Author Topic: Benson Space Company (Read 4038 times)

tedcraft · « **on:** 09/29/2006 04:19 pm »

On the same day that Richard Branson unveiled the SS2 interior comes the announcement of Jim Benson and his new space tourism company:

http://www.bensonspace.com/

bad_astra · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/29/2006 05:27 pm »

I guess SpaceDev decided to go in a different direction post-COTS. It looks like DreamChaser will have what appears to be 8 SS1 desirved (does that make this a SS1DV or a B4DV?) motors with the lox tank in the middle. It will be a bit more bulbous than HL10 or Bor 4 so I suppose a lot of the aerodynamic work done on those vehicles will no longer apply. Still, a more elegant solution then having to build a seperate carrier plane and rocketplane.

Namechange User · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/29/2006 05:42 pm »

Any human rated vehicle is a good thing for this business in general. It also would appear that this is more than just a paper project/company with an undisclosed level of financing. The more private vehicles there are out there makes my job that much easier....

bad_astra · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/29/2006 06:03 pm »

Another thing I like about the design is that once built, it will not be as complicated to upgrade Dream Chaser to orbital, since the initial design called for it to be stacked atop a SpaceDev LV that looked like three AMROC rockets, whereas SpaceShipThree will have to be a completely differnet design from SpaceShipTwo which is a completely different design from..

Danderman · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/29/2006 06:14 pm »

DreamChaser is based on HL-20, which in turn, was a development of the earlier HL-10 experimental vehicle. Several sources claim that HL-20 was based on BOR-4, but HL-10 preceded BOR by a decade.

Namechange User · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/29/2006 06:23 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 29/9/2006 12:46 PM

Another thing I like about the design is that once built, it will not be as complicated to upgrade Dream Chaser to orbital, since the initial design called for it to be stacked atop a SpaceDev LV that looked like three AMROC rockets, whereas SpaceShipThree will have to be a completely differnet design from SpaceShipTwo which is a completely different design from..

To an extent you are correct. However a more robust TPS is certainly required, as well as additional propellant for de-orbit, maneuvering, etc. Also the ECLSS system will need to be more advanced for what I would hope be much longer stays than a sub-orbital flight. These are to name just a few but the OML should remain essentially unchanged.

bad_astra · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/29/2006 06:30 pm »

It would also need docking capability, as once the Bigelow station gets build, I doubt any paying private customer/gov customer would want to simply pay for a ride, few orbits, then down again.

tedcraft · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/29/2006 07:27 pm »

The HL-20 outer lines were indeed patterned after the BOR-4 with the first wind tunnel model cut after pictures from an Indian Ocean splashdown of Bor-4 were obtained from a circling Australian P-3.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/29/2006 07:29 pm »

Not quite. Anyways the shape of the BOR was known before that flight

Danderman · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/29/2006 08:20 pm »

Quote

tedcraft - 29/9/2006 12:10 PM

The HL-20 outer lines were indeed patterned after the BOR-4 with the first wind tunnel model cut after pictures from an Indian Ocean splashdown of Bor-4 were obtained from a circling Australian P-3.

Are you suggesting that the close resemblance between the HL-20 and the earlier HL-10 was simply a coincidence?

Namechange User · « **Reply #10 on:** 09/29/2006 08:47 pm »

In the end some espionage was involved but physics are what they are.....

The Buran/Shuttle similarity is another example. Certainly they had the specs for our version. Certainly they used it to a large extent. However, they did not just reproduce the same design. There is no MPS and the OMS system is not pods like on our orbiters. It's actually where our SSME's are located. This is because because of the differences in the boosters but the rest of the vehicle shape is very much dependent on physics and what you want to do with a particular design.

tedcraft · « **Reply #11 on:** 09/29/2006 08:49 pm »

The HL-20 was patterned after the Bor-4. I know - I was working the Langley version in 1983. The small 6-inch wind tunnel model didn't quite capture the nose contours of Bor-4, but all the subsequent wind tunnel models were consistent with that first model. As a result, the aero database generated is for this interpetation of Bor-4. BTW, the name HL-20 didn't come about until around 1986-87. It was also referred to as Personnel Launch System (PLS). A 42% geometric scale up called HL-42 was part of the 1993 NASA Access to Space Study.

Check out the summary at:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm

publiusr · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/17/2006 08:44 pm »

The Dream Chaser stack looks like a mini Energiya/Buran stack. I think one of the stipulations of COTS was that outside funding also had to be shown--and I wonder if the breakaway was set up as some sort of straw man for the purpose.