In article .at,
says...

Why is Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) calling the Dream Chaser the SUV
of space? Because it's roomier than the cramped Dragon and CST-100
capsules? That may be, but with those you will at least have a fair
chance of making it back alive.

I'm not sure it's all that much "roomier".

Let's face it, a winged vehicle is too dangerous for space travel
due to the energies involved. I've claimed before that Dream Chaser
has no hope of surviving an in-flight explosion of the booster
rocket, which will rip its wings off and doom the vehicle and crew.
With a capsule, there's a fair chance you might survive.

It's not really "winged", like the space shuttle was. It's a lifting
body. Quite a bit of difference. It's heritage can be traced back to
the 1960's when the US and USSR both were researching, and flying,
lifting body designs. Both countries flew test vehicles to space and
back.

People are asking why SNC is booking an Atlas 5 for a demonstration
flight without demonstrating both an on-pad abort or an in-flight abort
(preferably at Max-Q).

I believe Dream Chaser could work, but it can never be safe and
therefore has to be discarded, just like Shuttle.

Never say never. My bet is that the road ahead of Dream Chaser is going
to be much more bumpy than the road ahead of Dragon and CST-100, just
because there is a wealth of experience with manned capsules. But, it's
very unclear which approach will win out in the long run.

Lifting bodies have not yet been flown manned to LEO and back, so there
is a large unknown there. At this point it time is it *not* clear
whether a capsule or lifting body will ultimately be safer. This is why
competition is a *good thing*. Innovation is enhanced by competition.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer