Contests sometimes lead to innovative solutions to engineering challenges. There are many engineering hurdles before space habitats are a reality.

What do you guys think would be some good contests?

They could be along the lines of the X-Prize or the technical contests that NASA has now. You could probably think of several areas that could be worked on now, whether it be basic research or pilot scale.

Also, what would be the appropriate reward?

Well NASA's all ready has a contest of sorts going on right now
C.O.T.S or ( Commercial Orbital Transportation Services ).. Seems my
edjucated guess was pretty right on. In my research on this topic the
CEV is simpley a stop gap answer for NASA. Its the best it can do with
the budget and time constraints imposed upon NASA. And that NASA is
hoping for privet space flight to take over most of their LEO launchs
on a contractor basess.. Now this one was just dum luck when I
suggested that say $500 million of NASA's budget should be given to
foster privet space flight ventures. well the total amount NASA has
set aside for C.O.T.S. is $500. million.. go figure..
But heres the best part of this. Its totally NASA's own doing. Which
is to say quiet refreshing. Seems the post Columbia NASA is honestly
trying to be come more focused on what needs to be done for the future
of human space flight, exploration and exploitation.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Matt Gallimore
wrote:
>
> Contests sometimes lead to innovative solutions to engineering
challenges. There are many engineering hurdles before space habitats
are a reality.
>
> What do you guys think would be some good contests?
>
> They could be along the lines of the X-Prize or the technical
contests that NASA has now. You could probably think of several areas
that could be worked on now, whether it be basic research or pilot
scale.

Have we given up on the biosphere experiments? I think this will be a good idea to award a prize to. Any individual or group of individuals who can survive in a fully recycled environment for one year. The clock must start from when all the startup ration has been used up.

The reward? They will have to prove that they can survive for 5 years : - )

Selvaraj

From: Matt Gallimore

Contests sometimes lead to innovative solutions to engineering challenges. There are many engineering hurdles before space habitats are a reality.

What do you guys think would be some good contests?

They could be along the lines of the X-Prize or the technical contests that NASA has now. You could probably think of several areas that could be worked on now, whether it be basic research or pilot scale.

Also, what would be the appropriate reward?

In a message dated 8/12/2006 3:33:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sraj@... writes:

> Have we given up on the biosphere experiments? I think this will be a good
> idea to award a prize to. Any individual or group of individuals who can
> survive in a fully recycled environment for one year. The clock must start from
> when all the startup ration has been used up.
>
> The reward? They will have to prove that they can survive for 5 years : - )
>
> Selvaraj
>

Hey I am up for that. Where do I sign up?

John Wayne Smith CEO 1000Planets. Inc.
http://www.1000Planets.com

Raj,

Perhaps I should have proposed:
"What project would you like to see funded if someone would sponsor it with $X million?"(you name the amount).

CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System) would be a good candidate for funding. There is a lot that we could do here on earth. It could have benefits for space, underwater or artic habitats. Within that category could be research for optimal LEDs for plants (red - flowering / fruit, and blue - vegetative growth) or getting some algae (spirulina) to taste better. Also we need more effective treatment of waste water.

Since you mentioned a biosphere: With a biosphere where people can't leave, there might be some small additional funding from book / movie / documentary rights. Of course, you might need the right personnel to make for interesting viewing. (Maybe two teams of untrained people and see which can keep their econosystem stable the longest.)

As for pure prizes here are some:

America's Space Prize (Bigelow, $50,000,000 which I doubt anyone will win due to rules)

Xprize (xprizefoundation.com/index.asp)
Raising funds for contests in:
DNA - rapid genome sequencing ($500,000)
Automotive X-Prize - details out soon

DARPA
Urban Challange - automous vehicle driving 60 miles in an urban setting while avoiding obstacles such as pedestrians and obeying traffic rules.
Many other technology contests from DARPA

Xprize cup (rocket racing)
http://www.xprizecup.com/

Nasa's Centenial Challenges:
There are to be a total of seven of these to promote technical innovation:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/cc_index.html
http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/cc_challenges.html#telerobotic

From: sraj
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:32:29 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Space Prizes and Contests

Have we given up on the biosphere experiments? I think this will be a good idea to award a prize to. Any individual or group of individuals who can survive in a fully recycled environment for one year. The clock must start from when all the startup ration has been used up.

The reward? They will have to prove that they can survive for 5 years : - )

Selvaraj

From: Matt Gallimore

Contests sometimes lead to innovative solutions to engineering challenges. There are many engineering hurdles before space habitats are a reality.

What do you guys think would be some good contests?

They could be along the lines of the X-Prize or the technical contests that NASA has now. You could probably think of several areas that could be worked on now, whether it be basic research or pilot scale.

Also, what would be the appropriate reward?

--- Matt Gallimore wrote:

> Raj,
>
> Perhaps I should have proposed:
> "What project would you like to see funded if
> someone would sponsor it with $X million?"(you name
> the amount).
>
> CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System) would
> be a good candidate for funding. There is a lot
> that we could do here on earth. It could have
> benefits for space, underwater or artic habitats.
> Within that category could be research for optimal
> LEDs for plants (red - flowering / fruit, and blue
> - vegetative growth) or getting some algae
> (spirulina) to taste better. Also we need more
> effective treatment of waste water.
>

If I were to put together a CELSS X-prize, one of the
rules I would include would be "no windows". This
would largely eliminate the need for the giant bellows
that was required for the BiosphereII project, and
would allow precise metering of the energy usage.
After all, it is unlikely that a base on the moon or
in orbit is going to have giant windows for plant
growth, and far more likely that the energy will be
collected and artificial light used inside. That is,
at least until we develop transparent aluminum...

Ed

On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Ed Minchau wrote:

> That is,
> at least until we develop transparent aluminum...

Don't you remember, that was invented back in the 80's! At least
that's what they said on Star Trek, so it must be true.....

In a message dated 8/13/2006 3:50:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dougmay@... writes:

>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> > That is, at least until we develop transparent aluminum...
>
> Don't you remember, that was invented back in the 80's! At least
> that's what they said on Star Trek, so it must be true.....

Air Force testing new transparent armor

by Laura Lundin, Air Force Research Laboratory Public Affairs

10/17/2005 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) --Engineers here
are testing a new kind of transparent armor -- stronger and lighter than
traditional materials -- that could stop armor-piercing weapons from penetrating
vehicle windows.

The Air Force Research Laboratory's materials and manufacturing directorate
is testing aluminum oxynitride -- ALONtm -- as a replacement for the
traditional multi-layered glass transparencies now used in existing ground and air
armored vehicles. The test is being done in conjunction with the Army Research
Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., and University of Dayton Research
Institute, Ohio.

ALONtm is a ceramic compound with a high compressive strength and durability.
When polished, it is the premier transparent armor for use in armored
vehicles, said. 1st Lt. Joseph La Monica, transparent armor sub-direction lead. "The
substance itself is light years ahead of glass," he said, adding that it
offers "higher performance and lighter weight." Traditional transparent armor is
thick layers of bonded glass. The new armor combines the transparent ALONtm
piece as a strike plate, a middle section of glass and a polymer backing. Each
layer is visibly thinner than the traditional layers. ALONtm is virtually scratch
resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better
durability and protection against armor piercing threats, at roughly half the weight
and half the thickness of traditional glass transparent armor, said the
lieutenant.

In a June 2004 demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30
caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with
armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor
withstood the impact with no penetration. In extensive testing, ALONtm has
performed well against multiple hits of .30 caliber armor piercing rounds --
typical of anti-aircraft fire, Lieutenant La Monica said. Tests focusing on
multiple hits from .50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the
works.

The lieutenant is optimistic about the results because the physical
properties and design of the material are intended to stop higher level threats. "The
higher the threat, the more savings you're going to get," he said. "With
glass, to get the protection against higher threats, you have to keep building
layers upon layers. But with ALONtm, the material only needs to be increased a few
millimeters."

This ability to add the needed protection with only a small amount of
material is very advantageous, said Ron Hoffman, an investigator at University of
Dayton Research Institute. "When looking at higher level threats, you want the
protection, not the weight," Mr. Hoffman said. "Achieving protection at lighter
weights will allow the armor to be more easily integrated into vehicles." Mr.
Hoffman also pointed out the benefit of durability with ALONtm. "Eventually,
with a conventional glass surface, degradation takes place and results in a
loss of transparency," Mr. Hoffman said. "Things such as sand have little or no
impact on ALONtm, and it probably has a life expectancy many times that of
glass." The scratch-resistant quality will greatly increase the transparency of
the armor, giving military members more visual awareness on the battlefield. "It
all comes down to survivability and being able to see what's out there and to
make decisions while having the added protection," Mr. Hoffman said.

The Army is looking to use the new armor as windows in ground vehicles, like
the Humvee, Lieutenant La Monica said. The Air Force is exploring its use for
"in-flight protective transparencies for low, slow-flying aircraft. These
include the C-130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III, A-10 Thunderbolt II and
helicopters.

While some see the possibilities of this material as limitless,
manufacturability, size and cost are issues the lab is dealing with before the armor can
transition to the field, the lieutenant said. "Traditional transparent armor
costs a little over $3 per square inch. The ALONtm Transparent Armor cost is $10
to $15 per square inch," Lieutenant LaMonica said. "The difficulties arise
with heating and polishing processes, which lead to higher costs. But we are
looking at more cost effective alternatives." Lieutenant La Monica said
experimenting with the polishing process has proven beneficial." We found that by
polishing it a certain way, we increased the strength of the material by two-fold,"
he said.

Currently, size is also limited because equipment needed to heat larger
pieces is expensive. To help lower costs, the lieutenant said researchers are
looking at design variations that use smaller pieces of the armor tiled together to
form larger windows. Lowering cost by using a commercial grade material is
also an option, and the results have been promising. "So far, the difference
between the lower-grade material and higher purity in ballistic tests is
minimal," he said.

Lieutenant La Monica said once the material can be manufactured in large
quantities to meet the military's needs, and the cost brought down, the durability
and strength of ALONtm will prove beneficial to the war fighter. "It might
cost more in the beginning, but it is going to cost less in the long run because
you are going to have to replace it less," he said.

(Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service)

John Wayne Smith, CEO 1000 Planets, inc.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Minchau

> After all, it is unlikely that a base on the moon or
> in orbit is going to have giant windows for plant
> growth, and far more likely that the energy will be
> collected and artificial light used inside.

Why do you say this? In the case of the 2-week long night on the moon,
what you say might be true there (although even in that case, large
windows might save us enormous amounts of energy at least half the
time). But in a high orbit, where any day/night cycle can be
engineered, why not windows and mirrors? I presume you accept the
design of Island 1. Is there some expectation that the same idea
wouldn't work at a smaller scale? I can think of no reason not to use
mirrors and windows to grow crops on a station with a population of a
thousand, or even just a few hundred.

According to this paper,
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/II-1.ht
ml, for habitats for a population of 10,000, the mirrors/windows
approach should only have about 1/5 the cost of the PV/artificial
illumination option. I'm sure the use of LEDs would significantly
reduce that 5x difference, but I doubt that it would eliminate it.

> That is,
> at least until we develop transparent aluminum...

Is there a perception that glass panels in a steel frame are inadequate
to the task? O'Neill calculated that such could be engineered at the
scales of the three "Island" models of space habitat. Engineering for a
glass-paneled pressure hull of more modest diameter would be simpler
still.

Regards,

Mike Combs

On Aug 14, 2006, at 14:41 UTC, Combs, Mike wrote:

[Regarding use of artificial light for growing crops:]

> But in a high orbit, where any day/night cycle can be
> engineered, why not windows and mirrors? I presume you accept the
> design of Island 1. Is there some expectation that the same idea
> wouldn't work at a smaller scale? I can think of no reason not to use
> mirrors and windows to grow crops on a station with a population of a
> thousand, or even just a few hundred.

Mike, of course the reason would be simple economics. Converting
sunlight to electricity, distributing it wherever it may be needed, and
converting it back into light, is very simple. Optical paths are much
more complex, except for the most trivial optical paths -- but those
place severe constraints on the design of the habitat.

So it comes down to a question of how much those design constraints
cost you, or how much the convoluted optical paths cost, vs. how much
the efficiency losses (which are really not all that high) cost you for
electrical lighting.

For example: one of the biggest costs in any habitat design is
radiation shielding. This needs to be around the outside of any living
space, and I would argue, any agricultural space too. (O'Neill tended
to discount radiation damage to agricultural workers, but modern
studies usually find that unacceptable.) So, from a
radiation-shielding standpoint, the most efficient design is a short
cylinder with multiple decks, since none of the inner decks require
their own radiation shielding -- they get it for free by virtue of
being inside the outermost one. This is a (literally) massive savings
over a single-deck design. But such a multi-deck design pretty much
requires artificial lighting.

How much does that artificial lighting cost us? We can reasonably
assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaic conversion (perhaps more with
something like solar thermal), and about 55% efficiency for the
artificial lights. The product is 11% efficiency. So figure you need
about 10 times the solar panel area that you would otherwise need as
mirrors and window/chevron contraptions. That's a square a little more
than three times bigger on each side. This is not an outrageous
amount, especially if we're always claiming that energy is cheap and
abundant in space.

Then consider that the light you generate in this way can be carefully
tuned to the photosynthetic absorption spectrum, reducing waste heat
substantially, resulting in smaller radiators. Radiator mass is also a
significant expense in a colony, so this also helps on the side of
artificial light. (Many studies of using natural light assume special
mirrors that reflect only part of the spectrum -- but such mirrors are
substantially more complex and expensive than ordinary broad-spectrum
reflectors like mylar or aluminum.)

Does all this add up to artificial light being more economical? I
doubt anyone knows for sure; it would take a very detailed study that
takes into account all these factors, and AFAIK no one has done such a
study. But I suspect that it would. As you once pointed out to me,
O'Neill's goal was to show that an Earthlike environment is possible,
rather than to show how X number of people could be most economically
supported.

> According to this paper,
>
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/II-1.ht
> ml, for habitats for a population of 10,000, the mirrors/windows
> approach should only have about 1/5 the cost of the PV/artificial
> illumination option. I'm sure the use of LEDs would significantly
> reduce that 5x difference, but I doubt that it would eliminate it.

This paper has a number of flaws. It does not take into account
radiator mass, nor does it consider shield mass and the savings
possible from multi-deck designs. It's also assuming "light bulbs and
fixtures," i.e. incandescent lights (!) -- I'm pretty sure we have made
substantially better than 5X improvement in lighting technology since
then, both in terms of efficiency and lifetime. But perhaps most
damning, its cost conclusions depend mostly on a mysterious
"distribution mass" which they don't explain, which can't be derived
from the other figures in the paper, and which, when I asked about it
on the ssi list, nobody else could explain either.

Best,
- Joe

P.S. You knew I'd have to chime in on this, didn't you? :)

Joe Strout -- joe@...

one thing you over looked is the possiblity of using fiber optics
channels to carry light to the areas that need it. all you need is a
simple array of mirrors alligned to focus on to a lasing medium that
lases on all needed frequencys which is focused on to a spot at the
hub from which fiber light channels distribute the light where ever
it is needed. the laser can send the light for miles so the array
does not have to be anywhere need the station. there would be little
if any loss of power conversion. unfortuantly at this time the glass
fibers would be too stiff for easy use, and the plastic version would
not be able to tranmit the energy far enough to be feasible. only the
future will tell what it will bring.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 14:41 UTC, Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> [Regarding use of artificial light for growing crops:]
>
> > But in a high orbit, where any day/night cycle can be
> > engineered, why not windows and mirrors? I presume you accept the
> > design of Island 1. Is there some expectation that the same idea
> > wouldn't work at a smaller scale? I can think of no reason not
to use
> > mirrors and windows to grow crops on a station with a population
of a
> > thousand, or even just a few hundred.
>
> Mike, of course the reason would be simple economics. Converting
> sunlight to electricity, distributing it wherever it may be needed,
and
> converting it back into light, is very simple. Optical paths are
much
> more complex, except for the most trivial optical paths -- but those
> place severe constraints on the design of the habitat.
>
> So it comes down to a question of how much those design constraints
> cost you, or how much the convoluted optical paths cost, vs. how
much
> the efficiency losses (which are really not all that high) cost you
for
> electrical lighting.
>
> For example: one of the biggest costs in any habitat design is
> radiation shielding. This needs to be around the outside of any
living
> space, and I would argue, any agricultural space too. (O'Neill
tended
> to discount radiation damage to agricultural workers, but modern
> studies usually find that unacceptable.) So, from a
> radiation-shielding standpoint, the most efficient design is a short
> cylinder with multiple decks, since none of the inner decks require
> their own radiation shielding -- they get it for free by virtue of
> being inside the outermost one. This is a (literally) massive
savings
> over a single-deck design. But such a multi-deck design pretty much
> requires artificial lighting.
>
> How much does that artificial lighting cost us? We can reasonably
> assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaic conversion (perhaps more with
> something like solar thermal), and about 55% efficiency for the
> artificial lights. The product is 11% efficiency. So figure you
need
> about 10 times the solar panel area that you would otherwise need as
> mirrors and window/chevron contraptions. That's a square a little
more
> than three times bigger on each side. This is not an outrageous
> amount, especially if we're always claiming that energy is cheap and
> abundant in space.
>
> Then consider that the light you generate in this way can be
carefully
> tuned to the photosynthetic absorption spectrum, reducing waste heat
> substantially, resulting in smaller radiators. Radiator mass is
also a
> significant expense in a colony, so this also helps on the side of
> artificial light. (Many studies of using natural light assume
special
> mirrors that reflect only part of the spectrum -- but such mirrors
are
> substantially more complex and expensive than ordinary broad-
spectrum
> reflectors like mylar or aluminum.)
>
> Does all this add up to artificial light being more economical? I
> doubt anyone knows for sure; it would take a very detailed study
that
> takes into account all these factors, and AFAIK no one has done
such a
> study. But I suspect that it would. As you once pointed out to me,
> O'Neill's goal was to show that an Earthlike environment is
possible,
> rather than to show how X number of people could be most
economically
> supported.
>
> > According to this paper,
> >
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/II-
1.ht
> > ml, for habitats for a population of 10,000, the mirrors/windows
> > approach should only have about 1/5 the cost of the PV/artificial
> > illumination option. I'm sure the use of LEDs would significantly
> > reduce that 5x difference, but I doubt that it would eliminate it.
>
> This paper has a number of flaws. It does not take into account
> radiator mass, nor does it consider shield mass and the savings
> possible from multi-deck designs. It's also assuming "light bulbs
and
> fixtures," i.e. incandescent lights (!) -- I'm pretty sure we have
made
> substantially better than 5X improvement in lighting technology
since
> then, both in terms of efficiency and lifetime. But perhaps most
> damning, its cost conclusions depend mostly on a mysterious
> "distribution mass" which they don't explain, which can't be derived
> from the other figures in the paper, and which, when I asked about
it

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> Is there a perception that glass panels in a steel
> frame are inadequate
> to the task? O'Neill calculated that such could be
> engineered at the
> scales of the three "Island" models of space
> habitat. Engineering for a
> glass-paneled pressure hull of more modest diameter
> would be simpler
> still.
>

Beware of little boys with slingshots.

Ed

On Aug 14, 2006, at 17:44 UTC, Robert wrote:

> one thing you over looked is the possiblity of using fiber optics
> channels to carry light to the areas that need it.

No, I didn't overlook that -- I've looked into this, but described it
in my previous message as "convoluted optical paths." You run into
serious heating and efficiency issues with highly concentrated light
paths, whether using fiber optics or conventional optics, over more
than a few meters distance. And of course, if your light isn't highly
concentrated, then you run into serious constraints on the habitat
geometry.

> all you need is a
> simple array of mirrors alligned to focus on to a lasing medium that
> lases on all needed frequencys

Onto a what? What is this lasing medium you speak of, that can be
pumped with ordinary sunlight and lases in a broad spectrum (rather
contrary to a normal laser, which is monochromatic)?

If you wanted to convert sunlight to laser light, I doubt you could do
better than solar cells driving solid-state lasers. But I'd love to
learn about new technologies I wasn't aware of.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

I was checking again on Al Globus web site.

http://space.alglobus.net/

His article on prizes for space competitions is excellent ("A U.S. Space Program for Space Settlement"). It covers several key areas that need lots of development. It presents a very practical approach to vastly accelerate our presence in space.

And do so at a fraction of the time and cost of our current approach.

He also did a later article on prizes specifically for the tourist orbital vehicles that is also worth the read.

From: Matt Gallimore
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:32:10 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Space Prizes and Contests

Contests sometimes lead to innovative solutions to engineering challenges. There are many engineering hurdles before space habitats are a reality.

What do you guys think would be some good contests?

They could be along the lines of the X-Prize or the technical contests that NASA has now. You could probably think of several areas that could be worked on now, whether it be basic research or pilot scale.

Also, what would be the appropriate reward?