Notice how NASA offers no LAUNCH-related prizes, let alone adequate ones? Is this not peculiar? Government contractors manipulate NASA for their own profit at taxpayers' expense. And the people have the government that they deserve (to quote Ben Franklin).
*DARPA had to TURN AWAY competitors, last time. Universities have the money and want the fame. So do some companies and individuals. Granted, money doesn't grow on trees even if NASA wastes it like it does.
*I don't agree that it would take $2 billion to restore the USA's ability to send humans into space, nor do I agree that NASA should be able to get away with offering merely a $50 million prize like the private sector one offered impressively enough by Robert Bigelow. But as it stands, NASA offers NADA in terms of launching correct?
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward:
***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.****
In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc...
***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?***
Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population.
*** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation****
It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space.
***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.***
NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best....
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward:
***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.****
In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc...
***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?***
Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population.
*** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation****
It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space.
***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.***
NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best....
Burt Rutan told me in 2000 that prizes typically leverage 40 times their amount in investment pursuing them. And we saw that happen with the DARPA Grand Challenge, although the effect was tapered by participation restrictions.
I VAGUELY recall that the prize that Charles Lindberg won for crossing the Atlantic only attracted 15 times its amount in terms of investment pursuing it. But this vague recollection's based on hearsay and is nearly a century old (before cyberspace made putting investors together with innovators in pursuit of prizes that were meant to generate publicity so much more efficient). Regardless, what's NASA's ratio? NASA has to pay to build stuff like X-33 that it never even gets. And it's not NASA's money to give to the X Prize Foundation; it's taxpayers'.
A LOT of what you posted makes sense. The only two potential objections that I might raise are:
*NASA's annual budget is $16 billion. The fact that the cost of launching humans into space from the USA has gone nowhere but up over time is not particularly attributable to women as much as it is to the good ole' boys' network and the Shuttle huggers (i.e. pork-barrelers), right?
*Lori Garver was the one who got NASA to propose competitive prizes to Congress (which squashed them the first time around, half a decade ago, in part because Dan Goldin didn't push the idea being the corrupt sort that he was). But upon that foundation, we have since made NASA prizes a reality. No engineer in Lori's place had previously done anything comparable. And I'm not aware that her predecessor Alan Ladwig is an engineer. I do know, though, that that Policy and Plans office was subsequently eliminated altogether.
But the rest of what you said is RIGHT on the money. I guarantee you that you will enjoy this:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/minority-contracts
Might anyone here perhaps know how many different phone companies could likely compete within a particular zone of a WiMax-covered area? This question is technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) oriented. Major phone companies are trying to hog up the spectrum all for themselves, in various places worldwide. They say that letting in too many players would cause interference and ruin it for everybody. Verizon's probably the biggest culprit in the USA, from what I've been told.
For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites:
WiMax.com
WiMaxxed.com
Intel.com (Rosedale chip)
Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)
Might anyone know how many different phone companies a particular zone (of a WiMax-covered area) could sustain, technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) speaking?
For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites:
WiMax.com
WiMaxxed.com
Intel.com (Rosedale chip)
Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)
I don't know where my answer went(?) but it mentioned (in detailed fashion) Paul Allen, Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Jeff Bezos and John Carmack as being entrepreneurs who pursue space prizes of one sort or another that are worth considerably less than the amount they invest in pursuit of them. Prizes are part of the compensation, but there's also commercial potential (tourism, mining, technology spinoffs that can be patented, etc.). Even Wall Street is forgiving where delayed gratifications seem worthwhile (as Intel's embracing of WiMax wireless broadband technology well before a payoff could come about, demonstrates).
And in conclusion, I said: would you prefer that publicity-seeking corporations and the like simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect? Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
This is news because SPACE matters much more. Here's why... First of all, we could probably repay our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt with the benefits resulting from less inefficient colonization efforts on the Moon and Mars. Such breakthroughs would pertain to energy production, the biotech sector, robotics, mining, chemistry, and telemedicine, etcetera. One also cannot overlook explorations exciting ability to potentially inspire students to eagerly embrace math & science like they did
during the Apollo Era when folks like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Amazon.com's Jeff
Bezos initially fell in love with such subjects. We could even learn to increasingly view
others as fellow Earthlings, not enemies, while we struggle together against the shared
hardships of the unknown.
But we need structural (not personal) reforms at NASA to realize our potential:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/reforms
I'm not familiar with the PITA acronom. Please enlighten me? But as for:
>>>Nobody is going to spend $100-$500M on a project, possibly competing with several other companies, for a $200M prize (or even $1-2B prize for that matter).>>These things take years, and Wall Street is going to expect some returns buy the end of the fiscal quarter.>>No, those prizes are for rich folks with nothing better to do>> and corporations who have a few million in pocket change they'd have to pay taxes on, so they "fund a team" and hope for some good press.
Would you prefer they simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect?
Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
I couldn't agree with you more. NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform-fortification?
Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings?
For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes
Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings? NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform? For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes
Slashdot Mirror
Notice how NASA offers no LAUNCH-related prizes, let alone adequate ones? Is this not peculiar? Government contractors manipulate NASA for their own profit at taxpayers' expense. And the people have the government that they deserve (to quote Ben Franklin).
*DARPA had to TURN AWAY competitors, last time. Universities have the money and want the fame. So do some companies and individuals. Granted, money doesn't grow on trees even if NASA wastes it like it does. *I don't agree that it would take $2 billion to restore the USA's ability to send humans into space, nor do I agree that NASA should be able to get away with offering merely a $50 million prize like the private sector one offered impressively enough by Robert Bigelow. But as it stands, NASA offers NADA in terms of launching correct?
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward:
....
***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.****
In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc...
***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?***
Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population.
*** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation****
It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space.
***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.***
NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward: ***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.**** In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc... ***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?*** Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population. *** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation**** It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space. ***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.*** NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best ....
Burt Rutan told me in 2000 that prizes typically leverage 40 times their amount in investment pursuing them. And we saw that happen with the DARPA Grand Challenge, although the effect was tapered by participation restrictions. I VAGUELY recall that the prize that Charles Lindberg won for crossing the Atlantic only attracted 15 times its amount in terms of investment pursuing it. But this vague recollection's based on hearsay and is nearly a century old (before cyberspace made putting investors together with innovators in pursuit of prizes that were meant to generate publicity so much more efficient). Regardless, what's NASA's ratio? NASA has to pay to build stuff like X-33 that it never even gets. And it's not NASA's money to give to the X Prize Foundation; it's taxpayers'.
A LOT of what you posted makes sense. The only two potential objections that I might raise are: *NASA's annual budget is $16 billion. The fact that the cost of launching humans into space from the USA has gone nowhere but up over time is not particularly attributable to women as much as it is to the good ole' boys' network and the Shuttle huggers (i.e. pork-barrelers), right? *Lori Garver was the one who got NASA to propose competitive prizes to Congress (which squashed them the first time around, half a decade ago, in part because Dan Goldin didn't push the idea being the corrupt sort that he was). But upon that foundation, we have since made NASA prizes a reality. No engineer in Lori's place had previously done anything comparable. And I'm not aware that her predecessor Alan Ladwig is an engineer. I do know, though, that that Policy and Plans office was subsequently eliminated altogether. But the rest of what you said is RIGHT on the money. I guarantee you that you will enjoy this: http://www.spaceprojects.com/minority-contracts
Might anyone here perhaps know how many different phone companies could likely compete within a particular zone of a WiMax-covered area? This question is technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) oriented. Major phone companies are trying to hog up the spectrum all for themselves, in various places worldwide. They say that letting in too many players would cause interference and ruin it for everybody. Verizon's probably the biggest culprit in the USA, from what I've been told. For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites: WiMax.com WiMaxxed.com Intel.com (Rosedale chip) Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)
Might anyone know how many different phone companies a particular zone (of a WiMax-covered area) could sustain, technically (as opposed to socioeconomically) speaking? For more info. on WiMax, here are some sites: WiMax.com WiMaxxed.com Intel.com (Rosedale chip) Nokia.com (just teamed up with Intel yesterday)
I don't know where my answer went(?) but it mentioned (in detailed fashion) Paul Allen, Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Jeff Bezos and John Carmack as being entrepreneurs who pursue space prizes of one sort or another that are worth considerably less than the amount they invest in pursuit of them. Prizes are part of the compensation, but there's also commercial potential (tourism, mining, technology spinoffs that can be patented, etc.). Even Wall Street is forgiving where delayed gratifications seem worthwhile (as Intel's embracing of WiMax wireless broadband technology well before a payoff could come about, demonstrates). And in conclusion, I said: would you prefer that publicity-seeking corporations and the like simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect? Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
This is news because SPACE matters much more. Here's why... First of all, we could probably repay our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt with the benefits resulting from less inefficient colonization efforts on the Moon and Mars. Such breakthroughs would pertain to energy production, the biotech sector, robotics, mining, chemistry, and telemedicine, etcetera. One also cannot overlook explorations exciting ability to potentially inspire students to eagerly embrace math & science like they did during the Apollo Era when folks like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos initially fell in love with such subjects. We could even learn to increasingly view others as fellow Earthlings, not enemies, while we struggle together against the shared hardships of the unknown. But we need structural (not personal) reforms at NASA to realize our potential: http://www.spaceprojects.com/reforms
I'm not familiar with the PITA acronom. Please enlighten me? But as for: >>>Nobody is going to spend $100-$500M on a project, possibly competing with several other companies, for a $200M prize (or even $1-2B prize for that matter).>>These things take years, and Wall Street is going to expect some returns buy the end of the fiscal quarter.>>No, those prizes are for rich folks with nothing better to do>> and corporations who have a few million in pocket change they'd have to pay taxes on, so they "fund a team" and hope for some good press. Would you prefer they simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect? Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
I couldn't agree with you more. NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform-fortification? Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings? For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA: http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes
Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings? NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform? For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA: http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes