h a l f b a k e r yWhat's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
N-Prize
There's plenty of room at the bottom at the top. | |
[UPDATE 10th April 2008. The N-Prize
has now been taken to the Real World,
and can be found at www.n-prize.com.
Please visit the site for the latest version
of the rules.
Many thanks to [Wagster] and all at
pictureandword for setting up the site,
and to Jutta for allowing
reciprocal
linking.
To avoid confusion to visitors from the
N-prize site, Maxwell Buchanan would
like to confess that he is actually mild-
mannered scientist Paul H. Dear]
I suspect similar ideas have been
proposed before, so I'll delete this if
people think it's not worth discussing.
Actually, it may even not be an invention,
except that the invention is a
competition.
The challenge is to put a payload of
between 9.99 and 19.99
grams (that's the weight of 2-4 quarters
or
1-2 £1 coins) into orbit (defined as being
able
to complete 99 orbits or more before
re-entry or loss) for a total cost of
£999.99 or
less.
This is the cost of the launch vehicle,
payload, fuel, and any ground-based
systems
needed to support it, but excludes
development or prototyping costs. The
satellite has to be detected from earth by
some means, sufficiently to confirm that
it has completed at least 99 orbits. The
cost of the detection is not part of
the £999.99, and outside help may be
recruited.
The orbit needn't be regular or stable - it
just has to get there and stay up for 99
orbits. Prize value is £9,999.99. Other
rules may be imposed entirely at the
whim of the organizers, to block any
loopholes which go against the spirit of
the challenge. Entrants are strongly
advised to contact the organisers before
and during development.
Entrants are entirely responsible for their
own safety and that of others.
Compliance or otherwise with relevant
regulations is entirely the responsibility
of the entrants, who will be liable for any
costs, legal penalties etc arising from
compliance or lack thereof. Any costs
incurred in the course of complying with
regulations (for example, permits, safety
inspections etc) will be considered part
of the cost of the project, and must
therefore fall within the £999.99 limit.
Any legal costs, fines etc incurred
through non-compliance, however, will
_not_ be considered part of the cost of
the project.
Imaginative scavenging and borrowing is
encouraged, but only within the spirit of
the challenge. Broadly, extensive use of
salvaged or redundant space hardware is
unlikely to be permitted. In the same
spirit, a wealthy sponsor who custom-
builds something and then "lends" it to
the project or sells it at an unrealistically
low price, would breach the rules.
[***>>>>>>> The above is the idea as originally posted.
Please visit the N-Prize site for the current rules for the
real-world
N-Prize. In particular, only 9 (not 99) orbits are now
needed; the cost of most or all ground-support equipment is
not counted toward budget; and
there is now a second prize category for reusable
vehicles with a
*per launch* cost below £999.99, as well as the original
single-
spend-to-orbit prize<<<<<<<***]
Starshine
http://www.azinet.com/starshine/ No batteries. It blinks. [Amos Kito, Feb 14 2008]
Planet You
Planet_20You use the winning system to send these up one at a time [xenzag, Feb 14 2008]
(??) HARP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP Cheaper than rockets ... [8th of 7, Feb 14 2008]
Another HARP link
http://www.astronau...ticles/abroject.htm //I saw a show that said we (USA) built a small one// 176 feet a small one? You must be a Texan [coprocephalous, Feb 14 2008]
National Association of Rocketry
http://www.nar.org/ WP states licenses usually mimic these for other countries [MisterQED, Feb 15 2008]
Tripoli Rocketry Association
http://www.tripoli.org/ [MisterQED, Feb 15 2008]
Cool Balloon link covering some regs
http://vpizza.org/~jmeehan/balloon/ Detail of a guy launching a weather balloon [MisterQED, Feb 15 2008]
Weather balloon suppier
http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.cfm [MisterQED, Feb 15 2008]
Low Earth Orbit details
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Low_Earth_Orbit [MisterQED, Feb 20 2008]
Energy Density - Lately my favorite page of Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Energy_density [MisterQED, Feb 20 2008]
Westphalia, Germany
http://en.wikipedia...th_Rhine-Westphalia I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. [jutta, Feb 20 2008]
Rockeloonannon
Rockeloonannon [BunsenHoneydew, Feb 29 2008]
Are Amateur Orbital Rockets Possible?
http://gramlich.net..._rockets/index.html [MisterQED, Mar 18 2008]
The N-prize Web site
http://www.n-prize.com Please visit the site for the latest rules. [MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 10 2008]
Attacking Space like Everest
http://groups.googl...t-a-staged-approach Way too long to post here but hope it deserves the link [MisterQED, Apr 16 2008]
N-Prize in the New Scientist space blog: Whimsical 'N-prize' to spur ultra-cheap space launches
http://www.newscien...%20space%20launches Well done, MaxwellBuchanan! [django, Apr 28 2008]
Amateur spaceshot success
http://en.wikipedia....22GoFast.22_Rocket Never knew about this one [BunsenHoneydew, Apr 29 2008]
Radio report on N-Prize
http://www.abc.net....8/04/08/2210606.htm Go to the topmost of the audio links on the left, starting about 5 minutes in. Regrettably no mention of the HB.... [MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 29 2008]
A Cult of Backyard Rocketeers Keeps the Solid Fuel Burning
http://www.nytimes....00&partner=homepage [Klaatu, Apr 30 2008]
More blatant elf-promotion
http://archived.the...-BWB-2008-06-06.mp3 The Space Show 6th June, about N-Prize. [MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 07 2008]
Slashdot article
http://science.slas...06/17/1420213.shtml nice work. front page of slashdot [xaviergisz, Jun 18 2008]
Another Mad Scheme
http://jca3.freeshe...pace/spacebets.html Similar to N-Prize but self-funding. (An old fantasy of mine.) [jcatkeson, Jun 20 2008]
Slashdot again
http://science.slas...07/27/1952255.shtml Cambridge N-Prize Team To Build Balloon-Assisted Rockets [xaviergisz, Jul 28 2008]
"Teens capture images of space with £56 camera and balloon" (Telegraph)
http://www.telegrap...ra-and-balloon.html "Teenagers armed with only a £56 camera and latex balloon have managed to take stunning pictures of space from 20-miles above Earth..." [hippo, Mar 18 2009]
Idea prompting the suggestion of a "spud-gun" boost
Pre-Stage_20fueling_20tower [MaxwellBuchanan, May 02 2009]
HARP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP [MisterQED, May 14 2009]
(?) Latest from an N-Prize team
http://n-prize.goog...bGy6NOIihTzJrOKHvyT From a high-altitude balloon, by Team Prometheus. Next stop - Uranus. [MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 12 2009]
Cheese tied to a balloon
http://news.uk.msn....ocumentid=148891047 What better way to celebrate the lunar landing than by launching some cheese? [marklar, Aug 02 2009]
Interorbital Systems TubeSat Personal Satellite Kit
http://spacefellows...onal-satellite-kit/ launch your own satellite into orbit for $8,000 [xaviergisz, Aug 03 2009]
The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge
http://www.nasa.gov...allenges/index.html [MisterQED, Jul 15 2010]
PARIS
http://www.theregis...o.uk/science/paris/ Paper Airplane Released Into Space [BunsenHoneydew, Jul 29 2010]
OTRAG
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/otrag.htm Mass-produced cluster rockets [BunsenHoneydew, Jul 29 2010]
HAL5
http://chapters.nss...L5/HALO_Index.shtml One-time holders of the world amateur rocketry altitude record. [MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 30 2010, last modified Jul 31 2010]
N-Prize video
http://www.youtube....watch?v=cNc-Q6_T8Sc Interview with Heinz Wolff [MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 15 2010]
PARIS (Paper AeRoplane Into Space)
http://regmedia.co....mission_summary.pdf [hippo, Oct 29 2010]
PARIS (Paper AeRoplane Into Space)
http://www.theregis...o.uk/science/paris/ News updates: It looked like it worked! [hippo, Oct 29 2010]
PopSci December 2010
http://www.scribd.c...lar-Science-12-2010 This seems to take a while to load, but if you go to page 26, you can read the article. [DrWorm, Nov 19 2010]
Happy Christmas from the N-Prize
http://sendables.ji...ew/M4OfTSmJCXaq5nXU First person to identify all five faces wins...well, nothing actually. [MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 24 2010]
Couvade?
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Couvade_syndrome [normzone, May 01 2011]
Earth orbit for £1,000? You must be joking
http://www.theregis...2011/07/04/n_prize/ Article on The Register today. [Wrongfellow, Jul 04 2011]
a steam balloon
http://www.flyingkettle.com/endomen.htm from flyingkettle.com [j paul, Jul 04 2011]
Unidentified Rocketing Object
http://www.bbc.com/...birmingham-35462823 Is it one of ours? [pertinax, Feb 06 2016]
Nanocraft?
http://gizmodo.com/...to-build-1770467186 More Halfbakery->real science occurring! [neutrinos_shadow, Apr 12 2016]
India has the right idea!
https://www.bbc.co....-satellite-to-space Designed by students & with a payload of 1.26kg but launch cost was probably a bit more than £999.99. [DrBob, Jan 29 2019]
Mission patch
http://www.n-prize....s/mission_patch.jpg Mission patch as given to all entering teams. [wagster, Mar 16 2020]
N-Prize Twitter account?
https://twitter.com/nprize/with_replies I think? [Skewed, Apr 06 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
|
<Zoolander moment>What is this? A space program for ANTS?!?</Zm> |
|
|
Or uncles. Or anyone, in fact. |
|
|
One problem with this is going to be to
get the necessary cooperation in
detecting the signal. The femtosatellite
is going to be in a (probably) uncertain
and unstable orbit, and will be emitting
a very weak signal at long intervals.
Detection would require a lot of
international co-operation, I imagine.
This in turn would require the challenge
to be well-publicised, such that
detecting the signal would become as
much of a sport as putting the thing up
there. Unless anyone has any smarter
ideas. |
|
|
Nice, I was just coming home to post this, so I guess I like it (+), though the prize needs to be larger. The permits are going to cost a thousand or so. |
|
|
Man those are strict weight limits considering the signal has to be "heard" from Earth. I think to only thing that efficient is a directed LED light and the receiver is a telescope. Still even for that I think you'd need a gyro so the LED is aimed roughly Earthward. |
|
|
Could you use a reflective tail fin for direction? That would only fix one axis. |
|
|
For 10 grams you can get a small solar panel, capacitor, timer, and a xenon flash tube. |
|
|
// The permits are going to cost a
thousand or so.// The awarders of the
prize strongly discourage the seeking of
permits, and the cost of such permits
will be considered part of the cost of
the launch. |
|
|
//Man those are strict weight limits //
We might consider revising this to read
"payload of at least 10 grams", though
the cost limitation would probably
favour lighter, more ingenious craft. |
|
|
I like the idea of optical detection -
would it work? How easy would it be to
scan the skies for a flash tube at orbital
heights? |
|
|
Starshine [Link] was in orbit at 390km, and covered in small mirrors (maybe 3cm dia.). I don't think it was much trouble for people to locate, when they had the track info. With an integral strobe, you wouldn't rely on a solar reflection -- so you could watch for it all night. |
|
|
<slightlly off-topic> STARSHINE has to be the best case of an acronym that fits (too) perfectly with what it is. Do you think they came up with the abbreviation first, then tried to fit description to it? (For those who don't know, STARSHINE is Student Tracked Atmospheric Research Satellite Heuristic International Networking Experiment.)</sot> |
|
|
You could just use 10 grams of radioactive material, that should be fairly easy to detect. |
|
|
I believe the current cost of launching stuff into ordit is around $10,000/kg. I think a better competition would be that you have to get an amount of cargo into orbit for less than $10 per gram. So that would mean around 200 grams for £999.99. |
|
|
That should be within the realms of possibility, after all, it's not brain surgery. |
|
|
//it's not brain surgery//
This is why I had such a hard time breaking my addiction to this site years ago. That's rightous! |
|
|
//You could just use 10 grams of radioactive material, that should be fairly easy to detect.// Would it? Isn't one of the nasty things about space is all the fun radiation blowing around, wouldn't it get lost in the rest of the radioactive background noise? |
|
|
Each type of radiation has a frequency, including light. If you choose an element which emits a frequency which is distinct from the background radiation, and suitable for penetrating the atmosphere, you would have a better chance of detecting it than a light-emitting device of the same size. |
|
|
I guess you could use a piezo crystal and a watch battery to emit radio waves at a specific frequency instead. |
|
|
Fortunately for us, our atmosphere is totally opaque to alpha particle (helium nuclei) and beta particle (electron) radiation, and severely attenuates radiation all the way across the gamma band. For example, the Van Allen radiation belts are not detectable from the earth's surface. (The radiation part, anyway. Indirect measurements can be done with VLF radio.) Satellites have been developed that can spot radiation from a nuclear explosion, but they can't find geologic deposits of radioactive ores. (At least, not by means of emitted radiation.) |
|
|
Just get rid of the weight limit, the cost limit pretty much sets a maximum weight and the stipulation for trackbility sets a minimum. |
|
|
Oh yeah, and up the budget a little. Around here, $1000 / £500 would be a good budget if you wanted a vehicle that just might make it south of the river. It's not really going to get anything into space, no matter how ingenious you are. Maybe $10,000? |
|
|
//I don't think it was much trouble for
people to locate, when they had the
track info.// Yes, but we may not have
any track information - remember,
we're not going for a precisely defined
orbit. |
|
|
//radioactive material, that should be
fairly easy to detect. // Not from the
ground it won't be, alas. |
|
|
//a better competition would be that
you have to get an amount of cargo into
orbit for less than $10 per gram//
Well, what I'm hoping for is for people
to be doing this from their back
gardens. As soon as you start trying to
launch heavier things, it becomes more
hazardous and perhaps less innovative. |
|
|
// £500 would be a good budget if you
wanted a vehicle that just might make it
south of the river// |
|
|
The budget is actually £999.99, and
stays. It is almost impossible to do it
for that, but 'almost impossible' is the
aim. Like the man said "Gentleman, we
haven't any money, so we will have to
think." |
|
|
£999.99 buys a lot of aluminium,
electronic components and string.
What you do with it is up to you. |
|
|
[UnaBubba] The would be a valid
solution. Imaginative borrowing of
hardware can form part of the deal,
provided that the loan is reasonable and
in the spirit of the competition. The
loan of equipment should not involve
unusual expense on the part of the
lender (eg, a corporate sponsor is not
allowed to construct a railgun for your
launch, and then "lend" it to you in
exchange for publicity), and each case
will be judged on its merits. |
|
|
I suspect, though, that a 19.99 gram
projectile will be either melted or
stopped by air resistance shortly after it
leaves the railgun. |
|
|
That would depend on its aerodynamics. |
|
|
For that money, it might be possible to build a 10mm calibre "Hochdruckpumpe" - type multistage gun barrel. That might just be able to fling a small projectile into LEO. |
|
|
But stand well clear when you fire it ..... |
|
|
//I suspect, though, that a 19.99 gram projectile will be either melted or stopped by air resistance shortly after it leaves the railgun// A multi-stage sabot round? A sort of high velocity matrioshka |
|
|
//A multi-stage sabot round?// by all
means, as long as you can build it within
weight and cost. |
|
|
I thought about railguns but I assumed the magnetic field would fry any electronics in the projectile. Would it? Can it be sheilded? Or did they ever perfect a diamond semiconductor? |
|
|
The supergun idea is also a good one especially since I saw a show that said we (USA) built a small one which went pretty high but they lost funding to build the "real" one. I'd love to buy the old one for the price of scrap. Then create a sabot round for my own micro satelites. |
|
|
//might be possible to build a 10mm
calibre
"Hochdruckpumpe"// This I like,
especially if it can come with umlauts.
Don't forget you've got to get
sidewaysness as well as uptitude in order
to acheive orbit.. |
|
|
Re. the HARP project and other "guns", I
don't think it's going to work. First, the
£999.99 has to cover *all* the
hardware, including whatever stays on
the ground. Second, all of these launch
systems use very heavy projectiles to
ensure that air resistance is not
disasterous. |
|
|
Although the rules don't stop you from
using a sabot around a lightweight
femtosatellite, you're still going to need
to launch several hundred pounds of
stuff. Even if the sabot itself costs less
than £999.99 to make, you're looking at
a huge launch facility. |
|
|
The only solution I can see as working is to launch one of those high altitude weather balloons to 170k ft and then launch a solid fueled rocket to get the last 70 miles up and get all the sidewaysness that you will need. |
|
|
I'm all for yogic flying. I really like the idea of 8 minutes of 4.5g yogic acceleration in a vacuum environment. <cue sideways-travelling lotus-position maharishi whoosh> |
|
|
//The only solution I can see as working
is...// Yes, that sounds like a plausible
solution. |
|
|
//Fire your object at an existing
satellite, and make it stick to it.// Not
allowed, alas. Your device has to be
self-contained and self-sufficient, and
can't piggyback on anything during the
launch or orbit. In any case, I would
have thought that hitting a satellite on a
£999.99 budget was optimistic. |
|
|
//Do the subsequent legal costs count
in the £999.99 limit?// No. Costs for
complying with regulations are counted,
but not legal costs or fines for non-
compliance. |
|
|
//Balloon and mini rocket would be the
go.// I agree. I was thinking of the
following. The satellite will be three
disc-shaped solar cells, intersecting to
form a sort of sphere. The electronics
will be on a postage-stamp-sized
board, glued to one of the panels near
the middle, and will consist of an
accumulator to store charge, and a
transmitter which fires for a second or
so once enough charge is built up.
Because the transmitter does not run
continuously, I'm guessing that the
components can be run above their
normal operating limits to maximise
power. |
|
|
The launch platform is a helium (or, if
cheaper, hydrogen) balloon. Suspended
below it is a 2m string, forking into an
inverted Y at the bottom. The legs of
the Y are unequal, and from them
hangs the launch shaft. Thus, the angle
of the shaft to the horizontal will be
pretty accurately maintained. (We don't
care whether the thing fires north,
south, east or west - hence, no need for
guidance or targetting). |
|
|
The rocket itself has a hole up the
middle, and is basically impaled on the
launching shaft (lighter than a tube).The
rocket will have no gyros, but is
stabilized by spin: the propellant and
vents are arranged such that the first
half-second of burn fires from two
sideways-directed vents, starting the
rocket spinning before it leaves the
shaft. The rest of the burn then
provides forward thrust only. |
|
|
The rocket flies until it runs out of
propellant - no precise control. The
satellite itself is slotted into the nose of
the rocket, and retained by a spring clip
somewhat similar to the mechanism of
a retractable ball-point pen. When the
rocket accelerates, it compresses a
spring (click!) and then, when it runs
out of propellant and stops
accelerating, a lighter spring simply
pings the satellite clear of the empty
rocket. |
|
|
How's that for simple? Doable for
£999.99?? |
|
|
//Surprised no-one has ever done it.// Un-surprise yourself. Google "rockoon". It's what James Van Allen was up to when he first found traces of those radiation belts. |
|
|
The "rockoon" links look very
promising.
Altitudes of up to 80km with heavy
payloads, which is only a shade below
low
earth orbit. They say a major drawback
is
lack of control over the balloon but,
since
we don't care, this isn't a problem at all.
All looks pretty feasible to me. |
|
|
I will gladly make the prize money
available for a real N-prize, if anyone
has any ideas on how to make it real.
It'd have to find a home outside the HB,
though - I'm sure Jutta wouldn't want to
be impllicated if someone gets a lump
of rocket on their head. |
|
|
Please let me design the site if you do! I love doing spacey graphics. |
|
|
[MB] very good, except we dearly care about the direction the rocket launches. As the launch vehicle is already travelling roughly with the spinning Earth at 1000 mph, we want to add to that speed and head due east. |
|
|
Also I'm wondering about the solar cells. I have to look this up, but they said 100 orbits. At the low end of LEO, 100 orbits isn't that long. A lot of satelites orbit every 90 minutes. We will be lower and faster. 100 orbits may only be a day or so. Also are the solar cells we buy able to operate in space? Heat extremes, etc.? |
|
|
And BTW, what does the N stand for? |
|
|
[wags] you're on for the website if this
takes off. |
|
|
[QED] //we want to add to that speed
and head due east.// Ah, yes, good
point. Hold the moon-landing. OK, so
we have two choices. Either we put a
directing mechanism on the launch
balloon; or we put a simple compass in
it, and set it to trigger the rocket when
it happens to be pointing east (at the
top of its travel, of course). I think the
latter will be lighter/cheaper/more
reliable. |
|
|
//Also I'm wondering about the solar
cells.// If batteries would do the same
job for a day (and for less weight) then
all well and good. I think regular solar
cells would survive, but we could check.
The only real issues would be vacuum
and temperature fluctuation; I don't
think the launch would be too violent,
and I doubt that solar UV or other
radiation would be a problem for a day
or two. |
|
|
//what does the N stand for?// It
stands for "next to no money", and also
for the nines (9.99-19.99g, 99 orbits,
£999.99...) |
|
|
Does anyone know anything about the
legalities of shooting things upward?
Model rockets are no problem, and nor
are toy helium balloons - are these
things controlled according to weight or
altitude? And what's the worst penalty
you can face (in the UK, US, or
wherever)? The overall aim is to
discourage over-compliance and damn
the consequences, and allow for a little
natural selection amongst really dumb
rocketeers, without seriously
jeopardizing innocent bystanders. |
|
|
I'm assuming that detection
of the orbiting satellite would require
the cooperation of radio-astronomers
or the like, but I'm guessing they might
be willing to play along. |
|
|
I think it should be reasonably easy to gyro stabilize the launcher so that it always points the rocket east without adding too much weight. As for the limits on rockets, there are many. I'd suggest looking at an issue of "High Powered Rocketry" magazine or borrow one from [8/7] who probably has a subscription. I haven't looked in a couple of years, and I'm sure it is nationally dependant, but such things as fuel load , fuel types and metal housings are strictly limited on a graduated license scale. Weirdly enough I wonder if the rules still apply since you will be launching the rocket outside of national airspace (doesn't it stop at some altitude). |
|
|
//also for the nines (9.99-19.99g, 99 orbits, £999.99...)// |
|
|
I swear it said $1000 when it was posted... |
|
|
[wags] Rockoon == inflation |
|
|
//I swear it said $1000 when it was
posted...// It did. Actually I think it was
"£1000". I've also made a few
minor edits to the rules. |
|
|
What we need is publicity - some way for
people to find out about the N-prize,
perhaps by having Google find the X-prize
and the N-prize mentioned together on
the same web page. If only there were
some way. |
|
|
//I think it should be reasonably easy to
gyro stabilize the launcher// but why
not just let it wander, and fire when it
happens to be pointing the right way? |
|
|
//graduated license scale.// Well, as
long as we don't kill anyone important.
Anyway, only those who fail are liable to
be prosecuted - who's going to have
the nerve to charge the world's first
backyard satellite launch facility owner? |
|
|
//why not just let it wander, and fire when it happens to be pointing the right way? //
I haven't done model rockets for years, really decades, but I do remember a bit of a delay between trigger and launch, so if for some reason this thing starts spinning on the string, you could be way off. |
|
|
Yes, true. However, the sensor that
fires the rocket will be on-board to
reduce delays. Also, the balloon itself
will be very wide, which must limit the
rate it's likely to spin at; as long as the
rocket-tube-tether is linked
unswivellingly, spin should be limited.
Failing that, have the direction sensor
detect rate of spin also, and not launch
when spin is high. |
|
|
Of course, weight penalties on the
balloon are not as harsh as on the
rocket or satellite, but I'd still like to
keep things as simple as possible. |
|
|
I'm just checking some prices and stuff.
Helium for a 10ft diameter balloon is
going to cost about $30. |
|
|
Does anyone know what is used for the
skin of high-altitude helium balloons?
In photos it looks like polythene, but
would this not become very brittle at
high (cold) altitudes? |
|
|
Can anyone think of any part of this
system which is going to cost more
than $100 in materials? |
|
|
[EDIT - thanks for the balloon link, QED.
Looks as if US regulations are not a
problem at all! Note that the latex
weather balloon is not designed for very
high altitudes - it doesn't allow enough
expansion to avoid bursting.] |
|
|
//Can anyone think of any part of this system which is going to cost more than $100 in materials?// The rocket propellant and the helium to get the rather large rocket up to 150k feet. |
|
|
I don't entirely get the hydrazine
reference? |
|
|
Re the mylar balloon, isn't mylar a
favourite because of its low helium
porosity? Since that won't be a factor
on a short flight, would some other
material be lighter/better? |
|
|
Regarding the satellite itself, a balloon-
type mylar reflector might do for that
too. 20 grams lets you make a roughly
foot-wide balloon of 0.1mm Mylar,
which could be inflated in orbit. The
"Echo1" satellite was a 100ft mylar
balloon, and was bright to the naked
eye from earth. We'd have only
1/10,000th the area, but I suspect it
would still be easy to spot with a small
ground-based telescope. |
|
|
[wags] - "N-prize.com" is not yet
taken.... |
|
|
Hello halfbakers ! [my first post, so I'm nervous - hope I'm filling the right box in here !] |
|
|
WRT facing East, and getting maximum lateral speed, how about trying to get the balloon up into a jetstream before launching the rocket. Or do these occur too low in the atmosphere ? How high will a ballon go ? |
|
|
Obviously some fins on the launcher would keep it in line in the airflow |
|
|
// I don't entirely get the hydrazine reference? // There's going to be quite a lot of it soon when the US blows up one of its own satellites. |
|
|
//how about trying to get the balloon up
into a jetstream// Unfortunately, the jet
streams are way too low (about 10km).
But welcome to the HB, VaquitaTim. |
|
|
[QED] thanks for the weather balloon
supplier link. Theirs only go up to 40km,
alas - mainly because they're sealed. I
believe high-altitude balloons are
launched "flaccid" and expand greatly as
they climb. |
|
|
//The rocket propellant and the helium to
get the rather large rocket up to 150k
feet.// Well, it's not going to be a rather
large rocket, I was thinking more along the
lines of rather small. Helium is about $37
per 1000 cubic feet. Rocket propellant is
as cheap as your imagination. |
|
|
Why pay for helium when hydrogen is cheaper and has better lift? |
|
|
True. So, we save $30 by electrolysing
water - sounds like a good deal to me.
Maybe we should reduce the budget to
$99.99..... |
|
|
[wags] I just bought n-prize.org,
and .com, and .co.uk and .info.
Unfortunately I have no idea how to
establish a website. |
|
|
Domain hosting..... Joomla!...... right....
hang
on. Will investigate... |
|
|
//I just bought n-prize.org, and .com, and .co.uk and .info.// Once again the Buchanan's take occupation of lands they have no specific intentions of using, apart from croquet and fox hunting that is. |
|
|
I hadn't noticed any foxes on N-prize.org,
but I'll check. I also claim the mineral
rights. |
|
|
[UB] and [wags], if you're serious about
helping with the website, I'm interested. I
have no idea what I'm getting into here,
which is the perfect starting place. |
|
|
Not sure if this could be done within the weight limit, but a possible solution to the verification-of-orbits question could be to have the satellite take a sequence of Earth photos to establish "At 2:30 I was here, at 2:31 I was HERE, at 2:32 I was HERE...." Once 99+ orbits are complete, transmit these photos. In order to prove these are real photos and not not pre-recorded or Photoshoped, they would have to be compared to actual weather patterns, the known positions of aircraft in flight or ships at sea, known traffic jams, large gatherings of people (and their cars) at outdoor venues such as ampitheaters, sports stadiums, or campaign/protest rallies etc. Obviously a very high-res camera would be required to obtain verifiable details. |
|
|
[gardner] I suspect that the weight
penalty would indeed be a problem.
And, if you can transmit photos, you
could transmit a locating signal. |
|
|
[UB] and [wagster] the outfit I bought
the domains from also offers hosting
(telivo.com) but I don't know which
package I need. I'm happy to buy
whichever one I need. Presumably,
after that, anyone with access to the
site can upload pages? |
|
|
Yup, that's about right. I can provide hosting, but it would probably be easier for you to host it where you bought it from. You shouldn't need much webspace for this - 100Mb should be more than sufficient. |
|
|
Shall we take this to email if it's going to get in-depth? Mine is on my profile page. Drop me a line. |
|
|
To email it has been taken. I have the
feeling that we're creating a monster here,
but the important thing is probably not to
be too sober when any important decisions
are taken. |
|
|
Do you think there will be trouble down the line with the name being similar to Nobel Prize? I Googled N-Prize and got a lot of references to the Nobel. |
|
|
I can't imagine there being a problem; the
Nobel may be referred to sometimes as
the "N-prize" colloquially, but I don't think
there's any risk of confusion. In any case,
I've got the domain name, so hah! |
|
|
//Imaginative scavenging and borrowing is encouraged// |
|
|
So I can just super-glue my coins to the next US space mission? |
|
|
// Broadly, extensive use of salvaged or redundant space hardware is unlikely to be permitted// |
|
|
Full rules will be available shortly on n-
prize.com |
|
|
I think the hardest part will be to accelerate this thing up to n-gazillion metres per second, so that it actually stays up there.
What are we talking about - 8000m/s? |
|
|
Nearer 7500m/s for the lowest low-earth
orbit. A handgun can sent a bullet at
something like 1500m/s, so you're looking
at five times that, in terms of speed, or 25
times that in terms of kinetic energy for a
satellite of comparable mass. |
|
|
Surely accelerating something very light in a total vacuum can't be that hard? I think ion drives are good at this kind of shennanigans. |
|
|
It shouldn't be that hard. However, an ion
drive is way too slow (your satellite is
going to re-enter long before the ion drive
has done much good). |
|
|
Has anyone done the math to find out a rough guess as to how many model rocket engines will get us from 170000 ft to orbit assuming no air drag? |
|
|
Depends on the final payload and on the
rate at which mass is shed during the
ascent. Ideally you want a staged rocket.
Even then it'll be close or impossible with
those motors, since their energy density is
quite low. |
|
|
//Has anyone done the math // |
|
|
To start out on the math, google "rocket equation". You're going to need a delta-v of nearly 10km/sec in order to get into low earth orbit, because a fair amount of your velocity gets killed off in getting your potential energy (altitude) up. |
|
|
//how many model rocket engines// - answer: model rocket engines in any configuration will fail. They don't have a high enough specific thrust, and they don't have a high enough fuel fraction (the cases are too heavy). |
|
|
You're going to have to use something other than a black powder fuel. There are high-energy solids that can do it, but they are very very picky about production and are not cheap and hard to control. There are liquid fuel engines in several configurations which are capable, but require pumping & metering & throttling & mixing & cryogenics & tankage & plumbing & are very un-cheap. A possibility might be a hybrid - a solid fuel grain with a liquid oxydizer (as in Rutan's design - but note that he got to less than orbital altitude with *zero* velocity at the top - he needed about another 7500m/sec of delta-v to make that into an orbit) but having one with a sufficiently stable burn profile to not blow up / go asymmetrical / blow out chunks of unburned fuel grain is still quite in the realm of experimental. |
|
|
Plus, please remember that solving all the problems of putting a payload in orbit entails solving every one of the problems posed in the building of an ICBM. Regardless of your intentions, think for a moment on whose attentions that is going to bring to you. |
|
|
//Regardless of your intentions, think
for a moment on whose attentions that
is going to bring to you.// On the one
hand, true. On the other hand,
bollocks. The aim is to do the nearly
impossible against overwhelming odds
with almost no budget and for virtually
no reward. Did the Wright brothers
worry about governmental dissapproval
when they invented the Model-T light
bulb? Did Edison fret about military
uses of the spinning jenny? No!
Launch and be damned. |
|
|
Also, I might point out that if a
schmuck in a shed can put something
into orbit for under a grand, it's in
everybody's interests to have it out in
the open. |
|
|
//Regardless of your intentions, think for a moment on whose attentions that is going to bring to you.
// Richard Branson? |
|
|
I didn't say "stop immediately, because al-Qaeda will abduct you and extract your secrets nasally" - I just said 'consider'. If you think the Wright brothers' feat could be accomplished today without Homeland Security having palpitations, you are an optimist. |
|
|
If you have a chance to come to Utah (the Bonneville Salt Flats) in early September, you'll want to attend "Hellfire" - an international amateur rocket launch. You'd get to see rockets where just the solid fuel grain alone runs over a thousand bucks. (I take my little $10 model out, fly once, and sit back and watch the other guys burn a month's pay in 4 sec. I once got to stand next to a guy whose 14 ft. $3000 rocket failed to deploy 'chutes - absolutely beautiful machine, stunning paint job, turns over at 7k feet and comes straight into the salt at over 500 knots. He cried for about a half hour, then committed to "do it again next year".) |
|
|
I'm agreeing with [lurch]. This contest could be re-named as an anti-satellite-weapon challenge without being re-written. I like it, and I've a couple of new ideas, but no matter how I put the parts together, they keep coming out a weapon. |
|
|
// I just said 'consider'. // Well, I
disagree
with that too. Too many people
consider
too much. Sometimes it's just right to
pretend we're back in democratic days
and
plain do things. Sometimes it's nice not
to
think about who's watching over your
shoulder. The very idea of an
organisation that calls itself "Homeland
Security" (why not "National Security"?)
gives me the heebie jeebies, and I don't
even live there. |
|
|
But thanks for the invite to Hellfire -
sounds fun! |
|
|
//On the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.// |
|
|
//This contest could be re-named as an
anti-satellite-weapon challenge without
being re-written.// Well, only if you
find a way to add guidance, not just to
the launch system but also to a satellite
weighing less than an empty coke can. |
|
|
By this reasoning, nobody except the US
Government is allowed to develop
anything that can go upwards. To
quote (for the second time) my great
great aunt Agathenia, bollocks. |
|
|
Good point, as always, [MB]. My bullocks, there. |
|
|
You can't get into orbit without guidance. |
|
|
If you want to be at the minimum altitude for orbit, say for example you give yourself +/- 10 km leeway, and you want to do 100 orbits, then you have to be going in a direction which will allow you to still hit that 10 km slot at the *end* of 100 orbits. So, it's going to need to be, at a minimum, accurate enough to hit a 10 km slot at (40,000 km * 100 orbits) = 4 million kilometers distance. |
|
|
Even saying you could do one orbit without guidance would be like saying that trans-oceanic airliners don't need navigation systems, just point in the general direction and go. |
|
|
//You can't get into orbit without
guidance.// You certainly can. You
need
to make sure you've got enough velocity
and you need to be pointing in roughly
the
right direction. Beyond that, it really
doesn't matter. You need very good
guidance to get into a *particular* orbit,
but that's an entirely different kettle of
wild herring. |
|
|
Or perhaps you meant that you can't get
into orbit without suitable mentoring? |
|
|
The number of possibilities of your orbit depends on how much space there is between your altitude and the atmosphere. If you're at minimum altitude, you have a very narrow range of directions you can fly. Higher buys you more leeway, but it takes even more thrust to get there. |
|
|
One item that causes a problem, but is non-obvious, is that you can't make your orbit *not* pass through the point where you were when you last altered your orbit. If you are in a circular orbit, and fire your thrusters when you cross Ecuador, for example, then on your next orbit you will pass over Ecuador at the exact same altitude as before. Your velocity will be different, but not altitude. Your altitude will be different over Sumatra, and if you fire again over Sumatra, you can change your altitude over Ecuador. |
|
|
To sum up, a circular orbit requires, at minimum, an original boost and a circularization a half orbit later. Otherwise, your payload will attempt to fly through its launch point. (And when I say 'circular' here, I don't mean 'within five balls two of a perfect circle', I mean 'close enough to get back to point A without an unplanned re-entry'.) |
|
|
Yes, true. If you want to keep at
minimum altitude, you don't want your
orbit too eliptical, hence the 'roughly
the right direction'. But that's not the
kind of guidance you need in order to
hit something. |
|
|
The kind of energies you need to get a
small mass into orbit from an upper-
atmosphere starting point are not
orders of magnitude greater than those
you get from a handgun. The kind of
guidance and communication
equipment you need is not significantly
more complex than the electronics in a
mobile phone. |
|
|
Commercial, scientific and military
satellites need to actually do stuff and
stay in the right place, and this
increases their cost and weight by
orders of magnitude. All we want to do
is to send a matchbox about a hundred
miles up and make it go round a few
times. Everything works in your favour
when you sacrifice weight and
functionality, by exponential rather than
linear factors. |
|
|
That doesn't necessarily hold all the way down to zero size. |
|
|
Here, let me tell you what your first show-stopper will be. You've launched rockets, seen them launched, it all looks pretty simple. The standard model rocket, the 3FNC (literally "3 fins and a nose cone") makes it appear so natural that you light a rocket, and it goes up. However, there's magic going on there. It's the fins. You use a launch rod to keep the rocket pointed up until it is moving fast enough that any deviation from moving in a straight line puts air flow against the fins, creating a force couple which corrects the line of flight back where the nose cone is pointing the way. |
|
|
However, you would like to simply start out with no air resistance by firing from above the sensible atmosphere. Or, at the very least, passing above it. What, then, keeps your rocket pointed even in the "general direction" you would like it to go? Nothing. In real rockets, this is accomplished by a horizon scanner or a gyroscope, controlling a gimballed rocket nozzle and/or a set of vernier rockets. Without that guidance system, your problem is no different from balancing a nail on its point. It may work for a moment, but your rocket's thrust is not going to be utterly turbulence-free, and thus is doomed to tumble. |
|
|
My version of the N-prize would be to fly a rocket with no fins or drag stick (read this as "stable in vacuum") to 1000 meters for the same price as you're saying for orbit. |
|
|
What is the viability of hosting a kind of single shot LONG (2-3M) barrelled rifle? Use a .50 caliber cartridge and sabot the bullet. The pressure would be lower due to the lighter round, so the barrel wouldn't have to be as heavy. |
|
|
[lurch] that which you say is true. My
intention (see earlier anno) was to spin
the entire rocket about its axis, gyro-
wise. However, if it needs a gyro for
stability, then it can have a gyro for
stability. It's up to the entrant to figure
out how to machine a gyro within
budget, or how to imaginatively
'repurpose' a VCR head or a 12V-driven
microfuge for that function. |
|
|
Incidentally, rockoons relied mainly on
fins for directional stability, though
granted they were only scraping the
edge of space. |
|
|
[QED] you mean a ballistic launch from
under a high-altitude balloon? Yes, that
may be feasible. One concern might be
recoil of the gun (and consequent mis-
targetting), but I expect you could get
around that problem. You've also got to
have a satellite hardened against the
acceleration, whilst also being detectable
in some way from earth. But possible, I'd
have thought. |
|
|
For a simple rocket could you acheive stability
on-the-cheap by starting with an electronic tilt sensor from a digital camera? These seem incredibly sensitive and could control the direction of the rocket by, for example, discharging a small capacitor into one of a number of tiny explosive charges (e.g.a 'cap') on the side of the rocket.
The other thing that occurs to me is that you can do a lot in under 10 grams - my son's remote-controlled helicopter has an IR receiver, some control electronics, a battery, the helicopter body, two rotors, two electric motors and it still weighs less than 10 grams. |
|
|
Excellent thinking, Hippo. The point about
the ten-gram helicopter is very well taken,
and of course that ten grams includes a
propulsion system which, provided we can
kick it off in the right direction, the
satellite shouldn't need. Can we register
you as an entrant? |
|
|
ooh yes, I'd be keen (despite knowing nothing about rocketry, propulsion systems, navigation,
three-dimensional geometry, radio, radar, aeronautics, etc. - I'm good at countdowns though). |
|
|
Christmas 2006, yes - and it was the PicooZ model - absolutely amazing. |
|
|
//despite knowing nothing about....// A
healthy dose of ignorance is a tremendous
advantage in these circumstances. |
|
|
//A healthy dose of ignorance is a tremendous advantage in these circumstances//
I don't want to discourage anyone, but this is rocket science, so we all probably start with a healthy dose of ignorance. |
|
|
To that point, I just found out that purely cannon launch is out. We need ~7km/s speed for LEO and even HARP only got to 1/4 of that, so we are back to rocket science. |
|
|
Oh and my favorite number so far is orbital energy = 32.1MJ/kg. You may want to look at the energy density link to see what kind of power you will need for the trip. |
|
|
Yes, but it all depends on the mass of
the projectile and other stuff. Some
gas-guns used for testing impact at
orbital velocities have achieved >7km/
s. |
|
|
Put it another way. We need to get
about half a megajoule of energy into a
20gram satellite (to get it up there and
orbiting). This is the energy used by a
small electric heater in about nine
minutes. That's the energy obtained by
burning *four grams* of liquid
hydrogen with about 32 grams of liquid
oxygen, or about a tablespoon or two in
total. Of course, that's a naive
calculation because the energy of
combustion doesn't all (or even mostly)
go into the satellite. But, the point is
that we're not talking about silly
amounts of energy here. |
|
|
As I mentioned earlier, once you're clear
of the atmosphere, smaller devices
become very much easier to put into
orbit. |
|
|
[EDIT] a little more interesting
information. A multi-ton ground-
launched solid-fuel rocket manages
about 2% payload (ie, it can deliver
about 2% of the launch mass into low
earth orbit). For small, ground-
launched rockets it gets much worse,
because most of the losses are in air
resistance. But for a high-altitude
balloon-launched rocket, this isn't a
major factor. |
|
|
And it gets better. Most of the non-
propellant mass of a solid rocket is
needed to contain the combustion
pressure. It turns out that a smaller
tube can be relatively less massive, and
hence smaller rockets have a lower
shell-mass. So, we can certainly expect
a small ballon-launched solid-fuel
rocket to give at least 2% payload-into-
orbit, and probably nearer 3 or 4%. |
|
|
On this basis, even a solid-fuelled
rocket only needs to be about 1kg total
mass in order to deliver a 20g payload.
Quadruple that to allow for irreducible
masses and sod's law, and you still have
a rocket weighing less than ten pounds.
This has to be lifted by a helium
balloon, which will need to have a
volume of about five cubic metres.
Double everything again to allow for
hardware that remains attached to the
balloon, and you're still only up to a ten
cubic metre helium balloon carrying a
ten-pound rocket tipped with a 20g
satellite. |
|
|
Incidentally, the mission could be
launched from anywhere that's not too
polar, except for mid-west Germany.
Westphalia is _not_ an option. |
|
|
Which Westphalia?
Google Maps gave me 7 in the USA. (Dunno about the rest of the world.) |
|
|
[n_w] The clue is in "mid-west Germany". [jutta]It is a kind of pun, see Apollo 13 (spoken by Ed Harris, IIRC). Actually, I think it would be perfect for a ham rocket operation. |
|
|
[jutta], [AbsintheWithoutLeave]; thanks. I figured it must have been in Germany - Google Maps is usually better than that (not so USA-centric).
Regarding ham rockets, ever see the Mythbusters episode with the Civil War (I think) meat rocket? |
|
|
// It turns out that a smaller tube can be relatively less massive, and hence smaller rockets have a lower shell-mass.// You got that relationship backwards. |
|
|
//On this basis, even a solid-fuelled rocket only needs to be about 1kg total mass in order to deliver a 20g payload. Quadruple that to allow for irreducible masses and sod's law, and you still have a rocket weighing less than ten pounds.// |
|
|
If you take your ten pound rocket, put it on a balloon, fly it to the world record altitude height for a balloon plus ten percent, it will still be incapable of reaching orbital *altitude*. Forget turning the corner and trying to then tack on orbital *velocity*. |
|
|
You might want to ask yourself, "If my assumptions say that this is so incredibly easy, why are all the other people who've tried such idiots?" Then try searching to find out. |
|
|
I'm sorry, I actually like the idea, and think that there is a good area here for positive achievement. I am very concerned, however, that people can go into this with bad assumptions, waste time and money, and maybe get hurt. I like amateur progress, and hate to see things set up where amateurs fail spectacularly and give the next group a bad rep by association. So if I've come across sounding like I'm attacking you, please understand that is not my intention. Just frustrated. |
|
|
Back to the issue at hand - I would that you might look at full-up sized rockets, and particularly, booster rockets. Solids, so we're comparing apples. The Delta rocket is quite interesting. It takes two sizes of booster rockets, in configurations of up to 9 strap-on solid rocket boosters. Then the shuttle, with two big SRB's; likewise, the Titan III with a pair of SRB's. The Ares I, which will be a single SRB stick and the Ares V, again two SRBs boosting a liquid biprop tank stack. Each of these configurations makes sense for its own application - but if a smaller diameter solid lifted a better mass fraction, you'd be seeing Titans and eventually Ares stacks that looked like Deltas - a whole bunch of smaller boosters around the mains. Smaller solid motors are much cheaper, easier to build, transport, store, maintain, and launch. They aren't more efficient. |
|
|
//They aren't more efficient.// I'm not
claiming they're more efficient, just *as*
efficient as large solid rockets *in the
virtual absence of air resistance* (which
is a disproportionately greater
hindrance for smaller rockets launched
from ground level). As far as my
understanding of the physics goes, the
same laws should apply to smaller
rockets as larger ones. |
|
|
And yes, I did get the case-weight-ratio
relationship wrong - thanks.
[EDIT] or not quite. A quick think
shows that the transverse tension in a
cylinder will be proportional to the
diameter of the cylinder (and to the
pressure it contains). So, the thickness
of the casing walls remains in
proportion.
[EDIT AGAIN] In fact, if you consider an
SRB as a cylindrical pressure vessel, and
if the pressure remains constant, then
the circumferential force (that which is
trying to split the casing lengthwise) is
proportional to the diameter, whilst the
longitudinal force (that which is trying
to blow out the ends of the cylinder) is
proportional to the square of the
diameter. So, if your rocket is 10 times
smaller, your side walls can be 10 times
thinner and the end-wall or bulkhead
can be thinner still. |
|
|
Now, since the area of the rocket's skin
is proportional to the square of its
linear dimensions, it follows that a
1/10th scale rocket will have a skin
mass of 1/1000th that of the full-size
original; it will also hold 1/1000th the
propellant, so the skin mass: propellant
ratio stays the same. |
|
|
[Lurch] I just did some checks on
rockoons, and I maintain that smaller
rockets have comparable efficiency to
large ones, when launched at altitude.
Here's why. |
|
|
A typical rockoon had a total mass of
100kg and carried a 15kg payload,
giving it a payload ratio of 15% (way
over the limit for a normal ground
launch aiming for orbit). Despite this,
they would typically make 75km above
the launch altitude of 25km (ie, apogee
100km). They were released at 25km
because of the need to maintain
communication for firing the rocket -
not an issue with modern telemetry, nor
if the rockoon fires automatically. |
|
|
So, reduce the payload ratio from 15%
to 2% (our 20g satellite, plus), launch at
50km rather than 25km (doable with
helium or with hydrogen), and you're
back in space. |
|
|
This is not meant to be a rigorous
argument (and yes, I appreciate the
rockoon went up but not around) -
merely to point out that
smaller rockets are more or less as
efficient as larger ones, when freed of
air resistance. |
|
|
And I'm not taking your comments as
an attack - they are points well made
and are making me think. |
|
|
Nice use of the subjunctive up there lurch.
Your comment on fins and how they work got me thinking. If the propulsive forse of the rocket were routed through symmetric skewed nozzles, could this spin the rocket for stability without too much loss of thrust? |
|
|
Can someone point me to some realistic formulas for calculation? [lurch]? I think all the stuff I've seen assumes low velocities, so the solid rockets have the torque, but not the top speed. |
|
|
Good math there, [MB]. I think we both missed a term at first, but in opposite directions. Thanks. |
|
|
[bungston] - re: canted nozzles - in theory, absolutely. (You wouldn't need that much of an offset, let the spin build up slowly, gradually taking over from fins as you go into thinner air.) In practice, uhh... I think it would be very difficult to have the two (or more) nozzles be identical, producing exactly the same torque vectors... maybe. I'd like to see it tried. |
|
|
Actually, maybe an interstage - say you have a first stage with fins. At or near booster burnout, fire the interstage which would just be a couple of small side-firing rocket motors mounted in the band connecting the booster stage to the second stage. After spin up, you can toss the part with the fins. |
|
|
Remember that you have to make a turn up there somewhere. Spinning your rocket is an ideal solution for an altitude only attempt. It's less excellent to have your little micronavigator going around at 600 rpm and trying to tell the rocket which way to head for the horizon. |
|
|
//I think it would be very difficult to
have the two (or more) nozzles be
identical, producing exactly the same
torque vectors// If you're transitioning
from fin-stability to spin-stability, then
let the fins create the spin - just have
them slightly helical. However, you
have the problem of directional stability
at the early stages of the launch, when
velocities (and spins) are low. |
|
|
I thought it might be good to have the
rocket launched off a central rod which
runs up the centre of it (ie, the rocket
starts out impaled on a spike). Then,
you can set it spinning on the spike (in
any of several different ways) before it
launches. |
|
|
Point taken about the need to turn a
corner at the top. I need a bigger
drawing board to go back to. |
|
|
Not so much "turn a corner" - it needs to start off firing at a diagonal and, as it falls over to the horizontal at the top of the parabola, give a final kick of thrust to put it in orbit. |
|
|
Well, ideally you go straight up to get out
of the residual atmosphere by the shortest
route, then turn right. Also, the energy
needed to get a 20g satellite orbiting
(about 0.5MJ) is much more than the
energy needed to get it to alititude
(0.03MJ), based purely on calculations of
kinetic and gravitational energy. |
|
|
So, the "final kick" is most of your energy
budget. |
|
|
Been thinking about the final kick: a large number of satellites packed around some C4. One of them might go in the right direction. C4 detonation velocity just over 8000m/s. However, I guess this doesn't follow the spirit of the idea. |
|
|
I think it's absolutely within the spirit of the idea. It's that sort of thinking that might make it happen. |
|
|
Under the present rules (which are under
development), you have to specify *in
advance* which item is your satellite. This
to deal with the situation where, say, a
spent rocket enters orbit along with the
satellite, but the satellite can't be detected
(but the rocket can, for example because
of its size). So, alas, you'd fall foul of that
rule. However, you're definitely thinking
along the right lines. |
|
|
[Ling], how do you keep from destroying the satellites? The bare minimum I can see is a reflector and I think this would destroy anything weaker than a block of metal. Wouldn't this work better with some kind of shaped charge? Or at least putting the explosive at the center of a tube and the satellite on one side. |
|
|
Also can people buy C4? I just assumed you can't. |
|
|
Send the (highly explosive) satellite up in a gun on a rocket under a hydrogen balloon. At a predetermined height the rocket will power out of the atmosphere on a pillar of flame, igniting the balloon in a huge conflagration behind it. Once out of the atmosphere, the gun will detonate, firing the explosive satellite into orbit where it will blow up and be visible from earth. |
|
|
The main advantage of this design is that it'll be a lot of fun. |
|
|
We may have to go for a lower orbit (say, a
couple of thousand feet) if we want the
hydrogen balloon to conflagrate properly. |
|
|
I love the C4 idea. The Ling Maneuver: massive redundancy with high explosive at the center and fingers crossed. I think that principle could be also used at earlier stages of the launch, and other aspects of the development of the project, and general nonrocket related life endeavors. I will give it a try here at lunch. |
|
|
Draft N-prize rules (slightly different from
those originally proposed) are on my
profile page for the time being. |
|
|
We'll have figured out lots of ways to do it. Unfortunately we won't have picked up even a screwdriver. |
|
|
--Taken from the rockeloonanoon thread, prolly better off here-- |
|
|
As someone who is unlikely to get a chance to compete, may I suggest that the final acceleration stage is most likely to be achieved with an EFP? |
|
|
-WARNING - watch out searching for the term EFP as a latge % of the use of them is by terrorists, the remainder being "genuine" millitary application -- </W> |
|
|
If you want ~20 grams going a really high speed, look at modifying an EFP to be the final stage in launching your load. An EFP weighing in at maybe 3kg can launch a >1kg mass at over 4km/s relative. That's a hell of a final boost. I'd say you could modify the paylaod of the EFP to have your package at the front, with a small bursting charge for separation once in orbit. Modern EFP's can be within several minute-of-angle accuracy <some testing required>. |
|
|
My guess would be a balloon, with a 1 or 2 stage rocket, with the final payload being an EFP with your package on the tip. making your hardware capable of handling the millions of G's is your problem. |
|
|
I've always wondered how you would go trying to use explosive confinement to reinforce a barrel for extremely high pressure propulsion. Ie a pseudo-gun barrel surrounded in explosive blocks - and the "bullet" consists of a projectile (prolly with a sacrificial wear liner), and an extremely high power explosive propelling charge. Time the barrel enclosing explosives to explosively "reinforce" the barrel to support the ludicrous internal pressures for one, very high powered shot. Possibly the progressive collapse of the barrel and pressure wave could be used to constantly apply the driving force on the projectile. The limit here will be gas temperature, or should I say gas velocity, which will probably be the upper limit for how fast you can get the projectile to go. Unless, during detonation you are accelerating the entire mass of the "gun". In which this becomes analogous to a multi-stage rocket. Hmmm. A fair bit of crossover with explosively formed penetrator theory (EFP's). |
|
|
Once again, most of the technical stuff here will be rather highly classified, this time it will be that timing explosives to this precision is usually done for the sole purpose of detonating nuclear devices. but I'd like to know if it would work, or could be made to work. |
|
|
//modifying an EFP to be the final stage in launching your load// Thanks, I've been trying to Google that all day based on a show I saw on the assignation of a president of the World Bank, or something, some time ago. All I remembered was a bicycle with a basket. In the basket was a remotely triggered explosive that turned a copper plate into a projectile of crazy velocity. |
|
|
I don't know what is heavier, a small charge of C4 in a barrel made of Dyneema or a larger charge and no containment? It may not matter because I don't even want to know what it takes to get C4. My only hope is that if we drop the needed velocity down to 4km/s, we can use something that won't get me arrested. |
|
|
The idea of creating the containment with multiple charges is amazing but way to complicated on this budget. It seems like a lot of little wires that could vibrate loose when this thing rips from 50km to 200km. I think it could work if done from the balloon. |
|
|
Just an idea that's been floating about in my head for a few years, waiting for a use. And yes, if we include R&D costs, no way for under a grand, but if it's just materials costs, powergel is cheap and powerful, this could easily be ginned up for $1k. |
|
|
Government imposed permits/clearances notwithstanding. |
|
|
PS I'd love some feedback on the confinement barrel idea, not sure if it's suitable for it's own thread. |
|
|
Then again I just posted it |
|
|
//assignation of a president of the World Bank// <snigger> blonde bombshell, doubtless... |
|
|
I say do away with the weight restrictions altogether. If an entrant can get *any* object into orbit on the specified budget, and prove it, who cares if it weighs ten pounds or a nanogram? |
|
|
And is there any relationship between the length of a railgun and the weight of the projectile? Could a ground based, single use railgun feasibly do this? |
|
|
If we're looking at multi-stage launch systems, then our options are wide open. We can optimise each stage to suit the profile of each section of the launch. |
|
|
Already we're discussing a two stage system with completely different technologies at each stage (balloon + solid/hybrid rocket). A third stage could use a completely different propulsion technology. |
|
|
For example, the rockoon combination could launch a 2kg single-use cannon to elliptical orbit, then the cannon fires a 20g payload into a more circular orbit. |
|
|
/edit/ Ah I see the Rockelloonannon [link] covers that example nicely. |
|
|
Insert ideas involving railguns, Gauss cannons, tethers, mass-drivers, trebuchets etc below. |
|
|
//I say do away with the weight
restrictions altogether.// Nope -
weight limit stays. As noted in the full
rules, you can use sabots, shielding etc
or whatever you like, but the final
orbiting device has to be <19.9999
grams. |
|
|
//a ground based, single use railgun//
but, if it's single-use, you have to be
able to build it within the £999.99
budget (see full rules on my profile
page). |
|
|
Just skimmed through "The rules", and I have a couple of questions: |
|
|
1. How is the orbital height to be proved?
2. If the additional cost to launch satellite 2 was less than £999.99, then would that qualify? |
|
|
Finally, I think the costs would be a big arguing point. Does it include import duties, VAT, trade discounts etc? Although if someone did it for 1100, I'm sure you would be so impressed that you would probably buy them a beer or two. |
|
|
(Of course, the cost to launch S1 might be extensive...especially if it's a huge rail gun). |
|
|
My biggest worry is making a left instead of a right, i.e.something goes wrong with the launch and it fires west instead of east. Then if you are unlucky enough, your tiny satellite will now have a short existence as a bullet which could strike another satellite at CRAZY impact velocities 14km/s and 4MJ of energy. |
|
|
My biggest question is can a 20g satellite of undetermined location be detected from earth? I'm thinking everything could work perfectly, except the course is a little off so all the telescopes are pointed in the wrong spot to see it's signal. |
|
|
//1. How is the orbital height to be
proved?// That is a very good question.
It will almost certainly require ground-
based observation, either telescopically
(eg, of a strobe or reflector) or radio-
wise/radarishly etc. It would almost
certainly be necessary to recruit the
help of others, but the budget for
detection is not included in the
£999.99. |
|
|
/If the additional cost to launch satellite
2 was less than £999.99, then would
that qualify?// Probably yes. The rules
state that the cost of anything which is
used up must be covered, basically. So,
if you can build a very expensive railgun
or reuseable launch vehicle, and if all of
the costs (fuel/refurbishment etc, plus
the satellite itself) for the launch itself
come to under £999.99, you're fine. |
|
|
// I think the costs would be a big
arguing point.// Yes, probably. That's
why I've got lots of "judges' decision is
final" clauses. Basically, after you've
completed your 9 orbits, if I said "here
is £999.99 in cash, do it again", you
should be able to. |
|
|
//can a 20g satellite of undetermined
location be detected from earth?// Yes.
20g will easily accommodate a simple
transmitter, and the power delivered to
earth will be way bigger than that
detected by radioastronomers, I think.
Or you could have a small strobe-light,
again easily detectable. Someone also
suggested radar reflectors of mylar film. |
|
|
The main problem will be in recruiting
help, and in knowing where to look. I
imagine you'd want some more
powerful telemetry on your rocket (if
you use a rocket), so you at least know
the direction and velocity of your
satellite at the moment it's released into
orbit. |
|
|
So wait, if reusable costs are not counted, then we may want to think about a hypersonic RC launch vehicle. I had toyed with this idea at the beginning, but discounted it as too expensive. |
|
|
So all I have to do know is build a scale model SR-71 or Aurora to launch my LEO insertion rocket off of. |
|
|
//we may want to think about a
hypersonic RC launch vehicle// By all
means. As long as you recover the vehicle
intact, and as long as the cost of fuel and
any necessary refurbishment, plus the cost
of the satellite, are covered by £999.99,
then by all means. |
|
|
I found a excellent link on the topic called "Are Amateur Orbital Rockets Possible?" Has lots of great other links included. I am now debating between the hybrid (N2O/PVC) rocket (SpaceShip One) and the LOX/kerosene (Apollo) path to orbit. |
|
|
Very nice link, Mr. QED - many thanks.
Especially interesting is the note to use
existing satellites to help with telemetry
- I presume this offers a number of
options. |
|
|
Note also that amateur rocketry to date
has been hampered by the relatively
large budgets which people are
prepared to sink into these things. A
much smaller budget should offer a far
better chance of success. |
|
|
The N-prize site should be up in a week
or two - watch this final frontier. |
|
|
Nice work on the website. |
|
|
Nice website, and I know I am supposed to email you questions, but I want to have this one here for clarification. |
|
|
Are reusable parts included in the £999.99? |
|
|
So for example, I build a $3000 rocket, that launches from a $2000 balloon, that reaches 100km, fires a cannon to launch the satellite which orbits 9 times. My rocket, balloon launcher and all it's parts minus fuel & lifting gas and satellite are recovered. I can then take all those parts add less than £999.99 worth of fuel, lifting gas and satellite and repeat the event. Is that legal? |
|
|
Thanks to [wagster] and team for the
website - see the link on the site. |
|
|
No, the £999.99 only has to cover non-
reuseable parts. Basically, you should be
able (if asked) to repeat your launch
without spending more than another
£999.99 - see the full rules on the n-
prize site. |
|
|
Nice website. You might want to be careful about implying that you actually have 9,999 pounds to give away. |
|
|
- unless, of course, you actually do have £9,999 to give away.
Is there any rule about how high the satellite has to orbit? If not, then someone will enter a helium balloon tied to a bit of ballast, which will float a few metres above the ground for nine days in geostationary orbit around the Earth. |
|
|
No, that won't work, there is a 99km altitude minimum. |
|
|
// implying that you actually have 9,999
pounds to give away.// I'm not implying
that I have £9,999.99 to give away. I have
£9,999.99 to give away. |
|
|
//No, that won't work, there is a 99km altitude minimum.// |
|
|
And a rule that says that the organisers can close off any loopholes that run against the spirit of the competition at any time. [Maxwell] may have put his money where his mouth is, but he isn't getting stitched up. |
|
|
May I request that the Question (by Jupiter), in homage to the n-prize's origin, be amended to "Shirley it's impossible?", and the answer have the following addendum: "(and stop calling me Shirley)" |
|
|
Actually, I think I rather like that. And
perhaps the graphic could have a black
rectangular slab, with sides in the ratio
1:4:9, orbiting around it. |
|
|
The N-Prize is discussed in the New Scientist's space blog. |
|
|
By the way, very neat website! |
|
|
Excellent, getting picked up by New
Scientist. Let's hope this brings some
imaginative entries. |
|
|
Thanks! (And thanks to Wags at
picture&word for the site.) |
|
|
It also made it into New Scientist print
edition (brief mention in last week's
issue), and I've got an invite to go on
The Space Show (www.the
spaceshow.com) - an enthusiast radio
station (date to be decided). |
|
|
And special thanks to everyone here for
bringing this about. I'll look forward to
meeting some of you at the inquest. |
|
|
My pleasure. Can't wait to buy the New Scientist tomorrow. |
|
|
About 1 column inch, bottom right corner,
page 7 I think! |
|
|
How on Earth did I miss this?! Inspiring, Educational, Slightly Barmey and a Wager to Boot! Best of British to All and nice website to [wags]. |
|
|
Not being a rocket scientist myself, what happens when the satelite does a few orbits but in a direction that's way off kilter from a great circle route? Does it correct itself, do some kind of odd spiral pattern, or what? |
|
|
Nevermind, it probably has to do a great circle route because something else would require side thrust. |
|
|
Also, who gets to explain when we knock down a telecom satelite? |
|
|
If we knock down a telecoms satellite then
(a) it'll mean we've considerably exceeded
the requirements for the N-Prize and (b)
they won't be able to phone up to
complain. |
|
|
... and (c) they will kidnap you, steal your plans, and pour all their money into them. |
|
|
I was reading an article on rocketry and came across this: |
|
|
"The agency is also concerned that large rockets could be used as weapons. But weapons experts say it is doubtful that the rockets could be significant threats because they do not have guidance systems, which are prohibited by federal law." |
|
|
So, will travel costs to a non-U.S. location be a part of total cost? <link to full article> |
|
|
That's interesting! Fortunately, travel costs
to a non-US location will be negligible for
all participants, apart from those living in
the US. |
|
|
Incidentally, you're all invited to drop in to
the N-Prize group (linked under "Contact"
on the N-Prize site). |
|
|
That's minor, we just found out that GPS stops working above 60000 feet and a specific speed. Government regs again, literally keeping us down. You can leave US, but making your own GPS is tougher. |
|
|
the thing about GPS is that devices
made in the US (and maybe elsewhere)
are deliberately restricted in altitude
and speed. The high-end chips that
include onboard processing may be
hackable; earlier chips may perform
only the core functions and may
therefore not be crippled. |
|
|
But, if push comes to shove, there are
plenty of ways to tell where you are. |
|
|
[Blatant elf-promotion] I'll be on radio in
about an hour (9:30am pacific daylight
time) talking about the N-Prize, and will
try to mention the HB. It's called The
Space Show, and it's at
www.thespaceshow.com |
|
|
I'll have a listen to that. |
|
|
On the subject of GPS, I wonder if Galileo would be more useable for our purposes? It probably won't be ready in time. |
|
|
Heard that!. Sounds like you are going great guns. I may even buy the T-Shirt!. |
|
|
Thanks for the link, Xavier, and thanks to
Robert Goldsmith for the original article
and the slashdot. We've now got five
teams signed up, with another four on the
way - making a highly appropriate nine
teams. I'll try to encourage entrants to put
a small croissant logo on their satellite,
with Jutta's permission. |
|
|
It'll get a bit baked on reentry. |
|
|
Getting Worried Yet, [MaxwellBuchanan]?
Good Work though! |
|
|
Terrified, more like. But not about having
to give away the prize money - I'll be more
than delighted to see someone claim it.
One giant leap for a man, one small step
for mankind. |
|
|
£999.99 will barely put a thing into space today, let alone orbit. |
|
|
How about: if the best contestant is over budget, give them the award anyway, but subtract $2 from the prize for every $1 they went over budget? |
|
|
Getting a roll of quarters into orbit for £1000 would still be pretty amazing. |
|
|
How about: if the best contestant is over budget, throw a big party for all those who gave it their all. |
|
|
jcatkeson: I'll bet you £9,999.99 that
somebody wins the prize, within the rules. |
|
|
God I hate fuckers who post advertisements in forums and other user message board type websites. |
|
|
What the hell....is this getting baked???? saw it on slashdot yesterday and knew I'd read it somewhere before... |
|
|
Would it be too much to ask for it to be croissant-shaped? Probably. It's all got a bit serious now, hasn't it? |
|
|
[Max] Has anyone given you a rough estimate of their launch date yet? I'm getting quite excited by this - and I want to be able to marvel at the economy and cleverness that will be required by the winning entry. |
|
|
//God I hate ____ers who post
advertisements// huh? |
|
|
//What the hell....is this getting baked?
???// Yep. |
|
|
// It's all got a bit serious now, hasn't
it?// Nope. |
|
|
//Has anyone given you a rough
estimate of their launch date yet?// No,
not yet. My guess is that we're looking
at at least a year before any launch
attempts (though I may be wrong). I
suspect the winner will have to develop
a lot of new hardware, so I'd be
surprised if we get there before 2 years
from now. |
|
|
However, all entrants need to keep me
posted on launch plans, so I'll have
some warning and will let people know.
Check the Google group also.. |
|
|
After this of course we'll need handkerchief-sized solar sails and then we can rule the solar system. |
|
|
See: Another Mad Scheme[Link], I was originally going to call it the 'X-stremely Small Prize'. |
|
|
I was surprised to discover that a few-
hundred-milliwatt transmitter is easily
pick-uppable from earth, and such a
transmitter can easily be included within
the weight restrictions. |
|
|
//a few- hundred-milliwatt transmitter is easily pick-uppable from earth// - no, get one of the Martian ones. They're much cheaper. |
|
|
//a few- hundred-milliwatt transmitter is easily pick-uppable from earth// You could boost prize funds by selling tinfoil hats to the weak-minded, as N-prize countermeasures. |
|
|
//I know you are quite set on the
£999.99 prize, but wouldn't it be
interesting to put a button on the site
to allow people to donate extra money?
// |
|
|
The prize is actually £9,999.99;
£999.99 is the budget for each launch.
I'm reluctant to increase the prize, since
this would attract sane people.
However, I have considered allowing
"charity co-sponsoring" - eg, maybe
Virgin puts up £999,999 to be donated
to a list of 9 charities if and when the
N-Prize is won. It'd be good to raise
some money for worthy causes (like,
maybe a new burns unit at some
hospital....). |
|
|
[MB] In reference to someone or anyone winning this prize, I will admit, I would have said no. It seemed like asking too much for too little reward, but I have since revised my thoughts. Or to be exact I have revised my view of people. Is it just me, or were you also shocked to find out that there are people out there who have half-built aerospike engines in their basements? NASA isn't even sure they will work, yet a private entity has most of one? I rarely meet scary smart people in real life and have met a few here, but the N-prize entries have rocked my ideas on reality. I mean one isn't even worried about propulsion, really just telemetry, does that surprise you? |
|
|
I wasn't surprised at the level of
enthusiasm in relation to the prize money
- I imagined from the beginning that
people would go for this for the sheer hell
of it. |
|
|
What did amaze me, though, was the level
of commitment and expertise that people
have brought to this. I'm still amazed by
this today. |
|
|
Is there a way of using gravitational acceleration? An object might not have to get to orbital velocity under its own power, just to a velocity which would enable it to "fall" at an angle which would allow gravity to do the last bit. Meteors do that sometimes. |
|
|
That sounds like the Douglas Adam's principle. I think you mean use extra elevation with a relatively small 'horizontal' velocity, and then throw yourself at the Earth and miss due to a sling-shot type effect. |
|
|
//Is there a way of using gravitational
acceleration?// |
|
|
That's how 'regular' orbits already work.
You throw yourself sideways so that, by
the time gravity has pulled you back
down, the Earth has curved away from
you and so your no closer to it. |
|
|
Of course, you could use a gravitational
slingshot involving another planet. If
you could swing by Mars, you could
pick up a huge additional velocity if you
got things right. However, you'd have
to get there first. Alternatively, if we
could get a tame black hole up there,
you could use that. |
|
|
I understand that elliptical orbits are based on the principle of missing the ground, but if an object is falling slightly below orbital velocity, it will accelerate, assuming no drag. That means that it will reach orbital velocity, but it would have to be at the correct angle to avoid colliding with the planet. The point i'm making is that gravity can be used to accelerate an object, and so maybe the slingshot effect can be used in the upper atmosphere if it's at the right angle. |
|
|
What i've ended up thinking is a rockoon which uses its own hydrogen, is streamlined and contains a two-stage cylinder. The first stage is a Gauss gun, the second a solid fuel rocket, or the other way round. Each stage - rockoon, Gauss gun, solid fuel rocket - slants closer to the horizontal than the previous one. Then, a tiny centrifuge launches the satellite, then the fog of a humanities education descends on my mind and i think vaguely of a slingshot principle which accelerates the satellite using gravity. |
|
|
//were you also shocked to find out that there are people out there who have half-built aerospike engines in their basements?// |
|
|
//One giant leap for a man, one small step for mankind.// |
|
|
//gravity can be used to accelerate an
object, and so maybe the slingshot
effect can be used in the upper
atmosphere if it's at the right angle.// I
see your argument, but I'm pretty sure
that whatever you gain from the fall you
will have already paid for in getting it
up there in the first place. I suspect
that the fundamental problem is that
the projectile and the earth both start
out with the same velocities. |
|
|
I did think there'd be some kind of conservation of energy problem, but i didn't know what it would be. |
|
|
Then again, and this is probably where i leave the shores of sanity, the orbital velocity of this planet around the sun is greater than its escape velocity, so were there a way to use that fact without leaving the atmosphere, it'd be nice, wouldn't it? |
|
|
Maybe you could just hang around until an asteroid hits us and hope it pings a coin into orbit. |
|
|
(I think that) unless your speed was greater than escape velocity to begin with you would end up being captured by your slingshot (either in orbit ... or a crater) |
|
|
//the orbital velocity of this planet around
the sun is greater than its escape
velocity// You mean that the orbital
velocity of the earth around the sun is
greater than the escape velocity of an
object from the earth? Yes, but that's not
the point - all that's relevant is the velocity
of the satellite and the earth relative to one
another. |
|
|
I see that, but the thing is, it seems a shame that that fact is completely useless. |
|
|
Quite so. Even worse is the fact that we,
along with our sun, are whizzing around
the centre of the galaxy at a truly
preposterous rate, and our galaxy in turn
is doing quite a respectable turn of speed
with respect to the centre of the universe,
yet it's bugger all use to us. |
|
|
Stupid question here; if the Sun was directly above the launch would its gravitational attraction make it any easier to escape the Earths gravity well, or would the effect be negligible? |
|
|
That is a very good question. I can give
plausible answers in either direction: |
|
|
1) The effect will be small but definite.
Just as the sun contributes to tides by
lifting the mobile part of the earth's
surface (the water) toward it, so there
would also be a small but definite boost
to a spacecraft. The same would be
true on the opposite side of the earth,
just as a second high tide occurs there.
But the greater overall effect would
come from the moon. |
|
|
2) The effect will be non-existent. Yes,
the sun (and the moon) pulls things
toward it. However, it pulls equally on
the earth and on the rocket (mass for
mass) and therefore there'll be no net
effect. |
|
|
Now, the problem is to decide which
answer is correct. |
|
|
The launch vehicle is orbiting the sun at the same speed as the earth. In this orbit the inward gravitational pull is balanced out exactly by outward acceleration. If you want to take advantage of the gravitational pull of the sun, you will need to decelerate. |
|
|
You might argue that if you launched in the daytime you should launch against the direction of earth's orbit so that your launch velocity will be subtracted from your orbital velocity around the sun. This will decrease the outward acceleration of the orbit and allow some of the pull of the sun to take effect, moving you away from the earth. Similarly, if you launch at night you should launch with the earth's orbit, so that your launch velocity is added to the solar orbit velocity and you accelerate away from both the sun and the earth. |
|
|
I expect there are more important factors though. |
|
|
//2) The effect will be non-existent [etc.]// |
|
|
If we go with hypothesis 2, could we not argue with equal force that the moon pulls equally on the earth and on the sea (mass for mass), and that tides are therefore caused by nereids playing tug-of-war? |
|
|
If so, would this be a point against hypothesis 2 or in favour? |
|
|
So we are looking to be in the umbra of a total solar eclipse (moon and sun directly aligned), preferably close to the equator, at the perihelion, before 2011. <rushes off to check mayan calendar>. |
|
|
Mmmm, I'd have to go with (2) because like wags said we are already in orbit around the sun. The moon though, being in orbit around us might give a bit of pull. |
|
|
What about a spring tide (i.e. perigee) close to perihelion? Teeny, teeny differences. |
|
|
[EDIT!!!!! date changed to 15th
November!! Invite is still open if
anyone's in the UK.] |
|
|
If anyone is likely to be in, near, around
or
in the vicinity of Cambridge (don't ask
me
which one!) on Sept 27th [NOW 15th
NOV] , I'm organising
an N-Prize dinner at one of the
colleges.
There's likely to be room for one or two
more and, since the whole thing started
here, I'd be honoured if any of you
would
care to join us. Dinner and drinks are
on
me - first come, first served! Email me
at
info@n-prize.com if you're interested. |
|
|
At the risk of gratuitous churning, just a brief update: there
are now 15 teams signed up and, although the first
impressive injury has yet to be suffered, hardware is being
built. Some pics, links, news etc on the N-Prize site and on
the Google group linked from there. Thanks again to the HB
for gestating this idea. |
|
|
SO impressed! Kudos [MaxwellBuchanan], [jutta], Halfbakery... |
|
|
Kudos not to Maxwell Buchanan, but to Jutta, to Wagster (for
building the N-Prize site and making it real), and above all to
the teams who have devoted huge amounts of thought,
effort and money (and, in due course, eyebrows and fingers). |
|
|
It's good to know that this Forum (Halfbakery) is relevent to the world and matters... |
|
|
Whoa there! The N-Prize organizers deny all claims of
relevancy! |
|
|
I'm enormously impressed, [MaxB]. And you've got two teams from New Zealand - very interesting. |
|
|
Thanks [hippo]. New Zealand probably has the highest
density of N-Prize teams after the UK! Kudos to the NZ
teams (one kudo each). |
|
|
I make New Zealand (pop.: 4,173,460 - N-Prize teams: 2 - N-Prize teams per 10m people: 4.79) to be about 10 times as enthusiastic as the UK (pop.: 60,943,912 - N-Prize teams: 3 - N-Prize teams per 10m people: 0.49) |
|
|
Hippo, I bow to your analysis. |
|
|
Are any teams getting close yet? |
|
|
I just put a Shekel on a bean sprout. I promise to notify as things happen. |
|
|
(clever weather balloon space story linked) |
|
|
[up on cloud 9] BTW, there is one unofficial HB N-Prize Team, though it's almost just me, Team Daedalus and I'm looking for help. Weirdly enough there is also another team which is baking an idea I posted here. Team Prometheus is trying to bake my "Rockeloonannon", though he honestly doesn't seem to have read it. I guess insane minds think alike. |
|
|
Actually my plan is completely modular and centers around small complex objects linked together with large low tech objects, with the idea that one person could make several copies of one system and another could make several copies of another, etc. and once you get enough systems together, everybody exchanges and builds their own rocket. Sell the parts after as a kit. The key is to concentrate the tech with an eye for mass production. |
|
|
The keys are a small pump driven bi-prop rocket (similar to Project Mockingbird), an optical/magnetic guidance system (similar to those developed for HARP rockets) and a homemade zero-pressure balloon assembled using low cost plastic sheeting heat welded together in the shape of a sphere and filled with hydrogen from water electrolysis. |
|
|
"Making wings so everyone can fly" |
|
|
<Behind on responses - have been in San Diego and in the
air for the last 24 hours> |
|
|
[Germanicus] nobody has an imminent launch of a full
mission, but several teams have some hardware already
built. Most of the teams have their own websites with
updates, and these are linked (under "Teams") from the N-
prize site. |
|
|
[humanzee] No offense taken :-) I know David
Livingstone said he drops by the site sometimes, but
whether he has an account I'm not sure. |
|
|
Arising from another HB idea (see link), I wonder if a glorified
spud-gun, say 100m tall, would give a useful boost to an N-
Prize rocket before its own motors kicked in? The gun itself
is ground equipment, so its construction cost doesn't count
towards budget. Of course we are not going to reach orbital
heights this way, but it would be a nearly "free" boost for an
otherwise conventional rocket. |
|
|
Before I checked the link, I thought the other idea you were referring to was the Fuel-Air Gun. I pictured a big vertical pipe, filled with diesel and air, with the spacecraft dropped in the top by crane. |
|
|
//I wonder if a glorified spud-gun, // "Spuds in Space" |
|
|
// I pictured a big vertical pipe, filled with diesel and air,//
Yes, that'd basically be it. The aim would simply be to give
the rocket a headstart. I don't know what kind of velocities
you could get from the gun, but maybe half a kps; a small
part of the total velocity needed, but it's "free". |
|
|
I never thought of my idea being use for the n-prized but I suppose the principal is the same. What if you launched your rocket from a tube that was sealed by the rocket itself, so that the exhaust gases build up pressure behind it to give an added boost? I'm no rocket scientist but if you could make the tube long enough & strong enough this might work. |
|
|
That sounds like a reasonable idea. |
|
|
I know that the secret of rocket design is to get the
exhaust velocities right so that as much as possible of the
energy of the exhaust gases is translated into thrust, but I
don't know the actual efficiencies, and your suggestion
might help. |
|
|
However, if you have the tube, why derive the
compression from valuable (ie, carried) rocket fuel when it
can come from cheap (ie, ground-based) fuel? |
|
|
I have been thinking long and hard about these so-called "invisibility cloaks". An arrangement of surfaces that direct certain waveforms around an object as if it were not there. (theoretically they have been applied to shore breaks). To me there exists the posibility of a structure, not tubular or cylindrical, that would deflect the resultant forces of a launch, into the most verticle plane. So far the geometries of these "invisible" structures apply only to microwave light (or more accurately, have been applied to microwave wavelengths) The studies want to drag them into the visible spectrum, but what if we go the other way, into sub/super sonic wavelengths. |
|
|
I would wager another one of my delicious Macon hats (previous one still waiting to be devoured) that you could get great effeciaency from such an arrangement. The structure would be as energy complex to arrange as a stand alone cylinder x Km tall, but may add boost not by containment but also by re- addition of wasted forces. |
|
|
You all are talking about HARP, firing a rocket from a cannon. It is cool and it works, but the cannon is no potato gun because the downsides are not overcome until you put some real push to the rocket. |
|
|
One of the issues with shooting a rocket out of a gun is dynamic pressure. |
|
|
Notice during a space shuttle launch they actually have to throttle the engines back at a certain point, while they go through "Max Q"; then at about 70 seconds after launch they're through that part and can go back to full on. (That "Roger, go at throttle-up" call that still gives me a little shudder every time I hear it) |
|
|
Anyway, dynamic pressure on your rocket's airframe increases with velocity (I can't remember whether its the square or the cube, but it's one of those), and decreases as the air gets thinner. You'd think that it's just a problem for the Shuttle, with its weird shape and interflecting aerodynamic surfaces, but it can play havoc with an aerodynamically sleek & simple machine as well. For example, if you are old enough to remember the Saturn V launches, you may remember that it launched straight up. It was a long way up before they started to turn downrange. The point was to get above as much air as possible before the velocity got too high. |
|
|
The Shuttle does its roll & tip manuver almost as soon as it clears the pad - it's actually a much more robust airframe. It's built to handle re-entry, which the Saturn rocket wasn't; and as rough as launch dynamics can get, they're nothing compared to re-entry. |
|
|
Shoot your rocket out of a tube, and you get a very high velocity down in the thickest part of the atmosphere. |
|
|
Does that mean you'd get away with a weaker (and cheaper) airframe if you launched from a weather balloon? |
|
|
Hippo - yes, which is the basis of the "Rockoon" (rocket
launched from a balloon, above most of the atmosphere) -
see earlier discussions. (The main reason for a rockoon is
avoid the high drag and hence reduce fuel usage in punching
through the lower atmosphere, but I guess stress on the
airframe is another consideration.) |
|
|
Yep. I fear we're going to end up with a pretty darn big launch platform, though... |
|
|
(Actually, I think there's another reason to use this from a high-altitude launcher: up where the air is thin, you gotta be going at a pretty good clip before your fins start doing anything worthwhile. Shooting out of a tube means less time in a potentially unstable flight mode.) |
|
|
has the thought of using the contents of the LTA launch platform as fuel been considered? As the vehicle departs the platform it could draw the contents of the lift vehicle through a hose into a special housing that fell off when the distance between the rocket and the platform was great enough. This could deplete the platform enough to allow retrieval. |
|
|
You should contact the people in the link I posted,
they might be interested in becoming a team. |
|
|
Curiously I had this idea many moons ago: for the 50th anniversary of Sputnik to launch, via mass driver, a 1g payload to duplicate the 'beep-beep' for an orbit or two. Then state of the art made such a transmitter doable. The problem, I'm told, is length of antenna but this isn't insurmountable. My problem was getting access to enough electric power to juice a launcher; it's non-trivial. |
|
|
for the payload, how about a stripped down cell phone? keep calling it and seeing which area code it's in! |
|
|
One team is using an HTC phone running Android. It can track and store its entire flightpath using GPS. |
|
|
// It can track and store its entire flightpath using GPS// Seems unlikely - commercial GPS receivers can rarely exceed 20 000 metres and 1500 kph. OK for a balloon, but not an orbiter. |
|
|
A couple of problems, cell phones don't work over 2500m, cell phones don't weigh less than 19g, non-military GPS is legally limited by either speed or altitude. Most GPS chips are limited by both, the ones that are only limited by one are the ones usable by high altitude balloons. One of the teams has a military GPS and has used it to track their high altitude balloon launches. |
|
|
Lastly I wouldn't want to use anything as overkill as a cell phone processor and OS in the harsh environment of the ignorosphere. PS I LOVE that term. |
|
|
//cell phones don't work over 2500m// They have altimeters now? What about all those cell phone users in the Andes? |
|
|
GPS works by having a ground-based receiver pick up signals from three or more satellites and, by comparing the timing differences between signals from them, work out where it is. For the N-Prize, you could do a sort of 'reverse GPS' where you have a very simple signal source in orbit being listened to by three or more ground-based receivers which compare the timing differences between the signals they receive and work out where the source is. |
|
|
Several of the teams (perhaps most) are using radio tracking
more or less as [hippo] suggests. With decent receiving
equipment on the ground, you can get away with ludicrously
low transmitter powers, even if non-directional. |
|
|
//between 9.99 and 19.99 grams// |
|
|
Rats. That ruins my plan to orbit a human soul, which is known to weigh 21 grams. |
|
|
[ldischler] Don't despair. McDougal's figure was the average
of 6 souls, so there must have been some variation. You just
need to find a small-souled person (won't be hard, I'm sure). |
|
|
You could probably strip down a soul. It won't need a
keypad, and you could probably even ditch the battery and
use a lightweight solar panel instead. |
|
|
BTW, 480 days to go and counting.... |
|
|
// three or more ground-based receivers // |
|
|
It's called Very Long Baseline Interferometry, and it's been used by radio astronomers for decades. |
|
|
Easy. Find a Roman Catholic and take all the guilt out - there'll be damn all left ... |
|
|
Hey NASA is reading the HB? Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge - $2 million prize (link) |
|
|
Yesssss, but they're launching ENORMOUS satellites (1kg, I
think) and the prize money is wayyyy too big. |
|
|
Oh that's ridiculous. I was thinking more something like a swarm of flies with recording apparatus genetically engineered into them somehow. |
|
|
Seriously though, i really did about doing it with a cloud of tiny machines which assembled in orbit, but they'd have to find each other. |
|
|
//cloud of tiny machines//
It is interesting and covered in some detail in fiction,
though I can't remember where at the moment. To
get it to work, the machines need propulsion, so the
only way I see that working on small scale is ultralight
mechanical butterflies with solar sails for wings and a
little solar cell for power. Basically you need
graphene, then it becomes possible. Materials just
don't scale down that far, they hit atomic limits. |
|
|
Not sure about "that far" because tiny is not a precise term. I still think a balloon and so forth would have to be involved. If they're small enough, they could use solar sails above a certain height. Tardigrades could allegedly travel through space. Nineteen grammes of desiccated tardigrades? |
|
|
19.99, in fact. However, you'll have to get them all to shout
in unison, so you can track them from Earth... |
|
|
Rockeloonannon using the hydrogen of the balloon as fuel (needs oxygen then though, adding to the mass). This shoots up a pellet which can transmit a signal, in the centre of a large Maltese cross of silver leaf, black on one side with reinforced edges. It manoeuvres itself to face the sun, which it then uses to accelerate by starlight, but diagonally upwards so that it gets above the ionosphere. Once there, the silver cross becomes slightly parabolic and aims towards the ground. The pellet in the centre transmits a signal which is focussed onto the surface. |
|
|
Lots of missing thought there as usual. |
|
|
Very cool, but it's going to have to be REALLY light or have REALLY big wings to make the turn to make a decent orbot, but this basic design is the future. All we need is graphene sails and some nanofiber stays. If you can create a craft where the solar pressure exceeds the gravitational force from the sun, you can go anywhere. |
|
|
Since I'm in a calculatey mood, I just worked out how much
energy (gravitational potential energy plus kinetic energy) a
10 gram satellite has. |
|
|
It's about 250,000 Joules. |
|
|
This is the energy available from burning one teaspoon of
petrol. |
|
|
Well in that case, it could be pedal-powered. Get some kind of pedal-powered dynamo, link it to a maser and aim that maser at the satellite. Sit there in the middle of a field pedalling like mad while the beam shoots up into the stratosphere mere centimetres from your head, gets picked up by a microwave detector and ~somehow~ converted into thrust. |
|
|
In fact the Uzbek Amateur Rocketry Society is currently doing exactly that. |
|
|
That reminds me. Has anyone read the chapter in Patrick Moore's 'Can You Speak Venusian?' on the Zambian Space Agency? I have for once been unable to find a trace of information on the web about this, but i seem to remember they had a plan to go to the Moon in a craft made partly of frozen margarine to look for dinosaur fossils, and they were training cats in a barrel on the end of a chain which they swang to and fro in order to give them experience of zero gee. It was a bit strange really, and with hindsight reminiscent of advance fee fraud. |
|
|
//they had a plan to go to the Moon in a craft made partly of frozen margarine// |
|
|
We should invite them over. They'd fit right in here. |
|
|
I've actually come back here because i just watched a video of a quarter-tonne upright piano being flung a hundred and thirty-five metres into the air with a trebuchet. I'm sure it wouldn't scale up, but if it did, that would catapult a ten gramme projectile into space. Has that got possibilities, do you think? |
|
|
That would work. You'd have to get the trebuchet itself
travelling at something like 7.95 kilometres per second, but
then it could provide that extra 0.05kps. |
|
|
Back to unfurliness then. Actually no. A rocket-powered trebuchet on rails. |
|
|
Er, what if six teams get together, buy one of Interorbital's TubeSats [xaviergisz's link of Aug 02 2009] and release their nanosats from it? Budget and payload seems about right. |
|
|
Also, see theregister.com's slightly misnamed PARIS [link] - Paper Airplane Released Into Space. |
|
|
//I'm sure it wouldn't scale up// |
|
|
But for one thing - air resistance. |
|
|
//Er, what if six teams get together, buy one of
Interorbital's TubeSats [xaviergisz's link of Aug 02 2009] and
release their nanosats from it? Budget and payload seems
about right.// |
|
|
Nothing prevents that apart from the rules. "A launch"
means the full cost of everything that leaves the ground
and doesn't come back in one piece, regardless of how
many satellites it carries, or how many teams are paying.
Basically, no piggybacking. |
|
|
There's nothing to stop a team from putting six satellites
on their rocket (for redundancy), but the total cost of the
launch still has to be within budget. |
|
|
Incidentally, we're filming for a mini-documentary with
Heinz Wolff in a week - watch out for it on YouTube (and
hopefully elsewhere) later. |
|
|
//Basically, no piggybacking.// |
|
|
Ah. So one could not, for example, hitch a ride aboard SpaceShip Two, because the expendable cost of the launch as a whole (fuel etc) is (undoubtedly) over budget? |
|
|
And if one were to hitch a ride on some other high altitude craft - say a research balloon - the expendables budget for the entire, combined launch (their mission + yours) is the crucial limit? |
|
|
//And if one were to hitch a ride on some other high altitude
craft - say a research balloon - the expendables budget for
the entire, combined launch (their mission + yours) is the
crucial limit?// |
|
|
Wow. Our latest signup for the N-Prize has something of a
head start, having launched a hybrid rockoon to about 60km
wayyyyy back in 1997! (see link). |
|
|
Ooops - thanks [csea]. Fixed. |
|
|
What's their team name on the website? |
|
|
I'm waiting to get their papers back - they'll appear at the
bottom of the list soon... |
|
|
It is! A few years ago, I couldn't even spell "Space Agentcy" -
now I are one!! |
|
|
I may have already said this, but I love this idea, and the fact that it has made it's way to the Real World. Quite why I haven't purchased a t-shirt yet I don't know. |
|
|
//Quite why I haven't purchased a t-shirt yet I don't know.// |
|
|
Well, the fact that CafePress charge an arm and a leg would
be a good one. But glad you like it :-) |
|
|
Am filming an interview with Heinz Wolff the day after
tomorrow, arranged by Wag and those very nice people at
pictureandword. |
|
|
An update! Team Prometheus today reached 106,400ft
with their high-altitude balloon, as a test of some
components of their rockoon scheme. Payload was
successfully recovered - look for updates on their Twitter,
Facebook and websites. |
|
|
Congratulations Prometheus! |
|
|
We also have a new recruit - our 25th team - from MIT.
Hyperdyne are planning an ultra-high-velocity gun launch,
and they have the hardware to back it up. |
|
|
Video with Heinz Wolff is currently in editing.....watch this
space. No, better, watch YouTube. |
|
|
I am genuinely overwhelmed, and hugely proud of
Prometheus and of all the N-Prize teams. Soon...soon... |
|
|
Big up for putting your money where your mouth is [MB]! All looks exciting from here. |
|
|
Believe me, if I get to give away the prize money, I'll be over
the moon. So to speak. |
|
|
This is a field in which I'm not even qualified to wave my hands and bluff, but I'm just passing through here because I wanted to offer my deep respect to everyone participating in this enterprise. |
|
|
Oh, and because there's a scary bull in the next field. |
|
|
Team Prometheus (who are using a rockoon approach from a
spinning balloon-mounted launcher) tested their balloonery,
telemetrys and other rys this weekend, and have photos and
footage from 106,000ft. |
|
|
//...from 106,000ft// - or 32 km!! - this is getting exciting |
|
|
It is indeed! And that's just the first-stage balloonic part.
Prometheus made a lot of noise when they first signed up,
but have now become one of the leading entrants. They
have a really cool lightweight launch cradle for the rocket,
which spins up before ignition to give stability to the rocket
as it launches from the balloon. I believe their next test
flight includes a from-balloon rocket launch.... |
|
|
At the risk of being justifiably accused of elf-promotion, can
I direct interested parties to the N-Prize video (link) on
YouTube? |
|
|
Heinz Wolff is magnificent. Unfortunately they got some
weirdo called Paul Dear to co-star. Still, win some lose
some. |
|
|
Nice one MB! How did you get hold of the great man? |
|
|
Good stuff. Nice work [MB]. {In fact, tremendous work all round.} |
|
|
[Max]You should alert New Scientist and get another small news item out of this. |
|
|
[Hippo] Wagster and the most excellent pictureandword
team are handling press releases, including N.S. |
|
|
And thanks again to all. This is the most fun I've had outside
a lab! |
|
|
Hello, [Jinbish]; same bull, then? |
|
|
Great video - Congratulation from my side too ! |
|
|
Thanks, [gutemine]. Sorry I didn't get to mention the space
hose! |
|
|
The N-Prize ends in 365 days, 12min. As of....now. |
|
|
Bizarrely, the title of this idea (or at least of the N-prize
itself) may change - the X-Prize's lawyers have politely
contacted me regarding trademark infringement. Watch
this, ah, space. |
|
|
Have you pointed out to their lawyers that X is both written and pronounced differently from N? |
|
|
Bastards. What, have they trademarked the word Prize now? |
|
|
A-prize, B-prize, C-prize, D-prize, E-prize ... after that I
tired of Googling. Their attorneys must be pretty busy
"politely contacting" people. |
|
|
In fairness to Ansari, though, they could lose the trademark
if it could be shown that they failed to defend it. |
|
|
Yeah, well. The main problem is that they have more
lawyers than me (the maths on that is fairly simple). |
|
|
Actually, the lawyer who contacted me is Nick, so we could
call it the Nick Prize, maybe. |
|
|
//they have more lawyers than me// And so, Justice is
served.
Specifically, Justice is spared the expense of a trial. As
taxpayers, we should rejoice. |
|
|
Presumably, their complaint is based on the
assertion that your name is derived from theirs,
which the history of this idea clearly demonstrates
that it is. |
|
|
I think that your best defence would be that in
the spirit of the X-Prize, using competition to
encourage technological advances, they should
embrace your ingenuity and applaud all such
competitions. |
|
|
Also, you may wish to suggest a collaboration and
perhaps an extension to your current program to
include the Automotive N-Prize, creating a cheap
car that meets some criteria. This would make the
N-Prize a launch vehicle if you will, for those not
able to compete in the better-funded X-Prize, so
schools would enter the N-Prize and universities
would enter the X-Prize. |
|
|
Otherwise, change the name completely to
something like The Shatellite Competition. |
|
|
I say fight it, MB. Even if you lose, the publicity value could outweigh the legal costs. |
|
|
The X-prize people have sent this as an automatic precautionary measure. *If* they ever decide to pursue this, they need evidence (such as the letter you received) that they gave you fair warning etc. |
|
|
There are two avenues that they could take (that I can think of). Firstly, there is trademark infringement which requires that a reasonable person would be confused about whether the X-prize and the N-prize are run by the same organization. Secondly, there is trademark dilution (in the US) which protects famous trademarks from having their distinctiveness being 'diluted'; this may be easier to prove in this case. |
|
|
One simple thing you can do before getting in too deep is to put a disclaimer on the website that says N-prize is in no way affiliated with X-prize (you might already have this, I haven't checked). |
|
|
Anyway, talk to a trademark attorney before making any decisions. |
|
|
You could always claim it was a spelling mistake, because as a way of levering money out of the gullible entrants, it should have been called the N-Prise. |
|
|
Go over the lawyer's heads. Write to the X Prize Foundation itself - starting right at the top - and ask them politely for their forbearance. |
|
|
Saw this in Popular Mechanics today -- nice! |
|
|
//Saw this in Popular Mechanics today -- nice!// |
|
|
Have you got a link? Is there a new piece on the N-Prize in
PM? |
|
|
There was a one-page feature on "small-scale
engineering contests" or something like that. The
N-
prize was one of four, I think. They designed a
snazzy logo/symbol for your! I'll see if I can find it-
-it
might not be online. |
|
|
EDIT: It's actually in Popular Science December
2010,
page 26 in a small article called "Fortune Favors
the Geeky: Five contests that recognize science
achievements of the everyman." You're
mentioned by name. It isn't a long feature - there
are maybe three paragraphs, but still, it's pretty
cool. |
|
|
Ah - right! Someone got in touch with me a while ago about
writing this piece. If anyone can find it online, that would
be wonderful. Or, if you can email me a scan (info@n-
prize.com), that would be even wonderfuller. Thanks for
spotting it! |
|
|
I linked to an online version of the magazine, you
can see it there. |
|
|
I wonder if the N Prize came about from a boast I made on the
halbakery. Probably not, but the timing seemed right in my
mind. |
|
|
I don't want to send some remote control robot to Mars
anymore. I want to go personally. I grok the lava tubes now. I
would like to bolt up
aluminum walls and heat seal the seams of 6 mil plastic on those
frames and then expansion foam seal the wall cavaties. |
|
|
A hotel could be set. Up in pretty short order doing this. Half star,
but better than none! |
|
|
//I wonder if the N Prize came about from a boast
I made on the halbakery.// Were you the one who
said something like "you can pay $50000 to get a
satellite to orbit these days"? |
|
|
I think it was a comment something like that that
was near the start of the conversation. |
|
|
God I wish I had time for N-Prize stuff. I think
Monroe/Prometheus is launching his first high
altitude rockeloon soon. |
|
|
I think what set it off was something about homesteading on
the moon... |
|
|
...drugs might have been involved. Or whiskey... |
|
|
MQED. Yes. I had done some reseach on costs, though. |
|
|
A merry happy, and a Christmas New Year to all reckless
rocketeers from the N-Prize. <link> |
|
|
I'm not sure this has been said yet, but the N-Prize is arguably a lot more about actually doing useful stuff in space than the X-Prize. The key difference is that, as far as I understand it, the X-Prize only asks that the winner reaches an orbital
(or near-orbital) altitude, whereas the N-Prize asks that the winner demonstrates some orbits. A lot more energy is required, per kg, to insert something into orbit than simply to carry it to orbital height so this difference is significant. The N-Prize thus comes out looking more serious about space because, of course, an orbiting spacecraft is more useful than one which reaches orbital height for a few seconds. |
|
|
Thanks Hippo - I naturally agree! |
|
|
Also, the X-Prize is really not asking for anything new. We
already know you can put things up there if you spend the
money. The N-Prize demands a very restricted budget,
which means you can't do things the old way. I think this
aspect is probably more important than the distinction
between sub-orbital and orbit. |
|
|
I thought the X-Prize had a budget of $1M per
launch, which is peanuts compared to NASA. |
|
|
I think each are admirable. The X-Prize for making
space travel a commercial possibility and the N-Prize
for putting space within the realms of the garden
shed. |
|
|
For a million dollars, it's no problem. But, agreed - both
good. |
|
|
My favourite thing about the N-prize is the constraints. It's 'proper' engineering. |
|
|
<aside>Reminds me of one of my favourite bits in flim: "Apollo 13", top boffin enters room and challenges the others to make a CO2 scrubber - then tips out a box of sundry items available to the imperilled astronauts "using only this".</aside> |
|
|
Oddly, my science (I mean my day job) has gone the same
way. I've gone back to good old geeky scrapyard methods
to put together a bit of kit. |
|
|
It's quite amazing really, the cost disparity between the
same thing in different contexts. A $60 micrometer
contains a rotary encoder accurate to a degree or better,
and all the drivers and whatnot. Yet if you try to buy a
rotary encoder, it's silly money. |
|
|
Likewise for lots of other stuff. My single-molecule
sequencing system is going to wind up containing bits from
dead game controllers, blu-ray DVD players and dead
[optical] mice... |
|
|
All you need now is to be trapped in a barn/warehouse surrounded by inept guards and some makeweight, plot-moving joe-schmoes that you need to save from the clutches of a mad-man (anyone seen [8th] about?). |
|
|
Actually that's pretty much how it is. |
|
|
...except you must make a profit! |
|
|
Sp.: profiterole. I'm actually developing a microfluidic
device which create micron-diameter profiteroles at a rate of
approximately 5000 per second. The main problem is the
high viscosity of the cream and the tendency of the
chocolate to set in mid-flow. |
|
|
And your microfluidical device can't cost more than 10k? |
|
|
Depends on demand. We're currently doing consumer
research to determine how much disposable income
protozoans are willing to spend on luxury foods. |
|
|
//Depends on demand// Demand schmemand. It'll have to be under 10k or you would not qualify for the P-Prize. |
|
|
Ah. I see two errors in your thinking. First, the Microfluidic
High-Speed Profiterole Generator (or MHSPG, as our
marketing department have decided to call it after several
weeks of alcohol-fuelled research) is not intended to go into
orbit. Hence, it is tragically not eligible for the N-Prize. |
|
|
Second, the N-Prize prize is £9,999.99, but the budget which
can be spent on the launch is a mere £999.99 (just to make it
a little less easy). |
|
|
Forget it. We've tried printing 3D arrays of picoprofiteroles
at high density. Let's just say... actually, no, let's just leave
it there. |
|
|
Ah. I see two errors in your thinking.
First, this is not the N-Prize, it's the P-Prize. The rules of the P-Prize are very clear in that a picoprofiterole generator, or picoprofit generator for short, can cost up to £9,999 (it is vastly more costly to generate picoprofits than to put a small object into low-orbit), the prize itself is a glass of warm milk. |
|
|
And B, I'll get back to you on this later. |
|
|
Just a quick note to say that the N Prize garnered a mention (quite a decent paragraph, actually) in the New Zealand 2011 Astronomical Yearbook. They even got the details right! (I've found a couple of errors in the Yearbook already...) |
|
|
Yay! The Kiwis have a pretty good representation amongst
N-Prize teams. This might be because the only regulatory
requirement for launching a rocket in New Zealand is to yell
"WATCH OUT!!" shortly before lift-off. |
|
|
Y'know, that, right there, is an argument for minarchy. |
|
|
'minarchy'? What's that then, rule by Minotaur? |
|
|
We have conquered the New World - a Brazilian team has
signed up. |
|
|
But where are the Russians? Or indeed the Chinese? Are
they all sane or something? |
|
|
No - it's just that they don't want to enter a competition - that could be the slippery slope to free market economy... |
|
|
check N-Pÿize, and N-Plize :-) |
|
|
// check N-Pÿize, and N-Plize//
djinn'n'tonyx anyone? |
|
|
P-Prize...is that the (in a strangely parallel way) one to see who can get it highest up the wall? |
|
|
Actually, before you try to register anything of the form
"single-letter-hyphen-Prize", you ought to discuss with the
owners of the X-Prize foundation... |
|
|
These/those who have taken on the n prize challenge, they are
all using helium balloons for 2nd stage launch platforms? |
|
|
I had figured, roughly$ 50,000 to escape earth's gravity with the
ability to land and that was with pro bono tracking support and
landing a VERY small payload. |
|
|
That cost estimate was based upon using a reusable high altitude
balloon as a launch platform |
|
|
Several teams are indeed launching from balloons, but not
all. Budget-wise, £999.99 is close-run, but not quite
impossible. Check out some of the teams (linked from the
N-Prize website). |
|
|
I think a hydrogen, donut shaped balloon for the first stage was
what I had imagined. Once the upper atmosphere was achieved,
I wondered if quick compressors could trade lift for fuel without
losing TOO much altitude. I wish I had the money to put up for
this, but my new daughter makes it impossible. |
|
|
One of the teams (Potent Voyager) were planning to
recover hydrogen from the balloon for use as second-stage
fuel. |
|
|
The problem is that (a) the balloon actually contains very
little hydrogen (imagine a 10m balloon at 100,000ft - the
hydrogen density matches air pressure and is very very
low) and (b) you have to compress the hydrogen into fuel
tanks to be able to use it (or, in any case, it has to be
delivered into the rocket engine at a pressure high enough
to overocome that in the combustion chamber). But full
marks for lateral thinking. |
|
|
//my new daughter makes it impossible// |
|
|
{new daughter bursts into tears, as the entire responsibility for retarding the interplanetary destiny of the human race settles on to her tiny shoulders} |
|
|
//I wondered if quick compressors could trade lift for fuel// |
|
|
I think the fuel or electricity required to compress the hydrogen would weigh too much for this to be practical. |
|
|
You could maybe make a micro turbine that used some of the hydrogen to power the compressor (and also compressed air to burn with it). |
|
|
A simpler use might be to burn excess hydrogen as the balloon rises to warm electrical components or heat the remaining hydrogen in the balloon. |
|
|
Still, you're talking about a density of 1g per m3 at 100,000 feet (a 12.5m balloon for 1kg). |
|
|
It's also worth considering the ideal rocket equation: delta V = exhaust velocity * ln (mass full / mass empty). You need a fast exhaust velocity, which (usually) means high density propellant. |
|
|
Marklar, seeing comments-the hydrogen compression idea I had
seems not well thought out. Pertinax, my daughter makes me
wonder just how old she will be before she is measureably
smarter than I am. For my own selfish reasons, I am hoping it's
past her 10th birthday. Her brothers (10 now) seem pretty smart
and I'm proud of them, but at times i'm. In awe of the little one. |
|
|
// Pertinax, my daughter// |
|
|
That is one fuck of a burden for a young girl to bear. What's
her middle name? |
|
|
//Her brothers (10 now) // |
|
|
That is astonishing! The probability of that happening is only
1 in 1024. And your wife must be exhausted. |
|
|
Probably she rested up in between. Unless they were conjoined. |
|
|
//In awe of the little one.// I know how you feel. |
|
|
//The probability of that happening is only 1 in
1024// - tshhhh!! Buchanan! Pay attention there! -
There are 11 siblings, [Pertinax]'s daughter and her
ten brothers, and the probability of there being a
single girl amongst eleven sibling is? Yes, boy? - Yes,
1/2048 - that's right! |
|
|
They're not mine, they're [Zimmy]'s! |
|
|
This is getting as confusing as "He, whereas she had
had had had, had had had." |
|
|
[hippo] ah yes but, as I read it, the first 10 children were all
boys, at a probabobility of 1 in 1024. (Of course, the
probability of any sequence of 10 boys and girls is 1 in 1024;
then again, the probability of having 10 children, let alone
eleven, is vanishingly small.) |
|
|
//the probability of having 10 children, let alone eleven, is
vanishingly small// For a woman, yes. |
|
|
For a man, it is simply zero. |
|
|
Husbands, lately, have been saying "\emph{We're} pregnant"
(emphasis added). The couvade'll make a comeback any day
now. |
|
|
Incidentally, I've just had my first, a girl, 2 days ago
and she's already inspired a couple of ideas. |
|
|
Congratulations [marklar] |
|
|
// I've just had my first, a girl, 2 days ago and she's already
inspired a couple of ideas.// |
|
|
Yay! (I presume you're referring to a birth, not a sexual
encounter.) Actually, Yay! either way. |
|
|
Thanks, [Wrongfellow] for spotting that (link)! |
|
|
My thoughts on the prize. |
|
|
yes to the rocoon. but I would a warm air and water vapour system as devised by J P Domen. I'll post the link. a) because its cheaper and b) because I am going to suggest using it with a steam rocket. The water vapour balloon is a plastic balloon of of the constant pressure type, filled with a mixture of air and steam As noted elsewhere at the HB water vapour is a lot less dense than air, but tends to condense in condensing it gives up its latent heat, and the balloon goes up even faster. |
|
|
The steam rocket in this case consists of an externally heated cylinder of boiling vegetable oil (a chip pan) in to witch is pored water. We have probably all seen the safe videos about why you should not put water on a chip pan fire, now imagine the results of using a 15% hydrogen peroxide solution! Steam rockets have been around for a while, Evel Knievel used one when he failed to jump a hole in the ground. They are not much used because although they have a very high specific impulse,a lot of kick, they do not last long. |
|
|
For tracking I would TWOC some of the worlds biggest radio telescopes and astronomers by broadcasting at a frequency of 1420.40575177 MHz aka 21 cm aka the waterhole.{twoc= take without the owners consent ) SETI and co will have to track your satellite. They may prosecute if they track it back to you. |
|
|
Tricking SETI into tracking your satellite - brilliant!
Although, can they track fast enough to keep up with a LEO transmitter? (Just how many dishes around the world are SETI using?) |
|
|
[j p] //although they have a very high specific impulse,a lot of kick, they do not last long// I think you mean they have a very high thrust, but a relatively low specific impulse; impulse is thrust integrated over time. |
|
|
That condensation montgolfier is interesting. I was wondering about the weight of the condensed water, but that is neatly covered in the patent description. |
|
|
Using a hydrogen balloon for lift, then burning the hydrogen as fuel, was discussed. It would be best to bring the oxygen aloft as a gas, too, either in a separate bladder, or (for simplicity) mixed with the hydrogen. Gaseous oxygen is (nearly) neutrally buoyant, but compressing it makes it negatively buoyant, decreasing overall lift to no purpose. |
|
|
//impulse is thrust integrated over time// and
specific impulse is thrust per unit of propellant. It's a
different measurement, it seems. |
|
|
No, that would be specific thrust. Specific impulse is impulse per unit of propellant. |
|
|
Specific impulse may be the wrong words. But its still, its a lot of kick. |
|
|
People, this isn't rocket science. |
|
|
[Maxwell] Said: //Fire your object at an existing satellite, and make it stick to it.// Not allowed, alas. Your device has to be self-contained and self-sufficient, and can't piggyback on anything during the launch or orbit. |
|
|
What if the satelite you attach to is a piece of know space junk? Transfering momentum from the junk to the satelite will cause the junk to de-orbit sooner, but hopefully it would make it 9 more times around. Considering the prevalence of space junk and the usefulness of cleaning it up, it seems like this would meet the spirit of the N-Prize. |
|
|
Not that I can think of a way to hit a piece of space junk with that budget. |
|
|
If you latch on to something up there, then both the
mass and the cost of whatever you latch onto will be
counted...nice thought, though. |
|
|
Incidentally, do we have any halfbakers in Russia? Or
China? Neither country has yet fielded a team... |
|
|
Hypothesis: in China, the normal economy
provides enough of that "wild west" feeling, and
people don't feel so much the need for quixotic
projects to express their engineering creativity. |
|
|
Hypothesis (based only on a few articles in the lay
press): In Russia, accomplishing anything
means negotiating complex legal/bureaucratic
obstacles (not necessarily by complying with
regulations: possibly by bribing the right people).
This might be so difficult that only the prospect
of real profit justifies the effort. |
|
|
or Hypothesis: the particular kind of silliness
that's serious enough to overcome major
engineering obstacles is not a human universal,
but occurs only in certain cultures. |
|
|
In my experience, Russians do half-bake things (and occasionally achieve genuine feats of outstanding, quixotic lone-nerdery), but with less of a sense of humour about them. Can't speak for the Chinese. |
|
|
This design is in the form of yet another rockoon. My 3R Circus© design overcomes what I always saw as a major handicap to space launches by de-linking the thrust energy supplied by a rocket from the need to lift the mass of the rocket itself into high orbit. My contraption consists of 2 large rockets A and B and a small rocket p carrying the payload with all 3 rockets lifted as high as possible by balloon before ignition. |
|
|
Rocket A faces upwards and has a small smooth ring fastened to the bottom part of its fuselage through which runs a lightweight, high-tensile line (Kevlar thread perhaps?). Rocket B, suspended just below Rocket A faces downwards with one end of the high-tensile line affixed to its fuselage. The other end of the line ends far below with another small ring attached. Hanging from this ring is payload rocket p. The hook on rocket p is angled so that the rocket hangs slightly canted. |
|
|
When the whole contraption reaches maximum altitude and sensors in rocket p detect it happens to be facing east it emits a signal which releases the balloon and sets all three rockets firing. Rocket A goes up at velocity x. Rocket B goes down at velocity y. These two rockets are therefore separating from each other at velocity (x+y). The high-tensile line is drawn through the ring affixed to Rocket A which draws payload rocket p upwards at a rate of 2(x+y). Rocket p also has its motor firing to add its contribution to the vertical thrust but more critically supplies the Delta Vee towards the east and hopefully into orbit after it unhooks from the lines end-ring. |
|
|
The big rockets may well be recoverable through parachutes etcetera. Calculations of burn times and the distance travelled by rockets A and B before cessation of thrust would need to be done to determine the length of line needed in order to maximize utility. There may be small refinements such as delaying the firing of the payload rocket until moments before release. Please feel free to add any comments or suggestions (puns about having a small p in orbit are naturally obligatory). |
|
|
Well, the first team to set a specific launch date is
from Brazil, set for July 2012. Do we have any
Brazilian halfbakers here? |
|
|
At least - the first team to announce they've set a specific launch date. Others may be operating to the supervillain code: we'll only know when they've done it! |
|
|
Good point. If any halfbakers are outside between
now and September 2012, it might be wise to wear a
hard-hat. |
|
|
//it might be wise to wear a hard-hat//
Good idea! It might hide the Secret Hat. For anyone who might have one that is... |
|
|
There's at least three of us then, or possible four, who don't have one. |
|
|
In the absence of a hard-hat, the Norwegian
armed forces recommend the following action for
personnel likely to be struck by vertically-falling
debris (this is loosely translated): |
|
|
"Each person should, with the aid of a mirror and
graph-paper, determine whether their head
presents the smallest cross-section (a) in profile,
(b) face-forward, or (c) when viewed from the
crown of the head. When the alert is sounded,
each person should either lie face-down, lie down
but facing sideways, or remain standing,
depending on whether they fall into category (a),
(b), or (c) respectively." |
|
|
and "stand on your head" isn't an option ? |
|
|
No, that's not the Norwegians. The Finns used
reindeer shit in defence against Soviet artillery
during the Winter War. Of course, it's less
effective
against flat-trajectory guns firing armor-piercing
rounds*, but what could they do? The vaunted
Mannerheim line was
incomplete, and they only had three tanks in their
entire army. |
|
|
*Not all that effective against howitzers or
mortars
either, really. |
|
|
266 days left. I really have to get in gear. |
|
|
Maybe less than that. One team has announced a
launch date in July. As soon as I can get more
information (including how serious contenders they
are), I'll let people know. |
|
|
Less than 2 months to go. |
|
|
Looks like the deadline has been extended by a year. Is
there any reasonable prospect that the prize will be won? |
|
|
Yes, the deadline for existing teams is extended
by one final year, but no new teams will be able
to register after the imminent end of the previous
deadline. |
|
|
Will anyone do it? Well, out of 40+ teams, there
are perhaps 10 serious contenders, of whom
perhaps 3-5 have a chance of a successful launch
within the new deadline. |
|
|
If nobody wins it, I'll have a go myself after the
close. |
|
|
Don't forget that any fuel has to be pressurized
above nozzle pressure, either in the storage tank or
by a pump. |
|
|
As the Officially Self-Appointed Public Relations
Representative, I would like to formally announce the
entry of Team Halfbakery into the competition. Given
the origins of the N-Prize, it seems only fitting that
there should be a home team. |
|
|
(Don't worry, [Max]if it comes down to us as the only
team left in the running, feel free to go out and buy
yourself something nice with the prize money.) |
|
|
The first croissant in orbit... yes! |
|
|
Actually, I'd assumed that Halfbakers were
responsible for the Curiosity landing
system...aerobraking, then parachutes, then a
hovering rocket-sled with a winch to lower the thing
to the surface... |
|
|
No, you're thinking of the Custardy landing system. |
|
|
Have I mentioned my 3-rocket circus idea lately? |
|
|
//it seems only fitting that there should be a home team.//
Au contraire, ytk. Absolutely not. "We've got your practicality right here!" |
|
|
I hope the prize includes a croissant-shaped silver cup, suitably-inscribed. |
|
|
Off topic, is your pet name 'Oh' by any chance? If not, it should be. |
|
|
Shameless bumping but I just had to tell someone,
and you guys are the only ones awake at the
moment: I just spoke to Buzz Aldrin! How awesome
is that?? (OK, so I was a phone-in on a radio show,
but I still spoke to Him.) |
|
|
Hey, one kudo is plenty for me. Several kudos to Dr.
Aldrin, though. |
|
|
which radio show... or to be more exact, where's the link ? |
|
|
[later] found it... well, found where it should be in a day or two. |
|
|
<pictures his Buchananess calmly typing "talked with Buzz Aldrin" suavely... while his feet tap out the Snoopy Happy Dance> |
|
|
It's called The Space Show. |
|
|
Congrats - very cool. I, and presumably, Buzz appreciate the capital "H" in "Him". |
|
|
Indeed, the level of cool is excessive. |
|
|
re: Paula from Seattle (who queried if the ISS is a waste of time vis-a-vis Buzz's "to Mars" plan), it's all good. |
|
|
All those millenia spent puttering around in boats, whether for war or trade or just a race to see who can paddle their log to the big island and back the fastest, all lent themselves to Columbus' New World discovery. |
|
|
Only a week to go.
What news of the Prize? |
|
|
Well, as of today, there are probably 4-6 teams who
are still seriously competing, but no winners as yet.
I have (**STOP PRESS**) decided to remove the
deadline, and leave the Prize (actually two prizes)
open indefinitely for dreamers and irrealists around
the world. The N-Prize website will be updated on
or before the 19th to reflect this. |
|
|
I will personally mail ten dollars in Canadian toonies to the first person to figure out a three word no-quotation-marked search term which has this posting as its only hit. |
|
|
Weird. What are the odds of 'any' normal three word search term having only one hb hit? |
|
|
Amazingly it is not yogic Hochdruckpumpe rockoon. |
|
|
// figure out a three word no-quotation-marked
search term which has this posting as its only hit
// |
|
|
Google (without quotes): "maxwellbuchanan
mientist £999.99" It actually gets 2 links, but they
are both to "this posting". One is the normal view.
The other is the for the LR (low resolution?)
version of this page. |
|
|
If £999.99 doesn't count as a "word" you could use
"mientist VaquitaTim starshine". |
|
|
If you think it's cheating to use obscure
usernames, how about "Rockelloonannon
croissantnic trebuchets" |
|
|
Interestingly enough, I found a four word search
that limited it to a single link "Rockelloonannon
aerospike croissantnic trebuchets" but I can't tell
why since all of those words are also in the LR
version of the page. |
|
|
Oh here's a two word search: "Rockelloonannon
croissantnic" |
|
|
I vote for [tatterdemalion]'s // yogic
Hochdruckpumpe rockoon // as the winner. |
|
|
While Google does give more than the two links to
this idea, all the other links note that they are
missing various search terms. It's odd that Google
decided that the best match was a page that
misspelled two of the search terms and didn't
include the third at all. |
|
|
I'd say this is better than my searches because
they are terms used outside the context of the
Halfbakery as well. |
|
|
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. An internal hb search, with normal words. |
|
|
The first search word has 1720 hits alone, the second has 521, and the third has 593 hits when typed individually. ...but use them together and n-prize is the single hit. Does that help figure out the odds? |
|
|
picoprofiteroles - single word search (apparently
invented by [Max], but arguably a valid derivative
of profiterole |
|
|
Hochdruckpumpe rockoon protozoans - This makes
this the top two hits with only 5 other hits that
are missing Hochdruckpumpe. |
|
|
Profiterole is also a good term to work with, but
"Profiterole rockoon protozoans" ends up hitting a
bunch of dictionary and scrabble pages since all
the words have "ro" in them and are close
together in the alphabet... |
|
|
yogic Hochdruckpumpe rockoon returns only this page using HB's search. |
|
|
What? This contest is too HARD. |
|
|
-Actual English dictionary non-hyphenated or made-up words. -Not an internet search. An hb search. -No quotation marks. |
|
|
Just three common words, which should produce hundreds of hits given that annos are included, yet only point to this idea. hmmm I wonder if there is a way to use the hb filters to find the number of ideas which would produce a single hit for a common three word search? prolly not, too specific. you'd have to write an algorithm or something. |
|
|
How does one calculate the odds given the recurrence of the terms individually? |
|
|
I'll post the search terms in Morris code if anyone cares to see for themselves. No toonies then though. Just like a buck fifty in Canadian Tire money and the unrolled rim of a Tim Horton's coffee cup with some maple doughnut glaze smeared on it. |
|
|
[-2fries]: [gnarbxx gnorbyy] will get this idea as a unique
hit. <edited to remove the unobfuscated gnarbxx &
gnorbyy> |
|
|
Ah, but that's only two words, and neither one of them gets more than a hundred hits by itself. |
|
|
[n-prize] is an invented hyphenated word, and [wordgame] should be two words, at least according to Websters. Judges? <foghorn sound-effect> So sorry, you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a question, but you do get to spin the big wheel for a chance at the bonus round and all of our contestants receive a free years supply of luminiferous aether plus an all expenses paid tour of a miniscule portion of the galactic arm just for playing. |
|
|
Actually, the odds are fairly high. Usage of any one word
will be fairly orthogonal to the usage of any other (less
common phrases). So, once you get out of the central
core
of the vocabulary (the ones that give you over 80% hit
rate), you have a pretty good separation power by any
one word. I don't know how many ideas there are on the
HB nowadays, buy if we were to guess 50,000, then your
terms would be hitting about 4%, 1%, and 1% of the ideas;
50000 * .04 * .01 * .01 = .2 so it's actually more likely that
you'd hit nothing. A single hit isn't so extraordinary as one
would think. |
|
|
When I'm trying to get back to an old idea, I generally
can't remember the name - but I usually remember the
phrasing and words somebody used in it (otherwise, I
don't remember it at all). So vocab combinations are how
I look up things here. |
|
|
//vocab combinations are how I look up things here// |
|
|
Ditto. I don't know how to calculate the odds, I just know that in... (hold on a sec.)... twelve years this is the only time I've gotten a single hit from using three generic words outside of quotation marks which eliminates unique sentences. |
|
|
Welp... twice now. Swapping out one of the search words with the word banana also produces a single hit but not for this posting. |
|
|
I was just reading the official rules (because I'm new to
knowing about the N-Prize) and found they're out of date
with respect to the closing date. |
|
|
//out of date// does that mean it is now officially permitted to spam this idea with off-topic annotations? |
|
|
// the official rules... they're out of date with
respect to the closing date// |
|
|
Oops - thanks for spotting that. Will get it sorted! |
|
|
Easy. A search for "attenuates umlauts Helium" (without quotes) gets you to this page. You can even do it with just "attenuates umlauts". |
|
|
Well, I guess you get the toonies. Have your people contact my people for shipping details. |
|
|
Spin-logo-graphics gets this posting. |
|
|
Sorry for the hijack. I just thought it odd and was having a bit of fun. |
|
|
You can do it with "luminiferous aether Canadian" (or just "luminiferous Canadian") too - and these are all words from your annotations. |
|
|
'quarters dear entrants', 'compliance orbit scavenging'. |
|
|
Much more common words, and all found in the body of
the
idea. |
|
|
Also, [MaxwellBuchanan], another thing: The rules say "
the highest (best) exchange rate which their national
currency has attained, during the first 9 months of the
competition (ie, between 9th April 2008 and 9th January
2009, inclusive), using the closing mid-price against the
Pound as published in the London Financial Times."
(section 14). But the Data Archive on FT.com doesn't go
back that far, so how can I find out how much money I
have to work with? |
|
|
Ooops again. Will have to find a public source of
historical exchange rates. For the dollar, it got close
to 2:1 at one point... |
|
|
I hope Greece doesn't drop out of the Euro and revert
to the Drachma... |
|
|
Back in 2008, I confidently stated that you couldn't get a
satellite into orbit without guidance. Well, that assertion
was just challenged by Aerojet/Rocketdyne, Sandia
National Labs, University of Hawaii, and the U.S.
Airforce's "Operationally Responsive Space" program's
ORS-4 launch. |
|
|
An unguided, 3 stage solid-fueled "Super Strypi" rocket
was launched
from a rail at Barking Sands (no, I'm not being funny),
Hawaii. It transitioned from spin-stabilized to high-rate
multi-axial rotation and random auto-disassembly less
than 60 seconds into the flight. |
|
|
In spite of the fact that success would depend upon an
incredibly unlikely concatenation of extremely low
probability acheivements, they decided to payload it with
13 satellites for their first flight. |
|
|
I hope they eventually succeed at least to the point of
getting payload into space. If I was wrong, I'd like to know
it. So far, they've not been very convincing. |
|
|
Curious! Maybe 25 years ago we did a back-of-the-napkin calculation to see what it would take to launch a 1 gram payload to duplicate the Sputnik mission using modern methods and electronics. My idea was to use an advanced gas gun and an electromagnetic launcher to burn thru the atmosphere, do one orbit and listen for the beep-beep from a tiny transmitter. We worked out a bunch of the details but never built hardware. Anyone wanna have a go at it? |
|
|
Just clocked the space X rocket doing a
vertical landing, or they just ran the video
backwards, it's up to you. |
|
|
Are any N-Prize teams operating out of Birmingham (see link)? |
|
|
No, but they're welcome to sign up! |
|
|
Well, I just had an unexpected N-Prize-related
email that cheered me up. It was from a guy who
got fired up by the N-Prize, and got turned on to
science and technology by it. He never registered
as an N-Prize entrant, and never built a rocket, but
he ended up doing something which will probably
have a greater benefit to humanity than cheaper
rocket launches ever would. |
|
|
So, even though the N-Prize has not yet been won,
I'm a happy halfbaker. And all thanks to [jutta],
and to my fellow halfbakers, without whom... |
|
|
//greater benefit to humanity than cheaper rocket launches// short list, but not that short... expound ? |
|
|
Joined the Halfbakery probably... |
|
|
// India has launched what it says is the world's lightest
satellite ever to be put into orbit. Weighing only 1.26kg // |
|
|
Did none of those several Kickstarter campaigns to launch a
PCB-scale satellite for each backer go anywhere? |
|
|
Not as far as I'm aware. But the trend is definitely on for
smaller, cheaper launches. |
|
|
I'll have to check the rules, but if I remember correctly, you
can use the most favourable exchange rate since the launch of
the competition. |
|
|
If an airplane is used to carry some kind of launcher to
altitude, as is done with the very successful Pegasus launch
vehicle for smallish satellites, I'm guessing that would be in
the RV category, so the plane's cost wouldn't count (as long
as it lands safely), but the cost of its fuel would, right? And if it's an electric
airplane, it seems the cost of recharging the batteries still counts toward the
launch budget, but is probably cheaper than fuel. |
|
|
Also I would think you could limit your fuel cost if you ride-
shared your way up. i.e. group a hundred N-Prize competitors
into one plane as the fuel cost would only slightly increase but
each team would only pay 1%. |
|
|
Nope. If you share a plane with other entrants, you still have
to count the total cost of the plane ride in your budget. |
|
|
Max, I know you've probably got other stuff on your mind but
who's handling this? |
|
|
That is a damned good question. |
|
|
Can we handle it somehow? |
|
|
Tell you what, if there's a contact on the web-page we
can discuss options with at some point I think you can call
this handled. |
|
|
Max: "Thanks for handing me a to-do list doc, I really
appreciate it." |
|
|
However you want to approach it is fine, including doing
nothing at all. Just a thought. This has always been my
favorite idea of yours but doing nothing at all is great as
well. I'm sure we can figure something out. |
|
|
In fact, don't sweat it. We'll figure something out. |
|
|
Disregard. We'll handle it somehow. |
|
|
@doctorremulac3 - Thank you for bringing this up. Paul emailed me
a couple of days after your comment with his news (that I was
hitherto unaware of) and instructions on what to do with the
website. Had you not done so I might have missed the chance to say
goodbye. |
|
|
You will see above that on Feb 15 2008 I volunteered to build a
website for the N-Prize. It still exists (although looking every bit 12
years old). We arranged video shoots in the science museum with my
childhood hero Heinz Wolff. I started an n-prize forum and then got
to know loads of lunatic amateur rocket scientists. It was all so
much fun - the guy had no concept of "you can't just go and do that
sort of thing because you want to". |
|
|
Then when he left his job and set up a genetics lab in his barn (using
an entire genetics lab sold on ebay in a liquidation sale) I did more
webmonkeying for him. Again he was always positive, always funny,
clearly a towering intellect, yet always humble and respectful to
others. |
|
|
I will allow myself a little sadness that he's gone, but mostly I will
celebrate who he was and how he lived his life. |
|
|
I'm sorry we lost him, but like you, I feel blessed I was able to
be in his company, and laugh with him and learn from him. |
|
|
Wagster, that's incredible. I promised Max I'd do anything I
could to keep this alive. I had no idea how to follow
through with that, it was my heart talking as my brain
asked "And just how to you intend to do that exactly?"
while my heart told it to shut up. |
|
|
It's a wonderful forum and I'd love to explore ways to
keep this legacy of our Max alive. How? Haven't gotten
that far yet. Love to hear other's suggestions. I'm still kind
of in mourning and shock frankly. I know that turns into
drive and motivation later, I've unfortunately been here
before but right now I'm, kind of low on ideas. |
|
|
So the site is now alive and you're administering it? I can
email you there if I have any ideas? |
|
|
You may: james at jameswagstaff dot com. Paul left
instructions that I was to put up the announcement that is
there currently and then leave the site live until the domain
expired. I'm tempted to buy the domain at that point and
keep it live indefinitely as a memorial, however if anyone
has other ideas (or indeed £20k in prize money) then feel
free to get in contact. I would need to give any suggestions
some consideration as I was given instructions by the site
owner, but having said that, Paul was always very open to
mad ideas! |
|
|
If we can put a man on the moon, we can keep a
website alive for starters. |
|
|
Thank you wagster. You're obviously a very good
person. |
|
|
Good stuff, [wagster]. If (when..?) the prize is claimed, I
could chip in to the prize fund, if "crowd-funded by
interested parties" is the way you want to go... (not to the
tune of 20k, but something...). |
|
|
Crowdfunding has progressed so much since Max put this
idea up you could fund this thing in a couple of days. |
|
|
Pretty sure they don't pay till the product is delivered. |
|
|
Think I'll make this my first order of business with this. |
|
|
// Pretty sure they don't pay till the product is delivered. // |
|
|
Who doesn't pay until then? Obviously (in regular crowdfunding cases) the payment has to be done before the product is delivered, because the money is necessary to make the product. That's why it needed to be crowdfunded in the first place. |
|
|
On Kickstarter, each campaign has a fixed end date. If enough money has been pledged by then, everyone who pledged money gets charged. If not, nobody gets charged and the people running the campaign (and Kickstarter) get no money. On Indiegogo, at least last I checked, everyone who's pledged money gets charged on the end date regardless of whether enough money has been pledged, which apparently results in a lot of projects that are then obligated to deliver but don't have enough money to do so. They call that "flex funding" and tout it as an advantage. I don't know how GoFundMe or any other crowdfunding site works. There's also at least one self-hosted crowdfunding tool called Selfstarter (created by Lockitron). |
|
|
For the N-Prize, maybe a system without any threshold would work. However much money has been pledged so far is how much the winner gets. That would incentivize dragging it out to hopefully win more money, but there would still be the incentive to win before someone else does. |
|
|
Is there going to be any incentive to pledge money, other than just wanting to see the competition go ahead? (There doesn't have to be, but, on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, most campaigns give some kind of rewards for different amounts donated, often one or more of the finished product for higher amounts and things like T-shirts for lower amounts, and that seems to be effective in getting more donations.) |
|
|
On the other hand, not having a fixed end date means donors can't plan to have the money by then if they don't have it now (not that I think it's a good idea to pledge money one doesn't have), and it also means that their payment methods may be out of date by the time they're charged. |
|
|
//the payment has to be done before the product is
delivered// |
|
|
I thought you pledged the money and then when the
product
was ready to ship the people got the money, but OK. |
|
|
For this the money would be pledged and delivered upon
success. |
|
|
So with Kickstarter people pay for things that might take
months or years to make? What happens if the production
runs into problems? I've had products manufactured and
that's a fact of life,
especially if you're dealing with overseas factories making
a new product
like I have, you're going to run into issues, guaranteed.
Not just me, I've talked to other people and you hear
horror stories. |
|
|
Well, hell, just sell swag to pay the prize. Get corporate
sponsors and the like. I think Max already paved the way for
that. |
|
|
Not sure how to do it but let's not close this thing out yet. |
|
|
You know, there's entertainment value to this as well. Could
be the new pumpkin chunkin' competition. |
|
|
There's gotta be some way to do this. |
|
|
// So with Kickstarter people pay for things that might take months or years to make? // |
|
|
Yep. The rewards have delivery dates attached. For the T-shirts and such, they're usually met; for the rewards where you get the actual product you're funding, usually not. (But, in my experience, you do eventually get the product a bit more than 50% of the time.) |
|
|
// What happens if the production runs into problems? I've had products manufactured and that's a fact of life, especially if you're dealing with overseas factories making a new product like I have, you're going to run into issues, guaranteed. Not just me, I've talked to other people and you hear horror stories. // |
|
|
That happens all the time. It's just a risk of being a backer. Kickstarter tries to make it clear in the help pages that backing should be considered a donation rather than a preorder, but not many people read that stuff. |
|
|
Sometimes, if it becomes apparent that there's no chance of success after funding has gone through and development/production has gone forward some, the creators will give up on their project and give refunds out of the money they haven't spent yet, but that's up to them. |
|
|
Coincidentally, I was cleaning out my desk yesterday and I
came across my sample N-Prize mission patch [linky]. Paul
ended up getting a ton of these embroidered and gave them
to every team that entered (which was 63 in the end). |
|
|
And of course... absolutely brilliant. A paper airplane
in orbit. |
|
|
Aha, so here's where it all started for the N-Prize! A few days ago I found the
mission patch Dad once gave me, too, [wagster]. :) |
|
|
I definitely agree that there could, and should, be some sort of future for the N-
Prize. I think Dad would hate for people to stop increasing the overlap in the Venn
diagram of "somewhat ridiculous or insane" and "things people have done",
especially on account of his temporary setback regarding immortality, as he put it. |
|
|
[wagster], thank you for helping the N-Prize enter its "real world" state via the
website, and for putting the announcement up recently. I definitely want to keep
the site up, at least for a while, although figuring out what to do about the prize
itself might take a bit longer. Would you know if there's some way I can take on the
domain name and any other running costs to keep it going? |
|
|
I'm liking the sound of everyone's crowdsourcing ideas, and agree that it's worth
seeing if any kind of sponsorship would work too - I'll get thinking. For the moment,
there's still a lot for me to sort out after Dad's death, so it might take me a couple
more weeks before I can put significant time into this. But maybe we can start with
securing the website's existence, and go from there? |
|
|
// Would you know if there's some way I can take on the domain name and any other running costs to keep it going? // |
|
|
It may help if you create a "wastebasket" email address - unrelated to anything else you do - and place it in non-intuitive form on your hb profile page, so that it can't be harvested by bots. Then others can get in touch off-forum. |
|
|
For example, if the email address were fishty@rentishams.co.uk, you would display: |
|
|
"The first part of my email address is my HB username. Then follows the "AT" symbol; then the next part is 'rentishams'. You will need to add co and uk with the usual dots in between". |
|
|
There is currently no bot capable of understanding such phraseology, although it's perfectly comprehensible to most humans, and even [xenzag], who is french and therefore doesn't count. |
|
|
Hi [fishty] - I am delighted to make your acquaintance and
thanks for popping up here. I think that everyone is agreed
that the N-Prize ought to be kept alive in some way shape
or form, although no-one is quite sure how. As you are
family (and quite possibly the legal inheritor of the N-Prize
name and domain) I think you may be the key player in this.
You can reach me here: james at jameswagstaff dot com if
and when you want to make contact. |
|
|
//@rentishams.co.uk// Oooh, I'd pay for a rentishams email
address. Availability should be strictly limited, however. I
notice, despite everything, that the sales and supply of the
superior flenting wax remain utterly consistent. |
|
|
Rentishams.com is available for 0.85c and if I had the time,
I'd build a fake e-commerce site there. In fact, I'd probably
build a real one and get a whole load of
wax tins from China and sell actual flenting wax to a
confused public. This is because I have a history of getting
waaaaay to involved in Halfbakery ideas. |
|
|
//load of wax tins from China and sell actual flenting wax
to a confused public.// |
|
|
Oh my. I don't think you got the idea at all! Rentisham's
tins, vials, ampoules and drums are finely engineered and
certified items that are a source of great prestige for the
OEM suppliers involved. So much so that they're supplied
free of charge. You cannot simply bring in some knock-off
container, as this would invalidate the operating
certification of numerous nuclear facilities, stationary,
mobile & other. Who knows how such a container would
perform during re-entry or when exposed to certain
hypergolic substances? |
|
|
// Rentishams.com is available for 0.85c and if I had the time, I'd build a fake e-commerce site there. // |
|
|
And what [bs] said. We can host it for free (seriously). |
|
|
"If you build it, they will come ..." |
|
|
How about crowdfunding funds? for site maintenance costs
& maybe a new prize to relaunch the competition with? no
one succeeded yet did they? |
|
|
Or might that (crowdfunding)
fall afoul of the spirit of the N-Prize? |
|
|
If you're trying to gather all the old threads of all the old
N-Prize stuff & wotnot there's also this
account on twitter you might not be aware of? |
|
|
@nprize / <link> / it's not seen any activity since 2010
mind. |
|
|
I'm in for a kilobuck, if somebody manages to do it. As far as site maintenance, etc. is concerned : what are the costs ? |
|
|
To you ? Oh, nothing much. Nothing you'll miss, anyway. |
|
|
Just your Immortal Soul ... |
|
|
// Just your immortal Soul// |
|
|
What, you gonna take over the payments ? I'm a bit in arrears. |
|
|
[wagster], thanks - I'll drop you an email soon. Sadly not
from a rentishams.co.uk address, alas. |
|
|
Okay - so we've now sorted out keeping the website up, thank
you [wagster]! The future of rentishams.co.uk is also secured, a
great relief for such a long-standing institution. |
|
|
I'm now in the process of finding contact details for entrants, so
that I can find out who's still working on winning the
competition. Once I suss that out, either (a) people are still
doing stuff and a way to continue running the competition will
be needed, or (b) people aren't doing stuff and probably the
thing to do will be keep the site up as a memorial. Will probably
take me a couple of weeks to email the teams, so I'll let you
know what I find out from them. :) |
|
|
//The future of rentishams.co.uk is also secured,// |
|
|
Very reassuring. It's also good to know that Rentisham's as a
company is well prepared to ensure a consistent flow of
flenting wax. I'm sure that the "aggressively biocidal"
properties of Rentisham's have not passed unnoticed among
those concerned with infection control. |
|
|
//I'm sure that the "aggressively biocidal" properties of
Rentisham's have not passed unnoticed// |
|
|
Be assured that it hasn't. Unfortunately it's equally
aggressive flesh melting
properties
have caused some issues with its successful deployment. |
|
|
But
rest assured, as soon as we find a way to successfully apply
it
with no more than minor fourth degree burns to the
subject,
an order will be winging its way to Rentisham's. |
|
|
Fine, as long as we get our quota. We make a fortune flogging it (through Ferengi intermediaries) to the Klingons, as "Premium anti-Tribble Paste". |
|
|
Works brilliantly, too. They can't get enough of it. |
|
|
(Annotations word count: 39,716) |
|
| |