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?
Do you mean 10 mil to build the ship or to buy the ticket to ride?
My prediction is that the orbital taxi system will cost about 1/4 billion
to build. That includes the mandatory launch assist system because there will
never be an affordable true SSTO.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

(Allen Meece) 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?
Do you mean 10 mil to build the ship or to buy the ticket to ride?
My prediction is that the orbital taxi system will cost about 1/4 billion
to build. That includes the mandatory launch assist system because there will
never be an affordable true SSTO.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

Our Space Van 2008 should fit this description. Our budget
goal for development is $200 million--with the unusual, but
low-tech, assist system costing about $20 million for building
and flight-testing this portion of the system.

The goal for recurring costs per flight is as far under
$500,000 per flight as we can make it for a pilot, passenger
and a tonne of other payload.

After nearly five decades of thinking about launch systems,
I find that conceptual design is still the biggest payoff
"technology." Exploratory design has generally been short-
changed by "ground rules" imposed on most government-funded
studies. I'm hoping that further analysis supports my
current estimates for the Space Van 2008--but I'm still
working on it. I plan to present whatever I have at that
time to SAS-04 in Phoenix, 21-24 April.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http:/www.tour2space.com

Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Mike


Allen Meece wrote:

The XPrize is a step in the direction of commercial *orbiters*. Burt Rutan has
said that just the FAA certification for the sub-orb SpaceShip1 would cost ten
million. Thanks, FAA.
A mid-size Bombardier bizjet costs 17 million. And that doesn't include a
flyback launcher :-0
When the XPrize is won, we must immediately start an "X-2 Prize" but the nut
will have to be at least $100 million.

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?
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval. The
US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere. (If
someone else also has jurisdiction, satisfying both is your problem.)
The FAA may decide that the local authorities are competent and it need
not pay close attention, but that is its decision, not theirs. And if
there is the slightest hint that the purpose of the move is specifically
to evade regulation...

Besides, taking US-built rocket/space hardware to another country would
get them involved with export regulations. This is known as "out of the
frying pan and into the fire". The FAA is at least generally rational;
the export people don't care whether their rules make sense.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Abrigon Gusiq writes (after correcting his sin of
"top posting"):

Allen Meece wrote (after correcting _his_ sin of "top posting," and
re-inserting attribute to the individual he quoted without attribution):

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote (after correcting
Allan Meece's failure to use standard usenet attribution and
quotation conventions):

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 XPrize is a step in the direction of commercial *orbiters*.
Burt Rutan has said that just the FAA certification for the sub-orb
SpaceShip1 would cost ten million. Thanks, FAA.
A mid-size Bombardier bizjet costs 17 million. And that doesn't
include a flyback launcher :-0
When the XPrize is won, we must immediately start an "X-2 Prize"
but the nut will have to be at least $100 million.

Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

...However, _if_ they were to do so, then they could never come _back_
to the U.S.A. without being immediately thrown in jail for violating
U.S. FAA regulations, because the U.S. Gov't insists that said FAA
regulations _STILL_ apply to all U.S. citizens no matter _WHERE_
in the world they happen to be flying at the time that they allegedly
violated said FAA regulations.

Moreover, if the country said U.S. citizens attempted to fly from happens
to have an extradition treaty with the U.S. Gov't, said country's gov't
is obligated to arrest said U.S. citizens _for_ the U.S. Gov't, and deport
them back to the U.S. for trial.

Since most U.S. citizens probably will not consider US$ 10 million
to be worth emigrating to a country that has no extradition treaties
with the U.S. Gov't (such as Communist China, Libya, or Iran),
and since the U.S. Gov't would not allow the "ill-gotten" prize-money
to be transfered to such heinous regulation-violating "criminals,"
but would seize both it, the rest of their property, and the property of
their corporation under any one of several different asset forfeiture laws,
it is highly unlikely that any U.S. citizen will do as you suggest...


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval. The
US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere.

Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case a bit
of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen from
prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For example, it
should be possible to get around the problem simply by having the U.S.
citizen establish a business in a foreign country, which would then be the
legal entity that would design, build, and fly the rocket.

Some of the basic techniques used to establish tax havens seem likely
mechanisms.

In article ,
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Moreover, if the country said U.S. citizens attempted to fly from happens
to have an extradition treaty with the U.S. Gov't, said country's gov't
is obligated to arrest said U.S. citizens _for_ the U.S. Gov't, and deport
them back to the U.S. for trial.

Not an area I know a lot about, but my understanding is that the usual
extradition treaty (a) gives the local government the final say over any
specific extradition action, and (b) stipulates that the alleged criminal
act must be something that both countries agree is a crime. (For example,
Canada would not extradite US draft dodgers during the Vietnam War.)

Since most U.S. citizens probably will not consider US$ 10 million
to be worth emigrating to a country that has no extradition treaties
with the U.S. Gov't (such as Communist China, Libya, or Iran),
and since the U.S. Gov't would not allow the "ill-gotten" prize-money
to be transfered to such heinous regulation-violating "criminals,"...

More fundamentally, the rules for the X Prize -- and almost certainly any
successor prize too -- require compliance with all relevant laws and
regulations.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In message
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:

Moreover, if the country said U.S. citizens attempted to fly from happens
to have an extradition treaty with the U.S. Gov't, said country's gov't
is obligated to arrest said U.S. citizens _for_ the U.S. Gov't, and deport
them back to the U.S. for trial.

Not neccesarily. Extradition treaties can only usually be invoked for
acts that are crimes in both jurisdictions, see the recent case of the
Australian wanted for crimes against the RIAA for example.

Anthony

--
| Weather prediction will never be accurate until we |
| kill all the butterflies |

Jim Logajan wrote in message 3...
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval. The
US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere.

Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case a bit
of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen from
prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For example, it
should be possible to get around the problem simply by having the U.S.
citizen establish a business in a foreign country, which would then be the
legal entity that would design, build, and fly the rocket.

Then, instead of DoT sending the U.S. citizen to jail, the
Dept. of State would do the honors for violating technology
export laws.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Some of the basic techniques used to establish tax havens seem likely
mechanisms.

Jim Logajan wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval. The
US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere.

Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case a bit
of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen from
prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For example, it
should be possible to get around the problem simply by having the U.S.
citizen establish a business in a foreign country, which would then be the
legal entity that would design, build, and fly the rocket.

Nope. Even simple involvement of US capital is enough to have FAA invovled.
More precicely - FAA can if it wants get involved anyways, its just that if
you don't directly have US connections they can at worst embargo you or
have an accident happen during a cruise missile test flight if you are unlucky
enough to be based in a 3rd world country.


Some of the basic techniques used to establish tax havens seem likely
mechanisms.

Unlike space launch technology, tax avoidance is not on the US list of
"stamp out at all costs" strategic weaponry related technology.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++