Slashdot Mirror
N-Prize Founder Paul Dear Talks Prizes For Nanosat Race
Rob Goldsmith writes to point out this interview with Dr. Paul Dear, founder of the N-Prize, and explains: "For those of you who haven yet heard of the N-Prize, the N-Prize is a £9,999.99 (sterling) cash prize which can be claimed by any individual, or group, who are able to prove that they have put into orbit a small satellite. The satellite must weigh between 9.99 and 19.99 grams, and must orbit the Earth at least 9 times. This project must be done within a budget of £999.99 (sterling)."
I wonder if bribing someone at NASA or ESA to include your mini-satellite as part of the payload of the next launch would be acceptable; it's probably the most realistic chance...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If so, why not say so?
This guy just have a fetish for the number 9 or something?
At least it's a new one, can't find a term for it anywhere.
or a 65,000mph cannonball
cant wait to see someone hit a satellite with it, if only to see the reaction on the Scientists faces
"For those of you who haven yet heard of the N-Prize, the N-Prize is a $19,636.90 (dollars) cash prize which can be claimed by any individual, or group, who are able to prove that they have put into orbit a small satellite. The satellite must weigh between 0.35 and 0.71 ounces, and must orbit the Earth at least 9 times. This project must be done within a budget of $1,963.67 (dollars)."
...some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant...
How many Irish does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: one to hold the light bulb still and one to drink till the room spins.
£999.99 could probably buy enough menthos and coke to launch the projectile.
How much you wanna bet I can throw that satellite into orbit?
Hmm, with a budget of ~$2000, I just need $1000 worth of rubber tubing and two mountains. Anybody want to design the satellite?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
WHY!?
Is this some prototype for a global diamond delivery system? Serious, apprise me of the value of putting less than an ounce of something into orbit. And it's the "orbit" part that's tricky. A sufficiently large model rocket can do Alan Shepard-esque sub orbital flight. But to then pop it into orbit with a "circularizing burn" is tricky... on a budget.
I'm trying to not be a troll here, but this prize is designed to develop a $2K ICBM for very tiny payloads. If you put VX gas into something that might survive reentry, you'd have the plot for an Austin Powers movie. I'd call it "MoonShagger: It's a gas gas gas."
What a brilliant marketing meme: with just one borderline-ludicrous sentence, he managed to get many thousands of people talking, got his name in the news, launched a website, and promoted the website creation company, all at practically no cost, backed up (should someone ever achieve the borderline-ludicrous challenge) by a home-equity loan. The publicity-to-signal ratio is huge, at miniscule cost.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
As most of the rest of the English world uses metric
With these satellites being so small they will become distinguishable from space junk.
With battery life being so short, it will revert to junk in no time. I doubt solar panels would survive a journey from the "delivery system" unless it put in space via traditional means costing way more than £9,999.99 (sterling).
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
*Prices* look like 9,999.99 so they appear small.
*Prizes* should look like 10,000.00 so they appear big.
Jesus
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Getting into orbit for less than $2,000 seems absurd (and not even worth firing up Rocksim to get specific figures). Ground launch would require very large motors - just the motor casings (solid or hybrid fuel) would likely cost over $2000. (98mm solid fuel casing costs about $500; that size motor might be able to achieve orbital altitude, but nowhere near orbital velocity). Add the cost of the fuel and a guidance system, surely it would cost many tens of thousands of dollars to get into orbit. Any other rocketeers here see a way to get into orbit for anywhere near $2,000? Or even $20,000? Sounds to me that the Dear Doctor has been Pounded on the head by a (sterling) Silver Hammer.
Aren't there enough issues with space debris, without 1000 amateurs chucking miniature debris into space? It's tantamount to throwing rocks at satellites and NASA shuttles, isn't it? What is this, space guerilla warfare??
We all live in a state of ambitious poverty. -- Decimus Junius Juvenalis
Is there a point to this "challenge"? While I've wasted my time on pointless things in the past just because I thought they were "cool", this sounds like so much self-flagelation to me -- especially on the part of the so-called "founder".
I wonder how many Estes "D" engines it would take to do this. Hmmm ....
So how do you buy enough explosives to accelerate the payload enough to get it into orbit?
There are really several problems here.
First calculating how much gunpowder, TNT, ammonium nitrate , fertilizer/diesel, C4, etc. it would take to accelerate a small payload to orbital speed.
Second problem is to build a payload that can survive the acceleration.
Third is hitting it big on roulette to get enough money to pay for the explosives.
Fourth is how to get out of jail when you place the order for the explosives.
Some how I think the bail money would be more than the project allows.
Sterling, naturally.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The simplest way to launch satellites is to design a great big gun. The U.S. did some experiments with this with Project HARP. They were abandoned because manned flight required lower g-forces. However, if you just wanted to put a satellite into orbit, then guns can make sense.
Unfortunately, the last guy to try this (Gerald V. Bull), went on to attempt to build a super-gun for Saddam Hussein, and then mysteriously got shot (possibly by Israel's Mossad).
I'm not sure I want to win this contest. There have been quite a few projects in the area, and they all get canceled.
If you can get something in orbit for about $2k, I don't see why an upper weight limit would matter. Satellites are made as light as possible to keep down the cost of the launch, so I would think the goal would be to make the thing as heavy as possible within that budget. Whole thing seems stupid.
Importantly, beer in the UK is sold in Imperial Pints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint) - these are significantly larger than the US equivalent, proving once and for all that US beer drinkers are all a bunch of lightweights.
Buy 10 grams of sugar and leave it there for 9 days.
You would also have to add in the cost of a launch license add in the cost to make it safe enough to launch, no way would 10,000 be enough. Of course thats in the US, not sure what it is for Europe. Maybe they don't care if people try to launch several small "missile" like rockets that can reach orbital velocity.
The satellite must be a single object; for example, a cloud of un-connected co-orbiting particles does not count.
Get 10-20 grams of very thin tin-foil instead. The kind used for hats is probably too thick.
"Track" it using telescopes from earth.
Get your amateur astronomers friends from around the world to help out by donating the time and eye-labor.
16. Orbital Monitoring All entrants must be able to provide evidence that their satellite has completed a minimum of 9
orbits of the Earth. The costs of providing this evidence must be borne by the entrant, but do not
form part of the £999.99 budget, except for the costs of any equipment (transmitters, reflectors
etc) mounted on the launch vehicle (including satellite) to enable detection. For example, the cost
of a radio transmitter on the satellite will be considered part of the budget, but the cost of ground-
based equipment to detect and monitor transmissions from the satellite will not be considered
part of the budget. (However, if the same equipment is used to control some aspects of the
launch, then this will be considered part of the launch equipment and hence may fall under the
budget). All entrants must explain before launch how they will provide proof of orbits, and must
agree with the organisers that this proof will be acceptable. There is no need to observe or track
the satellite throughout its orbit, as long as sufficient data is collected to confirm that 9 orbits have
taken place. Entrants are welcome to recruit third parties to assist with orbital verification. The
organisers must be satisfied that the collection of proof-of-orbit data is reliable, unambiguous and
(if judged necessary) validated by disinterested parties. Note also that proof may be required that
a detected signal originates from the satellite itself. The acceptability or otherwise of proof of orbit
will be decided by the organisers.
Contact the organisers at info@n-prize.com
Also, sections 12-14 are rather interesting money-vise:
http://www.n-prize.com/assets/rules_in_full.pdf
12. Budget The budget for each launch is £999.99, and all costs are entirely the responsibility of the entrant.
The budget must cover the following:
a. The launch vehicle, including the satellite itself, and any fuel, gases or other materials
which it carries; in other words, anything which leaves the ground.
b. Any items of the launch equipment could not be re-used for a second identical launch
(for example, gun-type propellants, or railgun rails which are rendered unusable in the
course of the launch).
c. The cost that would be incurred for refurbishing, refilling, re-testing or otherwise
preparing any launch equipment or any aspect of the launch site, if a second identical
mission were to be carried out.
d. Any manufacturing costs for any parts of the launch vehicle or for any parts of the
launch equipment that would require replacement in order for a second identical
mission to be carried out (for example, such costs would include the custom
machining of a piece of metal forming part of the launch vehicle, if this is contracted
out).
As a rule of thumb, the budget of £999.99 should enable you to conduct a repeat of a successful
mission. However, all entrants are advised to contact the organisers to confirm that their
calculation of expenditure is acceptable.
Items which need not be covered by the budget include prototyping costs; launch equipment or
the launch site (except for costs which would be incurred for a repeat mission, as stated above);
licence fees, permissions etc; charges made for attendance by safety personnel (provided that
such personnel play no direct role in the mission); legal costs; medical costs; insurance costs;
fines, penalties or loss of earnings arising from any cause whether prior to, during or after the
miss
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
between 9.99 and 19.99 grams for £999.99?
Are they trying to design the next generation in spamming?
I have a nanosat design ready to send to fabrication, it even does something useful.
But it wouldn't win this prize as the satellite masses only 8 grams. Bollocks.
Ask these guys and their friends for help - it IS allowed by the rules.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The whole satellite, including payload, has to weigh between 10 and 20 grams? Unless you have some mad desire to put a politician's brain in orbit, what the hell good is that?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...Mr Bin-Laden would like to sponsor a smilar contest, to launch a 19 gram sarin gas capsule. The rules require only half an orbit.
I can't prove it, but King George's brain has been in orbit for the last 6-8 years. It's a bit under the minimum weight requirements, but it's still there.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Ever seen The Right Stuff (1983)?
There is this scene where Gus Grissom (played by Fred Ward) is drinking in the bar and is trying to woo a certain waitress who is playing "not very impressed with just another astronaut".
So he shows her a pocket model of Apollo capsule and asks her if she's got one of those.
She answers - sure, they are about a dollar at every thrift store.
Gus answers "Yes, but did you ever have one that went up there?", at which she distinctly changes her posture about him being "just another astronaut".
There it is my fellow slashdotian.
Taking small things into orbit gets you laid.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Folks, this is to announce I have just founded a "P-Prize". The award is $1000 to anyone who can launch a satellite no larger than 5 mg to orbit the earth 50 times, on a budget of less than $100 dollars. So... when does the publicity start?
Stop! Dremel time!
Get a baseball into orbit and we'll talk.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Does anyone know what the cost of a laser is if I'm looking for 19grams*1G*1.2/(1.7)~=?0.020N of thrust and can maintain a beem width of 2cm at a distance of up to 0.5 R-earth?
It seems to me that such a laser could over the course of a few hours propel a gyroscopically stablized payload into geo-sync orbit.
I would need a very effiecient and tiny and well cooled mirror. I suppose an ablative mirror that resulted in a final payload in orbit of 10-19g would be ok.
See Sputnik... It only weighed 186 pounds and needed an 280 Metric ton launch vehicle... The fuel alone will cost more than $2k. Hmm... Big Model Rockets.... Nope... I believe the record altitude for model rocketry is just under 20,000 feet (Gates). A little short of space I'm also pretty sure they spent more than $2k to build it as well.. All in all a neat little marketing gimick.
1+2+1+1 || 1+2+2+1
I would presume that there are minimum wage laws in the UK, and that the cost of labor must factor in (unless it is specifically excluded). It's actually only reasonable that the participants be allocated a wage similar to other professionals in the field. Here in the US, that would be no less than $30/hr, and more realistically closer to $50-75/hr for an aerospace grunt with a few years of experience. Heck, for 9 orbits, you're looking at $50x9x1.5 plus, say, 20 hours for assembly and launch, and 8 hours to read the rules and file the paperwork. Over $2000 - beyond the allowable cost - and that's for a single person on the project, and discounting any R&D time for the first item - i.e. just the actual launch costs.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't see anywhere in the rules that says the orbit has to occur in space. Perhaps there's a way to attach a transmitter to a naturally occurring orbit ala migratory bird or ocean current type thing; just as long as it continues to go around the earth.
you can get pretty far up using a hydrogen balloon (170,000ft/51Km) so that's a huge start, then you just need to use a rocket to get the remaining 130,000ft to LEO.
As a previous poster said earlier proving it's up there is going to be the hard part.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
For reference, the weight of the ultra-light main circuit board for a CVS Camcorder is 21 grams - that's without batteries, and without any sort of RF transmitter. It'll be pretty hard to do something cool within that weight limit and budget.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
In English beer measure, which I learned is different from English ale measure (op. cit.), somewhere between a butt (1296 pints) and a tun (2268 pints).
It goes: pint, quart, pottle, gallon, firkin, kilderkin, barrel, hogshead, butt, tun.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Hi all, Wow - this thread has grown fast. A few quick answers to some points raised: 1) Why? What use is it? - For fun, and none at all, in that order. Also to prove that the world isn't run by accountants and safety officers. 2) 20 grams is too light. - No it isn't. We're beyond valves. 20 grams is plenty for a half-watt transmitter, a few square cm of solar panels, and more. Most entrants are looking to put video on their satellite (you can get camera modules weighing less than a gram). Some entrants are going for optical signalling. Either way, it's not really a problem. 3) "Other" applications/ICBMs etc - So, what? We're supposed to say 'nobody is allowed in space because there are terrorists who could use this technology'? If so, they've already won, haven't they? 4) Space junk - Yes, we'll be adding one or two pieces to the tens of thousands already up there. However, N-Prize entrants are mostly aiming for low (sub-200km) orbits, which will decay quite quickly. 5) Feasibility at the price - it's on the borderline of possiblity, using either single-use launchers OR using a small recoverable launcher (in which case, you can spend what you like on the launcher, and only the fuel and refurb costs count). 6) Cost of permits etc - If you want to get permits etc, then that's fine. Their cost is not counted as part of the budget (see full rules). 7) Come on, guys, loosen up a little! This is an invitation to play, and to try something almost impossible for no practical reason whatsoever.
Does the cost of the launch and satalite include the costs to get the license for the device as well as the regulatory clearances for launch? Getting a tax stamp for a destructive device will eat $500 of the $2000 limit. (Any guided rocket is considered a Destructive Device under the 1934 National Firearms Act in the US. and regulated like explosived and maching guns)
Helium High-altitude ballon for the first stage. That should get you to a good enough height. Use the rocket for achieving horizontal velocity.
For 200 I bribe a NASA astronaut to put something into his pocket, on the rest i buy candies and a champagne.. :)
First off, you forgot about AIR RESISTANCE!!!
Secondly, 20:1 ratios are ridiculous. Especially, if it has to withstand... AIR RESISTANCE!
Thirdly, that also only applies to free fall objects. You neglected... GRAVITY! Consider the Saturn V which burned a lot of propellant before it even moved against gravity...
A heavy fuel rocket is going to spend almost all of it's energy lifting the fuel. With that strategy you might as well lift something a bit heavier. There are two parts to the problem, getting up, and getting fast. Really fast. The energy requirement for LEO is 32.1 to 38.6 MJ/kg according to wikipedia. lets say 35MJ/kg applied to 10g of payload, that is a total of 350KJ of kinetic energy that needs to be applied to the payload. The most efficient way to do this would be to dump all the energy in one go and fire it from a rail gun in a vacuum. So the easy answer is to strip the Earth of it's atmosphere, then use a rail gun. Plan B would be to use a balloon to do most of the "getting up" part of the problem, then use a rail gun to do the fast bit. I suspect neither of these plans are sufficiently wacky. Perhaps some exotic kite based thing magnetically surfing on the Aurora Borealis would work. I think the key is not to use your own energy, but find it on the way somehow. Solar would appear to be the obvious candidate, quite how you apply this at the edge of the atmosphere is not so simple. Action and reaction, things move forward by flinging stuff out the back. Rockets fling their exhaust, airplanes fling bits of atmosphere. This little payload isn't going to have stuff to fling, or an atmosphere to climb through. It could have lots of energy shone at it from below, the photons would bounce off and impart some thrust. Trouble is that is a lot of energy cost again. I guess a huge solar array could do it for free (within the rules you wouldn't have to pay for the array within the £999 budget) Getting an upward stream of energy to translate to a horizontal orbital velocity is another trick altogether.
For reference, a typical AA battery weighs 23 grams, so even just using a big maglev to launch a single battery and a simple radio circuit consisting of a few tiny capacitors, resistors, and a small coil of wire in an aero-shell wouldn't qualify...not to mention the cost of the launcher.
The only thing that comes close to working is a supergun. The math works on one level. A projectile that small potentially could be launched into orbit for $300 to $400 in explosives. The problem is fabricating the barrel and detonation system for around a grand. The barrel alone would run around a 100K, maybe several times that and that's if you strap it onto n existing tower. Superguns work at a lower pressure than a normal guns but you're still talking about a 100' to 250' barrel. Timing the charges is the tricky part. You need high end detonators that require a license to get. The satellite itself is the other part of the sucker bet. Do you have to monitor it on that same 2K budget? How do you independently verify what you have done? Something that small would require a decent radio telescope to track. The signal would be pretty damn weak. If it's a simple reflector then you'd need a ground based source. It's not a matter of creating new technology it's the physics of it. The fabrication will always exceed 2K. The joke is a gallon of gasoline has more than enough power to launch 3/4 of an ounce into orbit it's just using it efficently. You could even use it as the fuel source for a supergun but the barrel would probably have to be 10,000 foot long because the fuel source burns so slowly. Now you might get away with 10,000 feet of iron water pipe if you poured concrete around the first 100' due to the low pressure of burning gasoline, how much would 10,000 feet of water pipe run? You could take the other approach and just make a 10' barrel with insanely thick walls and use a single charge of high speed explosives but the speed leaving the barrel would be way over a 100g, probably 200 or 300 at least, not going to pull out the calculator. You'd vaporize your satellite.
Unfortunately, payment of the prize money is in nano-sized dollar bills.
And they're in orbit.
how about this for a decent start, take a supercavitating torpedo, filled with something buoyant. Tie a rock to it with a release mechanism and chuck it overboard. Get the hell out of the way and wait for it to hit the ocean floor and release. I have no idea what speed it would emerge at but some supercavitating torpedos might be able to do 800km/h. That is quite a bit of free energy for a flying start to the mission.
I have learned to not use the word "impossible". Especially when "materials properties" are the hurdle. But I'm betting against the success, partly because of engineering hurdles, but MOSTLY because neither the prize nor goal (the 'why') are worth pursuing, especially given the miniscule budget. If it happens, make sure we know about it. I'll be watching. Of course, by that time, I'll be playing Duke Nukem Forever waiting for a ride on the Space Elevator ;-)