Spaceship dream revived

Fred Dungan, Riverside, California — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:20:46 GMT

Thank God for private enterprise. NASA took a wrong turn three decades ago. The only hope for the future of manned flight is Benson and his fellow entrepreneurs. If they had had one-tenth the funds that NASA wasted on the shuttle, we would probably be making commercial flights to Mars and beyond.

Spaceship dream revived

Dan, Fort Worth, TX — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:24:22 GMT

Space tourism may be a nice way to make money, but the real adventure lies in space exploration. Taking some rich gawkers up to 62 miles above the earth is small potatoes compared to sending humans to Mars, or even farther. I hope that Mr. Benson decides, after he's turned a tidy profit with sub-orbital tours, to turn his attention toward the exploration (and potential colonization) of other worlds. Hopefully the private sector will spur the government and NASA to develop new, safer, more efficient technologies to get us out in space on a permanent basis.

Spaceship dream revived

J.C. Matlock,Marble Falls,Tx. — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:34:19 GMT

The guestion of the day is, when will Benson new company Bensonspace issued shares on the New York Exchange?

Spaceship dream revived

Karl Balk, Farmingville, NY — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:56:25 GMT

A "Space Plane" such as the one Mr. Benson is developing is the only way to go IMHO. The fact that NASA disagrees tells me I'm right. For them to go back to 40 year old ideas and technology is ridiculous.

Spaceship dream revived

Frank Glover — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:32:55 GMT

For guys like Elon Musk, colonization and other permanent human presence beyond Earth has always been their goal. But adventure costs money. They know the only way to make it affordable, is with support of technologies that *do* make money. As the 'space tourist' guys go on to develop economical and safe means to get people into low Earth orbit, it only simplifies and reduces the cost of pure exploration farther out. Think of it like commercial aircraft. 'Tourists' may be a large part of an airline's passenger load, but a commercial doesn't care if it's carrying tourists, businesspeople or cargo (possibly in the form of support for an Earthly research expedition), at the same cost. Or the C-130 cargo planes used in support of Antarctic bases. They wern't developed specifically for this purpose, but they're a rugged, effective carrier of people and material that happens to be able to serve this purpose as well. We need the space-going equivalent of these. Tourism may end up being the primary driver to getting them, but anything that reduces the cost of putting both people and cargo into Earth orbit is something anyone, with any goal, anywhere in space should get behind.

Spaceship dream revived

Gaetano Marano — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:11:23 GMT

. a new, smaller, safer and low cost Shuttle is the ONLY way to have a REAL future in space (for science, business, tourism, etc.) as I've explained/suggested in my article [ www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html ] about a VISUAL Shuttle vs. Capsule comparison, but, unfortunately, the Shuttles are complex to design and have high R&D costs, so, I don't think we will see soon a "private Shuttle mockup" that really fly (and the HL-20 derived "Dream Chaser" doesn't appear the best choice since it has an old design and is too little) .

Spaceship dream revived

Jim Benson — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:13:17 GMT

Dear Alan, In response to a comment on your blog, I very much intend for the profitability of Benson Space, if it is indeed profitable, to result in an IPO which would then fund BSC´s development of an orbital human spaceflight capability. SpaceDev is currently doing a small study to determine if the orbital version of the SpaceDev Dream Chaser, which Benson Space Company intends to buy later, can make it to and around the Moon and back to Earth safely. From there BSC hopes to use continuing profitability to reach beyond the Moon to the enourmous natural resources in the Near Earth Objects, the original reason for starting SpaceDev in 1997. Utilizing those resources in near earth space will be the basis of sustainable space development and the foundation for human settlements (there is nothing to "colonize" in space, and that is a word with negative connotations). Sincerely, Jim Benson, Benson Space Company

Spaceship dream revived

Bill Graff — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:18:38 GMT

Three ingredients to humans in space. First, there must be something we REALLY want to do or have, like solar power plants, or zero-g derived materials or divert an asteroid, maybe even a space hotel. Second, we need to be able to do the first item(s) for a price we are willing and able to pay. So we need to reduce costs everywhere we can. Perhaps a mag-rail mass driver for everything but biology to space. These first two are relatively easy. Third and hardest, is the combined will and opportunity to do the first two. The more people of the world that share the need/will for the goal the better. How many people would support energy beamed to all? Or diverting a (water)ice comet into near earth orbit for dispensing anywhere needed? Then there is the opportunity. As I look around the world at all the things we are doing, it seems to me that we are not likely to give ourselves the opportunity to do anything but dream. Much of the world pass every day without even the basic need of survival met. Others are busy reminding us about the threat from "them" you fill in the demon. Many are solely engaged in getting all they can for themselves. Let the others fend for themselves. Until we act for the benefit of all, space will be the province of very few. In the meantime (pun intended)keep thinking, keep planning and keep trying.

Spaceship dream revived

Rahul Nayar, Chennai, India — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:29:34 GMT

I think Dream Chaser is interesting - for a number of reasons. One, the combination of "old" - which one could also translate as "proven" - technology, with new. If you're going to entice civilians to fly into space, they will want to know that the tech works - and if Jim Benson is right about the multiple flights by the Russians, he's got that covered. It also avoids the investment in new structural design. Upgrade it with new systems - and he's been doing some of that, too, including open object oriented software for space systems - and you might have something that people will trust, and that at the same time will work around some out-dated technology.

Spaceship dream revived

Chris House, St. Paul, MN, US — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:17:23 GMT

Interesting concept for sure. This type of vehicle would be perfect for suborbital hops, but it can't be compared so readily to the Shuttle - it doesn't have the need for a rugged thermal protection system. That's a really good thing, as it makes the maintenance a LOT easier. Of course once you go orbital you're eiher going to need to add one, or leave a lot more space for delta-V on your deorbit burn fuel calculations. I've never done the numbers, so it may require far too much mass than would be practical - but I've always wondered why they didn't do a "full" burn and fall like a stone into the atmosphere completely eliminating the need for bulky thermal protection. Although that may be a LOT of fuel you need to send into orbit, if you can eliminate the whole "department of thermal tile minders" from your maintenance organization the added cost for fuel may be more than made up for by reduced costs and launch mass (no tiles).

Spaceship dream revived

Jim Dotzler, Oceanside NY — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:22:24 GMT

Riding a controlled explosion is NOT the future of travel into space. The Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) will consist of a base station in geosynchronous orbit above a point on the equator and a VERY long, nano-tube teather connecting the station and the earth. Cargo and personnel will be lifted up the teather in a safe and cheap process. I can't wait!

Spaceship dream revived

Jim Benson — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:15:52 GMT

Concerning the previous two posts.

Dream Chaser is based on NASA's HL-20, designed for 10 people to orbit and back, safely. The HL-20 in turn was reverse engineered from the Soviet BOR-4 whch was successfully launched to orbit and successfully re-entered four times. Our suborbital version of Dream Chaser is the same shape and size as the HL-20, but far lighter because of the lack of thermal protection. The NASA Ames Research Center designed orbital thermal protection for our orbital version of Dream Chaser, and with modern equipment, the lighter thermal protection, etc, it too will be lighter and thereforee even easier to fly, far superior and simpler than the Shuttle.

As for controlled explosion for propulsion, that is all that is available today. I too am a dreamer, hence "Dream Chaser" but I pride myself on being practical. When science fiction technology like space elevators becomes available, and if I am still alive by then, I will be one of the first to use it. But in the meantiome, we will rely on our existing, proven, non-explosive hybrid rocket motor technology, like that we designed, developed and provided to Paul Allen's SpaceShipOne.

Onward and upward,

Jim Benson
Benson Space Company

Spaceship dream revived

PN TENGLI , JAGDALPUR, CHATTISGARH, INDIA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:28:45 GMT

DEAR SIR, I AM INTERESTED TO READ A PUBLISHED PAPER OF 'NANO ROCKET MOTOR TECHNOLOGY" KINDLY SEND ME THE SAME. WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF ROCKET MOTOR PRODUCTION. REGARDS PN TENGLI