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!
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.
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
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
well, of course not, because it's "One Million Dollars" --Dr. Evil.
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 $10 million X-Prize going to the congressman that can secure them the most funding.
This seems to me like potentially a very wasteful way of accomplishing a goal since many people will contribute a lot of work and never see any money for it.
To overcome this, perhaps NASA could consider breaking the prize money down to make sure that the most efficient way gets acknowleged as well as the quickest way.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
They are hoping to have prizes worth as much as one billion dollars. The only hitch? Congress won't let them.
I'm hoping to blow a billion dollars on stuff too. The only hitch? My bank manager won't let me.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
2. The NASA contract awarding process is flawed as is. There's rampant corruption and favouritism. These factors directly contributed to the Challenge disaster, as the Faynmen report outlined. The Super X-Prize is not going to solve that.
3. Winners will be determined by actual achievements, not proposals, So they need money to build it in the first place. But prize competitors will have to produce some results first before NASA will fork out any cash. So unless you have a co-founder of M$ 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
Is there, like, a trillion-dollar prize for building the first Dyson sphere?
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.
Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.
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.
Ahh Congress-Shmongress. All they gotta do is order a toilet for $50 and then start claiming a few cost overruns here and there. That should do the trick!
My Favourite Meme
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.
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
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.
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.
... the opposite of progress is congress.
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.
what costs, NASA is one of the least funded us agencies. Every time more money is needed for something else their budget is slashed becuase they are the least politically valuable to congress. This is just another example of such a move. Just goes to show, politics and science dont mix well together
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
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.
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!
Sub contracting helps in this though. The big companies often sub-contract out parts of the whole to little companies, especially niche players.
Sub contracting even aplies amoung the big companies. Once when Lockheed looked like it was going to loose a contract bid for some project or rather in the late 80's or early 90's my dad asked my uncle (who works for LM on some military project as a design engineer) if he was worried about it. He basically said "no I'll still get to work on it, it doesn't matter as much which of us (big areospace companies) gets it, the other two will still get alot of the work as subcontractors, just won't get the biggest piece of the pie". Though in quotes it's not an exact quote, just a paraphrase.
And that's pretty much what I expect would happen here, the big companies get the lions share, and the smaller companies get a healthy load of work as subcontractors.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea