NASA Needs Prize Contest Ideas 180
Michael Huang writes "If you like the idea of tech contests--think ANSARI X PRIZE and DARPA Grand Challenge--and you also like space, then NASA wants you. It needs ideas (and rules) for the Centennial Challenges, prize contests with $20 million funding in 2005. Current ideas (download Excel spreadsheet) include: Mars and asteroid microspacecraft missions, lunar robotic landing, robotic triathalon, rover survivor, Antarctic rover traverse and extreme environment computer. Wikipedia has good coverage."
What about... (Score:5, Insightful)
AI not ready yet (Score:5, Insightful)
The prize that NASA really needs (Score:3, Insightful)
First Manned Mars Landing Wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three little words... (Score:2, Insightful)
So weird. "Satellite Cameras" are the reason you can buy a cheap CCD at Fry's for $15, right next to the snap-dried ice cream
Re:Sustenance studies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. That is true. But are they growing their own food?
The Navy isn't self-sustaining. U-boots still need a supply convoy and system if they wanna stay out there
yo. just imagine your grow room scenario on a trident-class submarine
i see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Innovations which address obstacles which have stood in the way of technological development in science would be of highest priority, were I to enter. Barriers in science such as the claim that NASA don't have the technology to fit a de-orbit module [proboards2.com] onto the Hubble so that it's eventual re-entry into earth doesn't threaten human lives, could be avoided. It would save a lot of time, money and other valuable resources including human labour if future obstacles were addressed in the design of new scientific material, instead of attempting to tackle the problem when its too late.
Re:Intelligent life in the universe (Score:3, Insightful)
New battery contest! (Score:2, Insightful)
As Long As NASA Holds The Purse Strings .... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US Government wants to encourage more independent space resarch, the Congress and President must work together to establish goals INDEPENDENT of NASA. One possibility is to simply have the Congress double the prize money for the next few X-Prizes once those details are finalized.
NASA will NOT spend its money to pay for the development of a competing private space industry.
Space elevator materials (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you could offer annual prizes for the best results each year, even if they don't meet the final prize criteria. At least that'd give the research groups a short-term goal to reach for.
The technology doesn't apply. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless someone's found a decent source of water on Mars, the technology doesn't apply.
Re:Practical Long Lasting Space Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
What I think makes the most sense is a skinsuit worn under a hardsuit. This way, you're protected from impacts, but if your suit should get holed you're still protected. Seal the helmet away from the rest of the suit, of course, so that if your chestplate gets holed you can still breathe.
Re:EM Assisted Launch (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the exit of the railgun was on top of Mt Everest, you are still deep within the sensible atmosphere, and miles and miles below where boosters normally add their speed. (Boosters normally go more-or-less straight up, then bend their trajectories over to add the horizontal velocity needed to reach orbit.) Given the amount of atmosphere you have to traverse after leaving the railgun, you need to leave it at much higher than orbital speed, to offset for drag, that you have a truly frightful thermal problem.
Another issue often handwaved away by EM launcher supporters is the need for a propulsion system for the circularization burn. Lunar surface-Lx railguns don't need these systems because they are not going into orbit around the launching body. Earth-to-orbit systems however do and generally end up being around half the total throweight at the launch systems muzzle. (Just having a projectile traveling at orbital velocity is meaningless. The *direction* of the velocity vector is all important, and EM launchers cannot produce the proper vector.)
The final problem is the extreme G factor typical of EM launches. This causes structural weight to dominate total throweight, to the great detriment of payload fraction and total payload throughtput of the launcher. (In theory the structure can be recovered as raw material at the target, but in practice you end up with more raw material than you can use.)
Why would you be so convinced? EM launchers are simply not practical in the near term, and are likely to remain so indefinetly to Earth-to-Orbit operations. There are simply too many practical problems.Re:EM Assisted Launch (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the reason NASA launches spacecraft from Florida instead of New York is in part because the rotational energy of the Earth itself can be added to the orbital delta-v of the rocket to achieve orbit. The Russians put their launch complex in Kazakstan for the very same reason (instead of near Murmansk and launching over the Arctic Ocean).
EM launchers as weapons I'm sure are being investigated. Getting a hunk of Lead or Uranium up to Mach 15-20 has many very good uses in trying to defend against other object that are also travling at Hypersonic speeds (like ICBMs). If that chunk of metal melts from atmospheric drag, it really doesn't matter.
I would have to agree though that EM launchers are more pratical in a vacuum environment (like the Moon) or some extraterrestial mining application rather than something that comes from a planet with an atmosphere. A man-rated vehicle that can be launched from the moon would also be interesting.
An alternative approach I have seen is to have a very powerful laser system help supply the energy of a launch system, where the laser is at the launch site and the ship only has mirrors and limited attitude thrusters. The problem with this approach is that the energy requirements to get this to work are incredible, and really havn't been work out that well. It gives a bonus that you can control rather precisely the acceleration of the vehicle, and the energy production is on the ground, not on the craft being accelerated. Even if this were only the 1st stage of the rocket, it would significantly cut costs.