Robert Bigelow to announce $50 million orbital space prize; inflatable modules

[I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been posted about already, so
something I wrote yesterday to here.]

This is a very exciting week for private spaceflight! In addition to
the Virgin Galactic announcement, hotel entrepreneur Robert Bigelow (of
Bigelow Aerospace) has mentioned plans to announce a $50 million
orbital space prize, to a team which produces a commercial space
transport capable of sending 5-7 passengers to a Bigelow inflatable
space module by 2010. This will be dubbed "America's Space Prize."
There's an article with photographs available he

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/27bigelow/

press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040927/nym082_1.html

The inflatables themselves are quite interesting, with a docking
mechanism designed to attach with either a Russian Soyuz, a Chinese
Shenzhou, and/or whatever vehicle comes out of the aforementioned
America's Space Prize. A one-third size prototype of the inflatable
module will be launched in 2005 on the maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon
V rocket, which is itself a very interesting vehicle (~3000kg into LEO
for $12 million, and the first orbital vehicle designed to be man-rated
since the space shuttle). The first full-size inflatable habitat will
be up by 2008, and it's planned to have a crew by 2010.

Robert Bigelow was also the founder of Budget Suites of America, and is
applying a lot of the cost-cutting tricks he learned from his previous
contracting experience to the aerospace industry. He licensed the
Transhab technology from NASA (which had previously had its funding
cut), and is subcontracting for things like life support from other
companies who already have systems running.

What's exciting about this is that the inflatable modules appear to be
designed, built, and have undergone some preliminary tests. The
outsides of the modules have withstood projectile impact tests fairly
well. Pretty much all that needs to happen now is for them to undergo
further tests and be launched. Bigelow's use of multiple contractors
for the same part will allow him to ramp up production if there's a
demand for it, and sell the inflatable modules for ~$100 million each
to whoever wants them.

Regarding the prize itself, I'd actually be quite interested to see if
somebody ends up just designing a docking/descent capsule and sticking
it on a Falcon V.

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
oups.com...
[I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been posted about already, so
something I wrote yesterday to here.]

This is a very exciting week for private spaceflight! In addition to
the Virgin Galactic announcement, hotel entrepreneur Robert Bigelow (of
Bigelow Aerospace) has mentioned plans to announce a $50 million
orbital space prize, to a team which produces a commercial space
transport capable of sending 5-7 passengers to a Bigelow inflatable
space module by 2010. This will be dubbed "America's Space Prize."
There's an article with photographs available he

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/27bigelow/


LOL

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to claim
that prize for a long time. Orbital flight requires at least 20 times the
energy compared to a suborbital flight, so the prize should be 20 times that
of the X-Prize (i.e. $200 millon). For that kind of money, someone *might*
be willing to invest in such a venture, but that's a big 'if' IMHO, because
you're losing serious amounts of money if it doesn't work. And if it doesn't
work someone's likely to get killed.

For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that. The Russians are having a hard time
realizing it (both technically and financially) and the U.S. isn't even
thinking about one at the moment (but I suspect that will change in the near
future). I believe this is far beyond private commercial enterprise's
capabillities at this time but I hope I'm proven wrong.

"BitBanger" wrote in message
...

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to
claim
that prize for a long time.

While what you say is true, what's to stop other people, companies,
governments, and etc. from donating more money to the prize? I'd personally
like to see the US Government donate a few hundred million dollars each year
to the pot. The longer the prize is unclaimed, the bigger the pot grows.

For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that.

Perhaps. You could also design a TSTO where the first and second stages are
recoverd and reused and incorporate the flight deck into the second stage.
This ought to be easier than recovering the space shuttle, because the
second stage would be mostly large, empty tankage.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"BitBanger" wrote in message
...

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to
claim
that prize for a long time.

While what you say is true, what's to stop other people, companies,
governments, and etc. from donating more money to the prize? I'd
personally
like to see the US Government donate a few hundred million dollars each
year
to the pot. The longer the prize is unclaimed, the bigger the pot grows.

That doesn't change the fundemental problem that orbital flight is too
expensive at the moment. Subsidizing it with government money (even if it's
prize money) changes market mechanisms and will not lead to cheaper access
to space. In other words: if private enterprise can't finance it by itself,
it's probably not worth the effort. OTOH private enterpise has financed
billion+ dollar projects before. If private enterprise isn't interested it's
because there's not a clear perception of what the market 'up there' will
be. Space tourism? It's kind of iffy, because you'd have to be able to spend
$100.000+ for a stay in an orbital hotel. How many people are there in the
world who can afford that? How many of these would actually go? How many of
them would do it more than once? It should be possible to calculate the
financial viabillity of such an endeavor. If you compare, for example,
airplane tickets in the early 1920's and 1930's, these were hugely expensive
(about $30.000 in current dollars). Yet there were still quite a few wealthy
laggards willing to pay for it. So I have some hope that orbital tourism
will be viable, even though it will initially be only in reach for the very
affluent.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:47:12 +0200, in a place far, far away,
"BitBanger" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

That doesn't change the fundemental problem that orbital flight is too
expensive at the moment. Subsidizing it with government money (even if it's
prize money) changes market mechanisms and will not lead to cheaper access
to space. In other words: if private enterprise can't finance it by itself,
it's probably not worth the effort. OTOH private enterpise has financed
billion+ dollar projects before. If private enterprise isn't interested it's
because there's not a clear perception of what the market 'up there' will
be. Space tourism? It's kind of iffy, because you'd have to be able to spend
$100.000+ for a stay in an orbital hotel. How many people are there in the
world who can afford that? How many of these would actually go? How many of
them would do it more than once?

Do you believe that you're the first person who's ever made these
objections, or asked such questions, in this newsgroup? That having
been finally blessed with your wisdom after all these years of
discussing this, we're going to hit ourselves on the forehead and say,
"Gosh! BitBanger is right! We need to do some market research!"

It should be possible to calculate the
financial viabillity of such an endeavor.

It not only should be, but is possible, and many people have done it.

If you compare, for example,
airplane tickets in the early 1920's and 1930's, these were hugely expensive
(about $30.000 in current dollars). Yet there were still quite a few wealthy
laggards willing to pay for it. So I have some hope that orbital tourism
will be viable, even though it will initially be only in reach for the very
affluent.

And that's a problem why?

"BitBanger" wrote:

Orbital flight requires at least 20 times the
energy compared to a suborbital flight, so the prize should be 20 times that
of the X-Prize (i.e. $200 millon).

Energy costs are nearly irrelevant to the cost of spaceflight today. (The
way I see it, the biggest cost driver is thermal protection during
reentry.)

"BitBanger" :

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
oups.com...
[I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been posted about already, so
something I wrote yesterday to here.]

This is a very exciting week for private spaceflight! In addition to
the Virgin Galactic announcement, hotel entrepreneur Robert Bigelow (of
Bigelow Aerospace) has mentioned plans to announce a $50 million
orbital space prize, to a team which produces a commercial space
transport capable of sending 5-7 passengers to a Bigelow inflatable
space module by 2010. This will be dubbed "America's Space Prize."
There's an article with photographs available he

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/27bigelow/


LOL

LOL at you. Silly boy don't you that is what some people did when the Xprize
was first suggestted. But it seems to be working.

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to claim
that prize for a long time. Orbital flight requires at least 20 times the
energy compared to a suborbital flight, so the prize should be 20 times
that
of the X-Prize (i.e. $200 millon). For that kind of money, someone *might*
be willing to invest in such a venture, but that's a big 'if' IMHO, because
you're losing serious amounts of money if it doesn't work. And if it
doesn't
work someone's likely to get killed.

What does the size of the prize have to do with the costs? The present prize
is 10 million, but most people are quoting $20 million for the SS1 & it's
carrier. Clearly the prize does not have to cover all costs to get people
started in construction.

Infact, name one single major racing event with machines involved where the
prize is greater than the construction of the craft used. Not NASCAR, not
Formula One, not the Jules Verne Prize, not the America Cup. Infact I don't
think the prize of the Tour du France covers the costs of bikes and training.

All that matter is the prize exists and look worth trying for.

And as for someone getting killed, what is this stupid fear of death that you
think you must try to wrap us all in cotton to protect us from ourselves.
Have you stop driving in a car because you could get killed? Avoided tall
buildings? Refused to fly on airplanes or sailed on ships because you could
get killed? What a dull life you must live.

I canoe every year knowing people have drown, I climb mountains (small ones)
knowing people fall to thier death. I drive a car on Ontario's major
highways to the cabin and have even seen a major accident happen between
three cars, a jeep, a towed boat, and a large RV that drifted into thier lane
just 100 meters in front of me. Does that mean I should lock myself up at
home?

For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that. The Russians are having a hard time
realizing it (both technically and financially) and the U.S. isn't even
thinking about one at the moment (but I suspect that will change in the
near
future). I believe this is far beyond private commercial enterprise's
capabillities at this time but I hope I'm proven wrong.

A) What does big have to do with safe? Safety comes from good designs not
size. Remember the Titanic?

B) What does government programs have to do with costing of private programs?
NASA would have spent $20 million just designing the SS1, then they would
try adding so many safety features the costs of finished product would be sky
high, that is assuming that they would get it finished. Lately NASA has had
a lot of unfinished X-craft.

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

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:47:12 +0200, in a place far, far away,
"BitBanger" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

That doesn't change the fundemental problem that orbital flight is too
expensive at the moment. Subsidizing it with government money (even if
it's
prize money) changes market mechanisms and will not lead to cheaper
access
to space. In other words: if private enterprise can't finance it by
itself,
it's probably not worth the effort. OTOH private enterpise has financed
billion+ dollar projects before. If private enterprise isn't interested
it's
because there's not a clear perception of what the market 'up there' will
be. Space tourism? It's kind of iffy, because you'd have to be able to
spend
$100.000+ for a stay in an orbital hotel. How many people are there in
the
world who can afford that? How many of these would actually go? How many
of
them would do it more than once?

Do you believe that you're the first person who's ever made these
objections, or asked such questions, in this newsgroup? That having
been finally blessed with your wisdom after all these years of
discussing this, we're going to hit ourselves on the forehead and say,
"Gosh! BitBanger is right! We need to do some market research!"

Please don't pummel BitBanger for always being right.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:58:31 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Henk
Boonsma" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you believe that you're the first person who's ever made these
objections, or asked such questions, in this newsgroup? That having
been finally blessed with your wisdom after all these years of
discussing this, we're going to hit ourselves on the forehead and say,
"Gosh! BitBanger is right! We need to do some market research!"

Please don't pummel BitBanger for always being right.

I certainly didn't intend to do that. I'm pretty sure that's not even
possible.

BitBanger wrote:
This is a very exciting week for private spaceflight! In addition to
the Virgin Galactic announcement, hotel entrepreneur Robert Bigelow (of
Bigelow Aerospace) has mentioned plans to announce a $50 million
orbital space prize, to a team which produces a commercial space
transport capable of sending 5-7 passengers to a Bigelow inflatable
space module by 2010. This will be dubbed "America's Space Prize."
There's an article with photographs available he

LOL

$50 million for a spaceship carrying 5-7 passengers into orbit and bring
them back safely? What a joke. There's no way someone will be able to claim
that prize for a long time. Orbital flight requires at least 20 times the
energy compared to a suborbital flight, so the prize should be 20 times that
of the X-Prize (i.e. $200 millon).

SpaceX is selling their Falcon V (which hasn't flown yet, to be fair)
for $12 million plus range fees per flight, if you order the flight
this year.

That leaves you $38 million for combined R&D on capsule and eventual
profit, if you care to do the accounting in that manner.

For that kind of money, someone *might*
be willing to invest in such a venture, but that's a big 'if' IMHO, because
you're losing serious amounts of money if it doesn't work. And if it doesn't
work someone's likely to get killed.

Paul Allen put about twice the X-prize value into Scaled Composites'
project for SpaceShip One. They are *not* making money off the project
as a whole. They may well make money off followon business.

For this kind of craft to be anywhere near safe it would have to be a
capsule, and a big one at that.

It should fit on a Falcon V.

[...] and the U.S. isn't even
thinking about one at the moment (but I suspect that will change in the near
future).

Please research the NASA Crewed Exploration Vehicle and Moon/Mars
programs, BitBanger. NASA is paying right now for development
of capsules in this capabilities range, for their post-Shuttle
manned earth orbit access, the Lunar program, and eventual
extensions out to the Mars missions.

I believe this is far beyond private commercial enterprise's
capabillities at this time but I hope I'm proven wrong.

I don't think you are really aware of what private commercial
enterprise's capabilities are at this time, if you weren't
aware of who all responded to CEV and Moon/Mars. Plenty of
info out there, though, so you can hopefully educate yourself
pretty quickly if you care about it.


-george william herbert