X Prize 2

Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable? Could
someone build a reusable ship that is capable taking three passengers to
orbit in a week for less than $10,000,000?

"Bootstrap Bill" writes:

Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable? Could
someone build a reusable ship that is capable taking three passengers to
orbit in a week for less than $10,000,000?

Let's look at it this way: Imagine a (somewhat lesser) second X-Prize
for "an suborbital intercontinental flight in less than one hour,
repeated on two days". What kind of problem do you see with a private
company able to launch a suborbital intercontinental craft with a
payload of a few hundred kilograms within one days notice? The current
X-Prize is still somewhat harmless, a toy, but demonstrating a way to
launch an *orbital* (or even suborbital) craft with a payload enough
(among other things) for manned flight is actually demonstrating an ICBM
built by means available to privately financed entities. You and me
might think this is great but the world as it is doesn't. I do not think
that the current political situation in the world is that much in favor
for that kind of adventure.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

In article ,
Bootstrap Bill wrote:
Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable?

It would be better to have a smaller step between the first prize and the
second one. The difference between an X-Prize vehicle and an orbital one
is very large -- many people don't understand just how big a jump that is.

The X-Prize guys have talked a little about follow-on prizes for more
demanding suborbital flights, and about possible competitions between
X-Prize-class vehicles. (Both ideas have promise, but the big question is
whether donors can be found to fund such prizes.)

Could
someone build a reusable ship that is capable taking three passengers to
orbit in a week for less than $10,000,000?

Not by any orthodox route. Nor by mildly unorthodox routes; even Rotary
Rocket thought Roton development would take over a hundred million. I
hesitate to say that it is utterly impossible, but it would take a very
unorthodox approach, even assuming that the costs are all technical and
there are no significant regulatory overheads.

(Note that there is a big difference between building a vehicle that can
carry such a payload, and getting approval for it to carry paying
passengers. Back in the 90s, Rutan's company spent about $2M building and
testing a single-engine business jet... and eventually gave up on getting
it certified for commercial service, after spending about $70M trying.
The regulatory picture is different for spaceships, however. The good
news is that orthodox certification doesn't seem to apply. The bad news
is that just what *does* apply, or more precisely *will* apply, is still
very unclear.)

That amount of money is *not* hopelessly unreasonable for building a
"bricklifter" class demonstrator -- something that will lift 1kg to orbit,
come back intact, and do it again a week later. Assuming no major
regulatory problems, that is.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message ...
Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable? Could
someone build a reusable ship that is capable taking three passengers to
orbit in a week for less than $10,000,000?

The differance between the X-prize and orbit is night and day. Thay
are not really comparable at all. But you need to start somewhere.

So no 10 million is not enough. But then again most people that enter
a race arn't there to win the money, thay are just there to win.

Greg

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message ...
Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable? Could
someone build a reusable ship that is capable taking three passengers to
orbit in a week for less than $10,000,000?

I believe so. Single stage to orbit has been discussed here many times
over.

I have developed an air breathing engine that can get you to orbit
with a mass ratio of about 7. This means you have enough reserve mass
to have fuel for landing as well as mass for heat shield.

Pure rocket SSTO designs are also possible with a small payload
fraction. (1%)

Such a vehicle could be built for well under 10 million.

Zoltan

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message ...

Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable?


No.

The X Prize winner will be a vehicle with less than 5% of the total
kinetic energy required to reach orbit.
--
Andrew J. Higgins

(Andrew Higgins) writes:

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message ...

Once the X Prize is won, is a goal of achieving orbit reasonable?

No.

The X Prize winner will be a vehicle with less than 5% of the total
kinetic energy required to reach orbit.


Nit: You are assuming "reach orbit" means, "reach orbit with an X-prize
class reusable vehicle carrying three passengers".

A prize for putting a brick in orbit (OK, OK, a five-watt radio transmitter
broadcasting "Nyah, nyah, we got here first!" on continuous loop), might be
feasible in this price range, and anyone who already has an X-prize class
vehicle has a head start on a reusable first stage for a TSTO microsatellite
launcher.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article ,
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
The current X-Prize is still somewhat harmless, a toy...

Hardly -- the V-2 was not harmless. Even an X-Prize vehicle is usable as
a weapon, given a suicidal pilot. It's not hard to sketch out nasty
scenarios, but I will refrain.

...demonstrating a way to
launch an *orbital* (or even suborbital) craft with a payload enough
(among other things) for manned flight is actually demonstrating an ICBM
built by means available to privately financed entities.

Uh, I have news for you: privately financed entities already operate
orbital launchers, and have since the late 1980s. Most of those launchers
were originally government-surplus hardware... but Pegasus, first flown in
1990, was entirely privately funded. (Pegasus's creators initially rented
time on a government launch aircraft, but for a decade now they've had
their own private one.) The cat is very much out of the bag on this.

It is so much easier to build *expendable* war rockets than to build
reusable spaceships that there is simply no point in building the latter
for use as ICBMs. (And if you're a terrorist, you don't bother with any
of this rocket stuff, it's too conspicuous -- you buy a secondhand jet.)

In the long run, when these things get *common*, then it's going to be
necessary to have space traffic control, and police/military forces are
going to need the ability to shoot down such vehicles, if only as the
final guarantee that traffic-control orders will be listened to. Trying
to limit the spread of the technology might postpone that day but won't
prevent it.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Those first, history books. Those second, forgotten, other than in
court.

Mike

(Henry Spencer) writes:

In the long run, when these things get *common*, then it's going to be
necessary to have space traffic control, and police/military forces are
going to need the ability to shoot down such vehicles, if only as the
final guarantee that traffic-control orders will be listened to. Trying
to limit the spread of the technology might postpone that day but won't
prevent it.

You don't need to tell me, tell those who are already frightened by
model rockets. Still, a suborbital craft is an ICBM actually (even if
there're differences besides the payload, like high-speed reentry) and
some space enthusiasts should look at the world we're living in. Even if
someone came up with a really good design to build cheaply a suborbital
craft -- the technical part of this problem is not the only one.

You are surely right in saying that this is just another solvable
problem, but it still is a problem to be solved in one way or another.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery