresugartradercc2744 Рік тому

      @@odysseusrex5908 thanks

  • @adak2050
    @adak2050 Рік тому +3

    Okay, your a little off. Catching an Apollo capsule was crazy expensive, because they used an aircraft carrier, support boats, and helicopters. Space X uses 150 ft boat Doug or Bob, with a couple small fast pontoon boats and modest crew. Dream chaser will require renting a whole small airport, crash and recovery crew. I say costs similar. Starship, if they can perfect will be caught by Mechazilla and relaunched same day, way cheaper. It is a really cool plane though. Vulcan should use Raptor engines instead of BE4

  • @John_Michael2000
    @John_Michael2000 Рік тому

    But it's always the same format.. Shoot something into space with a big rocket.. a part of it falls off either getting destroyed or it falls into the ocean so we have to retrieve it. Then while in space some more pieces fall off creating a junkyard of space around the planet. We need something like the Galileo 7

  • @adub1300
    @adub1300 Рік тому +1

    Soyuz 11 disagrees with the sentiment that no one has ever died in a space capsule.

  • @Builtbypete
    @Builtbypete Рік тому +2

    Brilliant. I hope its a success. We need more like this to keep the 'race' going.

  • @eustatic3832
    @eustatic3832 7 місяців тому

    Any space plane would be better and safer than starship. Glad to see a return to the classic design from the 1960s

  • @lindencoleman9360
    @lindencoleman9360 Рік тому +1

    I bet we see Dream Chaser being lifted by the Falcon Heavy soon.

  • @byssmal
    @byssmal Рік тому

    I hope it won't end like space shuttle

  • @alphonsotolbert7165
    @alphonsotolbert7165 Рік тому

    Question: are you offering amateur craft designs to be considered. For future crafts

  • @xypheli
    @xypheli Рік тому

    Shuttles + spacetethers =

  • @fredferd965
    @fredferd965 Рік тому

    For most of its existence, the Grumman Aircraft Company had a firm policy - when designing new aircraft they would incorporate only one new thing at a time, only one variable. If the government wanted them to try a new engine, they would install it on a tried and proven airframe. They did not want to test two or more variables, two or more unknowns at one time. Grumman built solid - they were the Iron works! They built well. I like the Dream Chaser, but this new engine, the multiple variables, etc., make me very nervous. I don't think this is the right way to do it, but it's just my opinion.

  • @lawerancelanham
    @lawerancelanham Рік тому

    I thought the Challenger blew up on its way up? That's what I saw in school way back when.

  • @NurmYokai
    @NurmYokai Рік тому +1

    Just before their first crewed flight, they should hire Claudia Black and Ben Browder, to do a tongue-in-cheek commercial.

  • @jaysonpida5379
    @jaysonpida5379 Рік тому

    Considering how the 'starliner' is working out for Boeing...this may be the better system.
    Who knew that an updated/advanced version of the Dyna-Soar would be the 'future' in 2023.

    • @HDnatureTV
      @HDnatureTV Рік тому

      Starliner is not going work out for Boeing and UAL at 2 billion a launch. Space X will bankrupt these old and flawed union aerospace companies... just look at their flawed dangerous aircraft and space craft.

  • @user-lz1yb6qk3f
    @user-lz1yb6qk3f Рік тому +2

    This is literally MiG 105. Are you sure this is not a rocket bomber?

  • @humanity1581
    @humanity1581 Рік тому

    Yes. It is a dream... Remain as dream.

  • @screally1152
    @screally1152 Рік тому +1

    08:46 incorrect. The Chinese Zhuque-2 launched in December but did not achieve orbit

  • @SewolHoONCE
    @SewolHoONCE Рік тому

    ¿Missing from the landing sites list: Edwards, Mojave, CA?

  • @CesGu
    @CesGu Рік тому +2

    How to do a video wothout any update

  • @stephenwilliams2421
    @stephenwilliams2421 Рік тому +1

    WRT your comment on space-planes being "slightly less safe than capsules". That may be true, but it is extremely likely that NASA, when forced to trim down to two vendors, had to make Boeing one of the choices for political reasons, not for safety or viability reasons. We can all see now, that that wasn't the best choice. We may get to see the CST100 fly with humans eventually, but I'm not holding my breath.
    PS - I do not want to give Boeing the satisfaction of referring to the CST100 by the brand-name they gave it. The thing will never ever get out of low earth orbit. At least SpaceX's "Starship" will have the ability to reach another star... eventually .. in 50-80,000 years 😀

  • @jimmackey3742
    @jimmackey3742 Рік тому +1

    Has anyone seen john chriton looks very similar to the farscape module

  • @citizenblue
    @citizenblue Рік тому

    4:31 did we forget about Soyuz 11?...

  • @alexandrachernysh7
    @alexandrachernysh7 Рік тому

    I have a question,
    does Dream Chaser need an intermediate stage to reach LEO? Is it Booster + 2nd stage and Dream Chaser, or is it JUST Booster + Dream Chaser (like a Starship)

    • @robertf3479
      @robertf3479 Рік тому

      From the description given and the animations my uneducated guess is Booster + 2nd Stage +Dream Chaser.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +1

      All of the existing rockets that Dream Chaser could fly on, Vulcan, Falcon 9, Atlas V, have and require second stages to get their payloads to orbit. The Dream Chaser does not have any on board engines to give it that extra delta V.

    • @alexandrachernysh7
      @alexandrachernysh7 Рік тому +1

      @@odysseusrex5908 I see, thank you for the answer. I was thinking at first it has engines and large tanks on the sides, which makes it sort of a second stage and capsule fused together, (and fully reusable) but I suppose it's not that simple

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +1

      @@alexandrachernysh7 Nope, not that simple at all. Starship is capable of doing that, and look at the difference in scale.

  • @dallasmed65
    @dallasmed65 10 місяців тому

    there was a Russian capsule that depressurized on its return and killed all of the cosmonauts inside. So they don't have a 100% perfect track run. But still more safe nonetheless.

  • @tidepoolclipper8657
    @tidepoolclipper8657 Рік тому

    "There has never been a fatality on a capsule return"
    That may be true for the US. But the Soviet Union says otherwise. Soyuz 11 crew suffocated to death. As for Soyuz 1, that version of the Soyuz capsule was so poorly put together that the main parachute failed. Even if you want to argue the type of vehicle they were wasn't the crucial factor; the fact there were causalities in those capsules upon reentry in the first place is what's being focused on in the first place.
    Although, the US did come dangerously close to having a capsule return crew loss with Apollo 13. As for Apollo 1; doesn't count in this case due to that being a ground test that went really wrong.

  • @tctime
    @tctime Рік тому

    What is the space force using?

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      The Space Force has no manned spaceflight program. They primarily manage spy satellites, which are launched on unmanned booster rockets, chiefly the Atlas V, which is being replaced by the Vulcan Centaur.

  • @morganmoallemian3667
    @morganmoallemian3667 Рік тому +2

    The biggest issue that I saw with the shuttle system was those stupid heating shield tiles. I've always thought those tiles were dumb and dangerous. I really like the whole concept of the dream chaser - basically a smaller shuttle - a TRUE space ship - a vehicle that offers maneuverability and propulsion system that gives the spaceship truly usable capabilities and reusability. One that has a host of capabilities over the almost embarrassing capsule system, developed 60 years ago. Here is one idea that they can implement on the Dream Chaser that would immediately make it much safer than the shuttle - Why can't they develop a spray-on application heat shield that would provide a seamless heat shield system on top of a high heat steel substructure on the critical bottom surface? If any chipping damage occurs, you just apply a new coating.
    Isn't it absurd, that if an astronaut gets thrown of, say the space station, that they are just shit outta luck? We don't have an actual functioning SPACE SHIP to go rescue them! Ridiculous.... Can we get some semblance of a damn space ship already?!

    • @Arturo-lapaz
      @Arturo-lapaz Рік тому +1

      Silicon carbide solid foam is a good insulator, easy to cut, but at the time the adhesion was the problem and the complicated form of the space shuttle. Coatings are ablatives at best . simple form as Space ship is much easier, they are not bonded, if memory serves. The flexibility to use other than hexagonal shapes will be useful after a few flights. A lot of tilings are possible, example the 45° 2:1 rectangular, less susseptible to peeling.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому +2

      You realize it has the same kind of tiles. There was nothing wrong with the tiles. Columbia was lost not because of damage to the tiles, but because the airframe itself had been punctured. If just the tiles at that location had been dislodged, she would have reentered with no problem. That had actually happened before.

    • @TheEvilmooseofdoom
      @TheEvilmooseofdoom Рік тому +1

      You know and understand FAR less than you pretend you do.

    • @Arturo-lapaz
      @Arturo-lapaz Рік тому

      @@odysseusrex5908 Air Force satellite showed that the landing gear door was open in a somewhat fuzzy image.

    • @odysseusrex5908
      @odysseusrex5908 Рік тому

      @@Arturo-lapaz I am not familiar with that. The main strike, and the hole in the airframe, was on the forward part of the left wing, just where it met the fuselage. Any such damage to the landing gear door is still irrelevant to the tiles. Could you possible post a link to this picture?

  • @costrio
    @costrio Рік тому

    This looks very much like the "flying bathtubs" that NASA experimented with in the early days and I read about in Science Digest when it was a pulp magazine. What goes around comes around?

    • @michaelparks6120
      @michaelparks6120 Рік тому +1

      Steve Austin...the words first bionic man was familiar with that craft 😉

    • @costrio
      @costrio Рік тому

      @@michaelparks6120 Yes. and I think he's worth more than $6 Million these days, thanks to inflation. ;)

  • @maks8751
    @maks8751 Рік тому

    0:23 LADA!!!

  • @bonniewilson9709
    @bonniewilson9709 11 місяців тому

    Looks to me like a shark upside down fins and all ...its cool.

  • @Ophidicus
    @Ophidicus Рік тому

    Looks just like Farscape-1

  • @patkelley4071
    @patkelley4071 Рік тому

    I'll bet there are some in NASA kicking themselves for not choosing the Dream Chaser as the alternate to Dragon, instead of the Boeing Starliner.

  • @joannkirk-il3mo
    @joannkirk-il3mo Рік тому +1

    AUDIT NASA

  • @BernieD940
    @BernieD940 Рік тому

    thia would look stunning atop a SpaceX rocket!! 🤓

  • @mazdarx7887
    @mazdarx7887 Рік тому

    They got a very long way to go yet.

  • @martykayzee8398
    @martykayzee8398 Рік тому

    Why does it require a fairing to launch?

  • @CocoDaPuf
    @CocoDaPuf Рік тому

    This is a great video, so my apologies for being "that guy". But I do want to say that it's a little unfair to suggest Relativity Space's engines didn't work. Their entire first stage worked perfectly, with all 9 engines burning for their full duration at optimal capacity.
    Unlike the falcon 9 or starship, Relativity uses a completely different engine for their first and second stage. And I think it's fair to say that the methane fueled Aeon 1 engines in the first stage fulfilled all their objectives in a *complete* success.
    And who knows, their second stage *could* have worked, the problem is that it never fully started. It was some sort of problem in their ignition system, the turbopumps were going, but they never got ignition in the main combustion chamber.
    Still, I think the first stage counts as a huge success for a CH4 rocket engine!

  • @keithhoward4069
    @keithhoward4069 Рік тому +1

    If the dream chaser is being delayed because of blue origin, why not use a space X rocket? they are very reliable.

  • @savagecub
    @savagecub Рік тому

    Why not a nose WHEEL ??? It’s a hell of a lot easier to tow something with three wheels than something with a skid.

  • @mike62mcmanus
    @mike62mcmanus Рік тому

    The vehicle Columbia didn't malfunction, the rocket malfunctioned due to poor oversight...

  • @physicswcccd
    @physicswcccd Рік тому

    Wrong about the safety of propulsive vertical landings. The Falcon 9 booster has had far more successive successful vertical propulsive landings, than successive successful landings by the Space Shuttle.

  • @Pacito420
    @Pacito420 Рік тому

    its actually harder to dock ngl

  • @karlthemel2678
    @karlthemel2678 Рік тому

    Doesn´t New Glenn use LNG?