Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

X-Prize Cup/Olympics Planned 204

Posted by michael from the 10000-meter-hurdles dept.
sckienle writes "Space.com has a quick article in their astronotes section about the X-Prize committee's idea of an X-Prize competition. Apparently they are thinking about having a 'X-Prize Cup' where 'teams would compete for cash prizes, attempting to set new records.' My favorite quote: 'The notion is to try and bring the money and excitement of NASCAR and Formula One racing into space.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-Prize Cup/Olympics Planned More

X-Prize Cup/Olympics Planned

Comments Filter:

  • 8.... (Score:2)

    by Tsali ( 594389 )
    So are we off to find Dale Earnhardt?

    Can't wait for the sponsors to jump on this one.

  • Current Space Program (Score:3, Insightful)

    by osullish ( 586626 ) <osullishNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:44AM (#6462398)
    I think its ideas like this that the current space program needs to reawaken peoples interests in Space exploration, especially after the last few months and the negative attention it has recieved.
  • As long as they bring the money.

    I'd love to see a shuttle rocketting towards the stratosphere with "Viagra keeps our rocket up too" stenciled down the side of it!

  • Budwiser rules (Score:5, Funny)

    by AssFace ( 118098 ) <stenz77@gmaTEAil.com minus caffeine> on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:45AM (#6462417) Homepage Journal
    I suppose beer companies sponsoring really fast driving is just as inane as a rocket...

    I just hope that it draws the white trash chicks that are willing to show us their tits on the big screens.

  • No dice. (Score:5, Funny)

    by bartyboy ( 99076 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:45AM (#6462419)
    'teams would compete for cash prizes, attempting to set new records.'

    For a brief moment I read that as crash prizes...

    • Ah, you are refering off course to the "hottest reentry" prize, the only prize that will be awared post mortem.

  • I would pay for tickets. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:46AM (#6462423) Homepage Journal
    I am a big fan of science, and would be more than willing to shell out some cash to watch this sort of thing. My lack of interest for a lot of modern mechanical sports is the udder lack of distinction between any of the entries, two cars in nascar are more alike than your and my DNA. I really think these kinds of games, at least initially, will show some greated distinction, and innovation between competitors. I would also love to see a robot wars where they built things out of balsa wood, nothing actually breaks anymore.

    • My lack of interest for a lot of modern mechanical sports is the udder lack of distinction between any of the entries, two cars in nascar are more alike than your and my DNA.

      Contrary to popular belief there are other motorsports besides NASCAR:

      • The SCCA(Sports Car Club of America) races(including racetrack, autocross, rallycross, and rally races/events)
      • FIA rallying
      • Formula 1
      • Indy 500

      ...just to name a few.

      For example, on Speedvision(now "The Speed Channel"), you can catch events like the Maine Fore

      • FIM Motorcycle racing is pretty damn exciting. So is WSBK. AMA is okay, but all the real talent seems to be on the world scene.

        The New England Lawnmower Racing Association puts on some pretty good races, too, buy they're hard to find on television.

        That said, you're right on the money with rally cars. If I had to buy a car, I would *so* want a WRX as my daily driver.
        • That said, you're right on the money with rally cars. If I had to buy a car, I would *so* want a WRX as my daily driver.


          I was thinking the same thing until I heard the Magliozzis pan the WRX on Car Talk one Saturday morning. Apparently it's absolutely gutless unless you wind it up enough for the turbo to kick in, which is not something you'd really want to do at every intersection. Afraid I'll have to pass and go with an Impreza Outback instead.
          • > Apparently it's absolutely gutless unless you wind
            > it up enough for the turbo to kick in

            Argh, that's unfortunate. I wonder if the WRC has the same motor?

            On the other hand, I wonder how hard it would be to modify the WRX with the "VTEC" (quotes important) technology in the new Honda VFR 800 motorbike. It keeps half the exhaust valves closed 8000 rpm, allowing much more bottom end grunt than it would have other.

            Probably cheaper to buy a new motor, though.

            Still, depending on the turbo characteris
      • For example, on Speedvision(now "The Speed Channel"),

        Speed Channel is about the only game in town to catch non-NASCAR racing. Of course, you have to find it in the middle of all their NASCAR programming......

        But they do provide coverage of F1, FIA World Rally, SCCA Rally, and various other racing (Le Mans, etc.)

        If you want to find even more motorsports options, you should check out Grassroots Motorsports [grmotorsports.com]. They cover a wide variety of racing, especially SCCA and other club-type events.

        I'll strongly su

  • NASCAR Fans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Devil Ducky ( 48672 ) <slashdot@devilducky.org> on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:46AM (#6462424) Homepage
    I hope their not trying to bring the exact same type of excitement as NASCAR. Most of the people there are just waiting for a big crash to watch.

    • TNG fans already know... (Score:4, Funny)

      by PseudoThink ( 576121 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:55AM (#6462534)
      It's all fun and games until a bunch of cadets tries to pull a Kolvord Starburst and one of 'em bites it. If only CleverNickName had told the truth from the start...it's all his fault!
    • I hope their not trying to bring the exact same type of excitement as NASCAR. Most of the people there are just waiting for a big crash to watch.

      Actually, that wouldn't nescecarily be bad. Don't forget that in NASCAR, the drivers are not trying to crash. Same would be for the X-Prize.

      Creating a fanbase with wide diversity of interests, ranging from technological to simple speed-and-crash-exitement, would be a good thing. It would create a bigger sponsor based playing field that might end up in more of us
    • Enlighten me, what else does NASCAR have to offer?
  • Years from now, it'll be all about the people with beer guts and no shirts on cheering for their favorite rocket driver/sponsor and they'll be wearing t-shirts with the rocket on them.
    • Years from now, it'll be all about the people with beer guts and no shirts on cheering for their favorite rocket driver/sponsor and they'll be wearing t-shirts with the rocket on them.

      I would rather complain about the quality of the fan base dwindling, than complain about there being little-to-no fan base. Bring on the beer guts! Maybe Budweiser will see their target audience and throw some money at the program...

  • Formula One Budget (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:47AM (#6462446)
    Ferrari spends nearly $300 million a year on it's F1 team ... I think the budgets are there if the technology was a little more sound.

  • NASCAR? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:48AM (#6462455) Homepage Journal
    if we make this like NASCAR, then all the rockets would only turn left.

  • Hmm. (Score:2)

    by Zeebs ( 577100 )
    It's going to be like NASCAR eh? I'm actually damn interested to see how they pit a rocket during the race. What if a pit crew member fell from the pit station?
    • Maybe the race is 20 launches to 100km or somesuch, and the pits are refueling and repairing between launches. That could be fun to watch. Especially the "restarts" where 20 rockets launch at once. :)
    • In some ways its laudable that they want to make space travel as exciting as NASCAR, but it's scary at how little they understand about the situation. Even if they talked about the great airplane races of the '20s and '30s, I would be concerned.

      Blast offs (to use the most exciting term for a rocket ship taking off) is not something that will keep an audience riveted for a long period of time. Re-entries, in orbit manuevering and so on, is not very exciting. Maybe sports would be exciting, although the o

  • soo...they want to (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:49AM (#6462475) Homepage
    so they basicly want to get a bunch of redneck retards to come out to an unshaded grand-stand, sit inthe sun for 10 hours and watch planes take off and land......

    yeah, that sounds about as exciting as watching a group of cars drive in circles all day.

  • Get ready for Olympics scandal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:50AM (#6462482)
    French judges inexplicably vote for Russians despite their team's x-prize entry of three fat guys on a trampoline.

  • Spaceports? Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jwriney ( 16598 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:50AM (#6462487) Homepage
    The most exciting thing in the article to me was the fact that there are "over a dozen spaceports now under development". Rock!

    I know about OSIDA, the one in Oklahoma that Armadillo [armadilloaerospace.com] is planning on using. Anybody know where the others are?

    --riney

  • Guiness Craze (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:52AM (#6462507) Homepage Journal
    With the latest Guiness craze (anyone willing to do the dumbest, most dangerous stuff to get their names in the book), I'm afraid to make space the next competition. Yeah, they put their lives in danger, which is no biggie by me... cleanse the gene pool...

    But what happens when someone's custom-made SaturnV crashes into your house?
  • Watching silly men go Vrmmm vrmmm vrmmm vrmmm until one hits the crowd and explodes?

    The best part of Formula One is the girls who shake the champagne. Maybe we can just dispense with the loud noisy machines and just have girls opening large bottles of champagne. Playboy in Space? Gotta be cheaper and more fun.

    Vrmmm vrmmm vrmmmm... Nope, just does not do it for me.
    • The best part of Formula One is the girls who shake the champagne.

      what formula one are you watching, it's the winning drivers that shake the champagne and there hasn't been a female driver in formula one since Giovanna Amati in 1993 and afaik, there's never been a female f1 driver on the podium, the closest was Lella Lombardi in 1974 who scored 1 point.

      to be fair, the girls never really got a fair chance, they were all in kinda crap cars and never really got good chances.

      dave
  • Mullets in space!!

    (I fully expect to be karma-lynched for this)

  • Aviation in the 20's & 30's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by w42w42 ( 538630 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:57AM (#6462571)

    This reminds me of the air competitions in the 20's and 30's, normally funded by wealthy newspaper owners. Cash prize for the first to cross the Atlantic East to West, then in reverse. First to Hawaii, around the world, etc.

    If not for some of those competitions, aviation would have progressed much slower than it did.

    • The avaition advances in the 20's and 30's allowed the german war machine to advance quickly in the opening moments of WWII.

      • I saw a documentary on that once. The basic gist was that because the Germans were limited in what they were allowed to build by treaty, those that were interested in aviation did a lot of experimentation.

        I believe a lot of it also had to do with government investment. The P-51 Mustang, arguably the best prop in the war, came about only because the British ordered it to compliment their dwindling supply of British built aircraft. The US Army Air Corp had already turned it down.

        Back to Germany. It was

  • NASCAR meets X-Prize? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jaguar777 ( 189036 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @11:58AM (#6462579) Journal
    I'm putting my money on the Viagra sponsored rocket. I'm sure they can get it up faster than any other team ;)

  • You may be laughing now.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:01PM (#6462608) Journal
    ... however, I would imagine that once upon a time, the idea of racing cars for sport seemed rather ridiculous.

    Racing for money and fame is another matter, though, and usually happens far before racing hits the "Nascar" level. Remember (reading in history books) when they would show the might and speed of the newest railroad trains by racing them head-to-head with horses? The art of racing to impress and encourage investment will need to be mastered way before it matures into sport.

  • All about speed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gclef ( 96311 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:12PM (#6462735)
    I don't think I totally agree with this. Part of the point of the X-Prize is finding the cheapest way to space, not necessarily the fastest way to space. Remember: good, cheap, fast, pick two. If we pick cheap and fast, we get deathtraps.

    I'd much rather see the X-Prize lead to something good and cheap that takes 2 days to get to orbit than have some over-engineered phallic symbol dominating the space race for the next 50 years.
    • Geez, what a whiner. Mr "I don't want to ride in a deathtrap."

      Pushing the envelope, doing new things, has always involved danger.
      • Heh. Apparently I didn't make my point very well. Let me try again.

        My point was that a "race" style system strongly disadvantages slower systems like "rockoons", (which use a balloon instead of a first stage rocket). Now, whether rockoons are actually a better/cheaper way to get to space is still an open question, but I'm a bit bothered that this whole class of launch systems would be discarded in favor of old-style rockets simply because we want to be like NASCAR.
        • Heh. Well, I don't think we really have anything to worry about with rocket races.

          I too am excited about the balloon launches. I've seen a few "artist's depictions" of how that would work, and it actually seems possible. My favorite one is the floating manned launch facility.
    • I think the term *speed* here is referring to the turn around time of the space vehicle. Speed here would in of itself make it *cheap* to operate. I would assume that if you have the first two, then it HAS to be *good* :-)

  • Rednecks in Space (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... The next Muppet Show ...

  • ...Excitement of NASCAR... (Score:3, Funny)

    by unfortunateson ( 527551 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:15PM (#6462763) Journal
    Isn't the favorite part of car racing when things blow up?

    That seems like a contrary goal.

  • KOTHF. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Grendel Drago ( 41496 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:19PM (#6462805) Homepage
    You know, stuff like this really inspires me. I'm in the middle of reading Kings of the High Frontier [amazon.com], which was first published in the mid-nineties. A major plot point is a wealthy industrialist offering a half-billion dollar prize similar to the X-Prize. Even a few years ago, I never thought we'd be seeing so many groups trying for their own cheap launch. It should have been done years ago.

    Some people complain that the X-Prize doesn't really get anywhere---that tossing yourself a hundred kilometers above sea level is a far cry from low earth orbit. This is true. Maybe the X-Prize will be the first in a series of cash prizes to spur even more invention. First single-stage to orbit, first real space station, first craft assembled in space... I don't know what the next milestones will be, but we'll get there faster if there's cash money incentive.

    Oh, and would wetsuits work as space suits? There's no way the heat would really bleed off, and if you could lead-line them for heat shielding...

    The quote from KOTHF is "Space suits for NASA cost a million bucks a shot and are about as comfortable as wearing pork barrels. I found this research report from the nineteen-sixties by a team that ought to have won the contract bid, except that their suits only cost a thousand dollars each and could be done by any seamstress. NASA probably figured that would have looked cheap, so for three decades astronauts have been lugging around thirty layers of cloth and a refrigerator when they could have been dressed in Spandex tights." [...] "The difference between down here and up there is only one measly atmosphere of pressure. Our skin is strong enough to withstand that gradient. It has quite a bit of tensile strength. The only problem is that it stretches too well. That means we swell up, which drops the pressure in our bloodstream, so our blood outgasses and vapor-locks our hearts. With just this second skin to keep our body volume constant, we don't expand. So we don't boil." (From ch. 11.)

    Can anyone with a background in anything relating to that confirm or deny?

    --grendel drago

    • Re: light spacesuits (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikeee ( 137160 )
      Not an expert, but have read on this elsewhere:

      Wetsuits (probably reinforced with kevlar or something, why not) would probably be fine; actually, filling any small internal gaps with water would be a good trick to insure a perfect fit (any gaps in the suit and you get Giant Space Hickeys, and we don't want that!). You'ld need a fishbowl helmet, of course.

      Heat might be tricky. Space is cold, but there's no air, so shedding heat is surprisingly hard. I'm not sure if overheating or freezing would be the m
      • Wouldn't the water all boil off, making you very, very cold? (Evaporation is, after all, a cooling process.)

        Then again, a tank of water to be evaporated might be an effective method of dissipating the heat you generate. Doesn't seem very reliable or sustainable, though.

        --grendel drago
    • I always thought one of the reasons for the bulky suits was radiation shielding, which I imagine would be harder to deal with from a wetsuit.
      • Mmm, true. That, the micrometorite problem and heat dissipation are rather tricky. It should be possible to line the suit with lead, I'd think. It'd be like wearing one of those aprons they put over your genitals when you get an x-ray, but covering the whole body. Still not nearly as bulky as the traditional space suit, and doesn't require pressurizing the whole body.

        --grendel drago

  • No drafting (Score:4, Funny)

    by drdale ( 677421 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:20PM (#6462824)
    NASCAR strategy wouldn't work here, since nothing makes another vehicle's slipstream look less inviting than flames shooting out the back end.
  • If you just want to race into space, just send a rocket with no payload up there. The lightest rocket [that can reach escape velocity] will, in all probability, win it.

    Now if you want to send a person and a payload up there too, that requires a different set of rules.

    Basically, it'll probably end up being more like Battlebots than NASCAR: there will be several categories of competitions.

    (Then again, maybe NASCAR is like that too. I just don't watch it. "*singing* Alienating most of America..." -Conan)

    Ac
  • If they made this competition like NASCAR, they'd limit the participants to space technology engineered in the 50's.
  • What would the space shuttle look like if NASCAR-like sponsership was allowed?

    Shouldn't be too hard if this is possible [rpi.edu]

  • Dot-com-space. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @12:48PM (#6463150)
    Before we start talking about olympics, sponsorships, or other dumbass MBA ideas (disclaimer: I have an MBA), how about, oh, I dunno, actually getting a private venture into space?

    the hoopla around the x-prize is starting to look like the dot-com era. this space stuff is expensive. people are going to die. it is WAY off the curve for profitability, even if you factor in the x-prize money. yes, i'd love to go too (disclaimer #2: i am an MBA, but I am also the test pilot for a small aerobatic aircraft manufacturer), but please people.. this will take time.

  • XXX Prize (Score:3, Funny)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @01:13PM (#6463438) Homepage Journal
    XXX Prize. Now there's competition I would pay to go see (just, for the love of god, make sure that no geeks participate):

    Top Ten Awards to be presented at the XXX Prize contest:

    10. Best "tits on glass" from a rocket occupant
    9. Best moon (of course)
    8. Body most improved by zero gravity
    7. Most unique position for rocket occupants
    6. Most creative use of non-human test flight animal
    5. Fewest minutes on-line to obtain a burnable VCD image of "Gayniggers from Outer Space" [imdb.com]
    4. Most creative use of "G" forces
    3. Best ejection (male and female)
    2. Most creative use of the "Johnson Space Center"

    and.....[drum roll]

    1. The venerable...Most Rings Around Uranus

    GF.
  • This was done way back in 1958! And they went ALL the way to the moon!

    The winner was Tom Swift Jr. [nasa.gov] and it's even documented on the NASA web site!

    Kids these days -- nobody reads ...

  • Oh great, something else for Michael Schumacher to win...
  • Who'll be the Dale Earnhardt of this silly thing?

    I vote for the inventor of ping, who died recently (last few years some time)

  • From the department of redundancy department... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Thursday July 17, 2003 @02:05PM (#6463965) Homepage Journal
    Space.com has a quick article in their astronotes section about the X-Prize committee's idea of an X-Prize competition. Apparently they are thinking about having a 'X-Prize Cup' where 'teams would compete for cash prizes, attempting to set new records.'

    So ... the X-prize would give away prizes for going into space? What's next? Olympics-olimpiad? Monopolyopoly?

  • This proposal has a number of interesting ideas.

    First, competition attracts more interest. Part of the reason for the decline in interest in space since Apollo is the lack of any real competition. NASA launches shuttles -- who really cares that much? While not "routine access to space" shuttle launches are fairly common. There's no drama -- unless something goes wrong. Competitions such as this will bring some drama back to the field.

    These kinds of competitions can also bring the participants toget

  • Done before - with disastrous results (Score:3, Informative)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Thursday July 17, 2003 @02:12PM (#6464021) Homepage Journal
    The concept of showing off the latest technology with a dazzling display of its power has been done before, though I'm sure we can all hope that it doesn't have the same unexpected results as the famous Crash At Crush. From the Handbook of Texas [utexas.edu]:
    CRASH AT CRUSH. A plaque fifteen miles north of Waco in McLennan County marks the site of the "Crash at Crush." On September 15, 1896, more than 40,000 people flocked to this spot to witness one of the most spectacular publicity stunts of the nineteenth century-a planned train wreck. The man behind this unusual event was William George Crush, passenger agent for the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad. In 1895 Crush proposed to Katy officials that the company stage a train wreck as an attraction; he planned to advertise the event months in advance, sell tickets to transport spectators to and from the site on Katy trains, and then run two old locomotives head-on into each other.

    I don't know if Murphy's Law had been established in 1895, but its results were in clear evidence: despite assurances that it couldn't happen, one of the train's boilers exploded upon the collision. The result (as sung by Texas songwriter Brian Burns [brianburnsmusic.com]):
    The engines met in a thunderous crash and climbed each other toward the sky,

    the impact rattled the earth for miles around, and the twisted wreckage did fly.
    In a moment more the boilers exploded, and the steam blocked out the sun,
    some lost their lives while others lie bleeding, and the rest of them could only run.

    Clickety-clack, clickety-clack, wheels a-rumblin' on the railroad track,
    once they go they can't turn back, once they go they can't turn back.

    In a cotton field near Waco, Texas between two peaceful hills
    a sign reminds us to hold respect for the power of the beasts we build,
    and you and I in our lifetimes will never get to feel such a rush
    as the people who saw and lived to tell of the awesome crash at Crush.

    Frankly, I can't see any way to stage an "X-Prize Cup", with multiple competitors simultaneously trying for the biggest spectacle, without chancing a repeat of the Crash At Crush. That said, I'd buy a ticket... but I'd leave the kids at home.
  • According to spacedaily.com the American contestants are having trouble with overwhelming paperwork [spacedaily.com] concerning FAA regulations based on the 100-year old aviation industry. Therefore a coalition of businesses, customers, public interest organizations, and public policy experts have joined together to call on Congress for a clear and stable regulatory environment for suborbital flights to take place.

  • They missed two... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vrmlguy ( 120854 ) <samwyse AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 17, 2003 @08:51PM (#6467340) Homepage Journal
    The given examples of possible competitions (Highest altitude reached; time-to-climb; time between reflight; total number of people carried) are all very interesting, yet they somehow missed two of the most interesting of all: Greatest distance traveled between takeoff and landing, and greatest horizontal distance traveled above 100 km.

    Right now, the teams are trying to break the 100 km barrier by going straight up and returning straight down. For example, in Rutan's design the airspeed never exceeds 155 knots. As a result, it will take 80 minutes to cover a horizontal distance of 35 miles [wired.com]. That is enough to win the prize and I'm fine with that. But, in years to come, there should be new targets that get us closer to orbital flight. Greatest distance prizes will do that.

    The first one, greatest distance traveled between takeoff and landing, could possibly be won by some sort of hybrid between Rutan's globe-circling Voyager and his Spaceship One, but that's also something that I'd be fine with. It would, like the current X-Prize, stretch aviation technology to lits limits.

    My second idea, greatest horizontal distance traveled above 100 km, would be a logical follow-up to the first one, since it could only be won by someone following a ballistic trajectory. This would might inspire new research into thermal shielding, or it may generate all new ways to return to earth. (For example, find a way to eliminate your horizontal velocity before re-entering the atmosphere.)

    Either of these would be far better than the possibilites discussed in the article.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Close