America's Space Prize is such a scam!

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brand1130

Guest
The Ansari X-Prize teams were given eight years to make sub-orbital rocket planes. America's Space Prize is giving teams merely five years to create fully orbital, dockable vehicles. No one is going to be able to do that! And when they realize they can't, they won't waste their time either. They should be given until at LEAST 2012.<br /><br />Also, they are eliminating all non-American teams. Clearly, they have no intention of paying the $50 million prize.
 
N

najab

Guest
I wonder why the rules insist that the vehicle be 80% reusable? I thought that the Shuttle had shown that reusable isn't necessarily cheaper.
 
C

crix

Guest
Yeah. I'm not sure if SpaceX has accepted government funding and therefore excluding it from the competition. Who here knows? If SpaceX hooks up with Rutan they'd be able to do it together by 2010.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I wonder why the rules insist that the vehicle be 80% reusable?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think it's probably mostly because it's something that remains elusive. Completely expendable orbital vehicles capable of docking with a space station have been around for decades. I think they want to avoid having somebody just go build a Soyuz knock-off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
T

teije

Guest
I agree on the timeline and some other things being to strict. But my guess is that they might ease up a little bit if they find no one will pick up the challenge. <br /><br />Rules that are rigid can be loosened. <br />Rules that are too loose can never be made rigid anymore.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I wonder why the rules insist that the vehicle be 80% reusable?"</font><br /><br />*I* wonder what is included when calculating the 80%. In the Gemini thread in B&T, I'm postulating the use of a modern Gemini on a Falcon V. Does the 80% <b>include</b> the weight of the booster... or just the spacecraft itself?<br /><br />If the booster is not being counted in the 'expendable' rule -- the Gemini-3X should easily make the grade -- with only a small de-orbit stage being expended. This is probably 5% or less of the mass of the spacecraft. Even if the booster is included -- since SpaceX plans to recover the first stage -- the loss of the second *might* still keep he expended mass at under 20% of the total, but it's a much closer thing to be sure. <br /><br />Someone needs to contact Bigelow and get the detailed rules to post here. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
S

spacester

Guest
Hehehehehe<br /><br />Are you one of the same people who insisted back in 1999 that the X-Prize was a scam?<br /><br />No, I suppose not, they all ran away . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> . . . so now we have a new batch of nay-sayers to deal with. Fun!<br /><br />How easy it must be to just sit back and criticise everybody else . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Completely expendable orbital vehicles capable of docking with a space station have been around for decades.</i><p>But, he says with evident exasperation, nobody has yet built a <b>cheap</b> expendable vehicle. I would take cheap, expendable over expensive reusable any day.<p>><i> I think they want to avoid having somebody just go build a Soyuz knock-off.</i><p>Even a Soyuz knock-off wouldn't be cheap. Reusablilty isn't the key to opening up spaceflight, affordability is. Resuability should be incorporated where it reduces costs, rather than enforced as a 'requirement'.<p>Suppose I was to design a vehicle that was only 30% reusable, but was 80% cheaper - which would be the better choice in the long run?</p></p></p></p>
 
N

najab

Guest
From the SDC article: "No more than 20 percent of the spacecraft’s hardware can be expendable." - which to me means that 80% must be reusable.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I'm just speculating on their thought processes, najaB. I agree that a cheap expendable vehicle could have substantial value. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
I’m a little confused. When American space prize says spacecraft are they including the launch vehicle. If not then this shouldn’t be that hard. There are plenty of LVs that can carry a small capsule design into space. A basic Gemini derived design should not be overwhelmingly difficult. <br />If however they are including the Launch Vehicle in the requirements then this is all but impossible except for maybe SpaceX.<br />
 
B

brand1130

Guest
i never doubted the X-prize was possible ... i honestly thought it would be won long before it was ...<br /><br />i am just curious ... how much work would take to increase the SpaceShipOne booster, apply some heat paneling and throw on a docking module to make it work with this new "prize" ??? or is it not even possible?
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
Its probably possible, but it would take so much reconfiguring that they might as well start from scratch, similarly how if you really really wanted you could make a space shuttle go to the moon, but why bother?
 
S

scottb50

Guest
If you simply added TPS to the SS-1 design it could get to orbit and back. The problem becomes getting it off the ground and into orbit. The existing propullsion system of SS-1 would not be able to provide the needed power, even if you could fit enough propellant, which would make it much bigger or use it as a third stage with an expendable second stage the size of the WK vehicle would have to be huge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"If you simply added TPS to the SS-1 design it could get to orbit and back. "</font><br /><br />Even if you magically threw SS1 into a 400km orbit... <b>how</b> exactly is it getting back? It has no deorbit capability (or any maneuvering capability at all except *very* minimal cold-gas thrusters). Using SS1 as a starting stage for an orbital craft would be like using a bass fishing boat as a starting point for a 60-foot yacht.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
A Bass boat or a 60 foot yacht are just different scales of the same thing. The technologies and physical laws needed to operate efficiently on water hold true to both of them.<br /><br />All I meant was if SS-1 can operate at 62 miles it could operate at 100, 200 of 400 miles, just like a Bass boat can operate in the same harbor as a 60 foot Yacht, or be rowed across the Ocean as far as that goes.<br /><br /> The fact it isn't currently equiped to do that doesn't mean the basic design couldn't be modified where needed. Effective TPS to allow re-entry, a more ambitous thruster system and a de-orbit capability could all be added. <br /><br />What I was trying to point out is that once you meet the requirements for operating in orbit and returning, the vehicle would require a lot more than WK to get it off the ground and into orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
If the ultimate goal is cheap, affordable, and most importantly... regular access to space, than I definately think a mostly reusable vehicle is necessary. Dumping expended rocket parts into the ocean at this point is not too big of a deal (though i'm sure some disagree with that) because we dont really launch that many rockets. But if our goal is regular access to space, then we should look towards vehicles that are more environmentally friendly. Also, we already have a space junk problem. Why exacerbate it by adding more debris around the earth.<br /><br />I dont consider myself an eco-freak, but "disposable" bothers me when it is really not necessary. I still get irritated when I open up software or even a food product, that has way more packaging than is necessary.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder why the rules insist that the vehicle be 80% reusable? I thought that the Shuttle had shown that reusable isn't necessarily cheaper.</font>/i><br /><br />I also wondered at this. My guess is: They did the analysis and determined that simply putting a capsule on an existing expendable booster would not achieve the cost reductions to support space stations, so they wanted to avoid a quick win by simply putting a capsule on the existing expendable boosters.<br /><br />The first stage reusable in a "Two Stage To Orbit" (TSTO) idea seems to be in ascendancy right now (including air-breathing launch (e.g., WK/SSx) and recovered booster (e.g., SpaceX)). JP Aerospace also has an interesting approach too.<br /><br />Yes, the Space Shuttle shows that simply having a reusable vehicle is not a sufficient condition to lower the cost, but it may be a necessary condition.</i>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"What I was trying to point out is that once you meet the requirements for operating in orbit and returning,"</font><br /><br />And what I was getting at is that adding a TPS is only one item in a long list of changes that would have to be made to SS1 to make it capable of minimal orbital flight -- much less the maneuvering, docking, etc. required for the ASP. Your original post said:<br /><br /><i>"If you simply added TPS to the SS-1 design it could get to orbit and back."</i><br /><br />This is <b>wrong</b> by any system of logic you'd care to utilize. SS1 is an excellent design for achieving the requirements of the X-Prize. It's a cruddy design for achieving the requirements of the ASP. Resorting to analogies again -- if you're trying to build an Advanced Tactical Fighter, you don't start by taking a Piper Cub and supergluing on some weapons pods.
 
B

brand1130

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>if you're trying to build an Advanced Tactical Fighter, you don't start by taking a Piper Cub and supergluing on some weapons pods. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />i literally laughed when i read that. good one ... tps = thermal protection system???
 
N

nacnud

Guest
tps is what you get after a night in front a TV<br /><br />total pizza saturation<br />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
I think you read too much into what I said. All I meant was the basic physical design of SS-1 could operate higher as easily as it has at sub-orbital altitudes, if it was protected from re-entry heating it could operate much higher even suborbitally. I would expect there is some point where the acceleration descending would be too much for the relatively simple protection provided now. I asked a while back how high SS-1 could safely go. Could it reach higher altitudes than the Mercury sub-orbital flights and survive the heating as is?<br /><br />If all you wanted to do was a couple of orbits the basic airframe could handle it with limited upgrade of systems, TPS protection being the major concern. Once you want to operate beyond simply getting into orbit it would need a lot of refining and a whole lot bigger launch system.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts