Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
A blog like any other.
Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?
The last thing we need is a catastrophic accident that causes a knee-jerk overregulation response from congress.
How many people watched Big Brother 5?
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.
I found the "Any" key.
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
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?
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?
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
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...
if the contest is expensive than wont the same companies win year after year?
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.
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.
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)
Always a godfather; never a god. -Gore Vidal
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.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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.
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.
See my journal, I write things there