NASA Eyes Cash Prizes Of Its Own

joeldg writes "Wired is reporting that NASA is considering offering cash prizes for space innovation. 'Lembeck said NASA would consider offering $10 million to $30 million in prizes to encourage private investors to develop space vehicles. Such prizes appear compatible with the vision for space exploration released last week by a White House commission that studied President Bush's plan to send Americans back to the moon and possibly to Mars.'"

Comments

space prizes

[loid_void]

I can see it now. Space Sailing, Moon Boarding, Zero G MotoCross... ESPN EXXTREME SPACE.

Re:space prizes

[HarveyBirdman]

ESPN EXXTREME SPACE.

Add an X and go for spacepr0n.

The Spice Network presents EXXXTREME SPACE!

Just think, in microgravity everyone has perky breasts!

Just wear those condoms, guys. We don't need your spooge getting in the attitude controls.

Re:space prizes

[idfrsr]

that's nothing.....Reality TV is the way to go

Next on HBC.... Average Joe Wants to Marry A Trillionaire On Survivor Asteroid

Re:space prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think, in microgravity everyone has perky breasts!

I'd surely hope not.

Re:space prizes

[ShadowRage]

reminds me of one of George Carlin's CD's where he made fun of advertisements. the cd was "A Place For My Stuff"
"And the newest x-rated sport from california, ROLLERFUCKING!"

One Question

[Enlarge Your Penis]

I'm British. If I develop something, will the NASA reward actually manage to convert the units properly this time?

Re:One Question

[sjwaste]

Mod me down for this if you must, but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful? Sarcasm != insight.

But in the spirit (pun intended) of the good ol' USA, we might've missed a couple conversions, but both of our mars rovers are looking pretty good right now, aren't they?

Re:One Question

[sjwaste]

Well, its been modded down from insightful to troll. Slashdot mod point holder, I salute you.

Re:One Question

[shadow_slicer]

If you're hoping they'll convert newtons to pounds for you you're out of luck.

But they might be able to give you a league for your foot.

Re:One Question

[wass]

I may be wrong, but I do believe NASA has subcontracted out to non-USA companies before. How this prize will fare I have no idea.

Re:One Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you Really want that? I was under the impression that if it was you GETTING the money, most conversions would work in your favour...right? :-)

Re:One Question

[Anonymous Coward]

we do we need a realtime commentary of the peaks and troughs of posters ratings?

Re:One Question

[jd]

No, the NSA will steal it from you, sell it to NASA, and then ignore any action you take against them.

Re:One Question

[fucksl4shd0t]

but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful?

Perhaps he was modded insightful when the mod meant funny, but the mod wanted him to get actual karma for the mod? I've noticed people seem to be doing that lately as a form of protest against the fact that funny mods don't get karma anymore....

Re:One Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I wasn't the mod that made that mark, but I support it if it's for that reason.

When something that's meant to be funny gets modded as troll, I'm inclined to moderate it insightful so the poster can reclaim the karma lost. A +5 funny that's 20% troll and 80% funny is still negative karma. He's now got a 20% insightful, 10% troll, and 70% funny. That works.

Re:One Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Any word from the Beagle II?

Re:One Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to bother. Blair will adjust the UK to use US units.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

When something that's meant to be funny gets modded as troll, I'm inclined to moderate it insightful so the poster can reclaim the karma lost.

Your job as a mod is not to correct other peoples' moderations. That's what metamoderation is for. If a post is marked as troll when it's not that moderation will probably be flagged as unfair, and the poster will get their karma back (not that I understand why you're so hung up on this point of karma). Metamods are just as likely to mark your insightful mod as unfair if the post was not insightful, only funny. I would. If you absolutely must counter the troll mod use underrated.

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

It seems they think its funny now (continuing the commentary)

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> Your job as a mod is not to correct other peoples' moderations.

When judging something, it makes sense to consider how your judgement will work out in reality.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

When judging something, it makes sense to consider how your judgement will work out in reality.

And yet in many competitions where a group of judges are used, they do not confer or compare their judgement to the others. With moderation you should be considering only the value of the post in the context of the story, the thread, and it's current score, not whether or not the author will get karma from your moderation.

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> And yet in many competitions where a group of judges are used, they do not confer or compare their judgement to the others. With moderation you should be considering only the value of the post in the context of the story, the thread, and it's current score, not whether or not the author will get karma from your moderation.

I agree when you say that you shouldn't be lookign at how the post has been moderated by others. Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however.

No. Mods are not there to individually decide whether or a poster is a good one and should be able to post with the bonus (which is the sole point of karma, and the indirect effect of awarding it). Mods are there to judge an individual post. A mod doesn't have enough information to make the judgement anyway. For example, you don't know whether your's, or others' mods will actually affect a users karma - they may be at the cap, or a mod may be metamodded unfair.

In the particular case of the funny mod, people are not supposed to get karma for merely being funny. A post is both funny and a troll, well the karma loss is something that poster should accept as the cost of posting that particular type of joke. If the troll mod is unfair metamod will sort it out and the poster's karma will be unaffected by it.

Re:One Question

[Andy Mitchell]

But in the spirit (pun intended) of the good ol' USA, we might've missed a couple conversions, but both of our mars rovers are looking pretty good right now, aren't they?

Don't be too hard on the Beagle.

To understand what happens its useful to know a little of the background of the people and places behind this project.

For many years the BBC used to have a television production facility on the same campus as the open university, where Colin Pillinger works. In this fertile environment Mr Pillinger would of come into contact with BBC employees. Now, the BBC is well known for its innovative techniques in special effects and ground breaking children's television.

With hindsight it is perhaps too easy to suggest that he should not have been so influenced by the construction techniques on the children's television show known as "Blue Peter".

By using the same techniques and the customary large quantities of sticky back plastic, old washing up liquid bottles and lots of sticky tape the team was able to put together a space probe in record time.

An interesting note is that the project nearly had to be scrapped as Mr. Pillingers mum was using fairy liquid and as we all know a small amount of that brand goes a long way and she was not willing to allow her son to have the bottle until she had used every drop. This particular bottle was needed to construct part of the mechanism used to deploy one of the airbags.

This is where the project downfall came from. On their tight British project budget they had no choice but to purchase their own bottle but could only afford the supermarkets own brand. Unfortunately the lower quality of the plastic in this product is now suspected to have caused a catastophic failure to deploy one of the airbags.

While you Americans may be tempted to look down on our brave little attempt this would not be wise as we might then have to remind you about the following probes: mars observer, climate orbiter and the polar lander. If that fails we might then have to mention a nasty incident during the war of 1812 that required the white washing of a well known building located in Washington D.C. :-)

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> No. Mods are not there to individually decide whether or a poster is a good one and should be able to post with the bonus (which is the sole point of karma, and the indirect effect of awarding it). Mods are there to judge an individual post. A mod doesn't have enough information to make the judgement anyway. For example, you don't know whether your's, or others' mods will actually affect a users karma - they may be at the cap, or a mod may be metamodded unfair.

Either mods have enough information to judge the post or not. if you don't think that should affect karma then too bad, it does in most cases. And since it does, many moderators also keep it in mind and won't mod a post funny.

You may not like that but thats how it works.

Re:One Question

[the real darkskye]

Informative? Which crack smoking mod saw links and went oooh informative?

Re:One Question

[Psychotext]

Arrgghhh... where are my mod points? Someone mod this up!

Re:One Question

[Doc Ruby]

Humor requires insight, universally notable. Yet humor is in the mind of the laugher. A humorless mod would rate the insight, while a mod with a supple funny bone would get the joke, and rate it funny.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

Either mods have enough information to judge the post or not.

Sorry, some bad editing on my part. Mods have enough information to judge the post, they don't have enough information to judge the impact their mod has on the posters karma.

And since it does, many moderators also keep it in mind and won't mod a post funny.

Most posts modded funny are only modded funny. That's good, and how it should work. People modding funny material insightful when it is not insightful are not modding correctly. It's as simple as that.

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> That's good, and how it should work. People modding funny material insightful when it is not insightful are not modding correctly. It's as simple as that.

That is a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree with 'funny' being treated differently, and as a result will refuse to use it. Means I'll have to select another option, insightfull may not always be the proper one, but funny doesn't give the proper result imho so is never the right thing to do.

You can say its simple, but things that are a matter of opinion are really not simple at all, and definitely not as black/white as you try to make it.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

That is a matter of opinion.

The opinion of the owners of the site.

I happen to disagree with 'funny' being treated differently, and as a result will refuse to use it. Means I'll have to select another option, insightfull may not always be the proper one, but funny doesn't give the proper result imho so is never the right thing to do.

So don't moderate. The moderators job is to judge the worth of posts, not to hand out karma. If you don't want to do that job correctly, don't do it at all.

You can say its simple, but things that are a matter of opinion are really not simple at all, and definitely not as black/white as you try to make it.

It really is. Read the FAQ.

Re:One Question

[shadow_slicer]

*sigh* and here I was going for a (-1) Funny....

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> The opinion of the owners of the site.

The owners of the site do not own the content of the site, rather, the users own that content. The users also judge their own content.

Sure, the people who run the site set the rules, but those happen include allowing the users to judge.

> So don't moderate. The moderators job is to judge the worth of posts, not to hand out karma. If you don't want to do that job correctly, don't do it at all.

If one option in the system is broken, don't use that option. No reason to not use the system at all.

> It really is. Read the FAQ

That FAQ tells that funny was originally intended to work the same as any other 'judgement'. That was changed at a certain point, and ever since, there are people who refuse to moderate things funny when there is any alternative, draw your conclusion. Also, the FAQ goes to quite some length tryign to explain why funny is different then all other moderation options, so the FAQ doesn't exactly confirm that its simple.

Lets get something very clear here, yes, the people who runt the site own the server, own the domain, and set the rules. They do not own the content. They do in fact depend on their users to provide and moderate that content which gets them viewers and as a result income. That only works when those users actually have opinions and as a result something to discuss or argue about. Do not be surprised that those same people also have an opinion about moderation.

Besides, if people would all agree on how to moderate, there would be little point in letting multiple people moderate the same post.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

If one option in the system is broken, don't use that option. No reason to not use the system at all.

If you want to talk broken options, we should be talking underrated and overrated. Funny is not broken, and your's is the first time I've heard anyone complain about funny not awarding karma (and then it came up only in the context of correcting someone else's karma penalising mod).

That FAQ tells that funny was originally intended to work the same as any other 'judgement'. That was changed at a certain point, and ever since, there are people who refuse to moderate things funny when there is any alternative, draw your conclusion.

My conclusion is that you're acting irrationally in trying to consider karma when you can't do so accurately anyway, and in making Slashdot a less ordered place (which is saying a lot really) by incorrectly categorising posts. I also conclude that some of your incorrect mods probably get flagged unfair in M2, which is as it should be. It's really very altruistic of you to be so worried about other users' karma that you'll put your own on the line.

Also, the FAQ goes to quite some length tryign to explain why funny is different then all other moderation options, so the FAQ doesn't exactly confirm that its simple.

Sorry, what? In only one place in the FAQ is funny treated to more comprehensive explanation than other moderations:

Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma. You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass.

One line. That's your "great lengths". It really is simple: if it's funny mod it funny. If it's insightful mod it insightful.

Lets get something very clear here, yes, the people who runt the site own the server, own the domain, and set the rules. They do not own the content.

Who owns the content is completely irrelevant. You can't refuse to have your comments moderated, even though you own them. You can't have your comment removed, even though you own it (although I'm not sure if Slashdot's rules would protect the owners in court over this).

Besides, if people would all agree on how to moderate, there would be little point in letting multiple people moderate the same post.

Obviously people will disagree about whether a particular comment is interesting or whatever. However you're are talking about deliberately moderating incorrectly. That's a completely different story, and one which you have failed to justify to me (not that you need to, of course, but convincing the other person of your view is the seldom-achieved goal of debate, right?).

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

Lets see, you can't find it in the FAQ obviously, but for example, a bit beyond the part that you qouted you'll find:

* If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else. [This won't help you anymore; see above.]

Which is why there also has to be an explanation about why it is different now.

I do agree with the original statement and consider humor in and of itself a contribution.

Then, I don't consider the actual karma that a poster will get (and as you rightfully say, I can't), and it plays no relation to how I moderate (if you'd be so kind to also read the names of posters, you'd see that I wasn't the person who said doing so). I do take into account that funny is treated differently then any other choice when moderating (and hence is broken imho), and will as a result avoid using it (and just in case you still don't get it, NO, that does NOT mean moderating things insightfull whuile they are not, just get that out of your mind, it means AVOIDING funny as moderation whenever possible). If I am the first one you hear complain about this then you have not been listening much or you just haven't been around long enough.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

Lets see, you can't find it in the FAQ obviously, but for example, a bit beyond the part that you qouted you'll find:

I wrote:

In only one place in the FAQ is funny treated to more comprehensive explanation than other moderations:

I don't think a short reference back to the one line explanation provides much support for your assertion that "the FAQ goes to quite some length tryign to explain why funny is different".

Then, I don't consider the actual karma that a poster will get (and as you rightfully say, I can't)

Yet you said "Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however".

I do take into account that funny is treated differently then any other choice when moderating

Funny is hardly alone in that, underrated and overrated are also treated differently.

it means AVOIDING funny as moderation whenever possible

That's fine, of course, but not how this discussion started. It started with someone suggesting that modding a funny post insightful or interesting or whatever was the right thing to do because funny doesn't give the poster karma. My main problem with this is it means the comment reason modifiers I can set won't do what I want because some people are incorrectly categorising posts. If people want to protest "funny" not providing karma, either don't use funny as you suggest (but don't mod posts incorrectly) or take it up with the people who set the rules. Why inconvenience other users?

If I am the first one you hear complain about this then you have not been listening much or you just haven't been around long enough.

It would be more accurate for me to say that this is the first discussion of it that I've seen (since you're not the only poster whose talked about it here). As for not having been here long enough, look at my user ID. Note that I've posted twice as many comments as you have. I've been around a long time (I remember when karma was a number you could see and funny gave you karma) and I've spend a lot of time here.

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> I don't think a short reference back to the one line explanation provides much support for your assertion that "the FAQ goes to quite some length trying to explain why funny is different".

Neither were you right that the FAQ doesn't treat it differently. Also, while 'funny' should be blatantly obvious, it actually gets an explanation twice.. you may not find that odd or goign to great length, considering the subject at hand, I do think it goes to great length to explain this.

> Yet you said "Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however".

The problem is that you seem to want to define this as extremely black/white, while it really is not.

Karma should not be a major consideration for moderating posts, and you should never moderate to give karma (besides the fact that you can't as you correctly pointed out)

That said, karma is a result of moderation, regardless of if you like that.

This means thinking a bit about if a post should be considered to contribute to the discussion and site, not just if the post itself was funny or interesting to read. The exact result of a single post you cannot judge, and I don't think karma should in any way be a major consideration. But when you are moderating anyway, you know that your actions will have some effect on others, and I really don't see any reason why that is wrong to keep in mind.

> That's fine, of course, but not how this discussion started. It started with someone suggesting that modding a funny post insightful or interesting or whatever was the right thing to do because funny doesn't give the poster karma.

Yes, and that is saying in other words 'avoid funny moderation whenever you can and use something else'. Different words, same intention. Sure, I leave a bit more room there and will rather not moderate then moderate something interesting while it isn't. The intention is not different and the underlying reason is not different.

> My main problem with this is it means the comment reason modifiers I can set won't do what I want

Fair enough, and honestly, this is the only good argument so far for as far as I'm concerned. I already took it into account, and I will keep doing so.

> It would be more accurate for me to say that this is the first discussion of it that I've seen (since you're not the only poster whose talked about it here).

More accurate for sure, but it still makes me think you just haven't been looking at all. I was aware of this issue ever since the change took place, partially because of it beign discussed on slashdot, partially just by thinking about the effect, and partially because it has been discussed for ages outside slashdot. Maybe I am just ultra sensitive for such things, but I somehow doubt it.

> As for not having been here long enough, look at my user ID. Note that I've posted twice as many comments as you have. I've been around a long time (I remember when karma was a number you could see and funny gave you karma) and I've spend a lot of time here.

Hint: the comment I made there was cynical, I did see your userid. I'd suggest tho to consider that many people have been reading Slashdot for years without ever creating a uid. I only created mine so I can use the 'light' interface which works a lot better with my palmtop browser (and saves quite a bit of bandwidth) I have been postign anonymously for years and I doubt I am alone in that.

It seems you did get the underlying message tho seeing you corrected the exact thing that got me to make that comment.

Re:One Question

[RedWizzard]

Neither were you right that the FAQ doesn't treat it differently. Also, while 'funny' should be blatantly obvious, it actually gets an explanation twice.. you may not find that odd or goign to great length, considering the subject at hand, I do think it goes to great length to explain this.

I didn't say that the FAQ doesn't treat funny differently, I said "In only one place in the FAQ is funny treated to more comprehensive explanation than other moderations". Read it carefully. Please don't make me quote that line to you a third time. Also note that it is an FAQ: all the positive mods are blatantly obvious, yet they get explained. Funny happens to get a couple of notes elsewhere pointing out that funny doesn't add karma. That's not "great lengths".

The exact result of a single post you cannot judge, and I don't think karma should in any way be a major consideration. But when you are moderating anyway, you know that your actions will have some effect on others, and I really don't see any reason why that is wrong to keep in mind.

I don't object to keeping it mind at all, although I don't see the point because you can't know what effect you're having. I do object to people switching from an accurate funny mod to an inaccurate interesting mod because you don't agree with the site owners' rules. If you're worried about reversing the effect of a down-mod, either contact an editor or assume it'll get dealt with in M2.

Anyway I think we've about done this to death, so while I will read any reply you make, I probably won't reply myself. It's been a enjoyable discussion, thanks for that.

Re:One Question

[SillyNickName4me]

> Anyway I think we've about done this to death

Heh.

> It's been a enjoyable discussion, thanks for that.

thanks and my pleasure.
Good to see there are people who can enjoy a little disagreement about things, good for discussions also :)

cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[sjwaste]

Obviously the $10M X-Prize got a few groups together to be the first. Most if not all of them have put in more money than the prize would bring in for winning, but there's something about our competitive nature as people... NASA should strongly consider this. If you want innovation, make it a contest. There's a ton of people out there who are that damn competitive that they'll sink their own money to win. I personally think it's great.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[bwy]

The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.

So, NASA wants to award a prize for the development of a deeper-space vessel. If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA? Do they expect that they'll get design rights to the spacecraft? I just don't understand why government would be giving away our tax money as a prize for a private company to make money. Maybe it is time for NASA to just go away completely. Any of NASA's space technology necessary for national defense or the like could be absorbed into USSTRATCOM. It is clear that at the very minimum, NASA needs to be completely rebuilt. What remains of the shuttle fleet is old and outdated and expensive to fly. We have a partially assembed ISS that seems to serve little purpose unless it is built out to allow for a larger crew as originally designed. The Mars Rovers offer good science but you could easily retain those talented guys as part of a new organization or a stand-alone JPL.

That being said, I'd donate in a heartbeat to a private X-Prize II contest that would have awards for a manned Lunar or Mars mission.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[DAldredge]

No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Winged Cat]

There are some ideas out there as to how to structure it so it'll be profitable, at least for the first place winner.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[bwy]

No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.

I would find that model acceptable. Whoever buys copies of SpaceShipOne will get a good deal- the X-Prize footed the $10M and someone like Virgin is going to come along and order a few copies and just pay for the spacecraft.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[__aadhrk6380]

Yeah,and Google is just a search engine. GMail is a gimmick. Free as in beer. Etc, etc.

Give the money and the brains a chance and let's see what happens. How many "Hack This" contests have there been with a reward attached?

Nothing new here.

At least, not yet. Open source space. Ahhh! ;-)

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Media Withdrawal]

Makes you go hmm, that's for sure. I've been for this sort of thing for a long time, but now I have my doubts.

NASA is very competitive in its own right, having been invented essentially to put the Soviets out of the space biz. After Apollo (mission success?), the Agency refused to die, and, sadly, its competitive culture survived along with it, with dire consequences for progress in space.

Hallway talk at NASA centers is brazenly disdainful of outsiders. This results in frequent miscommunications with contractors. This broken flow of information played a major role in the failure of Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander.

NASA officials routinely steer potential investors clear of launch startups. This happened to the Rotary Rocket engine team, who were labelled "amateurs." NASA recommended its own FasTrac engine instead. Investors went along with it, and Rotary's engine team got canned. BTW, the rotary team re-formed as XCOR, which, on a pathetically tiny shoe-string budget, built numerous rockets and the first rocket plane ever licensed to perform at an air show. Meanwhile, FasTrac limped along into obscurity.

NASA is brutally competitive. It's used every rule at its disposal for over 46 years to keep space exploration within a small, trusted club of fat insiders. It will be trivially easy for NASA to stack its prizes with enough complex filing and eligibility rules to keep the rabble distracted and on the ground.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[fucksl4shd0t]

If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?

Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that? So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.

It creates a market for NASA, and at the same time creates a market for the rest of us. So NASA gets to accomplish their mission in a much more cost effective fashion all the way around, and the rest of us get better access to space.

How exactly is it bad for NASA, again?

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[bwy]

If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?

Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that?

My point was, if I develop the spacecraft, it is mine- not NASA's. Just like the X-Prize doesn't own SpaceShipOne. Why is NASA going to give me money to watch me go to the moon? I don't think a NASA that is just a storefront for giving out prize money to watch other people go into space makes a lot of sense. They would become the biggest waste of several billion dollars a year I've ever seen. The X-Prize proves we can have these contests and do this voluntarily with public support as opposed to using NASA's taxpayer funded budget.

As someone else pointed out NASA could try to buy copies of my spacecraft. But at that point, I don't really see the use. Hasn't the private sector just about completely taken over by that point anyway?

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[fucksl4shd0t]

For those of you who are hard of reading, here's what I wrote again (emphasis added):

So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes ( the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.

That translates to a more efficient NASA that spends less money on development (by offering it as prizes instead of contracting it) and gets more technology. More bang for the buck. Then NASA gets to purchase the technology at competitive rates rather than government-gouged rates in order to pursue goals that they can't even set right now because they're so caught up in the problems they have now. Offering prizes is a way *out* of NASA's current dilemma.

Let's summarize their current dilemma, shall we? They can't develop better orbiters because they don't have the money and congress won't approve it. They've been told to keep using the existing fleet. They can't go past LEO because they don't have the money to develop the ships to do it, they're spending it all on the current fleet. So they're stuck at LEO. How does NASA break free? By getting someone else to develop better orbiters, getting permission to buy them (easy enough, private industry has a unique way of proving technology), and then using them. How can they do it inexpensively and with congressional approval? By offering prizes.

Take it a few more steps down. NASA decides they want to put an observatory on the moon, to be always manned by 10 people or so. But they can't develop the technology to go to the moon, and the stuff used previously isn't going to accomplish this goal. They can already get to LEO cheaply (they gave away a prize for it, remember?), but now they've gotta get to the moon. So they put out another prize, someone wins it, and NASA gets to buy some lunar landers that are cheap cheap cheap and build their observatory. They get the technology at a fraction of the price they would have spent developing it, and then they get additional price cuts because of the competitive market. Furthermore, they don't even have to build the entire moonbase, they can just install their observatory near the privately-funded moonbase that'll get built.

It's a winning proposition for NASA. They get to find better ways to explore space, and they get to actually do it instead of just talking about it.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Desipis]

NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money How does this mean they get the ships for less. If NASA made the ships they'd be getting them at cost price. Doing it this way it makes it cost + profit margins + prize money. How is this cheaper?

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[DAldredge]

Because NASA has a lot of overhead (the goverment uses NASA to funnel support to our aerospace industry, like food stamps is used to subsidize our farmers and grocery industry. It doesn't upset the WTO).

IOW, NASA's base cost would be 50%-500% more than a small companies. That is where the cost savings comes from. And don't forget, NASA doesn't really build anything, the subcontract most of that work out to large aerospace corps.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize if the government really wanted to, they could just take your plans and that would be the end of it right? It'd be in your best interest to sell them the plans.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Overzeetop]

Because NASA doesn't have any engineering capability left (to speak of). Thanks to Pres. Reagan, the mantra of "outsource to private industry" has been taken to the extreme, and nearly all of the design and engineering is done by private firms. Since we pay overhead and salaries for contract administration on the goverment side, plus the engineers in industry (along with g/a/profit), we're paying full price (plus) either way.

"But when we don't need them (contractors) we don't have to pay salaries," I hear you cry. Sorry, wrong again. Contracts are written for long term usage, with general scope in the contract. Individual design projects are doled out by project managers at NASA. Since the contractors and project managers work side by side year after year, there is social incentive to keep "your people" working, whether or not there's actual tasks to be done at the moment. Remember - if you cancel a task and your best guy at the contractor doesn't have work, he get's dropped. If he moves to get a new job, you've just lost your best worker with no chance of getting him back. It's in your best _business_ interest to keep him working as well.

It's lose-lose.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[arudloff]

That was before "the little space ship that could".. Cat's out of the bag, privatized space flight is finally here. If NASA doesn't accept it with open arms, they'll get steam rolled.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Rei]

What good would SpaceShipOne be apart from a joy ride?

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[DerekLyons]

Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their money into.

That's the theory. However, how long will folks keep sinking money into developing prize-winners when they can't clearly tell at the start that they can win and recoup their costs?

In these types of contests winning does *not* indicate a superior product. The X-Prize is a clear demonstration of this; Scaled was able to draw on it's great experience and tons of prior art, and developed a design narrowly aimed at winning the prize, but the design is a sterile dead end with little in the way of upgrade paths. Armadillo on the other is producing a superior and scaleable solution, but is far behind the curve because their need to develop the basic technology.

In theory; the traditional bidding and contracting process is supposed to prevent this type of disconnect from happening, but it frequently breaks down when the development process hits snags (X-33).

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Sgt York]

I agree and disagree with your post so much, my brain hurts.

This kind of thing can help NASA. As mentioned before, they will buy copies of your ship from you. The overall cost will be less for them, because they don't have to pay R&D, just compensate you for manufacturing. It also makes sense if NASA is going to start going about exploration in a serious manner.

I do agree that NASA is not the best way to go. We need private enterprise in space that is sustainable and profitable. These kinds of prizes will stimulate private enterprise in space. Once it is demostrated as feasible, and the launch costs are brought down, any space enterprise becomes more feasible.

The last thing I wanted to say is to your last comment. Is there such a thing? Does anyone else like the idea of a grass-root X-Prize II? I could be naive and say let's take up donations on /., but we all know that won't happen. What could happen, though, is something like this could be organized on /. We could band together and start promoting it. There are smart people on here, with plenty of skills and contacts. We could take advantage of the splash from this current X-prize media attention and ride it. Imagine that you put half of the effort of posting on /. into organizing something like this.

We could do it, start something up. It's possible. I can dream, dammit. You can't stop me. YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM DREAMING!!!!

Really, though, is there an effort like this out there that anyone knows about? If not, would anybody be interested in giving it a shot?

Help mummy!

[Turn-X Alphonse]

When you're too afraid to go into the dark room send in someone else.

After all does NASA really care if a guy they don't know kills himself? Well IMO No, but they miss that guy they spent five years training to figure a telescope :)

Re:Help mummy!

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely NASA is considering setting up contests to find new ideas and big talents. For a large and bureaucratic organization like NASA, hiring competent designers and engineers is a slow and painful process. First they have to apply, have a resume, have the correct degree, have the correct experience etc etc. Many talented individuals can get filtered out because they didn't meet some criteria. By setting up a contest, they motivate those individuals and allow them to display their talents instead of letting them work somewhere else as a keyboard monkey or a bicycle designer.

Another thing they will see is unconventional ideas. An unconventional idea might not get much attention in a taxpayer funded agency, but a contest will reveal these ideas and test their fitness.

Re:Help mummy!

[bobhagopian]

The parent post is pretty insightful, IMHO. NASA's biggest problem in the last 20 years has had nothing to do with engineering, but with public relations. Add to it two major accidents and you're left with a pretty unhappy public questioning (unfortunately) the need for NASA. Imagine the kind of hell NASA would have to pay if it suffered another accident. NASA is already under tremendous scrutiny by Congress; what would happen if Congress was given yet another reason to cut the NASA budget? How much worse would public opinion get? Now consider the alternative: NASA offers a monetary prize for private companies seeking a route to space. The risks are the same -- people may die, and unlike the parent, I believe that NASA cares about these people. However, NASA avoids the added risk of organizational self-destruction. I've been pretty impressed with NASA in past years. Unlike many governmental organizations, they don't seem to demand credit for everything that is done; if someone gets to space on their own, NASA will be cheering them on. A monetary prize just allows them to promote the exploration of space (with all the risks that it carries) while avoiding the one extra risk of permanently turning the tide of public opinion against it.

Re:Help mummy!

[BLAG-blast]

How about:

• $50million to put a certain strenght, certain protocal communications satellite at that nice point for putting things between the moon and the earth (can't remember what it's called).
• $75million to put a communication satellite orbiting mars around the light/dark equator. Talks to the half way sat.
• $100million to put a $Xmillion robot on the face of the moon. Teams must pay $Xmillion deposit to try this million. Loose the bot, loose your deposit (yes you can try again, but you've got to give us another deposit).
• $100million to put a astro-telescope on the dark side of the moon. (Same idea as above).

Maybe my figures are bit off and need raised (or lowered?). But it does that sound cool.

Yeah! the space race is finally doing something more than few times a year. NASA did good, but they can cut costs if they out source.

This pretty exciting, in fact this is the only news I know of that's worth talking about. So many people don't know history is happening right now....

Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if we can just privatize the post office, education, and all public works agencies, we might get somewhere.

Re:Excellent.

[the_2nd_coming]

you can't privatize education. the law says that every person in the US has the right to an education in the least restrictive environment. a private institution does not need to follow these laws.

Re:Excellent.

[loid_void]

We have: UPS, Fed Ex, Magnet Schools, Enron and MCI.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

have you heard the one about the libertarian and the fire department?

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have: UPS, Fed Ex, Magnet Schools

No, they are alternatives, not replacements. I am advising scrapping them and contracting out to private industry.

Re:Excellent.

[loid_void]

And this is a very real possibility in the not so near future. But private contractors aren't always the answer when it comes to government money as there are many instances of abuse. Far better the alternatives left unfettered by government money and politics.

Re:Excellent.

[Stray7Xi]

Explain, why can't it?

Just because its privatized doesn't mean it can't be government funded (vouchers) and it still can be required to meet federal requirements.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to fund it and regulate it anyway, what the hell are you supposedly fixing? The only definite outcome from such a venture would be profit-making by a small group of unelected people.

Re:Excellent.

[the_2nd_coming]

sooooo, you want to create an industry where people start a school and then legally skim off the top?

you are aware that you can not run education like a business right?

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

why??

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's traditional to at least attempt to defend the argument one brings up. Especially when one proposes fundamental restructuring of fundmanetal social institutions.

Boo-yea!

Re:Excellent.

[Stray7Xi]

Competition, since parents would have some choice. If they can make profit while offering competitive services as public schools and at a cheaper rate, then is there anything wrong with that? It'd still be an improvement over the status quo.

By harnassing the power of competition though, parents will have the choice to send to schools that buy classrooms instead of astroturf for the stadium. Thats what happened at the local high school, they use trailers for classrooms, but they managed to afford a big electric scoreboard and astroturf.

Furthermore the parent has no say in curriculum without choice. What if I want my child to study hard sciences. What if I don't want my child to learn sex ed or what if I want my child to learn sex ed in the first grade (Yes I know it's the parents responsibility, but the government has already decided to teach it)?

Education isn't a free service, it's something you pay for even if its laundered through taxation. The average cost per pupil at public school is $7k ( http://www.edsource.org/sch_ca_behind_states.cfm). Take $5k and offer it as a voucher for the parent to spend on private school and they'll have a choice. The other $2k is free to be used on other things, they could spend it to improve the public schools even.

By the chart I linked to you can see 30 years ago the price was $2k a student in public schools. Are the schools that much better then back then? The primary difference is the bureaucracy that's getting in the way, and the only way to fix it is to trim that bureaucracy.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, so to claim that private schools don't work, some evidence should be produced.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are aware that you can not run education like a business right?

Ummmm... you mean, like the university I attended wasn't a business?

Basic schooling would have to be handled differently to guarantee all receive a basic education. However, to toss around such generalizations would seem to suggest the public school system didn't do its job in your case. Perhaps privatized schools would fix that...

Re:Excellent.

[T.Hobbes]

Federal elections, state elections, municipal elections, school board elections, PTA meetings, private meetings with teachers, volunteer work.

Competition between municipatities to attract new-family residents. Existing choice to send child to one school over another (depends on local law/regulations... see municipal / school board elections).

Babies, bathwater.

Re:Excellent.

[SillyNickName4me]

> Just because its privatized doesn't mean it can't be government funded (vouchers) and it still can be required to meet federal requirements.

There are other countries who tried that, and guess what, it doesn't work.

The result of it is a market in vouchers and 'fake students' to get better numbers and as a result more funding.

If you link funding to anything, link it to actual results, and give schools certain targets for things like social background of their students and how many of them finish with what results (don't only do the later because schools will still start filtering on background and exclude many people otherwise)

Re:Excellent.

[the_2nd_coming]

notice that universities have the right to kick you out for not performing or not accepting you if you are stupid.

Re:Excellent.

[the_2nd_coming]

I did not say that private schools don't work. in fact they do work, the problem is that they will not work if run just like public education because in public education, you get what you get and can not get rid of them.

private schools can dump kids that are under performing and can decided not to accept children that are stupid. Public education cannot and must deal with children with special needs.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do, but ask yourself "why is that?"

Kicking out the dumb people serves only to raise the aggregate scholastic level of the campus. It implies that the students there are at a certain level of intelligence. The universities take great pains to foster that intellectual image. If they can get the public to believe their students are smarter than X% of the rest of the population, the school becomes more prestigious. With greater prestige (it's assumed) come more student applications. With more student applications, you can fill your campus to capacity with tuition-paying students. Not only that, but the school will be able to take the "pick of the litter" from the applicants to further the goal of promoting a "smarter" student body (average SAT/LSAT scores anyone?)

From an advertising perspective, that's wonderful. From a business perspective, some might take issue. The "bottom line" is influenced by how many tuition checks the university receives. Refusing to admit someone because they are stupid serves only to deprive you of that tuition money. From a business perspective, that's arbitrairily lost revenue. Whether acceptance or rejection of those candidates leads to continued business success is an entirely different subject.

The point is: kicking people out or refusing to accept them only hurts a business. Provided they had the capacity and were able to "filter" unwanted statistics from their brochures, I'm sure every university would be more than happy to take a stupid person's check as much as a smart one's. Yet, universities still exist and thrive, meaning their privatization for higher education does work.

Re:Excellent.

[joeljkp]

I was under the impression that the USPS was run as a corporation with a government-mandated monopoly and proper restrictions (like AmTrak).

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that uncontrolled growth can cost a business a lot of money -- money that they don't necessarily earn from the extra sales.

sweet!!!

[the_2nd_coming]

yes, this is exactly how research on high tech pie in the sky stuff like next generation space vehicles should be done.

then all NASA needs to do is sit back and let private companies do the engineering which means that they can send the rest of the ash over to propulsion research.

this works well because it helps mitigate the investments made by companies that win and the recognition of the win helps future sales of the products based on the new tech.

Re:sweet!!!

[sjwaste]

I agree with you completely. If you look at state run enterprises in general, their industry is usually one where a private company would not take on the risk. I think space is past that. If private contractors are building satellites, pieces of the space station, etc for NASA, the next logical step is for these private companies to build the means to move such objects into space. While it's not exactly profitable yet, the pride factor alone will compel many. Soon enough, private space travel WILL be profitable. Wouldn't it be sweet to take a trip above the Earth before we're dead?

Re:sweet!!!

[Cerilus]

Isn't this how the Internet got started? A bunch of contracts from DARPA (now ARPA) to spend a bunch of money without a real clear ROI (return on investment).

I like it. There's some bureaucracy, but not in the actual design, construction or testing elements. The government wants the paper to prove it's doing a good job, but with private grants at least there's a point where the paper-for-paper-sake ends.

Re:sweet!!!

[_Sprocket_]

then all NASA needs to do is sit back and let private companies do the engineering which means that they can send the rest of the ash over to propulsion research.

Which would be really great if NASA's budget worked as a big sum of money they're free to spend any which way they choose. However, thanks to Congress and earmarked funding, that is nowhere near the current reality. From the CAIB Report (Volume 1, Chapter 5, Pg 8):

Pressure on NASAs budget has come not only from the
White House, but also from the Congress. In recent years
there has been an increasing tendency for the Congress
to add "earmarks" congressional additions to the NASA
budget request that reflect targeted Members interests. These
earmarks come out of already-appropriated funds, reducing
the amounts available for the original tasks. For example, as
Congress considered NASAs Fiscal Year 2002 appropriation,
the NASA Administrator told the House Appropriations
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NASA budget
that the agency was "extremely concerned regarding the
magnitude and number of congressional earmarks" in the
House and Senate versions of the NASA appropriations bill.
He noted "the total number of House and Senate earmarks ...
is approximately 140 separate items, an increase of nearly
50 percent over FY 2001." These earmarks reflected "an
increasing fraction of items that circumvent the peer review
process, or involve construction or other objectives that have
no relation to NASA mission objectives." The potential
Fiscal Year 2002 earmarks represented "a net total of $540
million in reductions to ongoing NASA programs to fund this
extremely large number of earmarks."

Re:sweet!!!

[Octorian]

Um, you mean ARPA (now DARPA)

Re:sweet!!!

[smurf975]

I agree with you and I have my own ideas on how it should work. The following post is from what I wrote in the thread Privatizing NASA from the forum newmars. You should check out the forum.

I like the idea of NASA working as just the order giver. Congress and Whitehouse will state the missions and goals of NASA and give it a budget, which it can't exceed. To make sure that NASA is not given new orders at every new elected government, it must pass through the senate (they are for long term things right?).

NASA should be given one of these goals and thats it:

1. Explore (Scientific advantages)
2. Conquer (Social and Economic advantages)
3. Destroy (Military advantages)

Then using one of those goals it will work through these five stages:

Stage One: Bid on the projects by anyone
NASA will take the missions and goals set by the government and allow any party (even a professor) to bid on them. However to bid you will have to pay $20.000 (just to make sure that not any nutcase can bid) and each submitted bid must be fully worked out and follow certain rules. NASA is obliged to study and comment on any bid that is made. If a bid is rejected it must explain why and the bidder can counter this via by forwarding his bid to an independent council, who will then judge it.

Stage Two: Working it out
Each bid receives back comments or a rejection from NASA. Those that receive comments back are basically possible to NASA with some modifications or none.

The bidder can post a new bid with the modifications if asked and do a bid again at a cost of $20.000. Which will be studied again and commented, however now each new modification will not cost you money to bid in this stage, only to enter it, if accepted.

As at this stage it's just about the bids and not working prototypes so the cost to submit a bid shouldn't really hurt the serious bidders.

Stage Three: The details
A small number of final bids will only enter this stage. Lets say five of them. They are all given a budget of $8.000.000 more or less. This is to get all the details straight. I mean every little detail from what socks to wear to things that can go wrong.

Stage Four: Prototypes and computer models
In this stage the bidders need to proof their concepts with prototypes and computer models. They will get funding and help for this, however limited.

Stage Five: The decision
In this stage the final bidder is decided, the ones that were able to proof the computer models and prototypes and stay within budget and then the best of them is given orders to organize or build the mission/goal.

This plan is basically worked out so that you don't get a plan from NASA as in the Bush I administration that stated the cost of a human mission to Mars in trillions without asking other opinions. Or so that only big companies as Boeing and Lockheed will get the project for their possibly inefficient plans. So any guy that's able to do workable computer models and prototypes (no bigger then a car) and with a detailed plan is able to get the order.

Re:sweet!!!

[DerekLyons]

If private contractors are building satellites, pieces of the space station, etc for NASA, the next logical step is for these private companies to build the means to move such objects into space.

Indeed, that step is logical; it was taken nearly forty years ago! The Saturn V? Built by private industry. The Shuttle? Built by private industry.

Don't like examples of space vehicles built by private industry to NASA specs? Fine. Let's look at the Delta II, Delta III, and the Delta IV family. Developed, built, and operated by private industry for commercial purposes. The Atlas IIa, Atlas 3, Atlas IV, Atlas V... Developed, built, and operated by private industry for commercial purposes.

Contrary to popular belief, NASA hasn't developed or operated launch vehicles in decades other than the Shuttle. When NASA wants to launch something like the Mars Rovers (which used a Delta), they buy a launch in the same way they buy an airline ticket to fly an employee from Dryden to Goddard. (Heck if you had the cash, you could buy a launch.)

Details of the prize just in

[Enlarge Your Penis]

Apparently, if you can think of a way of preventing NASA developing anything new for the next 20 years you win something called a "pork barrel"

Hmm...

[CompSurfer]

The question is, are prizes of 10 to 30 million USD enough for corporations to spend that much or more developing space tech? Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house? Or would the prize money be better spent on NASA projects?

Re:Hmm...

[the_2nd_coming]

well, since these companies get patents on this equipment which gives them a monopoly on the access the tech allows for 15 years, I think that is a pretty good incentive.

Re:Hmm...

[sjwaste]

NASA's bloated and inefficient these days, just like most of our agencies. Private companies exist to turn a profit. If they're willing to undertake these projects, you'd bet they're going to try to come out ahead on the ledger. Because of that, I would bet that private companies will generally develop space tech cheaper than NASA would. Otherwise, they'll likely pass on the opportunity at the cash prize. Or, some takers will sink a load of cash just to say they did it. In that case, the economy comes out ahead.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's obvious that nasa's prize for a given achievement (even if it's as much as $30 million) will be considerably lower than the expense of funding that achievement in-house.

they will also probably make sure to offer prizes for achievements that they can make use of in their own work.

not that there's anything wrong with either of these things. the sooner that space stops being the sole domain of a government agency, the faster we (collectively) will be able to get off this rock.

Re:Hmm...

[grozzie2]

Nasa with it's current beaurocracy couldn't even consider writing the proposal that proposes creating a committe which would ultimately reccomend a study, without spending this much money.

The prizes are to small considering the scale of the achievements required. X-Prize was a 'radical' venture, with a 10 million dollar prize, but that's just for sub-oribital. If you want to truely inspire a 'gold rush' mentality, it's not hard. Set a worthy jackpot for an 'impossible' task.

The current environment of government contractors hanging around the 'space business' today just couldn't survive without a few open ended contracts to manage/maintain equipment on a cost plus basis. Serious prizes will generate serious ingenuity to win them. If Nasa offered 10% of it's annual budget in this fashion, they would achieve on the order of 10,000% the results they currently get by feeding the beaurocracy with nothing but money, money, and yet more money.

If you think about it logically, a martian sample return mission done by current nasa methodologies, would require a multi billion dollar budget, and it would still be looking at a high probability of failure. A billion dollars payable on reciept of 25kg of martian soil. this is not a contest, it's an offer to purchase. Publicize the offer, and verify the 'terms of purchase' via published documents. Sit back, wait. Somebody will deliver.

This is actually perfect for the existing bearocracy. They can get out of the business of doing scary things that kill people, but still keep enough beaurocrats on staff to administer the payouts. Not really a lot of change from what nasa is today, a 'space agency' that doesn't fly into space, just spends money.

The true elegance of this scenario, it's a results oriented system, that precludes any opportunity to pork barrel with the money. Fair value for work done will probably bankrupt a few companies currently working on Nasa projects tho, especially if contractual terms are changed from cost-plus to a results oriented system.

Re:Hmm...

[wass]

Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house?

I used to work on a DARPA-funded project, and I can tell you - almost certainly.

There has been a push w/ governmental agencies, including NASA, to use COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) products. A private company researches and develops a certain product product (which NASA could do as well), but can then sell the products to a variety of outlets for profit (which NASA is forbidden to do). So NASA buying a one-off of a COTS component pays only a fraction of the R&D cost that the company spent making it.

As an example, I know of a group that needed a very linear high-bandwidth op-amp for a project. Such an op-amp within their specs didn't exist, so they began the intensive effort of designing one themselves. Halftway through the process another company (maybe Burr-Brown? I forget) put a device on the market that did meet their specs. Although they spent time/money on the research, they still saved out in the end because they just bought and used that op-amp without wasting further development efforts.

The big win for COTS comes from the fact that NASA and other governmental agencies and labs CANNOT sell products for profit, but private companies CAN. For example, the lab I worked in (not my group, though) did alot of radar research. After proving new radar concepts would work, companies like Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon would go and build many of them, making millions of $$$ for themselves. Such is the life of research ;-)

Re:Hmm...

[nasor]

Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house?Virtually every development project in the history of NASA points to 'no'. The most recent example, of course, would be the X-33. It was supposed to replace the shuttle, and NASA spent $900 million developing it...and then just decided to canceled the project.

Re:Hmm...

[FleaPlus]

> The true elegance of this scenario, it's a results oriented system, that precludes any opportunity to pork barrel with the money.

Sadly, this is also why things like this are probably going to end up being extremely limited, at least coming from the government.

Re:Hmm...

[jdray]

One other advantage to this scenario is that NASA only pays for the successful results, not the failures. In the unfortunate event that a returning cargo-laden lander drills into the center of a city, NASA doesn't have to bear the cost of the cleanup. In a simpler scenario, they don't have to pay for all the failed attempts at figuring out what sort of fuel combination to use, a la John Carmack and company, though I continue to be hopeful for their success either in the X-Prize competition or out of it.

Re:Hmm...

[grozzie2]

pay for all the failed attempts at figuring out what sort of fuel combination to use, a la John Carmack and company,

The only competition carmack and crowd are in, is for the mindset of /. junkies. Nothing they have done even remotely resembles a serious attempt at lofting a spaceship. It's good for the pr machine tho, and I'm sure they sell a lot of $125 'droppings' on thier website. It's an interesting business model they have tho, play with rocket parts, write a blog about it, then sell the broken parts for $125 apiece. With good promotion, can probably make a decent living that way...

Re:Hmm...

[bruthasj]

> Or would the prize money be better spent on NASA projects?

No, in a gov't agency all that prize money would buy is a toilet seat. +1 For Privatization.

Re:Hmm...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, as flamebaited as this is, I suggest you go take a look at the movies on the Armadillo site. They're getting very close to launching the big rocket and testing it's landing. Armadillo's got a rocket (it's a prototype) that can launch straight up and then hover to a landing. Doesn't look like they've tested the thing flying around in the atmosphere yet, though.

Impressive stuff, in spite of your flamebait-colored eyeglasses.

Re:Hmm...

[Eivind]

That's easy to answer. All available evidence indicates NASA could not have built SS1 even given an order of magnitude more money. (i.e. $100 million)

Re:Hmm...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Prizes of 10-30 million are pissant poor. Nasa should set the prizes to say, 1/4 their estimate of the cost of the project.

So, a billion or so for a moon rocket. 50 billion for a Mars landing.

That would be enough to get people's attention, and still save NASA (and the USGov) most of the development cost....

A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently one could receive a prize for:-

". . .for returning a piece of an asteroid to Earth."

Does the asteroid have to originally be part of the Earth?

Does the asteroid have to be collected whilst it is outside the Earth's atmosphere?

How big of a piece is required?

Indeed,

"the first soft landing on the moon"

Begs the question what exactly is a hard landing?

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

hard landings are considered crashing into the moon, like some proposals meant to crash and cause a crater to form and to see what is down in the moons crust.

a soft landing is like the moon landings, nice and soft...

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

> Begs the question what exactly is a hard landing?

SPLAT!

while its cool...

[ResQuad]

while this is cool and will get more people intrested in space travel.... Isnt this comming a little late? I mean the X prize has been out there for a very long time, and now NASA is finally getting into it.

Hopefully we'll be able to hop a flight to the moon in the next 50 years.

Re:while its cool...

[Solidsnot]

It looks like NASA is jumping on the media blitz bandwagon. I mean, what a better time to announce a plan like this than right after SpaceShipOne makes it to space? I don't think they're going to be getting any immediate results from this announcement but then again, its not like NASA is doing things at the cyclic rate anyway.

"Moderation in war is imbecility." - Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher

Re:while its cool...

[grozzie2]

Isnt this comming a little late? I mean the X prize has been out there for a very long time, and now NASA is finally getting into it.

There's probably a few people at Nasa see the big light bulb coming on. Scaled has achieved sub-orbital capability on a budget rumored between 20 and 35 million dollars. This included the design, build, and test flight stages of the program. The same program running in the Nasa culture, using Nasa methodologies, would not be finished the preliminary design study before it had burned up 35 million dollars, and to achieve the result of 'successful manned test flight', the program would have burned up at least a billion dollars. the efficiency delta here is close to 2 orders of magnitude. that's very serious when you are talking the differences between millions and billions of dollars.

I'll start

[Vertex Operator]

$10 to the first company that develops a
spaceship that flies to Mars and back.

Re:I'll start

[fimbulvetr]

I'll pitch in $100. +$20 if you take me with.

Re:I'll start

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 if you take my mother-in-law and don't come back.

Re:I'll start

[CSG_SurferDude]

$10,000 if you take my Ex-Wife and don't come back. ;-)

Misprint

[illuminata]

No, I think they mean that we'll be offering the cash prize for NASA to give out.

smart idea

[firstadopter.com]

This is definitely a smart idea. Think about it? The smartest people are in the private sector, why not use their skills and efficiencies to benefit the race to the stars?

Re:smart idea

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The smartest people are in the private sector

That's a pretty big generalization you got there, pilgrim.

Re:smart idea

[wass]

The smartest people are in the private sector, why not use their skills and efficiencies to benefit the race to the stars?

That's not really true, so I'll take it you haven't worked with NASA much at all. I've worked with NASA scientists on several projects and the scientists/engineers there are typically top-notch. Much more knowledgeable than most engineers I've dealt with from the private sector. NASA's problems primarily stem from its bureaucracy and red-tape, not from shortcomings of its engineers.

And to take your skepticism further, the smartest people I've encountered to date have been university professors (at least in physics). Usually more likely to collaborate w/ NASA than with the private sector, too.

Re:smart idea

[Planesdragon]

The smartest people are in the private sector

Nope. The smartest people aren't in any "sector"--they've made their ten million, got out, and are working on whatever the hell they want.

Wage-slaves, be they government or private or non-profit, are simply not motivated enough to be the smartest people in the world.

Re:smart idea

[sql*kitten]

And to take your skepticism further, the smartest people I've encountered to date have been university professors (at least in physics).

There's book smarts and there's applied intelligence. Take business schools for example. All the professors there preach about risk-taking and venture capital and so forth - but for themselves, they all chose the ultimate low-risk job, academia and tenure.

Those as can do, those as can't teach.

Re:smart idea

[stanmann]

Just because I'm not motivated to be a millionare.. it would be nice, but its not necessary. Doesn't mean I'm not smart, just that I'm not motivated enough to work more than I have to to eat, sleep and pay my internet bill. I am able to save enough to retire at my current living standard and I'm willing to "work" for the rest of my life in order to stay busy and feel productive. If I was motivated to never work again, I'd do what I needed to get that 10 million, but I'm not that motivated.

Re:smart idea

[wass]

There's book smarts and there's applied intelligence.

NASA is ALL about applied intelligence. Additionally they still have a number of theorists working for them as well.

Anyway, your tired quote about teachers not being able to 'do' isn't accurate at all. University professors only spend a minority of their time 'teaching', at least in the sciences at real research universities. The majority of their efforts go towards research, and that success is based upon their publications, and more importantly, how often their publications are referenced by others. The smartest 'professors' i referred to in my original post are quite successful in this regard.

LAte?

[YrWrstNtmr]

No. The X-prize hasn't been claimed yet, and there are other avenues and goals to reach.

Diversity is a good thing.

Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

So, they think their funding is under threat from private enterprise - so they plan to use Other Peoples Money to do what private enterprise can already do, only better than NASA. Thieving bastards.

Space exploration is yet another field that should be handled entirely by private enterprise & charity.

Re:Thieving bastards

[DAldredge]

Where is the profit motive in sending probes to the outer solar system?

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

Abstract research like you describe could be funded by entrepreneurs, corporate sponsorship, private charity ... all of the above have played a part in the SpaceshipOne project.

Re:Thieving bastards

[fucksl4shd0t]

Um, to find new customers?

Re:Thieving bastards

[DAldredge]

Why is your post showing up as a 0, when it has no down mods?

Re:Thieving bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

If an organization decides to take NASA up on the challenge, what exactly is the loss here? NASA isn't forcing any organization to join the challenge and spend their money. That would, however, be the case if NASA decided to do all the R&D by themselves, as the costs would then be passed onto all US citizens in the form of taxes.

Thieving? Last I checked, holding an open competition with prize money isn't thieving.

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

Um, who funds the prize? Who funds NASA? Citizens, through compulsory taxation.

Re:Thieving bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Exploration must be profitable for it to be market driven, and it's only profitable with government-created incentives. For example, when the Protuguese wanted the coast of Africa explored, they sent explorers who sought profit. However, their profit existed because the Portuguese government guaranteed a trading monopoly on discovered lands. In short, private exploration is possible, but the incentive must be there. There is currently incentive to put satellites in space, but what market force is driving for the exploration of Mars and beyond? How is it profitable?

Re:Thieving bastards

[joeljkp]

You're not paying more in your taxes to fund these prizes. The prize money is being diverted from their existing (nearly static) budget.

Now, if you don't like how NASA is spending its money, complain to your Congressman.

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

Sigh, again. They shouldn't *have* a taxpayer-funded budget at all.

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

Rubbish - it's profitable as an advertising medium for starters, & many wealth entrepreneurs are keen to support it. Space tourism etc. seems profitable from early experiences too :-)

Further, if it can't be done without compulsory taxation, *IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE*. Just because it's something you like doesn't mean others should be forced to pay for it.

Re:Thieving bastards

[joeljkp]

So you don't think there should be a NASA? Why not? It advances the state of science, it promotes exploration and commerce in space, and it provides a focal point for science education.

If NASA was abolished (or made fully private), I think you would find that the amount each individual would save in taxes because of it would be negligible.

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

All of those are worthy goals, yes - but they shouldn't be funded by compulsory taxation.

Re:Thieving bastards

[joeljkp]

Is there a viable alternative?

Re:Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

Yes - a combination of private enterprise and charity, as has worked brilliantly in the case of SpaceShipOne, and in so many other research situations around the world.

But do understand, public funding is *not* a viable alternative, because it is coercive. It's like me saying "I want a new car, but I can't afford it, so I'll force other people to pay for it - because there isn't a viable alternative".

If it requires coercive funding, it can't morally be done.

Re:Thieving bastards

[joeljkp]

By your definition, everything publicly funded is "coercive". The president's salary is "coercive". The financial aid for college students is "coercive". Unemployment benefits are "coercive".

The public is not forced to finance any specific project. This is not a case of taxation without representation. Congressmen and the President are your voice for how your money should be spent.

Each member of society, however, cannot be given a choice as to exactly what their individual sum of money will be used for. Such a system would be simply unworkable.

As for NASA, I doubt SpaceShipOne could have gotten off the ground with the funding it received without the huge amount of government-sponsored research behind it. One of NASA's primary roles is as an incubator project for the still-fledgling aerospace industry. You and I finance the groundwork science and engineering that must be done before industry can profitably take it up. But once it is, if successful, the industry in our country enjoys a significant advantage over others, increasing market share, profit margins, employment opportunities, and the general economy.

And a good economy benefits us all. And, again, if successful, more than reimburses you for the paltry sum you paid to finance it.

Early flight was the same

[DonGar]

Much of the advancement in early flight was related to similar contests of the time.

Risky bussness venture

[autopr0n]

The problem is, if you try and make a bussnes around winning those prizes you might lose even if you have a good idea if someone else finishes first.

And that would, you know, kinda suck.

Re:Risky bussness venture

[saiha]

And this is different from the "real" business world how? Look at why different techs are adopted, not always because they are the best engineering, etc... Many times it is because they got to the market first.

And I don't think anyone would try to make a business out of the prize money alone. Spaceship One is costing around $20million with a prize of only $10million. The investers know this, but what it does give them is (if they win) a bit of a coupon for some of their R&D but mostly they huge huge publicity that this type of thing will bring.

Re:Risky bussness venture

[Octorian]

True, but first-to-market doesn't always win the competition. Sometimes a company may be first, but their self-imposed legal red-tape (i.e. Beta vs VHS) is their undoing. Other times, a bigger company with more leverage and marketting funds may just totally overwhelm them on mindshare, and win despite being late-to-market (i.e. Microsoft).

Re:Risky bussness venture

[Idarubicin]

And that would, you know, kinda suck.

...until NASA says to the winner, "Here's your $10 million prize for completing the contest first. We're going to go buy a billion dollars' worth of stuff from the second-place team now, because their design is technically superior, scalable, and all-around better thought out."

That's another benefit of having competing teams--NASA gets to cherry pick the best solutions from a variety of companies.

don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[Camel Racer]

Maybe step one would be not to criminalize model rocketry

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/ro ck etry_future_000823.html

and

http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2003-02-28/feature s/ body.html

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[ratsnapple tea]

Would it be too much trouble for Slashcode to automatically make links out of text starting with http://? Just a thought.

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be too much trouble.

Sincerely,
Slashcode
http://www.slashcode.com/

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[fucksl4shd0t]

I think Anonymous Coward url postings should automatically be made links under the assumption that ACs are too stupid to do it themselves.

The rest of us can write html, right?

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[sql*kitten]

Would it be too much trouble for Slashcode to automatically make links out of text starting with http://? Just a thought.

Would it be too much effort for posters to make hyperlinks?

In Other Words...

[MaineCoon]

... NASA wants some of this spotlight, and will gladly make hints of support and pose for the camera.

NASA has a budget of USD$16 Billion for this year alone. $10M to $30M?

Lets see prizes in the range of $100M on up. That would make the financial investment risks FAR easier to swallow, and we might actually see more serious commercial enterprises make the attempt.

Seeing SpaceShipOne's successes makes me dream of a brighter future. I'd love to see serious interplanetary space travel within my lifetime.

Re:In Other Words...

[swordgeek]

FUCK that idea!!!

This whole thing stinks. I'm fully in favour of private space research--but having NASA give money away makes it "publicly funded private enterprise." In other words, companies are spending tax money on personal profit.

Have one or the other, or even both, but don't give public money to private enterprise.

Re:In Other Words...

[aelbric]

Yeah, it's not like that tax money came from private enterprise or the private taxpayer in the first.......oh, wait

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the tax cuts in recent years was to supposedly allow private indivuduals to invest their money in private enterprises of their own choosing. Having a government providing money to fund private R&D does not mesh with that philosophy.

Private businesses will not be major technological contributors to space efforts (separate from government sponsored projects) until someone comes up with a valid business model that allows those companies to turn a profit without financial help from the government.

Re:In Other Words...

[DAldredge]

Perhaps you should look up who runs the contract for the space shuttle. HINT - it is a for profit company.

Re:In Other Words...

[sql*kitten]

Have one or the other, or even both, but don't give public money to private enterprise.

Right now, NASA is giving money - billions and billions of dollars every year - to contractors like Boeing and Lockmart. And they're getting precisely NOWHERE. But you have no problem with that?

For a fraction of that amount put into a prize foundation, private industry will do the rest. Here's a hint: you don't fly on a government airline, do you?

I think you need to see past your socialist "public good, private bad" ideology and have a think about what you actually want to see as the result: lots of fat, happy bureaucrats, or being able to buy a daytrip into space at your travel agent?

Re:In Other Words...

[WillWare]

I'm fully in favour of private space research--but having NASA give money away makes it "publicly funded private enterprise." In other words, companies are spending tax money on personal profit.

I have read a few microeconomics books and I have some glimmer of how this stuff works. The reason we have a government and taxes is because there are things we want that the free market can't/won't provide. We use government and taxes to make conciously-designed adjustments to the economy to accomplish the things that aren't going to happen anyway.

People whine incessantly about spending money on national defense, but if it were left to the private sector, we'd be screwed because every corporation would let everybody else take care of it. So the government diverts a fraction of our GNP to finance the military. The economic term for this is that national defense is a "public good".

Space research, until it's really profitable, is also a public good. It's not profitable yet. If it were, then corporations would be doing it already, without the X Prize and without NASA. The closest thing we've got is that corporations put commsats in orbit. No manned flights, nothing beyond LEO, because none of that stuff is profitable yet.

Eventually it will be profitable, and at that time you'll be right, it will be inappropriate to spend public money to incentivize something that will happen anyway. But we're not there yet. We still need to tweak the market incentives to get corporations to work on this stuff.

Re:In Other Words...

[swordgeek]

Ah now see, we're getting very close to the crux of the matter.

I have no problems with governments spending money on unprofitable ideas for the common good. I have a problem with them funding for-profit private companies to develop those unprofitable ideas.

Re:In Other Words...

[WillWare]

I have no problems with governments spending money on unprofitable ideas for the common good.

It's good that you feel that way. We have an election coming up. Viewed in economic terms, this is AFAIK the purpose of government.

I have a problem with them funding for-profit private companies to develop those unprofitable ideas.

Back when NASA was a real thing, all the hardware was built by private corporations. NASA took their budget and used corporations as a means to an end. The contract money was a way to twist market forces so that space hardware would get built. I gather from your response that you object to this bidding-and-contracting process that got us to the Moon. But it seems to work, and it's hard to imagine NASA (especially now) building space hardware without corporate help.

I could imagine that you might object to corporations trying to cut corners and compromising safety. They'd have an incentive to do that. NASA did a lot of oversight back in the day, cognizant of this possibility, and it seemed to mostly work. We lost a few lives but most astronauts came home safely.

I could also imagine that you object to the winning bidders gaining an unfair advantage in building space hardware, that un-levels the playing field when space becomes really profitable.

A good analogy is Craig Venter (Celera Genomics) and the Human Genome Project. In the mid-late 90s Celera did a lot of great work on fast DNA sequencing. They really moved the state of the art forward and we'll all benefit in the long term. In the short term, Venter fudged the significance of his work, claiming to have an "essentially" complete human genome 2 or 3 years early.

Did Venter stretch the truth? A little, you bet, and he had powerful incentives to do so (ego, press conferences, Celera's stock price). Does Celera (or whoever bought them in the meanwhile) now enjoy an unfair disadvantage in DNA sequencing? Yup, for the next 20 years they'll be getting fat on patent licensing fees for DNA sequencing hardware.

Are we better off or worse off overall as a result of all that? I think we're better off. Somebody was going to patent the stuff, and the patents do run out in 20 years. Venter's stretching of the truth may have been convolutedly causal in some number of human deaths (as are daily decisions made about testing and releasing new pharmaceuticals) but I think that's just the irreparable unfairness of life in a complex society. I don't know that it would ever be practical to track those causal links and assign the correct fraction of influence to the many factors involved.

So I've done a lot of guessing about what you might perceive as the costs to society of corporate involvement in public projects, and I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.

how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[0111 1110]

100 billion USD to the first person to invent a workable interstellar propulsion system that could theoretically make it to alpha-centauri within 300 of our years (yes, you'd have to have sex in space). Any takers?

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

(yes, you'd have to have sex in space). Any takers?

Depends. Is she hot?

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[burns210]

Yes, I have already begun a project to achieve this goal... Now, you gotta hear me out...

1. Invent interstellar propulsion system
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[Zibblsnrt]

There's long term and there's long term. If that was launched and hit Alpha Centauri in 300 years, by the time the guy's descendants got back to claim the prize $100 billion might buy a can of Pepsi.

I gotta wonder how well a ridiculously huge prize like that - $100 million, or $1 billion, etc - would do for gathering interest. Not necessarily for hitting Alpha Centauri or something, but say, $1 billion to the first person to establish some sort of viable industry in orbit. That kinda potential would make me think for awhile about switching disciplines..

-PS

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[fucksl4shd0t]

$1 billion to the first person to establish some sort of viable industry in orbit.

Um, I think that prize is already being offered by basic economics. Or something comparable, at least.

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[comet_11]

you'd have to have sex in space. Any takers?

Sure, but we've only just met...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Compatible with Bush's vision?

[gad_zuki!]

Huh? How are a few fledgling attempts to break the 100km barrier anything close to a feasible manned Mars mission?

I guess its Lembeck's job to say nice things about NASA and those who control its purse-strings, but its a bit too optimistic to expect private industry to do a Mars launch anytime in the forseeable future. Heck, its hard to see NASA doing it, or any good reason to do it as a moon base would be safer, cheaper, and practical!

This sounds like damage-control after Scaled's success yesterday. Is NASA scared perhaps? Or maybe they don't want to look like a lumbering dinosaur to the tax payers.

Dunno, but the timing of this is very suspicious.

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[cowscows]

Maybe some of the administrators at NASA watched Scaled do their thing, and suddenly believe that maybe private industry actually can pull this stuff off. I don't think anyone expects Scaled or anyone else to go to mars any time soon, but life is not an all or nothing game. If some company can figure out a way to get materials into orbit for significantly less money than is currently possible, that'll make it much easier for NASA to move their cool Mars ship pieces into space and then assemble them for the trip.

Sure, NASA doesn't have that cool Mars ship yet, but maybe if they can get other people to worry about figuring out all this earth orbiting stuff, then they can put all their talented engineers to work doing all that pure science stuff. It'll be hard to convince a company that they can make money sending probes to Saturn, so let NASA free up all the money they spend on things like the shuttle program, and we'll move those funds to lots of little rovers to drive around on Europa or something.

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[cyclone96]

This is a great comment - right on target. I'm a NASA engineer (who currently works on shuttle and space station), and myself and everyone I work with were thrilled to see Rutan and Scaled Composites pull this off.

I don't quite understand a lot of opinions out there that imply that NASA folks think that this is "stepping on their turf". Nothing could be farther from the truth. We'd dearly love (and hope) to see the day where we are able to buy "cargo delivery" to low earth orbit at relatively low cost from private industry, so we can free up NASA to do research and exploration in areas that are (currently!) less profitable (and less appealing to private industry) like deep space probes or manned missions to Mars.

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[delong]

How are a few fledgling attempts to break the 100km barrier anything close to a feasible manned Mars mission?

Get a private spacecraft to LEO and the game is wide open. After LEO, anything is possible.

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[sql*kitten]

I guess its Lembeck's job to say nice things about NASA and those who control its purse-strings, but its a bit too optimistic to expect private industry to do a Mars launch anytime in the forseeable future. Heck, its hard to see NASA doing it, or any good reason to do it as a moon base would be safer, cheaper, and practical!

I suggest you read Dr Robert Zubrin's research on the matter. Key points are: Establishing a Mars base is actually easier than establishing a Lunar base, as Mars has far richer and more diverse minerals. Up on the moon you've got lots of silicon oxide and that's it. It's a very stable compound so it's very difficult to extract anything useful from it. On Mars in contrast, you can process the atmosphere, thin tho' it is, to generate rocket fuel, using a centuries-old process that Zubrin has tested on a simulated Martian atmosphere in his lab. You can easily refine metals, make cement and glass, etc. For a moon base, you'd have to ship everything in from Earth, one bit at a time.

And, Zubrin also points out that the scheme preferred by NASA, which is to assemble a giant spacecraft in orbit, which would require a giant orbiting shipyard, then fly all the way there and back is hopelessly impractical. His own scheme is to first send unmanned missions, including his fuel generator and food, water, etc, to the surface of Mars. When they're there safely, send a human crew with enough fuel and food for a one-way trip. Once there, they can refuel and resupply for the return journey. Lots of small packages rather than one big one (i.e. nothing larger than can be launched right now on the biggest Russian boosters). For a $20B prize - slightly larger than one year's NASA budget - he could do it, too.

It's good business

[LuxFX]

Of course NASA is interested! Rutan's ship took a $20 million investment from Paul Allen to get off the napkin it was first drawn on. And it stands to win only a $10 million prize! NASA's must be hoping they can get work done for half the price.

Re:It's good business

[Stray7Xi]

Half? getting a lot better value then that, since many teams are putting forth different designs. You get a quasi-survival of the fittest.

Re:It's good business

[LuxFX]

You get a quasi-survival of the fittest.

Now there's a reality show I might actually watch!

Jerry Pournelle's idea

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.ht ml#prizes

god i hope not

[waspleg]

i'd hate for aliens to see MTV first and think the whole world is that way

I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

$10M prize for any company that can create a single-stage-to-orbit reusable space plane. Entrants must be able to assemble a dummy space station at the Earth-Moon LaGrange point by December 31, 2007. Winner takes all $10M!!!

Extra $10M prize if company also can build a space elevator using vehicle that won the above competition!

Who can resist??

Actually, NASA should up the ante quite a bit. They should be offering $100M for major developmental steps in making a space elevator. For example, a $100M prize for the first company to produce a 1 meter x 1 centimeter strip of material that is strong enough for the space elevator. Contestant must be able to produce one strip per week for 10 weeks. After connecting the strips, the end result must be able to dangle the Space Shuttle off of an industrial crane. Failed contestants must pay for broken Space Shuttles.

sounds to me like...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds to me like NASA has been slacking in the R&D dept. and after SpaceShipOne took off the otherday, they see it and scratch their heads about their R&D and say "Why did'nt we think of that"

DUH!!!

Re:sounds to me like...

[joeljkp]

No, NASA's busy trying to figure out how to reorganize itself to fit the new space proposal. The SpaceShipOne launch was very warmly received. We're all in the same boat with the same destination here, people.

Finally, a reasonable use for NASA launch money

[nasor]

Considering the roughly $900 million that NASA spent on the X-33 shuttle replacement before simply canceling the project, or the $400 million that they spend on each shuttle launch, I certainly think they should be able to spare a hundred million or two as a prize for someone can develop a private, x-prize style orbital vehicle.

Re:Finally, a reasonable use for NASA launch money

[WhiteDeath]

wow, at $400 million for each launch, that would make $10 million for developing the vehicle from scratch the ultimate victory for outsourcing....

Re:Give away land on the moon!

[loid_void]

I don't know about the Viagra sign, but we did lay claim to the moon when we landed and set the flag. I guess that makes it ours to give away. Another arrogant American act that the world can call us names about, but hey, let's be fare; First one to Mars can give it away.

We live in a very strange world

[ArcticCelt]

I just opened my browser on slashdot and I saw two news, one under the other but very different.

One is about a group of hard working scientists who dream of a world where new possibilities are created and human kind evolve to a higher level and the other about a group of litigious bastards who dream of a world where they have so much money that it leaks through their ass and everybody listen to the same crappy music made by some fake overpaid artist.

Mmm, we live in a very strange world. :|

Re:Porn in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, it will still end up in your ass after I bend you over.

hmmm

[mboverload]

Just give a billion and a land grant of the moon to some nerd who designs something really usefull.

100 million? NASA literally spends more on paperwork.

suggested goals

[tmortn]

100 million to the first LEO vehicle that meets the same requirments for reusability that the X prize requires.

500 million ( or more ) for the first circum lunar vehicle that meets those requirements.

1 billion for first lunar landing system which can accomplish those requriments. ( launch withen two weeks of return though instead of two weeks from first launch date ).

10 billion for a man on mars and safe return.

Re:suggested goals

[emorphien]

I'm good with those. Really, I think those are not unrealistic values, if maybe a little low for the lunar trips. Either way, if a company can do it, while the $$ offered is probably minimal by comparison, its the competition and the science that are the point and science will benefit.

Re:suggested goals

[Eivind]

The sums I don't know about, they won't be enough to finance the thing, but migth be enough to give a push to something that migth be worth doing anyway.

I'd advocate making more smaller-step prices though. For example, between the current X-Price and a reusable, manned LEO orbiter there's a hell of a long way. How about the following stepstones ?

• Orbit a 10pound radio-repeater in LEO the thing doesn't need to come back down in one piece.
• Orbit a 100 pound satelite in synchronous orbit.
• Orbit a person, vehicle does *not* need to be reusable (i.e. a apollo-style capsule is ok)

More info on Lembeck

[cyclone96]

Mike Lembeck is head of the requirements division at the exploration office at NASA headquarters, often referred to as "Code T". He is tasked with being the NASA architect for much of the new "exploration vision".

What is interesting is his background....he is not a career civil servant, He's been at NASA for less than two years. Before that he was with small to medium sized companies trying to break into the space business, including Space Industries (who built Wake Shield, that flying saucer thing that was deployed by the Space Shuttle on three missions) and Orbital Sciences (which is turning a fairly nice profit from some of their projects, notably the Pegasus air launched booster).

And he's a damn smart guy with lots of cool ideas that I've known for about seven years. He very much breaks the mold of the staid NASA manager, I'm sure he'd feel right at home with most /.ers and their ideas on how NASA ought to be changed (and from reading this, he's sure trying).

next

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've given a gift all of America can enjoy. I've colorized the moon."

- Theodore "Ted" Turner, Family Guy

give them a call when you find your rover

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got two working, and at least one might last the Martian Winter. Give NASA a call when you find your Mars rover. Maybe there's a reward for it.

No patents!

[One Louder]

Any prize money should come with a requirement that any technology that is developed that could be or is covered by patents must be made royalty-free to anyone or assigned to the public domain.

It makes no sense to have the government effectively subsidize the development of a proprietary technology.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Incentives, not plans

[Baldrson]

It's good to see NASA is finally getting the message from my July 31, 1991 testimony before Congress:

Necessity and Incentives
Opening the Space Frontier

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space

by James Bowery, Chairman
Coalition for Science and Commerce

July 31, 1991

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.

The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.

In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.

We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.

Introduction

Americans need a frontier, not a program.

Incentives open frontiers, not plans.

If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.

Americans Need a Frontier

When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.

The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result

Re:Incentives, not plans

[ArsSineArtificio]

Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materials and wealth itself are fundamentally limited and therefore to be hoarded and controlled -- rather than created. Out of this post-Apollo mentality, a deeply rooted cynicism has led young people into careers as lawyers and financial manipulators rather than farmers, inventors and engineers. It has led to an environmental movement which loathes humanity's natural capacity to transform hostile environments with technology. It has led to cartels, wars over energy and a devastatingly expensive arms race. It has led businesses and investors to remain averse to high risk technology development even as they issue billions in high risk debt vehicles for corporate take-overs. It has led to a preference for real estate speculation over job creating investments, making it nearly impossible for most of those born in the mid-to-late baby boom of the 1950s to establish stable careers, homesteads and equity for retirement, even with two incomes.

What a load of tiresome, pretentious twaddle. The end of the Apollo program meant the collapse of American society, creating a plague of lawyers and real estate investors. Gotcha. Why, I remember thinking as I watched the Challenger explode in third grade, "Screw this, I was going to be a soybean farmer, but now I'll just get a job securitizing mortgages instead."

You see, there'd be these conclusions you could jump to...

Please learn how to make links.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn how to make links.

<a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launche s/rocketry_future_000823.html">this</a> and <a href="http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2003-02-28/fea tures/body.html">that</a>

(without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: this and that

NASA's Centennial Challenges Program

[FleaPlus]

Here's the official and wikipedia links to information on NASA's Centennial Challenges Program, which is what the article is presumably referring to. The contests haven't been decided on yet, but currently things like "very low cost spacecraft missions", "breakthrough robotic capability competitions", and "revolutionary technology demonstrations" are under consideration.

Speaking of, has anybody heard about what happened at the Centennial Challenges Workshop on June 15-16? I haven't been able to find any reports on it. Hopefully at least one slashdotter attended...

Real Incentive...

[PetoskeyGuy]

The money will be paid in one lump sum.
In Cash.
Tax Free.

The Catch? The cash is sitting in an unmarked briefcase somewhere on the moon.

Re:Real Incentive...

[Tumbleweed]

Hmm. I propose a giant 'tongue' made of buckyballs to spring outward from Earth, capture said unmarked briefcase on the Moon, and bring it back to me.

With said money, I will promote the best roadside attraction ever: a giant tongue that stretches from the Earth to the Moon! Can't lick _that_!

Profit.

Re:Real Incentive...

[Anonymous Coward]

And how exactly would NASA get it there?

Re:Real Incentive...

[man_ls]

That's a DAMN good idea.

Put $1b of something on the moon, document it's location.

Dare someone to go retrive it. Finder's, keeper's.

Re:Real Incentive...

[Ghouki]

sure ..and whilst we're about it why not sent the key to the briefcase to Mars..

Re:Real Incentive...

[mpthompson]

I like your idea, but perhaps to get things started NASA can put a smaller amount in orbit...

U Da Man GWB!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ur gettin my vote!!

This is old news: NASA's Centennial Challenges

[colonist]

The Wired article uses information from this Reuters article by Deborah Zabarenko.

Reuters: "Within hours of the first private flight to outer space on Monday, a NASA official said the agency might offer millions of dollars in prizes..." This is misleading. NASA's Centennial Challenges program has been in the planning stage for quite some time now.

• Centennial Challenges - NASA
• NASA Needs Prize Contest Ideas - Slashdot
• Centennial Challenges - Wikipedia

My opinion on prizes: Prizes are great, but they should complement grants, not replace them. An analogy: If we want to catch Osama bin Laden, we should put a big bounty on him. But that doesn't mean we should call off the military and the CIA. We should post a big bounty AND fund the military and the CIA. Same thing with space: Put a big 'bounty' on space achievements, but fund NASA too.

So we let some rich guy innovate in space?

[doormat]

It doesnt sound so bad really. Offer prizes to those who can build stuff to get achive certain objectives. The big downside is that I doubt one person (cept for 50 richest people) can bankroll development on things like ion drives and other future propulsion technology.

Remember, this was to only get three people to 100km. Yes its a lot, but a far far away from going to Mars or transporting 500 people to the moon colony for the day.

Re:So we let some rich guy innovate in space?

[ArsSineArtificio]

The big downside is that I doubt one person (cept for 50 richest people) can bankroll development on things like ion drives and other future propulsion technology.

They have these things called "companies" now, whereby a whole group of people can get together and split the cost of something.

You cant take the sky from me

[isorox]

Take me out, to the black, tell em I 'aint coming back

Heres to the lunar colonies and the right to read

Roton

[jmichaelg]

Funny you should use the Rotary Rocket as your example. This past weekend, we ran into the test pilot for the Roton while we were in Mojave to see the space shot. Asked him why the Roton never went anywhere.

"Didn't work." was his reply. The thing was too heavy.

Re:Roton

[Media Withdrawal]

Cool factoid - thanks! Of course, pilots and builders don't always agree, as you saw in the photo-op after Monday's flight.

With FasTrac, Roton was too heavy, even on paper. But numerous elements of the original integrated engine/structural design were shedding rather than gaining mass as the test-and-build process progressed (almost unheard of in rocketry). The design may not have been destined to converge, but I have a feeling the engine team was not the tall pole, especially given their achievements after leaving. These stand in sharp contrast to NASA's work with FasTrac.

I wish I could have been there to see the flight. I caught it on CNN.com at an ungodly hour of the morning.

Re:Hmm... you mean 'yes'?

[smurfnsanta]

Considering the X-33 development case, obviously it would be much cheaper for NASA to 'prize out' all the innovation they can. They have fantastic scientists, but a glacially slow dev mentality caused to some degree by over abundant funding. (Three years of study after the second scramjet desinigrated was ridiculous.)

Industrial Space Facility

[Syntroxis]

During the Reagan administration, this idea was floated. Getting private industry involved with NASA, that is.

After a few years, and several millions of $$ in development, the big contracting hogs managed to get it all snuffed. Cost a lot of people their jobs, and led to a nearly useless space station at several factors the cost of the Industrial Space Facility.

Seems to me that companies would be very hesitant to get into this type of realtionship with NASA again.

Syntroxis

Industrial Space Facility

[Syntroxis]

During the Reagan administration, this idea was floated. Getting private industry involved with NASA, that is.

After a few years, and several millions of $$ in development, the big contracting hogs managed to get it all snuffed. Cost a lot of people their jobs, and led to a nearly useless space station at several factors the cost of the Industrial Space Facility.

Seems to me that companies would be very hesitant to get into this type of realtionship with NASA again.

Syntroxis

Star Wars analogy

[colonist]

PIETT: Bounty hunters. We don't need that scum.
FIRST CONTROLLER: Yes, sir.
PIETT: Those Rebels won't escape us.
. . .
VADER: ... there will be a substantial reward for the one who finds the Millennium Falcon. You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive. No disintegrations.
BOBA FETT: As you wish.
--
Vader offers a prize, but that doesn't mean he calls off the Imperial Fleet (PIETT: "Alert all commands. Deploy the fleet."). He uses both to find the Millennium Falcon...
--
VADER: We would be honored if you would join us.

Clear to Throttle Up

[ericlp]

[joke]::: beep ::: ..."Roger Tea Bag One. Go throttle up!"... ::: beep ::: [/joke]

Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Syncdata]

The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.

All you say is true, but this can be viewed as a retroactive subsidy towards R&D. If a company like Scaled has some plans to exploit this potentially lucrative market, the prospect of potentially spending 10 million if you win is much more palatable then a gauranteed expenditure of 20 million in R&D. Demanding success of the prize recipient also removes the risk of fraud by questionable contractors.

As has been mentioned, the aviation industry has progressed rapidly through such "contests", particularly the lockheed martins, et all. Stealth didn't become so common because private industry wanted it, or because government invented it. The government set the challenge, and let Private industry worry about keeping the margins low.

Finally, we've all,as you do in your post, griped enough about NASA expenditures to know this is a good idea. I'm inclined to think that a private company would not have come up with a re-entry shield that is composed of hundreds of ceramic tiles, all of which have to be inspected pre and post launch. It would simply not be cost effective. We already ran the crash program to space. Now lets run the slow, sensible one. Get private industry involved. Allow the profit motive in the lifting stage, not just the payload stage.

The sooner we ween space transport off of the government teat, the sooner we stop hearing about all the better ways government can spend money on this or that social program. If all that can be done is to remove that chestnut from the debate, I say it's worth it.

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[CelloJake]

I'm inclined to think that a private company would not have come up with a re-entry shield that is composed of hundreds of ceramic tiles, all of which have to be inspected pre and post launch.

No private company would have anything to do with those tiles!

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Rei]

Thank you! It bothers me to no end when people talk about these incredibly hard engineering tasks as if they're simple, and if only private industry were involved, it'd be fixed in a flash.... ;)

Private industry subcontracting is the problem, not the solution. Not that all private industry is bad - and I think the prizes are a great idea to get other people to sink their money in as well, and help drum up support. But acting like NASA themselves made the mistakes when it was actually private subcontractors, is just silly. And so is pretending that they should have known in advance what would work well in an operational environment when it worked well in a lab. Don't forget that ablatives can be equally brittle and finicky.

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Syncdata]

I'm not saying that keeping a shuttle from burning up while going through the atmosphere is an easy task, and yes, those tiles had to come from a subcontractor somewhere.

But I was not talking about subcontractors. I'm talking about a private company building and operating their own craft.

A subcontractor is given a task by the government, say to keep the shuttle from burning up. The private company doesn't care how cumbersome the solution is, so long as they keep the contract. In fact, from their standpoint, the more tiles the better, because they are selling the things, not operating the craft.

If that same company, staffed by the same people, were building something they had to maintain, while keeping a profit margin, I doubt they come up with the same solution as the sub-contractor supplying tiles to the government.

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Rei]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There Is No Easy Solution To Reentry.

This is an incredibly hard engineering problem. If you have a solution, by all means offer it up. If not, you have no right to criticize the solution chosen.

"The private company doesn't care how cumbersome the solution is"

From their standpoint, they're getting paid to produce a product that meets specific requirements (which include how "cumbersome" it is; NASA does not produce parts on vague requirements - you should see how detailed their specifications are; it's borderline *micromanagement*, not the opposite). If they fail to meet the imposed requirements, they not only fail to get paid, but they fail to get similar contracts in the future. If they develop a good system, they stand to get many more contracts.

Do you think NASA is dumb enough not to weigh past performance records when it chooses subcontractors? How dumb do you think they are? A company I used to work for, Rockwell-Collins, had a space shuttle contract once. They completely abused it, assigning its hours to other unrelated projects which had cost overruns. Not only were they heavily fined, but it took a decade before Rockwell got any sizable contracts from NASA again.

But the main point needs reiterating: There Is Not A Good Solution Out There. I can't state this strongly enough. Ablatives are lousy, tiles are lousy, and everything else is still in the lab. They tried to improve on ablatives; they failed. Is your moral of the story "Don't Even Try"?

Many things that we attempted to bring from the lab to the field (such as in the X33) failed. Some have not been attempted yet (inflatable reentry for deceleration in the upper atmosphere and larger surface area heat radiation, plasma torch air deflection, etc). But nothing else is out there.

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Syncdata]

Is your moral of the story "Don't Even Try"?

Now really, when did I ever say that?

Re-entry is difficult. Going into space and landing in one piece is itself difficult. The shuttle is a wonder of the engineering world, and you won't hear me say anything to deny that. But it is not cost-effective.

The moral of my story is, we have a wonderful example of what government does well in the crash program to get to space. We have a wonderful example of what government does well, and what it doesn't, in the space shuttle. We are delivering payloads into space with regularity. Mission accomplished. Now, lets take a breath, and come up with solutions that work elegantly. It doesn't have to be done by tuesday. But lets get it right. The profit motive is a powerful force, that can be used to great effect in this task.

Re:Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Rei]

No, we have an example of what *noone* has done well to get into space - government or private, US model or Soviet model or Chinese model or whatever you choose.

And if you think it was wrong to go with the tiles, then that means that you would have supported sticking with ablatives and not bothering to try and improve on it. Tiles were the next logical step: if we're not going to burn off the heat, we need to be able to radiate it as fast as possible, right? If we're going to radiate it as fast as possible, we need tiles of a material that radiates heat well with, as much of a surface area as possible, which means an incredibly porous/fibrous surface, right? That's certainly the logic that occurred at the time, and it's perfectly reasonable logic - wouldn't you agree?

Unfortunately, that proved too brittle. We tried; we failed. I am asking: would your solution have been "don't try"?

Irony?

[hunterx11]

If NASA were to offer a prize that would actually encourage extensive development of space-faring technology in the private sector, might that not have the side effect of marginalizing NASA's importance? Not that I see it as a bad thing per se, but from NASA's point of view it would be.

Can NASA learn from NSF and Darpa?

[FleaPlus]

I can't help but wonder if NASA would be more effective if it took on a model much more like NSF's or DARPA's. Instead of splitting up tasks between their own field centers and painstakingly managing everything, it could become more focused on providing funding to foster the nation's space infrastructure and using programs like Centennial Challenges to accomplish specific tasks. Existing NASA centers could compete for this funding just like other organizations like universities and private companies. Doing things in this manner would also limit NASA's PR liability in the event of catastrophe, keeping the space program from becoming completely paralyzed every time a disaster happens.

Of course, this would also limit the potential for pork-barrel spending, and would thus experience difficulties in actually becoming enacted.

Re:Can NASA learn from NSF and Darpa?

[JVert]

Indeed, imagine if NASA had the freedom to improve the internet. We could finally have those floating wifi balloons everyone is dreaming about.

Its okay IF

[alexborges]

NASA makes the rules so that all technology developed cannot be protected from use by NASA or maybe even international, government supported space programs.

Phisics will be phisics, electronics will be electronics, i just hope NASA doesnt lock ITSELF out of space.

Im not shure if this is ironic/strange/dumb .... its what i blurbed out.

NASA is still in shock...

[dtjohnson]

The successful suborbital flight of Space Ship One has left NASA in shock. Their first post-flight spin was that suborbital flight was not *that* big a deal and that orbital flight was waaaaay harder. Now they hint around about offering prizes of their own. The problem with NASA is not that they don't have smart people. The problem is that their bureaucracy tracks down and snuffs out any creative (read 'different') thinking before the words 'what if we tried...' are ever heard.

Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...to whoever develops the warp drive and twice that for the transporter.

How to deal with the red tape of going orbital?

[FleaPlus]

Presumably, in the near future we'll be seeing a variant of the X Prize for orbital flights; perhaps in the interim we'll see things like X Prizes for transcontinental flights.

I'm curious though: How can contestants be able to deal with all the liabilities which that entails? With the test flights of Scaled Composites and Armadillo Aerospace, before being allowed to fly they've had to make various government official certain that in a worst-case scenario their craft would remain within the testing zone. With orbital (or even transcontinental) flights, their flight range will have to extend beyond the testing zone and into inhabited areas (even other countries). Governments are able to test things like this because they can deal with the liability, but what about private companies?

Re:How to deal with the red tape of going orbital?

[Anonymous Coward]

But technically you won't be 'flying over' the other countries, once your in orbit. Space is international. Its not like you need overfly clearance like with an aircraft or a baloon. If pakistan or china or whoever shoots down your spacecraft for having an orbit above their country, thats going to be a big big problem.

You'll have to have a launch corridor that would be relatively clear of obstacles, but once out of the flight levels I would think the faa wouldn't have any say of what you do.

No, no no

[dbc001]

The government should not give $30 million dollars away for spaceflight when we have unemployment, poverty, unequal healthcare, violent crime, drug addiction, cancer, and AIDS - all of which would benefit *us* far more than space travel. Oh yeah and then there's also the fact that the market is taking care of the space thing already.

Re:No, no no

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! I did not realize that there was a one-shot $30M solution to unemployment, poverty, unequal healthcare, violent crime, drug addiction, cancer and AIDS. For another $30M could you also eliminate tuberculosis, radiation poisoning, cultural barriers, pay inequity, corrupt government and pollution?

Re:No, no no

[blaberski]

Their will always be some problem on the planet that will seem just as bad as all those things you mentioned (except for unemployment, you know you really should do some investigating, you will find out that unemployment rate really is not that bad at all). The question is do we let those problems which stop us from reaching for great things as a species?

Re:No, no no

[stanmann]

Well you know, if all the smart wealthy hard-working people go into space and start terraforming and colonizing, all that will be left on earth will be the sick, poor, criminals, Oh the Humanity.

If space colonization and exploration truly takes off, then It is likely that the rest of the world will start to look like india looked 50-100 years ago.

Re:No, no no

[Idarubicin]

...cancer...

The National Cancer Institute received just shy of five billion in funding in 2004; they're asking for six in 2005. Although I would like to see them receive more funding (I work in cancer research) I'm willing to cede an amount less than 1% of NCI's budget to other worthwhile projects.

Similarly, a great deal of money is spent in all the areas the parent poster lists. Does more need to be done? Certainly. Does that preclude any spending at all on anything else? Nope.

Further, this sort of prize will hopefully encourage additional spending by private industry far beyond the value of the prize--this has certainly happened with the X-Prize. If NASA can get a couple of private companies to develop competing orbital craft for a $100 million prize, rather than spending one billion of their own R&D dollars, isn't that money well spent?

NASA Surrenders

[tinrobot]

Quite honestly, I see this as NASA flat out admitting they can't do innovative development on the cheap.

Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.

He went sub-orbital on $20 million, I couldn't imagine what Rutan could do with a few hundred million. That's only a fraction of NASA's budget.

Re:NASA Surrenders

[delong]

Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.

That's mostly because the US government got there, oh, nearly 40 years ago.

SpaceshipOne is not innovative in any way technologically. It's revolutionary because for the first time, a non-governmental organization did it.

That said, the promise of Apollo was that we'd all be flying to vacations in space in no time. Well, here we are, 30 some odd years since the first Moon landing, and nothing. NASA can't open up the frontier. Private, profit making corporations will. I hope this is the start of the deluge.

Disgusting.

[aleonard]

This disgusts me. The Ansari family, and Peter Diamandis (I think) before them, took their hard-earned money to reward someone. NASA will take their "free" money (partially confiscated from any winner their prize would have, and from people like the Ansaris) and give it to someone who makes new craft. No thanks, I'd rather not take that blood money.

How long before NASA starts crying about how no private citizen should have the right to launch into space? That's the opinion they've held for ages, and now they have to get off their ass and try to codify it.

Losers. Death to NASA, glory to the new order.

Re:Disgusting.

[Idarubicin]

NASA will take their "free" money (partially confiscated from any winner their prize would have, and from people like the Ansaris) and give it to someone who makes new craft.

Quite right. If NASA has the choice of spending $1 billion to develop a new orbiter on their own, or giving ten, thirty, even a hundred million dollars in seed money to have several competitors develop it for them, that's a terrible way to spend money.

Why would it be wrong for NASA to save $900 million in R&D costs that can then be applied to doing hard science projects that are less appealing to the private sector? Why would people be upset if NASA pays a fixed reward for specified achievements, rather than doling out money-gushing cost-plus agreements?

Re:Disgusting.

[aleonard]

If NASA has the choice of spending $1 billion to develop a new orbiter on their own, or giving ten, thirty, even a hundred million dollars in seed money to have several competitors develop it for them, that's a terrible way to spend money.

Yes, either way is a terrible way to spend my money. If they made the money on their own, fine. But they didn't. I would rather they spend not one cent - not giving it to their competitors, and not spending it on another pricy boondoggle.

I don't want NASA to give ANY rewards. I want NASA to die, and make way for the private sector. The cynic in me says NASA wants to make private groups dependent on their "reward" money, and thus throw marketability to the wind. In the end, NASA wins.

Re:Disgusting.

[Idarubicin]

I don't want NASA to give ANY rewards. I want NASA to die, and make way for the private sector.

The private sector isn't going to do any basic space science research. There's no readily-apparent return on investment--certainly not within the quarterly or annual planning time frame that most market-beholden corporations seem to use, anyway.

Private industry will never build a supercollider, or a massive telescope, or send probes to Europa. Any project that doesn't have immediate, eminently-profitable spinoffs will never be conducted without public funding.

The cynic in me says NASA wants to make private groups dependent on their "reward" money...

Private groups are already dependent on NASA for money. Currently it's in bottomless cost-plus contracts to companies like Lockheed and Boeing. At least with the award structure, money is only paid out for results, the amount is fixed in advance, and the competition is open to anyone who wants to take a shot.

Governments regularly give incentives (in the form of grants or tax breaks) to encourage specific projects or industries. Why not do the same to encourage space exploration?

Re:Disgusting.

[aleonard]

Private industry will never build a supercollider, or a massive telescope, or send probes to Europa.

Oh no. What ever will we do without a probe to Europa sent now now now now? And why the hell should I pay for it? I am of the mind that universities and research institutions can someday privately finance such ventures - but not right now. And that does not make me against science at all. That makes me against squandering billions to do things right now now now.

Private groups are already dependent on NASA for money.

But not Scaled Composites. :)

Governments regularly give incentives (in the form of grants or tax breaks) to encourage specific projects or industries. Why not do the same to encourage space exploration?

And what gave you the impression that I was for ANY government "incentives?" No incentives at all, let God (the market) sort them out.

Not just a NASA problem, but

[quarkscat]

the incident you infer reference to was the loss of a NASA probe that didn't quite make it intact to Mars. Pretty darn hard to achieve the correct orbital parametrics with the differences between the two systems. It was not NASA but two different development teams working for a NASA contractor in Colorado that screwed up. One worked their part of the contract in metric units, and the other in English units. The project management never bothered to question the units worked in, nor provide the appropriate management oversight that would have discovered the anomalies. The result was the loss of a $250 million dollar Mars probe. I worked for that prime contractor, although not in that location, and not on that project. (Thank goodness.) Believe me, there was plenty of embarrassment to go around (including NASA.)

Re:Not just a NASA problem, but

[joeljkp]

Althought it's interesting to note that the fact they missed the conversion isn't the fatal mistake. It's that they failed to heed the continuing degradation of the flight path for months on its way to Mars.

Had they noticed (or bothered to do something about) the continuing errors in the trajectory, they could have easily corrected for the conversion factor.

In this sense, it was somewhat of a precursor to Columbia.

Re:Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money..

[Ghouki]

.i trust that the cheque is in the mail? .. http://www.local6.com/technology/3425929/detail.ht ml

Well I have to hand it to you...

[Baldrson]

Not only did you not post as "Anonymous Coward", you included what is presumably accurate information about your identity which allows us to see you're a lawyer. That's a higher standard of ethics than most would attribute to a lawyer these days.

Nevertheless, your argument is fairly poor. "Tiresome and pretentous twaddle" is more a literary critique than substantive critique. The fact is that you (presuming you are who you say you are) did choose the line of work I mentioned as "preferred" in a zero-sum environment.

Re:Well I have to hand it to you...

[ArsSineArtificio]

Nevertheless, your argument is fairly poor. "Tiresome and pretentous twaddle" is more a literary critique than substantive critique. The fact is that you (presuming you are who you say you are) did choose the line of work I mentioned as "preferred" in a zero-sum environment.

Well, in the first place, I'm a student, not a lawyer. It says so in my user profile.

In the second place, your response is merely an ad hominem attack. I have stated that your argument that diminished manned space exploration encouraged people not to become farmers or engineers is far-fetched. Your response is "people like you are not to be trusted". This does not do a great deal to buttress your conclusions.

Re:Well I have to hand it to you...

[Baldrson]

Your response is "people like you are not to be trusted".

No its not. My response is that you fit the model I put forth -- that in a zero-sum environment quality people are drawn to zero-sum professions. Now, I did compliment you on not posting anonymously and I did mean it for what the compliment was worth. The important thing to keep in mind is that the general tenor of the time tends to guide us in directions we might otherwise have not taken. That's not "far-fetched" at all. Nor is it far-fetched to complain that a lack of a viable space development industry has a big effect on "the general tenor of the time".

Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

sooooo, you want to create an industry where people start a school and then legally skim off the top?

If they can make a profit, sure.

you are aware that you can not run education like a business right?

This attitude is exactly the problem with educators. You must be one.

Private schools are run like businesses, one of the many reasons they work.

Meanwhile, we pour more wasted money into failed private schools.

Re:Dumb

[the_2nd_coming]

lets look at the situation....

in a private school, they can decided who gets in and who does not get in. they also have the right to get rid of any kid they deem to not be up to snuff. public education cannot do either of these things.

Safety Concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll field this one. The only danger is if they send us to that terrible Planet of the Apes. Wait a minute... Statue of Liberty...that was 'our' planet! You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

hrmmm

[ShadowRage]

Anyon else think this is nasa basically shitting its pants in the reaction of spaceshipone being successful?

you're damn right it is.

Now they wanna try getting innovators to innovate for them, since they're stuck, one catch though, they'll basically take your idea, give you half the money you deserve from it, and then they end up getting 10 times the funding and the control over space again. Just like any good monopoly over anything, they're trying to pull anything to ensure they keep their superiority and political rights over space. My science teacher did contract work for NASA and recalls it being the worst job he ever had, spending was horrible, and many people were underpaid, and only the higher ups made the most cash. it was a job you had to have a passion for, and NASA did a great job at killing a lot of people's passion for space. My teacher actually gets paid more for teaching than he did working for NASA. Sad as it is.

I dont think too many people will jump at this, because the x-prize is much more fun, and you get to keep your soul afterwards.

What we need is a rail gun to sent satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

My ideas - A whopping big rail gun - one that can send a capsule carrying satellite into orbit.
Probably power by a nuclear plant?

President Bush's plan

[iLEZ]

"President Bush's plan to send Americans back to the moon"
Yeah! That's were you belong! Damn yanks! ;)

Re:President Bush's plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you SURE that you want US to be up on the moon where it'd be much easier to rain down ballistic death on you?

?

300 years?

[Unknown Poltroon]

Dude, i could WALK there in 300 years. ITs like 4 light years to alpha centauri. Comon, give em a challenge, make it less than one lifetime at least.

10 million?

[Sunspire]

10 million dollars... What, did Nasa organize a little fund collection around the water cooler amongst employees or something?

Stop pussyfooting around, how about a billion dollars for the first commercial moon mission. Or maybe a couple hundred million for the first commercial reusable orbiter. NASA would blow through a billion just in administrative costs for designing something to replace the shuttle. And stop subsidizing payload launches, companies aren't going to develop alternatives while you're basically offering launches for half cost backed by the government. NASA should be driving new space development, not acting as a transport firm. Basically, after you've something a couple of times it's no longer ground breaking and should be spun off into the free market and new frontiers should be sought.

Jerry Pournelle has been there already

[BigTom]

He's talking about spaceships, spacestations and Lunar bases and he's talking real money

Re:Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money..

[eraserewind]

...to whoever develops the warp drive and twice that for the transporter.

Shouldn't you be go for the replicator first? By the time the other two are done you might have replicated enough dollar bills to actually pay for them.

uhhhh... HEEELLOOOO?

[Chris Deegan]

Do you know how much the US spends on WAR annually?!? If you dont then RTFM!

Soviets out of Space?

[dirt_puppy]

I guess that sentence expands to:

"Nasa was invented essentially to invent big rockets which can carry really bad bombs to soviet russia. After starting to threaten them, they will spend so much money on building big bad rockets that they cannot have a sensible space program and we can pretend it's all about scientific competition."

At least that's how I understand the whole story. The little wonder in there is that a Soviet "Science" (read: things that won't kill anyone directly) Space programm existed at budget levels orders of magnitude below the US-american...

$2m of which goes to paperwork

[chiph]

What's the use of winning $10m if you have to spend 20% of it on paperwork for NASA and the people needed to shuffle it around?

Chip H.

A soft landing

[confused one]

is one where your instrument package survives. If the landing kills your instruments (or the passengers) then it definitely wasn't a "soft landing"

Remember the old axiom: "any landing you can walk away from, is a good landing."

Re:Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money..

[jpvlsmv]

I'll double your "twice that" for a replicator.

--Joe

If Bush does manage to bring in more private..

[Anonymous Coward]

enterprises the next 20 or 30 years will see some major advances in space travel. If he doesn't get reelected, Kerry will divert that funding to social programs.

We will see soon enough either a space and tech boom or the end of the middle class.

Re:If Bush does manage to bring in more private..

[joeljkp]

You know, I'm a big anti-Bush and pro-Kerry supporter, but this guy's got a point. If Kerry campaigns on a platform to get rid of the new "space race", I may have to rethink my stand. This is one thing I thank Bush for (although it's not a set deal that Gore wouldn't have done it if he were in the same situation).

money to burn

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, compatible with Bush's handouts of billions of dollars to anyone burning tons of fuel.

i know the reason about the mars/beagle problem

[LifesABeach]

i believe that the beagle on mars is STILL working perfectly. i own two beagles and can completely understand that when you try to call them, they run away even faster. what is still perplexing to me is that were beagles wonder to is kind of interesting.

success for retrieving beagles begins by opening a bag dog treats. then the beagles will do what ever it takes to get to that bag of treats.

good luck, and god speed to the next beagle landing.

Here's my plan.

[DJdeli]

In my opinion, here's what NASA should do:

1. Get those shuttles off the ground again to finish the ISS.
2. When the ISS is done, scrap the shuttles.

Meanwhile:
3. NASA has deep pockets. Let them give out all the prize money they want. I mean, it will benefit private business, right? But that's it, just prize money. We still want private firms to be self-sufficient.
4. Focus almost entirely on new scientific research instead of engineering and craft construction, and pass the knowledge on to the private firms. Leave the firms to do all the engineering for practical means and manufacture whatever they see fit.

Re:Here's my plan.

[DJdeli]

Also, I do realize that NASA was going to do the first two things already, no need to point that out. But what I'm saying is, no more 'made by NASA' spacecraft. Let NASA provide the science, everyone else do the planning.

Re:Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money..

[centauri]

I'm offering my first-born son for the holodeck.

Re:Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money..

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Well I'm offering my very own body to the first beautiful woman who can demonstrate a working communicator to me.

Spaceship1 still way short of being really useful.

[julian_el]

The maximum speed of spaceshipOne was about 3000 MpH, but to get into orbit you need about (from memory) something like 15000 MPH. that's 5 times as fast.. from basic physics, you need 25 times the energy (*). And that doesn't include the energy needed to accelerate the extra fuel...

SpaceshipOne is a nice toy but it's not going to help in real problems such as getting stuff into orbit. That takes a whole extra order of magnitude of effort. It'd be nice if the prize led to somone figuring out how to get around THAT problem..

(*) Most low orbits seem to be about 90+ minutes for a 24,000 mile circumference.. A higher orbit can travel slower, but you need more fuel to get higher....

I guess spaceshipOne might be able to get a 50g package into orbit if it had a linear accelerator or something strapped to it and shot it out at 15000 Mph in the right direction.. but even that'd be pretty damned heavy.

I want Arthur.C.Clark's space elevator dammit!