Benson DC pages/images updated

[docm]

Home....<br /><br />DC Page....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>BSC Spaceship<br /><br />As a result of a five month-long study by SpaceDev, Benson Space Company (BSC) has chosen to pursue a fresh approach in the design of its spaceship.<br /> /><br />The new BSC Spaceship design is lighter and sleeker, resulting in less drag and requiring less propulsion than the earlier design. The vehicle, powered by safe hybrid rocket motors, will launch vertically and glide to a landing at the launch site. <b><font color="yellow">A safer carefree reentry, after achieving an altitude of at least 65 miles, will subject passengers to minimal G-forces, compared to other designs.</font></b>It will also have many large, well-placed windows for ideal passenger views of the Earth and space.<br /><br />The BSC Spaceship propulsion system uses non-explosive hybrid rocket motors, directly evolved and improved from the safe and successful hybrid rocket motors SpaceDev developed and flew on Paul Allen's historic SpaceShipOne.<br /> /><br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Note the "carefree reentry" statement. The next post has an image of their system. Instead of moving the wings as in SS1/SS2 the suborbital DC uses 4 large fuselage flaps. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Notice he said "Paul Allen's historic SpaceShipOne"

 

[spacefire]

booring....the lifting body deisgn had A LOT more potential. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

That is only the suborbital vehicle. The lift body is still being used for the orbital version

 

[docm]

I sure hope they have a strong RCS because just a little misalignment of those flaps will turn them into arrow vanes and the trajectory into a fast spiral. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Looks to me like the "care-free re-entry" with the vanes out has the ship pointed straight down. Not very comfortable for the passengers, unless their seats swivel around. (An idea Rutan has experimented with, by the way.)

 

[jimfromnsf]

The aerosurfaces would be used not the RCS.

 

[docm]

If there's a control system failure with those flaps they'll need a strong RCS to at least partially correct it, otherwise its blackout time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

If there is a "control system" failure, the RCS won't work either. If there is a "control system" failure, RCS can't help because it won't be able to land. <br /><br />But anyways, the aerosurfaces I was referring to are the standard ones on the wings, vertical and horizontal stablizers. <br /><br />The RCS would be "too big" as a backup.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Looks to me like the "care-free re-entry" with the vanes out has the ship pointed straight down. Not very comfortable for the passengers, unless their seats swivel around.><br /><br />If they pull 7gs on reentry then swivel-seats would be mandatory, but that might not be the case.<br /><br />Supposedly the dive-brakes on the SpaceDev suborbital rocket will carefully control the amount of drag so that deceleration is spread out over a much greater altitude band, thereby limiting peak loading to less than 3 gs. If so perhaps coventional seating is all that is neccessary.<br /><br />Even so I would expect the passengers to have swivel-seating anyway to maximize comfort.