NASA Hoping To Create Super X-Prizes 268
Rei writes "NASA is attempting to use a strategy of handing out contracts as prizes, akin to the Ansari X-Prize, instead of the contractor-preferred method of bidding and having payment before work is completed. They are hoping to have prizes worth as much as one billion dollars. The only hitch? Congress won't let them."
I wonder why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Two words (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder why? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also the special interest don't CARE about the overal picture in a congressional distict or state, the only care about thier specific picture. Why would they back a congressman that would make them actually compete, rather than just hand out contracts to the highest bidders (donations to political campain, not contract bids).
I'm not saying what you said makes no sense, I'm saying it makes to much sense.
Mycroft
Re:I wonder why? (Score:5, Interesting)
They'd do it because they'd only pay for delivered results - no more paying for billion dollar Lockheed projects to have them go "oops, we messed up and you'll have to pay us another four billion to get it working..."
Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
only down side I see is it could also scare off buisnesses not willing to take the risk of spending all that money and then not getting the contract.
Re:Good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good thing (Score:2, Informative)
I know thats how the contract for the new space shuttle was awarded.
Re:Good thing (Score:2, Informative)
For example, the F16, F15, F22, all had competitors built and they were tested against their competitors and the better plane won.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:2)
Bad thing? (Score:2)
It also has the downside that it favours large companies. Right now a small company can still get contracts and funding from NASA, helping grow companies and foster competition. With the "prize" approach, small companies can't afford to foot the bill in the first place even if they knew they'd win the prize in the end.
In that sense, it's sort of like the "
Re:Bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sub contracting even aplies amoung the big companies. Once when Lockheed looked like it was going to loose a contract bid for some project or rather in the late 80's or early 90's my dad asked my uncle (who works for LM on some military project as a design engineer) if he was worried about it. He basically said "no I'll still get to work on it, it doesn't matte
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
For example Boeing put their entire company at risk by creating the 747 especially after it was the losser in the C-5 Air Force cargo aircraft bid. They managed to make it work quite well fortunately. Many companies aren't willing to take that kind of risk.
But on the other hand if say NASA said after looking around at off the shelf equipment and not finding what they needed for say a new manuevering thruster then they could post a prize (contract)
10 million for one that fits the minimum specs
and then throw in bonus awards
1 million if it is 50% smaller than specs
100k for each 10% thrust strength above specs
15k for each 1% reduction in weight below specs
500k for each 10% gain in efficiency
Now I can see many companies being interested in this since they can compete on multiple levels or work with other companies to claim portions of a multi-award prize.
The problem is not that companies don't have the capabilities to advance space technology, Scaled Composites proved that, it's just that there is little interest and fewer opportunities for smaller companies that are not associated with the big boys of aviation to get involved.
I see these prizes as very effective means of streamlining the component aquisition portion of space flight, and who knows maybe one of these days companies will make space ships the way companies crank out airplanes.
Congress (Score:2, Interesting)
So, I'm supposed to be disappointed that Congress is actually looking out for my money... at least to some extent?
Re:Congress (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
This space station will cost only 3 billion dollars
5billion...
10 billion...
15 billion...
20 billion...
30 billion...
and going and going.....
verses
NASA would like to propose a new space station modual that has X characteristics and they'll give the first team that creates one that fullfills that need for 1 billion dollars and won't pay out a penny for those that don't
It's called being a smart shopper you do it every day (hopefully) why shouldn't they?
Re:Congress (Score:2)
Put out an RFP for a space station - something that no one has ever built and see what sort of response you get. Or, since that one has been done, a mining station on the moon. You build it, launch it, and have it getting H3 for rocket fuel and then we'll award you with a prize.
I can't wait to see
Re:Congress (Score:2)
Just in the manufacturing of an automobile hundreds of companies are involved.
What car companies do is come up with a design and standards and then other companies or in house departments develope products to fill those designs.
I would expect NASA to have at least a couple people to have a clue and offer prizes (contracts) for specific components required. As time goes on companies may have the
Re:Congress (Score:2)
That doesn't even make sense. All you have to do is read the summary to know that I am right. This is not about giving out prizes for accomplishments, this is about allowing people who have spent their own money proving they are capable to actually do the thing, instead of just paying whoever says they can do something for the least to do it, which usually doesn't work anyway. Those people
Re:Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting take on this, IMO.
Re:Congress (Score:3)
Re:Congress (Score:2)
Once the IRS gets it, your money is as good as spent. It's almost silly to actually think of it as "your" money any more, since the best you can hope to do is have
Re:Congress (Score:2)
Re:Congress (Score:2)
Unsuprisingly, very few congresscritters vote to deny themselves a raise.
Ahem... (Score:3, Insightful)
A billion dollars is chump change (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A billion dollars is chump change (Score:2)
Re:A billion dollars is chump change (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
Re:Ahem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
Fund a couple fewer Cow Manure Institutes in the red states, get to Mars! Sounds like a win/win situation to me.
Re:Ahem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
a) contractor gets paid ahead of time. contractor bails out, fails, or bankrupts. NASA still loses the money.
b) NASA posts a prize request. Teams work to finish it. team fails, they don't get the money.
Plus, the money would get paid out later, meaning it could either earn interest or not earn negative interest (depending on the positiveness of their account) in the year or two it's not in the hands of contractors who haven't
money priorities (Score:2)
Yeah, but do you really think that staging a fake Mars-landing is going to be free?
Re:Ahem... (Score:2)
priceless... like your mother's hug, or a child's smile. Priceless doesn't cost a Billion dollars. A Billion Dollars is very very priceful.
A billion dollars are about the taxes on 1
and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:2, Insightful)
They are trying to cut corners by shifting the RISK of death off their own astronaughts and test pilots to those of outside contractors many of whom in the case of the original X- Prise were working on the super cheap and therefore were much more dangerous than should be tolerated..
Even the winner who HAD decent backing had a few moments without complete control in EACH of their flights -
I think folks would have
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are willing to take the risk, why not let them. Certainly when worker safety is being compromised through exploitation it might be worth worrying about, but I fail to believe that the test pilots for SpaceShipOne didn't have every option to decline to fly. They were being paid plenty of money to voluntarily take a risk. If they choose to take the risk let them.
Jedidiah.
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:2)
In any case there must be some that would face the danger without a second thought, the important thing is to make sure they're not pushed in to it by money or obligation.
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:5, Interesting)
From here [aaa.org]:
Cunningham [an astronaut on Apollo 7] departed from most current critics of NASA in criticizing the agency for becoming too risk-averse -- like our society, he opined. NASA is more afraid of failures than it's interested in attaining success in its missions. Abandonment of Hubble servicing was given as an example, and he criticized NASA's rationale for taking this action because of "higher risks" in placing a crew in the Hubble orbit by noting that NASA has put crews in that or similar orbits on no fewer than 90 prior occasions.
When astronauts place themselves in harm's way to accomplish such a mission, they do so with foreknowledge and willingly accept the risk, he said. Cunningham termed abandonment of the Hubble particularly galling because of its popularity with the public. He observed that since we reached the Moon, only two things that NASA has done have stirred public imagination: the Hubble and the Mars rovers.
And if Haliburton won a contest? (Score:3, Insightful)
--Later---
Damn that congress! NASA gave another technology contact to Microsoft!
So what would people say if NASA asked for a new technology and the best entry was from a company with ties to the sitting president? Or a company with a bad reputation, such as SCO?
A NASA X-Prize could become a magnet very for political charges of contract favoritism. NASA has managed to remain a government agency without the stigma of being partisan to one pa
Re:And if Haliburton won a contest? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to now, where the contracts get awarded based on proposals, and seem to have a habit of showing up in appropriate congressional districts? There's plenty enough pork now, I don't see how this will make it worse.
The money goes to whoever comes up with a working prototype first, so I don't see how claims of favourit
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:2)
Better to use planes to bring cargo and passengers to the top of the atmosphere and launch them from the plane into low orbit than the complicated, expensive and wasteful idiocy that they're engaged in now.
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:2)
horsepucky (Score:2)
Worker saftey standards are appropriate for industry, where established technologies are being used to crank out the same result, over and over, for a profit. But to impose these standards on a fledgling industry is unreasonable and stupid. No one who is going to get a chance to climb into a rocket is going to do so in ignorance of the risks.
I
Work at NASA, right? (Score:2)
Insightful? Or does slashdot just have a big NASA following?
no, a control move (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite. NASA is trying desperately to remain relevant, as well as retain control over space exploration. The whole space exploration thing has been a wonderful bit of PR for NASA's military research.
Let's face it- for forty years NASA has told everyone that space flight is risky, only perfect, super-smart people can travel into space, and that there's only one way to do it- the Orbiter. During those forty years they've putzed around space, done lots of experiments, lots of simulations and calculations, quietly helped develop a lot of military technology...and come up with various designs for alternatives to the Orbiter and dismissed all of them, probably because they like the status quo, but also because they've been obsessed with making one vehicle do everything, instead of just accepting that you use cargo rockets for cargo, and people ships for people; NASA is like a Soccer Mom, convinced they need a giant hulking vehicle just to toodle to the supermarket and pick up the dry cleaning.
NASA is, as far as technical knowledge is concerned, one of the best equipped organizations to develop something like a new space vehicle. But they were not the ones who ultimately succeeded. Scaled Composites showed up with a nice, small, sexy craft that looks very much this-decade. It uses a pair of jet engines and a single main rocket, and the whole thing could probably fit inside the Orbiter bay several times over, but still carries the same # of people, roughly. NASA is embarassed out of their minds.
Yes, NASA's efforts over the last 40 years have made it possible, but the agency that should have been in the best position, it turns out, was in the worst- and distracted with military projects (do you really think a mach 10+ mini-plane is for peace, love, and understanding? Phbt. It's for delivering tactical nukes very, very quickly from across the globe to better project US military strength).
It's a very typical power move you see in corporations and the public sector all the time. If the other guy's ideas start to endanger you, suddenly embrace his ideas and position yourself as the ideal candidate to manage that guy.
Re:no, a control move (Score:2)
SpaceShipOne is designed to take three people into space so they can look out the windows and be amazed for a few minutes. The shuttle is bigger because it needs to hold a lot more stuff (sc
Federal Nanny Service (Score:2)
NASA does set safety standards for this as they do for large portions of the aviation industry. Who do you think has a say in the authorization of said companies to test their products?
the original X- Prise were working on the super cheap and therefore were much more dangerous than should be tolerated..
None of the X-prize pilots for space ship-1 were working on the "cheap" these were very wealthy men pu
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and congress is correct not to allow it... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with people risking their lives as long as they know what they are doing and do it voluntarily.
Of course Congress won't let them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course Congress won't let them... (Score:2)
1. Threaten to close the plant in the congressman's area, causing widespread layoffs - in which case it is the congressman's duty to represent his district and fight to keep the jobs.
2. Be a "sole-source" for something the military needs, like a legacy part - in which case the company can threaten to stop producing the part unless congress gives them enough contract money to make up fo
Re:Of course Congress won't let them... (Score:2)
There are major components of the Space Shuttle manufacturered in every single state in the country, vastly increasing the cost of coordination and assembly. They have to spread the money around, or Congress won't support their programs. That's realpolitik in the space business.
Re:Of course Congress won't let them... (Score:2)
Microsoft (, and many other high tech companies,)
never used to get involved much in politics,
aside from the occassional need for intervention
in foreign trade matters. Campaign contributions
from high tech companies has soared in the past
5 - 6 years (, especially Microsoft). That bit
of business with the DoJ regarding "monopolies"
provided the high tech companies with a "wake-up
call". Of course, the deeper the corporation's
pockets, the more "mother's milk" of politics
can be spread around. Thi
I'd like to have seen that proposal (Score:5, Funny)
Why They Meed Difficulty in Congress (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why They Meed Difficulty in Congress (Score:2)
Re:Why They Meed Difficulty in Congress (Score:2)
Did you ever stop to ask why that Congressional district had become important? It just might be because a Lockheed, a Boeing or Donald Douglas had built a plant there in the thirties or forties.
First Order of Business: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Order of Business: (Score:2)
Breaking News (Score:2)
"This just in, NASA's budget just passed the military and education budgets combined. When asked for a comment the head of the space agency, who was wearing mouse ears and dancing in a circle, shouted, "We goin' to Mars"."
Man hours (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to me like potentially a very wasteful way of accomplishing a goal since many people will contribute a lot of work and never see any money for it.
To overcome this, perhaps NASA could consider breaking the prize money down to make sure that the most efficient way gets acknowleged as well as the quickest way.
Re:Man hours (Score:2)
Plus, if there are a lot of prizes then there will likely be a win-some lose-some attitude, not so much by the teams as the backers. Paul Allen
Re:Man hours (Score:2)
I know what you mean. And w
NASA's doing that? Me too! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm hoping to blow a billion dollars on stuff too. The only hitch? My bank manager won't let me.
Re:NASA's doing that? Me too! (Score:2)
Points to Ponder (Score:2, Interesting)
2. The NASA contract awarding process is flawed as is. There's rampant corruption and favouritism. These factors directly contributed to the Challenge disaster, as the Faynmen report outlined. The Super X-Prize is not going to solve that.
3. Winners will be determined by a
Re:Points to Ponder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Points to Ponder (Score:2)
Don't make it a prize then (Score:5, Interesting)
Nasa usually does their own testing on most of their stuff.
A Kings Ransom? (Score:4, Insightful)
For example give a billion dollars to the person(s) and not the company the comes up with a cure for aids. If someone does win the prize, then look at the cost savings over the long run. In the case of aids, a billion dollar one off payment is cheap.
well (Score:2, Informative)
I'm so there, dude! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'm so there, dude! (Score:2)
Creative accounting (Score:2)
Of course Congress won't let NASA do this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you pondering what I'm pondering? (Score:2)
However, that said, here are a few drawbacks I have also come to think about since then with this model:
First, from a corporate strategy point of view, does it make
Re:Are you pondering what I'm pondering? (Score:2)
When the developers are forced to spend money like it's their own, rather than t
Face up to it: NASA is not the future (Score:2)
It's about time we all face up to an important fact. When it comes to manned space travel, NASA can no longer be factored into the equation. NASA is not our future of manned spaceflight. They were great for getting humanity's foot in the door, but the private sector is going to have to take it from here. NASA cannot be relied upon to produce results when Congress will not give them funding.
So I am not as concerned about the fact that Congress will not give them the budget for this. What I am far more conce
Re:Face up to it: NASA is not the future (Score:2)
More Centennial Challenge info (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation [nasa.gov] and the PDF slides [nasa.gov].
This seems like exactly what they need to do (Score:2)
There's a reason for that (Score:4, Informative)
no way (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if the prize isn't large enough, some of the major players capable of making things happen might stay away form competing because of not having enough money to compete or because the return on investment is too low.
Now ask yourself, If you was the CEO of a large publicaly traded company, how many times would your investor/board of directors let you compete in good faith When after spending X amount of money to acomplish goals X and Z, your bigest competitor beats you to the punch and your out X amount of dollars and little hope of recycleing the research that went into it.
The X-prize worked for what it was intended for because that was the sum of money to make it attractive for other buisinesses to get into the market and that money wasn't competing with any other projects. (IE.. There wasn't any other projects needing the money like an international space station of a space shuttle overhaul to make it safer.) Also the money for the Xprize was colected by donation were people gladly risked thier money with little chance of return outside a market being developed. With NASA the moneys are colected from taxes and sometimes comercial missions, you need to justify what is being spent if you expect to get it and you have to qualify/spend the budget in order to get it again the next year.
Eventualy this will echo with claims of a $200 toilet seat or a $1200 step ladder and every new congressman trying to get re-elected will jump on the waist in an attemp to "clean up washington" so they can get re-elected. I don't think we want NASA to become a political venture so congressmen make a name for themselves. NOBODY really likes paying taxes and would soon see this as a reason to cut NASA's funding. They would have a fit when some bitter company that was competing started telling the newspapers they could build a simular product for millions less in an effort to get congress to award them a contract.
If NASA way of doing buisiness nedds reform, this is definatly not the way to do it. And anyone that thinks this is a way for the little guy to get thier foot into the door should reconsider the situation. IT favors the large guy with tons of money and a research base alrwady in existance form ealier contracts.
Re:no way (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's say the idea is 10 mil to get a man into orbit. OK, so they do it for 3 million. So they find a more cost effective way of doing things, which can be used in future spaceflight technology, and leads to greater savings in the long run.
But far more important that that, there's no way for the project like this to go overbuget. Look at the history of the shuttle, and you'll see a project that far exceeded it's initial cost estimate. Once you've sunk a few billion, though, it's a hard to back out and lose everything to save a billion or two. Especially when you've made promises to everyone and their mother to get the funding in the first place. This is what really saves you money.
As for the idea that companies wouldn't take the financial risks if uncertain of a reward, it's demonstrably untrue. This happens in the world of defense contracts all the time. Most large defense contractors, especially in areospace, have lost large sums of money developing prototypes, in failed bids to secure larger contracts.
As a final note, there are already congressmen who have made careers out of attacking NASA's budget. They point to the billions invested in space flight, and the lack of any visible progress. I can't imagine a program that guarantees results would make that any easier.
Re:no way (Score:5, Informative)
For one, who is to say they won't overpay for something?
OK, we'll leave aside the economic tautology that the proper price of something is what someone's willing to pay for it. Let's just look at this important fact: Until the project produces, no money changes hands. This contrasts with the current system, when NASA makes a wishlist, a corporation purports to fulfill it, and then everyone walks away with the cash whether or not the project actually comes to fruition. At least in the new model, no money is "wasted" until there is an actual product.
But wait. What if NASA says "Space Probe Frobozz is worth $10M to us" but company X can build space probe Frobozz for only $3M? Aren't we "wasting" $7M? No. NASA paid what it thought was reasonable. Company X made $7M -- which is a good incentive to get into the business. If you only pay companies for the cost of materials, they're not gonna line up to service your mission. The idea here is to tap the very powerful profit motive (perhaps you've heard of it?) so eminently a part of the American experience.
Let's leave aside that this completely subverts your first argument. Are you saying that "major players" will be scared away by a return on investment that is too low, so we should pad it? Obviously, companies will want to make a healthy profit; if NASA sets the prize too low for space probe Frobozz, then no one will step up to make it. The solution of course would be to then raise the prize money. At some point, one of two things will happen: (a) The prize gets high enough to entice companies to compete for it or (b) The price gets high enough to exceed NASA's estimate of the value of space probe Frobozz, so the contest never yields Frobozz. Either of these are valid and proper economic outcomes. You want Frobozz so bad? Cough up for it.
Well, if I were the CEO of a large publicly-traded company, I would hope I understand basic economics, including the fact that risk underlies all economic activity. I'd know that competing in good faith is about all my company does, every day, and is something to be neither feared nor ashamed of.
Again, that's how it goes, except of course it hardly ever goes that way. Your biggest competitor seems to have stolen a march on you, but then, that means you're not economically viable. But most likely the research you've done will be "recyclable", because you've learned a lot about whatever was being pursued. Ah, competition continues, to the good of the American public. If the odds were high that your competitor would beat you, you'd probably not invest the effort. But it's that element of risk that makes the market work.
I suggest that you take an economics class and learn the concept of "opportunity cost". There is never a time when money spent on one thing has no other
Might work for some projects, not all. (Score:3, Informative)
However, this is not a panacea. Not all projects can be done successfully with this build and NASA might pay concept.
Consider the next-generation space telescope, JWST. Design work began several years ago. With a plan selected and funding secured from the federal government, the bid process was begun. During the proposal phase, NASA-funded study projects were conducted by several competitors, to determine who would fabricate the primary mirrors -- these are next-generation products.
Three major teams made proposals. The winning propsal is for about $700M. It is sponsored by NASA Goddard. The winning team is composed of TRW, part of Northrop Grumman, as prime and Kodak C&GS, now ITT SSD, and Ball Aerospace. Various subcontractors are involved, including Tinsley, Axsys, and 4D Technologies. It is about a six year project requiring facilities unique to all these companies. The telescope will be assembled at a Government owned facility, with preliminary proof-of-concept testing taking place at Goddard.
Finally, if any of these companies causes the project to fail -- another Hubble -- they will see their NASA business evaporate and their reputation in the community will be damaged, if not destroyed.
There is no way a project of this scope, risk, and complexity, and cost could be done independently, with payment only a hope.
Isnt this how the JSF worked? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll do it (Score:2)
You let me know what kind of prizes you want to do, and you can pay me as an old-fashioned contractor.
I'll run the contests and handle the prize-style payouts for you, for a modest 10% commission. This way Congress will stay off your back.
Gimme a call.
And we all know that... (Score:2, Funny)
Goals of Humanity (Score:2)
Now, to get philosophical-ish...
It constantly amazes me at how it seems that noone in our government (or many others for that matter) seem to grasp the big picture. They concentrate on petty issues like power struggles and things that they sho
Re:Did anyone else think of... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This won't work (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is sitting on $40 billion in cash. I'm sure there are a number of companies with visionaries at the helm who'd love to throw cash at the problem - Richard Bransom of Virgin, for example.
Re:That didn't work, so create a fake market (Score:2, Insightful)