Archive for May 2006
Michelle Murray at the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation answered some of the questions about Lunar Lander Challenge deadlines and FAA requirements for those thinking about competing. “Within AST, we have four experimental permit applications in various stages,” Michelle revealed. She can’t say who, but three must be Armadillo, Interorbital and Masten.
If these three and Mystery Contestant Number 4 pass FAA muster and get experimental permits, they still must abide by the final rules set forth by X Prize Foundation to win any (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge prize money. And, of course, they must also build vehicles and flight-test them for X Prize inspectors, somewhere and sometime before the personal spaceflight festival in New Mexico.
(If the final rules have been released, and if anyone knows of an official place to find them, a link would be helpful. See Peter’s Principles: How to use contests to spur innovation 1. Tell a story. We make sure the rules for winning are very clear and that the teams are doing something with a dramatic finish.)
The 120-day review period means a team should finish its application in about three weeks to fly anything at this year’s Lunar Lander Challenge. Earlier, if they want to do untethered flight tests to qualify for the show.
Read the rest of this entry »
It seems that the Lunar Lander Challenge rules may eXclude Interorbital Systems from the competition.
22.214.171.124 The following fuels and oxidizers shall be considered safe for operation at the Competition Venue: ethane, ethyl alcohol, gaseous oxygen, hydrogen, lesser than 70% H202, isopropyl alcohol, kerosene, liquid oxygen, methane, N20, propane, butane.
126.96.36.199 The following fuels and oxidizers shall be considered unsafe for operation at the Competition Venue: greater than 70 percent H202, nitric acid, hydrazine, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, monomethylhydrazine, any hypergolic propellant combination.
One week after the contest was officially opened for registration, I asked Ken Davidian from NASA’s Centennial Challenges office and also Ian Murphy from the X Prize Foundation if there would be any restrictions on choice of propellants. They both said that anti-gravity would be excluded (for some reason), but could not think of anything else.
Interorbital CEO Randa Milliron expressed doubts about that even before the latest revised rules were circulated to interested parties. “I hope they don’t ban all hypergolics out of ignorance or misinformation,” she said. Hypergolic propellants spontaneously ignite on contact. Apollo’s Lunar Excursion Modules relied on them, and so will NASA’s next-generation lunar lander.
Hypergolics have a reputation for being highly toxic and unstable, Read the rest of this entry »
Interorbital Systems Educational Briefing
By Randa Milliron
For over sixty years, White Fuming Nitric Acid (WFNA) (HNO3) has been successfully used as an oxidizer in the United States, Russia, Germany, and France. The French Diamant rocket used a WFNA/hydrocarbon combination to place France’s first satellite into orbit in the early 1960s. In the United States, the early rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) units, and later the second stage of the Nike-Ajax used WFNA and JP-4. Several German rockets in World War II used WFNA. In addition, the German OTRAG rocket, designed in the 1970s, used WFNA and kerosene. Today, the Russian Small Cosmos Satellite Launcher still uses nitric acid as its booster oxidizer.
Read the rest of this entry »
Video of the keynote speech at ISDC 2006 by the Will Rogers of the new space revolution can be seen at Rockets Away: Blogging the New Space Revolution.
No Lunar Lander Challenge connection, exactly, except that Burt did win the Ansari X Prize, and this is a great speech.
May 30 is the deadline for comments to the FAA on proposed rules governing Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets.
Links to the proposed rules and the register of comments can be found at Selenian Boondocks, Jonathan Goff’s place. Jon works for Masten Space, and he’s a little worried about the total lack of feedback the FAA has received so far:
Does everyone just think that this is the epitome of Rules-y Goodness and Purity or something?
We’re going to be preparing and submitting our comments in the next day or so, and I encourage any of you who have useful comments to make (and even some wingbats–after all, we can always use people who are so crazy that they make all of our comments seem like sweet reason in comparison) to join us. This is kind of important guys!
This Air&Space/Smithsonian article about NASA’s new lunar lander design helps explain why Lunar Lander Challenge is so challenging.
If you think designing LSAM is going to be tricky, remember, the people at NASA only have to worry about landing and taking off from the Moon, and risking the lives of a few government employees at a time.
Teams competing for Lunar Lander Challenge are being held to higher standards, because Lunar Lander Challenge isn’t only about Moon travel. It says right there in the prize description that its goal is to develop the operational capacity of quick turnaround vertical take-off, vertical landing vehicles for the personal spaceflight industry and other launch markets — the kind of space travel you can do from Earth, and the kind that will tend to draw a crowd.