A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

BWhite · 2004-11-08 08:53:40

http://space.com/spacenews/businessmond … .html]Link here

Could a 100% American company license Kliper technology and fly a "made in America" Kliper to win?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 09:01:12

Lockheeds cev concept is the american version of the klipper but the real problem with the whole concept of built in a american would be that he is looking for russian level pricing for products delivered.
Lockheeds version probably would be well over 200million was as the russian if they hold true to form would be probably no more than 50million. With my best guestimate no real info in hand.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 09:02:51

Lockheeds cev concept is the american version of the klipper but the real problem with the whole concept of built in a american would be that he is looking for russian level pricing for products delivered.
Lockheeds version probably would be well over 200million was as the russian if they hold true to form would be probably no more than 50million. With my best guestimate no real info in hand.

Build Kliper in Puerto Rico or American Samoa?

clark · 2004-11-08 09:26:28

The requirements call for a reusable system though... and no more than 20% can be expendable.

It almost has to be a VTOL DC-X/Y type of vehicle to meet the requirements.

Either that or a two stage air launch vehicle... but that might take longer than 5 years to develop.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 09:48:36

Yes Bill outsourcing is one way to lower building cost. Also launching from such places would also take advantage or earths rotational speed as well.
The 20% to reusability would mean what ? Only fuel used, pieces considered expendable (parachutes, Tps tiles). Is this a piece count or by weight percentile?
As to actual rocket stages being a 2 stage. Would it be fine for LEO with minimal orbital deltas to get it to where we want it to be. Or must we plan for large delta changes such as what would be required in rescue missions.

clark · 2004-11-08 10:08:08

So here's a thought... Bigelow is in contact with the private space sector, right?

He is willing to fork out $50 million of his own cash.

He is associating his name, his company, and his reputation with this contest.

Now, PR benefits and free advertising aside, why would he set such a hard target date for both himself and for any would be competitor?

Sure, they can always revise the date, but Jan 10, 2010 seems rather odd to begin with.

I'm seriously inclined to believe that Bigelow knows that the contest can be won, and that there are several people vying for it now.

I wonder if a modified DC-X/Y acting as a second stage can be mated with an 80% reusable first stage rocket launch...

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-08 11:35:40

"Now, PR benefits and free advertising aside, why would he set such a hard target date for both himself and for any would be competitor?"

Oh well thats an easy one: Bigelow is a starry-eyed partially- unglued moron. He has been infected by the AltSpace lunacy bug and has a critical, perhaps terminal, case of it.

Why is everyone so feverishly gung-ho about Klipper? Klipper does not exsist, only being a test frame in a Russian hanger, nor will it without big money. Klipper will have to carry and expend a Soyuz OM module on every mission. It is unclear if Klipper can be built light enough at all. This "Klipper! Klipper!" babble is a bad case of Russia-worship.

There is no practical way to build a reuseable orbital launch vehicle capable of carrying a crew or docking hardware that will cost less then hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Even the over-optimistic DC-I project was slated to cost six billion dollars, and that is being built by Burt Rurtan's Scaled Composits plus reuseing old J-2 cryogenic engines. The little DC-X hover test vehicle that was actually built is way way too small for a practical first stage too.

And to be quite frank, I don't think there are any countries capable of building a manned orbital vehicle beyond ones with current spaceflight experience, perhaps plus Japan and the ESA... China only can because they are copying old unreuseable Russian technology. There isn't anyone to outsource it to that can do it... building space ships is hard, its barely possible as it is.

clark · 2004-11-08 11:51:01

Oh well thats an easy one: Bigelow is a starry-eyed partially- unglued moron. He has been infected by the AltSpace lunacy bug and has a critical, perhaps terminal, case of it.

:laugh:

You forgot to add, "filthy-rich" starry-eyed, etc. etc.

He also happens to be a successful business man. Successful business men may be eccentratic at times, but moron? I don't think so.

His company is well on the way to building and launching the first private space-station. Let's not flame, but this is the reality GCN.

There is no practical way to build a reuseable orbital launch vehicle capable of carrying a crew or docking hardware that will cost less then hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

Well, okay, it will cost hundreds of millions. So what? Rutan spent far more than the 10 million dollar purse was worth. They pursued the goal for the przie that waited beyond it- and Virigin and others like that company prove it.

Bigelow is offering contracts worth billions. This prize money is chump change.

Even the over-optimistic DC-I project was slated to cost six billion dollars,

That was the NASA/DOD do everything version.

It has to carry 5 people. It has to orbit twice. It has to be able to stay on orbit for 6 months. It has to be able to dock.
That's it.

It dosen't need to carry cargo, it dosen't need cross-flight range, it dosen't even need to have a pilot. It just has to get people from point A to point B.

Yeah, this stuff is hard, but a lot of problems are the result of the cost-plus contracting that has inhibited innovation and prevented horizontal market growth in the space industry. Things like this will change that.

It was impossible to fly until someone did it. You're wrong GCN, and I look forward to the day when I get to tell you to eat your hat.

Rxke · 2004-11-08 13:59:54

Bigelow's price sounds hard, boy oh boy...

but what is reusable? 2 times, 10 times, 100, 1000?

IIRC Kliper is meant to be good for about 25 flights, now that sounds more realistic than Shuttles err.. what was it... hundreds of times?

Even if they only manage 10-15 times it could prove worthwile...
Russians build heavy, their stuff look like battletanks, maybe they can do it...

This "Klipper! Klipper!" babble is a bad case of Russia-worship.

No it's a bad case of "no one else in the biz seems to get off their lazy asses, dammit, we're glad with a crudely welded bucket of a ship in a rusty hangar, because there's nothing else to ooh-aah about" :angry:

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-08 15:11:21

Bah, Bigelow is not that rich, and I think it likly that he will join the likes of Howard Huges as far as flight-crazed rich men. He wants so badly for it to be so, and he is so ignorant of how far it is between Space Ship One and orbit, that his judgement is obviously clouded or he has little value for that $50M. Sucessful businessmen are quite capable of doing very stupid things if they believe hard enough... His "space station" is little more then copying the old NASA TransHab's internal pressure bladder. Whoopee. The launch vehicle is still pre-blueprint vaporware, based off a rocket a tenth the size that still hasn't flown sucessfully even one time. The REAL reality is, that most AltSpace ventures are doomed to failure because of their excessive ambition.

And I don't think you fully internalize the difficulty of reliable manned orbital spaceflight if you feign to qualify it with a "just." Its hard, real hard, there is no "just has to get people" any which way, and making it a reuseable vehicle is far harder still... the notion that a small private company with virtually no experience could do it in only a few years is a pipe dream, plain and simple.

The DC-I, about the right size of vehicle in payload volume/mass Bigelow would need for future as well as early operations, which seems to me would be the appropriate size. It would cost today around $6Bn for an experienced firm (originally may have been awarded to McDonnel Douglas) to build. Lets say for a moment that it only cost half of that, because of the evvvvvil "cost plus" boogeyman. That sounds like a nice round figure given that nobody but the big companies have the reasources to build such a thing, and the additional hardware needed like docking hardware, improved low-boiloff fuel tankage, and crew escape mechanism needed (escape pod w/ chutes & TPS). Oh and a few bucks for a cargo-centric model for supply missions (just a cargo compartment and no escape pod), since you obviously will need cargo to supply the station. $3Bn. Three billion dollars. Three thousand million dollars.

Bigelow cannot possibly make enough money off this toy space stations to pay back that kind of development bill, much less the pocket change of his $50M "prize." Make it a billion, and then you might have somthing... In the mean time, I don't think I have any worry of how tasty my hat is.

Rxke:

I suppose that if you are going to go through all the trouble of making a reuseable manned orbital vehicle, I would expect about >25-50 flights out of it to make the cost worthwhile, depending on price per unit. Shuttle's airframes were originally intended for 100 flights, which they are no where near going to reach.

I don't think that Russia has the reasources to do anything like this, nor do they have much experience with reuseable anything... One of the big reasons that the main engines on Energia were put on the tank and thrown away was because the Russians don't know how to build reuseable cryogenic engines... Generous use of advanced materials is also clearly going to be required for such a vehicle, and the Russians just don't have the experience with that technology either. Given the poor state of their space program, I'm pretty sure that they can't.

"No it's a bad case of "no one else in the biz seems to get off their lazy..."

Oh I'm sure that we will get moving with a vengence IF there was a place to go... Bigelow's space hotels are a bad joke as far as profitability goes, and baring some radical need for He3 or somthing then there isn't going to be a major commertial space push until our basic technology improves (i.e. regenerative scramjets). As far as Russia goes, the Klipper just isn't anything to get excited about. Its still many years away and still has to throw away the entire launch vehicle and the orbital module on every mission. Other then an extended crew, its not an improvement over Soyuz-TMA of today really, and this is provided that it will be built at all... I wouldn't put it past Russia to try and con rich and stupid Americans into investing in it, only to have that money disapear like NASA's bailout money for the ISS parts. This is provided that it can be built light enough to ride on Onega at all.

clark · 2004-11-08 15:26:50

You're right, of course GCN, he isn't that rich. Owning several business's dosen't help enough either. His willingness to squander half of his fortune just can't do it.

I for one don't care where his plans came for. The point stands, which you so willingly ignore, is that he is on a fast track for deployment of a private space station. He is producing actual hardware and he is doing it at a fraction of the cost NASA and others have traditionaly done things.

Argue all you want, but face the f*cking facts.

The launch vehicle isn't vaporware. He wants more players in the makert though so he can have the cheapest ride, and he dosen't want to throw all his money over seas.

We can throw imaginary numbers back and forth. You settle on 3 billion. Fine.

Yet Rutan and others like him are working towards building an orbital vehicle. They will do it all for a fraction of what ever billion dollar number you choose to site.

Get that hat ready. I'll send some salt and pepper. :laugh:

Want to bet?

BWhite · 2004-11-08 15:31:47

Space Ship One cannot achieve orbit. Obviously.

However a Space Ship One sized vessel can be mounted on top of something bigger. Maybe even an R-7.

Scaled Composites was a leading contractor on the X-38 which was almost finished before being scrapped. Take a 5 seat Space Ship Two and add X-38 style heat tiles subtract the rubber rocket and there you go.

SS1 masses 3200 kg with fuel being 2000 kg of that.

Falcon V (allegedly) can lift 4200 kg to LEO.

= = =

SS1 / SS2 is cross bred with X-38. Scaled Composites did both projects.

If Falcon fails to come through, license a plant in American Samoa to build Russian R-7s and plop an even bigger SS2/X-38 hybrid on top.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 15:41:28

Bigelow's space hotels are a bad joke as far as profitability

Heh! Stop selling steak, start selling sizzle.

I agree selling rooms will make a few shekels at most and maybe not even that.

But FedEx is paying $400 million to name Redskins Stadium.

A Virgin Galactic Hilton will sell hotel rooms in Fargo North Dakota to Mike Midge the widget salesmen who desires to rub a tiny bit of space adventure on his pathetic little life.

Heck, the beer companies even have me believing that if only I drink their beer, beautiful half dressed supermodels will fawn all over me. (But who needs the beer, that happens already.)

clark · 2004-11-08 15:44:35

Uh oh, Bill is drunk again.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 15:46:11

Uh oh, Bill is drunk again.

Nah. Richard Branson read my space hotel ideas right here at NewMars.

Ain't it cool?

clark · 2004-11-08 15:49:27

Are you sure he didn't read it on one of those blogs where you litter with your endless troll rants about babies in space and advertising rights for space hotels?

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 15:51:14

If you could win a trip to space by drinking a certain brand of beer that would give me a strong incentive to drink that beer. But I don’t know if beer companies are allowed to give out prizes that big. If they are it would be quite a way to launch a new brand of beer.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-08 15:59:07

Bill:

Throwing away an R-7 for tourists? No way you'd ever make enough money off tickets to break even, even the lower range of figures from the tight-lipped Russians place the cost each around $25-30M and as high as $50M, not counting the cost for preparing the manned vehicle. There aren't enough daredevil millionares willing to cough up that kind of cash.

As far as launching an X-38 derived vehicle on top of Falcon-V, well, lets look at that... Falcon-V is still going to cost too much for tourist flights most likly, and the X-38 vehicle itself was never even started, not "almost finished." No flight hardware for the project was ever really built, and the thing didn't ever really go beyond aerodynamic & landing test beds. No deorbit motor was ever selected even...

Oh and it gets better... the X-38 had no docking hardware, no pilot contols, only 9hrs of LSS/power, no windows, no air bags (water landing), no OMS engines, etc etc etc... And it would have weighed 8,000 kilograms. Thats before the ~2MT needed for booster adapter and basic OMS capability... 10,000 kilos is quite a bit more then 4200. Burt Rurtan doesn't have a prayer of making a "Tier Two" vehicle beyond a Gemini knockoff for Elon's rocket.

Building a vehicle to resist the extreme dynamics and thermal effects of orbital/transorbital flight is pretty difficult, it will definatly have to be built much sturdier then the flyweight SpaceShipOne and its ablative paint TPS.

Clark:

Oh? What praytell has Bigelow done? Really done? He has copied how far NASA got with TransHab back years ago... big deal. NASA only built the internal pressure bladder, and not the outter layers needed to resist puncturing, UV radiation, etc. In other words, he has done the easy part, copying what other people have done already. No, he hasn't really done anything, and he is a long way from real manned flight hardware. What about the docking nodes? The regenerative LSS? Power systems? Attitude control? Communications? I don't think he can do it at all on his own. "Facts" indeed...

The Falcon-V launch vehicle still is very much vaporware, no flight tested hardware at all, and Elon is still juggling major design decisions (noteably the engines). He might be able to pull it off, but even if he does, his rocket will be too puny for space tourism... its designed to compete with the Delta-II for heavens sake.

Space travel from this planet with chemical fuels is a very, very difficult proposition to engineer. Its almost impossible to make it safe and reliable enough for humans without a massive investment (billions), and making a reuseable vehicle is a national-scale undertaking. Spaceflight is expensive for good reason, because it is just barely possible at all.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:16:33

If you could win a trip to space by drinking a certain brand of beer that would give me a strong incentive to drink that beer. But I don’t know if beer companies are allowed to give out prizes that big. If they are it would be quite a way to launch a new brand of beer.

Or coffee.

= = =

Sorry, John. That will make sense (maybe) in a few weeks.

clark · 2004-11-08 16:18:36

Ho-boy! :laugh:

In other words, he has done the easy part, copying what other people have done already.

Like I said, I don't care if he made it himself, or copied it out of a book. The point is he is taking it, and running with it.

No, he hasn't really done anything, and he is a long way from real manned flight hardware.

Um, lemme see, he has booked 4 flights through 2008. The first two flights are for the Genesis version of the Nautilis, which is to test flight the actual hardware related to inflating in space. The final two flights are for 45% scale versions of the Nautilis that contain the life support and communication systems. Have you bothered to actually study this?

What about the docking nodes? The regenerative LSS? Power systems? Attitude control? Communications? I don't think he can do it at all on his own.

Hmmm, working with NASA, working with 20 different established aerospace firms... yeah, it looks like he can't do this on his own, and is solving the problems.

Facts, indeed. :laugh:

The Falcon-V launch vehicle still is very much vaporware, no flight tested hardware at all, and Elon is still juggling major design decisions (noteably the engines).

Okay, so what? Bigelow has hedged his bets because he already has one flight scheduled on a Dnper, and if Falcon falls through, he can get another Dnper.

The full sized Nautilis can be launched by a Russian rocket, Chinese Long, or an American Heavy.

The Falcon V is meant to launch a scale version of the Nautilis for testing purposes. You seem to be confused on this matter.

Elon has stated that he wants to man-rate the Falcon V. Now why would he bother with that unless he wanted to launch people? All of this is immaterial as there is more than one way to get to orbit anyway. Elon only serves to prove that innovation can lead to cost reduction in launch costs. That way leads to a greater chance of making space travel cheap enough for space tourism to take hold. Bigelow furthers that end goal by giving an actual destination... with windows.

If you listened to Rutan, he pointed out that orbital flight will be cramped. People won't pay lots of money for that kind of ride unless there was more to it. A space hotel makes the cramped ride, without windows, and no inflight meal or movie worth it.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:22:41

Throwing away an R-7 for tourists? No way you'd ever make enough money off tickets to break even, even the lower range of figures from the tight-lipped Russians place the cost each around $25-30M and as high as $50M, not counting the cost for preparing the manned vehicle. There aren't enough daredevil millionares willing to cough up that kind of cash.

A 5 place crew taxi launched on a $30 million R-7. 4 people get 2 weeks in LEO for $15 million each or $60 million.

Fly 6 missions per year and you only need 24 people.

TV networks are a possible customer.

David Letterman retires and CBS wants to spend $50 million to launch his replacement. Subsidize the $50-60 million by selling endorsements. CBS pays $50 million for a Kliper flight and sells advertising to recoup as much of the $50-60 million as possible.

Two hours prime time for a week, from LEO.

= = =

New Letterman eating pizza in LEO. Commerical replays for 1 year. $2 million dollar fee.

New Letterman wearing Nike clothing. Supplement with footage from the commercial vomit comet. $5 million for a one year deal.

Record out-takes to play throughout the first year of the new show.

If the new guy trumps Leno, its worth $50 million to CBS, easy.

clark · 2004-11-08 16:43:48

Bawhaha! GCN: http://www.spacex.com/index.html?sectio … ..._03.php

SpaceX plans call for a long term heavy lift vehicle development. I should be clear that Falcon V is not it. The heavy and super-heavy will be a different line of launch vehicles than Falcon and will make use of a significantly larger main engine. Merlin and Kestrel will constitute upper stage engines for that vehicle line.

Now, engine design is the most exspensive part of building a rocket. They've done that already with Falcon and soon Falcon V, which will act as a sort of testing program for the heavy versions (while also being the economic life blood of the company) They just make the engines bigger. Besides, they have 5 years to put it together. Not so bad considering they have a realistic shot at launching the Falcon V in a years time after the first Falcon.

Also, expected reliability of the Falcon rockets:
http://www.spacex.com/FutronDesignRelia … bility.pdf (bottom line, safer than the Shuttle)

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:48:34

Bawhaha! GCN: http://www.spacex.com/index.html?sectio … ..._03.php
SpaceX plans call for a long term heavy lift vehicle development. I should be clear that Falcon V is not it. The heavy and super-heavy will be a different line of launch vehicles than Falcon and will make use of a significantly larger main engine. Merlin and Kestrel will constitute upper stage engines for that vehicle line.
Now, engine design is the most exspensive part of building a rocket. They've done that already with Falcon and soon Falcon V, which will act as a sort of testing program for the heavy versions (while also being the economic life blood of the company) They just make the engines bigger. Besides, they have 5 years to put it together. Not so bad considering they have a realistic shot at launching the Falcon V in a years time after the first Falcon.
Also, expected reliability of the Falcon rockets:
http://www.spacex.com/FutronDesignRelia … bility.pdf (bottom line, safer than the Shuttle)

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

We KNOW the R-7 works and with a $50 million prize cushion, someone can sell seats aboard each of the two launches to add to the $50 million purse.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-08 17:19:56

(bottom line, safer than the Shuttle)

Then again, what launcher isn't safer than the shuttle?

There have been good points made all around about how Falcon V, Burt Rutan, and Robert Bigelow will factor into the future of space tourism. I think that some aspects of these schemes will make their way into the future of spce tourism; others will be judged at a later point to be overly optimistic and have to be revised.

Perhaps the Russians will see a big opportunity for space tourism with the Onega rocket and Kliper capsule. It will carry twice the number of people but should not cost twice what a Soyuz launch would.

Grypd · 2004-11-08 18:31:19

I have only one problem with this prize, it is only open to companies that are in the USA. This means no Canadians, Europeans, Australians etc.

So why talk about a Klipper it is a Russian plan and will be Russian built so it cannot win the prize. And paying for a production line and staff in the US to win such a prize would quickly kill any money you would make from 50$ million. So why bother?

I can understand that Bigelow has problems with being allowed to export his inflatable modules and is looking for an American means to launch these and service them. It probably explains his thinking in creating such a prize, it gets his problem with exporting technology resolved and gets him a chance to actually get a return on his investment. NASA though has to deal with international groups and it would probably not agree to allowing any funding it makes to be conditional to pure american teams.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-08 08:53:40

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#2 2004-11-08 09:01:12

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#3 2004-11-08 09:02:51

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#4 2004-11-08 09:26:28

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#5 2004-11-08 09:48:36

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#6 2004-11-08 10:08:08

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#7 2004-11-08 11:35:40

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#8 2004-11-08 11:51:01

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#9 2004-11-08 13:59:54

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#10 2004-11-08 15:11:21

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#11 2004-11-08 15:26:50

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#12 2004-11-08 15:31:47

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#13 2004-11-08 15:41:28

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#14 2004-11-08 15:44:35

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#15 2004-11-08 15:46:11

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#16 2004-11-08 15:49:27

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#17 2004-11-08 15:51:14

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#18 2004-11-08 15:59:07

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#19 2004-11-08 16:16:33

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#20 2004-11-08 16:18:36

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#21 2004-11-08 16:22:41

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#22 2004-11-08 16:43:48

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#23 2004-11-08 16:48:34

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#24 2004-11-08 17:19:56

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

#25 2004-11-08 18:31:19

Re: A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

Board footer