A new thread - on Bigelow's space prize

Ad Astra · 2004-11-08 20:58:39

I didn't want to suggest the Russians would aim for Bigelow's prize. I just wanted to point out what the Russians can do to advance the general state of space tourism.

On the topic of Bigelow's prize, I think the reusability and time requirements are the major killers. If you want 80% reliability, you will need more than 5 years to develop the vehicle. If you want to build the vehicle in less than 5 years, you won't succeed in making it highly reusable.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-11-08 23:44:40

Say what you will about Bigelow, but Burt Rutan is decidedly not crazy or insane. Starry-eyed and eccentric, yes, but he has never made a promise he couldn't keep or arm waved where it really matters. People like Brian Freeny and Andrew Beal arm-wave(d) all the time, Rutan hasn't. You can watch the interviews that are archived now, Teir 1 was wildly more successful than he ever imagined it would be, if anything he underestimates his abilities at every turn. Why is this important? Well, four months ago I was standing about 1,000 feet away from him when he said:

"We're going to orbit sooner than you think."

This obviously begs a question, when do we think they're going to orbit? 2010, 2015-ish? Orbital flight is a whole new ballgame compared to sub-orbit, we're aware of this GCN, you don't have to act like a patronizing pre-school teacher (no flaming intended, won't do it again). But consider this, even suborbital flight is quite different from building high-altitude research planes. Rutan would not claim that we're on the verge of affordible space travel unless he really meant it.

I'm not surprised that the DC-Y was expected to cost $6 billion, in fact that seems a little generous. But we're not talking about a cost-plus driven, government funded, paid-by-the-taxpayers oeperation here. SpaceShipOne would have cost at least a billion dollars to develop if NASA had done so, in private hands it cost $25 million. Profit is an enormous motivation in any operation, in its absence there's no need to penny-pinch. I think it's reasonable to say that a reliable, sub-$1,000 per pound, manned launcher could be created in the next five years for about $100 million. When you stand to gain $1 billion if you win (not to mention who know's how much from Virgin Galactic) and Paul Allen is your backer, $100 million is chump change.

I'll be willing to make a bet right now that the America's Space Prize will be awarded to a competitor succesfully. Any takers? :;):

Rxke · 2004-11-09 01:41:29

GCNR, Russians do have some experience with advanced materials, they've been testing, on and off, heat-shield technology etc together with the Germans, they just sent up probes and let them re-enter. Repeatedly
Forgot the name of the program, but one of those probes got lost and re-emerged, months later, in Ghana.

I guess the Germans were into it because of their Phoenix program (the spaceplane)

Ad Astra · 2004-11-09 02:48:49

I'm not surprised that the DC-Y was expected to cost $6 billion, in fact that seems a little generous.

The problem with DC-Y was that it was vaporware from day one. SSTO is too unforgiving at this point with our current knowledge of materials and propulsion. TSTO is the only way to go.

The irony is that Burt Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, had to build the aeroshells for DC-X and Roton. Should Rutan make it into space after those ideas have failed, it shows that we've been throwing money down dead-ends. We are on the cusp of a privately-operated RLV; it's only a matter of time until it happens.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-09 04:54:43

I agree with MadGrad.
I'm certainly no aerospace engineer by any stretch of the imagination but I think I'm gradually learning a little about people as I slowly approach late youth.

MadGrad's evaluation of Burt Rutan is, in my opinion, right on the money! The man is not prone to exaggeration; quite the reverse, in fact. And he's got a rock-solid track record behind him which says he knows what he's talking about.
In a world full of people who play fast and loose with the truth, and who boast and brag without any way of backing their claims, I believe Rutan is the genuine article. For my money, if Burt says he'll be orbiting stuff sooner than we think .. we'd better start thinking faster!

[DISCLAIMER: I wish to make it clear that, in making the above statements, I have abandoned all pretence of impartiality. I'm a Rutan fan!!! :band: :laugh: ]

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 06:18:45

Lest we forget about the word demonstrator, which in Nasa terms is not a complete or totally functional programs or product. They are intended to either prove concepts, material and the likes of things we can only dream of.
All of the programs that were run from the 80's though to current were just that, only pieces. Non it would seem were ever intended to do anything but do the science of rocket designing of shape, materials and such.

Palomar · 2004-11-09 06:31:46

*My husband and I watched the bio/interview with Rutan on 60 Minutes Sunday evening. Ed Bradley did the story. (My husband even enjoyed the interview, yippee).

Yeah, I'd say Rutan is the genuine article.

He outlined future plans, goals, dreams (one includes a bubble on the side of an orbiting spaceship which a person could enter and goof around in, watch the Earth passing by below -- sans suit of any sort)...which I wonder will ever be realized -- certainly not because of any inadequacies on his part (and he's got the financial backing now of Paul Allen and Richard Branson) but because of a jealous gov't bureacracy and NASA.

Guess we'll find out. Good further luck to Rutan.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 07:17:35

New article, from what I can remember not much new in it.
Space reward gets bigger - $50 million offered for orbiting craft

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 14:28:36

From the spacepolitics web site . It appears that congress think prizes are a way to get the private industry involved.

Space and Aeronautics Prize Act (Introduced in House)
prize program to encourage development of space and aeronautics technologies

SEC. 4. ORBITAL DEMONSTRATION PRIZE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General- The Endowment shall carry out a program to award a prize for the demonstration of a space flight vehicle to carry at least 1 person to a minimum altitude of 400 kilometers originating from within the United States or its territories, complete at least 3 complete orbits of the Earth, and return safely to the Earth. It is highly desirable for the space flight vehicle to demonstrate a high degree of reusability for future flights beyond the demonstration flight.
(b) Additional Requirements- In order to be eligible for the prize described in this section, the space flight vehicle--
(1) shall be built with the capacity to carry a minimum of 3 persons;
(2) shall not have been substantially developed under a contract or grant from any foreign or domestic government;
(3) may use a foreign or domestic space launch vehicle to launch the space flight vehicle to orbit; and
(4) comply with, or obtain waivers for, all international, national, regional, or local laws or regulations which pertain to the activities described in this section.
© Amount of Prize- The total amount of cash prize for the program described in this section may not exceed $100,000,000.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 17:08:35

It sounds like some in Congress have been bamboozled by Burt & Company into believe in the unproven, extremely risky, and to date the failure that is the AltSpace mantra.

This prize nonsense is silly, $100M for an orbital vehicle just isn't all that much money, for what NASA needs for it to do; you might afford to make a knockoff of Gemini or somthing, but I seriously doubt you could make the vehicle maneuverable on orbit, have ~1 week of consumeables, docking hardware, and capable of returning from TEI for that sort of cash.

Allowing it to fly exclusively on a foreign booster is also a terrible mistake, permitting other countries to withold US spaceflight capability on a whim... Not to mention that three orbits with no rendevous capability isn't saying much at all.

John Creighton · 2004-11-12 17:42:26

It is to stimulate inovation. If no one suceeds then so what the money is safe.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 18:15:27

I'm saying that the prize is so small and the out of pocket development costs so high, that nobody will bother putting together a serious effort that could suceed.

John Creighton · 2004-11-12 18:36:32

I'm saying that the prize is so small and the out of pocket development costs so high, that nobody will bother putting together a serious effort that could suceed.

Well do you want a bigger prize then? Anyway the people that develop this won’t just develop this for the prize. The will use the prize to help off set costs of a future venture. Also it should be difficult. That is why it is called innovation. Let someone innovate ways to lower the development costs. The effort will be in the planning. If someone has a good plan tested thoroughly through simulation and small model wind tunnel tests, then they can start to build some hardware and do some flight tests.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 18:55:26

The prize money alone isn't enough, some money for design studies as a means of risk mitigation is a must, since nobody will risk the quite large sums needed for a all/nothing prize. Part of the prize could be a contract for vehicles though.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-12 19:08:44

$100 million US dollars? And there isn't any exclusion of a Canadian? I can use all the technology and facilities that NASA currently has? Only 3 astronauts? Maybe I need to stop publicly posting how to accomplish this.

And there's money for technology development before a full-up vehicle. How much could I get for a recycling life support system intended for a trans-Mars or trans-Lunar interplanetary trip? Enough to start development of a RLV?

Hooray to Winnipeg; often called wholesale city, what I call land bargain and home of the cheap! Have you heard the joke about how copper wire was invented? It was a Scott and a Mennonite fighting over a penny. My father is descended from Mennonites, my mother from Scottish. I'm currently developing both hardware and software for an automated calibration and quality control system for the leading manufacturer of autopilots for miniature UAVs, I have 23 1/2 years experience as a software developer, and I'm getting paid entry-level salary. $100 million sounds to me like stinking filthy rich; and if rich is considered filthy I want to be absolutely disgusting. Can I get technical data from development of the HL-20 for free? Using results from others hard work is the way to keep the cost that low; after all, NASA already paid for it.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 19:25:33

Non-Americans can still win Bigelow's prize, as long as they move to the US and use the country as their primary place of business. Further, Bigelow is offering up to $1 bil in contracts to fly to his space station to the winner of the prize. Orbital flight may cost more than $50 million, but Bigelow's supplemental contracts will offset that. Is NASA offering supplemental contracts for the proposed orbital prize?

The major sticking point here is 80% reusablility. The Bigelow prize is ambiguous about thether that's for spacecraft + booster or just the craft. If it's the latter, I would think the prize was realistic. The former is unworkable on a five-year time frame.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 20:24:52

Building a orbital space ship, particularly one that is not a copy of any other one, is a little bit harder then a garage project even for Werner Von Braun... If the dinky rubber-rocket "supersonic cessna" cost $30 million then a $100 million prize is absurdly low for any kind of orbital vehicle outside of a ultra-bare-boned capsule that would be worthless even for tourism... I shouldn't have to remind you that the HL-20 never even left design concept phase, nor does an appropriate main engine exsist.

There is no reason for this particular $100M prize to carry any contract perks, because the vehicle that would be built for this prize wouldn't be able to do what NASA needs it to do. As for Bigelow's promise for $1Bn worth of flight contracts, I think that is only so much vapor until he proves he has the technology, capability, and customers.

If Bigelow is serious about five years to 80% reuseable vehicle including the launcher, then I've lost all respect for him.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 21:02:37

I think you hit it on the head when you asked where could you get a set of detailed plans for anything Nasa has ever built. Even contractors do not want to share the knowledge that they have obtained thou the years building for Nasa.

I agree give anyone a set of plans to review, make better or just simply the right choices as compared to the previous building of it and anything is possible with them.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 23:06:05

If you want detailed plans, they are usually tucked away in company archives. I was reading a story about Boeing and Northrop-Grumman going into the old Grumman archives to get plans for the lunar module. Among companies, they have different policies about granting access to their archives. The old Grumman used to be very open about its archives; things changed drastically after Northrop bought the company.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 23:54:25

Based on all of Bigelow's interviews, he's really asking for a Soyuz stand-in. Assuming that the contest allows for an expendable booster, Bigelow wants a spacecraft in the 7,220 kg range. If the new spacecraft could be held to Soyuz TMA-range weights, the Falcon V will suffice.

Of course, the 80% reusability dictates that more components from the retro module should migrate inside the reentry capsule. You also need to fit in two more passengers, but the orbital module becomes redundant and can probably be discarded.

What Bigelow will end up with is a larger Soyuz with greater reusability at the expense of greater weight.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-13 09:45:14

Thats really pushing it, the whole key to the Soyuz's light weight is to bring back as little as possible. I don't think the Falcon can lift that kind of weight anyway, not forgetting the booster adapater, escape motors, and a half a ton of passengers.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-13 11:59:54

I'll agree that it's really pushing the limits of what can be done with a Falcon V booster. My hope is that advances in lightweight materials will help to bring the Soyuz replacement within the weight range of the original Soyuz. Maybe it can't be done, but it deserves study. If it can't be done, a booster with a 14 tonne payload will have to be brought in, and a Kliper-style spacecraft will be needed to service Bigelow's hotel.

deagleninja · 2004-11-13 12:27:16

At first I thought that this goal of Bigelow's was totally unreachable, now I'm not so sure. As some have mentioned here, there are many companies that have a head start. Also, if there are efforts willing to spend 2x the actual prize money as Allen and Co. did, then you have finances approaching $200 million which should be entirely doable. The true beauty of Bigelow's proposal is that the reward is mainly on the back end of the prize. As he correctly states, the winner will not neccessarily be awarded all the servicing contracts to his orbital hotels. A post contest goal is something that Rutan's team didn't really have (races aren't all that profitable).

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 14:44:52

Well the prize game is getting new interest from Nasa in regards to wanting to hand out bigger ones at least.

NASA Lobbying For Authority To Grant Prizes Above $250K

NASA is lobbying Congress for the authority to award prizes of more than $250,000 in its Centennial Challenges program, and hopes to get a green light during the current lame-duck session of Congress or early next year.

Four broad categories of challenges are planned: flagship challenges, keystone challenges, alliance challenges, and quest challenges. The biggest prizes offered by the program, flagship prizes will be worth $5-50 million. The program currently envisions four flagship competitions:
* Aero-assist demonstration. Although NASA spacecraft routinely use techniques such as aerobraking, "no one has actually demonstrated a true aerocapture or an orbital plane change using aero-effects in orbit," Sponberg said. Prize competitors will have to build a low-cost technology demonstrator to prove their technique in Earth orbit. Aero assist techniques use planetary atmospheres to help with orbital maneuvers.
* Micro re-entry vehicle. Competitors will have to build a low-cost automated vehicle capable of bringing small payloads down for accurate landings. NASA is interested in using such technology to improve science return from the space station.
* Lunar robotic soft landing. "The idea behind this prize is to stimulate someone to demonstrate the ability to softly land a small payload on the moon at low cost," Sponberg said.
* Stationkeeping solar sail. Competitors would have to build a solar sail capable of keeping a spacecraft in orbit for an extended period. NASA is interested in this technology for remote sensing and communications relay applications.

BWhite · 2004-11-19 10:37:43

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/art … tml]SpaceX update:

SpaceX is expanding its original Falcon V design to carry a 6-ton payload, up from 4 tons, at a cost to the customer of $16 million, also a steep discount compared with competing rockets.

Hee! Hee!

We figured out ourselves that 4 tons wasn't enough to win Bigelow's prize and look here. . .

Do you think Bigelow and Musk were talking before the terms of the $50 million prize were annoucend?

Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas plans to send up a payload on SpaceX's larger Falcon V in November 2005. It will be the first launch of the larger Falcon model.
Mike Gold, Bigelow Aerospace's corporate counsel, acknowledged that his company is taking a risk by ordering an untested rocket.
"While the rocket is untested, certainly the quality of their staff isn't," Gold said. "We've been impressed by Elon and his staff and his company." Gold added that the rocket's price is "extraordinarily competitive."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-08 20:58:39

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

#27 2004-11-08 23:44:40

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

#28 2004-11-09 01:41:29

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

#29 2004-11-09 02:48:49

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

#30 2004-11-09 04:54:43

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

#31 2004-11-09 06:18:45

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

#32 2004-11-09 06:31:46

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

#33 2004-11-09 07:17:35

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

#34 2004-11-12 14:28:36

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

#35 2004-11-12 17:08:35

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

#36 2004-11-12 17:42:26

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

#37 2004-11-12 18:15:27

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

#38 2004-11-12 18:36:32

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

#39 2004-11-12 18:55:26

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

#40 2004-11-12 19:08:44

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

#41 2004-11-12 19:25:33

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

#42 2004-11-12 20:24:52

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

#43 2004-11-12 21:02:37

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

#44 2004-11-12 23:06:05

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

#45 2004-11-12 23:54:25

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

#46 2004-11-13 09:45:14

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

#47 2004-11-13 11:59:54

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

#48 2004-11-13 12:27:16

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

#49 2004-11-16 14:44:52

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

#50 2004-11-19 10:37:43

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

Board footer