Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck Science Technology

N-Prize Founder Paul Dear Talks Prizes For Nanosat Race 217

Rob Goldsmith writes to point out this interview with Dr. Paul Dear, founder of the N-Prize, and explains: "For those of you who haven yet heard of the N-Prize, the N-Prize is a £9,999.99 (sterling) cash prize which can be claimed by any individual, or group, who are able to prove that they have put into orbit a small satellite. The satellite must weigh between 9.99 and 19.99 grams, and must orbit the Earth at least 9 times. This project must be done within a budget of £999.99 (sterling)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

N-Prize Founder Paul Dear Talks Prizes For Nanosat Race

Comments Filter:
  • by KlTheKiten ( 20181 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @10:47AM (#23823239) Journal
    "For those of you who haven yet heard of the N-Prize, the N-Prize is a $19,636.90 (dollars) cash prize which can be claimed by any individual, or group, who are able to prove that they have put into orbit a small satellite. The satellite must weigh between 0.35 and 0.71 ounces, and must orbit the Earth at least 9 times. This project must be done within a budget of $1,963.67 (dollars)."
  • by jersey_emt ( 846314 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @10:57AM (#23823379) Homepage
    From the rules at http://www.n-prize.com/ [n-prize.com] --

    15. Piggybacking and Shared Resources
    Entrants may not 'piggyback' on other aerospace projects (for example, by launching a satellite as a passenger on a larger launch vehicle). If they do so, the entire cost of the launch will be considered part of the budget of their N-Prize entry. Similarly, no two entries (whether simultaneous or consecutive; whether by the same entrant or different entrants) are allowed to share the cost of common hardware (for example, if a single launch vehicle carries two satellites, then the total cost of the launch vehicle will be considered part of the budget for each of the two satellites).
  • by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:07AM (#23823495)
    It's a pound that's 92.5% pure
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:13AM (#23823573)
    Perhaps to distinguish it from an Egyptian pound, or the Cypriot Pound.
  • by dkf ( 304284 ) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:16AM (#23823615) Homepage

    You know in England when they switched to metric in bars they went from getting a pints to half litres and the price went up, man.
    Beer is still sold in pints (and half-pints) in England. Really.
  • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:19AM (#23823661) Journal
    From Wikipedia:

    Name

    The full, official name pound sterling (plural: pounds sterling) is used mainly in formal contexts and also when it is necessary to distinguish the currency used within the United Kingdom from others that have the same name. Otherwise the term pound is normally used. The currency name is sometimes abbreviated to just "sterling", particularly in the wholesale financial markets, but not in amounts; so "payment accepted in sterling" but never "that costs five sterling". The abbreviations "ster." or "stg." are sometimes used. The term British pound is commonly used in less formal contexts, although it is not an official name of the currency. A common slang term is quid (plural quid).

    The term sterling is derived from the fact that, about the year of 775, silver coins known as "sterlings" were issued in the Saxon kingdoms,[6][dubious - discuss] 240 of them being minted from a pound of silver, the weight of which was probably about equal to the later troy pound. Because of this, large payments came to be reckoned in "pounds of sterlings", a phrase that was later shortened to "pounds sterling". After the Norman Conquest, the pound was divided for simplicity of accounting into 20 shillings and into 240 pennies, or pence. For a discussion of the etymology of "sterling" see Sterling silver.

    The currency sign is the pound sign, originally with two cross-bars, then later more commonly £ with a single cross-bar. The pound sign derives from the blackletter "L", from the abbreviation[citation needed] LSD - librae, solidi, denarii - used for the pounds, shillings and pence of the original duodecimal currency system. Libra was the basic Roman unit of weight, derived from the Latin word for scales or balance. The ISO 4217 currency code is GBP (Great Britain pound). Occasionally, the abbreviation UKP is used but this is incorrect. The Crown dependencies use their own (non-ISO) codes: GGP (Guernsey pound), JEP (Jersey pound) and IMP (Isle of Man pound). Stocks are often traded in pence, so traders may refer to pence sterling, GBX (sometimes GBp), when listing stock prices.
  • by Cassini2 ( 956052 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:38AM (#23823927)

    The simplest way to launch satellites is to design a great big gun. The U.S. did some experiments with this with Project HARP [wikipedia.org]. They were abandoned because manned flight required lower g-forces. However, if you just wanted to put a satellite into orbit, then guns can make sense.

    Unfortunately, the last guy to try this (Gerald V. Bull), went on to attempt to build a super-gun [wikipedia.org] for Saddam Hussein, and then mysteriously got shot [wikipedia.org] (possibly by Israel's Mossad).

    I'm not sure I want to win this contest. There have been quite a few projects in the area, and they all get canceled.

  • by The Great Pretender ( 975978 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @11:52AM (#23824183)
    The official name is Pound Sterling and normally use to distinguish from other countries currency. The plural is Pounds Sterling. Informal, and not officially, is British Pound.

    The pound sign comes from "L". Where LSD - librae, solidi, denarii - was originally used in duodecimal from pounds, shillings and pence.

    I never in my life thought that history lesson from high school would ever come in hand.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:12PM (#23824531)
    Except that in this context your "well-known fact" is wrong. English pubs use Imperial Pints. They are significatly larger then US Pints.
    0.50 liter = 1.06 US pints = 0.88 Imperial pints.
  • by WhiplashII ( 542766 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:57PM (#23825235) Homepage Journal
    Um... as a rocket engineer, I'm afraid what you are arguing makes no sense...

    1. Space is an altitude. Orbit is a velocity. You can orbit 1 inch off the ground if you could some how sustain 8 km/s - for example, if you put a pipe filled with vacuum surrounding the Earth. So to get to orbit, you need a lot of speed, not a particular position.

    2. GEO orbit (35786 km) is really hard to get to - and pretty pointless, really. Go above 400 km and you will hang around quite a while.

    3. If you are in an orbit, you cannot possibly be a risk to airplanes. (Except on the way down, and even then the risk is way smaller than the risk caused by ducks, etc. - assuming you can even survive reentry)

    Probably the easiest way to win this is with a mylar balloon as the "satellite". You could make a very large, highly reflective surface that would last a few orbits.

    That said, this is unlikely to be won - $2K is just too low, it will cost more than that to get flight insurance / government permission.
  • by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @03:16PM (#23828283) Journal
    Why is that a *whoosh*? It is correct.

    The original "Pound Sterling", way back when, was just that -- one pound of Sterling (92.5% pure) silver.
  • Paul Dear (Score:2, Informative)

    by Paul Dear ( 1309367 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @04:20PM (#23829257)
    Hi all, Wow - this thread has grown fast. A few quick answers to some points raised: 1) Why? What use is it? - For fun, and none at all, in that order. Also to prove that the world isn't run by accountants and safety officers. 2) 20 grams is too light. - No it isn't. We're beyond valves. 20 grams is plenty for a half-watt transmitter, a few square cm of solar panels, and more. Most entrants are looking to put video on their satellite (you can get camera modules weighing less than a gram). Some entrants are going for optical signalling. Either way, it's not really a problem. 3) "Other" applications/ICBMs etc - So, what? We're supposed to say 'nobody is allowed in space because there are terrorists who could use this technology'? If so, they've already won, haven't they? 4) Space junk - Yes, we'll be adding one or two pieces to the tens of thousands already up there. However, N-Prize entrants are mostly aiming for low (sub-200km) orbits, which will decay quite quickly. 5) Feasibility at the price - it's on the borderline of possiblity, using either single-use launchers OR using a small recoverable launcher (in which case, you can spend what you like on the launcher, and only the fuel and refurb costs count). 6) Cost of permits etc - If you want to get permits etc, then that's fine. Their cost is not counted as part of the budget (see full rules). 7) Come on, guys, loosen up a little! This is an invitation to play, and to try something almost impossible for no practical reason whatsoever.
  • by WhiplashII ( 542766 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @05:22PM (#23830569) Homepage Journal
    OK, I am a rocket engineer, you are not...

    No, I did not neglect gravity, air resistance, etc. Orbital velocity is 7.7 km/s. I had a few hundred m/s extra for drag, and a few for gravity. I assumed a dense fuel (that's why the Isp sucks at 280), which minimizes air drag. I assume a rapid (as in high G) boost, because I don't see how you could possibly do this otherwise. I made lots of other assumptions, all vaguely reasonable, to make a back of the envelope calculation. The most unreasonable assumption, if you want to know, is that I am assuming an SSTO - which was obvious from the math, and so since you did not call me on it you are obviously not someone who has ever designed a rocket! An SSTO is very hard at normal sizes, and a tiny one is going to really require some "clever stuff", but hey, that why you get the big bucks for this design! ;-}

    20:1 ratios have been achieved in the 1960s - yes, it is aggressive, are you saying this prize is not going to require an aggressive design?

    If you really want to go into all this, read the wiki on delta-v - last time I was there, it was pretty good. High Isp designs (450 seconds, like the shuttle) require large delta-v budgets for air resistance and gravity losses, because they use hydrogen which is not dense, leading to larger airframes and lower thrust engines. (Engine T/W ratio is linked to propellant density).

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...