"Space entrepreneur Jim Benson says he's well into the first stage of the development effort for his Dream Chaser suborbital spaceship"

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

Stage 1: Settle on name and render pretty viewgraphs.
Stage 2: Fleece gullible bankers

The choice of the HL-20 moldline yields a vehicle that is stable from subsonic speed to Mach 25 and back again.  The shape was studied by the Russians and an orbital test vehicle, BOR 4, flew more than 20 years ago. NASA studied and refined the aerodynamic design in the late 80's.  It is known to be a good one.

The same cannot be said for Benson's proposed use of hybrid rocket motors.It is difficult to see how a six hour turnaround at a capital cost of a few hundred thousand dollars for new motor cases, nozzles, and fuel grain can compete economically with a fifteen minute turnaround and a few thousand dollar retank with LOX and kerosene.

Hybrids, although very expensive and not particularly safe, were the only option six years ago. Now, higher performance, safer and cheaper LOX/hydrocarbon engines are available from XCOR. Doug Shane, of Scaled Composites,has said that SpaceShipTwo would be their last spacecraft to use hybrids.    

COO AND Chief Test Pilot?  That's what I call hands-on management.  Stick with it, Hoot!  Adrasteia is almost as cynical about all this as I am.  Good on you!

This is all interesting, but how about covering the prize for "tagging" a comet or asteroid?

The Discovery crew is doing some good work up there.  Think maybe they can get the ISS up and running the way it should have been?  Speaking of Shuttles, don't we have a couple of others?  All I have heard of (or at least can remember) flying since Columbia, is Discovery.

Go back & read the article again, Adrasteia. It's obvious you misunderstood it....completely.

It is good to see the rapid advancement of BensonSpace. We hope Jim realizes that we have a launch pad ready for him at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, Virginia with all the trimmings. We might even find some technology park space and other incentives for nasent space launch firms like BensonSpace here on the East Coast close to the nation's capitol. We have the runways, the FAA-AST licensed pads, the range operations, the restricted airspace, and the desire to host. Come Saturday the commercial pad will begin to demonstrate the east is ready to jon NewSpace. We have the site and license if you have the spacecraft!

an interesting (and very useful) challenge for NASA/ESA/Russia and (maybe) Privates... MOVE THE HUBBLE ST NEAR THE ISS: I think that the plan to repair the Hubble, is chilling! it needs two Shuttles, one launched towards the Hubble and another that wait on the launch pad, ready to fly "if something goes wrong", but, "if something goes wrong" TWICE... up to 8-10 astronauts (6-7 for the main mission + 2-3 for the rescue mission) may risk to DIE in orbit (since no safe haven is possible without an ISS) my suggestion is to scrap NOW the Hubble repair mission, move it near the ISS and repair/upgrade it in a safer scenario this is a thread I've opened about my proposal: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=50793

Lee Valentine - Engineering isn't about the best technology. It's about the best value. Spacedev would be foolish to try and develop two new technologies in-house (lifting body and propulsion). In fact, they're foolish to try to develop just one. Considering their expertise, they would probably be better off sticking any type of rocket in the business end of a learjet... oh wait, nevermind. There's no way this gets off paper.

Craig in Seattle said... "Spacedev would be foolish to try and develop two new technologies in-house: lifting body and propulsion"

----------------

not foolish, but RISKY (if not made with space agencies' standards) - the Lockheed Martin's X-33 lifting body project (now deleted) have had R&D costs over $1 billion without build a working vehicle! rockets and spaceplanes can be built with a few $$$ but their safety standards risk to be more close to a model R/C plane than a commercial aircraft...

Go back & read the article again, Adrasteia. It's obvious you misunderstood it....completely.

I understood enough. Besides the absolutely ludicrous schedule, the only point of interest in this repackaged press release is the admission that he hasn't yet duped an overcapitalised Saudi prince into sponsoring this white elephant.

We've already got Virgin Galactic, Bezos, Space Adventures, and XCOR building vehicles to chase what is an unproven and likely minuscule market. You'd need to be doing a serious amount of crack while performing your due diligence to even consider sponsoring another one.

Tasha9503.com is designing a hotel to be put in LEO, Low Earth Orbit. We are using technology that has been tested and proved. The hotel will have 72 units which sleep three, to be rented out. There will be three separate areas. One area, with six sections, will have a gravity force of zero, 0g. The second area will have three floors each with a different gravity force between .25 and 1.25. The third section will have a gravity force approaching 2.

Many organizations have and are developing access to LEO so the $1,000,000.00 price for a seven Earth Day stay at the hotel will not include transportation.
We redesigned a HLV Heavy Lift Vehicle, not to lift our hotel but to be the hotel. Each HLV will be able to lift a heavy object into LEO. The empty fuel and oxygen tanks will be removed from the individual HLV. Then we will attach six HLVs together and spin one end. The spinning creates an artificial gravity.

The units are being sold now and rented later. The units are being sold for $1,000,000.00 per week. A purchaser will have access to the condo for one week every year. Not using the hotel allows us to rent it to others sharing 25% of proceeds with the individual owners.

Buying a unit can be done in two ways. A cash purchase or a technology transfer. We will trade ownership with people or organizations who contribute to the final design.

Once we have a working hotel in space, we want to move beyond the Van Allan Belt. this technology has not been tested but plans are in the designs that may allow us to move throughout the solar system.

"MOVE THE HUBBLE ST NEAR THE ISS"

Sorry, I've heard some doozies, but this one tops them all.

There's this thing called an "orbit" that orbiting spacecraft and satellites each have - Hubble is in a much higher altitude than the ISS and a _completely different_ direction. Sorry... it may have seemed a simple idea, but orbital dynamics isn't exactly the same as loading up the minivan for a weekend trip.

In order to move the ISS to an orbit that was even remotely similar to the ISS would both require a HUGE amount of fuel (as in far more than a Shuttle Orbiter can bring with it in the RCS/OMS systems) and you would result in an orbit that's practically worthless for the type of star exposures that are the Hubble's bread and butter.

I really look forward to the days when NASA is in the minority as far as passengers launched to orbit annually - of course that will come at least a few years after these "space tourism" ventures get up and running.

To all the naysayers, go whine about something legitimate - people have always dreamed of going to space; now that it's actually going to happen in the next few years on a semiregular basis, you can stick your pessimism in a nice dark warm orifice. Do not kill other peoples dreams just because you don't dream about the same things.

We're going there... soon. This is not something that "could" happen but is unlikely (like how the Cubbies got a world series), rather this is something that IS going to happen. I'm just amazed that the FAA had the guts to do the correct action and limit liability in this arena - the last thing the industry needs are people who just didn't understand the high Gs they would be experiencing during their flights, and try to frivolously sue these daring new entrepreneurs for giving them exactly what they paid for - a slightly risky but amazing experience. If a few deaths happen, so be it... we're good about learning from our mistakes and entrepreneurs seem to be going for relatively simple but rugged designs for max safety.

The Hubble telescope will eventually be abandoned, because newer space telescopes that are cheaper and better are being developed.  They can be made and shot into space cheaper than taking a shuttle to go and to fix the old Hubble.

Hey, the space tourism business is just like any other product that comes along.  The first ones are always super expensive. As people spend money on it and technology develops the price comes down.

Answer to Chris House, Twin Cities, MN ---- we haven't another Hubble nor will have one soon ---- the (very risky) "one and half Shuttle" Hubble repair mission (one STS in space + one STS for rescue) may cost around $700M ---- that (risky) mission will be the LAST possible before the Shuttle will be retired, while, near the ISS it can live FOREVER ---- I've posted the different Hubble and ISS orbit in my first post of my BAUT's thread ---- change the orbit will be common in future, the Orion is planned to go from moon equatorial to polar and back (and earth has only more gravity) ---- right, the Shuttle has no sufficient fuel for that job ---- I've suggested to use many Progress (12 needed, in my evaluation) to move it step by step ---- an expert BAUT user has calculated that we need 15 Progress ---- at $22M per flight, the "price" to move Hubble near the ISS is around $350M (half the price of the Shuttle repair mission WITHOUT RISKS for the astronauts...) ---- Answer to Bob Meier, Princeton, MN: ---- build and launch new telescopes need billion$$$ while the Hubble (that already exists and fly in space) costs $0

lets make sure no governments don't meddle this up it may finally allow us dreamers with persistant dedication,vision, courage ,and the opportunity for all mankind to finally reach the stars i just hope humanity is up to it, if we could stop arguing,fighting ,and cooperate with each other we could have done this 20 years ago .

Geatano Marano: Sorry to disagree with you, but there are already many new and better space telescope plans in the works. They will cost millions, but not billions, and will be cheaper and less risky than shuttle flights. Go to space.com and type in 'space telescopes' in the search box.

to Bob Meier, Priceton MN ---- probably the telescopes you quote will be built on earth, NOT in space ---- ALL vehicles built for space have costs in the "many hyndreds million$$$" to "some billion$$$" range, so, a new Hubble can't cost less than $500M ---- you must add the launch that needs a big rocket like the Delta IV Heavy ($400M per launch) or the (soon retired) Shuttle ($600M per mission) ---- last, find the funds, design, build and launch a new Hubble may need 10+ years while the HST already fly in space and works well ---- why kill it? ---- why don't give it further 30+ years of life near the ISS?

Concerning Lee Valentine's comments about hybrids, they are non-explosive, safe and low cost.  The specification by Benson Space Company to SpaceDev require 15 minute motor replacement time, and no less than four flights per day.  None of the materials, synthetic rubber, nitrous oxide, carbon fiber, etc cost much more than $3 per pound, and with mass production of motors, reliability will be high and cost very low.

I always urge enginers to keep "elegant simplicity" in mind when seeking technical solutions to seemingly complex problems. Elegantly simple technology is generally reliable and low cost. The practical approach we are taking with Dream Chaser is: 1) use a proven composites airframe fabricator to fabricate an existing and proven vehicle design, 2) test improved versions of our safe, proven hybrid motors developed for successful use in Paul Allen's SpaceShipOne, 3) perform glide tests of the Dream Chaser under the direction of one of the best pilots in the world -- Hoot Gibson, and 4) combine the proven airframe with the proven motors and begin envelope expansion tests until we have proven out the whole system.  Relatively simple, straightforward and relatively low in cost and risk.

Onward and upward,

Jim Benson
Benson Space

Gee! I'm glad to see some enthusiasm for a change! How do I invest in Hoots company for my grandchildren? It reminds me of Sikorsky's big plane in the 1900's, complete with exposed patio for the passengers to go out on and enjoy the view. That plane became the world's first practical bomber. Technology NEVER develops the way you think it will, BETAMAX anyone?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):