Rules Set for $50 Million 'America's Space Prize'

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
...Look at the ISS, it is limited in operations because they
don't have the lifeboats to carry as many people as the ISS can hold...

And because there's no ability to simply send a ship up on short notice
when there's a problem. We don't provide for emergencies in isolated
communities here by stationing aircraft at each one continuously.

I think he is thinking a space hotel is like a cruise ship, if something bad
happens you must be prepare to handle it without any local help.

The problem is, except for a few trackless area's of the South Pacific
and South Atlantic; a cruise ship is very rarely far out of the reach
of help. Between the various Navies, Coast Guards, etc.. of the
world, and the maritime tradition of (and semi-legal requirement to)
responding to distress calls.... There really is no parallel between
a space hotel and a cruise ship.

A closer parallel (in the best of worlds) would be an isolated base in
the polar summer. Help is easily summoned, but will take days or at
best many long hours to reach the base.

In reality, we are closer to that same base in the polar winter.
Acess is nearly impossibly difficult when it isn't outright impossible
in the first place.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
...Look at the ISS, it is limited in operations because they
don't have the lifeboats to carry as many people as the ISS can hold...


And because there's no ability to simply send a ship up on short notice
when there's a problem. We don't provide for emergencies in isolated
communities here by stationing aircraft at each one continuously.

I think he is thinking a space hotel is like a cruise ship, if something
bad
happens you must be prepare to handle it without any local help.

The problem is, except for a few trackless area's of the South Pacific
and South Atlantic; a cruise ship is very rarely far out of the reach
of help. Between the various Navies, Coast Guards, etc.. of the
world, and the maritime tradition of (and semi-legal requirement to)
responding to distress calls.... There really is no parallel between
a space hotel and a cruise ship.

A closer parallel (in the best of worlds) would be an isolated base in
the polar summer. Help is easily summoned, but will take days or at
best many long hours to reach the base.

In reality, we are closer to that same base in the polar winter.
Acess is nearly impossibly difficult when it isn't outright impossible
in the first place.

On the other hand there is a good reason why modern cruise ships have enough
lifeboats for everyone on board. It is not that they are all expected to be
needed, it is that they are there so they are available if needed.

Earl Colby Pottinger

PS, has any cruise ship ever needed all it lifeboards to clear the ship since
WWII?

--
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

(Derek Lyons) :

"Pete Lynn" wrote:

The capacity to remain on station for six months does not seem in
keeping with a fast turn around high flight rate vehicle where time not
spent flying is money lost.

Assuming that one or two craft remain docked to the station to provide
backup/emergency capability, while other craft fly more often in
revenue service; then the average fleet rate is brought down some, but
remains high enough to lower flight costs.

I follow, but 6 months still seems a long time to me. Rotate out every
month or so seems like a good compromise.

To control costs you; reduce man hours needed for maintenance and
flight preps, design your craft for maintenance (access, LRU's, NDT
etc), reduce overhead, improve purchasing, etc.. etc.. etc..

However, frequenant checkouts (every month or two) catches things before they
degrade to far.

Reducing costs is more than just flying the hell out of something.
If you hold your fixed, recurring, and per flight costs low, then you
can enjoy a somewhat reduced flight rate without being too expensive
overall. The mantra 'high flight rate means cheap flights' works as a
slogan, but in reality it's an arcane mixture of engineering, bean
counting, and management that reduces costs.

But flying frequenant enough to keep an up-to-date status check on your
equipment is asking for an accident that could ruin your business. I agree
that daliy or weekly flights for every craft is not really needed and does
add some costs, but having a craft docked in space for 6 months involves
engineering costs for a design that can do that also, plus the long periods
between inspections is just asking for trouble. Rotation times should be
somewhere between 1 to 8 weeks, the engineering needs alone probably make the
shorter period worthwhile.

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

(Fred K.) :

* It is a mistake to specify a 5 person capacity. Would Mr. Bigelow
turn down a service that delivered paying customers to his station in
twos or threes at a per person cost that was less than a five person
vehicle?

My crack at the Prize requirements would be:

$50 Million prize for:

* Deliver one passenger safely to the Bigelow orbiting hotel at X
inclination, Y altitude, meeting certain docking requirements. Safely
is defined by broad but specific limits on Acceleration, climate
control, and passenger comfort.

I can't agree with one passenger for a hotel service, many of his customers
will be arriving as couples. So I think the capacity needs to be two
passengers - note this does not say weather the pilot is another human or a
computer, but two passengers if you are servicing a hotel.

For a research space station, one passenger is fine with me too, but the
customer is who really sets the final rules.

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 :


But flying frequenant enough to keep an up-to-date status check on your
equipment is asking for an accident that could ruin your business. I agree
that daliy or weekly flights for every craft is not really needed and does
add some costs, but having a craft docked in space for 6 months involves
engineering costs for a design that can do that also, plus the long periods
between inspections is just asking for trouble. Rotation times should be
somewhere between 1 to 8 weeks, the engineering needs alone probably make
the shorter period worthwhile.

Should read, 'But not flying often ...'


--
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

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

I follow, but 6 months still seems a long time to me. Rotate out every
month or so seems like a good compromise.

That may well be the plan, but you don't want to operate up against the
design limits of your components for something critical like this.
Requiring that the craft can survive for 6 months, while fully intending
to never leave one up more than a month, seems very prudent to me.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:28:49 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Suppose you have a lifeboat that doesn't return to Earth, but simply waits
for a rescue crew to arrive...

Note that this is exactly what's done with ocean liners and airliners.
There is no expectation that lifeboats, never mind life rafts, will be
able to reach shore by themselves.

Yes, which is why it was always a misnomer to call
CRV/OSP/flavor-of-the-week a "lifeboat."

By that definition, the Titanic's lifeboats would have had to be able
to get their passengers back to Southhampton unassisted.

Joe Strout :

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

I follow, but 6 months still seems a long time to me. Rotate out every
month or so seems like a good compromise.

That may well be the plan, but you don't want to operate up against the
design limits of your components for something critical like this.
Requiring that the craft can survive for 6 months, while fully intending
to never leave one up more than a month, seems very prudent to me.

I think I got you. I used to use marine batteries to power the lights up at
my cabin, problem was if someone else left the outside lights on at night the
batteries would be badly drained and sometimes I would have to leave before I
could recharge them. Over the yearssometimes I would not get back to the
cabin as soon as I hoped and the batteries ended up badly damaged left lying
around discharge. Two years ago I go me some big storage batteries, even
with the lights on all night they are still 90% charged in the morning - now
if I can't charge them up right away they do not end up damaged.

Design for abuse and the abuse become nothing.

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

It seems certain to me that Bigelow has already cleared these rules
with Musk as doable, with the Falcon V or a future SpaceX heavy-lift
vehicle. This prize is on such a short timetable (only 5 years from
now) that it would seem silly for Bigelow not to have somebody and
something specific in mind when he's setting out the rules. Of
course, Musk hasn't flown anything yet. We will see how or if the
company gets off the ground.

The timetable is the most interesting aspect of the prize for me. The
government-funded CEV is coming around '14. Maybe Bigelow hopes that
private companies will look at potential follow-on NASA business as an
incentive to develop for his modules. If an inexpensive capsule
became available that could be docked with ISS as well as with
Bigelow's modules, wouldn't NASA be tempted to pull the plug on CEV?
It would also ensure that Shuttle stays dead come '10.

If nothing else, Bigelow may have bought us spectators a lot of good
entertainment for the next 5 years. Can't be bad.

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
...Look at the ISS, it is limited in operations because they
don't have the lifeboats to carry as many people as the ISS can hold...

And because there's no ability to simply send a ship up on short notice
when there's a problem. We don't provide for emergencies in isolated
communities here by stationing aircraft at each one continuously.

I think he is thinking a space hotel is like a cruise ship, if something bad
happens you must be prepare to handle it without any local help. On the
other hand Jeff's idea that the max wait time should be measured in weeks not
months is a good one, always rotate your craft to Earth on a short cycle and
test/maintain them every trip down.

If it is to be treated like a cruise ship, tthe capabilities of the lifeboats
should be far less than teh ability to successfully deorbit. That would be
like requiring the ocean-going lifeboats to be able to carry crew from the
Middle of teh Pacific to safety. Stay on orbit and keep people alive, sure.


Earl Colby Pottinger


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++