Robert Bigelow to announce $50 million orbital space prize; inflatable modules

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
As has been point out already, the craft designed to win the prize
does not have to be the final commerial design. And looking at
Armadillo's development cycles and cost I think making a winner
for less than $50 million maybe possible.

Yes, I was not quite brave enough to come out and say it directly.
Sufficient technology, people and materials should all be obtainable for
less than $50 million. It all comes down to how you go about doing it.

Pete.

George William Herbert wrote:


In my opinion, the cost of entry of reusable stuff is
one major barrier to manned orbital operations including
orbital tourism, and if someone gets the startup financing,
they will likely not recover the capital costs within any
reasonable timeframe. The cheap way to do the early phases
is expendable. When the market expands, reusables and their
higher R&D costs but lower operational costs will be the
better solution. But from here to there is too far to
take in one jump.


Well... there's always also the perhaps overly hopeful position to take
that leaving the upper stage on orbit, rather than being wasteful, is
the *profitable* thing to do. Nice big pressurizable volumes, at the
very least... if you are trying to buld a space motel, having a new room
show up each time paying customers show up can't be a bad thing. If
nothing else, you can do as with Skylab and turn them into septic tanks
and waste dumps. Leave 'em to fester for a few years, a decade or two...
at which point someone will find a good way to take organic waste and
turn it into orbital greenhouse plant chow or something.

All that this would require is that the tourist capsule have enough
built-in delta V to separate from the station and do the retro burn on
it's own. That seems doable to me.

As for the upper stage engines, they can be used for lunar missions,
perhaps, or gathered together and dropped occaisionally using that
Russian inflatable re-entry system.

"BitBanger" wrote in message
...

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
oups.com...
[I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been posted about already, so
something I wrote yesterday to here.]

This is a very exciting week for private spaceflight! In addition to
the Virgin Galactic announcement, hotel entrepreneur Robert Bigelow (of
Bigelow Aerospace) has mentioned plans to announce a $50 million
orbital space prize, to a team which produces a commercial space
transport capable of sending 5-7 passengers to a Bigelow inflatable
space module by 2010. This will be dubbed "America's Space Prize."
There's an article with photographs available he

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/27bigelow/


LOL

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to
claim
that prize for a long time. Orbital flight requires at least 20 times the
energy compared to a suborbital flight, so the prize should be 20 times
that
of the X-Prize (i.e. $200 millon). For that kind of money, someone *might*
be willing to invest in such a venture, but that's a big 'if' IMHO,
because
you're losing serious amounts of money if it doesn't work. And if it
doesn't
work someone's likely to get killed.

You know when the X-Prize was announced many said there was no way it could
be won in time.

But it's amazing how motivated people actually came.

Either way Bigalow wins. Either he saves $50 million (which in reality he's
most likely taking out an insurance policy on) or he gets flights to his
hotel


For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that.

Unproven assumption that it has to be a capsule.

The Russians are having a hard time
realizing it (both technically and financially) and the U.S. isn't even
thinking about one at the moment (but I suspect that will change in the
near
future). I believe this is far beyond private commercial enterprise's
capabillities at this time but I hope I'm proven wrong.


Look up Big Gemini.

George William Herbert wrote:
Pete Lynn wrote:

"George William Herbert" wrote:

SpaceX is selling their Falcon V (which hasn't flown yet, to be fair)
for $12 million plus range fees per flight, if you order the flight
this year.

That leaves you $38 million for combined R&D on capsule and
eventual profit, if you care to do the accounting in that manner.

A question that has been bugging me, what are the advantages and
disadvantages of combining such a capsule with the Falcon V upper stage?
Assuming the upper stage is to be reusable anyway.


I confidently posit that the R&D cost for doing such a large
integration will exceed the $2-3 million in hardware saved
by making an integrated stage, multiplied by the number of
flights likely in the next 5-8 years.

Probably even worse if you include ROI on the R&D.



Been following that train of thought also. Should be
interesting to see if someone goes that direction. At some
point, people are going to have to adjust to the concept that
movement is quite often good, even if it is not the most
optimal solution.

As to what Bigelow is doing... Another prize is probably a good
idea. IIRC, NASA is funding prizes along the same line. Perhaps there
will be other prizes also. So, if they roughly meet in terms of
requirements, it is entirely possible that the sum of the prizes
will greatly exceed the amount he is putting out there.

Now, as to their technical side.. the one thing I always
disliked about TransHab was it's solid core. That really
dictates the launch platform and deployment size. Would prefer
a deployment from a canister to a hollow shell, then add the
structure. You can pack a lot of volume into a very tight space
if you do not have the hard core running the length of the
inflatable. Cost wise, you could launch something with the volume
of ISS in a couple launches of SpaceX Falcon V. But, you would
need a lot of assembly, but most of that is internal.

SpaceX does change the barrier to entry equations by an amount
that I don't think people have really considered closely yet.
There are a lot of concepts that become feasible in the price
range of their vehicles.

Several people here will object. That's fine. They can chase
the prize their way.

In my opinion, the cost of entry of reusable stuff is
one major barrier to manned orbital operations including
orbital tourism, and if someone gets the startup financing,
they will likely not recover the capital costs within any
reasonable timeframe. The cheap way to do the early phases
is expendable. When the market expands, reusables and their
higher R&D costs but lower operational costs will be the
better solution. But from here to there is too far to
take in one jump.

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"BitBanger" wrote in message
...

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and
bring them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone
will be able to claim that prize for a long time.

While what you say is true, what's to stop other people, companies,
governments, and etc. from donating more money to the prize? I'd
personally like to see the US Government donate a few hundred
million dollars each year to the pot. The longer the prize is
unclaimed, the bigger the pot grows.

Roton, Millenium Express, etc., were looking at around $300 million five
years back. I think we have come along way since then. I expect it is
doable for $200 million, perhaps doable for $100 million, with an
outside possibility that a really well conceived low cost development
approach unpressured by time could do it for $50 million. Space-X is
not the cheapest prospect out there, but how much do you think it would
cost them? Or someone else using their rockets?

We are not starting from scratch any more, we have the X-Prize almost
behind us with a lot of institutional knowledge, infrastructure,
publicity and inertia thereby gained. A lot of the beginner's mistakes
are now behind us and people have a far clearer idea of what is
required. X-Prize level technology can probably be incrementally
developed to orbital performance, with scaling and staging, though
reentry will require something more.

Space-X is taking a NASA design and building a craft around it. Thing is,
it's still a Shuttle-type craft and therefore quite fragile. Now there's a
nice example of government-funded enterprise building for ya.

Indeed, SpaceX says the Falcon V upper stage will not be reusable from
first flight. On NPR's Talk of the Nation Science Friday, Elon Musk
stated that SpaceX will work toward making the upper stage reusable in
order to enable manned launch on the Falcon V.

My question is whether such a stage/capsule on the Falcon V could
really carry 5 to 7 passengers. I always thought -- without any
backup except a vague comparison to Soyuz -- that it would be a
challenge to carry that many people on a rocket of this weight class.

Tom Kent wrote in message .30.42...
"Pete Lynn" wrote in news:1096688357.351813
@kyle.snap.net.nz:

"George William Herbert" wrote in message
. ..

SpaceX is selling their Falcon V (which hasn't flown yet, to be fair)
for $12 million plus range fees per flight, if you order the flight
this year.

That leaves you $38 million for combined R&D on capsule and
eventual profit, if you care to do the accounting in that manner.

A question that has been bugging me, what are the advantages and
disadvantages of combining such a capsule with the Falcon V upper stage?
Assuming the upper stage is to be reusable anyway.

Pete.




I don't think the upper stage is going to be re-usable on the Falcon 5 (or
on the Falcon 1 for that matter). This is the stage that is basically in
orbit, it would have to go through de-orbit maneuvers to be re-used....not
really worth it.
Tom

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

A) What does big have to do with safe? Safety comes from good designs not
size. Remember the Titanic?

Titanic was properly designed. What killed her was faulty
construction and improper operation.

May be a big opps on my part. When was the decsion to not run the bulkheads
all the way to the top made? Before construction started or after? The
designer did it right but others made a stupid change, you are correct in
correcting me.

However, I do stand on the statement that bigger does not mean safer.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger :
[SNIP BAD REPLY]

What bad typing on my part, I hope I did not give any one headaches reading
that. It should read.

"Pete Lynn" :

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"BitBanger" wrote in message
...

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and
bring them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone
will be able to claim that prize for a long time.

While what you say is true, what's to stop other people, companies,
governments, and etc. from donating more money to the prize? I'd
personally like to see the US Government donate a few hundred
million dollars each year to the pot. The longer the prize is
unclaimed, the bigger the pot grows.

Roton, Millenium Express, etc., were looking at around $300 million five
years back. I think we have come along way since then. I expect it is
doable for $200 million, perhaps doable for $100 million, with an
outside possibility that a really well conceived low cost development
approach unpressured by time could do it for $50 million. Space-X is
not the cheapest prospect out there, but how much do you think it would
cost them? Or someone else using their rockets?

As has been pointed out already, the craft designed to win the prize does not
have to be the final commerial design. And after looking at Armadillo's
development cycles and costs I think making a winner for less than $50
million may be possible.

We are not starting from scratch any more, we have the X-Prize almost
behind us with a lot of institutional knowledge, infrastructure,
publicity and inertia thereby gained. A lot of the beginner's mistakes
are now behind us and people have a far clearer idea of what is
required. X-Prize level technology can probably be incrementally
developed to orbital performance, with scaling and staging, though
reentry will require something more.

And ever year standard off the shelf parts get cheaper and cheaper - has
anyone noticed how there is a lot more things available in stainless steel
nowadays compared to just ten years ago? Also custom one-off design of parts
can now be farmed out more easyierly than a couple of years ago. At one time
if you were not ordering a thousand units of something, forget about it. Now
you can order 1,2,3,... items (at a high cost each) without paying the cost
of a thousand unit run.

I think the prize is big enough, and indeed should not get any bigger,
otherwise it will not be low cost. Extra money would be better spent on
other prizes. This prize should be enough to induce a number of
competitors to have a go at developing vehicles that are commercially
viable. Many were already close to having a go on their own. I am not
sure when the prize will be claimed, though I expect by 2010. To be
honest, I would not be surprised if it was claimed within three years of
assured funding. The ability and intent is there.

If the prize was any bigger than it is now it is unlikely that a winner would
be CATS in design or construction.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" :

You know when the X-Prize was announced many said there was no way it could
be won in time.

But it's amazing how motivated people actually came.

Either way Bigalow wins. Either he saves $50 million (which in reality
he's
most likely taking out an insurance policy on) or he gets flights to his
hotel

A perfect example of reason the rich keep getting richer is this. Forget the
insurance, he just puts his money in a long term high yield bond. If the
prize is won the interest pays for the costs of drawing it out early, if the
prize is not won he get his money PLUS interest paid on it, and if the prize
is won he get the design done with risking development money.

For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that.

Unproven assumption that it has to be a capsule.

Unproven assumption that it has to be big.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" :


For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that.

Unproven assumption that it has to be a capsule.

Unproven assumption that it has to be big.

Well, I was granting that a 9 person capsule would have to be "bigger" than
Soyuz, but big's relative.

Cost of a pressure shell scales pretty well.



Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp