Rule updates...rule updates....rule updates...

[Paul]

Rule 3 (Eligibility) has been updated to remove some restrictions on
eligibility. (Current rules can be downloaded from the main site).

[Peter Jones]

Hi Paul

Just a quickie. Would you have any objection to my incorporating the
Nebula Team as Nebula Aerospace Ltd.?

The reason is that I'm finding it difficult to get chemical suppliers
to talk to me directly and I don't want to use one of my other
companies for accounting reasons.

I know that the rules frown upon company entries, but as I've already
entered am I then able to incorporate?

Cheers

Peter

[Paul]

Hi Peter,

I can't see any problem with that, in this particular case. The aim
of the rule was to discourage entries from large established companies
who would throw the weight of their resources behind it. In this
case, you're clearly still the same Nebula as you were before, so no
problem. (As always, the "spirit" of the challenge is the governing
principal and, in this case, overrides the technicalities).

Best,
Paul

[Peter Jones]

And yet another question ... sorry:

Does the actual cost of the first lauch have to be <GBP999.99 or is it
enough to prove that an economy of scale could get the cost down to
this figure.

I'm keeping a cost of the prototype, plus if I were to buy the items
in 1K quantities. It's looking like its [only-just] going to be do-
able for high quantities, but for the one-off the cost threshold is
out of the window (the electronics alone are already almost at that
figure) - and don't even talk about the fuel .....

Of course, I'm hoping to have the whole lot back so that it doesn't
count, but I now need to know if I have to rely on that!

Cheers

Peter

> > > eligibility.  (Current rules can be downloaded from the main site).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul]

Hi Peter,
No problem - questions are always welcome. It's only the "per
launch" cost that counts. So, for example, if it costs £100 to buy 5
left-handed blivets, but £40 to buy one, then you can buy the pack of
5, use 1, and it counts as £20 expenditure. However, you do actually
have to buy the 5 (ie, the pricing has to be actual, rather than
potential).

The same thing, in general, should apply to services etc. So, if an
engineering firm charges a set-up fee of £200 and a per-unit cost of
£50, then if you buy two units each is costed at £150; if you buy
five, the each is costed at £90.

If you have any specific examples, let me know (here on the Group -
it'll be informative for others) and we can discuss.

Best,
Paul

[Peter Jones]

That's a very fair application.

Thanks Paul.

btw Apologies if I seem to have gone dormant for a while. I'm right in
the middle of designing the flight computer but I should have at least
one PCB to show everyone in this time next week.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Paul]

Going dormant is only a bad thing if it happens as a consequence of a
large explosion. Better to spend time developing hardware than
talking to nuts on a Google group!
P

[Paul]

Hi all,

James Ackerson raised a question about the rules, which is worth
mentioning here for clarification. He asked it it would be within the
rules to have the satellite talk to a co-orbiting larger body (eg, the
final stage of the launch system), and have the larger body relay
messages to earth. My decision was that that wouldn't really be
allowed - the satellite has to be detectable from Earth as a stand-
alone object, rather than by relaying through something else in orbit.

Of course, you are welcome to include comms, navigation etc in a co-
orbiting stage (such as the final launch stage); this would then give
you a good fix on the vehicle before the final release of the
satellite, and would give you the starting point for tracking.
However, the satellite still has to complete 9 solo orbits after
release, and for these you have to track the satellite independently
of anything else.

Best,
Paul

[Charles]

On Jun 25, 5:45 am, Paul <i...@n-prize.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> James Ackerson raised a question about the rules, which is worth
> mentioning here for clarification. He asked it it would be within the
> rules to have the satellite talk to a co-orbiting larger body (eg, the
>

I think inserting various ideas like this could lead to a runaway
complication process in the rules.
As they now stand they are beautifully clear. Compare this with the
GLXP rules.

A requirement to prove 9 orbits should simply be that.

And the definition of the satellite needs to stay simple and concise.

[Alan]

Hi all,

I'd like to introduce myself after reading what James had to say on
the subject of a co-orbiting satellite detection system. I had a
similar idea and, although begrudgingly, I can understand why it's not
allowed. I haven't committed to joining the race yet, but if and when
I do I'll definitely share any ideas with all you smart guys out
there.

Are most people using balloons as a first stage? Not that I would,
but for those interested the guys at JP Aerospace www.jpaerospace.com
have a pretty good website, and their organization is mostly volunteer
(I think), so they might be able to provide some lessons learned to
those of you going that route.

Good luck to you all!
Alan Kruppa
Dallas, TX, USA

[Paul]

Hi Alan,

....and welcome to the N-Prize! Hope to see more of you, and I'll be
glad to register you if and when you decide to join in this madcap
escapade. Thanks also for the JP Aerospace tip.
Best,
Paul

[Paul]

Hi all,

Some minor amendments to the rules, effective from today; see
"Rules in full" on the main website for details. The changes are:

1) Fixed typo in Rule 1
2) Rule 10, sentence added at the end: "Nor may the satellite be
dependent upon the co-orbiting items in any way (for example, for
relaying communications) during the nine qualifying orbits." - in
response to an earlier query.
3) Rule 20: the amount of the prize is now explicitly stated (it was
formerly stated only in the "rules in brief".

As with all amendments, please let me know if these cause you any
problems.
Best,
Paul