Win the X-Prize Cup

fitten writes "CNN is reporting that the X-Prize competition may become an annual event. From the site: 'Hoping to build on the momentum sparked by a private rocket plane's dash into space, supporters of opening the heavens to civilians are turning the winner-take-all race into an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations.'"

Comments

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think each year would water the thing down. Much like any other contest that is expensive.

Why not every 4 years? Even 3 would work. This way, it would give people more time to work on even better designs, perhaps even alternative fuel methods for reaching space.

And that would rock.

Re:Bad idea

[zenofjazz]

Actually, the idea at this point, I think, is to give the other teams, (some of whom were VERY close to being ready to fly) a reason to keep working towards the goal.. if you delay it 3-4 years, then what does Davinci have, to keep them going? Motivate the other teams to launch, and prove their technology as soon as possible, and show that they're better (or equal to) Scaled Composites. Of the 20 odd teams that were competing for the X prize, 2-3 are more or less ready to try... and several more could be, within another year. The more space-related stuff stays in the news, the more "commercial utilization" of space is going to be top of mind. Tourism... Microsat launches, you name it.

Re:Bad idea

[Rei]

Wake me up when they get anywhere close to orbit and the associated huge technical hurdles that SS1 doesn't even come close to addressing.

I know people like to refer to it as a stopping point, but what sort of stopping point is a craft built of epoxy with a heavy 250 ISP engine? Exactly what are they going to reuse - the ship's computer?

It's just advertizing and a joy ride; it's not some sort of stepping stone (at least in the technical sense).

Re:Bad idea

[stormfish]

It's all fun and games until someone reaches escape velocity.

Re:Bad idea

[kfg]

The America's Cup races are held every four years, primarily because it's a technical series and it takes that long to raise the money, build and develop a boat.

Something to think about though, SpaceShipOne only cost about as a much as a well funded, front running 12 meter yacht program.

If you can scrap up the moolah it's now a legitmate choice, boat or space ship.

KFG

Re:Bad idea

[jdray]

In Scaled Composite's defense, none of the others will ever be their equal, nor better, for the mere fact that SC did it first. Others may eventually overcome SC's design, go higher, have faster turnaround, etc. However, Rutan and co. did it first. Having said all that, I agree with you; I think that annual competitions for different challenges will keep the development going. Highest, fastest, most passengers, whatever, just so the minimum altitude is 100 km.

Re:Bad idea

[jbrelie]

I would say every 5 years. Tech like this takes time to develop.

If nothing else, look at the olympics. Every 4 (2) years is a bit too often to get me excited about it, so my video rental expenses skyrocket during these times.

Re:Bad idea

[D-Cypell]

I suspect that the other teams would continue for the finicial benefits.

Im pretty sure the $10Mil prize did little to cover the full development costs of spaceship one. The real money is in the IP.

How exclusive are these Branson plans?

IMHO we dont need any further 'prizes' to ignite this competition, the fires are burning brightly already.

Perhaps a major prize for major milestones, first orbit, the moon....

Re:Bad idea

[fakeplasticusername]

A good compromise might be:
Next year they run as planned, but after that, 4 year increments. That way all the losing teams that are almost done with their designs still get to compete.

Re:Bad idea

[randall_burns]

Why not shoot for orbital? Carmack's stuff looks like he's going in that direction.

Re:Bad idea

[f00zy]

Because different teams work on different schedules. This isn't a beauty pagent.

Re:Bad idea

[N3WBI3]

I think this should be worked in. But they are considering that they are making over all altitude a part of the equation I think they are covering that. Keep in mind it took these teams years to acheive what they have which is a fraction of the altitude needed for orbital flight.

What they should do is run the "x-cup" for five years (maybe raise the ceiling for qualification every year) and start another prize for orbital flight now (x-prize2). I dont know how this would affect the draw of one (x-cup) or the other (X-prize2).

Re:Bad idea

[N3WBI3]

I think that they spent about 25 Million, given that they won ten and got a contract for over twenty in virgin I think they will more than make their money back..

Re:Bad idea

[bartash]

Not sure if this is a joke. Isn't excape velocity the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to leave Earth? But these rockets have propulsion, they could move at 10MPH as long as they keep going for long enough.

Re:Bad idea

[f00zy]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think other teams will keep working because the prize doesn't really matter. What matters is building a vehicle to hit space. That, in and of itself, seems like a big reward. Then add in the space tourism bucks.... The X-Prize was a carrot, but not a particularly big one given the costs involved.

Re:Bad idea

[yiantsbro]

"...none of the others will ever be their equal, nor better, for the mere fact that SC did it first..."

I guess that would explain why "Wright Brothers Air, Inc." is the world's largest and most profitable airline...no, wait a sec...

Re:Bad idea

[Progoth]

Wake me up when they get anywhere close to orbit and the associated huge technical hurdles that SS1 doesn't even come close to addressing.

I know people like to refer to it as a stopping point, but what sort of stopping point is a craft built of epoxy with a heavy 250 ISP engine? Exactly what are they going to reuse - the ship's computer?

story after story you keep on posting this, and yet you don't prove it and nobody's backed you up. Nobody's gone against you either, of course, at least that I've seen.

Let's see some more details

Re:Bad idea

[JQuick]

You claim that this is not a stepping stone toward any useful goal, that's it's "just advertising and a joy ride". Nothing less than cheap access to orbit is worthy of interest.

I agree with you that short, sub-orbital flight is only directly good for joy rides, and advertising. Beyond this however I disagree with you entirely. No offense, but I think you're missing the point.

Why? Because advertising and joy rides are the key to unlocking a revenue stream which can move us toward more useful goals.

Currently the only significant source of direct income from the private sector comes from launching satellites. This is a large source of revenue, but one which is neither very elastic, nor one which places demands on those who provide lift to significantly change the status quo. The cost of launching most satellites is but a fraction of the total cost. Adding together insurance, interest payments and other opportunity costs for capital, they are extraordinarily expensive objects even if launch costs are ignored. The market is narrow and capital intensive.

The result is that the market puts little pressure on firms to lift significantly larger payloads, either measured in volume or in mass. Incrementally reducing cost per pound on existing orbital launch systems would not be likely to increase the demand significantly. The risk of modifying these systems incrementally is simply not justified by the risk or the return on near term capital investment. Worst, no private income stream currently encourages development of manned missions at all.

The X-prize cup goal is provide direct incentive for innovation in manned space transport. It does so by providing a mechanism for directly infusing private capital into manned vehicles in ways that are much more flexible, much more elastic, and which result in pressure on potential space transportation designers to increase both aggregate and per launch lift capacity. The first prize was designed to promote competition in developing an inexpensive re-usable sub-orbital vehicle for carrying passengers. This will generate income in 2 ways. Advertisers will pay to be associated with the product and services provided by commercial users. Passengers able to afford a the ride will provide a significant on-going stream of revenue.

The passenger revenue is highly elastic. at the price of $200K per head, about 6,000 have already expressed serious interest in riding Virgin Galactic. 1.2 billion is nothing to sneeze at. If the price were $100K, that number would rise rapidly. As the price continues to lower, more and more passengers will be able and willing to afford even a sub-orbital jaunt. I'm not wealthy, but I would certainly drive crappy used cars for 5-10 years in return for a trip to space.

The X-prize cup is an annual event, Competitors will vie each year to travel greater distances downrange, achieve higher altitude, launch the most times during the event, carry the largest payloads, etc. The organizers expect that an X-prize competitor will achieve orbital capability in 5-8 years. That apparently would interest you.

In the past 30 years we've gone backwards not forwards. Aside from X-prize vehicles (both Scaled Composites and the 20 or so other contenders), the only manned space vehicles we have are based on designs form the 1960s and 1970s. Huge lift capacity died with apollo.

Without advertising and joy rides to both fund that development and promote competition, how do you propose we get there?

Re:Bad idea

[paul_nz]

actually Team NZ were trying to get $100M US for their next challenge so X-prize becomes positively cheap looking at it that way. And compared to new 747 size plane at around $200M and upwards - wouldn't be surprised if some of the bigger airlines would consider financing these ventures - Richard Branson can't have all the tourism market....

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The America's Cup races are held every four years, primarily because it's a technical series and it takes that long to raise the money, build and develop a boat.


What are you smoking? The AC races are held whenever they've decided to hold the next one. There is no set schedule. Remember the Big Boat Challenge? (aka, the Aircraft Carrier vs the Wing Cat)

Re:Bad idea

[kfg]

The AC races are held whenever they've decided to hold the next one.

Or when the courts decide they should hold the next one. Welcome to modern times. Feel free to add an "or so" to "every four years" if you like.

And, of course, the current cup races are contested in IACC boats, not 12s.

KFG

Re:Bad idea

[essreenim]

I agree that orbit and alternative fuel etc. have to be long term goals but in the short term, maximimum passengers etc. sounds more useful if space tourism is the goal. They need to be able to charge passengers for the near space option before they can make money and get space flight established in the world. Then they can start to push the bar out to orbit and beyond.

Meanwhile:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said President Bush called to congratulate the SpaceShipOne team. Astronauts aboard the international space station also sent their best wishes.

Why does he get McLellan do do his bidding. I hope he is not trying to leverage this as a Republican achievement. Bush's space policy involves funding NASA'a overpriced mission to Mars nonsense - something which is so expesive and unneeded -(like war in Iraq) that it could potentially turn tax payers off space travel for good. THese X-prize guys are the reverse of this..
It's spelled s-p-a-c-e mister president.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should continually set the bar higher in order to receive a prize, like further or longer out in space, bigger payloads, promoting safety for the crafts.

Re:Bad idea

[KeoghX]

While the prize money and contract with Branson cover what they have already spent in development of SS1, the contract is for a bigger version. Being able to fit more passengers onboard is likely going to mean needing to do a lot of R&D work updating the design. So they have made their money back for SS1, but they will likely need to spend even more to get a passenger version up and running.

Re:Bad idea

[randall_burns]

They'll probably make money on space ship one-but I think whoever gets to orbital first will make a whole bunch _more_ money. My own main concern here: the space tourism stuff may have some accidents(i.e. like Hindenberg) that will turn folks off from the idea of commercial space development even though these suborbital technologies are rather different than what you need to go orbital.

Re:Bad idea

[pete-classic]

Escape velocity decreases as your distance from the surface increases. Eventually 10MPH (Gee, thanks for using Imperial units.) is escape velocity.

-Peter

Re:Bad idea

[Rei]

Story after story, I've also stated the reasons why. With an ISP of 250 and the heavy tank requirements for nitrous as an oxidizer, it's a textbook example of something that *won't* scale. Point me to a single rocket that has made it to orbital space with no ISP better than 250 and with gas-pressurized tanks (i.e., no turbopump), and I'll bake you a dozen cookies. :)

There have been hundreds of rocket designs built with gas pressurized tanks and low ISPs. There have been hundreds of rocket designs built that have made it to orbit. The two sets don't intersect, and for a reason: the lower the ISP, the larger the exponent on the exponential growth curve for the required mass of your rocket.

Re:Bad idea

[Rei]

Actually, you made a good point (unlike most of the other posters in this thread). The potential revenue stream could drive further development. One of the unfortunate things, however, is that many parts for large-scale rocketry (unlike, say, cars) are not interchangable. You can't grab a turbopump off the shuttle and stick it on a Saturn V, for example. So, developing one line of rockets won't necessarily help with someone else's rocket development line, unless you're doing materials research, which most small rocket firms wouldn't be capable of.

Still, even if the existance of such an industry merely helps encourage the government to increase NASA's materials research budget so that the small-scale private firms have access to better thermal protection systems, higher ISP fuels, more reusable nozzles, etc, it would be worth it.

Re:Bad idea

[Rei]

First off, I'm not sure about your cost for a new 747, seing as a 777 generally costs about 70 mil new. I've looked at used prices, and you can get a 25,000 cycle 747 for about 2 mil$. If you don't need a 747 specifically (they're sort of "name brand"), you can get a better deal.

A 747 carries ~90,000 kg of payload across half the US. SS1, should it try for distance instead of altitude, would probably carry its ~300 kg of payload for around 100 miles or so.

Don't hold your breath ;)

Re:Bad idea

[essreenim]

I disagree with Hindenberg hysteria theory.
People still travel in zeppelins - they are cool
Air ships were superceded by long range passenger aircraft (faster) more than it being a safety issue..

Re:Bad idea

[JQuick]

You are correct. It's not a mix and match environment. Current X-prize competitors are focusing on a wide range of different engines, fuels, and components. Even if they were all working on traditional LOX + kerosene or LOX + hydrogen, many components are complex enough to demand significant effort to re-use in other designs.

People like XCOR, working on far less expensive, more traditional designs, can significantly advance the state of the art.

Its too early to tell what will happen.

However, before X-prize was announced in the late 90s, nobody in the world was working on manned space beyond crew return vehicles. Having manned space flight back on the table is wonderful.

Getting the big players out of the loop also helps. Military, Big Science, and government interests don't have a vested interest in manned space per se. (Manned space flight is there only as an adjunct to other goals.)

Although this might cause NASA budgets to be re-architected to funnel more R&D money to material science, I believe that the opposite might occur. Perhaps, NASA will reduce those budgets and start awarding contracts to some of these startups.

Neither NASA nor any of the big aerospace firms would have gotten approval for the kind of rapid development that Scaled Composites and many others, have managed. Think about it, Rutans SS1/SS2, has had only 6 powered flights. 3 of them were to space! Though further testing and analysis would be required for integrating components into more massive designs, the R&D budget of ~$30 million, would barely make prototype stage (let alone off the ground) in more traditional big aerospace organizations.

Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[mOoZik]

Bigelow's $50 Mil Space Prize

The Slashdot editors refused to publish my submission, but I think this is much more interesting than repeating the X-Prize year after year, despite the innovation that will come from such an endeavor.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[tool462]

That's because it was posted here last week.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Rei]

I'll second this. As far as the public is concerned, anything less than orbital is a joyride unless it costs less than 10,000$ and can travel around the world (in which case it becomes a replacement for long distance airplane flights).

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[mOoZik]

Ah, thank you for that. :)

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[jdray]

Actually, that's a good point. Has Rutan made any pronouncements about what the point to point range of his vehicle is? FedEx might have a market opportunity.

"East cost packages in by 2:00 p.m. delivered to L.A., S.F. or Seattle by 2:00 p.m."

Three hours should be enough time, right?

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[LiquidCoooled]

Tool462, before I begin, props to you of course for clarifying the guys point.

Now, would you be interested in a change of career?

We could put you inside a nice cosy server box, and wheel you into Slashdot-HQ.

Whenever an article is submitted, the editors will punch in the title and you can snope out any dupes.

Of course, we would have to relicense you to the GPL, and you would possibly be drawn into the hurd, but we never said this job was easy.

You name would be: YAT (Yet Another Tool).

You could be a real trojan horse, and help secure victory for the Geeks.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[jumpingfred]

Are you saying it was not posted because it would have been a dupe? Do you read the same site as I do?

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Rei]

Yeah, and only 2,000$ per pound, and with a 1% chance of your package being incinerated in the upper atmosphere!

But to answer your question... no. SpaceShipOne couldn't go that far point to point. At 100km, it could make it that far if it *also* had a velocity of ~7800 m/s at that altitude.

However, on the subject of deliveries, it does remind me of something else. I had a friend who worked as a translator for the army during the cold war. She took part in the inspections of one of those regular disarmament agreements, in which both sides agreed to destroy so many missles, and then used it as an excuse to get PR while scrapping their old missiles that they didn't wany any more. The inspectors were there to probe into any space small enough to possibly hide a treaty-limited item.

Well, over there, she got to talking to the Russian equivalent of a (Colonel? I forget what she told me). Anyway, she mentioned to him how much of a waste it was, to see these complex pieces of machinery that can go anywhere in the world in half an hour just be scrapped. She told him about how she had done calculations, and that you could retrofit an ICBM, fuel and launch it, and use it as an intercontinental pizza delivery system. You put the raw pizzas in the top, and they're cooked on reentry, and then the pizza "warhead" parachutes down. If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.

According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Oggust]

If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.

According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

And that, right there, is why the west won the cold war.

/August.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Rei]

I don't know... they took a more pragmatic approach to things. For example, when the US inspection teams were sent over, they were given a laser measuring device to determine if an area was large enough that they were allowed to inspect it. A nice, fancy piece of equipment.

The Soviets were really impressed; they sent their teams over to the US with something different: a stick. Literally, a piece of wood cut to the length that was the minimum dimension. If the stick fit, they could inspect.

Different cultures, different solutions ;)

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[jdray]

This sounds a lot like that old wives tale about the US and their $10,000 ink pen that would write in zero g, and the Russians just used a pencil.

Pencils, by the way, shed particulate matter that you don't want careening around your space station getting stuck in things, no matter how small the bits are.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Rei]

Well, seing as she has pictures from the trip, I seriously doubt it ;) Now, she doesn't have a picture of the military officer looking at her like she's insane, mind you ;)

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Anonymous Coward]

(assuming you don't have to pay for the missile)

That's the problem, Russia is limited by international treaties on how many government built ICBMs it can put on the commercial market per year. Insane suggestion.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[abb3w]

According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

And that, right there, is why the west won the cold war.

Of course, this does not mean the Russian was wrong.
And that in turn does not mean that you are wrong.

American engineers make absolutely no consideration as to whether an idea is sane when first considering whether an idea is possible... which is both a strength and weakness to our system. A weakness, since we waste a LOT of effort on some really silly things. A strength, because we figure out how to do some really cool and useful stuff in the process.

Step 1: Is it even possible?
Step 2 (hopefully): Is it immoral, or otherwise a really bad idea?
Step 3: Can I convince someone to pay for me to work on this?
Step 4: Can we make money doing it?
Step 5: Profit! =)
Step 6: How can we do it better/faster/cheaper?

Inter-Continental Ballistic Pizza. Hmm... even if we can't start the company, someone should start selling the T-Shirts for it. "From the Cold War to Hot Pizza-- delivery to anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes." I'd buy one. =)

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[el_benito]

According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

Riiight... If you want to support this, go right ahead, but then I'm going to have to vote for Bush's Pizza Defense System and we don't want that now. Do we?

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Rei]

Rachel McBee, Minneapolis, MN. Look her up in a phone book.

If you have any specific questions about her work, I could answer based on what she's told me and what I saw in the pictures from the trip (where she went, what she ate, etc), but if I don't know the answer, you'll have to talk with her directly.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[ripsnorta]

Pity that it isn't an international competition.

Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize

[Teancum]

You actually missed the biggest news in that article, rather than the $50 million prize:

"One of the primary contenders for the abovementioned X Prize is expected to be a Canadian group known as the Da Vinci Team. It turns out that the primary sponsor of the Da Vinci effort is a casino--the Golden Palace Online Casino, founded in 1997 in the Mohawk terriroty of Canada."

Now that really is news. :)

Hey

[lucabrasi999]

maximum number of passengers per launch

Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

Re:Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

She already IS on a rocket... That I know very well... huhuhuhuhuuhu....

Re:Hey

[Dr Caleb]

Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

Sorry bud, it says SpaceShipOne can only carry the weight of two normal men.

Re:Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

I agree. Can we put his wife on that rocket?

Re:Hey

[lucabrasi999]

She already IS on a rocket... That I know very well... huhuhuhuhuuhu....

Hey, thanks! Less work for me! After you are finished, can you go in the back yard and fix the fence? I'm busy trying to overcome my video game addiction.

Re:Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

I love that his is modded insightful.

Re:Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

Sour grapes.

She refused to sleep with you, eh?

Re:Hey

[roman_mir]

Parent is insightful?

I get it! The moderators are from space and they desperately need women!

(Much like /. I suppose)

Re:Hey

[advocate_one]

would that be "Earth" normal or "American" normal??? GDR

What about safety?

[BrewerDude]

Does anyone else think that this is a high-profile accident waiting to happen? A lot of the events mentioned there are about pushing the evelope in terms of speed or capacity. Once enough teams start participating, I'm wondering whether some will sacrifice their safety margin in an attempt to one-up the competition.

The last thing we need is a catastrophic accident that causes a knee-jerk overregulation response from congress.

Re:What about safety?

[Rei]

Nod... and Rutan has really been pushing his luck. Launching in 40+ mph winds? That's crazy.

When he claimed to have solved the roll problem, and then it rolled again, I looked for a wall to hit my head into. At least it didn't roll during the prize-winning flight....

Re:What about safety?

[kfg]

I'm wondering whether some will sacrifice their safety margin in an attempt to one-up the competition.

Of course, hang gliders, surfers, rock climbers, downhill mountain bikers, blue water sailers, et al do it, and die, every day.

So long as they're privately funded and aren't a danger to the general public, 'tain't nobody's business but their own.

God protect us from NerfWorld(tm).

KFG

Re:What about safety?

[Rei]

> God protect us from NerfWorld(tm)

Private funding, protect us from GodWorld(tm)

Re:What about safety?

[kfg]

. . protect us from GodWorld(tm)

Too late already I'm afraid.

KFG

Re:What about safety?

[mikael]

Just like the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. To make this year even better than last year, for each show the organisers flew military aircraft not just over a capital city, a vast crowd of spectators, but over a royal residence as well just for extra measure.

Re:What about safety?

[metlin]

Hmm, ofcourse accidents can and will happen.

Consider how air-travel started out - there were quite a lot of crashes initially, and it took a while before things stabilized. And in the process, we learnt a lot on how things worked.

See, until mistakes are made, there is no scope for us to learn and improve. The safest paths always lead down to stagnation :)

Ofcourse, I'm not saying that we need to go and let people die in the process - merely that unless we try, we would not know. Maybe we will fail occasionally, maybe we will not - but there can be no progress without effort, and no success without the occasional failure.

Just my opinion, ofcourse.

Re:What about safety?

[SiO2]

Does anyone else think that this is a high-profile accident waiting to happen?

This is interesting. Consider the disasters that befell both the Columbia and Challenger shuttles, while also taking into account the extensive and redundant safety precautions NASA takes with each launch.

How many redundant systems does the shuttle and associated support technology have? I once told my boss that we needed two redundant clusters to ensure that our mission-critical application that essentially runs the university where I am employed would be fail-safe. He replied, "We're not NASA."

Considering the bureaucratic plethora of checks and blances that NASA has in place to ensure safety and the relatively vast resources at NASA's hands, I have to wonder what these startup, entrepreneurial companies are using to ensure safety.

As one poster noted, it's not about winning the X Prize. It's about licensing the IP. Are these teams loose cannons? If so, good for them. Thanks for pushing the boundaries. However, I question the ethics of putting the general public space tourist at risk for a buck.

That doesn't necessairly mean that I wouldn't sign up for the trip if I had the disposable funds.

SiO2

Re:What about safety?

[calica]

That doesn't necessairly mean that I wouldn't sign up for the trip if I had the disposable funds.

That is exactly the point. Even questioning the safety measures, you would do it. Its just the matter of funds. Me, I could but it isn't worth it. Both from a risk (I don't want to make my wife a widow) and cost (I have better ways to spend six figures) standpoint. Wow, I'm getting old. A few years ago I'd have my deposit in.

Re:What about safety?

[Joecuba]

Fsak safety! Tell you what, you know that the people that fly these things also build them, manage the company etc? These people are producing very interesting designs with not a 'lot' of money (in going-to-space terms), then getting in and riding them into space! This is the kind of shit that rich, intelegent people should be doing with their time, its so much better than a lot of other crap that goes on in the world.

Re: What about safety?

[gidds]

But it's a risky business! As someone once said, you take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the road, or sticking your face in a fan.

It's not as if the pilots don't know what they're letting themselves in for; and just like movie stuntmen or bomb disposal experts or soldiers, they choose to do it anyway. Who are we to stop them?

Of course we should aim for a reasonable degree of safety; and by the time we have commercial spaceflight, there may well need to be legislation, just as for other forms of transport. But not before.

This is a challenge. If it doesn't turn out a little bit risky, then you're not working hard enough. If we insist on perfect safety, we'll never go anywhere; humanity will have reached middle age, got 'comfortable', and given up all hopes of growing beyond this planet...

Re:What about safety?

[petersam]

Agreed. Look at the book called "To Design is Human". It covers the role of failure in improving our ability to design successful structures. The book is somewhat long winded though.

Good or bad? Time will tell.

[eddy]

"into an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations."

Yeah, like the Loebner Prize?

Or maybe not.

Too Long Between Events

[geomon]

Everyone in marketing knows that repetition is the key to creating a permanent impression.

They need to have an X-Cup every 6 months to keep the interest alive.

A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too.

Just like NASCAR.

Re:Too Long Between Events

[chaffed]

A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too. Just like NASCAR.

This is a very valid point. Maybe made in the least subtle way possible but still a valid point.

I fear the parent maybe moded down as troll. I ask those with mod points to seriously consider the validity and insightliness of the quoted comments.

Re:Too Long Between Events

[Rei]

That is a good point.

If a couple people die trying, the audience would love it.

Make it like NASCAR - every 6 months have an X-Cup.

Repitition is important when you're trying to make a lasting impression.

Re:Too Long Between Events

[cfuse]

A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too.

New rule for next X-Prize: to be judged sucessful, entries must now carry 3 people and 200 pounds of TNT.

Vehicle Challenge

[flyboy974]

I would suggest that the next XPrize be a vehicle challenge.

Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles. No stop may last longer than 15 minutes.

This would essentially emulate a family driving in any EU or N. American country. All while driving a stake through the Oil companies hearts.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[geomon]

Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles.

Excellent idea. Pushing the boundaries of engineering and science at the same time.

All while driving a stake through the Oil companies hearts.

You have just defeated yourself.

The light-weight composites that you rely on for building your zero-emmissions car are derived from petrochemicals.

There is only one "oil" company left - Texaco. All the rest have been in the chemical market for decades.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles. No stop may last longer than 15 minutes.

Given a 10 million dollar X-prize, anybody could do this. But we already have a reward waiting for anyone than can mass produce one for $15,000, don't we? Don't forget though, you have to pass all the safety and performance criteria too...

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[kesuki]

Not to mention states like minnesota are proposing that fuel be 70% ethanol... of course, that's the corn growing lobby being stronger than the oil lobby, but hey, ethanol does burn cleaner, and is renewable. Even though ethanol burning vehicles have been in sci-fi since the 50s who would have ever thought that ethanol burning vehicles would need to be no different from conventional gasoline engines, by simply cutting the ethanol with a little gasoline...

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[maxm]

Then you should rather donate a sum to the "The Methuselah Mouse Prize" at ttp://www.methuselahfoundation.org/prize.asp

You can do it right now, it's better than space flight.

Heck it's even better for your future health than buying homeopathetic medicine.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[zx75]

Not quite 1000 miles in a day, closer to 500km per day, but still rather impressive.

A 15,000km 40day world record tour of Canada and the US.

http://midsun.uwaterloo.ca/tour/tour_news/

And proud to say it was my university that did it.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[The One and Only]

I don't see why the oil companies would complain about ethanol. Ethanol comes from corn. Corn is harvested with diesel tractors, isn't it?

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[drinkypoo]

Ethanol made from Corn is not energy-positive. It would probably be better to make it from hemp or something. You can make plastics from hemp, too. Note that this is separate from my fervor on the subject of legalizing marijuana :P I'm just talking about hemp here.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[drinkypoo]

My understanding is that we already have negative emissions vehicles capable of doing this sort of thing, burning hydrogen. The air filter in the vehicle actually removes crap from the air and the air leaves cleaner than it enters. The only thing missing is the hydrogen infrastructure.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[plastik55]

Correction: Ethanol made from corn was not energy-positive in the 1970's. Today, it is.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Rei]

And where does the hydrogen come from?

Oil.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[drinkypoo]

Citation? And how does it compare to feedstocks which WERE energy-positive in the 1970s, today?

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[drinkypoo]

That's not necessarily true, but it is the most likely scenario today. In the long term it would probably be best to use solar or (gasp) nuclear to disassociate water for the hydrogen. I'm not necessarily suggesting that hydrogen is the way to go, I think that biodiesel would be a much better idea, or maybe ethanol. Biodiesel isn't zero pollution obviously but it's less polluting than fossil-fuel diesel fuels, plus it requires no new technology which means we could start implementing it right now. Biodiesel can be mixed right in with regular diesel so we could even start selling 50/50 mix. Admittedly some cars would need seal and hose retrofit work but I think it's worth it.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Colin Smith]

There's a US government paper on it, the link's been posted to /. a number of times but I've forgotten it. You're right though, there are better crops to use for biomass. The Brazilians have been using sugarcane for decades, and the Hawaiian government have some good papers describing the relative merits of different crops.

http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/ethanol/

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[plastik55]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/

Some other ethanol crops such as sugar cane work better, however sugar cane is limited to growing in semi-tropical conditions.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Rei]

*Sigh*, how long is it going to take people to catch up on the news concerning ethanol? Everyone except Pimental (who used obsolete data and had his work denounced by the USDA as fundamentally unsound) that has been conducted studies in the past decade has concluded that the current energy blanace for ethanol over 30%. Greater than the energy put in - and that's not necessarily using optimal tech. The DoE got 35% more. MSU got 56% more. Etc. I mean, for God's sake, can't you use google?

However, even if it wasn't producing more energy than you put in, that is still irrelevant.

Look at it this way: during World War II, the Nazis made oil from coal. They put in many times more energy into making the oil from coal than they got out of it. In fact, by basic physics, if your energy source is coal, and you're processing the coal into another form using that energy, you're going to end up with less energy.

But the nazis still produced it. Why? Because they turned a non-mobile source of energy into a mobile one.

The same holds true here. You can't use corn in an internal combustion engine. You can't use agricultral waste that often gets burned to help heat the vats in your car. You can't use that coal-produced electricity in your car (and if you get an electric car, you have conversion efficiency issues). Etc. However, you can use ethanol in an internal combustion engine. Plus, there are byproducts from the process that are used in animal feed.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[drinkypoo]

It's all well and good to recycle the waste but the question is whether or not it's worth growing more corn to improve ethanol production and I think the answer is going to turn out to be no, there are better ways to go about it.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Derek Pomery]

Guess it depends what you mean by zero pollution. Bio fuels have almost none of the sulpher in the fossil fuels, and close the carbon cycle. That's good enough for me.

The only problem up until now has been finding a cost-effective solution.

Changing World Technologies offers one such solution.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[syukton]

Chrysler's 2001 Sebring has door panels made of 25% hemp, 25% kenaf, and 50% polypropylene.

Where's the oil? Polypropylene can be sourced via organic methods: soy oils, hempseed oils, canola oils, etc.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[bluGill]

Farmers know how to grow corn, and turning corn into ethanol is energy positive, so what is your problem with it? If you are arguing that farmers should grow something else fine, but say so. Also make sure you examine how well that something else grows - corn grows in most of the midwest, where sugar cane does not. Sugar beets do grow in some parts, but it is harder to grow.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Bastian]

Bah, give me a vehicle that does that with minimal overall energy costs.

Zero emissions is great except that you open the doors to things like hydrogen fuel cells, which are dirtier than cars in terms of air pollution, but sweep the problem under the carpet.

What I'd like to see is a challenge to produce a vehicle that is actually energy efficient so we can get away from this fad of preying on the public's general lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics by proposing all of these incredibly clever high tech non-solutions to our energy problems.

Re:Vehicle Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

I win. My vehicle of choice is called a bicycle. (Emissions may vary according to diet)

Accidents

[wankledot]

I really wonder if the first accident that results in a fatality will throw water on this recent excitement. I hope not.

Re:Accidents

[ackthpt]

I really wonder if the first accident that results in a fatality will throw water on this recent excitement. I hope not.

I'm encouraged by the fact none have died (excluding the three dummies blown up near Seattle) during this experiemental period.

Novelty will wear off

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people watched Big Brother 5?

Re:Novelty will wear off

[victor_the_cleaner]

Just like the Apollo program died after a few missions to the moon. Been there done that.

Or remember when the shuttle was first launched? Every network had wall to wall coverage of the entire event. Then prior to Challenger, they wouldn't even cover the launches live, just a 15 second segment on the evening news.

Re:Novelty will wear off

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Slashdotters watched any of them?

Re:Novelty will wear off

[nyrk]

So what? The people who want to watch it will. The Apollo program was different, politicans had to justify spending tax dollars, private industry does not. How much coverage does the America's cup get on the evening news? How much coverage to the Reno Air races get? They stil go on, and have their followings.

Re:Novelty will wear off

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope not too many... I always found anyone even watching the first episode of the first series pretty retarded! Way too much hyped up BS.

And I'm (not proudly) from the country that invented that (and a lot more of that sorta) crap!

Re:Novelty will wear off

[Bagels]

Novelty isn't the point, though. The point is to stimulate investment in space travel - to make it into a self-sustaining business. With the X-Prize, I've seen a surprising level of interest in such investment. I know I sound like a starry-eyed optimist here, but all of this is starting to seem feasible. $100,000-200,000 is expensive, but I bet you that half the people who win the lottery are going to want to do it. So are big business execs, media stars, and maybe even prominent political figures (first president in space? probably too dangerous, but it could happen).

Re:Novelty will wear off

[slim-t]

How many people watched Big Brother 5?

Hopefully not enough to warrant Big Brother 6.

Whadya think?

[over_exposed]

Is it really a good idea in terms of safety to encourage anyone and everyone to go as high as they can as fast as they can as often as they can? I mean seriously, look at the Red Bull Flugtag (minus the umlat) and what it's done for modern aviation...

No seriously, this is really flippin' awesome. I hope it gets to be as big as they're projecting!

Re:Whadya think?

[Anonymous Coward]

But imagine the designs if Flugtag had a $10M prize.

Next Stop, Orbit?

[tpconcannon]

I guess earth orbit would be the next logical step in this venture, although, attaining orbit is also the most dangerous part of space travel. Actually returning from orbit is more dangerous, as there would be the heat of reentry to deal with. I have a feeling that this would be when we start to see lives lost in this competition.

Re:Next Stop, Orbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

...attaining orbit is also the most dangerous part of space travel. Actually returning from orbit is more dangerous...

I call Flip Flop! Hey! Are you John Kerry?

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week! Don't forget to try the chicken and always tip your server.

Re:Next Stop, Orbit?

[bbc]

Although dealing with the heat from re-entry is hard, I don't think it is undoable. How many people believed before SpaceShipOne that a private company could bring a man to the edge of space, and pay no more than 25 million US$ for the privilige?

RKK Energia have designed a space ship that, like SpaceShipOne, glides into the atmosphere, albeit from an orbital position: Kliper. Cost of development estimated to be 60 million US$, IIRC.

Re:Next Stop, Orbit?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Next stop, orbit. And 50 million dollars. Greater risks require greater rewards.

Save money

[Tablizer]

I suggest they combine with the Darwin Awards to save money.

This is great but ...

[Brigadier]

From what I've seen or read, the solutions to the x-prize challenge have been built for that specific purpose. example being Rutans space ship was disigned to fly 100km then return safely. I think to foster more innovation the challenge itself has to become more challenging. How about an orbital flight next. Then a moon orbital. This will allow designers to build on existing designs as opposed to coming up with the best and cheapest way to fly 100km. I sort of equating it with making lynnburgs flight a yearly event ..whats the point

Re:This is great but ...

[Carnildo]

The point of the one-year cycle is, at least right now, to give the rest of the X-Prize teams something to aim for. DaVinci and Canadian Arrow are both less than a year from their first flight, and most of the serious teams will be able to make it in two years.

In the longer run, it shouldn't be that hard to, say, scale SpaceShipOne up to where it can carry ten passengers, or to give it enough crossrange capability to reach New York.

Re:This is great but ...

[delibes]

Not all of them were built just to win the X-prize. Here in the UK, Steve Bennett's Starchaser Industries is developing a fairly traditional liquid fuelled engine. This should be powerful enough to allow an orbital launch vehicle to be built.

Carmack's Armadillo team are working with hydrogen peroxide monopropellant engines. Although less powerful than bipropellants (eg. liquid oxygen and kerosene), these might also reach orbit if enough stages and/or boosters are used. They've probably still got a better specific impulse than the hybrid engine in Space Ship One.

Also, even if all these things were built just to win the X-prize, the knowledge gained can still be built upon to take the nxt (much more challenging) step.

Re:This is great but ...

[Rei]

Carmack's monoprop (which he keeps changing all the time) with under 200 ISP, could never get to orbit without a preposterous size and number of stages. Sorry. Even SpaceShipOne, with its heavy tanks and 250 ISP would have an incredibly hard time scaling up to orbit while not making the White Knight grow bigger than a Cossack. You just don't get orbital craft with such lousy engines.

You know why they're using such lousy engines? Because they're cheap and easy to build and operate. They limit their performance potential, essentially, to a run at the X-prize. These are not craft that are designed to scale.

What, exactly, are they going to carry over - The ship's computer? I mean, seriously, few people ever state *what* they expect to carry over, apart from "experience". Yeah, experience with an epoxy craft burning rubber are really going to help you design a turbopump-driven biprop (or whatnot) with a thermal protection system.

Re:This is great but ...

[RobRancho]

I agree, but for the next couple cycles, it would make more sense to get some additional teams up to the 'foundation' that Rutan has achieved. That would enable more teams to realistically compete for some elevated goal, such as orbit.

In other words, I think providing some incentive for other teams to 'catch up' first would speed development towards the next step, whatever that may be.

Re:This is great but ...

[delibes]

Fair enough, and thanks for the numbers. Interesting to see that the SSO hybrid has an ISP around 250. I believe that he shuttle's SRBs have an ISP of a little over 270. Do you think then, that if someone can build a hybrid using LOx or perhaps NO2, wouldn't the performance be much better, with lighter oxidiser tanks? Then you'd have a nice reusable, booster or fist stage that you could throttle.

Safety?

[Manhigh]

Burt Rutan, who IMHO is an aeronautical genious, and his team took years to do this. Is the one year cycle enough to do this right?

Furthermore, having prizes for things like "most passengers" just smacks of safety issues.

Even SpaceshipOne was almost lost on one of its flights. This isnt trivial, things can and will go wrong, and its a very unforgiving environment.

Now if people accept the risks and are willing to go regardless, I respect that. But what I dont want is a bunch of bad press for space travel, and resulting overregulation and fear among the public, resulting from a slew of fatalities at the X Prize Cup.

Re:Safety?

[Baldrson]

42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.

Re:Safety?

[Samurai Cat!]

There's always risk involved in ventures such as this. Hell, many of humanity's greatest accomplishments have involved great risk. And yet, they happened.

People will lay it on the line for things they believe in. To do otherwise invites stagnation.

Re:Safety?

[tricops]

Well, Rutan and crew covered the passenger requirements for the X-prize (except the pilot) with random personal objects equivalent in weight to the required passenger weight. I can't see why that couldn't/wouldn't continue until a design has a proven track record.

Sounds cool, but...

[RalphBNumbers]

I hope this doesn't detract from other more ambitious prizes.
Just getting to space is nice, but I'd like to see bigger prizes for things like orbital flight, rather than reccuring smaller prizes for doing the same old thing a little bit better than the last guy.

I can imagine a cool concept for the X-Prize version 4.0 (or thereabouts).

Pay some space agency to launch a tiny satelite, just a transponder with a n-million dollar check rolled up inside. The first private team to go up and retrieve it in person keeps it.

Re:Sounds cool, but...

[Kenja]

Get Pepsi to sponser it and have a bunch of satelites that hust have a 'this satelite is not a winner' notes in them.

Re:Sounds cool, but...

[BabyDave]

Pay some space agency to launch a tiny satelite, just a transponder with a n-million dollar check rolled up inside. The first private team to go up and retrieve it in person keeps it.

Unless the USAF shoots it down first ...

Re:Sounds cool, but...

[abb3w]

More realistic/marketable, have smaller ($1000) consolation prize checks in most of them, with one big one.

Re:Sounds cool, but...

[abb3w]

Some good long term milestones to work (and have prizes) for would be:

Private attempt to achieve orbit.
Private attempt to maintain orbit for at least 24 hours.
Private moon landing.
Private skyhook capable of bringing two 10kg payloads from earth to orbit in under a month.

Get that last, and you will own space. Skyhooks promise to be the cheapest price per kg to orbit, and the cheapest way to put one up is if you already have another one....

Wonderful idea!

[Stoutlimb]

I think it's a great idea... There's a huge list of failed X-prizes, and they might risk being scrapped, instead of flown. That would be an awful shame, and a waste. I would like to see all of them fly eventually. (Except maybe the really dangerous ones.)

The other reason I think it's a great idea is because even though Spaceship One got their first, it won't ever go much further. That design was designed for one thing, to win the X prize. A modified version of it will never go anywhere useful. Some of the other X prize contestants could concievably scale all the way to orbit. So that way, setting the bar a bit higher each year is a great way of getting maximum development of the space industry for the prize dollars offered. If we ran this prize several years in a row, each time higher, I'm certain that Spaceship One wouldn't be able to hold on to the cup.

I wonder who would be next?

Re:Wonderful idea!

[w42w42]

Actually - a recent Discovery show on this had a few interviews with Rutan, and in one of them he was holding a model of a booster rocket with Space Ship One on top. I suspect it wasn't supposed to be the original though, but the 7-seat successor they're already talking about.

Re:Wonderful idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct, that was his initial design for the tier 2 project, which is orbital vehicle.

Why not a rocket jumping contest?

[stratjakt]

That way Carmack has a chance. He's no good at building spaceships.

the skys the limit

[lawngnome]

Xprize has shown that private spaceflight is possible, and can only get better from here... I for one welcome the private companies, they have proven this is feasible.

Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[reporter]

Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".

Also, let's be a bit more ambitious. With the recent revelation that the American military is working on anti-matter weapons, we can safely conclude that we have "found" the fuel necessary for intergalactic travel. An matter-antimatter engine would have almost limitless power.

So, instead of merely "shooting for low-earth orbit", let's "shoot for the stars". Let's "boldly go where no man has gone before ..."

Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[That's Unpossible!]

Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".

I think there are plenty more ACTUAL ENGINEERS that would deserve the honor before an actor playing an engineer. But beyond that, the more obvious choice than Scotty would be Gene Roddenberry.

Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[gl4ss]

****Also, let's be a bit more ambitious. With the recent revelation that the American military is working on anti-matter weapons, we can safely conclude that we have "found" the fuel necessary for intergalactic travel. An matter-antimatter engine would have almost limitless power.****

only in scifi land. the "power" isn't exactly the only problem in moving between the.. um.. how should I put this.. HUGE distances between STARS, not to mention the distances between galaxies.

(besides.. using something for bombs is easier than doing anything more controlled with them)

Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[palad1]

So, instead of merely "shooting for low-earth orbit", let's "shoot for the stars". Let's "boldly go where no man has gone before ..."

If you want to use antimatter as an interstellar engine fuel, I think you meant "let's boldly get turned into a primal soup of molecules where no man has been vaporized before".

How many Gs do you think an antimatter drive would generate?

Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".

Why? Doohan was an actor, so his name should be primarily lent to acting awards.

As for "Scotty", he was a fictional character, and the only thing he truly inspired engineers to do was reverse the polarity on whatever problem they faced.

I nominate Gordon Cooper's name to grace the coveted prize.

Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".

[PantsWearer]

How many Gs do you think an antimatter drive would generate?

How many do you want? You can generate a huge amount of thrust using antimatter, but you don't have to. Starting thinking along the nano- and microgram scales and you'll get the picture.

Though this is pretty far into the future in any case. There's no way that antimatter production is in any way cost effective at this point. Sure it's a great way to get an exceedingly light fuel with a huge amount of potential power, but considering cost is one of the biggest issues, we aren't going to see it used for a long, long time.

Take the Hint

[COMON$]

I think more areas of study need to take the hint here. Give people incentive and you will get solutions. Why not hold similar competitions for other products such as Fuel efficient cars, Economical Housing, or any other useful tech advance. If we take this competitive road, will we see a new age of innovation?

Re:Take the Hint

[w42w42]

I absolutely agree - people love challenges. It's also apparent that private industry might be better suited (more agile) at this than public institutions. Congress couldn't finish debating the financing before someone else would have completed the task.

An interesting historical note, these kinds of competitions were popular in the 20's and 30's to spur aviation development. Quite a bit of the money was put up my newspaper owners.

Re:Take the Hint

[gl4ss]

there are competitions for fuel efficient cars for example.

sometimes mentioned even on slashdot.

Flügtag

[Kenshin]

If this is anything like the "Flügtag" events they hold in Europe, it should be highly amusing.

We need more of this!! Oh hell yeah!

[multi-flavor-geek]

The more groups that we have looking for creative solutions for tasks, the more original, creative, and reveloutionary the solutions are going to become. If we are ever going to learn to exist outside of the limits of our own planet, and travel arcoss the massive distance between the stars we will first have to get more then just 4 bloated governments capable of entering space.
The first cras were slow, clunky and unreliable, now my car is fast, clunky and unreliable, look at the progress that can be made when we have more then one group finding solutions to simple problems!

why have a time limit at all?

[JeanBaptiste]

set the goal, and wait until someone completes it. then set another goal.

perhaps as time goes on the prize amount could increase...

Re:why have a time limit at all?

[geomon]

set the goal, and wait until someone completes it. then set another goal.

Best idea I've read yet.

Dude

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been thinking about Star Trek too much recently! Reality check!

Star Trek != Our Reality

BTW, matter-antimatter engine would take forever to create using current methods, as has been described before by many people. Anti-matter is simply too costly to produce.

Once a year???

[D-Cypell]

Personally I would give the designers a little more time...

Perhaps the first step should be a petition to make spaceflight an olympic sport. :oP

Re:Once a year???

[Tumbleweed]

I didn't see anything in the article that said a design had to be turned around and launched within a year. The ones that aren't ready can simply shoot for the next year's event - hence the fun of it being a yearly event. I'd say that would actually take the pressure off of launching by a certain window, thus making accidents less likely. Nobody else can ever get first post now that the first prize has been one.

Re:Once a year???

[drinkypoo]

And of course, they can launch the same spacecraft with some refinements the next year, and the next year, and so on. Even if you don't win if you make a good showing you can probably get sponsors for the next year.

Up the Ante

[moofdaddy]

I think a more logical idea would be to up the ante and create the x^2 prize or the O prize. Make a new prize for the first to acheive orbit, to make an orbit or two around the world. That would have real world impacts.

Re:Up the Ante

[abb3w]

Make a new prize for the first to acheive orbit, to make an orbit or two around the world. That would have real world impacts.

Only if they botch the rentry and landing.

This year's X-Prize nominees are:

[RealProgrammer]

• In the Twelve-and-Under category, Jimmy Flechojovitz of White Plains, New York
• In the Open Source category, the team of CaynEyn and Volk3n
• In the Bathtub category, two posthumous awards ....

Pros and Cons

[d3m057h3n35]

I think this is a good idea, in the sense that it could provide the public with an annual "spaceshow" with exciting events to help fuel interest. Contests would give incentive for new innovations in this area, and it would give smaller, independent teams a chance to make it to the big time once a few large companies start dominating the commercial space industry. The only qualm I have is that without strict regulation, this could be dangerous to those participating in the events, and worse, the spectators. Private sector space travel accidents would severely put off the public, because all this shooting rockets off into space doesn't look too dangerous until people get hurt. And as soon as the public realizes that this is in fact dangerous, they will be a lot more hesitant to pay a small fortune for a ticket, or even to go see a launch.

The X-prize Cup is a good step towards making space travel really lucrative for entrepreneurs, which is what we need if we want to see it really develop into something huge and take off (no pun intended).

Junkyard Wars...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now... a TV show where the contestant teams each find a rubber & laughing gas burning rocket engine, plus assorted plastic containers and various other miscellaneous parts in a "salted" junkyard, and each team has 8 hours to assemble a deathtrap^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hglider into which to bolt the engine and see if they can make it to 100km altitude and back without winning a Darwin Award.

An annual contest makes sense

[mtaht]

Jerry Pournelle has long advocated the establishment of contests for various space related goals. (he also was at the spaceshipone launches - story and pictures here) Peter's vision of annual space-related contests is slightly different - Each "meet" will have different, specific, goals, each year. At the same time the organization will provide consistency in place, time, and rules that the participants will function under. NASA's goals are so hopelessly fragmented by internally competing projects and ever changing budgetary reality that they are still mired in finally flying designs mired in 60s thinking. We are entering a new era. Space advocates can "vote with our feet" - and our new technologies - and our wallets - for whatever we feel is the best way to enter space.

First steps to [enter space fantasy here]

[Anonymous Coward]

I've talked to an professor who made his fortune on technology forecasting, and space was a particular interest in him.

We can expect to see fatalities, but what great exploration didn't?

He predicted where space will finally be commercialized: tourism, travel, ads, what-have you. Eventually, we'll mine in space. One example is 03 (oxygen three). This is a major proponent to fusion. Another prediction is the drive for a space race, the fastest and the furthest into space.

We may come to expect a few fatalities, granted. In the greater scheme of exploration, this is just the dawn of a new beginning.

Re:First steps to [enter space fantasy here]

[DarkEdgeX]

Another prediction is the drive for a space race, the fastest and the furthest into space.

Why is it this made me think of the possibilities of NASCAR in space. :P

You're on the right track though.. rather than simply reproducing it the same way every year, each contest should build off of previous ones. Yes this may make some other groups work inapplicable, but it's also possible they could retool or redesign with little impact and compete again.

Others have already said it, but I'd go for higher and higher altitudes until you reach the minimum altitude to enter orbit, then go further (the moon, etc). Obviously this competition has really helped excite people to compete, and I'd hate to see this be "the end" of major innovation.

yearly?

[glimmy]

if the contest is expensive than wont the same companies win year after year?

Re:yearly?

[drinkypoo]

What's wrong with that? All you have to do is limit a specific craft to winning no more than three times total, a team from winning no more than three times in (say) five years, and a specific craft may not win three times if it wins two times in a row. Perhaps it would be better to say that a given design can only be fielded by a given team so many times, but then you have to decide how different a craft has to be to be a different design.

Do your own challenge then

[jeti]

The founder of the X-Prize owns a company that offers parabolic flights.
The hype that the X-Prize creates will hopefully get a lot of people interested in the flights,
which are cheap by comparison ($3k for a dozen parabolics).

If you want a new contest for emission free vehicles, organize it yourself.

NASCAR and Airshows

[slew]

Hmm, there's been quite a few high-profile accidents in NASCAR and there hasn't been any overregulation response. Why would there be one here?

Just yesterday, I saw on the news that during an airshow, there was a crash. Don't see congress legislating against doing hammerhead turns yet.

What I don't understand is this notion that everything must be "safe". What's important is clear information, not safety, and for people to make informed choices...

OF COURSE someone will probably sacrifice their safety margin in an attempt to one-up the competition, but then again, the pilots are generally in the best position to make this call (not congress). But remember the margin is there to protect against the unknown. You won't know where the danger line really is until you have a few data points to interpolate.

Strangley, as with car racing, I see this as an opportunity to IMPROVE safety. No matter how good a designer you are, you can't think of everything so having enough experience with varying designs is really the best way to advance the safety of a device. Eventually best practices will emerge, and those that don't have them will either emulate them or get darwin'ed out of existence (lose sponsors, lose pilots either by expiry or quitting).

Can't make an omlette unless you break a few eggs.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rob Carr]

Hmm, there's been quite a few high-profile accidents in NASCAR and there hasn't been any overregulation response.

TPTB had simply missed this, until you went and pointed it out. There will probably be regulations put out by the end of the week mandating that NASCAR speeds be kept under 20 mph.

Gee, thanks. Way to go.

This is a joke, but part of me fears it won't be for long.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Boeing/Northrop/NASA/etc will see this as growing competition _and_ as something that will show the public that this stuff doesn't have to be as expensive as they make it be. Which will raise questions like: "where did all that money go all those years??"

To which they will respond by handing Bush/Kerry a big sack of money and tell them to start over-legislating this as soon as the first accident occurs (if not before).

If no accident occurs soon enough, they can always throw it on the War-against-terror-pile; imagine a rocket like that hitting the Pentagon!

NASCAR doesn't have this problem, quite the opposite in fact.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[BrewerDude]

Well, the NASCAR analogy only holds so far. Those cars are highly regulated by specifications of what is "legal" car to race in the league. Some of those specifications are designed to keep a fair playing field; some are designed to keep the drivers safe.

After Dale Sr. died, didn't they start requiring HANS systems to help prevent fatal whiplash? I know they at least talked about it. But, I don't really follow NASCAR that much.

Now, think about the X-prize. There is no standardization on the vehicles that will be competing. That's the whole point. But, if you get a few accidents, there will start to be regulations whether from insurance companies or government. Since you can't really make a one-size-fits-all safety regulation, then you'll either stifle design (i.e. everyone starts to make the same thing because there's only one way to meet the safety requirements) or you'll end up with some designs that are more unsafe because the required safety measure is not appropriate for their design.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

Yeah, NASA is really in the market for unscalable, minimally suborbital joy rides.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

Rutan has spent more time thinking about aerospace problems than you have spent masturbating. I guarantee he has a plan to evolve his capabilities.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

Non-sequiteur, and childish.

Care to address the content of my post with specifics, or are you just going to spout off insults like a pre-pubescent boy?

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

Sure. NASA is not in the market for anything that's not Shuttle or ISS. NASA is moribund. NASA hasn't done anything to advance space exploration in 20 years.

NASA is not the future. Rutan (and people like him) are the future.

I am like Rutan. (Minus the raw genius and 30 years of experience)

Better? Now go get yourself a sense of humor and we can continue the discussion.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

> NASA is not in the market for anything that's
> not Shuttle or ISS. NASA is moribund. NASA
> hasn't done anything to advance space
> exploration in 20 years.

Compeltely false. NASA has, at any given time, several thousand research projects ongoing. The higher profile ones tend to be the various space probes; the lower profile (and in my opinion, more worthwhile) ones are basic materials and component research, like alane boosters, reusable nozzle linings, ion drives, etc. There are 1.86 million pages on NASA's website; what, do you think they're all about the Shuttle and ISS? Why don't you take the time to actually learn about what they're actually doing before you start a conversation on it?

Visit:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=IS O-8859-1&q =site%3Anasa.gov&btnG=Google+Search

Look at the titles of the articles on the first 3 or 4 pages, just to get yourself an idea. How many talk about the Shuttle or ISS?

The shuttle and ISS are congressional-mandated distractions. NASA would drop them in a heartbeat if it could. Complain to congress, not NASA. Although, if you're the sort of person who complains about ISS, but wants us to rush to build a moon base, I'll laugh ;)

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

NASA's basic research stuff is all well and good, but they don't get at the mission: Explore space. With humans. Yes, that is MY vision, and MY goal, and I certainly am projecting that on NASA.

Ion drives are great and all, but conventional rockets work REALLY well. Why not use the technology we have to its fullest? Why wait for steam power to cross the Atlantic when sails will work? (That's a historical metaphor. I know that people have in fact crossed the Atlantic. I hear there are even trade outposts on the other side of the Pacific ocean.)

You say that being congressionally mandated is an excuse. I say it is the cause of NASA's lack of focus. That's why I am excited about private industry getting a crack at the bat.

We've already learned enough to put a permanent base on Mars. I'd argue that we knew enough ten years ago to do so. The Moon is a waste of time.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

> Ion drives are great and all, but conventional rockets work REALLY well.

They also work REALLY expensively for accelerating a given amount of mass.

> Why wait for steam power to cross the Atlantic when sails will work?

We didn't, and NASA didn't wait with space either. However, just as we didn't start shipping thousands of metric tons worth of cargo across the Atlantic on Columbus's first voyage for no good reason, NASA isn't shipping up hundreds of people into space for billions of dollars without any clear goal for their presence.

MY goal for space exploration is to lower the cost; it's way to high, and it has the clear potential to be drastically reduced. NASA's basic research is what is lowering the cost. You can strap a polybutadiene/nitrous rocket on the back of a fiber craft, but it's nothing new, and it's not going to lower real spaceflight's cost (cheap, simple, low-ISP rockets have been around since the 50s-60s). You need new technology to reduce the cost to get to orbit and beyond - and NASA is the one working on it.

The shuttle and ISS are prestige projects; they're "national pride" projects. If they tried to cut them, congress would be all over them. Do you think NASA *likes* having to spend more to launch payload than the Russians? They hate it; that's why they spend all that they can on basic research.

> We've already learned enough to put a permanent base on Mars.

Heh, and you hate the ISS? What do you think the Mars base will seem like to the general public after it's there eating up billions year after year? People will hate it just as much.

On the other hand, we could put the billions of dollars into basic research instead, and get costs down to where it's *not* a big deal to send people to Mars. To where ISS, a moon base, and a Mars base aren't budget-eyesores. To where it is affordable for the common person to not just take a joyride to 100 km for 3 minutes, but to truly go to orbit.

That is what I want to see. And it'll take research, which is what NASA is *really* about (as you'll note, if you followed my link and looked at what are the most common page hits on NASA's site).

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

NASA doing basic research is a great role. NASA doing big-ticket exploration stuff would be an OK role. NASA impeding big ticket exploration stuff by constantly picking the least efficient mission profiles for manned space exploration is a really bad role.

You know as well as I do which model they're in today.

Re: Mars: There are plans out there that would, in ten years, place and maintain a high-capability Mars base for 10% of NASA's current annual budget. NASA doesn't like this plan because it doesn't require us to un-fuck ISS to do it.

I don't really want to get into a discussion with why we need to go to Mars. If you don't see the importance, I'm not going to try to change your mind.

ISS is one thing: An experiment to see how slowly we can get a space station to deteriorate with a uselessly small crew. The Russians have already done this experiment. Doing it again is silly.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

> NASA impeding big ticket exploration stuff by
> constantly picking the least efficient mission
> profiles for manned space exploration is a
> really bad role.

Please elaborate, and provide at least one specific example. Note that if you're going to mention the shuttle or ISS, your complaints need to be levied at congress, not NASA.

> 10% NASA's annual budget.

1.6 billion dollars? Even the most ovewrly optimistic proposals generally aren't that cheap. You could barely even lift a suitable mars habitat and ship off earth for that much (assuming it was modular!), let alone lift components and test their flight/reentry profiles, build the components in the first place, scout Mars out ahead of time, design and build all the refining equipment and power generation, etc.

You're right that this isn't really the proper place for a Mars discussion; however, let it suffice to say that even the numbers that predict between 10 and 30 billion are generally pretty laughable, and safety is typically an afterthought. I personally don't want to see a bunch of people die en-route to mars/at mars/right after returning from mars, and then have the public be terrified of going again.

> ISS is one thing: An experiment to see how
> slowly we can get a space station to
> deteriorate

And yet, when it was proposed, people talked about it like they talk about Mars today. How it was the stopping point of the future of manned exploration of space.

Funny how things change, isn't it?

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

NASA is not separate from Congress. NASA does not have autonomy. So, whether directed at Congress or NASA, my issue is that the US Government is impeding manned space exploration by insisting on Shuttle and ISS.

The name on the business cards of the flacks who make that decision is not relevant.

You really need to check out the stuff that Mars Society is talking about. Robert Zubrin's ideas for modular base development (the spacecraft IS the base) and indigenously-produced propulsion are the keys to the solar system, in my opinion.

ISS might have been useful, had it ever been fully staffed. But, with Congress killing the ACRV every chance they get, they have cut the throat of the program. It is now useless, and will remain so until it gets a crew large enough to do science.

Note that I don't think that that science will be particularly valuable to manned space exploration, but if that's what you want ISS to do, you can't do it with three people in that tin can.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

Ah, now we get to the core of the issue ;) You view NASA and Congress as the same. But it's not that way at all. Congress only cares about a few things - the shuttle, ISS, and occasionally a mars mission or two. Your average congressman could care less about "Producing fiber reinforced composites having dense ceramic matrices" or "Ratio of band 2 echelle mode sensitivity to 2.1 sensitivity (Dt lamp)". That's the sort of stuff that the people at NASA itself care about.

Zubrin does not propose getting to mars for 1.6 billion dollars (1/10th of NASA's annual budget). His Mars Direct program has a 20b$ price tag. And Zubrin was exactly who I was thinking of when I referred to some proposals throwing safety right out the door and being unrealistic at all with their numbers. You could barely even build and launch the reactor that he wants alone for the cost he assigns for the whole trip - have you looked at how much nuclear reactors here in the comfort of Earth cost?? And he wants it to be tiny, lightweight, and failsafe? What a joke.

BTW - Zubrin's proposed Ares rocket uses shuttle SRBs ;) So, we've just met up something about NASA that you hate being a requirement in a proposal that you like. ;)

But backing up a bit, just to show you how completely off a number of 1.6 billion for the whole trip is. Zubrin plans to heft about 45k kg to mars for the main crew module; such a rocket to LEO could hold about 120k kg of payload. At current rocket launch costs of 10,000$/kg (shuttle is more, Russian and Chinese rockets are bit less, but have slightly lower reliability (the shuttle actually has a surprisingly good track record, as far as rockets go - it's just expensive)), just getting that module to space would cost 1.2 billion dollars.

BTW, how many people do you think it takes to do science on the ISS? Most experiments just involve one person, so you're just looking at slower research.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

I have one goal: Manned space exploration. There are two sides: People who want to do it, and people who will put up with it when it's politically expedient. The second set is useless to the goal.

Private companies do not have the same constraints. They can take more risks, and they don't answer to Congress. Why is this idea anathema to you?

The $20b price tag is over the course of ten years. Gosh: Not too far from the 10% figure, huh? Hell, screw it: Say 20% of NASA's budget. Whatever. It doesn't break the bank.

Zubrin uses Shuttle parts because they are in the inventory. There are parts of the Shuttle program that are great: the main engines are bad ass. The remanufacturing process to get the orbiter back on the launch pad is not bad ass. I don't hate NASA as such: I hate its obstructionism. If you want to pin that on Congress, I'm not going to argue with you. NASA has the same problem as defense procurement: The only congress apes that like you are the ones that have your plants in their districts. Horrible way to build hardware.

Unless you have specific safety nits to pick with Mars Direct, I'm going to sweep that under the rug of "manageable risks". I would put my life on the line for that program tomorrow. I bet I can find four other people who agree with me. Those are the only safety factors at issue.

The Ares booster would be a very not expensive proposition. It's basically off-the-shelf parts, and it ignores the stupid orbiter. It's incrementally more powerful than Saturn V, but definitely in the same size class. The hardware is already ready already. Assembling it would not be cost prohibitive.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

Private companies also don't have the kind of budget needed. That's the big downside to them. I love the idea of individuals sinking their capital into rocket development, but unless they're doing basic research, they're not going to be the ones that drive down costs in the long run.

But it's good to see that you're not one of those "everything about NASA is bad" people. They've done some great work.; They've also done some lousy work, and had some shackles thrown on them by congress. Such is life; however, it's wrong to denigrate all of the great work that they have done, and continue to do.

You want a safety concern? Launching a light water reactor and fuel out of Earth's atmosphere and landing it on Mars without conducting a test landing first. Want another? The same for the crew module. And so on. The success rate for missions to Mars, worldwide, is under 50%. I wouldn't want to bet lives on that.

Just developing the reactor alone is an incredible notion that he thinks it can be done for so cheap. A nuclear power plant, based on a mass-produced design, costs 3-5 billion dollars. Now, what his reactor has going for it is that it doesn't need as much power output, and doesn't need a containment structure. On the other hand, it needs all of the components of a full reactor, plus far greater automation of running the plant; tiny size but still safe; secured fuel rods that, in the event of a disaster on their way off Earth, don't contaminate the countryside (that's not nearly as easy as it sounds); and most critically, the from-scratch design and construction of a brand new reactor model. That's unlikely to cost under 20 billion right there.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

We've got compact, safe nuclear reactors. We put them in submarines.

Every successful landing increases the chance for the next successful landing. Ideally, I'd like to see NASA put an X-Prize style bounty on the milestone achievements, and let the aerospace community do what they do best (when unfettered by Congress): Solve hard problems in astonishingly short times with very reasonable budgets.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Rei]

Nope - won't work. One, submarine reactors are manned; they require humans to deal with them. Two, they're not self-contained (they use the large heat resevoir inherent in oceanwater for steam condensation).

On earth, reactor problems can be dealt with, albeit with difficulty. On Mars? Forget about it.

Core Damage: How will a crew on Mars deal with failure of the rods' zirconium cladding? On Earth, submarines have been known to have to actually ditch their reactors at sea and be rescued (at least, from the Soviet fleet). Whether the US has ever done this or not is classified. This has happened several times in civilian power plants as well.

That was probably the most minor type of significant failure. Nextmost comes a loss of coolant accident. If coolant leaks from the inner core, this releases radioactive material throughout the reactor, making it essentially a no-go zone, and would make repairs on Mars essentialy impossible. Again, we know that this has happened on Russian submarines, but whether it has ever happened on US submarines is unknown. This is the sort of accident that occurred on 3 Mile Island (and elsewhere), but submarines, with their much more compact reactors operating in more extreme condictions, are more at risk.

Containment failure: Chernobyl. Of course, this would mean that the crew is dead. One submarine, a Victor class, had such a failure in 1985 - and that reactor wasn't, for example, subjected to huge vibrational loads, the vaccum of space, etc, before it happened. It released about 1/7th the radiation of Chernobyl.

The vibrational, thermal, and pressure loads are big issues for a reactor - especially the first case. Nuclear reactors can be sensitive beasts; if a control rod doesn't quite fit into the reactor chamber, it's not a minor issue. It's a huge, potentially catastrophic issue - even with people around running it. Here, we need an automated reactor.

Just the reactor? Nope. Starting up a reactor, you actually need significant amounts of power to operate the machinery to get the reactor in running condition first. So, you need a power source *before* the nuclear reactor comes online (probably solar or fuel).

Submarine reactors use highly enriched fuel. This would be catastrophic, in the event of failure. You would probably need pelletized fuel like they use for nuclear thermal generators; however, this would not work in any known reactor design (including PBMR).

I don't have data on the mass of submarine reactors, but they're *big*. Probably the smallest nuclear reactors you'll find were on the Russian icebreaker ships, at 30-35 MW (the KLT-40). The reactor was made of thick-walled steel 4 meters in height and over 2 meters diameter (the core, for comparison, was only a little over 1 meter high). You're going to be looking at at least 20 tons or so just for the reactor - let alone all of the other components (the next big one being the turbines and generator... then you need the cranes, at least *some* shielding structure, the entire cooling system. etc).

There's a reason that we don't have nuclear minisubs ;) Forget not that subs like Kursk, whose largest component was the twin reactors, weight almost 26,000 tons.

On the other topic: Prizes don't work for everything. For example, you cna't offer a prize to launch a satellite, for example, when you only have one of the satellite. They're great for small tasks, though, in which there is a high prestige value associated with it.

Re:NASCAR and Airshows

[Moofie]

You say it can't be done. I say it can. I hope private industry will be able to succeed where NASA has failed. That's really the crux of it, isn't it?

Exciting & Exciting==Good!

[ackthpt]

think each year would water the thing down. Much like any other contest that is expensive.

Why not every 4 years? Even 3 would work. This way, it would give people more time to work on even better designs, perhaps even alternative fuel methods for reaching space.

Nope, nope, nope!

We need this all right away. Get off your fat butt and get to work! Innovation in rocket science can drive the economy. Why accept it's hard to do? Back in the early days of aviation (barnstromers and all) wild ideas were tested (ok, some were dangerous and should probably be conducted away from populated areas) but out of all those wild ideas increments in the technology were achieved (beware of patents, the Wrights nearly killed it with the Wrong Stuff!)

Future Patents Awaiting to Be Awarded:

Blowing your silly looking rocket up on the launchpad (whoops, too much prior art)

Method for serving meals in weightlessness

Method for cleaning puke off cabin walls

Rocket powered by fuel from reprocessed used (eugh) baby diapers (gag) (retch)

Rocket with screen door

Pilot airbag

Altudinator

Method for brewing beer in space

Method for dispensing beer in space

Method for wearing lampshade in space

Method for treating hangover in space

Muzak for space travel

Firewall to keep hacker passengers from redirecting rocket to spell 1337 in contrail

Cheese in a can (whoops, prior art, too)

Copyright phrase Spacemeet (as in, we all gonna meet in space, big space meet!)

Method for ejecting passengers

Method for ejecting crew

Method for evading rocket with process server on board

Space Racing, the America's Cup 3D (featuring Larry Ellison and Richard Branson duking it out for bragging rights!)

Method for refueling, checking the oil and cleaning windows at full service station

Method for letting customer do all that hisself at self service station

Method for launching own satellites

Method for forming a united federation of planets

And the list goes on!

Why am I so in favor of such things? I'll be selling the popcorn! =-)

Re:Exciting & Exciting==Good!

[Rei]

You forgot the probulator. I want to run a probulator. :)

Re:Exciting & Exciting==Good!

[SnapShot]

You forgot:
"single-click in space"
"FAT in space"
"hyperlinks in space"
"software 'asking for help' in space"
"software licensing in space"
"collar computer in space"

No, of course it's not obvious...

Re:Exciting & Exciting==Good!

[ruckc]

Maybe a lawyer could clear this up for me. But isn't just the idea patentable, or do you actually have to show proof of the patent in action?

Because if thats so, then if we banded together and setup a non-profit-organization where for each patentable idea submitted the NPO then submits a patent request so that companies that might try to make money off of patents that we came up with can't. Or if I remember correctly all we would have to do is put each idea in an envelope, mail it to ourselves, store it in a safe somewhere, and when someone else tries to patent it, claim prior art with the postmark and contents of the envelope being proof of it being prior.

Re:Exciting & Exciting==Good!

[Magic5Ball]

Method for deploying contaminant weapons over long distances.

Ha ha, only serious.

They left out the most important category...

[vrmlguy]

From the article:

Teams will compete in five different categories to win the overall cup: Fastest turnaround time between the first launch and second landing, maximum number of passengers per launch, total number of passengers during the competition, maximum altitude and fastest flight time.

How about maximum ground distance traveled while still reaching space? Right now, SS1 goes up and comes straight back down, so the maximum down-range cup could be won by landing somewhere in Texas. Each year you'd have to beat the previous year's distance, so eventually the teams would transition to transatlantic ballistic trajectories. Eventually, someone would land back in New Mexico after circling once around the Earth and the prize would be retired, but by then you'd be almost orbiting.

Re:They left out the most important category...

[lateral]

And at the other end of the success scale, a wooden spoon for the team that spreads itself over the widest area on landing.

L

Whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

But call it the Rutan Cup, or the Goddard Cup.

Maybe Goddard for longest space flight, Rutan for best new device/technology.

Juuuust about here.

[Colin Smith]

In fact, the vehicle which could do it was developed 7 years ago. It was called the Solectria Sunrise. Composite construction, 4 seats and a trunk for bags, very low drag, and 400 miles per charge on NiMH batteries. Updated to use current battery technologies would just about double that range and with next generation li-s batteries the potential range would be around 1300 miles per charge.

http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art24.ht ml

Anyway, who wants to drive 1000 miles per day. Any more than about 400 is seriously painful.

Re:Juuuust about here.

[squidbeast]

How painful it is really depends on the person doing the driving. I've personally done around 1200 miles (Seattle, WA to San Diego, CA), and ~1000 miles (Corvallis, OR to San Diego) in single trips. Neither was too terrible. To some people, though, it would be intolerable. Some people can't stand being in a car that long. Other people do all right.

Re:First steps to [Uranus]

[delibes]

O3? Sounds like a mutant SGI computer from last century.

People have however talked about Helium-3, which can be used in fusion reactions, giving minimal nasty radioactive by-products. Some people think that the moon's surface is covered with the stuff due to years of bombardment by the solar wind. The costs of extracting it, however, may be prohibitive.

O Heck, Almost Forgot Most Important One!

[ackthpt]

Method for turning rocket into MegaMaid!

well, it could make a good idea

[Anonymous Cowpat]

but, as people have already said, 1 year might be a smidge too short.
I don't know if they were planning to do this anyway (RTFA? what do you think I am? some sort of TFA reader?), but changing the goal for each prize, so, the one in a few years time will be (say) "get to 200Km", a few more years, "get a rock back from the moon, without smashing your capsule with the rock in into the Utah desert", "get a space station, capable of supporting 12 poople, into orbit & keep it there for 6 months", "build a reuseable shutle capable of carrying 20 people around the moon and back", "put a 3-man team on mars", (obviously some of these would be for quite a few years time).

Another idea would be somw runners up prizes, instead of giving out a $10mil to someone every year for doing what's alreayd been done (which will result in a half dozen or so spaceships taking off on 1st January next year) a runners up prize of say $1mil could be given to any group who completes the requirements in the same year as the main prize winning entry (or within 9 months of).
A new prize could be introduced every few years, and the cash sit in an X-prize bank account somewhere ready to give it out to whoever wins, the interest on $10mil should provide enough cash to run most of the other stuff related to the prizes. Now, if NASA wants to start putting prize money up for something, $50mil would cover the next 5 first prizes.
Or, the prize money could be related to how hard the task is based on current standards, for instance, if, in 6 months time, someone started selling jaunts around the sun or something then that would be a lot of cash, whereas, if, in the same year as 3 different groups put 3 people on Mars, someone brings back a moon rock, the prize would be smaller.

Just my two 0.01 coins (before they get phased out)

Re:well, it could make a good idea

[J_Omega]

"put a 3-man team on mars"

And the year after that?

"Retrieve a 3-man team from mars!"

They should push the envelope

[Specks]

If they're going to evolve the X-Prize. They should raise the bar a bit more. SpaceShipOne has won the X-Prize for making it into the fringe of space, but now the prize should be extended to being able to safely complete an orbit and come back down.

No windows?

[RCulpepper]

I seem to recall hearing that one of the biggest challenges in building a space vehicles, and one of the biggest components weight-wise, is the windows. IIRC, one of the Japanese companies developed a TV screen with resolution so high it was virtually indistinguishable from reality. What about wallpapering the inside of the craft with these and leaving cameras outside?

One of the big reasons TV doesn't look realistic is that we can't change our focus between the foreground and the background -- but everything here would be so far away it shouldn't matter. And it would save a lot of engineering hassle, it seems, if not weight (because the TVs would weigh something, of course)

Re:No windows?

[bronaugh]

Interesting idea. Might be a good application for OLED displays.

One concern, though -- what about the cameras?

fabulous

[Bauguss]

That is a fantastic idea. This as news today that oil went over $50 a barrel.

you mean He3, not O3 [nt]

[Anonymous Coward]

no text

Just an idea:

[modecx]

I like the idea of a regular X event, but not necessairly all having the same goal.. That would just become obnoxious and boring, in exactly the same way watching Astronauts on the moon did in the 70's.

Perhaps they need to go a different route: I suggest that there is a competition with no set time limit that would do exactly what the X-Prize did:encourage reguar people to try and do what is thought impossible, with engineering and imagination.

Let's say that the next X-Prize was for developing a car that pushed the envelope on fuel efficiency a little higher, within a set limit. It would work just like the race to space; first team that beats the set mileage on a certain course with a car that qualifies for weight, wins.

When one contest ends, another is anounced, and so on. This would be much more exciting to me, and no doubt to many more people.

For one thing, trying to blow oneself into space is quite a technological and monetary hurdle. Not everyone can invest $20 million to win $10 million. Secondly, it will encourage advances in whatever feild they chose for the prize, which is good for the rest of the people that can't or aren't interested to compete.

Re:Just an idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say that the next X-Prize was for developing a car that pushed the envelope on fuel efficiency a little higher, within a set limit. It would work just like the race to space; first team that beats the set mileage on a certain course with a car that qualifies for weight, wins.

How about something simple, like one orbit?

Re:Just an idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

an orbit In a car?

Re:Just an idea:

[HybridJeff]

The problem is, taking your example of cars. If you design and build a new car with better fuel efficiency, no one will care. The big car companies are the only ones who can produce enough of these cars to make them economically feasable for the consumer, and they're already putting much more money into R&D than any small company who could actually use the $10 mil.

I say, keep the contest going evey year as it is, but introduce a new prize 5 years down the road or so with higher goals in mind (orbit if its at all feasable). That way you still get new players entering the game looking to get in on the first prize, and you can keep the established teams reaching further and further.

We dont just need one company who can go into orbit, we need lots of them. And untill investors see profits starting to roll in from the early runners, capital for new projects will be harder to come by.

Re:Just an idea:

[modecx]

Well, I do agree with you in that respect, big companies do put lots more into R&D than any small group of people could ever hope to compare to... But the problem with big companies (like the ones in Detroit) is that they're largely monolithic, and seem to actively discourage creativity within their product lines. Yeah, they do have their development branches, but I don't think they get enough exposure. They worked on hybrid cars, and other things almost twenty years ago, and technology hasn't changed in any signifigant respect to make them much more viable now then they were back then.

Then there's the problem with engineers. Engineers are, in my opinion, programmed to all think alike, to recycle their old designs and thoeries into their new ones, and otherwise think inside the box. I'm working on becoming a mechanical engineer, and I've got to say that in general my peers and many of the real engineers I've come across suffer this problem, in addition to the general lack of Common Sense.

I agree that perhaps a super efficint car is a little too closed ended. Everyone knows to use lightweight materials and how to make very aerodynamic shapes, etc. But putting constraints on the design would encourage development that could be used in industry to make all of our cars better. For instance, it could be required that the car be four passenger, with a certain engine output reqirement (thereby encouraging more power for less fuel consumption), and a set weight, as I indicated earlier. No doubt it's going to be a fair bit easier, and closed ended than getting to 300,000 ft. any way you can, but it's an example of an idea that I think might help more of us sooner.

Re:Just an idea:

[HybridJeff]

"They worked on hybrid cars, and other things almost twenty years ago, and technology hasn't changed in any signifigant respect to make them much more viable now then they were back then."

I agree with you in that a contest in this area would likely bring forth lots of good new ideas. The unfortuante part (as I see it) that I dont think the industry would jump to take advantage of these ideas. The car companies could have been producing more efficient cars years ago, but the problem is, they dont want too. When you're an enormous industry making tons of money already, there is little if any incentive for change and innovation. The addage "dont fix it if it aint broke" seems to describe their point of view.

Unless you think a small corporation who makes this breakthrough could manage to get the capital and infrastructure to start producing them on mass, and at a viable price for consumers. In that case, go ahead and give them the money.

The best solution? Have two prizes. We need to promote research into things that will help us in the short and long term.

Re:Just an idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say Earth orbit. A car can orbit a building, or even another car.

The big O?

[lakcaj]

You really think a bunch of geeks would be successful in a contest to have their "rockets" reach the big O?

No further contests needed for incentive

[magarity]

an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations.

The fact that the company buying the rights to the basic design already has hundreds of $1,000 deposits on an estimated $100,000 trip is PLENTY of incentive for further imagination.

Space challenges...

[Kindaian]

My guess is that the next challenge would be to make a ship that could transport people to and from the ISS...

As far as i know, the russian non-tripulated ships are the best for material sending (cost effective that it)...

So there is now real need for a maned ship that can transport the crew of the space station...

(of course... after that, the next step would be a private space station).

X-games

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so I jump my motorcycle off this really big ramp, do a superman and if I reach 100Km in altitude, I win both the X prize and the X games?

Re:X-games

[Anonymous Coward]

And a Darwin Award...

$200,000 riiiiight

[shlepp]

I think $200,000 is an obsurd price to pay for a short trip to see space in a "REUSABLE CRAFT" that is pretty much a mini space shuttle, like it costs that much to fuel up aswell. I think $2,000 is a reasonable price and you wont have to be a millionare to pay for it. Like whats the point in offering this if only the rich people can do it, thats kinda gay IMO.

Re:$200,000 riiiiight

[16K Ram Pack]

Yeah, like spending about $500 on a basic CD player was pretty gay in the mid 1980s. Now, they are a feature on a $60 DVD player, even though incomes have probably at least tripled in the same time.

Not many people except for some yuppies paid for those $500 CD players, but that meant they were covering a lot of the initial R&D budget. The growth of sales encouraged more people into the market which reduced prices and created a momentum of sales.

It's only because of the millionaires spending $200,000 a flight that in 20 years time you'll get it for the equivalent of $5,000 a flight.

Open Source Key to Cheap Access to Space

[randall_burns]

What is really needed is a basic design for orbital craft where the fabrication procedure and avionics are Open Source. At that point we can see a variety of teams starting to incrementally refine the design so it becomes safe and access to space is more routine. Maybe something like the Rotovator will get done and make space _really_ cheap-but just a decent orbital system might facilitated stuff like robotic development of the asteroid belt.

I cringe every flight

[Hao Wu]

The X-planes flew in the 1940s and 50s. Think of how many test pilots were killed, and the only reason they continued the program was due to belief in the Air Force mission.

If one disaster happens- watch how fast private funding dies. All moneys will evaporate quickly.

Best solution is pick volunteers from heroic officer corp. Make random selection mandatory, then honor burned spacemen with shiny brass plaque.

Considerations

[bigfluffybunny]

Its interesting that the team that built SpaceShipOne spent between $20m and $30m developing a craft that is aimed to win a $10m Prize. In my view they are not a private venture and should be disallowed, after all, as written on the side of the craft itself is Paul Allen project. Given that he is one of the wealthiest people on the planet it rather negates the original aims of the project.
Now, it is an amazing feat that deserves to be lauded but I think it is a case of he who has the most cash wins and the prize itself wasn't worthy of the merit. Another case of money triumphs over ingenuity.

Re:Considerations

[maybeHere]

The main idea of this competition was to get things going. Would this cash have been used for something like this if there was no X-Price?

Re:Considerations

[thorndt]

Wow. $30 million invested for two brand-spanking new plane designs (developed over EIGHT YEARS), one of which goes to space and back....you think this is big budget?!?

Re:Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked Paul Allen was a private individual, unless he's become a state recently. The other teams also had outside funding since how the fuck else were they supposed to pay for designing and building the craft, magic?

Re:Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this against the spirit of the rules? $20 million is practically nothing compared to the gov't spending.

Or do you think it has to be developed in Krazy Kooter's garage with moonshine as the propellent?

x-prize

[f00zy]

Am I the only person in the world who thinks the X-Prize teams aren't in it for the money? Come on people. Some of this is basic reasearch, some is surfing for vc money, and some is just about doing it.

NASA failed because of the bureaucracy

[hughk]

Remember that both Challenger and Columbia were blamed on management errors rather than technical ones. The quote of your boss is reasonable as long as the management is aware of the risk and and the impact of a failure. A key failure of NASA is that the management didn't understand the problem.

One thing going about these programmes is that they are much smaller and easier to understand. The management / engineering is also correspondingly smaller so there are less likely to be issues about what a 1% chance of catastrophic failure actually means.

Nah, the "Scotty" prize would be good...

[hughk]

It honours the "designer", Gene Rodenberry as well as the "implementor", James Doohan. It also honours one or two of their countrymen who ended up as ship's chief engineers over the years.

"May become"?

[SmartSsa]

I'm glad that CNN can read the x-prize.org website. Information about the X-Prize Cup has been there for quite some time. There's even details on how scoring and prizes would be given out.

I don't think there's a "may become" about it. It will happen. Especially after the success of SS1.

It would be pointless to have one prize then call it quits, the foundation has built up quite the following over the last few years just to let it die after the first prize.

Could NASA enter?

[Lance25]

Would NASA, or other countries space agencies be allowed to enter competition for the X Cup?

Re:Could NASA enter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The terms of the X-prize specified that the winner had to be a private craft, no? I doubt if they'd change that...

Re:Could NASA enter?

[Anonymous Coward]

why would they want to? not only is the shuttle fleet not spaceworth yet, but the costs of shuttle launches aren't likely to be less than the prize amounts :P

Re:Could NASA enter?

[Tokerat]

Would NASA, or other countries space agencies be allowed to enter competition for the X Cup?

No, certainly not. The whole point ofthe X-Prize was to provide incentive for private organizations to design and build space-capable craft, because we all know that stiff competition can drive down price, and better the design of such craft.

While it's true that SpaceShipOne in it's current form isn't useful for much except flying to the edge of space and landing again, think of all that has been learned, not about accomplishing said feat, but accomplishing it for cheap, cheap, cheap. This is what will drive the space industry into the affordable price range, which could have vast implications on all sorts of other industries.

Re:Good idea

[ArcticCelt]

What I particularly like in the idea is the fact that the competition will be at a fixed date. This mean that more people will be able to plan a vacation to go see the event and it could turn out attracting many people each year. Now once you reach a critical mass sponsors will be very interested to be partners in the event and cash will flow so they can pay higher "prizes".

Now I think that their is still place for other "unscheduled" competitions like the first x-prize because it certainly have other advantages. ()

Be more specific.

[abb3w]

It's all fun and games until someone reaches escape velocity.

Terran, or solar escape velocity? Local, or general?

At local terran escape velocity of 10 kps, you're about ready to start lunar colonization. At local solar escape velocity of about 42 kps, you're ready to start mining the Oort cloud for volitiles (for space colonies and/or terraforming Mars and Venus) and any other fun stuff out there. At base solar escape velocity of about 620 kps, you can get anywhere in the solar system, and have a decent start on leaving it.

Of course, it's not all fun and games now. As reported earlier, there's already people trying to make a fast buck off of it.

So, any guesses until the first private race to the moon?

Competitions

[abb3w]

You mean like this? There are a number of such engineering competitions. You only need big cash prizes when there is a truly massive capital investment to enter... such as "build a spacecraft". Most of your "tech advances" are possible with minor refinements of current S.O.t.A, rather than needing major breakthroughs.

An idea for X-prize 2

[BigBadBus]

Rather than a slight excursion into the realsm of space, the next X-prize should be given to true orbital flight.

dumbass.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd say it if it wasn't already said in about a dozen other posts.

$ for Yacht ?= $ forSpaceShipOne ?!?

[el_benito]

A quick Googling wouldn't supply me with any figures to verify or deny this fact, but could somebody with a little more knowledge about yachting verify this for the /. community? If it's true, then the potential for space exploration just got a whole helluva lot brighter. I think that supply the internet with a little visual aid of the relative costs of other things versus SpaceShipOne might put this a little more in context for the average Joe.

So exciting!

[Corson]

I can see why everybody is so excityed about the success of the SpaceShipOne team, the X-Prize Cup, and the promising future of commercial space flight. I've been dreaming to see this happening ever since I was a kid. :)

Now let's try to cool down a bit and have a look at the whole picture.

Someone noticed the X-Prize Cup isn't about orbital flights. Of course it isn't -- which country would want private aerospace companies to develop "affordable" spacecrafts that can fly around the Earth and, God forbid, drop unpleasant packages from outer space in another nation's backyard? None. So here is what I think will happen next: First, an international law will be issued to extend national territories to a height of, say, 200 Km; any trespassing spacecraft will suffer "the severest consequences". Second, nations such as the U.S., Rusia, China, India, and potentially the EU will develop interceptor spacecraft/space platforms to defend their air... err.. outerspace. Commercial spaceflight will be limited to suborbital flights within one nation's sovereign outerspace. Third, orbital commercial spaceflight will be actively discouraged; after all, it is in everyone's best interest to prevent rogue nations from acquiring "affordable" orbital spaceflight technology.

IMO, we might have to wait a while before we see Kubricks space hotel become reality.