Slashdot Mirror


Rules Set for $50 Million America's Space Prize

An anonymous reader wrote in to say that The rules have been set for Robert Bigelow's $50 million 'America's Space Prize'. The gist of it is that the winner needs to get a crew of five people up 400km, complete two orbits of the Earth, and then do it again within 60 days. I've got a gremlin and a huge rubber band... now if I only had 4 friends!

36 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. How long... by webroach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..until Rutan does this?

  2. Hah! by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've got a gremlin and a huge rubber band... now if I only had 4 friends!

    The confessions of a true geek, eh Taco? ;)

    That said, the time frame for this thing seems a little too high -

    And one more thing. They have to do it by Jan. 10, 2010.

    I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing -- 3 years might have been nice, but 5 years seems a little too long to me.

    Anyway, this is really good. Hopefully, the space race has started again!

    PS - why the _HELL_ is Slashdot having an applet in the ads? It freezes up my browser in Windows for a while. It's getting to be a pain. At the very least, provide some way of turning off Applet ads.

    1. Re:Hah! by julesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      3 years might have been nice, but 5 years seems a little too long to me

      Sorry, 3 years is infeasible for the kind of development this will take. How long was SS1 in development? This is at least an order of magnitude more complicated.

      I'm not sure 5 years is possible, but I'm hoping to be proved wrong.

  3. To little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems like spaceship one spent significantly more than 10 mil on their first ship. Is 50 mil a large enough reward for other participants?

    1. Re:To little? by JDevers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My take on these type of awards is that the cash prize is just there to try to encourage both the small and inventive teams as well as help pay back some of the bills accrued by the big teams. The real reward will come a few years AFTER the competition, but the award will help keep the company solvent from point A to B.

      Basically, this isn't like a lottery or something where if you spend $11 to make $10 you loose, instead you got to do $11 worth of science for only $1 and more importantly you might be able to move your company/team towards a future where you can make 10x-100x times the award per year or more...

  4. Technicality Smechnic..thingy by Clappingman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The spacecraft must reach a minimum velocity sufficient to complete two (2) full orbits at altitude before returning to Earth; It doesn't say that it actually has to orbit twice though, just reach the velocity necessary to do so.

    1. Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Please explain.

      If you achieve the velocity sufficient to achieve orbit, then you've achieved the velocity sufficient to orbit twice. And three times. And 17 times.

      I must be missing something.

    2. Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Low Earth Orbit is not frictionless. It's just EXTREMELY thin air. Anything that stays in LEO for an extended period will require an occasional boost to maintain its orbit. That's why NASA occasionally gives the ISS a boost or two.

    3. Re:Technicality Smechnic..thingy by logpoacher · · Score: 5, Informative
      consider the fact that if you fired a bullet from a decent rifle a thousand miles up, it would go into orbit, but obviously bullets don't go into orbit here on the ground.

      Well, careful here. That's the big misconception - that orbital velocity is anything like the speed of a bullet. Ok, ok, it depends on your definition of "decent rifle" :-), but no Earth rifle even comes close to firing at 5 miles a second - a tenth of that is more likely.

      Similarly, SpaceShip One only achieved about 0.6miles/sec. That's why - amazing though it is that they achieved what they did on such a small budget - the orbit challenge is so much harder than just "touching space". When you consider that chemical rockets project propellant at about 2 miles/sec, you'll see that a single-stage rocket's mass must be almost entirely fuel (>85%) to achieve orbital speed alone - and that's after you've reached a suitable height! Multi-stage boosters help with the physics, of course, but they slaughter the economics. :-)

      Anyway, achieving height is just the easy "Part 1" of the problem. Speed's the hard part. Try doing the momentum sums yourself - it gives you serious respect for people who can build machines to overcome the problems, and it shows how close Earth is to being completely un-escapable (at least using chemical rockets)!

      Of course, re-reading your post, the rifle thing does illustrate your point rather well. Oh well ...

  5. The rules specify the 5 people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...must be Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, Ashcroft, and Oreilly. Successful reentry is not required to receive your prize.

    1. Re:The rules specify the 5 people... by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...must be Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, Ashcroft, and Oreilly. Successful reentry is not required to receive your prize.

      Yes, but with those people in the Rocket, successful re-entry is likely since they are very succssful people. Now, if you are shooting for failure try putting in Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Nader and Sharpton

  6. Re:Better Idea by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No.

    The basic problem is not that we do not have enough power, it is that we have too many people stuffed in a limited volume (I'm going to avoid having to have two meanings of "space" in this comment, dammit!). Getting to space efficiently allows us to have a larger volume in which humanity can live.

    It doesn't solve every problem in the world, but being to run very very far away from your problems helps. It's how the U.S.A. got started.

    --Ender

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  7. Make an orbit by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I've got a gremlin and a huge rubber band... now if I only had 4 friends!
    Your taun-taun will freeze before you reach the first marker!
  8. Sounds like a recipe for disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The risks involved increase polynomially the longer the craft is active.

    If people die in the course of attaining this prize, say goodbye to private space travel and hello to new laws and regulations. The chilling effect from "Columbia" is nothing compared to what will happen if a private attempt goes wrong.

    This contest also has the potential to create an international incident.

    1. Re:Sounds like a recipe for disaster by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If people die in the course of attaining this prize, say goodbye to private space travel and hello to new laws and regulations.
      Yep. Just look at what happened when people first died in a private automotive accident. The government stepped in, and now we're all back to horse and buggy.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  9. 80% reusable? by bulletman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The rules say that only 20% of the vehicule can be expendable. Why have this requirement at all? If someone can send a ship cheaply and reliably that doesn't meet this rule, then why not?

    Stephen

    1. Re:80% reusable? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It forces the builder to design something new, instead of just another overgrown ICBM from the 1950s.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:80% reusable? by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then begin your rationalizing by claiming that the part that lifts off is the 20 percent, and the launch pad is the 80 percent.

    3. Re:80% reusable? by Zarniwoop_Editor · · Score: 5, Funny
      Can the crew be part of the expendable 20%?

      Might save on life support overhead for the two orbits. ;-)

      --
      - F1 NEWS
  10. Probably much more useful than SS1 by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rutan's accomplishment was impressive, but as has been pointed out in other discussions, it was essentially a high-flying airplane rather than a true spaceship, and doesn't scale well. Anyone who wins this prize will have built something much more directly applicable to real space travel.

    Which isn't to say I don't want Rutan, or someone else whose approach is essentially aviation-based rather than big-boom-straight-up-based, to get it. When I was a kid, I spent endless hours reading my Dad's old 50's sci-fi collection, and somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that a real spaceship has a needle nose and delta wings ...

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  11. Re:Better Idea by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The end of Middle East conflict? In your dreams...

    When the Arab nations realize they can't eat sand and can't afford to import food because their oil is worthless, there'll be hell to pay.

  12. Lighten up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " The risks involved increase polynomially the longer the craft is active."

    I don't mean this the way this sounds, but I think you made this up completely. You may be right. But I don't see any data to support this.

    "If people die in the course of attaining this prize"

    People die skydiving, scuba diving, bungee jumping, skiing... all the time. Unlike many people, I don't think the loss of a spacecraft with 6 people on board is any more tragic than the loss of 6 people in a minivan accident on the freeway.

    "say goodbye to private space travel and hello to new laws and regulations."

    New laws and regulations are inevitable anyway. Or did you think Virgin Airlines (Branson) is just going to fire up Spaceship one and start taking reservations? Its really hard getting FCC certified for any kind of commercial flights.

    "The chilling effect from "Columbia" is nothing compared to what will happen if a private attempt goes wrong."

    What chilling effect? The space shuttle is a piece of crap; it should be grounded because its too expensive.

    "This contest also has the potential to create an international incident."

    So does fingerprinting and retina scanning all foreigners entering the country, but that doesn't seem to have stopped us.

    Stop worrying about the sky falling.

  13. Re:America's Space Prize? by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Informative

    quoth the article:

    "Another set of the rules for the prize require that any contestant reside and do business in the United States."

    Hence the name...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  14. Re:Better Idea by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How else could you solve so many problem with a 10 million dollar prize. If Burt Rutan was focused on a lightweight scalable wind turbine - My guess is we'd be there by now. Instead we've invented a private version of the vomit comet.

    Let's see:
    Invention #1, if it can be invented, will provide cheap and unlimited energy to the world population. Profit value: Gajillions.
    Invention #2, if it can be invented, will provide trips to low Earth orbit for the lucky few who can afford it. Profit value: a few million a year.

    Seems to me the key phrase here is "if it can be invented" and not "10 million dollar 'prize' for inventing it". There is a heck of a lot more of a prize in cash terms waiting for invention #1 without a group of hobby enthusiasts offering anything. Doesn't appear you thought before you ranted.

  15. So entirely stupid reasons by tod_miller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The idea that we should escape the world and live in space...

    Why not jsut say lets live on water? Sure as heck easier to get to, and you can have sub-aqua settlements for those hoping to have gone to space.

    Benefits of living on water:

    No rocket accidents
    Cheaper to ferry supplies
    Less Gamma radiation
    If the global warming occurs, water prices (like land prices, get it!) will plummet! Coastal regions will always be prime real-estate! (for the land views)
    You can use desalinisation to drink sea water, you can use devacuumisation to magic up water in space.
    You can have solar power and wind power and wave power.
    You have a comfortable 1G, and sea level air pressure, and a salty air that will put a healthy hue in your cheeks.
    Topless sunbathing.
    Can move around the oceans, and fish.

    Benefits of being in space:

    0g sex
    wearing silver clothing

    Well I can think of a few more arguments, but going to space 'to live there' is so dumb, living in the desert is easier and cheaper than living in space. Many poor people with camels already do it!

    Recycling and filtering our pollution is easier than recycling and rebreathing space station air.

    Terrorist attacks are worrying on a space station, which brings us to the question:

    So why do people want to go to space and offer prizes for new space technology?

    Not for living! not for Star Trek/Wars/n!

    But for commercial flights, transports, satellites, RIAA, Micheal Jackson and Military purposes.

    So there, I hope we are all done pandering to the space race, as we will be living int he oceans before we live on mars.

    Actually, we will all be dead from all the new space weapons.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  16. Re:Better Idea by CriX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apples and Oranges.

    They should pursue both inventions. Why does everyone think that a space program is the entity stopping other inventions from happening? It's not. NASA is not stopping the creation of efficient wind power. God damnit. Bitch about the military's budget instead. Stop messing with the real estate investment opportunity of a lifetime.

    --
    Moderation: +1 pwnage
  17. Re:Better Idea by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And if their oil is worthless, they will pay for a war... how?
    People were fighting over the middle east for thousands of years before oil even became an issue. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  18. Re:America only? by the_weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Others have already pointed out that you have attributed the prize to the wrong person.

    The rest of your statement is absurd. Don't like an American contest like this? Scrounge together your own 10 million and offer a contest of your own. Surely there are rich companies and coporations in your part of the world that can pony up the cash?

    When I look to donate money to a cause, I don't donate to an "adopt an african child" program, I donate to a local foodbank. When I volunteer time, I don't go to South America and build schools, I help Habitat for Humanity.

    I can't help the whole world, and these charities and organizations focus on my neighbours and the people in my community. One could even say that my actions are not altruistic, as these are the same neighbours and community my children and family live in. They may one day need the help of these services.

    Not every action and event has to be balanced for some metric of global fairness.

    A desire to foster innovation and advancement in your own country is only reasonable. Since this is private money, it can be used any way he wants to.

    --
    - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
  19. Re:Better Idea by Harinezumi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Wind power is not practical for large-scale power generation. Never was, never will be. We already have a clean, efficient, and safe source of power that would last us for centuries even if we we used it for all our power generation needs, and its name is nuclear.

    What we really need to do is offer a prize for someone to convince all the myopic NIMBY types to give the pebble bed reactors a try. And yes, if you want to build one in my backyard, go right ahead.

  20. Re:Better Idea by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 4, Informative
    The negatives outweight the positives by several orders of magnitude, at the minimum.

    The Earth has been warm before, and it was good.

    From that link:

    By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

    From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea-level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea-level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea-level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

    The period from 750 BC - 900 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

    The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

    From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25 % of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

    Those who don't know history will only repeat the bad parts of it.
  21. friends by Fr05t · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok since noone has said it:

    Who wouldn't be able to find 4 friends when you have a gremlin and a huge rubber band!

  22. Rutan is leading contender to win, though. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think people forget that Burt Rutan's company is probably the leading candidate to win this US$50,000,000 prize.

    Scaled Composites did a lot of development work for both the McDonnell-Douglas Delta Clipper and Lockheed Martin Venture Star projects. This means Scaled Composites already has enough technical knowledge to start work on a space vehicle to win this prize as soon as they get enough funding to pull it off (Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures could easily part with the US$200,000,000 estimated development cost; Allen's group paid US$30,000,000 to develop the X-Prize winner).

  23. No way ! by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Schröder, Chirac, Blair, Sharon and Berlusconi on the second trip?

    Schroder will attract hordes of angry east German protester who will block the launch, Blair will give the plans of the ship to the US government with offers of complimentary sexual gratification to any senior member of the administration, Sharon won't get in the ship because it will probably fly over a moslem country at some point, Chirac will ask for United Nations meetings, counter-meeting, commissions and detailed reports on the size and orientation of every single joint in the fuselage, and Berlusconi will just run away with the prize !

    Thomas-

  24. Re:Better Idea by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wish you were right on this. It should help, but poverty is caused more by government corruption and lawlessness than by lack of infrastructure. Given good government, Uganda would soon be more like Canada than Uganda. Unfortunately, no one knows how to ``give'' good government.

    Give them the Canadian government. Canadians are basically good people and would behave without their government.

  25. Orbital Gremlins by jshark · · Score: 5, Funny

    The aerodynamics of a Gremlin are such that the giant rubber band will give insufficient lift to attain orbital velocity. You'll be better off with a good strong plank and one of those weights from Acme that read 16 TONS on the side.

    The only drawback is that the sudden acceleration may cause your passengers to look like pancakes of mercury on the floormats, assuming they don't just flow through the rust holes in the floorboards.

    --
    If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.
  26. Re:restrictive condition? by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you have $50 million dollars, you can run your own space contest and demand that the winner perform their orbit attempts while wearing "I'M WITH STUPID" T-shirts. Bigelow has the $50 million right now so he gets to make his own rules.