next xprize competion.

I take the joke. Years ago I've read somme very interesting books about synergy - that time that word didn't be a part of economics yet. It just had been rised from mathematics, physics, engineering, informatics (Neuronal Nets) and the like. That time economics just was slowly detecting the word synergy, the theory of synergy and synergy effects.

Some of the examples for what synergy is - in the books I read - was the growth of crystals. So from my point of view synergy should be a naturally aspect of construction concepts of spacecrafts as well as of other technical things - it's admitting savings in material, propellant, engineering time and more.

In space exploration in general NASA and other could have made very much more use of synergy than they really did. ESA has been forced to make use of synergy forced by real circumstances - and reached significant savings concerning the costs of its projects by reusability. There are more possibilities than ESA is using right now but it has made a beginning.

But private teams like those competing for the XPRIZE are forced much stronger and earlier - and are lead to great success as we are going to see.

That's a very positive effect of the XPRIZE - it's great I feel.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Perhaps in the XPRIZE CUP competition some teams will decide to join to make use of synergy potentials leading to increasing chances to win - especially after not winning the XPRIZE.

Why not - it doesn't mean to give up, it does meen to cooperate and to prohibit the invention of the wheel twice.

Up to significant amount the competition should be one of different concepts instead of one of different teams adopting the same concept or very similar concepts.

Surely - it should be a competition of the teams themselves too: in aspects as economical effiency as quality of organization, ressources and making as much use of them as possible, methods of working an designing, hire persons having the best ideas possible.

All of this contains synergy potentials as a relevant source of the success of private spacecrafts and the XPRIZE.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

yes i've also thought about some of the teams perhaps joining forces cooperating but there might not be that much to gain from it

May be in general - but I have especially two teams in mind: The Da Vinci Project and ILAT, the isrealian team.

Each of these both teams is planning to launch its spacecraft form a balloon. The differences are very small - altitude I know, material I suppose as like as producers.

Competition for the XPRIZE between Da Vinci and ILAT makes sense because of the amount of 10,000,000.00 $ as well as the search for the most proper altitude, material etc. and the environmental differences between Isreal and the place Da Vinci Project ist working.

But for the CUP any no amount of cash to win is known yet - only that there will be cash prizes to win has been announced. It will be much less than 10,000,000.00 $. If none of both teams will win the XPRIZE, they should find an agreement on altitude, material, place and producer and join theier financial, organizational and technical resources to form one stronger team.

This way the CUP would be more interesting too as in the case of both teams giving up.

Among the 26 teams listed by the XPRIZE Foundation there some more adopting similar concepts but these concepts are more complex making it difficult to compare for me.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

I've tried to evaluate the similarities between the concepts of the 27 teams. May be the details is not satisfying but a first step to estimate chances of synergy-effects, cooperations and chances to join forces after one team has won the XPRIZE and further efforts have to be CUP-oriented.

Here the results - duplicates are due to lack of informations:

A. There are 9 launch-concepts:

2 degrees of vertical from ocean going barge or ship
Balloon
Air Towed Launch from a 747
Horizontal
Horizontal on runway (1st stage); Air launch (2nd stage)
Vertical from ground
Vertical
Vertical from Land
Water, Vertical

B. 9 landing-concepts are followed:

Parachuted Ocean Splashdown
Guided Parachute
Unpowered, horizontal
Horizontal, powered
Horizontal
Parachute with crushable nose cone
Unpowered Parafoil vertical on land
Vertical/Soft with reduced engine power
Water, Horizontal, Unpowered

C. 5 stage-concepst are to be listed:
SingleStage Rocket
(two stages)
(single stage and a half)
(no comments)
(three stages)

D. 16 propulsion-concepts found - determining aspect? :

Kerosene/LOX pressure fed rocket engine
Solid Rocket Motor
Jet and Rocket Engines
Methane & Liquid Oxygen
Variable Thrust Liquid Rocket Engine
Blastwave-Pulsejets
Rocket Power
Twin turbojet (1st stage); Hybrid rocket engine (2nd stage)
Liquid rocket
Solid and Liquid Rocket Engines
LOX/Alcohol Liquid and Solid Rocket Engines
Kerosene and Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets
Hydrogen Peroxide monopropellant
LOX-hydrocarbon engines
Hybrid Rocket Powered
(no comments)

E. 16 combinations between launch-concepts and landing-concepts:

2 degrees of vertical from ocean going barge or ship Ballistic reentry
Balloon Ascent to Rocket Ignition Altitude Parachuted Ocean Splashdown
Air launch from hot air balloon Guided Parachute
Air Towed Launch from a 747 Glide to Conventional Runway
Horizontal from runway Horizontal, unpowered on runway
Horizontal on conventional runway Horizontal, powered on conventional runway
Horizontal on runway (1st stage); Air launch (2nd stage) Unpowered, horizontal on runway
Vertical from ground Parachuted ocean splashdown
Rocket Powered Vertical Takeoff Parachute Recovery
Vertical from ground Parachute with crushable nose cone
Vertical take-off under primary propulsion Vertical/Soft with reduced engine power
Vertical Parachute
Vertical Horizontal
Vertical from Land Parafoil Glide to Launch Site for Horizontal Landing
Vertical from land Unpowered Parafoil vertical on land
Water, Vertical Water, Horizontal, Unpowered

F. 17. launch-staging-combinations:

2 degrees of vertical from ocean going barge or ship SingleStage Rocket
Balloon Ascent to Rocket Ignition Altitude (two stages)
Air Towed Launch from a 747 (two stages)
Horizontal from runway (two stages)
Horizontal from Land (single stage)
Horizontal on conventional runway (single stage and a half)
Horizontal on runway (1st stage); Air launch (2nd stage) (two stages)
Vertical from ground (single stage)
Vertical from ground (two stages)
Vertical from ground (three stages)
Rocket Powered Verical Tackoff (no comments)
Vertical from ground (no comments)
Vertical (no comments)
Vertical two-stage
Vertical from Land (no comments)
Vertical from land Single Stage Rocket
Water, Vertical (single stage)

G. 21 different combinations launch-staging-landing:

2 degrees of vertical from ocean going barge or ship Ballistic reentry SingleStage Rocket
Balloon Ascent to Rocket Ignition Altitude Parachuted Ocean Splashdown (two stages)
Air launch from hot air balloon Guided Parachute (two stages)
Air Towed Launch from a 747 Glide to Conventional Runway (two stages)
Horizontal from runway Horizontal, unpowered on runway (two stages)
Horizontal from Land Horizontal on Land (single stage)
Horizontal on conventional runway Horizontal, powered on conventional runway (single stage and a half)
Horizontal on runway (1st stage); Air launch (2nd stage) Unpowered, horizontal on runway (two stages)
Vertical from ground Parachuted ocean splashdown (single stage)
Vertical from ground Parachute descent into water (three stages)
Vertical from ground Parchute descent into water two-stage
Rocket Powered Verical Tackoff Parachute Recovery (no comments)
Rocket Powered Vertical Takeoff Parachute Recovery (single stage)
Vertical from ground Parachute with crushable nose cone (no comments)
Vertical take-off under primary propulsion Vertical/Soft with reduced engine power (single stage)
Vertical Parachute (no comments)
Vertical Parachute (two stages)
Vertical Horizontal two-stage
Vertical from Land Parafoil Glide to Launch Site for Horizontal Landing (no comments)
Vertical from land Unpowered Parafoil vertical on land Single Stage Rocket
Water, Vertical Water, Horizontal, Unpowered (single stage)

H. 25 combinations over all four details included here:

2 degrees of vertical from ocean going barge or ship Ballistic reentry SingleStage Rocket Kerosene/LOX pressure fed rocket engine
Balloon Ascent to Rocket Ignition Altitude Parachuted Ocean Splashdown (two stages) Solid Rocket Motor
Air launch from hot air balloon Guided Parachute (two stages) Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene System
Air Towed Launch from a 747 Glide to Conventional Runway (two stages) LOX / Kerosene Rocket Engines
Horizontal from runway Horizontal, unpowered on runway (two stages) Solid Rocket Engines
Conventional Runway Conventional Runway (single stage) Jet and Rocket Engines
Conventional Runway Conventional Runway, pavement, horizontal (single stage) Methane & Liquid Oxygen
Horizontal from Land Horizontal on Land (single stage) Variable Thrust Liquid Rocket Engine
Horizontal on conventional runway Horizontal, powered on conventional runway (single stage) Blastwave-Pulsejets
Horizontal on conventional runway Horizontal, powered on conventional runway (single stage and a half) Rocket Power
Horizontal on runway (1st stage); Air launch (2nd stage) Unpowered, horizontal on runway (two stages) Twin turbojet (1st stage); Hybrid rocket engine (2nd stage)
Vertical from ground Parachuted ocean splashdown (single stage) APCP solid rocket engines
Vertical from ground Ballistic reentry and parachute descent onto water (two stages) Liquid rocket
Vertical from ground Parachute descent into water (three stages) Solid and Liquid Rocket Engines
Vertical from ground Parchute descent into water two-stage LOX/Alcohol Liquid and Solid Rocket Engines
Rocket Powered Verical Tackoff Parachute Recovery (no comments) Kerosene and Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets
Rocket Powered Vertical Takeoff Parachute Recovery (single stage) Pressure Fed Liquid Rocket Engines
Vertical from ground Parachute with crushable nose cone (no comments) Hydrogen Peroxide monopropellant
Vertical take-off under primary propulsion Vertical/Soft with reduced engine power (single stage) LOX-hydrocarbon engines
Vertical Parachute (no comments) LOX-kerosene
Vertical Parachute (two stages) Hybrid Rocket Powered
Vertical Horizontal two-stage (no comments)
Vertical from Land Parafoil Glide to Launch Site for Horizontal Landing (no comments) Pressure Fed Liquid Propellants
Vertical from land Unpowered Parafoil vertical on land Single Stage Rocket Pressure Fed, Liquid Methane, Liquid Oxygen
Water, Vertical Water, Horizontal, Unpowered (single stage) Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Methane Rocket

It may be an advantage for ten or eleven of the existing teams as well as for the CUP if these 11 teams cooperate with similar remaining teams, join forces with them and try to realize synergies.

Another interesting possibility for each of the 11 teams may be to seek additional concepts or combinations of concepts.

What ideas do you have yourself? Question to the XPRIZE Foundation: Do you provide temporary - let's say six months - consulting service for some teams, after the PRIZE is won?

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Next X prize....

Remain in orbit for three days in a privately built manned spaceship carrying three people.

Alter the ships orbit after you reach space.

do the same thing again with the same ship within 30 days

the ship should not need to show ability to dock etc etc.

too advanced for x prize 2

Let X Prize 2 expire in 2012

Comments?

Remaining in orbit for three days requires to provide food, water etc. for three days for the crew. Terminating one Orbit with "motors" shutdowned will be sufficient proof of orbit-ability because that means to orbit like a satellite or like the ISS. Three days would increase costs or investment without any progress for the access to space itself.

The ability to repeat the orbital flight isn't needed if the team has been meeting the conditions of the first XPRIZE before the orbital flight.

Docking ability meens to reduce the requirement to provide food etc. for the time in orbit. It meens to reduce the requirement to provide sufficient propellant for leaving the Orbit.

Too advanced? Why not modifying an XPRIZE2 compared to XPRIZE1? Docking-ability and Three-days-to-remain-ability could be two alternatives of one rule. Without docking-ability meeting the three-days-rule AND the altering-rule will increase the amount of propellant required and the expenditure for that amount of propellant - docking-ability will increase development activities and private technological progress, could be leading expenditure into development, technologies and investments reducing needed amount of propellant and this way causing more rapid progress of the public access to space.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

my knowledge of the technology involved is not as good as most of the people here

how about three orbits? much easier than three days

I do think the winning team in X Prize 2 should have to show repeatability, this would ensure that the winner actually had technology they trusted.

Three orbits are much easier than three days - that's right. But there is to consider the orbit itself too. At a low orbit three terminations require only - let's say - 4.5 hours whereas the geostationary orbit requires really three days to terminate three orbits.

The 4.5 hours are needed for three terminations of that orbits the shuttle mission are taking place or the ISS is orbiting at.

The number of orbits does'nt depend on technology I suppose- except dockimg technologies.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

I was thinking the next X Prize should require getting to orbit without modifying the original vehicles more than is needed _just_ to get to orbit

but all our progress in space will require the ability to dock/ or unload items into space so maybe x prize 2 should require that the winner have the ability to dock or unload items into space....

but it is so expensive to get to orbit!

of course maybe they should require ability to dock, an X Prize 2 that did not require the ability to dock to win might encourage the misdirection of resources in order to win a little faster

How much will it cost to get to orbit?

Which of the current X prize teams would try to build an orbital spaceship for our hypothetical X Prize 2?

How fast could they have it-by what year?

How much would each team have to modify their current system, I hear that the current ss1 setup will be harder to make an orbital vehicle out of than some of the other teams prototypes

<---Why?


Please see my Crazy idea thread in the technology section btw

In principle agreed - first time only those modifications needed to succeed in the next step of development should take place.

But we mustn't have in mind especially the point how expensive getting to the orbit is - the solution, the way out are the chances to be payed for getting to the orbit. The items to be unloaded for example colud be chances. And the XPRIZE Foundation explicictly says that one of the markets it has in mind are low cost satellites.

If there will be increasing numbers of transports, unloads and dockings in future the number of modifications will increase - up to that point at which changing the technology in the long term will reduce short term costs because of economies of scale or scope.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

scaled has said they'll be going to orbit before people expect, we may see orbit in as few as 3 years, but i suspect it'll take them 5. armadillo will try to make an orbital craft once they finish the suborbital one, due to the relative ease with which they can scale up their vehicle, they may be able to do it before scaled. starchaser has orbital operations in their long-term plan, but i wouldn't expect to see it within 8-10 years. other than that, no teams really have any proclaimed plans for orbit.

How much chance that Da Vinci, Armadillo or Canadian Arrow will beat Scaled to the punch and win the X Prize?

A few time ago I agreed to an XPRIZE2 as a competition for reaching the orbit and made proposals.

But what about the following alternatives:

a) Competition for the ability to combine spacecrafts or parts of spacecrafts of several teams

b) Competition for the ability of secure suborbital formation flights with distance between spacecrafts less than 250 meters

c) Competition for increased navigation ability (the pilot of SpaceShipOne today cannot change thrust)

d) Competition for deceleration at reentry or before reentry

All of these aspects are important in managing the orbit.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)