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

[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

[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?

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?

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: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

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.

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.