SpaceX Shocked ULA with Falcon Heavy Upgrade to Save NASA New Space Plane...

NASA's long-lost space plane might finally have a shot at flying. And surprisingly, the company that once beat it to orbit may now be the one to save it. We're talking about Dream Chaser, Sierra Space's sleek, shuttle-style space plane, that's been grounded since its inception back in 2004. Not totally because it's not ready, not because it can't fly, but because the rocket is booked on, still isn't available for it yet. While more reliable launch options like SpaceX's Falcon 9 are flying almost every week, Dream Chaser's unique design just doesn't quite fit, until now. A new solution is on the horizon. And yes, it comes from SpaceX. Could this be the moment that wakes Dream Chaser from its 20-year slumber? In this episode of TechMap, we break down how one of the most powerful rockets in the world might be the key to getting Dream Chaser off the ground. Literally. Sierra Space's Dream Chaser is shaping up to be a major player in America's commercial space sector. NASA's inclusion of the Dream Chaser as part of its International Space Station cargo fleet, alongside Orbital Science's Cygnus and SpaceX's Dragon, adds much-needed redundancy and variety. This becomes even more critical today as many experts voice growing concerns about NASA relying too heavily on SpaceX. Looking ahead, when the crewed version of Dream Chaser eventually launches, it could serve as a viable backup for SpaceX's Starship, particularly for suborbital missions. Unlike the massive Starship, which requires intricate ground support systems, Dream Chaser is compact and nimble, an ideal choice for time-sensitive missions. With its airplane-style lifting-body design, it can land on any conventional runway worldwide. That means quicker access to cargo compared to SpaceX's Dragon, which splashes down in the ocean, or Boeing's Starliner, which often lands in remote locations. In short, Dream Chaser wins on time efficiency. Cost is another area where Dream Chaser shines. It's partially reusable, making it less expensive than fully expendable vehicles. Moreover, by using existing airport infrastructure rather than needing custom-built setups like Starship's Mechazilla, logistics become simpler and more economical. Critics point out that Dream Chaser's small size could be a drawback, especially when compared to the cargo-hauling capacity of larger spacecraft, like NASA's retired Space Shuttle. But Sierra Space has been laser-focused on maximizing the vehicle's payload. It can carry up to 12,000 pounds, 5,500 kilograms of cargo, matching SpaceX's Cargo Dragon and exceeding NASA's Commercial Resupply Service's two requirements. Since day one, Sierra Space's goal has been to support critical scientific missions. That's why Dream Chaser is built to prioritize pressurized cargo. Thanks to the addition of the Shooting Star cargo module, its pressurized volume jumps to 33 cubic meters, almost four times that of Dragon. And let's not forget other standout features. Gentle runway landings, compatibility with multiple launch vehicles due to its ability to fit inside existing rocket fairings, and environmentally-friendly, non-toxic propellants. That said, the biggest hurdle for Sierra Space right now is finding a reliable launch provider. As I've mentioned in several videos, depending solely on ULA's Vulcan Centaur rocket limits their options. Naturally, SpaceX enters the conversation here, thanks to its frequent dependable launches. But there's a technical hitch. Dream Chaser just doesn't fit inside Falcon 9's fairing. Dream Chaser is about 30 feet, 9 meters long, and 15 feet, 4.5 meters wide because of its winged lifting body shape. Meanwhile, Falcon 9's fairing offers an internal diameter of 17 feet, 5.2 meters, and a height of just 43 feet, 13.1 meters. Simply put, Dream Chaser needs a launch vehicle with a larger fairing volume, ruling Falcon 9 out for now. So, what's the solution moving forward? Back in January, a photo went viral on X showcasing Falcon Heavy's extended fairing. Now, while the standard Falcon Heavy uses the same fairing as Falcon 9, this new extended version is a game-changer. It's significantly taller, reportedly measuring around 18.6 meters, 61 feet in height while keeping a similar diameter. This upgrade was driven by the need to accommodate larger payloads like those destined for the Lunar Gateway or critical Department of Defense missions that simply won't fit inside the regular fairing. SpaceX billed the cost of this fairing development to the DoD under early NSSL Phase 2 contracts, which underscores how crucial it is for military use. One catch, unlike the standard fairing, this one isn't designed to be recovered and reused. Its increased size and weight make recovery too complicated. That said, this opens a very real possibility for both SpaceX and Sierra Space to consider this extended fairing for Dream Chaser's upcoming Demo-1 mission. Now, let's talk about Falcon Heavy itself. This rocket is an absolute beast. It is widely recognized as one of the most powerful operational rockets in the world. The Falcon Heavy is essentially a beefed-up Falcon 9 at its core, flanked by two additional Falcon 9 first stages, used as strap-on boosters. The whole thing stands 70 meters tall, that's 229.6 feet, and has a total diameter of 12.2 meters, 39.9 feet. Fully fueled, it weighs in at a staggering 1,420,788 kilograms, or over 3.1 million pounds. It's powered by 27 Merlin 1D engines, 9 on each of the three cores, producing a jaw-dropping 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. To put that in perspective, that's like launching 18 747 jets all at once at full throttle. Payload-wise, it's no slouch. Falcon Heavy can deliver 63,800 kilograms, 140,660 pounds, to low-Earth orbit, 26,700 kilograms, 58,860 pounds, to geostationary transfer orbit, and 16,800 kilograms, 37,040 pounds, to Mars. What makes this powerhouse even more impressive is its reusability. Just like Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy's side boosters and center core are built to return and land vertically, cutting costs and boosting launch cadence. Nevertheless, in recent years, it is rumored that SpaceX has no longer attempted to recover the core stage, only recovering the side boosters. Landing the center core is a lot harder than landing the side boosters. While the two side boosters routinely land successfully on land, the center core lands on a drone ship far downrange, facing rough sea conditions and logistical challenges. In reality, the center core only landed successfully once, during Arabsat-6A mission on April 11, 2019. It was then lost during transport due to rough seas, causing it to tip over and sustain heavy damage. Additionally, recovering the center core requires more fuel for deceleration, which reduces the rocket's payload capacity. By not recovering the center core, Falcon Heavy can carry significantly heavier payloads. By not recovering the center core in combination with sheer muscle, Falcon Heavy is tailor-made for deploying large satellites, interplanetary missions, and complex government or commercial payloads. Perfectly positioned to handle the future, like launching the Dream Chaser. Anyway, if you love this deep dive, smash that like button, hit subscribe and ring the bell. We're aiming for 150,000 subscribers, and we need you to get there. Check out our other videos on Starship, Artemis, and more, and let's keep exploring the cosmos together. On June 16, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno announced that the Atlas 5 launch for Amazon's Project Kuiper-2 has been delayed due to an unresolved issue with the Nitrogen Purge line. Now, if Bruno had posted this update on X as usual instead of BlueSky, it probably wouldn't have raised many eyebrows. But the fact that it came through BlueSky is significant, especially because his X account was reportedly compromised just four days prior. Naturally, the internet had thoughts. Tweets like, imagine if there's a rocket launch involved, or imagine if the hacker tweets Raptor 3 is the greatest engine ever, started making the rounds. And honestly, they weren't far-fetched. In fact, SpaceX and ULA have a long and rocky history. Flashback to September 2016. A Falcon 9 rocket exploded during a routine pre-launch test. Elon Musk never won to hold back. Floated the idea that it might have been sabotage, suggesting that someone could have fired a shot from the rooftop of a nearby ULA building, which was about a mile from the pad. While the investigation ruled out foul play, it underscored the fierce rivalry brewing between SpaceX and ULA, one a legacy company and the other representing the new kid on the block with ambitions to dominate the rocket industry. Fast forward to July 2021. Musk responded to Tory Bruno with a not-so-subtle jab. ULA would be dead as a doornail without the two-launch provider DOD requirement. If this is not true, then you won't have a problem removing it. Your parent company, Lockheed, darkened the skies with lobbyists to ensure F-35 was single-source. Seems a little inconsistent. Of course, Bruno couldn't stay silent. In August 2024, he publicly questioned the authenticity of SpaceX's Raptor 3 engine photos, calling them partially assembled. SpaceX executive Gwynne Shotwell clapped back almost immediately. Works pretty good for a partially assembled engine. And the drama didn't end on social media. In July 2024, ULA teamed up with Blue Origin to formally raise environmental concerns with the FAA, targeting SpaceX's ambitious plan to conduct 44 launches per year from Kennedy Space Center. While ULA was busy filing complaints, SpaceX was racking up milestones. Their Falcon rocket just completed its 500th launch. A mind-blowing feat in the world of rocketry. Meanwhile, ULA found itself struggling to keep pace. Years of operating without fierce competition dulled its edge. SpaceX, with its game-changing reusable rockets and lower costs, surged ahead. ULA's response was to develop the Vulcan rocket, a more cost-effective next-gen launcher. But that pivot came too late and too slowly. Even worse, ULA's delays started frustrating its most important customer, the Pentagon. In 2024, the company was slapped with financial penalties for failing to launch two key military satellites on time. And in 2025, the military is still voicing concerns about a growing backlog, more than two dozen national security missions waiting to get off the ground. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has become increasingly reliant on SpaceX to deliver its most critical satellites into orbit using Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Perhaps the ULA's biggest issue now is logistics. And it's starting to affect more than just its government contracts. Take Sierra Space, for example. Its Dream Chaser spaceplane was originally slated to ride atop Vulcan's second launch. But ULA prioritized military certification instead, pushing Sierra's launch back. May 2025 came and went. And still, no launch. Neither ULA nor Sierra Space has addressed the delay publicly, which only deepens the concerns rippling through the space industry. So, when will Dream Chaser finally fly? With ULA still struggling to meet its military launch commitments, the answer might not come anytime soon. Don't be surprised if the mini space shuttle's debut slips into 2026. Or even later. This isn't great news. Sierra Space holds a commercial resupply services to contract with NASA to deliver cargo to the International Space Station using its Dream Chaser spaceplane and the Shooting Star cargo module. They're also working with Blue Origin to develop Orbital Reef, a privately owned space station in low-Earth orbit. On top of that, NASA is hoping to find a backup to SpaceX's Crew Dragon. All of these ambitions hinge heavily on Dream Chaser's first launch, which will deliver crucial real-world data for future improvements. Real reliability often comes from multiple launches, so any delay in the first flight only pushes everything else further down the road. The development of the spaceplane takes a long time, so anxiety in both Sierra and the space community is only mounting. Right now, many are hoping Sierra Space will pivot, perhaps to a new launch partner, like SpaceX. Beyond just SpaceX vehicle's availability, there's another issue. ULA may not be the safest long-term option. ULA recently introduced a plan called SMART, Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology, aimed at saving money by reusing costly rocket parts. Their idea involves inflatable heat shields to protect the engines during re-entry, followed by ocean splashdowns using parachutes. ULA claims this could cut engine costs by up to 90%. But here's the thing, they started this way too late. SpaceX began testing reusability in 2012 with its Grasshopper prototype. By the time ULA launched SMART, SpaceX had already mastered Falcon 9 landings, slashing costs by 65% per launch. In such a fast-moving industry, ULA's late entry puts them at a disadvantage. It's like showing up to a race when the competition is already halfway to the finish line. With these struggles, ULA still faces the looming threat of being sold off by its parent companies. That puts Sierra Space at risk of losing its launch access entirely. Also, Tory's stance on reusability quietly goes against today's prevailing opinion. He once remarked, You won't believe me, but reusability isn't that much cheaper. That viewpoint doesn't sit well with many modern rocket entrepreneurs. Take Andy Lapsa and Tom Feldman, co-founders of Stoke Space. They firmly believe that the future of space travel lies in rockets that are fully and rapidly reusable, capable of flying with the frequency and efficiency of commercial aircraft. They view today's partially reusable rockets as just a stepping stone, warning that any launch system not built for full rapid reuse will soon be left behind. The economics of rapid reusability are central to their philosophy. The two biggest cost drivers in space launch are rocket manufacturing and the fixed costs of infrastructure, things like factories, testing facilities, launch pads, and labor. Reusability slashes the need for new manufacturing and allows those fixed costs to be spread across many more launches, cutting the cost per flight dramatically. With high launch frequency and full reusability, costs could plummet from thousands of dollars per kilogram to just a few hundred, similar to how airlines operate today. And it's not just about saving money. Full reusability also boosts availability and reliability. Right now, launch lead times often exceed 18 months, which limits how businesses can use space. Reusable rockets allow for more frequent launches and improve dependability. SpaceX has already demonstrated this with its first-stage boosters, which have a near-perfect track record compared to expendable upper stages. Stokes' goal is to create rockets that are not only fully reusable, but also quick to turn around and highly reliable, solving the three biggest challenges in modern spaceflight. The timing couldn't be more critical. Satellite tech has advanced significantly. Today's satellites are smaller, cheaper, and deployed in larger numbers. As a result, launch costs have become the biggest expense in putting them into orbit. Reducing those costs and improving availability would unlock a wave of new commercial and government opportunities, powering a truly scalable space economy. Anyway, if you loved this deep dive, smash that like button, hit subscribe, and ring the bell. We're aiming for 150,000 subscribers, and we need you to get there. Check out our other videos on Starship, Artemis, and more. And let's keep exploring the cosmos together. Still, switching from ULA to SpaceX isn't easy. Sierra has binding contracts with ULA to use the Vulcan Centaur for seven NASA cargo missions. These deals are deeply tied to ULA's infrastructure and launch cadence. Breaking away would mean renegotiating everything, possibly leading to penalties or further delays. ULA, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has longstanding ties with the U.S. government, including the Space Force. That's part of why Sierra Space partnered with ULA in the first place. It's like having a government-backed ally in the business. On the other hand, SpaceX, led by Elon Musk, is wildly successful and launches more rockets than anyone. But Elon's controversial comments sometimes ruffle feathers in Washington, D.C., making SpaceX feel like a bit of an outsider. That's why Sierra Space might see ULA as a safer choice politically, even though SpaceX is outperforming everyone. Also, switching would come with strategic baggage. ULA and SpaceX are fierce competitors. Vulcan is meant to rival Falcon 9. A shift to SpaceX could look like betrayal and potentially damage Sierra Space's relationships with Lockheed and Boeing, both heavily invested in ULA's survival. There are technical hurdles, too. Dream Chaser's design, with its 15-foot cargo module, was tailored for Vulcan's lift capacity, 27,500 kilograms to low-Earth orbit. Falcon 9 maxes out at 22,800 kilograms, while Falcon Heavy can handle 63,800 kilograms. Moving to SpaceX would require engineering tweaks for fit and re-entry, which means added cost and time. Plus, with SpaceX prioritizing its own Dragon spacecraft, Dream Chaser might get less flexibility as a third-party payload. That said, a shift isn't out of the question. If ULA's delays drag on past 2025 due to more government demands or technical Vulcan issues, Sierra might seriously consider SpaceX as a backup. Some even speculate that Sierra could acquire ULA, weakening the current partnership and clearing a path to Musk's company. And with Falcon 9's lower price tag of $67 million per launch versus Vulcan's estimated over $100 million, money could ultimately tip the scales, assuming Sierra's contracts allow for such a pivot.