Briefs: New Dream Chaser [update]; Commercial space review;

Glad to hear that Benson Space will not be using the blunt HL-20 NASA lifting body design. Sharper lifting body designs like the FDL-7 based Planet Space Silver Dart offer improved stability and cross range. I wonder if it will have delta wings like the X-15 delta concept?

Posted by Doug Gard at 05/24/07 11:33:02

Actually, it looks like some of the non-delta early NASA shuttle orbiter designs, from back when they were still thinking TSTO with flyback booster:

http://www.space.com/adastr...

Posted by Frank Glover at 05/24/07 13:58:43

.

I've said from nov/dic 2005 (on an, unfortunately famous, space forum) that the CEV was (and still is) "too big, too heavy and too expensive" (receiving TONS of insults from some fanatic forum's users)

but, now, the legendary astronauts (and space expert) John Young claims that Orion (really) IS "too big, too heavy and too expensive":

http://www.floridatoday.com...

I hope that no one will insult him (nor CENSOR again his claims...)

however, from my early posts, I've written articles, open forums' threads and posted dozens comments on space blogs with my suggestions to built a smaller, lighter and (maybe) cheaper Orion

like...

the "eggCEV": http://www.gaetanomarano.it...

the "BigelowOrion": http://www.gaetanomarano.it...

how to design a lighter Orion: http://www.gaetanomarano.it...

the (much lighter) "underside-LAS": http://www.gaetanomarano.it...

etc.

of course, I'm aware that my ideas and proposals will NEVER be applied... but I'm HAPPY to know that John Young AGREE with me... :)

.

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at 05/24/07 16:04:37

Excuse me but is this a CEV thread? I think not.

Posted by Mike Pucket at 05/24/07 19:10:15

Point to point does seem promising on first glance. I'de like to see a carefull analysis of that claim it would use less fuel, and some analysis on cost per passenger/cargo assuming reusability.

Really I am very surprised and a little disappointed there seems to be no point-to-point follow-on to the Ansari XPrize. Seems like a logical next step.

Posted by Joe Silva at 05/24/07 20:49:17

I'm worried the new dream chaser design even though it would have better supersonic and subsonic handling and landing characteristics will not work for orbital missions.
At least it will not if they use the typical RCC or PICA ablative which is why they supposedly droped the X34 design it had too many hot spots that were dangerously close to the failure temp for the RCC TPS they wanted to use when they simulated an apollo 8 type lunar mission reentry.
It might work for orbital reentry if they managed to get a hold of the materials tested in the SHARP program or use a combination heat pipe and radiator system like the silverdart.

Still I think any chance for an apollo 8 type mission with dreamchaser is now very unlikely since this aerodynamic design likely will not work for a high speed reentry.

The Hl20 shape may have been ugly but it was flexible and it's blunt shape would dissipate most of the thermo energy of reentry back into the atmosphere much like a bunt body capsule does except it also can glide.

On the subject of Orion all it's mass problems will pretty much go away if nasa ditches Ares I and uses Direct launcher instead for crew launch.

Posted by Ruri at 05/25/07 20:28:52

It just occured to me the design just might be workable for orbital reentry velocities using standard ceramic and RCC TPS if a very high angle of attack about 60 degrees was used during reentry like the shuttle
NAR A low cross range shuttle concept proposed by Max Faget.
There is a good page about low cross range shuttle on the astronautix site.
http://www.astronautix.com/...

Posted by Ruri at 05/25/07 21:23:45

There will now be two vehicles -- the SpaceDev Dream Chaser and the new Benson Space Company spaceship, to be named in the near future, in order to lessen confusion.

The BSC spaceship is specifically designed only for commercial manned suborbital use, while the HL-20 based Dream Chaser is ideal for manned orbital use.

Think of a very simple 46 foot tall typical launch vehicle, pointed at the top, but with T-38 wings at the proper center of gravity and you have the new BSC spaceship - elegantly simple, reliable, safe, easy to fly, and inexpensive and fast to fabricate.

Point-to-point sounds cool, but is very hard to achieve because the velocity required is very close to orbital velocity, and that is the most difficult and expensive part.

Onward and upward!

Jim Benson
Benson Space Company

Posted by Jim Benson at 05/29/07 17:07:20

Concerning point to point
I was at ISDC, and was listening to the guy from the FAA in the business track concerning liscencing and the like, and I asked specifically about point to point. It was his opinion that we'd see orbital sooner than point to point :(

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 05/30/07 00:02:48

So then the HL-20 orbital concept continues, and the simpler BSC serves sub-orbital applications, that sounds logical. And addressees my cross range etc... questions. The Russians used all moving tail fins to deal with the blunt body stability issues. I assume NASA expects fly-by-wire avionics to achieve the same
effect with the refined NASA HL-20 design? The X-38 was tested with a parafoil for final approach and landing. This had made me question if perhaps NASA should have retained the all-moveable tail fins that Russian design used. Using a parafoil for a lifting body landing would kind of ruin the whole concept for me. Comparing the low speed landing stability of the X24A and X-24B designs has lead me to favor the sharper X-24B designs.

Posted by Doug Gard at 05/30/07 03:58:03

I'm glad that Benson has kept the HL-20 design for orbital flights. This means that the agreement Benson has with Lockheed to put the Dreamchaser on an Atlas cn still work out.

Posted by PC Rudy at 06/02/07 06:53:35

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me