N-Prize Founder Paul Dear Talks Prizes For Nanosat Race

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)."

Re:English - English Translation...

[Paranatural]

Launching it for a couple of grand? Maybe. I'm being serious, really, I can conceive it.

However, a satellite weighing less than three quarters of an ounce yet able to be detected on the earth would most likely need an aluminum-foil dish or something, which would most likely take all the weight, and then you'd need some sort of support structure (Even if it's just wires or even tubes of air) and some sort of engine on it to make sure it made it around the earth a few times...I just think the weight requirements are the real killer here.

Sounds unfeasible

[OhEd]

Getting into orbit for less than $2,000 seems absurd (and not even worth firing up Rocksim to get specific figures). Ground launch would require very large motors - just the motor casings (solid or hybrid fuel) would likely cost over $2000. (98mm solid fuel casing costs about $500; that size motor might be able to achieve orbital altitude, but nowhere near orbital velocity). Add the cost of the fuel and a guidance system, surely it would cost many tens of thousands of dollars to get into orbit. Any other rocketeers here see a way to get into orbit for anywhere near $2,000? Or even $20,000? Sounds to me that the Dear Doctor has been Pounded on the head by a (sterling) Silver Hammer.

Why an upper weight limit?

[seriv]

If you can get something in orbit for about $2k, I don't see why an upper weight limit would matter. Satellites are made as light as possible to keep down the cost of the launch, so I would think the goal would be to make the thing as heavy as possible within that budget. Whole thing seems stupid.

Re:A rocket scientist asks...

[Yvanhoe]

It is not the satellite that is important. It is the launcher. A 1000 £ orbital launcher of 20 grams satellites is assured to bring some innovation to the art of spatial launch.

Re:A rocket scientist asks...

[Urger]

Because it's cool. No other reason is needed.

Re:A rocket scientist asks...

[starglider29a]

In a better world... True that!

But most things that involve BOTH propellant and the word "Cool" violate the National Association of Rocketry Safety Code. Let alone the Patriot Act!

Re:A rocket scientist asks...

[WhiplashII]

Why is a rocket so much more dangerous than a 747? You can currently build a cruise missile that will reach anywhere on the planet for a few $10K... why is a rocket so much more dangerous?

We need to get over this "rockets are scary" mentality - rockets are another way of moving from A to B, nothing more. Any method of moving can be abused, but the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

There's a reason the Saturn 5 was so big...

[mustangsal]

See Sputnik... It only weighed 186 pounds and needed an 280 Metric ton launch vehicle... The fuel alone will cost more than $2k. Hmm... Big Model Rockets.... Nope... I believe the record altitude for model rocketry is just under 20,000 feet (Gates). A little short of space I'm also pretty sure they spent more than $2k to build it as well.. All in all a neat little marketing gimick.

Re:You are designing a cannon to launch satellites

[ceoyoyo]

I really don't think that's the simplest way. It SOUNDS simple, until you try to do it.

In order to get a satellite into orbit with a gun on the ground, the sat has to carry a booster rocket. A gun on it's own can achieve a suborbital or an escape trajectory, but not an orbital one.

Getting the booster rocket to survive the g forces from the gun and still fire properly, at the right time, is very tricky. The gun itself tends to have to be really long, which introduces all sorts of other complications.

Cheapest, perhaps, for certain types of cargo, once you're in the bulk launch business. Simplest? Not really.

Re:A rocket scientist asks...

[slashname3]

Who said it was targeted at person-scale accuracy? If you built a system that can launch 100 times a minute and then build a thousand such systems (remember these are low cost and presumably small because they are low cost) and then roughly aim them at a city. You could send 100000 bullets into the area every minute or 6,000,000 bullets over an hour. Even if the accuracy was covering a square mile that is going to put a crimp in anything in the target area.

And no need to fit a guidance system. Were talking ballistics here, get it high enough and it will go half way around the globe. And most likely it would be almost impossible to detect such a launch so we won't know where it came from. They could sit there for days launching bullets and no one would know about it.

That is the thing with a terror weapon, it does not have to be very accurate to cause mayhem.

The problem is that such a system is going to be, hopefully, impossible to build at the price point as stated. But if someone does figure it out and builds them then things can get very interesting.

So if you notice anyone buying 12,000,000 20 gram ball bearings make sure you notify someone.