Slashdot Mirror
NASA Prize Program Releases Workshop Report
colonist writes "NASA's prize competitions program, Centennial Challenges, held its first workshop June 15-16, 2004 to brainstorm ideas, define rules and set prize amounts. The post-workshop report (PDF) is available. New ideas for challenges should be sent to <ccideas@hq.nasa.gov>. The Centennial Challenges program is supported by the X Prize Foundation, the Aldridge Commission and some members of Congress, but not all."
Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun?
It would be a complete gas! That is, as long as we use Nuclear Rockets. I *don't* want to have the travelers sitting around for a year and a half while they wait to get to their destination. A NERVA rocket (1960's tech!) could get the astronauts there faster and cheaper. If properly developed, it could even make Mars trips practical.
Personally, I'm thinking that NASA needs to be financially broken down by:
- Science (Deep Space Probes, etc.)
- Engineering (New *cough* propulsion methods)
- Vehicles and Launch Support
Congress would fund each of these individually, according to their needs. This way the long term projects (Remote Terrestrial Observation, or exploring Europa) would not be confused with shorter term projects (vehicle design) and Congress won't can the projects because "they're taking too much time and money".
In addition, Congress can then see a very real return on the money they spend. Invest in a new engine, see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a vehicle (must be based on existing components put out by the engineering department) and see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a science probe and see the results 10 years later (as the plan calls for).
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Remember these are prizes, meaning a contest of many parallel efforts which if NASA attempted would surely exceed budgets. It's like paying for a product, not the r&d of all efforts - which is what nasa has essentially been doing (10-30 mill "in house" wouldn't buy very much). No matter how you look at considering all facts, 10-30 mil isn't shit when considering the product produced. Especially when you consider NASA products normally cost amounts that begin with "B". C'mon - just think about the X-prize; 10 million for a reusable spacecraft? How much do you think Nasa would spend on the same endeaver. I would guess SEVERAL *B*illion.
ymmv
It is rather sad that it took two accidents to see that they really did need a new space craft.
It didn't take the accidents for NASA to see that they needed new spacecraft. Many at NASA knew long ago that new spacecraft were needed. Some argued for new spacecraft, but they were opposed by those who said 1.) it'd cost too much and 2.) that since the old fleet was still functioning well, they could still be flown even though the age of the craft was past what they were originally designed. Many people thought new spacecraft were needed, but some thought it wasn't practical at the time especially since there had been very few major catastrophies.
My point is that many at NASA understood that new spacecraft were needed. The accidents didn't make them realize this. What the accidents did was take away the argument that the old equipment could still work well despite being older than what the original design specifications stated.