Reentry prize?

After the claiming of the X-Prize (hopefully) this year, and with the NASA
centennial challenges program, there is some need for new ideas for
aerospace prizes. One very simple upgrade to the X-Prize idea would be an
upgraded X-Prize with a significant downrange component.

But there is another area of space flight that is really unexplored and has
the potential for very high gains with comparatively low investments:
reentry and landing. There are numerous interesting concepts for reentry,
and most of them have never been tried (this is what NASA should have been
doing!).

Just to name a few: exotic metallic heat shields, exotic ceramic heat
shields, cheap ablative heat shields, water cooled heat shields, heat sink
heat shields, very large hypersonic drogue chutes, hypersonic parawings,
light inflatable heat shields, large unfolding radiatively cooled metallic
heat shields etc.

What about this idea for a new aerospace price: participants get a payload
of a defined mass (e.g. 100kg) and volume (e.g. 1m^3), and the objective of
the prize is to soft-land as much as possible of the mass from orbital
velocity.

Put in some eggs, and they should be neither cooked nor broken :-)

To sort out serious competitors, you would first do multiple drop tests from
low altitude. This can be very cheap by using a military transport plane.

Then you do one or two high altitude drop test from a stratospheric ballon
at 30km altitude or from an X-Price vehicle at 100km altitude.

All competitors whose reentry vehicles survive these initial tests are given
a free ride to orbit with a low-cost launch vehicle such as falcon, an old
(russian?) ICBM or as a secondary payload on a large launch vehicle.

The most practical approach would probably be to use a falcon I or an old
ICBM to get ~10 reentry vehicles in an almost orbital trajectory and to
separate them. Then they would be on their own and would have to survive
reentry and landing. Additional points could be given for hitting a
precalculated point downrange and for crossrange.

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated by
the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules. So among the potential
participants would be universities, companies that want to demonstrate
their reentry technology and probably also non-profit organisations and
individuals.

Of course the exact requirements for this price would have to be worked out,
but I think the basic idea has some merit. With propulsion prizes, the
barrier of entry is very high, and no amount of ingenuity will get the ISP
of a hydrocarbon engine above 400s and the ISP of a LOX/LH2 engine above
500s. With reentry, the barrier of entry is comparatively low (a "starter
kit" would be an aerodynamically stable capsule with a wood heat shield, a
barometer and a parachute) and the potential gains are huge.

So what do you think?

best regards,

Rüdiger

A great idea -- I second the mo!


"Ruediger Klaehn" wrote in message
...
After the claiming of the X-Prize (hopefully) this year, and with the NASA
centennial challenges program, there is some need for new ideas for
aerospace prizes. One very simple upgrade to the X-Prize idea would be an
upgraded X-Prize with a significant downrange component.

But there is another area of space flight that is really unexplored and
has
the potential for very high gains with comparatively low investments:
reentry and landing. There are numerous interesting concepts for reentry,
and most of them have never been tried (this is what NASA should have been
doing!).

Just to name a few: exotic metallic heat shields, exotic ceramic heat
shields, cheap ablative heat shields, water cooled heat shields, heat sink
heat shields, very large hypersonic drogue chutes, hypersonic parawings,
light inflatable heat shields, large unfolding radiatively cooled metallic
heat shields etc.

What about this idea for a new aerospace price: participants get a payload
of a defined mass (e.g. 100kg) and volume (e.g. 1m^3), and the objective
of
the prize is to soft-land as much as possible of the mass from orbital
velocity.

Put in some eggs, and they should be neither cooked nor broken :-)

To sort out serious competitors, you would first do multiple drop tests
from
low altitude. This can be very cheap by using a military transport plane.

Then you do one or two high altitude drop test from a stratospheric ballon
at 30km altitude or from an X-Price vehicle at 100km altitude.

All competitors whose reentry vehicles survive these initial tests are
given
a free ride to orbit with a low-cost launch vehicle such as falcon, an old
(russian?) ICBM or as a secondary payload on a large launch vehicle.

The most practical approach would probably be to use a falcon I or an old
ICBM to get ~10 reentry vehicles in an almost orbital trajectory and to
separate them. Then they would be on their own and would have to survive
reentry and landing. Additional points could be given for hitting a
precalculated point downrange and for crossrange.

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated
by
the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules. So among the potential
participants would be universities, companies that want to demonstrate
their reentry technology and probably also non-profit organisations and
individuals.

Of course the exact requirements for this price would have to be worked
out,
but I think the basic idea has some merit. With propulsion prizes, the
barrier of entry is very high, and no amount of ingenuity will get the ISP
of a hydrocarbon engine above 400s and the ISP of a LOX/LH2 engine above
500s. With reentry, the barrier of entry is comparatively low (a "starter
kit" would be an aerodynamically stable capsule with a wood heat shield, a
barometer and a parachute) and the potential gains are huge.

So what do you think?

best regards,

Rüdiger

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated by
the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules.

Hmm... No.

Unless the Chinese are doing something *very* different from others in
the past, the wood is carefully chosen (no knots!), carefully formed,
and carefully prepared to meet specific density and performance
characteristics.

Not particularly easy, nor likely much cheaper than other methods.

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

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated
by the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules.

Hmm... No.

Unless the Chinese are doing something *very* different from others in
the past, the wood is carefully chosen (no knots!), carefully formed,
and carefully prepared to meet specific density and performance
characteristics.

Of course you can not just slap a wooden board to the base of your capsule.
For optimum effect you will probably have the pores pointing downward. But
a wooden heat shield is nevertheless a low-tech approach that is doable for
an amateur group or an university.

I am not saying that wooden heat shields are the best solution. In fact, I
don't know what the best solution is. But that is what the prize is
supposed to find out.

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated
by the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules.

Hmm... No.
Unless the Chinese are doing something *very* different from others in
the past, the wood is carefully chosen (no knots!), carefully formed,
and carefully prepared to meet specific density and performance
characteristics.

Of course you can not just slap a wooden board to the base of your capsule.
For optimum effect you will probably have the pores pointing downward. But
a wooden heat shield is nevertheless a low-tech approach that is doable for
an amateur group or an university.

I see no evidence that it is a low tech approach. Don't confuse
simplicity of approach and (misleadingly) apparent simplicity of
material with low tech and low cost.

I am not saying that wooden heat shields are the best solution. In fact, I
don't know what the best solution is. But that is what the prize is
supposed to find out.

No one is addressing the question of what constitutes the best
approach. We are instead considering the question of whether or not a
wooden heat shield is in fact cheap or simple.

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

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

[snip]

I am not saying that wooden heat shields are the best solution. In fact, I
don't know what the best solution is. But that is what the prize is
supposed to find out.

No one is addressing the question of what constitutes the best
approach. We are instead considering the question of whether or not a
wooden heat shield is in fact cheap or simple.

I never said that building a wooden heat shield is cheap or simple. In fact
it is probably quite expensive with western labor costs since it requires a
lot of manual labor for assembly and quality control.

But it is still a low-tech approach compared to almost anything else that
has been suggested for heat shields.

Since we do not know the exact design of the chinese heat shield there is no
way we can find out who is right, so we might as well end the discussion.

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:
I never said that building a wooden heat shield is cheap or simple. In fact
it is probably quite expensive with western labor costs since it requires a
lot of manual labor for assembly and quality control.

But it is still a low-tech approach compared to almost anything else that
has been suggested for heat shields.

Commonly 'low-tech' is interpreted to mean 'cheap and simple'. If
it's *not* cheap and simple, then the technology level is essentially
irrelevant.

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

Ruediger Klaehn wrote:


Since we do not know the exact design of the chinese heat shield there is no
way we can find out who is right, so we might as well end the discussion.


First off, "Chinese Heat Shield" would be a great name for a cocktail in
some type; probably one that's on fire when they bring it to you. If you
don't want it on fire, then it's a "Chinese Fire Drill".
Second, according to this it's made out of ablative impregnated oak:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/fsw.htm

Pat

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
Ruediger Klaehn wrote:

The barrier of entry for such a price would be very low, as demonstrated by
the wooden heat shields on some chinese capsules.

Hmm... No.

Unless the Chinese are doing something *very* different from others in
the past, the wood is carefully chosen (no knots!), carefully formed,
and carefully prepared to meet specific density and performance
characteristics.

Not particularly easy, nor likely much cheaper than other methods.

D.

You're such a killjoy Derek. Jeesh

I think it's a great idea, although I have some serious doubts about
any NASA-led selection process for 'finalists.'

Tom Merkle

(Tom Merkle) wrote:
You're such a killjoy Derek. Jeesh

Sorry, I wasn't aware that facts were now not acceptable in these
groups.

I think it's a great idea,

I never said it wasn't. I merely adressed one issue raised by the OP.

People need to learn to freaking read.

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