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

[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

[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

[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....

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

[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

[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 ;)

Hey

[lucabrasi999]

maximum number of passengers per launch

Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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

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.

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

[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.

Novelty will wear off

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people watched Big Brother 5?

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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?

Why not a rocket jumping contest?

[stratjakt]

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

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 ..."

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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! =-)

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.

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)

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:

[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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?!?

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.

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?