New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

Marsman · 2005-09-26 21:51:51

Maybe the real winners will be an enlightened public

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 06:13:37

Oh I sure do hope so...

...that the public would not simply know, but understand and internalize just how big of a joke all the X-Prize competitors are, and how far they are from really practical orbital spaceflight.

Its just so pitiful, I mean come on, they are even going to put Burt's plastic rocket cessna in the Smithsonian.

Marsman · 2005-09-27 06:33:55

It has to start somewhere GCN. Remember that. I know that alot of those entrants are not what they claim to be but what you are missing in your idealism is that the average public need desperately to see a new direction in space issues if they are to continue supporting serious space ventures. It might not be the best way to bring the public in(or even the smartest way), but it's all we have at present. Unless you yourself have come up with something better than mere criticism? What would you suggest then? Let's wait a few more decades until things get up to scratch? I'm sure that would do wonders for space advocate groups and for encouraging an interest in space/science and engineering. I would be interested to hear your own alternatives to this situation GCN.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 07:32:07

And it does start somewhere, somewhere else

The reality is that none of the X-Prize participants are "what they claim to be" because not a single one of them has a chance of real orbital spaceflight without government money.

This is purely a consequence of the physics involved, that because of the indomitability of the rocket equation, there is no such thing as a small, simple, powerful launch vehicle. It is not simply unlikly to exsist, it can't exsist with todays' technology.

As such, none of them can suceed, and they are all pushing snake oil: the concept of starting small and at the bottom is not simply dubious, its against the laws of physics! They hear how "space ship" one reaches "space" and start asking when they will haul passengers to the ISS, completly oblivious to the impossibility of it.

You have to start off big, and for that you need a big income source, which at the moment can only be government contracts. The only AltSpace outfit, who isn't an even an X-Prize contender, that seems to understand and have a chance at sucess is Elon Musks' Space-X. And if they are being paid government money, like Lockheed or Boeing, does that even make them AltSpace anymore?

Marsman · 2005-09-27 09:02:37

Good thinking GCN! I suggested similar concepts elsewhere but everyone howled me down saying things like "We must take small steps first" and I couldn't agree with you more. My point was more on the public interest side of things and the fact that snake oil or not it's about time we had some sort of new ideas in space travel come up for the average person. I like the idea of starting off big, in fact my own plan was so big that it did create quite a stir.(I'll tell you about it some time) I agree, rockets are complex in the extreme and I have a great respect for those who manage to succeed at such a task by launching humans into space. You point out a valid flaw and that is that most of these groups claiming to offer things like "a ticket around the Moon" or such are nowhere near achieving their claims. Unfortunately people are trying to apply the "small steps" equation to this issue and it just won't work. I wish them all the best but I also wish they would be a bit more honest because they will never raise the investment needed by hiding things from people at this early stage. The truth is that the investment needed is way above any average share type investment and that is why they have tried the smaller approach. My own plan involves a much larger profit earning goal that will both pay for the transports required and reward shareholders substantially. Unfortunately I'm not a rocket maker so like everyone else I have to wait for the time when someone brave will take the bigger step.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-27 11:05:36

They way I see it space should not cost like Boeing and Lockheed cxharge.

This article talks of low cost access to space for small satelites.

Rocket launch paints sky with breath-taking scene

The Orbital Sciences-managed Minotaur rocket uses decommissioned first and second stages from a Minuteman 2 ICBM missile and solid-propellant motors from the commercial Pegasus rocket program for its third and fourth stages. The vehicle is designed to provide the U.S. government with reliable access to space for small satellites.
The $20 million Minotaur deployed into a sun-synchronous orbit around the planet's poles the Space Test Program-R1 mission's Streak satellite. Built by General Dynamics C4 Systems/Spectrum Astro Space Systems in Gilbert, Arizona, the craft will be operated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 17:22:21

I think the fact that the AltSpace'ers are generally either dishonest or simply crazy. Either way, I think that they cause more hurt then they do help. They really do hurt the cause of getting average people off this rock more then they help it, because they are offering a false (or even worse, fraudulent) hope in their vision... Which reinforces the (often valid!) perception that they aren't credible.

There is a minimum, baseline, "do not pass go unless" requirement in order to make a sucessful space venture I think, which fall under three catagories:

-Unmanned low orbit
-Unmanned GTO orbit
-Manned low orbit

1) The first is of course the easiest, but its still far beyond any of the AltSpace'ers, except maybe Elon Musk. Most satelites in this launch class weigh in at around 1.0-1.5MT for equitorial missions or probobly 0.5MT for polar or sun-synchronous orbits.

Not sub-orbital, the only markets there are served by sounding rockets, and you simply aren't going to make much money replacing them. Definatly not enough to move to bigger and better things.

And not nano-sats either, satelites in the <100kg range are silly, they simply can't do very much. Their transmitters are too small for much data, camera aperatures are too small, solar arrays too small, station-keeping thruster fuel reserves too small, etc. They are kind of a joke, the number of satelites you would need to accomplish anything useful would be uneconomical due to the duplicity of hardware.

Elon Musk is on the right track here with Falcon-I

2) Modern communication and weather satelites are fairly large; they have to be in order to get enough done without requiring too many of them. They generally sit at much higher orbits, way up in GEO, which is tens of thousands of kilometers away from Earth's surface. Bigger antennas, wider camera aperatures, more powerful transmitters and power systems, etc... Long story short, a practical satelite is going to weigh a few tonnes.

I think that the "benchmark" target for GTO should be at least two tonnes, which is about what the Delta-II can loft. Idealy three or four, but at least two tonnes. If you can't hit this, then you aren't going anywhere. This is the region that the Falcon-V is supposed to hit, and where the Delta-II, Delta-IVM and Atlas-V 501 are aimed.

3) Manned flight...

Two things stick out at me, first is what are your competitors offering, and what are your customers demanding?

If you are looking to fly tourists to orbit, Russia is currently selling Soyuz seats for as little as $5-6M, if rumors of Tito's actual bill are true (which they probobly are). This is the price point to beat if your are lifting tourists, which I think would be hard to compete with given the saleries of your engineers. A reuseable or partially reuseable vehicle is a must, which would be hard to pull off without signifigant investment. It ought to be capable of docking to a hypothetical space hotel or ferry three-man crews to the ISS too.

As far as what NASA wants, NASA wants at least four seats for a week or two, a rocket powerful enough to escape Lunar orbit, and Lunar/Martian transfer orbit reentry velocity (it has to be able to come back down straight from the Moon or Mars without slowing down first). The ability to carry six people would be awfully nice too. I think that this is a tall order, tall enough that it can't be done without some hundreds of millions of dollars.

No incriments, no gradually higher suborbital arcs, no working up the payload from kilos to tonnes... if you can't do any of these things without an unrealistic outside investment, then you are not in business AltSpace.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-09-27 18:27:18

....
No incriments, no gradually higher suborbital arcs, no working up the payload from kilos to tonnes... if you can't do any of these things without an unrealistic outside investment, then you are not in business AltSpace.

Though I agree with most of your arguments GCNR, I don’t think it is fair to say that it is impossible to build a launch vehicle in incremental steps.

OTRAG was a very innovative concept that might have worked. With current innovation such as the flow metrics fuel pump parallel booster designs are becoming more and more feasible. Clustered boosters are to my knowledge the only way to create a launch vehicle using a step by step approach. It allows the launch vehicle developer to prove and grow their technology by doing.

I would be interested in your (likely critical ) opinion on clustered booster concepts.

Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. You didn’t actualy state that it was impossible to reach orbit in a step by step approach. The incremental development path of clustered concept would not fit your "do not pass go unless” requirements. Yet it does allow a graduate growth to LEO and beyond. The reason why I personally like the clustered approach is because it allows the design team to gain experience on the way. I can imagine that there aren’t that many experienced rocket engineers available for hiring by alt space start ups.

John Creighton · 2005-09-27 18:38:55

Regardless of whether the X prize will ever contribute much to space flight they are still developing new technologies at a low cost. I think this is positive. You may nock space ship one but if its successor carries tourists on sub orbital flight then in my onion the prise stimulated something positive. Maybe some day I'll get an X prise credit card and will continue with your cynicism I will think of all the new research the prise is helping to stimulate.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 18:41:45

It is impossible to make a vehicle in incrimental steps

Why? One very simple reason... nobody wants to buy one

OTRAG was silly, the whole concept was nonsense, the penalty for all the extra fuel tank area would have been rediculous and the Nitric Acid oxidizer was a terrible choice.

The whole concept of a rocket with more than a few cores is inherintly bad because of the extra fuel tank mass. Three cores ought to be maximum.

John Creighton · 2005-09-27 18:50:17

It is impossible to make a vehicle in incrimental steps
Why? One very simple reason... nobody wants to buy one

This is the really issue. Is there a market for vehicles that can't reach LEO if they are made significantly cheap. I think there is atleast a small market for joyrides and package delivery but I could be wrong.

John Creighton · 2005-09-27 18:53:53

I think there is one other altspace venture that does show promos and it is discussed in the thread:
Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1851

Of course the people in the concept I just linked for aren’t competing for the x prise. I haven't looked much at the other concepts so I don't know how good or bad the ideas are.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 18:55:37

Regardless of whether the X prize will ever contribute much to space flight they are still developing new technologies at a low cost. I think this is positive. You may nock space ship one but if its successor carries tourists on sub orbital flight then in my onion the prise stimulated something positive. Maybe some day I'll get an X prise credit card and will continue with your cynicism I will think of all the new research the prise is helping to stimulate.

Nonsense, because the AltSpacers' can't fix the one technology that holds the rocket industry around the neck: rocket fuel.

Rocket fuel is really the one thing that holds the AltSpacers' back, which is clearly evidenced by some of the schemes to try and avoid using rockets. This is one problem that all the "technology development" and "ingenuity" and "can-do spirit" can't beat.

This is really what I think will defeat the AltSpace'ers, because the limited performance of practical rocket fuel simply demands that you have alot of it, your ship is very light, and engines & structures complex. As such, your rocket must be quite large: no practical current or near-to-mid future tech rocket fuel is going to yeild more energy per pound, and so the AltSpace'ers are stuck on the ground.

Suborbital space tourism is a folley, I wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a breif minute in zero-gee or a site out the little side windows, and not enough rich people would poney up to sustain the industry.

Edit: further thoughts, I also think that the rigors of reentry will be an extremely difficult challenge for AltSpacers that foolishly use shapes besides capsules for orbital reentry. Even then, I expect the heat shield design to be a difficult and high barrier of competancy to enter the field.

John Creighton · 2005-09-27 19:05:13

Suborbital space tourism is a folley, I wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a breif minute in zero-gee or a site out the little side windows, and not enough rich people would poney up to sustain the industry.

I thought the price was suppose to come down to 10 000 dollars a flight after the initial voyages. If I had cash to blow I could consider this.

[qutoe]Edit: further thoughts, I also think that the rigors of reentry will be an extremely difficult challenge for AltSpacers that foolishly use shapes besides capsules for orbital reentry. Even then, I expect the heat shield design to be a difficult and high barrier of competancy to enter the field.

John Creighton · 2005-09-27 19:11:22

There is something I wonder though about all this X prise research. Can't the X-37 do most things that people in the x prise want to do ultimately. It is reusable, it can survive re-entry, it can land on a runway. It does have a bad mass fraction and will need to be altered but can the alt-space people do better then a modified X-37. Maybe the contest should be for a carrier plane for a modified x-37.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-27 19:47:07

Tens of thousands? Doubtful... I'm sure it cost a pretty penny to rebuild SSO's solid rocket and ablative heat shield between flights... then there is the insurance, if only for the loss of vehicle.

Even then, the low cost per-ticket would be self defeating, because if you offer the tickets for such a low cost then you won't make money to do more then stay afloat. You would still need a big injection of external cash.

I think that you misunderstand just what the X-37 is supposed to do, that its not a spaceplane. Its fuel tanks and rocket engine are small, and are only intended to adjust orbits, and are waaay too small to contribute much to actually getting into orbit.

What the X-37 was going to be used for is basically a reuseable spy satelite, maybe a light-duty space bomber, and perhaps anti-satelite "interceptor." The thing was slated to ride on top of a Delta-IV class rocket, which would carry it all the way to orbit before seperation. The X-37 is just a satelite, a satelite with wings and a heat shield.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-30 11:19:18

Doom Rocket Man Preps for Liftoff

The burgeoning commercial spaceflight industry is about to hold its first big convention, replete with rocket launches, flying space vehicles and the first demonstration of games whiz John Carmack's spaceship-in-progress.
One of the companies flying a vehicle will be Armadillo Aerospace, headed by Carmack, the programming genius behind best-selling games from id Software such as Doom and Quake.
Carmack said his company could send a man into space in a vertical-takeoff-and-landing spaceship as early as next year.

Interesting how little has been spent:

Carmack, who has spent $2.5 million of his own money on Armadillo over the last five years, expects to see a return on his investment in the coming year in the form of military contracts.

What kind of a military contract can this possibly be used for?

More to come from this new space port location in the future.

In 2007, the X Prize Cup will be held at the Southwest Regional Spaceport, due to start construction 45 miles north of Las Cruces by the end of this year. After that, with no limits imposed on the performance of the participants' vehicles, who knows what to expect at future X Prize Cups?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-30 15:52:39

Military contracts? Carmak is dreaming. His rocket can't deliver a single gram to orbit.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-03 12:49:42

Alternative Space ventures - are we on the road to cheaper access

Here is another attempt to garner interest in space.
Rocketeers on your mark, get set, ignition.... we are go for a shot to orbit. Or how about lapse around the moon.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9572408/]Rocket racing league’ gets its start
X Prize founder, Indy car backer unveil new venture[/url]

051003_rocket_racing_hmed_10a.hmedium.jpg

The man behind the $10 million X Prize for private spaceflight is joining forces with a venture capitalist who's also an Indy car backer to establish a NASCAR-like racing league for rocket-powered aircraft.
X Prize founder Peter Diamandis and race car capitalist Granger Whitelaw took the wraps off the Rocket Racing League during a Monday news conference, just days before a rocket plane demonstration that could serve as a model for the races.

stargazer · 2005-10-04 10:07:31

The article at BBC website said them rocket planes will be flying at an altitude of 1500 metres, or 5000 feets, above the ground. It got me wondering how that is helping making private spaceships but then I figured if they can make their rockets work long enought to win the race flying level, those motors will also work long enough going straight up

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 10:21:12

I am sort of wonder what rules will be put in place for restrictions to the design concepts. To allow for an equal playing field, such as fuel types, oxidizers, plane versus dart shape and ect..

How would one view such a high altitude race from ground level?

I know part of the lore of Nascar is the noise, vibration and rumbling of the engine exhaust.

Commodore · 2005-10-04 10:59:11

I know part of the lore of Nascar is the noise, vibration and rumbling of the engine exhaust.

And the crashes.

Something tells me they would quickly run out of pilots. And it wouldn't exactly be a spectator sport either.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 11:44:19

Nah Just add ejector seats and a extra large area cleanup crew.

Actually I thought that staged crashed were part of what is expected from the fan followings.

Then again this could also be done dragster style, on your mark, get set, go go go to the 62 mile mark.

Edit here is some of the restrictions:
Rocket racing gets ready for blast-off

The new vehicles will not in fact reach space, or even break the sound barrier. But they will demonstrate the power of rocket-driven aircraft, accelerating rapidly and performing high-G-force turns. The engines, powered by liquid oxygen and kerosene, will emit bright 20-foot plumes of flame that will make the flights easily visible to spectators watching from the ground a mile below.
Giant screens will display the views from cameras mounted on the rockets, with computer-generated outlines showing the virtual racecourse. The pilots will see these lines through heads-up display units. Television rights for the races are still being negotiated, as is corporate sponsorship, says Diamandis.
The rocketplanes can only provide a total of three minutes of thrust, and 10 or so minutes of glide time, so part of the skill of racing will come in deciding just when to switch the rocket power on and off. "For the pilots, it's a thinking man's game,"

And it comes with an interactive game feature...

Videogames will also be created that reflect the way the real planes are controlled. Eventually, game players at home will be able to compete via their screens with pilots in the real races.

And whats stopping this from going forward, appearently nothing...

Patricia Smith of the US Federal Aviation Administration says the agency will work with the racing league to regulate the races. The new races, she said, should help in "making rocket flight more tangible to the public". And, as with auto racing, the experience should help hone technologies for commercial services.

John Creighton · 2005-10-04 14:26:59

It sounds interesting but I hope they can improve the designs later to get longer then 3 minutes of rocket thrust. I think they should use a rocket augmented turbo jet design as we have often suggest as the first stage of a TSTO reusable launch vehicle. Maybe later they will be able to add scram jet engines or something more exotic.

Mundaka · 2005-10-08 16:48:32

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-09-26 21:51:51

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#27 2005-09-27 06:13:37

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#28 2005-09-27 06:33:55

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#29 2005-09-27 07:32:07

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#30 2005-09-27 09:02:37

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#31 2005-09-27 11:05:36

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#32 2005-09-27 17:22:21

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#33 2005-09-27 18:27:18

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#34 2005-09-27 18:38:55

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#35 2005-09-27 18:41:45

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#36 2005-09-27 18:50:17

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#37 2005-09-27 18:53:53

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#38 2005-09-27 18:55:37

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#39 2005-09-27 19:05:13

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#40 2005-09-27 19:11:22

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#41 2005-09-27 19:47:07

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#42 2005-09-30 11:19:18

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#43 2005-09-30 15:52:39

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#44 2005-10-03 12:49:42

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#45 2005-10-04 10:07:31

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#46 2005-10-04 10:21:12

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#47 2005-10-04 10:59:11

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#48 2005-10-04 11:44:19

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#49 2005-10-04 14:26:59

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

#50 2005-10-08 16:48:32

Re: New X Prize Sets Sights - Science, Technology and Social Solutions

Board footer