Slashdot Mirror
NASA Hoping To Create Super X-Prizes
Rei writes "NASA is attempting to use a strategy of handing out contracts as prizes, akin to the Ansari X-Prize, instead of the contractor-preferred method of bidding and having payment before work is completed. They are hoping to have prizes worth as much as one billion dollars. The only hitch? Congress won't let them."
a billion dollars as a prize seems somewhat of a NASA style expenditure.. why would they do that?
MABASPLOOM!
And since when has congress approved of anything related to the technology community that benefited it greatly?
This could turn out to be a good thing, Developer handles all of the R&D costs doesnt get a dime unless work is satisfactorily completed and cant go over budget.
only down side I see is it could also scare off buisnesses not willing to take the risk of spending all that money and then not getting the contract.
Special Interests.
Monstar L
Congress won't let them
So, I'm supposed to be disappointed that Congress is actually looking out for my money... at least to some extent?
$$$ is expensive, and I don't know if you've noticed, but the federal government isn't exactly bathing in money, what with the largest federal deficit and all.
The Political Programmer
"One Billion Dollars!" --Dr. Evil
Nasa should set standards for the work they want completed, and have it done in a safe manner
They are trying to cut corners by shifting the RISK of death off their own astronaughts and test pilots to those of outside contractors many of whom in the case of the original X- Prise were working on the super cheap and therefore were much more dangerous than should be tolerated..
Even the winner who HAD decent backing had a few moments without complete control in EACH of their flights -
I think folks would have reacted very differently to the winning vehicle had it tumbled back into the atmosphere and burned up killing the pilot.. which was a not unlikely outcome
Worker saftey and standards are somthing that shouldnt be shoved aside in the quest for scientific advancement on the cheap...
2 cents
Congress doesn't care if a contractor gets actual results. All they care about is milking the various contractors for re-election contributions. Those who give the most get the contracts. That is so obvious that even a rocket-scientist should be able to figure it out.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Head of NASA: Mr. Senator, in light of the recent (airquotes) "X-Prize" I'd like for NASA to receive funding to sponsor contract prizes of its own, in amounts up to..... (pinky to corner of mouth) ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The article states the problem NASA is facing: "Under the agency's old way of doing business, officials decided what they wanted built, asked private companies to bid on building it, then awarded a contract to the lower acceptable bidder - who often was located in an important Congressional district." I hope that there is still an honest man in Congress that would push for them to pass a bill to allow NASA to do this.
NASA needs to create a $10 million X-Prize going to the congressman that can secure them the most funding.
If NASA want to offer upto $1 billion of cash prizes, I think they'll have to generate most of money for the prizes in other ways, i.e fund raising events, or charging for trips on the Shuttle or to the I.S.S.
I doubt Congress is going to grant them an extra $1 billion a year to just provide the cash prizes. They will have to take the money from elsewhere, i.e current projects and missions, something they are already doing for the Moon - Mars plan. In other words, ain't going to happen. It's a shame really, as we've already seen what the X-Prize is doing, creating more and more determined would-be astronauts and a real effort to make space accessible to all of us. Something like winning a prize from NASA would really be a fledgling space tourism companies PR dream.
This seems to me like potentially a very wasteful way of accomplishing a goal since many people will contribute a lot of work and never see any money for it.
To overcome this, perhaps NASA could consider breaking the prize money down to make sure that the most efficient way gets acknowleged as well as the quickest way.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
They are hoping to have prizes worth as much as one billion dollars. The only hitch? Congress won't let them.
I'm hoping to blow a billion dollars on stuff too. The only hitch? My bank manager won't let me.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
2. The NASA contract awarding process is flawed as is. There's rampant corruption and favouritism. These factors directly contributed to the Challenge disaster, as the Faynmen report outlined. The Super X-Prize is not going to solve that.
3. Winners will be determined by actual achievements, not proposals, So they need money to build it in the first place. But prize competitors will have to produce some results first before NASA will fork out any cash. So unless you have a co-founder of M$ backing you to the hilt, you ain't gonna reach orbital velocity buddy!
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
Would you rather have NASA get another 5 billion a year or the FAA spend the same on a computer upgrade that doesn't work. Come to think of it, which would rather have: NASA, or another aircraft carrier battle group.
This is my sig.
Nasa usually does their own testing on most of their stuff.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
It turns out that big rewards to solve real problems does seem to work and I think the US Gov't should go way out with the rewards for the hard problems.
For example give a billion dollars to the person(s) and not the company the comes up with a cure for aids. If someone does win the prize, then look at the cost savings over the long run. In the case of aids, a billion dollar one off payment is cheap.
the real issue here is the budget being much tighter than anyone can imagine. I mean 1 billion didn't sound like so much back when we had the surplus. Now, according to this site, we're losing more than $1 billion per day. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
+5, Truth
Actually, the best way to get this right-wing Congress to give NASA a virtual blank check would be to classify extra-terrestrial microbes as "possibly terrorist-related WMD" and then declare war on Mars.
Forget the deficit: it's our PATRIOTIC DUTY to fund the Billion Dollar Mars Orbiter Metric Converter, because the TERRORISTS hate space travel.
Nothing would move us along faster: we'd be getting Priceline deals on the daily Halliburton red-eye to the lunar colony before Jeb takes the oath of office......
MANUALLY-GENERATED SIG: See I'm not just a cynic -- I'm a dreamer too!
I was just watching the SpaceShipOne docu-drama on the discovery channel the other day and I was re-living when I saw it live via the internet. It was huge that a private industry broke the space barrier.
:D
The Xprize was for a fairly small amount of money considering the scope and possible payoff of the project. Now that NASA wants to offer billions to private industries consider one of the biggest advantages - many more people will have a serious go at the projects. So more minds are out there working to consider novel options (like Ratan's "feather" wing) or other such outside the box thinking - as opposed to a few mega-corps. Kinda like open source but this could actually make money
So congress can piss away money on every half-baked social program but when it comes to space travel they want results? Sigh...
Is there, like, a trillion-dollar prize for building the first Dyson sphere?
Tired of the mediocre engineering coming out of NASA?
watchout!
China and India will be winning the bids!
"Is there, like, a trillion-dollar prize for building the first Dyson sphere?"
I'm on it too. In fact, I'm hoping to sneak in and consume all of Mars for material for the project. I'll do it when the Martians are all on spring break. When they come home, I sure as hell am telling you that complaining of "Earth blocking our view of Venus" is the last thing those green brush-helmeted little devils will be doing.
Big Corporation won't like it, because it'll take money out of their pocket, and the congressmen have to look out for corporations. For the people, my ass. It's all about who's putting food on the other's table, and if you think congressmen aren't in Lockheed and others' pocketbooks, well, have I got a tin foil hat with your name on it.
In about 2000 I started considering this as a viable option for "projects" within organizations - some sort of open contest/competition/bidding process. What I thought then was that this would lead to better quality products, more innovation through competition (and lower resulting prices), faster development time, and lower development costs.
However, that said, here are a few drawbacks I have also come to think about since then with this model:
First, from a corporate strategy point of view, does it make sense to enter a contest where you know others will be striving to create the exact same product? Competition is usually good, but if everyone is competing, and there can only be one "winner", what about all the time/money/work spent developing competing solutions that get shelved? Or worse, what if the project sponsor chooses the wrong "solution" to go with? Is this kind of a waste of economic resources?
If more and more companies decide to offer "contests" to get their projects done, eventually there could be tons of contests, and not enough people to do them. I know this is thinking WAAAAY into the future, but hey, it could happen.. kind of like "contest overload". I mean, surely many companies and organizations want to do these projects NOW, so what would the effect of an open bounty for the successful completion of a project do to actually get them done?
Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to build more of an "open source/open development" atmosphere, helping to connect the best and the brightest from all walks of life around the world, put these projects out for anyone to bid on, and let millions work together to solve these complex problems? As an open source developer, I'd love to see this happen, even if it does sound a bit utopian and naive.
Just my 2 cents..
-6d
It's about time we all face up to an important fact. When it comes to manned space travel, NASA can no longer be factored into the equation. NASA is not our future of manned spaceflight. They were great for getting humanity's foot in the door, but the private sector is going to have to take it from here. NASA cannot be relied upon to produce results when Congress will not give them funding.
So I am not as concerned about the fact that Congress will not give them the budget for this. What I am far more concerned about is what was mentioned at the end of the article:
The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 - which passed the House last week and is expected to pass the Senate when it reconvenes next week - actually tightens safety restrictions on any future private competitions like the X Prize.
I googled for this bill and came up with some info, but a lot of it is hard to piece together because there appear to be multiple versions of this bill. On first blush it would appear that Congress is already leaping into the fore of regulating this industry before it has even started.
So my greater concern is that the private sector may get as badly hamstrung as NASA, but just in a different way. Perhaps we should stop focusing on trying to get NASA funding and instead keep an eye on Congress and prevent them from overregulating the industry to death. Let NASA stick to what they appear to be best at, anyway, namely unmanned spaceflight.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.
I think this is the right track. Paying for results, instead of a promise is the way I would like to see things get done. It would probably greatly boost the rate at space advances happen, because there would be money in the solutions, as opposed to money prolonging the problems.
Beyond any real reasons why Congress won't let them, there is the fact that there are polititions who have made their name by actively combatting anything that furthers space exploration. Or, at least, used such lunacy (no pun intended) to help them advance.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
NASA should not do anyhting of the sort here. For one, who is to say they won't overpay for something? I mean even if they offered a prize somewere more reasonable like around 10 million dollars, what if the first company to "make it work" could do it for 3 million. That means nasa has just waisted 7 million dollars that could have went to another project.
Also, if the prize isn't large enough, some of the major players capable of making things happen might stay away form competing because of not having enough money to compete or because the return on investment is too low.
Now ask yourself, If you was the CEO of a large publicaly traded company, how many times would your investor/board of directors let you compete in good faith When after spending X amount of money to acomplish goals X and Z, your bigest competitor beats you to the punch and your out X amount of dollars and little hope of recycleing the research that went into it.
The X-prize worked for what it was intended for because that was the sum of money to make it attractive for other buisinesses to get into the market and that money wasn't competing with any other projects. (IE.. There wasn't any other projects needing the money like an international space station of a space shuttle overhaul to make it safer.) Also the money for the Xprize was colected by donation were people gladly risked thier money with little chance of return outside a market being developed. With NASA the moneys are colected from taxes and sometimes comercial missions, you need to justify what is being spent if you expect to get it and you have to qualify/spend the budget in order to get it again the next year.
Eventualy this will echo with claims of a $200 toilet seat or a $1200 step ladder and every new congressman trying to get re-elected will jump on the waist in an attemp to "clean up washington" so they can get re-elected. I don't think we want NASA to become a political venture so congressmen make a name for themselves. NOBODY really likes paying taxes and would soon see this as a reason to cut NASA's funding. They would have a fit when some bitter company that was competing started telling the newspapers they could build a simular product for millions less in an effort to get congress to award them a contract.
If NASA way of doing buisiness nedds reform, this is definatly not the way to do it. And anyone that thinks this is a way for the little guy to get thier foot into the door should reconsider the situation. IT favors the large guy with tons of money and a research base alrwady in existance form ealier contracts.
rutan is a right-wingnut shithead just like paul allen.
paul allen spent more than was won in the competition...does that make sense?
they basically duplicated a test done 40+ years ago, and created no new technology in the process...does that make sense?
rutan and allen are constantly crowing about being innovators, when all they have done is duplicate what already exists, while giving the true innovators no credit (paul allen learned that from his microsoft days i guess)...does that make sense?
in closing, i've seen a couple comments on the web about this "innovation"...from real rocket scientists...that claim even taking into account the inflation since the 1950's...the original bell X1 project spent less money that rutan and allen...and that includes the R&D!...so i ask again...does that make sense?
screw it. if america is stupid enough to fall for this fly-by-night infomercial nonsense, then by all means...let the drooling commence!
It's too much of a risk. $10 million for X-Prize is fine because that's doable for a corporation, but $100 million - $1 billion + is just way too far out there.
Microsoft is sitting on $40 billion in cash. I'm sure there are a number of companies with visionaries at the helm who'd love to throw cash at the problem - Richard Bransom of Virgin, for example.
Throw cash at the problem with only a chance of winning the prize and recouping your investment...
It's a very good method against white collar fraud anyway. NO enron, NO worldcom. True capitalism , you will get paid if you win Losing will not be tolerated; this sounds like high school sports IMHO.
The concept is interesting. And it could work for some projects -- most of the possible projects have a high "sex" appeal. Others, particulary the smaller ones, could be done as part of graduate studies and thesis work.
However, this is not a panacea. Not all projects can be done successfully with this build and NASA might pay concept.
Consider the next-generation space telescope, JWST. Design work began several years ago. With a plan selected and funding secured from the federal government, the bid process was begun. During the proposal phase, NASA-funded study projects were conducted by several competitors, to determine who would fabricate the primary mirrors -- these are next-generation products.
Three major teams made proposals. The winning propsal is for about $700M. It is sponsored by NASA Goddard. The winning team is composed of TRW, part of Northrop Grumman, as prime and Kodak C&GS, now ITT SSD, and Ball Aerospace. Various subcontractors are involved, including Tinsley, Axsys, and 4D Technologies. It is about a six year project requiring facilities unique to all these companies. The telescope will be assembled at a Government owned facility, with preliminary proof-of-concept testing taking place at Goddard.
Finally, if any of these companies causes the project to fail -- another Hubble -- they will see their NASA business evaporate and their reputation in the community will be damaged, if not destroyed.
There is no way a project of this scope, risk, and complexity, and cost could be done independently, with payment only a hope.
ShoutingMan.com
One thing to keep in mind is that as NASA increasingly off loads its work to private companies, NASA must ensure that none of the private companies are fronts for the Chinese military [phrusa.org]. In the past, the People's Liberation Army (more realistically known as the torturers of Tibetans) has set up numerous front companies to buy the latest American technology. If we do not remain vigilant, then the Chinese will have access to our very best aerospace technology and will ultimately use it to weaponize space.
Another right-wing american spreading stupid lies. This really ISN'T likely, I'm certain china understand mutually assured destruction. And if you going to say such bullshit, atleast provide some evidance.
Space exploration is a relatively new, and dangerous field of endevour. It's an activity that pushes the envelope. That's why the call it "exploration", ya know.
Worker saftey standards are appropriate for industry, where established technologies are being used to crank out the same result, over and over, for a profit. But to impose these standards on a fledgling industry is unreasonable and stupid. No one who is going to get a chance to climb into a rocket is going to do so in ignorance of the risks.
In the 50's, they lost a couple of test pilots a month, on average, at Muroc (later Edwards AFB). That's just the way it was with a new technology in those days. They had plenty of hotshot pilots who knew the risk and were willing to take it.
If your attitude had prevailed in those early days of the jet age, all our airplanes would still use propellors.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
When you vote with a dollar, it always counts.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
It also has the downside that it favours large companies. Right now a small company can still get contracts and funding from NASA, helping grow companies and foster competition. With the "prize" approach, small companies can't afford to foot the bill in the first place even if they knew they'd win the prize in the end.
In that sense, it's sort of like the "monopoly by litigation" approach where a big company can afford to sue everybody and they can't afford to fight back. In this case, it just who can afford the R&D.
It's not an all bad idea, but anything that inherently favours the big guy over the little guy is somewhat biased and counter to the goals of efficiency through competition.
If the documentary i saw on the discovery channel is to believed, Boeing and Lockeed-Martin built fighters, and then the army, navy, etc, picked the best performing unit (it ending up being the Lockeed-Martin one). If the army can do it, why cant NASA?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I am sorry, I thought worker safety was ensured by creating laws, not putting those jobs under a government agency . . .
Insightful? Or does slashdot just have a big NASA following?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
" NASA needs to create a $10 million X-Prize going to the congressman that can secure them the most funding."
"This just in, NASA's budget just passed the military and education budgets combined. When asked for a comment the head of the space agency, who was wearing mouse ears and dancing in a circle, shouted, "We goin' to Mars"."
This is one of the better trolls I've seen in a while. Certainly persistent, too. Oh, you mischeivous Anonymous Coward, what will you think of next?
Sleep is futile.
Not quite. NASA is trying desperately to remain relevant, as well as retain control over space exploration. The whole space exploration thing has been a wonderful bit of PR for NASA's military research.
Let's face it- for forty years NASA has told everyone that space flight is risky, only perfect, super-smart people can travel into space, and that there's only one way to do it- the Orbiter. During those forty years they've putzed around space, done lots of experiments, lots of simulations and calculations, quietly helped develop a lot of military technology...and come up with various designs for alternatives to the Orbiter and dismissed all of them, probably because they like the status quo, but also because they've been obsessed with making one vehicle do everything, instead of just accepting that you use cargo rockets for cargo, and people ships for people; NASA is like a Soccer Mom, convinced they need a giant hulking vehicle just to toodle to the supermarket and pick up the dry cleaning.
NASA is, as far as technical knowledge is concerned, one of the best equipped organizations to develop something like a new space vehicle. But they were not the ones who ultimately succeeded. Scaled Composites showed up with a nice, small, sexy craft that looks very much this-decade. It uses a pair of jet engines and a single main rocket, and the whole thing could probably fit inside the Orbiter bay several times over, but still carries the same # of people, roughly. NASA is embarassed out of their minds.
Yes, NASA's efforts over the last 40 years have made it possible, but the agency that should have been in the best position, it turns out, was in the worst- and distracted with military projects (do you really think a mach 10+ mini-plane is for peace, love, and understanding? Phbt. It's for delivering tactical nukes very, very quickly from across the globe to better project US military strength).
It's a very typical power move you see in corporations and the public sector all the time. If the other guy's ideas start to endanger you, suddenly embrace his ideas and position yourself as the ideal candidate to manage that guy.
Please help metamoderate.
Tax cut for the wealthy: $1,600,000,000,000; Iraq war: $287,000,000,000; $1,000,000,000 denied for scientific research and the advancement of the human species: priceless.
Why bother.
There is a very ironic message in this whole idea.
NASA is hoping to drive costs down by having multiple corporations compete for a single prize! They believe that having more than one company try to build the same thing, of which there is only one winner (I mean how many hubbles are there), will actually reduce their costs!
I agree! Competition does reduce costs! Now, all we need is to multiple NASAs so that they can compete with each other, and reduce *their* costs.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Does it go to whoever goes most over budget?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
NASA, you and I just need to get creative.
You let me know what kind of prizes you want to do, and you can pay me as an old-fashioned contractor.
I'll run the contests and handle the prize-style payouts for you, for a modest 10% commission. This way Congress will stay off your back.
Gimme a call.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Setting a prize for a space flight mission or anything else that could endanger human lives is unlikely. I guessing by when they say technology they meana prize for designing a valve or nozzle, a software app, new composite etc... Nasa puts out the specs on what they need and whoever fills their requirements first wins the prize. I think its an excellent idea and a great way to save money.
Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise
NASA does set safety standards for this as they do for large portions of the aviation industry. Who do you think has a say in the authorization of said companies to test their products?
the original X- Prise were working on the super cheap and therefore were much more dangerous than should be tolerated..
None of the X-prize pilots for space ship-1 were working on the "cheap" these were very wealthy men pursuing a goal that has and will continue to make them even more wealthy. They knew the risks and they found them exceptable. These weren't military personel being ordered to do so or corporate slobs in fear of their jobs.
Again the FAA and NASA both had to sign off on the Space Ship 1 launch. Safety did not take a back seat for those flights. Before you yell conflict of interests, the portion of NASA that is involved with aviation safety is seperate from other opperations and their suggestions usually go far above and beyond what the industry/government is able to comply with.
Yes they would have reacted differently to a vehicle that burned up, as in they would have not been made the "winners". Let's also ask these little questions. How many space shuttles have we lost in the "safer" method of vehicle aquisition? How many people have died in just the past year of military developement of aircraft? Hell how many people died in car accidents this year? You are all worried about a few dozen flights in the next few years verses the tens of thousands who will die by this time next year? Glad to know you have priorities straight.
Worker saftey and standards are somthing that shouldnt be shoved aside in the quest for scientific advancement on the cheap...
Again none of the pilots involved in the X-prize were anything but willing. It's not the government's job to play mommy and make sure everyone is safe. Besides we already have the FAA which makes the US aviation industry the safest in the world (Over 80% of major aviation accidents occur outside the US) and I'm sure they are more than up to the challenge of regulating this new field of private enterprise.
You're right on the money to say your 2 cents worth. Uniformed emotional opinions are usually worth very little.
a couple of billion to first guy that can fix the Hubble Telescope.
What?
With the liberals at their heels, what do you expect? Now adays, NASA has to worry that if something doesn't work, they'll be sued and gain a neg public image. BUT if you allow private industry to do all the dev work and just buy an end product, it's "safer." Case in point: if the space shuttle blows up, it's a horrible tradgity and makes the world news - NASA is not expected to make mistakes. If some shmuck makes a rocket and it doesn't work and blows himself up - it's kind expected. Besides, there's way too many idiot out there today, let's let them thin the population.
... the opposite of progress is congress.
A friend of mine (an army officer) in graduate school was a project manager on the Hellfire missile program. He said they spent years (6) trying to get funding from Congress and couldn't get it done, until one day they slapped their forheads and figured out How Things Really Work. What changed? They rearchitected the development and procurement process to maximize the number of Congressional Districts that had development and production pieces of the pork above a certain amount per. When they hit critical mass (distribution of dollars over number of districts), BOOM!, the appropriations flew through Congress and the project got done.
This prize business won't fly until they can figure out how to guarantee that any awards will automagically maximize District participation above a certain level. Hell, some guy in some town could win the whole thing and only one Congressman would get all the juice. That won't work. That's only one vote.
The Chinese are realists and believe in the superiority of the Han people. If given the chance, they WILL dominate the planet. They are no better than the NAZI's.
First of all, my opinion is that Congress should allow NASA much greater power and funds to assist them in space travel research. Considering all the worthless things they spend immense amounts of money on, there should be no problem funding a worth-while project.
Now, to get philosophical-ish...
It constantly amazes me at how it seems that noone in our government (or many others for that matter) seem to grasp the big picture. They concentrate on petty issues like power struggles and things that they shouldn't even be debating, such as gay marriage. They also spend a fair amount of their time overseeing and starting illegal international wars and conflicts. However, they never seem to be interested in science and the advancing of humanity. I believe that space is our largest frontier at the moment, and that we should spend at least a reasonable amount of our time trying to explore it. (By the way, explore does not mean conquer and control) Otherwise, we're just spending our time idly by, and quarreling with one another. We should start by thinking of ourselves as human beings and not Americans, but I suppose that's too much to ask of our country. Perhaps others will lead the way.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Damn that congress for getting in the way of awarding an X-Prize!
--Later---
Damn that congress! NASA gave another technology contact to Microsoft!
So what would people say if NASA asked for a new technology and the best entry was from a company with ties to the sitting president? Or a company with a bad reputation, such as SCO?
A NASA X-Prize could become a magnet very for political charges of contract favoritism. NASA has managed to remain a government agency without the stigma of being partisan to one party. That changes the moment people think NASA is offering sweetheart contracts to companies with friends in high places.
ignorance and greed chooses to turn a deaf ear to our future.
I cannot believe how people, especially those appointed to manage our society, can possibly miss the benefits of publicly open competitive contracts.
"Rehab, captain Ahab, 'cause you're chasing the wrong fish"
rehab, captain ahab, you're chasing the wrong fish!
I saw the chief rocket scientist for the Canadian X-prize entry (hint: it doesn't float on water), sweating bullets 2 years before the marketing team was hired.
Maybe we (the heathen) aren't meant to bear the stresses of furthering our species' chances in the great beyond.
blah.
rehab, captain ahab, you're chasing the wrong fish!
Ahhh.. But Paul Allen (didn't he have something to do with Microshaft, hee-hee) and Branson of Virgin are already backing Rutan and SpaceShip1 (sp?). They don't NEED any of that f___ing government money, and obviously they know how to pick 'em. Rutan and his crew are there for the long haul. Regardless of whether they are recognized by NASA or not, they plan on starting their own space tourism biz (and guess who the first tourists will be?), at least to start. But, if NASA will help them along occasionally with a dollar or a million here and there, what of it? Nice to see them acting like a responsible agency again for a change, right? And.. $1 billion just isn't that much, for what they expect to get out of it. Apollo (in today's dollars) cost a hell of a lot more than that. If Rutan's crew can land *Americans* on the Moon again, and do it cheap, they DESERVE $1 billion don't they? The rabid budget hackers of Congress (remember Proxmire?) loved to chop away at NASA because it was 1) visible, and 2) difficult to defend. Very few of these 'fiscally responsible' political critters have made any attempt to reduce the big-ticket items in the budget, such as debt payment on the deficit and, well, wars. So why not? Let NASA give the whole ($20 billion?) budget away. If Rutan's crew and backers are representative of the type of people in the private sector, I think this is something that should have been considered long ago, not just this week. - Pat
- - 'Go ahead, make my tea.' - Doow Tsae T'nilc -
Well, they don't have to give out all the money in a single prize. They could make an overall design for the project, split it into, say, 20 parts, and offer 50 million for each's completion, like an engine that provides x amount of thrust, weights less than y, and can fit into a z-sized compartment. That way there is less risk involved for the corperation and NASA gets to control the overall design.
Probably the same troll who posted this
Parent makes a good point, and this is clearly one of those ventures where clearly the advancement of technology is going to be a degree inversely proprtional to safety measures taken. But there's arguably something to be said for people's abilities to take risks if they want to (for instance, test pilots). We don't want space innovation in the private sector to become synonymous with "deathtrap," and certainly government projects have to be held to strict standards, but as far as proof-of-concept goes, I know I just wouldn't feel nearly the sense of adventure if the outcome were the wholly guaranteed result of some plastic-fantastic safety first project that would undoubgtedly costs twice as much and take twice as long as something else with a more moderate (though still, as parent points out, quite reasonable), risk factor that might lead to quicker improvement and design. This country continues to do its best to prevent us from being held accountable for spilling coffee on ourselves (*cough* McDonald's case *cough*), but it seems as though a renewed interest in the space program would also be helped by instilling it with more of a sense of risk for those involved, that is, to give it the appeal fo the old style, rugged-individualism wild west, the same sort of ideals that characterized the first US-Soviet space race and led to such rapid and effective development in both nations. Don't sacrifice safety, but don't turn something innovative and potentially vibrant into something humdrum. Just my 2 cents, and chock full of holes I know, but like all good nerds I grew up wanting to be an astronaut (goddamn lack of 20/20 vision), and it was always the image of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin launching into the unknown that appealed to me, not the idea of "routine" (as much as any spaceflight can be) shuttle flights that no one ever bothered to watch. Again, sorry for all those in the field whom I've doubtless offended, IANA NASA employee, I'm just bitter about that.
"Is there, like, a trillion-dollar prize for building the first Dyson sphere?" No but there's one for fixing the national debt. The Dyson Sphere might be more realistic though.
Of course Congress won't let them. Nor with the executive branch, for that matter. And the Supreme Court has "more pressing issues" like allowing God back in schools to worry about NASA.
One of the big hurdles that everyone here has mentioned is greed. The current system allows for a slight bit of corruption, a-la Halliburton/Iraq (and yes, the "slight bit" was pure sarcasm). Congresspeople often have a personal interest in which companies get what contracts for which components of whatever project NASA has going.
How many members of Congress represent districts wherein exist aerospace-related plants? How many of them possibly have ties to these companies in some odd form or another (lobby, maybe family inside, maybe they sit on the board)? The argument they use is bringing/keeping jobs, and it does hold some water. But when personal interest takes over for politicians, they want a certain measure of control.
X-Prize competitors, however, are independant business people, tech gurus, and what not. I'm willing to bet that a great majority of them, while they see dollar signs for their results, also have a firm belief in what they're doing. They have a love of the game, as it were. They want to be a part of the betterment of Human kind through technology, in this case going into space.
The "chosen few" in Washington lose all control when the middle segment of the general population, with funding from some of the more "in-tune" of the higher-ups, begins working independantly with more level-minded intentions in mind.
I'm willing to bet that the Government wants to keep a sort of control on space activity because they see a great tactical value up there. Up there, we can hit any target we want, and intercept anything that's coming our way (in theory at least). They don't harbor the same "For The Good of Mankind" vision as alot of us do. They see it as a race to gain control of the stars, to make themselves into the ultimate superpower.
And it can only end one way. None of us want to really talk about that, do we...
There need to be more X-Prizes. Corporations have spent the last 25 years amassing a fortune for themselves. It's time to put that money to good use and get mankind moving forward again. Not for military power, but for the (not-so-)simple advancment of the species. We have the capability to visit worlds other than our own. It's time we went out there and asserted ourselves among the heavens. Start small, colonize the Moon. As technology advances, maybe we CAN make it to Mars.
But for now, it's a political buzzword, and not something our Government wants to see right away. At least not until they're sure they can keep tabs on everything above us, first...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Yeah, but do you really think that staging a fake Mars-landing is going to be free?
You're perfectly correct - NASA is trying to shift the risk of death from its own shoulders over to private contractors. NASA is unable to accept any death at all in their operations - look what has happened to the Shuttle program after each of their accidents. Massive re-design efforts, interference and reprimands from Washington, and huge delays in the space program. The public backlash is so bad that government-financed space flight is no longer allowed to take chances.
But, taking risks, trying new approaches, and yes, putting lives on the line, are necessary for expanding our capabilities in space. With this new program of prizes, NASA is trying to finance new approaches to space the only way they still can. NASA cannot take the necessary risks themselves, so they want to fund private companies willing to do the work on their own.
If a person believes a cause is worth risk to their life, no one, not you, not the government should stop them from pursuing it.
(..that is, as long as they pose no risk to the general public. Current private spaceflight is being strictly regulated to avoid risk to un-involved people.)
that's the idea.
addage: too many cooks ruin the batter.
with every added player in a contact, the number of technical obstacles increases tenfold.
try offering your girlfriend a 3some.
rehab, captain ahab, you're chasing the wrong fish!
Take all of the above if you want to cover all the basis. While there might be too many CS or other science/technology degrees for the job market, resumes of multi-lingual Americans might get you into a lot more interviews while you want for somebody to get it together in terms of space industrialization.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Are you one of them Red Staters?
Tech Public Policy stuff
people everywhere just have everything to say, but no one is willing to actually do anything to actually help to provide the saftey that everyone takes for granted. If you cant stand (put yourself there) for what you believe in, then please ... take the bullshit sumwhere else. find another forum, but do not EVER talk about the one place, the one counrty that actually is trying to do something anout anything, I mean ... list another one that is trying to make a diff. One other that is trying to help make things better. list them tell me where I am wrong . I do not like people quack about the tof things , buit I guess IOt wiilll sork, or there theere might be q bettr way... aaron517
aaron517@gmail,.com
...never ever relinquish a single drop of your power.
This proposed plan would take power away from congressmen (to pick who gets contracts) therefor congress is against it.
And by congress I mean the megacorps.
Note the end of the article where they mentioned that congress was in the process of INCREASING THE STRICTURES on future x-prize-like endeavors, ostensibly in the name of increased safety, but obviously intended to INCREASE THE COST of such endeavors to keep spaceflight out of the hand of all but the most wealthy corporations
It's a slowly tightening noose, folks. When are we gonna pull our heads out and kick come ass?
it all depends on if it is with another guy or another girl....
if she got pounded in both holes at the same time, then I am sure she would love to do it all the time.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Actually, Jon Stewart asked him a question similar to this when he interviewed the billionaire on The Daily Show. He asked him if he'd be willing to put up money in an X-prize style competition to replace the internal-combustion engine, and Branson asked the audience and Jon Stewart if they'd be willing to contribute -- so Branson basically said no.
While manned space flight, and manned ventures by private corporations have quite a bit of PR sizzle, it seems to me that unmanned space flight has at least as much, if not more, to offer in a prize-based system such as this.
For one thing, I would imagine that much of the red tape would be lifted if a craft has nothing alive on board. (If nothing else, there would be no need for medical clearance.) In addition, the R&D costs could be smaller for the companies in the business of winning the prizes and their associated benefits.
As for the PR value, if I heard that a small company was going to do something like fling a camera around the moon and back, my attention would certainly be grabbed. While that may not be quite as flashy as a civilian going into space, it's no small feat, either.
If SCO wanted to win the "X" prize, they'd have to steal someone else's rocket.
And even then, they'd only be able to send up lawyers...
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
....besides the congressional district thing there is the interest in space for military superiority.
Concerned about human life? considering the war on iraq...where are the WMDs? And the antrax used to scare the media into conformance (uh, it came from a US military base... you are a reporter, what story you gonna write? Maybe you gonna contact your repesentitive??)
Know an excuse when you see one.
Reality is simply one of control, and once congress feels they have a lock down on such control, then and only then will they allow such a method of development reward.
In the mean time it seems teh open source community is leading the way with bounty type projects.
Yes. It is also predicted that US dollar will drop -30% within year. Now ask yourself if it would be smart move to exchange all your savings to EUROs, wait 1 year and get 30% profit.
The Chinese are realists and believe in the superiority of the Han people. If given the chance, they WILL dominate the planet. They are no better than the NAZI's.
The Nazis are Germans who are in turn Europeans.
Where the hell do you reckon the first Amerikans come from? It's all the same people.. all the same!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
You know there's always that one guy ruining everything for the rest of us...
Development of technology thru offering prizes is a cheap, politicaly sound and viable way to move forward. Basicly you end up paying for the end result not the many many hours and resources that it takes to get there. Combined with say a freelance opensource type group of developers and you have happy geeks with thinks they like doing with better odds than winning the lottery. From a goverment persepctive it will save them money and no mad outcries of oh my god you wasted billions on that flunked project. No win no fee, cant see why there flapping about not doing it, beyond the loss of control to be nepatistic towards who wins and potential spending external to the country offering the prize (if it is indeed a glbal prize/offer). Though this could be offset with grants as they do with proffesors/higher univercity already. Still works out alot cheaper overall worst case. Look out how much it ould have cost NASA to compete with the last X-Prize, sure NASA woulda blown the winnings just on ground staff on the 1st test flight.
If the goal is cheap access to space, why not outsource the contracts to China? Maybe instead of paying $X billion for something, you only have to pay $X/10 billion for the same thing. Since you don't pay unless you get results, there's no risk.
Seems like a win/win situation to me.
Plain and simple. The status quo thinks it knows 'mo'. However, Burt Rutan like innovators are trully what is needed. Material Science education and re-training is the big key. It won't be a cake walk. However, the big squeeze often works in many agencies that don't change. They will. They will have to. -JChan http://www.atomicmotor.com (Nano blogger)
-J Chan
Every car you've bought, ppl - unless you have bought the same make, model, and year consistantly.
And that's why most cars don't cost $1,100,000.
kulakovich
Did you know that pigs and hogs have corkscrew shaped penises. I do now! thanks Stumble!
Ever heard of the term "American exceptionalism"? The Chinese and the Nazis aren't the only people who think that they are superior to the rest of the world.
I hope NASA gets an outbreak of "Go Fever", awarding prize money to winners would be a most excellent growth media that this fine country could easy handle, and prosper from.
From a constructive point of view; Its the lottery that even the losers can win from, beacuse there is always the other related prizes.
Now, how can I convince Burt Rutan of launching with a 40 foot generic cargo container strapped on full of "Air Gordins" for two full orbits, and a safe landing? Talk about priceless collectables, that cargo container would become a shrine...
I've read all about the projects contracted by the government back in the good old days when Lockheed was considered kinda "indie" or new and challenging instead of habitual and obese. Those projects specifically were achieved at lower than budget cost or "more bang for the buck" at cost. And even more to the point, the contracts that were not achievable were scrapped long before they imploded, and the money was given back to the government!
We live in such a different age, when before the value of a mans word meant just that - the finest aircraft ever built, the SR-71 - now it means something completely different. Profit profit profit. And the same value also meant good relationships (read honest) with the government and an even better work ethic. One that knew the government needed something and knew it could build it for them. It also knew it was offering a product, and it had the world's biggest consumer to please. "The customer is always right."
These days you have to scrap that system if you can't get your money back - what am I saying, its my money! - especially if you didn't get what you paid for. And if the government isn't shopping around this holiday season, thats just a sin.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams