NASA's Own X Prize?

Roger_Explosion writes "NASA has announced that its 2005 budget includes 20 million dollars allocated to what it calls 'Centennial Challenges.' These are described as 'a series of annual prizes for revolutionary, breakthrough accomplishments that advance exploration of the solar system and beyond and other NASA goals.' The article on the X Prize site seems to suggest that this was a collaborative effort between the X-Prize organisation and NASA. You can read the story on the X Prize site."

Comments

Tourism?

[monstroyer]

Although I am happy that funds like this are reviving the human desire to develop more space bound technology, this x prize is to jumpstart the space tourism industry.

I see in my mind's eye several hawaiian shirt and sunglasses wearing citizens doing limbo and playing shuffle board on a double decker space bus. It just feels tacky and it is far removed from my utopian Star Trek TNG tendencies of space exploration.

Is humankind so pathetic that the only reason we want to go into space is to expand the tourism industry?

Re:Tourism?

[sangreal66]

The idea is that by creating a space tourism industry companies will need to invest in the advancement of space technology to accomodate the tourism. The resulting advancement of space technology is needed to propel the world into space for non-tourism activities. At least, that is what I think.

Re:Tourism?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I believe that space exploration is more important that space tourism - space tourism will jumpstart private funding of the space program.

I read that the top 500 millionaires said they would pay up to $100,000 for a short flight into "subspace". By offing space tourism as a new luxury for the wealthiest people in America, these people are more likely to consider investments/donations for more exploratory space programs (namely NASA).

Re:Tourism?

[tsunamifirestorm]

money is a big deal, and the sooner that space exploration brings back a quick profit, the sooner that you will have several companies developing spaceships, which will of course develop the technology. the x prize is an excellent way to encourage efficient (money-saving) technology because the dollar amount is low enough that these enterprises will have to cut costs.

Re:Tourism?

[bm_luethke]

"Is humankind so pathetic that the only reason we want to go into space is to expand the tourism industry?"

No, there is NASA and others that do it, they have many dedicated staff that would make much more money in industry.

Also how much have you donated to space travel? Why should a company (not govt) invest millions of dollars for the heck of it? Same reason you do not give up large portions of your salarly willingly for a myriad of other cause. There is nothing pathetic about it.

It's not preciesly greed, it's putting the carrot out for the donkey.

I am willing, and have, given parts of my salary for causes I greatly believe in (though not space travel - I probalby would if I saw someplace and thought about when I had some extra money). But my paltry contributions would get no-one nowhere in space, nor would what the vast majority of individual companies could give would be a dent in it. But if there was said carrot they are willing to gamble.

And lastly, should they actually flat out give the millions upon millions and time I bet there would be a great deal of people (not saying you, I don't know you and have no idea) that would lambast them for not giving to some charity or other org.

In short, without said payoff there is dis-incentive for a business to go to space. That is why the govt taxes us and spends on the grand human/technology driving projects that have no real hope of turning a profit (while there have been individual compnents that have made a fortune it is small compared to the overall cost of space exploration - not to mention had they actually patened the stuff it probably would not have spread as far as it did rendering smaller sales on top of that).

"It just feels tacky and it is far removed from my utopian Star Trek TNG tendencies of space exploration."

Remeber two things. By the time of star trek much of the scarcity issues that drive our economy were gone (especially by TNG) allowing pretty much everyone to persue thier humanitarian ends. I would imagine if we ever achieve all the food/energy/environment/toys we could want then Star Trek philanthropy will be a reality. Even then you had other types of greed/carrot. And secondly the Ferengi :)

Re:Tourism?

[bgarrett]

The exploitation of space comes down to economic and human factors, once the technology is there. The hman reasons are easy: you expand outward to preserve the species, and by giving people more room to live in you avert conflict, to some extent. The economic reasons are many: stuff like helium-3, asteroid mining and so forth.

The problem is that you cannot just leap from a planet-bound existence to a space-based one. The expense of reaching orbit or escaping gravity entirely is slowly coming down, and at each stage it's essential to approach the problem of reducing costs still further in different ways. At one stage, only governments can afford to put things into space. Then, corporations. We're there now - you can pay for satellite launches. Who's going to pay for the next stage? Probably the people who can throw money at something just because they want it - namely, the rich. And what do wealthy people want from space, at this point? Gratification.

You'll get your moon colonies once those space-tourists start cutting down the cost per pound of space launches.

Re:Tourism?

[ctr2sprt]

There are so many things wrong with your post I don't even know where to start. The most glaring is your internally contradictory final question. Currently we have space missions for three reasons: military, scientific, and commercial. So clearly we have at least three reasons to go into space, and none of them have anything to do with tourism. (There have been a few such flights lately, but none by NASA.) The self-contradictory part, by the way, is where you, a human, clearly believe there is another reason to go into space than tourism. Remember: generalizations are your enemy, they reflect looseness in thinking.

I also strongly disagree with your opinion of tourism. If we manage to make space travel so reliable, affordable, and safe that people are doing it just for kicks...! Imagine a world like that! It doesn't mean we're going to stop having scientific missions. But it means that I can hop on a shuttle and go visit the moon, or another planet, or maybe even see another star. Not because I have any great reason, just because I want to. The freedom to go anywhere in the solar system for only a couple thousand bucks? Wow. I certainly think that's a noble goal, even if you don't.

NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a way for NASA to capatalize off of geeks with big ideas

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally NASA realizes that the best way to produce innovation fast is to put it into the private sector! I am looking foreward to more programs like this, though this one will probably have limited success because of the small amount being put in compared to NASA's total budget.

Re:Finally

[Scrameustache]

The private center has some real incentive to actually produce where the government usually doensn't.

So, the government should give them free money collected from taxes, and then let them rake in the profits privatly afterwards? Screw that, if the private sector is so great, it can generate its own revenue (real world example: from selling toys).

Re:Finally

[use_compress]

$20m is a very small amount of money to the government. If it serves as a good incentive for a company to make space travel more affordable, the government could recoup the $20m many times over.

Re:$20M???

[kclittle]

It's not meant to be "enough". Why not? Why do the prize givers think it will work anyway? One word: EGO.

The $20M is just icing.

Finally....

[Mean_Nishka]

I predicted way back in 1999 that if and when the Chinese put a human in orbit that we'd finally get off our butts. All I can say is that it's about time.

2004 is already shaping up to be a banner year for space exploration. I can hardly wait to see what kinds of advancements come next. Competition is healthy, let's hope for a very competitive exploration of the cosmos.

Re:$20M???

[KewlJedi]

The money recieved for the X-Prize would be nothing compared to what a successful space tourism industry could make, especially if you own the only company that can put tourists into space on a regular basis. Everyone's seen the polls where people say they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hours in space, and this is what the companies are aiming for; this is why people are investing in X-Prize.

Yay for prizes.

[UPAAntilles]

Really, I never saw the X-Prize being a real big deal technology wise. The same goes for future prizes. Sure, the technology is great and all, but couldn't NASA do something similar on its own? Absolutely (though it would probably take more time and money). The point is the same as the aviation prizes a few decades back, while there might be a couple good "breakthroughs", they won't be revolutionary. The point is to get the "common man" excited about space travel. Remember the Simpson's when Homer goes up on the Shuttle? Same concept, different angle. People feel disconnected from the space program in the same way they feel disconnected from the military. That needs to be fixed. The Bush administration has made a wonderful decision to use the tools of the past (the prizes) to increase interest in space. Once the public is interested, NASA will have to get its act together better, and start making results, otherwise the public is going to demand the heads of the administrators. Also, we'll see more corporations entering the fray to profit off of this increased interest. And the end result is better and cheaper space travel and more R & D. Looks like everybody wins.

NASA should contract the Navy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Navy can make a ship that generates 40 megawatts (50,000 HP).

The Navy can make a ship that is completely self contained.

The Navy can make a ship that generates oxygen and scrubs the CO2 (and doesn't fail either).

The Navy can make a ship that can stay on self-sustained 6 month missions with a crew of hundreds.

NASA can't do more then seven crew for two weeks.

The Navy says "Can do!" and builds the Seawolf class submarine.

NASA says, "huh?"
(picture Conan O'Brien doing his Bush impression)

And if one is at all curious one should ask one's self this question: "When has a military power ever allowed a civilian agency to have more advanced technology than they do?"

Hmm?

I thought so.

Happiness is asking the right questions.

Re:NASA should contract the Navy

[bluGill]

In addition to what the others reminded you of...

The Navy has the ability to jump to the surface anytime their air supply system fails. Well not anytime, they can't when under ice, but most of the time anyway.

The Navy operates in water, which is heavy. They need heavy vessels to sink below the water line. Nasa operates in space where there is nothing to float on, but you need to operate against gravity to get there. I could design a sub and have it work, I couldn't design a spacecraft without a lot more education. My sub would just have walls much thicker than needed, and thus a lot less capacity than a navy sub, you wouldn't want to be on it, but it would work. Spacecraft won't get off the ground if they are too heavy, and that is an engineering restriction that cannot be designed around by overkill.

Mind I'm not stupid enough to be on a sub I design with my current knowledge, but I'm pretty sure it would work.

Maybe solve immediate problems first? Hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no energy crisis. Never has been, never will be.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created, nor destroyed.

First law of business: Make the consumer believe the product is scarce, then package and sell it in a format that can be controlled (ie. barrels of oil can be controlled, solar roofs can't).

The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.

And we don't need any new technology to do it either. A simple coal, gas or oil fired plant can be retrofitted with a different heat source.

Do you know how many of these we could have built for the over $100 billion spent on securing middle east oil? 10? 100? No, _1000_. Yup! Ouch.

But we _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster than anybody cares to inform you.

How much did you spend on heat this winter? On hot water? On AC last summer? On $2/gal gas for your Camry and SUV? It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?

Your friendly neighborhood,
JSMS III

p.s.
For every four barrels of oil we burn, we're only finding one new one.
Again, for every four barrels of oil we burn, we find only one new one.
And again, for each new barrel of oil discovered, we're burning four from the old fields.

Who was the greatest exporter of oil to the United States last year (2003)?
Saudi Arabia? No. Venezuela? Nope. Iraq? uh-uh.
Who was it you ask? Canada! How 'bout that, eh?
Now ask yourself, why? How's that? What the heck is going on?

Use prize to save Hubble

[gojomo]

Hey! They should be offering a prize to the best low-cost, low-risk tech to save Hubble.