This is the SNC Dream Chaser. Say something nice about it

This is the SNC Dream Chaser. Say something nice about it.

I would find it perfectly believable in a "Star Trek" movie.

Looks pretty.

It will never be economically viable.

How is THAT something nice?

Having wings in space is just silly. Capsules are safer. Soyuz can reenter upside down safely, can this do the same?

It crashes very gracefully.

It's better to have no hope than false hope.

Interstellar tier

We will learn something important from it's operation.

no spacecraft is or ever will be

satellites are

don't carry people
do you call driftwood a "boat?"

It's still a spacecraft. Who the hell carea if it carries people. Satellites are not driftwood they have thrusters to adjust their orbit

It looks like they used the same lifting body design from the G.I. Joe Defiant and Crusader shuttle orbiters.

can land on a runway

>people here are actually too young to remember farscape
>this is actually looking so much like Farscape 1 its scary

>no spacecraft is or ever will be
>or ever will be

ummmmm......no sweetie.

Space is rich people's extravagant waste of money just like ridiculously wasteful grand parties to display class superiority.

Looks kinda similar to the old Mig-105 I saw at Monino aerospace museum.

Nothing that we haven't already learned from STS or X-37B

In 50 years provided the world doesn't end we'll have space tourism flights for the price of a plane ticket to hawaii.

So several billion people will never be able to afford it.

Great.

Fucking economy always ruining everything, i could be writing this while jumping on the moon if only it wasn't for some stupid people who only think about making money, fucking thots and listening to justin bieber

What is the point of this thing? Can it even dock with the ISS?

Wormholes.

that looks more like the x33 ( they never got the hydrogen tanks right)

Looks like Farscape.

why they loose the NASA contract

>Say something nice about it.
It is not currently on fire.

Age of the Spaceplane when?

>Age of the Spaceplane when?
minus 45 years

>Having wings in space is just silly.
It allows for a more controlled reentry and a precise landing without retropropulsion. While Shuttle-size spaceplanes are really wasteful, a small manned spaceplane like Dyna-Soar/Spiral/Kliper/HL-20 makes much more sense and is not much different from a capsule.

>Capsules are safer.
Depends on the capsule. Looking at 8 insanely high-powered hydrazine super dracos right next to the crew in Dragon 2, I can't possibly imagine this is safe. Apollo/Orion/Soyuz propulsion systems are low-thrust and located on the other side of the spacecraft.

you are now wonder what the military is flying in their classified projects

>hydrazine is dangerous
only if you try and swim in it.

never.

have fun breathing it faggot

they even operated shuttle in z-free mode during docking, just to avoid spraying the station with OMS exhaust

They have too much thrust/chamber energy and are located too close to the crew while not being able to be thrown off. If one pops, the crew is likely finished, and there's eight of them.

It's nice to see Jim Benson's work continue at SNC.

Other way around. Dreamchaser is based on the HL20 airframe from the late 80s, which is where Farscape got their inspiration.

that's because dreamchaser is modeled after BOR-4, which was its descendant

Its actually derived from the HL-20, which as itself supposed to be the culmination of the lifting body research that NASA had been doing since the 60s.

HL-20 shape was much more BOR-like than what NASA was doing, unless you think every spaceplane concept was the same. IIRC SNC even had a guy working on BOR and admitted it was modeled after it.

Those NASA experimental lifting bodies were just that - experiments designed to determine the optimal shape - and didn't get anywhere in their actual shape, if I'm not mistaken. Both Shuttle and X-37 were using different shapes (although they were based on that research no doubt), also Kliper, RLV-TD, IXV etc.

>IXV
Arguably the most interesting concept of them all, by the way. No wings, just a simple flying brick controlled by a couple of body flaps. If they could also make it land like that, it'll be probably better than propulsion landing or parachutes or winged designs.

designed as crew transport, it lost the CCR contract, so will be redesigned to transport cargo only to and from the ISS, landing autonomously.

These photos are from the remaining landing test milestones under the old contract that they lost.

It's a pity. This was a much more rational concept for a spaceplane than the Shuttle: do one thing well.

Iirc they are mainly testing the new landing gear, since that's what caused the flip over last time.

On the plus side, several billion would.

Do you only support things that everybody can afford? What sort of device are you using to post?

There were MEN in those days...