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."

Comments

Re:Good thing

[Darthmalt]

IIRC the standard is to accept designs and proposals from companies and then decide who gets the contract without any actual work being done on an actual craft that works.

I know thats how the contract for the new space shuttle was awarded.

well

[utopianfiat]

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/

More Centennial Challenge info

[MagPulse]

Here's a story with an interesting quote about NASA's hopes for senate approval:

"There is some interest in maybe trying to pass something, either as a stand-alone bill or some other vehicle, during the lame-duck session," Sponberg said during an industry day in Washington Nov. 15. "Even if that doesn't happen, I would anticipate that when the new Congress comes in early next year, we [will] probably move out pretty quickly to try to get that authorization for those larger prizes."

Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.

There's a reason for that

[lifebouy]

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.

stupid is as stupid does

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Might work for some projects, not all.

[skoda]

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.

Re:Good thing

[TheKidWho]

For the Air Force, Working models have to be built before they can be accepted.

For example, the F16, F15, F22, all had competitors built and they were tested against their competitors and the better plane won.

How Congress Funds Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:no way

[gilroy]

Wow. I've been reading slashdot for a long time now but rarely have I seen a poster get it so entirely wrong.

For one, who is to say they won't overpay for something?
OK, we'll leave aside the economic tautology that the proper price of something is what someone's willing to pay for it. Let's just look at this important fact: Until the project produces, no money changes hands. This contrasts with the current system, when NASA makes a wishlist, a corporation purports to fulfill it, and then everyone walks away with the cash whether or not the project actually comes to fruition. At least in the new model, no money is "wasted" until there is an actual product.

But wait. What if NASA says "Space Probe Frobozz is worth $10M to us" but company X can build space probe Frobozz for only $3M? Aren't we "wasting" $7M? No. NASA paid what it thought was reasonable. Company X made $7M -- which is a good incentive to get into the business. If you only pay companies for the cost of materials, they're not gonna line up to service your mission. The idea here is to tap the very powerful profit motive (perhaps you've heard of it?) so eminently a part of the American experience.

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.

Let's leave aside that this completely subverts your first argument. Are you saying that "major players" will be scared away by a return on investment that is too low, so we should pad it? Obviously, companies will want to make a healthy profit; if NASA sets the prize too low for space probe Frobozz, then no one will step up to make it. The solution of course would be to then raise the prize money. At some point, one of two things will happen: (a) The prize gets high enough to entice companies to compete for it or (b) The price gets high enough to exceed NASA's estimate of the value of space probe Frobozz, so the contest never yields Frobozz. Either of these are valid and proper economic outcomes. You want Frobozz so bad? Cough up for it.

Now ask yourself, If you was [sic] the CEO of a large publicaly traded company, how many times would your investor/board of directors let you compete in good faith[?]

Well, if I were the CEO of a large publicly-traded company, I would hope I understand basic economics, including the fact that risk underlies all economic activity. I'd know that competing in good faith is about all my company does, every day, and is something to be neither feared nor ashamed of.

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.

Again, that's how it goes, except of course it hardly ever goes that way. Your biggest competitor seems to have stolen a march on you, but then, that means you're not economically viable. But most likely the research you've done will be "recyclable", because you've learned a lot about whatever was being pursued. Ah, competition continues, to the good of the American public. If the odds were high that your competitor would beat you, you'd probably not invest the effort. But it's that element of risk that makes the market work.

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.

I suggest that you take an economics class and learn the concept of "opportunity cost". There is never a time when money spent on one thing has no other

Re:This won't work

[SwornPacifist]

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.

Re:One Caveat: China

[Gentlewhisper]

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!