Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck

Win the X-Prize Cup 240

Posted by michael from the fuel-imaginations,-get-it? dept.
fitten writes "CNN is reporting that the X-Prize competition may become an annual event. From the site: 'Hoping to build on the momentum sparked by a private rocket plane's dash into space, supporters of opening the heavens to civilians are turning the winner-take-all race into an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Win the X-Prize Cup More

Win the X-Prize Cup

Comments Filter:

  • Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:48PM (#10444988)
    I think each year would water the thing down. Much like any other contest that is expensive.

    Why not every 4 years? Even 3 would work. This way, it would give people more time to work on even better designs, perhaps even alternative fuel methods for reaching space.

    And that would rock.

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zenofjazz ( 614733 ) <ZenOfJazz@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:53PM (#10445032) Homepage
      Actually, the idea at this point, I think, is to give the other teams, (some of whom were VERY close to being ready to fly) a reason to keep working towards the goal.. if you delay it 3-4 years, then what does Davinci have, to keep them going? Motivate the other teams to launch, and prove their technology as soon as possible, and show that they're better (or equal to) Scaled Composites. Of the 20 odd teams that were competing for the X prize, 2-3 are more or less ready to try... and several more could be, within another year. The more space-related stuff stays in the news, the more "commercial utilization" of space is going to be top of mind. Tourism... Microsat launches, you name it.

      • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jdray ( 645332 )
        In Scaled Composite's defense, none of the others will ever be their equal, nor better, for the mere fact that SC did it first. Others may eventually overcome SC's design, go higher, have faster turnaround, etc. However, Rutan and co. did it first. Having said all that, I agree with you; I think that annual competitions for different challenges will keep the development going. Highest, fastest, most passengers, whatever, just so the minimum altitude is 100 km.
        • Why not shoot for orbital? Carmack's stuff looks like he's going in that direction.

          • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

            by N3WBI3 ( 595976 )
            I think this should be worked in. But they are considering that they are making over all altitude a part of the equation I think they are covering that. Keep in mind it took these teams years to acheive what they have which is a fraction of the altitude needed for orbital flight.

            What they should do is run the "x-cup" for five years (maybe raise the ceiling for qualification every year) and start another prize for orbital flight now (x-prize2). I dont know how this would affect the draw of one (x-cup) or t

      • I suspect that the other teams would continue for the finicial benefits.

        Im pretty sure the $10Mil prize did little to cover the full development costs of spaceship one. The real money is in the IP.

        How exclusive are these Branson plans?

        IMHO we dont need any further 'prizes' to ignite this competition, the fires are burning brightly already.

        Perhaps a major prize for major milestones, first orbit, the moon....

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rei ( 128717 )
      Wake me up when they get anywhere close to orbit and the associated huge technical hurdles that SS1 doesn't even come close to addressing.

      I know people like to refer to it as a stopping point, but what sort of stopping point is a craft built of epoxy with a heavy 250 ISP engine? Exactly what are they going to reuse - the ship's computer?

      It's just advertizing and a joy ride; it's not some sort of stepping stone (at least in the technical sense).

      • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JQuick ( 411434 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:50PM (#10446851)
        You claim that this is not a stepping stone toward any useful goal, that's it's "just advertising and a joy ride". Nothing less than cheap access to orbit is worthy of interest.

        I agree with you that short, sub-orbital flight is only directly good for joy rides, and advertising. Beyond this however I disagree with you entirely. No offense, but I think you're missing the point.

        Why? Because advertising and joy rides are the key to unlocking a revenue stream which can move us toward more useful goals.

        Currently the only significant source of direct income from the private sector comes from launching satellites. This is a large source of revenue, but one which is neither very elastic, nor one which places demands on those who provide lift to significantly change the status quo. The cost of launching most satellites is but a fraction of the total cost. Adding together insurance, interest payments and other opportunity costs for capital, they are extraordinarily expensive objects even if launch costs are ignored. The market is narrow and capital intensive.

        The result is that the market puts little pressure on firms to lift significantly larger payloads, either measured in volume or in mass. Incrementally reducing cost per pound on existing orbital launch systems would not be likely to increase the demand significantly. The risk of modifying these systems incrementally is simply not justified by the risk or the return on near term capital investment. Worst, no private income stream currently encourages development of manned missions at all.

        The X-prize cup goal is provide direct incentive for innovation in manned space transport. It does so by providing a mechanism for directly infusing private capital into manned vehicles in ways that are much more flexible, much more elastic, and which result in pressure on potential space transportation designers to increase both aggregate and per launch lift capacity. The first prize was designed to promote competition in developing an inexpensive re-usable sub-orbital vehicle for carrying passengers. This will generate income in 2 ways. Advertisers will pay to be associated with the product and services provided by commercial users. Passengers able to afford a the ride will provide a significant on-going stream of revenue.

        The passenger revenue is highly elastic. at the price of $200K per head, about 6,000 have already expressed serious interest in riding Virgin Galactic. 1.2 billion is nothing to sneeze at. If the price were $100K, that number would rise rapidly. As the price continues to lower, more and more passengers will be able and willing to afford even a sub-orbital jaunt. I'm not wealthy, but I would certainly drive crappy used cars for 5-10 years in return for a trip to space.

        The X-prize cup is an annual event, Competitors will vie each year to travel greater distances downrange, achieve higher altitude, launch the most times during the event, carry the largest payloads, etc. The organizers expect that an X-prize competitor will achieve orbital capability in 5-8 years. That apparently would interest you.

        In the past 30 years we've gone backwards not forwards. Aside from X-prize vehicles (both Scaled Composites and the 20 or so other contenders), the only manned space vehicles we have are based on designs form the 1960s and 1970s. Huge lift capacity died with apollo.

        Without advertising and joy rides to both fund that development and promote competition, how do you propose we get there?

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stormfish ( 621155 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:58PM (#10445087)
      It's all fun and games until someone reaches escape velocity.

      • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Informative)

        by bartash ( 93498 )
        Not sure if this is a joke. Isn't excape velocity [wikipedia.org] the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to leave Earth? But these rockets have propulsion, they could move at 10MPH as long as they keep going for long enough.

      • Be more specific. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by abb3w ( 696381 )
        It's all fun and games until someone reaches escape velocity.

        Terran, or solar escape velocity? Local, or general?

        At local terran escape velocity of 10 kps, you're about ready to start lunar colonization [barnesandnoble.com]. At local solar escape velocity of about 42 kps, you're ready to start mining the Oort cloud [barnesandnoble.com] for volitiles (for space colonies and/or terraforming Mars and Venus) and any other fun stuff out there. At base solar escape velocity of about 620 kps, you can get anywhere in the solar system [barnesandnoble.com], and have a decent

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:59PM (#10445098)
      The America's Cup races are held every four years, primarily because it's a technical series and it takes that long to raise the money, build and develop a boat.

      Something to think about though, SpaceShipOne only cost about as a much as a well funded, front running 12 meter yacht program.

      If you can scrap up the moolah it's now a legitmate choice, boat or space ship.

      KFG
    • think each year would water the thing down. Much like any other contest that is expensive.

      Why not every 4 years? Even 3 would work. This way, it would give people more time to work on even better designs, perhaps even alternative fuel methods for reaching space.

      Nope, nope, nope!

      We need this all right away. Get off your fat butt and get to work! Innovation in rocket science can drive the economy. Why accept it's hard to do? Back in the early days of aviation (barnstromers and all) wild ideas were

    • Just an idea: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by modecx ( 130548 )
      I like the idea of a regular X event, but not necessairly all having the same goal.. That would just become obnoxious and boring, in exactly the same way watching Astronauts on the moon did in the 70's.

      Perhaps they need to go a different route: I suggest that there is a competition with no set time limit that would do exactly what the X-Prize did:encourage reguar people to try and do what is thought impossible, with engineering and imagination.

      Let's say that the next X-Prize was for developing a car tha

  • Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:49PM (#10445001) Homepage
    Bigelow's $50 Mil Space Prize [lasvegasmercury.com]

    The Slashdot editors refused to publish my submission, but I think this is much more interesting than repeating the X-Prize year after year, despite the innovation that will come from such an endeavor.

    • That's because it was posted here [slashdot.org] last week.
    • I'll second this. As far as the public is concerned, anything less than orbital is a joyride unless it costs less than 10,000$ and can travel around the world (in which case it becomes a replacement for long distance airplane flights).
      • Actually, that's a good point. Has Rutan made any pronouncements about what the point to point range of his vehicle is? FedEx might have a market opportunity.

        "East cost packages in by 2:00 p.m. delivered to L.A., S.F. or Seattle by 2:00 p.m."

        Three hours should be enough time, right?

        • Re:Not as interesting as the Bigelow $50 mil prize (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:20PM (#10445307) Homepage
          Yeah, and only 2,000$ per pound, and with a 1% chance of your package being incinerated in the upper atmosphere!

          But to answer your question... no. SpaceShipOne couldn't go that far point to point. At 100km, it could make it that far if it *also* had a velocity of ~7800 m/s at that altitude.

          However, on the subject of deliveries, it does remind me of something else. I had a friend who worked as a translator for the army during the cold war. She took part in the inspections of one of those regular disarmament agreements, in which both sides agreed to destroy so many missles, and then used it as an excuse to get PR while scrapping their old missiles that they didn't wany any more. The inspectors were there to probe into any space small enough to possibly hide a treaty-limited item.

          Well, over there, she got to talking to the Russian equivalent of a (Colonel? I forget what she told me). Anyway, she mentioned to him how much of a waste it was, to see these complex pieces of machinery that can go anywhere in the world in half an hour just be scrapped. She told him about how she had done calculations, and that you could retrofit an ICBM, fuel and launch it, and use it as an intercontinental pizza delivery system. You put the raw pizzas in the top, and they're cooked on reentry, and then the pizza "warhead" parachutes down. If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.

          According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

          • If enough pizzas were in demand in a given location to fill the warhead, the delivery cost (assuming you don't have to pay for the missile) would only be 10-20$ per pizza.

            According to her, he looked at her like she was completely insane.

            And that, right there, is why the west won the cold war.

            /August.

            • I don't know... they took a more pragmatic approach to things. For example, when the US inspection teams were sent over, they were given a laser measuring device to determine if an area was large enough that they were allowed to inspect it. A nice, fancy piece of equipment.

              The Soviets were really impressed; they sent their teams over to the US with something different: a stick. Literally, a piece of wood cut to the length that was the minimum dimension. If the stick fit, they could inspect.

              Different c

  • Hey (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 )
    maximum number of passengers per launch

    Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

    • Re:Hey (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dr Caleb ( 121505 )
      Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?

      Sorry bud, it says SpaceShipOne can only carry the weight of two normal men.

  • What about safety? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrewerDude ( 716509 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:51PM (#10445011)
    Does anyone else think that this is a high-profile accident waiting to happen? A lot of the events mentioned there are about pushing the evelope in terms of speed or capacity. Once enough teams start participating, I'm wondering whether some will sacrifice their safety margin in an attempt to one-up the competition.

    The last thing we need is a catastrophic accident that causes a knee-jerk overregulation response from congress.

    • Nod... and Rutan has really been pushing his luck. Launching in 40+ mph winds? That's crazy.

      When he claimed to have solved the roll problem, and then it rolled again, I looked for a wall to hit my head into. At least it didn't roll during the prize-winning flight....

    • Re:What about safety? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:14PM (#10445243)
      I'm wondering whether some will sacrifice their safety margin in an attempt to one-up the competition.

      Of course, hang gliders, surfers, rock climbers, downhill mountain bikers, blue water sailers, et al do it, and die, every day.

      So long as they're privately funded and aren't a danger to the general public, 'tain't nobody's business but their own.

      God protect us from NerfWorld(tm).

      KFG

    • NASCAR and Airshows (Score:3, Insightful)

      by slew ( 2918 )
      Hmm, there's been quite a few high-profile accidents in NASCAR and there hasn't been any overregulation response. Why would there be one here?

      Just yesterday, I saw on the news that during an airshow, there was a crash. Don't see congress legislating against doing hammerhead turns yet.

      What I don't understand is this notion that everything must be "safe". What's important is clear information, not safety, and for people to make informed choices...

      OF COURSE someone will probably sacrifice their safety ma
    • Just like the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. To make this year even better than last year, for each show the organisers flew military aircraft not just over a capital city, a vast crowd of spectators, but over a royal residence as well just for extra measure.

    • Re:What about safety? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) *
      Hmm, ofcourse accidents can and will happen.

      Consider how air-travel started out - there were quite a lot of crashes initially, and it took a while before things stabilized. And in the process, we learnt a lot on how things worked.

      See, until mistakes are made, there is no scope for us to learn and improve. The safest paths always lead down to stagnation :)

      Ofcourse, I'm not saying that we need to go and let people die in the process - merely that unless we try, we would not know. Maybe we will fail occasio

    • Re:What about safety? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SiO2 ( 124860 )
      Does anyone else think that this is a high-profile accident waiting to happen?

      This is interesting. Consider the disasters that befell both the Columbia and Challenger shuttles, while also taking into account the extensive and redundant safety precautions NASA takes with each launch.

      How many redundant systems does the shuttle and associated support technology have? I once told my boss that we needed two redundant clusters to ensure that our mission-critical application that essentially runs the universit
      • Remember that both Challenger and Columbia were blamed on management errors rather than technical ones. The quote of your boss is reasonable as long as the management is aware of the risk and and the impact of a failure. A key failure of NASA is that the management didn't understand the problem.

        One thing going about these programmes is that they are much smaller and easier to understand. The management / engineering is also correspondingly smaller so there are less likely to be issues about what a 1% chan

    • But it's a risky business! As someone once said, you take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the road, or sticking your face in a fan.

      It's not as if the pilots don't know what they're letting themselves in for; and just like movie stuntmen or bomb disposal experts or soldiers, they choose to do it anyway. Who are we to stop them?

      Of course we should aim for a reasonable degree of safety; and by the time we have commercial spaceflight, there may well need to be legislation, just as for other f

  • Good or bad? Time will tell. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:51PM (#10445012) Homepage Journal

    "into an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations."

    Yeah, like the Loebner Prize [loebner.net]?

    Or maybe not [psu.edu].

  • Too Long Between Events (Score:3, Funny)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:51PM (#10445013) Homepage Journal
    Everyone in marketing knows that repetition is the key to creating a permanent impression.

    They need to have an X-Cup every 6 months to keep the interest alive.

    A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too.

    Just like NASCAR.

    • A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too. Just like NASCAR.



      This is a very valid point. Maybe made in the least subtle way possible but still a valid point.

      I fear the parent maybe moded down as troll. I ask those with mod points to seriously consider the validity and insightliness of the quoted comments.

    • That is a good point.

      If a couple people die trying, the audience would love it.

      Make it like NASCAR - every 6 months have an X-Cup.

      Repitition is important when you're trying to make a lasting impression.

  • Vehicle Challenge (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flyboy974 ( 624054 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:51PM (#10445018)
    I would suggest that the next XPrize be a vehicle challenge.

    Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles. No stop may last longer than 15 minutes.

    This would essentially emulate a family driving in any EU or N. American country. All while driving a stake through the Oil companies hearts.

    • Re:Vehicle Challenge (Score:5, Informative)

      by geomon ( 78680 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:57PM (#10445078) Homepage Journal
      Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles.

      Excellent idea. Pushing the boundaries of engineering and science at the same time.

      All while driving a stake through the Oil companies hearts.

      You have just defeated yourself.

      The light-weight composites that you rely on for building your zero-emmissions car are derived from petrochemicals.

      There is only one "oil" company left - Texaco. All the rest have been in the chemical market for decades.

      • My understanding is that we already have negative emissions vehicles capable of doing this sort of thing, burning hydrogen. The air filter in the vehicle actually removes crap from the air and the air leaves cleaner than it enters. The only thing missing is the hydrogen infrastructure.
        • And where does the hydrogen come from?

          Oil.
          • That's not necessarily true, but it is the most likely scenario today. In the long term it would probably be best to use solar or (gasp) nuclear to disassociate water for the hydrogen. I'm not necessarily suggesting that hydrogen is the way to go, I think that biodiesel would be a much better idea, or maybe ethanol. Biodiesel isn't zero pollution obviously but it's less polluting than fossil-fuel diesel fuels, plus it requires no new technology which means we could start implementing it right now. Biodiesel

    • Do your own challenge then (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jeti ( 105266 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:22PM (#10445320)
      The founder of the X-Prize owns a company that offers parabolic flights [nogravity.com].
      The hype that the X-Prize creates will hopefully get a lot of people interested in the flights,
      which are cheap by comparison ($3k for a dozen parabolics).

      If you want a new contest for emission free vehicles, organize it yourself.
    • Not quite 1000 miles in a day, closer to 500km per day, but still rather impressive.

      A 15,000km 40day world record tour of Canada and the US.

      http://midsun.uwaterloo.ca/tour/tour_news/ [uwaterloo.ca]

      And proud to say it was my university that did it.
    • In fact, the vehicle which could do it was developed 7 years ago. It was called the Solectria Sunrise. Composite construction, 4 seats and a trunk for bags, very low drag, and 400 miles per charge on NiMH batteries. Updated to use current battery technologies would just about double that range and with next generation li-s batteries the potential range would be around 1300 miles per charge.

      http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art24.h t ml

      Anyway, who wants to drive 1000 miles per day. Any more than abou
  • I really wonder if the first accident that results in a fatality will throw water on this recent excitement. I hope not.

  • Novelty will wear off (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:52PM (#10445024)
    How many people watched Big Brother 5?
  • Is it really a good idea in terms of safety to encourage anyone and everyone to go as high as they can as fast as they can as often as they can? I mean seriously, look at the Red Bull Flugtag (minus the umlat) and what it's done for modern aviation...

    No seriously, this is really flippin' awesome. I hope it gets to be as big as they're projecting!

  • Next Stop, Orbit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tpconcannon ( 619066 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:53PM (#10445039) Homepage Journal
    I guess earth orbit would be the next logical step in this venture, although, attaining orbit is also the most dangerous part of space travel. Actually returning from orbit is more dangerous, as there would be the heat of reentry to deal with. I have a feeling that this would be when we start to see lives lost in this competition.

  • Save money (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:53PM (#10445040) Journal
    I suggest they combine with the Darwin Awards to save money.

  • This is great but ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:54PM (#10445046)


    From what I've seen or read, the solutions to the x-prize challenge have been built for that specific purpose. example being Rutans space ship was disigned to fly 100km then return safely. I think to foster more innovation the challenge itself has to become more challenging. How about an orbital flight next. Then a moon orbital. This will allow designers to build on existing designs as opposed to coming up with the best and cheapest way to fly 100km. I sort of equating it with making lynnburgs flight a yearly event ..whats the point

    • Re:This is great but ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:20PM (#10445303) Homepage Journal
      The point of the one-year cycle is, at least right now, to give the rest of the X-Prize teams something to aim for. DaVinci and Canadian Arrow are both less than a year from their first flight, and most of the serious teams will be able to make it in two years.

      In the longer run, it shouldn't be that hard to, say, scale SpaceShipOne up to where it can carry ten passengers, or to give it enough crossrange capability to reach New York.
    • Not all of them were built just to win the X-prize. Here in the UK, Steve Bennett's Starchaser Industries [starchaser.co.uk] is developing a fairly traditional liquid fuelled engine. This should be powerful enough to allow an orbital launch vehicle to be built.

      Carmack's Armadillo team are working with hydrogen peroxide monopropellant engines. Although less powerful than bipropellants (eg. liquid oxygen and kerosene), these might also reach orbit if enough stages and/or boosters are used. They've probably still got a better s

      • Re:This is great but ... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#10445753) Homepage
        Carmack's monoprop (which he keeps changing all the time) with under 200 ISP, could never get to orbit without a preposterous size and number of stages. Sorry. Even SpaceShipOne, with its heavy tanks and 250 ISP would have an incredibly hard time scaling up to orbit while not making the White Knight grow bigger than a Cossack. You just don't get orbital craft with such lousy engines.

        You know why they're using such lousy engines? Because they're cheap and easy to build and operate. They limit their performance potential, essentially, to a run at the X-prize. These are not craft that are designed to scale.

        What, exactly, are they going to carry over - The ship's computer? I mean, seriously, few people ever state *what* they expect to carry over, apart from "experience". Yeah, experience with an epoxy craft burning rubber are really going to help you design a turbopump-driven biprop (or whatnot) with a thermal protection system.

  • Safety? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Manhigh ( 148034 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:54PM (#10445047)
    Burt Rutan, who IMHO is an aeronautical genious, and his team took years to do this. Is the one year cycle enough to do this right?

    Furthermore, having prizes for things like "most passengers" just smacks of safety issues.

    Even SpaceshipOne was almost lost on one of its flights. This isnt trivial, things can and will go wrong, and its a very unforgiving environment.

    Now if people accept the risks and are willing to go regardless, I respect that. But what I dont want is a bunch of bad press for space travel, and resulting overregulation and fear among the public, resulting from a slew of fatalities at the X Prize Cup.
    • 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.
    • There's always risk involved in ventures such as this. Hell, many of humanity's greatest accomplishments have involved great risk. And yet, they happened.

      People will lay it on the line for things they believe in. To do otherwise invites stagnation.

    • Re:Safety? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tricops ( 635353 )
      Well, Rutan and crew covered the passenger requirements for the X-prize (except the pilot) with random personal objects equivalent in weight to the required passenger weight. I can't see why that couldn't/wouldn't continue until a design has a proven track record.

  • Sounds cool, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:54PM (#10445051)
    I hope this doesn't detract from other more ambitious prizes.
    Just getting to space is nice, but I'd like to see bigger prizes for things like orbital flight, rather than reccuring smaller prizes for doing the same old thing a little bit better than the last guy.

    I can imagine a cool concept for the X-Prize version 4.0 (or thereabouts).

    Pay some space agency to launch a tiny satelite, just a transponder with a n-million dollar check rolled up inside. The first private team to go up and retrieve it in person keeps it.

  • Wonderful idea! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stoutlimb ( 143245 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:55PM (#10445055)
    I think it's a great idea... There's a huge list of failed X-prizes, and they might risk being scrapped, instead of flown. That would be an awful shame, and a waste. I would like to see all of them fly eventually. (Except maybe the really dangerous ones.)

    The other reason I think it's a great idea is because even though Spaceship One got their first, it won't ever go much further. That design was designed for one thing, to win the X prize. A modified version of it will never go anywhere useful. Some of the other X prize contestants could concievably scale all the way to orbit. So that way, setting the bar a bit higher each year is a great way of getting maximum development of the space industry for the prize dollars offered. If we ran this prize several years in a row, each time higher, I'm certain that Spaceship One wouldn't be able to hold on to the cup.

    I wonder who would be next?
    • Actually - a recent Discovery show on this had a few interviews with Rutan, and in one of them he was holding a model of a booster rocket with Space Ship One on top. I suspect it wasn't supposed to be the original though, but the 7-seat successor they're already talking about.

  • Why not a rocket jumping contest? (Score:4, Funny)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:57PM (#10445076) Journal
    That way Carmack has a chance. He's no good at building spaceships.

  • Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty". (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:57PM (#10445079) Homepage
    Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".

    Also, let's be a bit more ambitious. With the recent revelation that the American military is working on anti-matter weapons, we can safely conclude that we have "found" the fuel necessary for intergalactic travel. An matter-antimatter engine would have almost limitless power.

    So, instead of merely "shooting for low-earth orbit", let's "shoot for the stars". Let's "boldly go where no man has gone before ..."

    • Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".

      I think there are plenty more ACTUAL ENGINEERS that would deserve the honor before an actor playing an engineer. But beyond that, the more obvious choice than Scotty would be Gene Roddenberry.
    • ****Also, let's be a bit more ambitious. With the recent revelation that the American military is working on anti-matter weapons, we can safely conclude that we have "found" the fuel necessary for intergalactic travel. An matter-antimatter engine would have almost limitless power.****

      only in scifi land. the "power" isn't exactly the only problem in moving between the.. um.. how should I put this.. HUGE distances between STARS, not to mention the distances between galaxies.

      (besides.. using something for bo

  • Take the Hint (Score:4, Insightful)

    by COMON$ ( 806135 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:58PM (#10445086) Journal
    I think more areas of study need to take the hint here. Give people incentive and you will get solutions. Why not hold similar competitions for other products such as Fuel efficient cars, Economical Housing, or any other useful tech advance. If we take this competitive road, will we see a new age of innovation?

    • I absolutely agree - people love challenges. It's also apparent that private industry might be better suited (more agile) at this than public institutions. Congress couldn't finish debating the financing before someone else would have completed the task.

      An interesting historical note, these kinds of competitions were popular in the 20's and 30's to spur aviation development. Quite a bit of the money was put up my newspaper owners.

    • there are competitions for fuel efficient cars for example.

      sometimes mentioned even on slashdot.

  • Up the Ante (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moofdaddy ( 570503 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:03PM (#10445150) Homepage
    I think a more logical idea would be to up the ante and create the x^2 prize or the O prize. Make a new prize for the first to acheive orbit, to make an orbit or two around the world. That would have real world impacts.

    • The big O? (Score:2, Funny)

      by lakcaj ( 811907 )

      You really think a bunch of geeks would be successful in a contest to have their "rockets" reach the big O?

  • This year's X-Prize nominees are: (Score:5, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:04PM (#10445155) Homepage Journal

    • In the Twelve-and-Under category, Jimmy Flechojovitz of White Plains, New York
    • In the Open Source category, the team of CaynEyn and Volk3n
    • In the Bathtub category, two posthumous awards ....

  • Pros and Cons (Score:2, Interesting)

    by d3m057h3n35 ( 695460 )
    I think this is a good idea, in the sense that it could provide the public with an annual "spaceshow" with exciting events to help fuel interest. Contests would give incentive for new innovations in this area, and it would give smaller, independent teams a chance to make it to the big time once a few large companies start dominating the commercial space industry. The only qualm I have is that without strict regulation, this could be dangerous to those participating in the events, and worse, the spectators.

  • An annual contest makes sense (Score:5, Informative)

    by mtaht ( 603670 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:18PM (#10445272) Homepage
    Jerry Pournelle has long advocated the establishment of contests for various space related goals [msn.com]. (he also was at the spaceshipone launches - story and pictures here [jerrypournelle.com]) Peter's vision of annual space-related contests is slightly different - Each "meet" will have different, specific, goals, each year. At the same time the organization will provide consistency in place, time, and rules that the participants will function under. NASA's goals are so hopelessly fragmented by internally competing projects and ever changing budgetary reality that they are still mired in finally flying designs mired in 60s thinking. We are entering a new era. Space advocates can "vote with our feet" - and our new technologies - and our wallets - for whatever we feel is the best way to enter space.

  • First steps to [enter space fantasy here] (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've talked to an professor who made his fortune on technology forecasting, and space was a particular interest in him.

    We can expect to see fatalities, but what great exploration didn't?

    He predicted where space will finally be commercialized: tourism, travel, ads, what-have you. Eventually, we'll mine in space. One example is 03 (oxygen three). This is a major proponent to fusion. Another prediction is the drive for a space race, the fastest and the furthest into space.

    We may come to expect a few fata
    • O3? Sounds like a mutant SGI computer from last century.

      People have however talked about Helium-3 [google.com], which can be used in fusion reactions, giving minimal nasty radioactive by-products. Some people think that the moon's surface is covered with the stuff due to years of bombardment by the solar wind. The costs of extracting it, however, may be prohibitive.

  • They left out the most important category... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vrmlguy ( 120854 ) <samwyse&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:25PM (#10445340) Homepage Journal
    From the article:
    Teams will compete in five different categories to win the overall cup: Fastest turnaround time between the first launch and second landing, maximum number of passengers per launch, total number of passengers during the competition, maximum altitude and fastest flight time.
    How about maximum ground distance traveled while still reaching space? Right now, SS1 goes up and comes straight back down, so the maximum down-range cup could be won by landing somewhere in Texas. Each year you'd have to beat the previous year's distance, so eventually the teams would transition to transatlantic ballistic trajectories. Eventually, someone would land back in New Mexico after circling once around the Earth and the prize would be retired, but by then you'd be almost orbiting.
  • If they're going to evolve the X-Prize. They should raise the bar a bit more. SpaceShipOne has won the X-Prize for making it into the fringe of space, but now the prize should be extended to being able to safely complete an orbit and come back down.

  • No windows? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RCulpepper ( 99864 )
    I seem to recall hearing that one of the biggest challenges in building a space vehicles, and one of the biggest components weight-wise, is the windows. IIRC, one of the Japanese companies developed a TV screen with resolution so high it was virtually indistinguishable from reality. What about wallpapering the inside of the craft with these and leaving cameras outside?

    One of the big reasons TV doesn't look realistic is that we can't change our focus between the foreground and the background -- but everyth
  • an annual competition that might further fuel imaginations.

    The fact that the company buying the rights to the basic design already has hundreds of $1,000 deposits on an estimated $100,000 trip is PLENTY of incentive for further imagination.

  • Space challenges... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kindaian ( 577374 )
    My guess is that the next challenge would be to make a ship that could transport people to and from the ISS...

    As far as i know, the russian non-tripulated ships are the best for material sending (cost effective that it)...

    So there is now real need for a maned ship that can transport the crew of the space station...

    (of course... after that, the next step would be a private space station).
  • What is really needed is a basic design for orbital craft where the fabrication procedure and avionics are Open Source. At that point we can see a variety of teams starting to incrementally refine the design so it becomes safe and access to space is more routine. Maybe something like the Rotovator will get done and make space _really_ cheap-but just a decent orbital system might facilitated stuff like robotic development of the asteroid belt.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close