| Page 1 of 1 |
[ 5 posts ] |
IMPORTANT X-Cup Rule is missing!
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Spaceflight Enthusiast ![]()
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:21 pm
Posts: 1 |
I see five good rules but I don't see the 6th most important rule which is, as I understand it, a major pillar of the whole x-Prize/Cup theme. Lowering the cost of flights so that access can be opened for more people. Anyone can be the winner of the X-Cup if they spend a lot of money. I suppose its an inherent assumption that anyone who competes will want to win at the lowest cost.
6. Cost per pound of cargo. Whomever has the lowest number gets the highestest score in this catagory. This is one of the essential rules for SAE formula racing at universities. Comments? |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moon Mission Member ![]()
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1204 Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy |
tricky_fish wrote: I see five good rules but I don't see the 6th most important rule which is, as I understand it, a major pillar of the whole x-Prize/Cup theme. Lowering the cost of flights so that access can be opened for more people. Anyone can be the winner of the X-Cup if they spend a lot of money. I suppose its an inherent assumption that anyone who competes will want to win at the lowest cost. 6. Cost per pound of cargo. Whomever has the lowest number gets the highestest score in this catagory. This is one of the essential rules for SAE formula racing at universities. Comments? Please share this information with: Dr. Peter H. Diamandis peter.diamandis@xprize.org Founder and President Mr. Gregg E. Maryniak gregg.maryniak@xprize.org Executive Director Send one or both of them an e-mail sharing your thoughts. They will decide if it's ok to add or not... _________________ Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892 |
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am
Posts: 322 |
The idea, is that wanting to make a proffit (or break even) from winning the prize would be enough to lower costs, I think. Building a privately owned suborbital three person RLV with two-week turnaround times, for $10,000,000, is pretty amazing. Scaled probably has gone way over that amount, but others haven't.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator ![]()
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany |
If there really is missing rule, then only the according rule to maximum altitude: maximum distance over surface.
But this rule is missing because of the general goal the XPRIZE Foundation is aiming at: general access to space for everybody. Access to space first is a question of altitude. The reduction of costs can't be a rule in the CUP - costs are bound to concepts as well as to the propellant and material markets the teams have to go to. And the cheapest concept may be a concept losing the competion to reach maximum altitude. So costs must not be a rule and have to be determined by the future markets that will evolve as I hope. A competition in maximum distance as Part of the CUP only could be a step to reach orbits in future I think. And such a rule requires a greater number of space ports througout the USA as well as around the world. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocket Constructor ![]() ![]()
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 3:47 am
Posts: 7 Location: EVERYWHERE |
To answer the question: Because who is going to act as the book-keeper?
There are too many issues with honest book-keeping and this would not require judges but a team of layers and auditors. Ideally to open up space access you want to reduce your costs. That goal is part of the ANSARI X PRIZE and X PRIZE CUP. Also safety is EXTREMELY important. If someone cuts their budget just to be the cheapest flight... well we've seen the disastrous results of this already... Cheers, Ryan |
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 5 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |







Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.