I'm not good enough in space ship science but I'd like to participate with my ideas later on

here are the rules -> http://www.xprize.org/teams/guidelines.html
here is what we need to build -> a spaceship
the prize in this instance is of no particular value, but nonthereless
here is the prize ->
http://www.xprize.org/images/thumbnails/thumb.trophy.gif
+ $10 000 000 +

first we need to decide on the propell method

a baloon at the start
some cheap rocket fuel
an entirely different approach

my personal oppinion is that a helium baloon would be a good start, because it is cheap, easy replacable, lightweight

Who funds this anyway?

Which rocket fuel is cheap?

a cheap rocket fuel would be such that can be made out of replacable or easy to obtain elements.

like crop fuel, hydrogen based fuel

that makes the first question, is it mossibe to enchance a bio fuel to such a level (via genetic engineering, chemical component adding) tha it would make enough energy to escape earths gravitational pull.
from an altitude to which a baloon could take us


the history of the xprize project (http://www.xprize.org/press/history.html)

If you got really cheap stuff you could maybe do it for 1 to 3 million dollars. That would give a 7 to 9 million dollar profit!:)

But for it to cost this little it would be much less safe.:(

Thats why it would need to cost alot more than the prize amount to make the ship safe enough to rutenly use.;)

let's not think about finances , but about a construction that wouldn't cost more than 10 000 000
you could then later make much more money with the spaceship itself if successful (and we are here building only on paper anyway)

anyone....?
wet1, why don't you particepate?

I remember hearing about a space ship launching gun on History Channel.

Supposedly if made it could launch small payloads into space.

Maybe not space ship sized payloads but sattalite sized.:)

62 miles eh?

Skrew balloons, we'd need far to many to get high enough for them to be beneficial, the vehicle has to be as small, and as light as possible, what needs to be consider is whether you want a powered decent, or a splash down. Splashdowns are easier/cheaper, so i suggest that.

Has anyone done the math on the 62 mile hieght, thrust, length of thrust, etc?

if anyone would have bothered to read the rules, then you would know that the x-prize spaceship has to man 3 people.

a baloon is a good way to spare much fule that is needed at the start

read here -> http://www.xprize.org/teams/ilat.html

Yea, i did read them, 3 men, at least 198 pounds, or comparable weight, how would you make ballons economical? and remember 10% of the non-liftoff weight can't be changed.

the best would be if we could make a non-stage spaceship that could take off by its' own engine/boosters
hmmmm lightweight fuel?
do we have something that could be developed into such?
apart from antigravity drives (not this century imho)

these spaceships would be very usable not jsut for excursions
if one can fly to a space station on low earth orbit, then another sjhip launches from the station to the moon (smaller gravity pull = cheaper) and then from the moon big ships could take off to other planets later

Originally posted by Avatar
, then another sjhip launches from the station to the moon (smaller gravity pull = cheaper) and then from the moon big ships could take off to other planets later

same amount of fuel, because you use fuel to reach that stage, and fuel to leave it, maybe if you use smaller ships FROM there it would be less, maybe small ships, a lot of times (mass migration) to that point, then HUGE ones to leave it?

not really, about 80% of the fuel is spent to escape earths gravitational pull. From the moon you'll need much much more less fuel

how about field accelerator
a heard this idea some time ago
take a tunel with em fields and shoot a ship through it
as the ship passes the tube it is accelerated by the em fields
eventually shooting the ship like a projectile out of earths gravity

Originally posted by Avatar
not really, about 80% of the fuel is spent to escape earths gravitational pull. From the moon you'll need much much more less fuel

you still need that 80% to get to LEO :P

no, if I use a hydrogen baloon the first 30 miles or so
the higher the less fuel needed

I do believe this team will win

http://www.xcor.com

Met them at Oskosh last year. The wings actually detach off the plane and they just had it in a huge trailer on attached to a truck. It was cool. They were telling me, my dad, and my bro about their testing and everything... really cool.


Later,
T


check out the bottom picture... I was standing right next to that talking to the team... it was awesome
http://www.xcor.com/osh02report.html

I believe it possible with current and near-future(specifically, scramjets) technology to make a shuttle that has payload capacity and operating cost equivilant to the C-17A transport. Price per ship would eb through the roof though.

Coming up with something "off the shelf" will be difficult. Most of NASA's stuff is not off the shelf but rather one of a kind or at best just a few of.

Within sight, would be something like a ballon assisted or piggy back plane assisted.

Just off the horizon would be scramjet, with the newer style body modifications for a surf type rider to use the most of the shock wave that all hyper velocity passages generate.

Farther off might be the successful launch by way of laser. While still in test, with mixed results, it promises to be one of the more cheaper methods to get stuff to space with what we now have. It is good for a one way shot for launching stuff there. The return vehicle could be reused but I don't think at present we want to use live folks for that.

Once an atmospheric test of a scarmjet is completed, I believe that ca nbe considered available. I believe a SR-71 would be able to reach the speeds required, so such a test is not a rediculous proposition. I dont' believe that laser or balloon-assisted launch vehicles are practical for mass lift operations.

Actually, if laser launch is ever completed and made a workable program it will be far cheaper to lift stuff in mass. At present while tests show promise, it is far from being a program ready to use.

The laser technology is what makes me think that it's a holy grail. I saw a thing on it, admittedly a long time ago. It took a chemical laser, with a supporting battery the size of a tractor trailer trailer, to lift a two pound prototype 200 feet. I would be interested in an update, but I still think that balloon assisted launch will be a side-show to whatever ends up being used.

i know i am very new here and you all wish the ship to be as light as possible. of course i agree but why does the ship have to be light when it can be made light to an extent. stick with me because i know some of you will scoff i will supply refferance data where i can. a while back Nasa decided to start to look into Gravity Shielding started by Eugene Podkletnov. now he developed a super conductor that would reduce the gravity of any give object above it by .02-2% http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/gravity.html

this site i am giving you has referances to many other people who have tried including NASA which has take up the project and has been working on it for sometime last report they got from nasa was with results of and verifacation of the reduction of gravitys pull to the amount of 0.3-3% with 4 inch superconducter disks. nasa and others have since gone to larger sizes 12 inch disks in 1998 and the other info i am in the dark about but i do know about this.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml

ok now i am not saying that this ships gravity could be reduced completely but a reduce in gravity of even 2% could bring down the weigth of the ship considerably and since gravitys effects are less on the moon it would require even less there. i found a big problem in making this a practical soloution but JDW Aerospace obviously has not since they have this plane in the works.
the weight of the ship doesnt have to be nothing just simply a weaight easy to get out of the atmosphere at the lease cost.

experiments by other scientists since then have bee nunable to reproduce the results. A 2% reduction is not enough to produce a significant reduction in the price of launch. The idea of making a reusable vehicle was that you don't have to build a new one every time. If we could build Deltas for $1million apiece instead of $90million, we wouldn't be using the space shuttle.

its 3% max and thats in 1998 as the last info i have and in devolpment if you bothered to look at the new article is a anti gravity proprelled plane if it was still 3% i doubt that would be.
the only thing not reusable about my idea is the super conductor used to reduce the weigth because they will break after continuous use seeing as how the idea cannot be patented until a working protype is made i dont see how its anyones sole property infact i am going to do extensive reaserch to find out exactly how far it has gone. and i will post my findings.

It has been some time since I saw anything on laser launching.

I remember posting on this when it came into the news.

here (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/laser_craft_001103-1.html)

and here (http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/news.html)

http://www.space.com/images/in_laser_craft_03.jpg

http://www.space.com/images/in_laser_craft_table_03.jpg

For info on the x-prize and who is participating:

here (http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/xprize.html)

The Ascender, from their website:

Ascender is designed to:

Win the X-Prize
Carry passengers on space experience flights
Spearhead low-cost access to space


http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/projects/images/ascender_580.gif