The X Prize is stupid

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:39:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Having different people in space does not signify progress, just
duplication. As to the monies involved, they could be better used
elsewhere for more practical research.

Fine. I'll live with duplication if it means I can afford a trip to space.

When he writes "duplication," he seems to have misspelled
"competition."

Typical socialist thinking.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Karl Hallowell wrote:

[snip]

Cheaper doesn't mean viable. Just because you can launch something
once doesn't mean you have the necessary infrastructure to make it a
sustainable enterprise.

Turnaround and reflight within a limited time period is part of the
X-Prize rules.

Don't forget that the turnaround specified in the X-Prize is a new
technological hurdle. Ie, we're looking at reusable manned vehicles
with turn arounds under ten days!

Which seems reasonable. When the DC-X/Delta Clipper was initially
proposed, the turnaround time was not to exceed (IIRC) seven days, with
a five day 'surge' capability. The DC-X once flew twice in two days, and
only a deteriorating weather situation prevented two flights on the
first of those days. Engine cooldown seemed to be the ultimate limiting
factor.

Now of course, it was not an orbital flight in either case, but
assuming that not much more than TPS inspection would've been necessary
for an orbit-capable version (it was already emphasized by Pete Conrad
that no more people or ground support equipment than they used, were
required for an orbital ship), this seems to be a first approxamation of
what's possible.....

In article ,
(garfangle) wrote:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)
How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

Sorry to reply to this so late but ... actually ... no government or
government-sponsored corporate has *ever* sent three (or more) people to
100 km high (or higher), and then done it again in the same vehicle
within two weeks.

The closest is the X15 sending one person 100 km high. I don't know
what the time interval between such flights was, but presumably they
could have made the two week limit if they wanted to.

The only other contender is the Shuttle, which takes more than three
people and rather higher and faster, but has probably never flown less
than six months apart, and blows the detailed reusability specs as well,
due to the solids and external tank, if nothing else.

So the X-Prize *is* advancing the absolute state of the art, along some
axis.

-- Bruce

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(garfangle) wrote:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)
How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?


The only other contender is the Shuttle, which takes more than three
people and rather higher and faster, but has probably never flown less
than six months apart, and blows the detailed reusability specs as well,
due to the solids and external tank, if nothing else.

Actually I think the fastest turn-around time for a single shuttle has been
under 3 months.

(To busy to check Jenkin's this morning.)



So the X-Prize *is* advancing the absolute state of the art, along some
axis.

-- Bruce

In article , Bruce Hoult wrote:

Sorry to reply to this so late but ... actually ... no government or
government-sponsored corporate has *ever* sent three (or more) people to
100 km high (or higher), and then done it again in the same vehicle
within two weeks.

The closest is the X15 sending one person 100 km high. I don't know
what the time interval between such flights was, but presumably they
could have made the two week limit if they wanted to.

About a month - say three to five weeks - from astronautix; I suspect
had they had the two-week turnaround as a goal, they could have had a
shot at it. Mary?

The only other contender is the Shuttle, which takes more than three
people and rather higher and faster, but has probably never flown less
than six months apart, and blows the detailed reusability specs as well,
due to the solids and external tank, if nothing else.

Columbia flew three months apart in '97 (the reflight of STS-83 as -94)
and '82 (between STS-3 and -4). Challenger flew two and a half months
apart in '83 (STS-6 and -7), and there were only two months between 41-B
and -C in 1984. Discovery flew 41-D and 51-A a shade over two months
apart, and 51-C less than two months later. 51-D and -G, and then -I,
again, a little over two months apart. There were also a couple of
missions in the mid 80s cancelled due to payload problems which would
have flown about two months apart.

So, STS has flown in between eight and ten weeks on a reasonably common
basis, at least pre-Challenger, but it's still nowhere near the
requirements - indeed, one could argue that the prise was written to
exclude anything a government was likely to have in a warehouse :-)

--
-Andrew Gray

Just out of curiousity, has any non-government-funded manned vehicle
even broken the sound barrier?
--
Jim Matthews
Fetch Softworks
http://fetchsoftworks.com

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:17:19 -0400, in a place far, far away, James
Matthews made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Just out of curiousity, has any non-government-funded manned vehicle
even broken the sound barrier?

http://www.landspeed.com/learn.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:17:19 -0400, in a place far, far away, James
Matthews made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Just out of curiousity, has any non-government-funded manned vehicle
even broken the sound barrier?

http://www.landspeed.com/learn.html

Didn't the Bede 1 also?



--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:34:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:17:19 -0400, in a place far, far away, James
Matthews made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Just out of curiousity, has any non-government-funded manned vehicle
even broken the sound barrier?

http://www.landspeed.com/learn.html

Didn't the Bede 1 also?

Could be. I'm not that familiar with the history, as to whether or
not it actually succeeded.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

Just out of curiousity, has any non-government-funded manned vehicle
even broken the sound barrier?

http://www.landspeed.com/learn.html

Didn't the Bede 1 also?

Could be. I'm not that familiar with the history, as to whether or
not it actually succeeded.

How much do the F-5 or the F-20 figure into this conversation?

--
Phil Fraering "We're advising our clients to put everything
they have into canned food and shotguns."