Rules Set for $50 Million America's Space Prize 548
An anonymous reader wrote in to say that The rules have been set for Robert Bigelow's $50 million 'America's Space Prize'. The gist of it is that the winner needs to get a crew of five people up 400km, complete two orbits of the Earth, and then do it again within 60 days. I've got a gremlin and a huge rubber band... now if I only had 4 friends!
How long... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How long... (Score:3, Informative)
But then again, Rutan has done some amazing things.
Re:How long... (Score:3, Informative)
Altitude = (400,000m) * m * 9.8m/ss
Orbit = 0.5 * m * (v^2)
Where v=(G(m*M)r) ^ 1/5
I'm still drinking my early morning coffee
Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The confessions of a true geek, eh Taco?
That said, the time frame for this thing seems a little too high -
And one more thing. They have to do it by Jan. 10, 2010.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing -- 3 years might have been nice, but 5 years seems a little too long to me.
Anyway, this is really good. Hopefully, the space race has started again!
PS - why the _HELL_ is Slashdot having an applet in the ads? It freezes up my browser in Windows for a while. It's getting to be a pain. At the very least, provide some way of turning off Applet ads.
Re:Hah! (Score:2)
I like to view the ad's cause if any site is going to have ad's targeted at 'me', it's this one. I've clicked the top banner many-a-time, but I may have to start blocking them cause I just can't give up 60 seconds every time I want to view some comments.
Either that, or stop viewing the comments
Re:Hah! (Score:2, Offtopic)
What, there are ads on /.? Or on any other website?
One word for you: squid [squid-cache.org]... Never seen ads again since the installation of squid together with a nice redirector script [sourceforge.net] effectively replacing all picture and applet ads with something less distractive.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, 3 years is infeasible for the kind of development this will take. How long was SS1 in development? This is at least an order of magnitude more complicated.
I'm not sure 5 years is possible, but I'm hoping to be proved wrong.
Re:Hah! (Score:3, Funny)
I declare Godwin's law.
To little? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:To little? (Score:2)
Furthermore, while the prize is not enough to recoup an investment, it's still nothing to shake a stick at. We are talking about $50 million here.
Re:To little? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, this isn't like a lottery or something where if you spend $11 to make $10 you loose, instead you got to do $11 worth of science for only $1 and more importantly you might be able to move your company/team towards a future where you can make 10x-100x times the award per year or more...
Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:5, Interesting)
If you achieve the velocity sufficient to achieve orbit, then you've achieved the velocity sufficient to orbit twice. And three times. And 17 times.
I must be missing something.
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:2)
For an extreme example of this -- consider the fact that if you fired a bullet from a decent rifle a thousand miles up, it would go into orbit, but obviously bullets don't go into orbit here on the ground.
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:5, Informative)
Well, careful here. That's the big misconception - that orbital velocity is anything like the speed of a bullet. Ok, ok, it depends on your definition of "decent rifle" :-), but no Earth rifle even comes close to firing at 5 miles a second - a tenth of that is more likely.
Similarly, SpaceShip One only achieved about 0.6miles/sec. That's why - amazing though it is that they achieved what they did on such a small budget - the orbit challenge is so much harder than just "touching space". When you consider that chemical rockets project propellant at about 2 miles/sec, you'll see that a single-stage rocket's mass must be almost entirely fuel (>85%) to achieve orbital speed alone - and that's after you've reached a suitable height! Multi-stage boosters help with the physics, of course, but they slaughter the economics. :-)
Anyway, achieving height is just the easy "Part 1" of the problem. Speed's the hard part. Try doing the momentum sums yourself - it gives you serious respect for people who can build machines to overcome the problems, and it shows how close Earth is to being completely un-escapable (at least using chemical rockets)!
Of course, re-reading your post, the rifle thing does illustrate your point rather well. Oh well ...
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:4, Informative)
I suppose there could be reasons that you would not actually want to perform the orbits even though you've reached the appropriate speed.
Orbits take time. If you just pop up to altitude and speed, then immediately fall back down then the total trip is probably an hour or so. In order to orbit, you have to have to support several hours in space, maybe a day:
1. Air supply and air tightness of cabin to maintain the crew for the duration of the orbits.
2. Depending on length of time you spend in orbit, you might need other "human" facilities on board, food, water, restrooms.
3. Radiation and debris shielding. There's less debris in the upper atmosphere, but lots in orbit.
There may be fuel considerations to actually entering and exiting orbit rather than just passing through and falling back down.
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:3, Interesting)
But, when the shuttle has a problem, there are several abort modes, including RTLS, ATA, ATO, and AOA
RTLS - return to launch site. Early in the flight, but after the SRB's are done burning, the shuttle can return to the runway at Kennedy if there's a problem.
ATA - Abort Trans Atlantic. If the shuttle is going too fast to get back to Kennedy, it can land an emerg
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the same effect apply to the bodies in Saturn's rings or other planetary moons?
That's a big meatball (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's a big meatball (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a big meatball (Score:3, Interesting)
The rules specify the 5 people... (Score:4, Funny)
Do you have room for... (Score:2)
No way ! (Score:5, Funny)
Schroder will attract hordes of angry east German protester who will block the launch, Blair will give the plans of the ship to the US government with offers of complimentary sexual gratification to any senior member of the administration, Sharon won't get in the ship because it will probably fly over a moslem country at some point, Chirac will ask for United Nations meetings, counter-meeting, commissions and detailed reports on the size and orientation of every single joint in the fuselage, and Berlusconi will just run away with the prize !
Thomas-
Re:The rules specify the 5 people... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The rules specify the 5 people... (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps mixing Tim O'Reilly with the others was intended to cause a combustion to power the spacecraft. Why, just mixing Tim O'Reilly with Karl Rove alone would produce enough heat to light Sebastopol for 6 months.
Re:The rules specify the 5 people... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but with those people in the Rocket, successful re-entry is likely since they are very succssful people. Now, if you are shooting for failure try putting in Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Nader and Sharpton
Dr Tongue in Space (Score:2)
Does anyone else remember the old SCTV storyline in which Dr Tongue (John Candy) launched a space mission? The rocket appeared to be a Saturn V with a Chevy Vega glued to the nose.
America's Space Prize? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:America's Space Prize? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:America's Space Prize? (Score:2)
Re:America's Space Prize? (Score:5, Informative)
"Another set of the rules for the prize require that any contestant reside and do business in the United States."
Hence the name...
Re:America's Space Prize? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was dirty pool.
m-
Make an orbit (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, a REAL space challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a recipe for disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
If people die in the course of attaining this prize, say goodbye to private space travel and hello to new laws and regulations. The chilling effect from "Columbia" is nothing compared to what will happen if a private attempt goes wrong.
This contest also has the potential to create an international incident.
Lighten up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean this the way this sounds, but I think you made this up completely. You may be right. But I don't see any data to support this.
"If people die in the course of attaining this prize"
People die skydiving, scuba diving, bungee jumping, skiing... all the time. Unlike many people, I don't think the loss of a spacecraft with 6 people on board is any more tragic than the loss of 6 people in a minivan accident on the freeway.
"say goodbye to private space travel and hello to new laws and regulations."
New laws and regulations are inevitable anyway. Or did you think Virgin Airlines (Branson) is just going to fire up Spaceship one and start taking reservations? Its really hard getting FCC certified for any kind of commercial flights.
"The chilling effect from "Columbia" is nothing compared to what will happen if a private attempt goes wrong."
What chilling effect? The space shuttle is a piece of crap; it should be grounded because its too expensive.
"This contest also has the potential to create an international incident."
So does fingerprinting and retina scanning all foreigners entering the country, but that doesn't seem to have stopped us.
Stop worrying about the sky falling.
Re:Sounds like a recipe for disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans, by thier very nature, are explorers. If someone wants to strap a raocket to thier butt and blast themsellves into space, so be it. People will die in the name of exploration... Five hundred years ago losing five men on an expedition would mean relatviely little (impact to thier families notwithstanding). Why is it so different today. Do our lives now mean that much more t
Re:Sounds like a recipe for disaster (Score:5, Insightful)
80% reusable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Stephen
Re:80% reusable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:80% reusable? (Score:5, Funny)
Then begin your rationalizing by claiming that the part that lifts off is the 20 percent, and the launch pad is the 80 percent.
Re:80% reusable? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the organizers wish to not pollute or rape the earth to get this task completed, but instead want to see it done in the most efficient way possible.
Re:80% reusable? (Score:5, Funny)
Might save on life support overhead for the two orbits. ;-)
Learner Drivers... (Score:3, Funny)
NASA does intense training; will these new spacecraft pilots have heat resistant learner plates?!
restrictive condition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't this is very restrictive and unfair?
Re:restrictive condition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Orbital Mechanics (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, this is *unless* you take advantage of perturbations of a second body -- like the Moon -- to alter your trajectory enough to bring the perigee up to 400 km. This is what I am assuming you meant.
Sincerely,
Pedant McGee
Prize money not enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prize money not enough... (Score:2)
Your estimate on this is $100 mil, and the prize is $50 mil.
Get half your money back both times.
As for the timespan, didn't Rutan start just a few years back? Plus, that initial work is done, it makes for something of a stepping off point.
You'll still own your space ship and all the tech (Score:2)
Remember, after you win the money, if you do. You still own your space ship and all the technology and your company. If that isn't worth $50 mill then you are out of luck, but there is a good chance that it is.
What would be funny now (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:What would be funny now (Score:2)
Brazil's now got its own rocket for satellite launches - and it's America's Space Price and technically Brazil's in America... ;)
Re:What would be funny now (Score:2)
Replying to my own post and wrecking my own joke...
The contestant must have its principal place of business in the United States of America.
...well that rules out Brazil, then :(
Re:What would be funny now (Score:2)
Probably much more useful than SS1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Which isn't to say I don't want Rutan, or someone else whose approach is essentially aviation-based rather than big-boom-straight-up-based, to get it. When I was a kid, I spent endless hours reading my Dad's old 50's sci-fi collection, and somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that a real spaceship has a needle nose and delta wings
Re:Probably much more useful than SS1 (Score:3, Informative)
Rutan is leading contender to win, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scaled Composites did a lot of development work for both the McDonnell-Douglas Delta Clipper and Lockheed Martin Venture Star projects. This means Scaled Composites already has enough technical knowledge to start work on a space vehicle to win this prize as soon as they get enough funding to pull it off (Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures could easily part with the US$200,000,000 estimated development cost; Allen's group paid US$30,000,000 to develop the X-Prize winner).
Please clarify (Score:2)
Do the crew members have to be alive, or can you use corpses with a computer for guidance?
Easier to find volunteers that way.
Better Idea (Score:4, Funny)
friends (Score:4, Funny)
Who wouldn't be able to find 4 friends when you have a gremlin and a huge rubber band!
Earth's Space Prize (Score:3, Interesting)
pretty good, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Orbital Gremlins (Score:5, Funny)
The only drawback is that the sudden acceleration may cause your passengers to look like pancakes of mercury on the floormats, assuming they don't just flow through the rust holes in the floorboards.
Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It must also demonstrate the ability to dock with Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space habitat and be able to stay docked in orbit for up to six months.
This prize is not an act of goodwill - it is subcontracted commercial R&D! Presumably this "Bigelow Aerospace" (doesn't that sound like something out of the Jetsons?) company is in need of a launch vehicle, and finds it cheaper to launch a "contest" than to develop the vehicle themselves. Remember, Rutan & Co. spent well more than $10 million developing SS1... it's likely Bigelow will actually save money if the contest is completed successfully...
Sub-contracted R&D (Score:4, Insightful)
At least in this situation everything is going to be out in the open, you don't have to worry about missing deadlines, because the deadlines are something that you set personally. It may be influenced by competition, but even then it is quite straight forward, and if you miss the prize because somebody else beat you to that... that is simply the rules of the game. Normally if this were an R&D subcontract like you were implying, there would be the primary contractor or customer who would be breathing down your neck asking for status reports every couple of days, if not daily or hourly (depending on how anal the customer is and mission critical the project is).
On the other hand, I agree that this is a very cost-effective solution in terms of getting needed components on a very visible project. It would be impressive if GM or Ford did something similar in terms of building a hydrogen-fueled engine or even a major utility company in regards to highly efficient power generation. Set the specific requirements and guarentee a certain minimum buy of the power generated from such a facility, such as a wind farm, geothermal vents, or even a nuclear power plant with an established maximum of nuclear waste generation. There is some real engineering that could be accomplished using this model that would be incredibly effective.
This could even be done for software components that implement a certain technology. Just for instance, if you set up a contest to pay for the first implementation of a new audio or video codec that also has features X,Y,Z (like a plug-in to winamp, and LGPL libraries, etc).
The main requirement here to do such a contest is that 1) the discussion of the project can be done publicly and 2) the resulting product while complimentary to your product line, does not directly compete with what you do for your main line business or with the industry (when a large number of corporate sponsors are involved).
In this case with Bigelow Aerospace, they really need to have these spacecrafts available, but don't really intend to build and fly them.
Not every engineering challenge can be solved this way, but there are a number than can be done. This is also why Thiokol won't be a sponsor (although perhaps a competitor?), because this does directly compete with what they do for a business.
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Cost effective Wind Power (Kilowatts/Construction costs) would mean the end of middle east conflict, global warming, rural poverty in developing countries, lung disease in Beiging.
How else could you solve so many problem with a 10 million dollar prize. If Burt Rutan was focused on a lightweight scalable wind turbine - My guess is we'd be there by now. Instead we've invent
Re:Better Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea (Score:4, Informative)
Using this [newwindenergy.com] as a reference, there are approximately 180 turbines in use or proposed by this provider. At full capacity, this would account for 1/3 of a percent of the US electrical demand.
Using Altamont Pass [tu-berlin.de] (not included in the above calcuation) as a reference, and this page [sw-center.org] for kill rates, you get about
So, 180 turbines * 300 (needed to supply the whole US) and you get 54,000 turbines. Which converts to:
54,000 *
Sounds like a lot, right?
Well, according to this [newwindenergy.com] (note: facts from a wind energy provider), 57 million birds are killed by automobiles each year, 97 million die from "sudden plate glass deceleration", and 1.5 million die from running into things that aren't even moving.
I don't know about you, but 7000 birds a year to generate all US electricity via a renewable resource with no emissions seems to be a good deal. Especially when it only costs 2.54 cents / kWh above [newwindenergy.com] non-green power.
- Tony
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Arab nations realize they can't eat sand and can't afford to import food because their oil is worthless, there'll be hell to pay.
Re:Better Idea (Score:2)
And if their oil is worthless, they will pay for a war... how?
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea [OT] (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right, hell to pay and they'll have plenty of our money to pay it back to us with. Endless amounts of money are funneled out of the USA and into the Middle East without any real checks or balances. They've got oil, we think we need it. Once we stop thinking we need it, we'll stop buying it, then they'll have a little oil and a whole lot of money. What does one do with a little oil and a lot of money? Well buy/build airplanes that drop bombs of course!
I'm sorry, but the Middle East is unfortun
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see:
Invention #1, if it can be invented, will provide cheap and unlimited energy to the world population. Profit value: Gajillions.
Invention #2, if it can be invented, will provide trips to low Earth orbit for the lucky few who can afford it. Profit value: a few million a year.
Seems to me the key phrase here is "if it can be invented" and not "10 million dollar 'prize' for inventing it". There is a heck of a lot more of a prize in cash terms waiting for invention #1 without a group of hobby enthusiasts offering anything. Doesn't appear you thought before you ranted.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
They should pursue both inventions. Why does everyone think that a space program is the entity stopping other inventions from happening? It's not. NASA is not stopping the creation of efficient wind power. God damnit. Bitch about the military's budget instead. Stop messing with the real estate investment opportunity of a lifetime.
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Informative)
We're agreed that cost-effective wind power would be a good thing, however unlikely it may be. I'm not sure that I agree with your list of miracles it would cause.
the end of middle east conflict,
Does that mean that you think the Muslims are fighting the Jews and Christians for oil? Better think again: they've been killin
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Give them the Canadian government. Canadians are basically good people and would behave without their government.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Informative)
The Earth has been warm before [physicalgeography.net], and it was good.
From that link:
Those who don't know history will only repeat the bad parts of it.Re:Better Idea (Score:4, Funny)
I could run over that many scientists on my way home. Just one of the buildings I'm in every week easily has that many scientists in it.
If you could only come up with 500 that agree with your hypothesis, then you may be doing something wrong.
Perhaps you need to phrase your questions in a different way.
Re:Better Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Spreading the Word [underthesamesun.org] (w/photos)
Col. Gary Brandl: Satan lives in Fallujah [news.com.au]
In preparation for the attack, Christian Heavy Metal [spacewar.com].
As for other interesting Iraq news for today:
US forces demolish a hospital [bbc.co.uk] and target another [nytimes.com] for releasing casualty figures; 70 journalists [editorandpublisher.com] are embedded for the invasion; mot of the troops doing the invasion have no major combat experience [alertnet.org]; and a Georgia man commits suicide at Ground Zero [nydailynews.com] to protest Bush and the war in Iraq.
Re:Better Idea (Score:2)
Cost effective Wind Power (Kilowatts/Construction costs) would mean the end of middle east conflict
yes, because all the radical islamists want is a cost effective windmill. maybe that's why they're now attacking the dutch? the dutch make great windmills!
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're right (Score:3, Funny)
Stop. Giving. The. Goatse. Guy. Ideas.
That is all.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
The basic problem is not that we do not have enough power, it is that we have too many people stuffed in a limited volume (I'm going to avoid having to have two meanings of "space" in this comment, dammit!). Getting to space efficiently allows us to have a larger volume in which humanity can live.
It doesn't solve every problem in the world, but being to run very very far away from your problems helps. It's how the U.S.A. got started.
--Ender
Re:Better Idea (Score:2)
The truth is we have more surface area that resources - resources which are all power related.
If Africa had power enough to run reverse osmosis they could produce fresh water at will, pump it to wherever, and we could build las vegas's in the Sahara.
sustainable power is a better way to expand habitable acreage than space colonialization.
AIK
So entirely stupid reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not jsut say lets live on water? Sure as heck easier to get to, and you can have sub-aqua settlements for those hoping to have gone to space.
Benefits of living on water:
No rocket accidents
Cheaper to ferry supplies
Less Gamma radiation
If the global warming occurs, water prices (like land prices, get it!) will plummet! Coastal regions will always be prime real-estate! (for the land views)
You can use desalinisation to drink sea water, you can use devacuumisation to magic up water in space.
You can have solar power and wind power and wave power.
You have a comfortable 1G, and sea level air pressure, and a salty air that will put a healthy hue in your cheeks.
Topless sunbathing.
Can move around the oceans, and fish.
Benefits of being in space:
0g sex
wearing silver clothing
Well I can think of a few more arguments, but going to space 'to live there' is so dumb, living in the desert is easier and cheaper than living in space. Many poor people with camels already do it!
Recycling and filtering our pollution is easier than recycling and rebreathing space station air.
Terrorist attacks are worrying on a space station, which brings us to the question:
So why do people want to go to space and offer prizes for new space technology?
Not for living! not for Star Trek/Wars/n!
But for commercial flights, transports, satellites, RIAA, Micheal Jackson and Military purposes.
So there, I hope we are all done pandering to the space race, as we will be living int he oceans before we live on mars.
Actually, we will all be dead from all the new space weapons.
Re:So entirely stupid reasons (Score:3, Funny)
I appreciate the nerd-boy comment, I really do!
The best thing about 0g sex, is there are no arguments about who is on top.
And you can pretend to be superman and louise lane... and erm... other things...
A lot harder than it looks (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of the early space walkers and how even the most simple tasks caused them to flail about and sweat buckets. You know, Newton's Laws, action and reaction, and how partners having sex will probably have to be tied down with Velcro or something similar.
As far as solo sex, no one is admitting to that one either and whether there are any particular problem areas. Michael Collins said
Re:A lot harder than it looks (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about bad things.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
What we really need to do is offer a prize for someone to convince all the myopic NIMBY types to give the pebble bed reactors a try. And yes, if you want to build one in my backyard, go right ahead.
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
For one, (very) efficient Wind Power Station itself would give immediate cash prize to any inventor. From the market. If it doesn't happen, perhaps it can't be done in foreseable future.
And, perhaps for someone "putting your eggs in more than one basket" is more important goal than taking care of energy distribution. I understand that "worthy
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
AIK
Re:America only? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:America only? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America only? (Score:2, Informative)
Note that he's doing this because he thinks US government competition for available Soyuz will quickly price Soyuz beyond the reach of his business model.
Re:America only? (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of your statement is absurd. Don't like an American contest like this? Scrounge together your own 10 million and offer a contest of your own. Surely there are rich companies and coporations in your part of the world that can pony up the cash?
When I look to donate money to a cause, I don't donate to an "adopt an african child" program, I donate to a local foodbank. When I volunteer time, I don't go to South America and build schools, I help Habitat for Humanity.
I can't help the whole world, and these charities and organizations focus on my neighbours and the people in my community. One could even say that my actions are not altruistic, as these are the same neighbours and community my children and family live in. They may one day need the help of these services.
Not every action and event has to be balanced for some metric of global fairness.
A desire to foster innovation and advancement in your own country is only reasonable. Since this is private money, it can be used any way he wants to.