Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

X-Prize Overview: To The Edge Of Space, Cheap 146

Posted by timothy from the not-another-spendthrift-agency dept.
_randy_64 writes "The X-Prize competition has gotten a lot of coverage on Slashdot - either because it's cool and geeky or because John Carmack is involved. The Baltimore Sun has a decent background/overview article on the contest in Sunday's edition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-Prize Overview: To The Edge Of Space, Cheap More

X-Prize Overview: To The Edge Of Space, Cheap

Comments Filter:

  • Price (Score:1, Interesting)

    by mcbridematt ( 544099 )
    Enough of the overviews. When will I get to travel like I'm on Star Trek? And yes, I don't want to see borg.

    Oh well, tick tick tick.... I wonder how much it would cost to buy a ticket to travel on one of these machines when they come out?
    • well buying a tickets is good and all but when can someone buy their own, then they can pretend they're one of the captains of a ship on Star Trek, hey maybe we can have intergalactive shootouts and 'reality TV' in space.

    • Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ruds ( 86067 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:23AM (#6604101) Homepage
      Well, the article says 15,000 people/year would pay $100,000 for a 15-minute trip by 2021. Personally, I'd want more than 15 minutes in space for $100k, but there you go.

      That doesn't seem like a bad growth rate for an industry--from 0 to 1.5 billion per year in only 20 years. Of course, the PC industry puts that to shame, but I don't think a whole lot of industries have matched that growth rate.

      Matt

      • Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MikeCapone ( 693319 )
        That doesn't seem like a bad growth rate for an industry--from 0 to 1.5 billion per year in only 20 years. Of course, the PC industry puts that to shame, but I don't think a whole lot of industries have matched that growth rate.

        Well, remember that the expenses would be very high too.

        1.5 billion revenue doesn't equal 1.5 billion profit.

      • Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)

        by savuporo ( 658486 )
        This probably is a very pessimistic estimate. For somewhat more optimistic outlook, see Private Space Development Timeline [hobbyspace.com] Mind you Elon Musk of SpaceX [spacex.com] is planning to launch his semi-reusable Falcon in January, 2004. That is, to orbit. Some other companies, like Microcosm [smad.com] and SpaceDev [spacedev.com] are on track to launch their low-cost orbital vehicles in quite near future too. If and when X-Prize is won, the efforts ( sub ~million per launch manned suborbital ) and current "cheap" launcher builders will converge and

        • Re:Price (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Imagine, a million dollar orbital trip that could be won on lottery.
          Wicked - you could sell it on eBay to some poor sucker for a couple of million and live life easy!

      • Growth Rate (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning@nOsPAM.netzero.net> on Monday August 04, 2003 @06:57AM (#6604680) Homepage Journal
        Of course, the PC industry was based on an already successful commercial computer industry, who had already been refining the concepts of computer science and electrical engineering. The PC industry simply introduced the concept of low-cost personal computers and mass-produced consumer devices.

        The analogies are very strong, especially considering how the existing Aerospace industries are totally falling flat on this idea. I am very surprised that companies like Boeing or Airbus aren't at least letting their engineers have access to their shops after hours to try a stunt like this and submit their own entry for practically pocket change, kinda like how IBM let their engineers play a bit with Linux for next to no bottom-line cost for years...with a huge ROI.

        Once you hit the 15,000 for $100,000, the question then becomes how many would pay $10,000 if they could get the price per trip down?

        Heck, I might be encouraged to get a home equity loan in 10 years just for an opportunity to do that myself (or help finance one of my kids for that opportunity).

        The study was only talking about some real hard numbers that could be given to investors and point out the very real profit potential of commercial space transportation systems, even considering that the need to send a 747-style spacecraft to Mars will still be a century away.
      • yes, but if you could get to hong kong in 15 min, you would pay $100k

  • This is great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:06AM (#6604073)
    Despite how many people will clamor that this is good because NASA has dropped the ball lately, this is good for the scientific community because eventually we will need to find a vessel to replace the aging Orbiter.

  • Death of the X-Prize (Score:4, Interesting)

    by casuist99 ( 263701 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:21AM (#6604097) Homepage Journal
    I predict that soon, a group is going to fulfill the BARE MINIMUM requirements for the X-Prize competition, and we will see the death of non-governmental rocketry/space-travel. I mean, can't we just use Russia for space tourism?
    Seriously, though, once one group has succeeded, what is the immediate benefit to other groups who may succeed afterwards? No $$ usually leads to seriously reduced efforts.

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:5, Funny)

      by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:37AM (#6604130)
      Once you gen-x folks get done with the x-prize competition us gen-y folks will have the Y-Prize to see who can build the most XXXtreme rocket. The Y-Prize will be broadcast live on MTV(what music?) and the winner will receive a lifetime supply of mountain dew.

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:5, Interesting)

      by snake_dad ( 311844 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:37AM (#6604131) Homepage Journal
      Seriously, though, once one group has succeeded, what is the immediate benefit to other groups who may succeed afterwards? No $$ usually leads to seriously reduced efforts.

      The X Prize Foundation [xprize.org] has thought of that. The are working to set up a "racing" event [space.com] for passenger-carrying spaceships, with contenders trying to win categories like fastest turnaround time, highest altitude, and numbers of passengers. They are hoping to get big sponsors that are now active in Formula 1, Indycars, and such.

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:4, Interesting)

      by davidm25 ( 606820 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:40AM (#6604140)
      I don't think most of the people are doing it for the money. I am guessing that most groups are going to spend close 10 million to win the prize. The big problem I see is that I am not sure if doing suborbital flight like this is going to get us any closer to a real prescence in space. It is cool that they are pushing for fast turn around and the like but I am not sure if that is the same as getting cheap access to space. The xprize is forcing one point of view (reuse) while it might be more efficient to leave more mass in orbit. Refurbishing can be really expensive. Cheap access is probably dependant on some revolutionary breakthrough. Most of the ideas that I have seen are just rehashes of 50-60s NASA ideas. The math didn't work for most of them and while material science has improved enought to make some of them work, they will never be cheap.
      • I personally think that Scaled Composites' White Knight/SpaceShipOne combination will not only win the X-Prize, but also lead to the idea of travel to low Earth orbit (LEO) with very little throwaway components.

        Note that the Scaled Composites entry launches the spacecraft at around 50,000 feet; this means you don't need to lug a big load of propellants just to get to the 100 km altitude minimum as required by the X-Prize requirements. Orbital Sciences' Pegasus launcher has shown that when you launch at alt

        • An-124 with a stronger structure, twin-vertical surface tail

          replace the original engines with Western-built 65,000 to 70,000

          That is called AN 225 [lycos.co.uk]. AKA Mria. Exists in one copy. Flies. At least used to. Carrying a shuttle on its back. To 50000 feet apparently. And there are plans to use it as a launch platform.

          • Sorry, the An-225 isn't going to work--it's way too heavy a plane and I'm not sure if you want to put a rocket motor in the back for a 35 degree climb to 50,000 feet.

            The An-124 is more than big enough, since the space plane is going to be quite small anyway and that reduces the need for a large launch plane.

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pompatus ( 642396 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:44AM (#6604153) Journal
      Seriously, though, once one group has succeeded, what is the immediate benefit to other groups who may succeed afterwards?

      I think the benefits to any group capable of fulfilling the x-prize requirements (carry three people 62.5 miles up into space) would be enormous. The X-Prize Foundation [xprize.org] states that "For more than 30 years, the general public has waited for an opportunity to enjoy the space frontier on a first-hand basis. The X PRIZE Foundation is working to make space travel possible for all." People realize that ALOT of money could be made sending tourists to space. From the article, 15,000 people a year would pay $100,000 for a 15-minute suborbital trip by 2021. That doesn't sound bad at all for a small euntrepreneur. Granted, it's not exactly an IMMEDIATE benefit, but I think it might be worth it in the long run

      • Long term future? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by casuist99 ( 263701 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:52AM (#6604162) Homepage Journal
        The first time there is a safety problem with any of the spacecraft, all hell will ensue.
        The public will become fearful of visiting space on a private tourist craft, and the governments of many western nations will undoubtedly begin passing laws to regulate the industry.
        Space tourism has a future, but I'm not so sure it's as lucrative as the foundation would have us believe.

        • BS... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <.robert.merkel. .at. .benambra.org.> on Monday August 04, 2003 @03:28AM (#6604245) Homepage
          Sure, there is a large segment of the population that's paranoid about risk, but there's another section of the population for whom risk is not only not a deterrent, it's somewhat of an encouragement.

          Across the world, how many people ride motorcross bikes? Jump out of planes? Go rock-climbing? Or, if you're arguing that the people that like those kinds of activities can't afford $100,000 to go to space, how many rich dilettantes like to race Porsches - an activity that can easily chew up well over $100,000 in a single season.

          I would argue that there are plenty of rich people who will view the risks phlegmatically enough to keep a space tourism operation expanding for a while.

          • Re:BS... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by k0de ( 619918 )
            Across the world, how many people ride motorcross bikes? Jump out of planes? Go rock-climbing?

            But those personality types generally require to be in some control of the situation. That's where the high comes from, pitting your skill and wits against extreme circumstances.

            Maybe if they were allowed to drive the rocket ...

          • Re:BS... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Efreet ( 246368 )
            I'd like to agree, I really would, but the existence of extreme sports is no reason not to believe that the government will regulate private spacecraft out of existence if there is a single fatality. After all, if someone dies when rock climbing it might not even make the local news, and besides people have been rock climbing for centuries.

            Private space travel, on the other hand, is both new and spectacular, so there'll be a big pressure to Do Something to protect those poor space tourists from their own
        • Airplanes crash, yet millions still take planes to places they could drive. People still pay for "fun flights" in aerobatic airplanes. In the early days of aviation, crashes were common. The same is probably going to happen with private space travel. And of course the governments will regulate it for safety. Why wouldn't they? Businesses (like the one I work for) cross regulatory hurdles every day. We have an entire department devoted to satisfying gov't regulations.

          I'm not disagreeing with you, just showi

        • You're right, but why? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ghjm ( 8918 )
          When there's a bad car crash, do we shut down the Interstate system? When there's a bad air accident, do we ground all flights? While tragic, it's also expected, normal and routine that there will be occasional safety problems with all forms of transportation.

          But in space travel - which is nose-on-your-face obviously the most dangerous transportation system - we get all freaked out whenever there's an accident, and burn down entire programs.

          Is it because 1950s NASA engineers sold us the dream that we coul
          • I think it's also worth pointing out that when a car or plane has an accident it's relatively easy to clean up. While these flights are low, space debris is a much more wicked problem. Even a loose screw or bolt is traveling at a fast enough speed to severly damage [www.exn.ca] other crafts and satellites. That's why NASA tracks [nasa.gov] it all. I even saw a Discovery show where they explained that one good smash up could potentially cause a domino effect and wipe out a bunch of stuff -- even potentially creating a thick eno
      • "About 15,000 people a year would pay $100,000 for a 15-minute suborbital trip by 2021, according to a study by the consulting business Futron Corp"

        Is that $100k in 2003 dollars or 2021 dollars? If it is 2021 dollars that would be about $65k in 2003 dollars (assuming 2.5%/yr inflation over 18 years). If it is 2003 dollars that will be $155k in 2021.

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:4, Interesting)

      by strange_attract0r ( 618111 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @04:13AM (#6604337)
      But how satisfying would it be to have built your own spaceship!! It's just like the masses of us who like to build our own radios/computers/gizmos/whatever. This is like the perfect excuse for the D.I.Y. project of a lifetime!

    • after the mayflower, nobody was interested (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wadiwood ( 601205 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @04:38AM (#6604376) Journal
      At least that what this comment reads like. Hmm Everest has been climbed, why climb it again?

      Tourists are even happy to pay for trips to Antartica to get covered in penguin shit. And some tourists are daft enough to try crossing the Australian desert in summer. The only thing that seems to slow them down is fear of something less likely to kill them than a car accident back home. Something = anything from SARS, bombing, snake bite, shark bite, lightning strike etc. They don't usually think of death by thirst, jellyfish stingers, crocodiles, or wombat/roo/donkey/camel/sheep/sandhill/washout car accidents).

      I just hope that successful space trips don't give corporates a new excuse to continue trashing the only planet we've got.

      That's my rant for the day...
      • Sure, people were interested in America after the Mayflower, but you have to keep in mind that there were returns on the investment of going to America. (tobacco sales, freedom from persecution). If simple tourism is the only revenue source for post-XPrize private space travel, I worry for its future.
        I will admit there are the hard-core folks out there who would travel to space for the sheer thrill of it, but once they've done it once they're likely to move on to bigger/better thrills.

        • Obvious corporate benifite (Score:5, Interesting)

          by maddogsparky ( 202296 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @11:29AM (#6606934)
          Travel to anywhere in the world in 2 hours would be a great selling point. Granted, the first X-prize class vehicles won't be capable of that, but they are most of the way there once they get out of the atmosphere.

          I bet that inter-continental trips will be shortly behind the X-prize (i.e. 5-10 years) for business execs that don't want to ride in a plane for 36 hours and want to write off a thrill ride with a zero-g lay-over as a business expense. Heck, some of CEOs with large saleries might actually show "good business sense" by cutting a day or two of traveling out of a 3-5 day business trip (they make $300,000/per day at $100 million/year saleries).

    • Re:Death of the X-Prize (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2003 @05:16AM (#6604437)
      "Seriously, though, once one group has succeeded, what is the immediate benefit to other groups who may succeed afterwards? No $$ usually leads to seriously reduced efforts."

      I doesn't matter. Industry doesn't work like that. Just think of the flights around the globe or Linburg's flight across the atlantic.

      Thing is, is that nobody knows how is the best way to get up into space is yet. Obviously tossing rockets up in the air only to watch them self destruct in order to do it is a very bad thing.

      So once people figure out how to do it in a feasable way then that's once the $$ comes in. If it still remains unknown then there are just to many questions and nobody resposible to stockholders is willing to throw away his client's retirement money and his company's future on something that flimsy.

      But that's how capitalism works, it's up to individuals to take the risks, not society. It's a risk, if a person fails he is a loser, so he has to try to find more money and try again. But once a person succeeds he has the right to profit from his efforts.

      Beleive it or not the majority of rich people did it on their own. Most business owners fail miserably over and over again before they get it right and then have a chance to become rich. bankrupcy after bankrupcy, even jail time, then one day the risk taking pays off and they have a successful business and can provide jobs and livelyhoods for hundreds of other people not willing to take the risks.

      That's why the X-prize exists. After completing the prize your going to be strapped for cash, time, and resources to say the least, if it wasn't for the x-prize you'd probably loose everything. If you win the prize it will keep you solvent long enough to sell the technology and you then have a chance to live out your dreams a rich man with access to space flight. :)

      Of course this doesn't realy work to well for people like Camrak, but not everyone trying is already rich, but being wealthy has little to do with having good ideas about space flight or other new technologies.
    • To give up and go home would be uneconomic. Building a suborbital hopper isn't cheap. Gotta commercialize it, to pay the bills. Tourists first, then superfast intercontinental travel. That means commodity parts, spaceports, refuel/repair infrastructure. All of which will help when they announce the prize for LEO...

    • How about X-Prize-2? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @11:52AM (#6607181) Homepage Journal
      Go up, land halfway around the Earth.

      X-Prixe-3 - Land having circled the Earth. (not orbit, but parabolic boost + glide)

      X-Prize-4 - Orbits + return.

      After all when someone won the first Kremer Prize and did the figure-8, there was a new prize to cross the English Channel.

  • Averagenaut (Score:5, Funny)

    by davejenkins ( 99111 ) <slashdot&davejenkins,com> on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:24AM (#6604104) Homepage
    "Is This NASA?!?"
    "Yes-- how did you get this number?"
    "Shut UP! Listen-- I'm sick and tired of your boring launches and stupid bug experiments and... hang on..."
    [toilet flushes in background]
    "... anyway. hey!"

    • Re:Averagenaut (Score:4, Funny)

      by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @03:07AM (#6604193)
      I think it goes something like this...

      The scientist sees the common theme in the popular shows.

      Researcher: Why, they're all a bunch of blue-collar slobs!
      Scientist: People, that's who we need for our next astronaut.
      Assistant: I suggest a lengthy, inefficient search. At the taxpayers' expense, of course.
      Scientist: I wish there was an easier way.
      [Phone rings]
      Homer: Hello, is this NASA?
      Scientist: Yes?
      Homer: Good! Listen: I'm sick of your boring space launches. Now I'm just an ordinary, blue-collar slob, but I know what I likes on TV.
      Scientist: How did you get this number?
      Homer: Shut up! And another thing: how come I can't get no Tang 'round here? And also --
      [a toilet flushes]
      Scientist: People, our long search is over.

  • Curious about X-Prize Finances (Score:5, Interesting)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:37AM (#6604132)
    I'm curious about the X-Prize Foundations finances.

    They filed their last Form 990 for 2001 late, and their 2002 990 hasn't shown up yet so I'm assuming they requested an extention for the last year as well. As a confidence builder the fact that they can't close their books by March or so for the previous year is not super postiive.

    In 1998 we had this quote:
    "The X PRIZE Foundation already has raised more than half of the $10 million purse and anticipates having the remaining funds within a year."

    According to their 2001 990 at the end of the year they had $3,000 in cash and $1,000,000 in liabilities.

    If someone has already looked into the situation (ie, status of insurance, supporting organization holding funds etc) do let me know, otherwise I'll work to pull together some relevant information.

    As I get it I'll stick relevant info up at http://augustz.com/xprize [augustz.com]. [Nothing up at the moment and maybe nothing will ever show up... :)]

    The innovation around these projects is so cool however. Looking forward to the results!

    • Re:Curious about X-Prize Finances (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:45AM (#6604154)
      Their web site says they have a $10million insurance policy with a company that does those sports contests [kick field goal win $1million] to pay the winner.

      • Re:Curious about X-Prize Finances (Score:5, Interesting)

        by augustz ( 18082 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @03:20AM (#6604230)
        Yes, I have reviewed their website. Strange they would take out $10 million in insurance after raising $5 million for the purse with the expectation that the next $5 million would be in by 1999. Perhaps they took it out for the remainder.

        You would also expect that the expense of such an insurance policy would appear on their financials. They have a $120,000 annual expense for "Risk Insurance" which might be high enough to cover this, though I'm surpised a company would issue it that inexpensively. They may also have partners involved, there are a lot of different ways these things can be structured. However, the more complicated it is the more important the transparency bit is.

        This "Risk Insurance" might also be D&O type stuff in case they got sued if something goes wrong with competition (ie, someone rushes to relaunch and cuts corners on safety).

        I'll put in a request to them during the workweek for some clarification, it may be as easy as a FAQ update.

    • X-Prize Finances revealed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vexar ( 664860 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @08:28AM (#6605131) Homepage Journal
      Many contests and gameshows pay out with insurance money; rock concerts and live shows do the same thing. This didn't strike me as suspect in the least. Best example? Who Wants to be a Millionaire? changed its win patterns substantially after the first season. They made that first batch up to the $1000 mark of questions easy, but the difficulty from there on out was substantially above where it was in the first season. Result? More low-end pay-outs, but the ceiling of difficulty comes up faster.

      Think about it. Let's take a 5-year eligibility period. In the first year, XPrize Co. pays out an initial premium and upfront policy load. XPrize doubts anyone can hit that mark, and they really figure it will be more like year 5 or beyond that a winner will emerge (and that is proving true thus far). In the meantime, the insurance company does some investment wizardry with its risk pool, to make best use of the time with the money. The insurance company has probably made money on half a dozen contests where contestants need to peer endlessly into the bottom of their Mountain Dew cans, to determine if they have won, because some prizes go unawarded, or are delayed enough (by a bump-up system) that the investment has been more than recovered before a pay-out, which is still a reduction from the total exposure, since only single-slot winners can be bumped up to the next level (once there are more than one Nth prize winners, they are cut off), and there is no payout at position N, only N+1 up to the Grand Prize.

      Applying this effect back to XPrize, they have forecast some probabilities, and minimums. It is only in this year that XPrize has even started to look for a spaceport. Every time there's a governing juris diction (like the FAA) involved, that creates useful delays. It gives the insurance companies time to make more investments. XPrize creates reasonable hurdles that folks need to clear in order to win. One can engineer only so quickly. A pay-out in year 3 would really hurt the insurance company. A pay-out in year 6 means it cost XPrize Co. an extra year's worth of premiums. And that really is the greatest risk of all. Can they afford to keep paying the insurance premiums? If they cannot, well, the insurance company just made a monstrous load of cash.

      If you live in a US State with a lottery, can you imagine what the contest would be like if people put money in, and rather than winning an obscene sum, won a trip into space? Sure, it goes to the schools or the environment now (Johnny, this new computer lab was brought to you on the backs of poor people who have a gambling addiction), but what if those untold millions went to space exploration instead? Insurance is just highly organized gambling, which translates to organized crime.

      • Insurance is just highly organized gambling, which translates to organized crime.

        So gambling is a crime? Maybe in the sense that it's illegal in some places. But it's not illegal everywhere, and anyway I get the impression that's not what you mean.

        So you're saying that gambling is some kind of universal moral wrong--a "crime against humanity", perhaps?

        Does this mean that all forms of risk-taking are morally wrong, or criminal acts, or whatever?

        Please explain.

        • Well, at the risk of continuing this off-topic thread, which wasn't my intent for the original message, yes, major gambling still belongs to the mob in the USA. Take a look at the various sultry details surrounding the San Diego City Council and Mayor's office, and the surge of opening casinos in San Diego County. It is all there for you to read at the San Diego Union/Tribune.

          Responding to the other queries...
          I retract the blanket statement against insurance; it only applies to gambling/contest/gameshow

  • Thousands of incremental changes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:37AM (#6604133) Homepage
    In the article, the author makes the comment:

    On May 20, 1927, the day Lindbergh's plane took off from New York, the young Boeing Corp. rolled out the Boeing 40-A, a simple plane used primarily to carry mail. By 1933, after thousands of flights and incremental improvements, that plane evolved into the Boeing 247, the first modern passenger airliner.

    Looking at the Model 40-A (Boeing.com [boeing.com]), you can see a fabric covered single engined biplane. Jumping to the 247 (Boeing.com [boeing.com]), they are comparing to a dual engine, all metal monoplane with retractable landing gear.

    I guess that you could say that the difference in the aircraft were a result of thousands of "incremental changes", but I would think that the difference is primarily the result of thousands of people being excited by the prospect of air travel - the incremental changes came later.

    This should be the point of the X-Prize, rather than establishing a starting point for space travel, it should be an example of how low cost space flight could be achieved and then ignite the passions of many people with the result of space travel on a par with today's air travel.

    myke

    • To go where? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbowden ( 249149 )
      I would think that the difference is primarily the result of thousands of people being excited by the prospect of air travel

      The comparison of the current technology level of space travel to the beginnings of air travel does have points, but so far we're missing a very important one:

      Where are we going to go?

      There are no orbiting space stations (no, the currently 2 person ISS doesn't count), no lunar base, no asteroid mining, no space colonies [nasa.gov]

      When avation was beginning, there was an entire world it could

      • "There's nowhere to go, so let's not go there."

        Well if you don't go how the hell are the things that aren't there, going to? You can't just sit on your ass and wait for them to spontaneously pop into existence (unless you have real tea), then visit them.

        Unlike air travel, with space flight you have to make your destination. That much should be obvious.
        • I wasn't saying we shouldn't go. I was saying we shouldn't be expecting commercial traffic to pay for the development of the technology to get us there.

          If there's no there there, why would anyone pay to go there?

      • Where are we going to go?
        The x-prize entries are sub-orbital so you couldn't go to any of those places if they existed. On the other hand, image a thirty-minute transatlantic trajectory.

      • Re:To go where? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
        There are no orbiting space stations (no, the currently 2 person ISS doesn't count), no lunar base, no asteroid mining, no space colonies

        Right. Because we don't have cheap access to space. While it might not have helped the ISS, you can certainly imagine that being able to cheaply launch people and materials into orbit would make building and staffing a station much more attractive.

        Space exploration is going to be a very incremental process. First we need cheap access to orbit. Then we build somethin
      • Just the idea of the possibility of flying in space excites me. Feeling accelleration of lift off, being in free fall, watching sun rise over the Earth, seeing plasma stream by the windows on re-entry.

        I suspect that this is similar to the excitement of a hundred years ago, seeing a man take off and fly around a field. Being excited about flying isn't about going somewhere.

        As for there being places to go 100 years ago, why would you assume that 100 years ago there were places to go by air? The idea of f
  • It would appear from hints dropped by the project lead of Mayflower, a home-made rocket vying for the $10 million X-Prize, that part of the secret of his space flight technology is based on cow feces.

    "We have one [more] bit of valuable data. Cow pies in the area burned long after everything else was extinguished," Akkerman wrote to nearly 100 project supporters, after a small fire caused by a ruptured fuel hose ignited nearby cow excrement.

    The team working on Mayflower may have stumbled across a way to

  • John Carmack (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by deathcow ( 455995 )

    > "The X-Prize competition has gotten a lot of coverage
    > on Slashdot - either because it's cool and geeky or
    > because John Carmack is involved.

    I think the X-Prize would get slashdot coverage anyway, but John Carmacks presence makes it downright fascinating.

    I've wondered if John has more fans than any other slashdot user. Check out his fan list [slashdot.org]. Does anyone come close? How about that steak sauce guy, Perens [slashdot.org] ? Sorry - SexxyGal [slashdot.org] doesnt count, since the letters "Sex" causes so much confusion in

  • 24 Competitors, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WoTG ( 610710 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:50AM (#6604159) Homepage Journal
    From the article (shock, someone read it!):
    Around the world, 24 private ventures are vying for the $10 million awaiting successful garage rocket scientists.
    I've only read about 5 or 6 of the ventures, pretty much all of them American or European teams. Anyone know if any "real" contenders for the X-Prize are elsewhere in the world? Wouldn't it be neat if we're all surprised some day by some little known (in the West) team that takes the prize?
    • There is this Hungarian company [space.com] that wants to enter but was rejected. Not very surprising since they intend to use "a zero point field energy/superconductor-based propulsion system"... They are European but I bet they were not in your 5 or 6 :)

    • Re:24 Competitors, eh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @03:52AM (#6604299) Journal

      There is a full list of the teams [xprize.org] at the x-price website. From the PDF file found there it appers that most of the "serious" contenders are based in either North America or Europe, but then the majority of the teams are from there anywhere (could be many reasons for that). A notable exception which I - with my reasonsable limited knowhow of building and launching manned rockets - believe might create a viable launchvehicle, is the Gauchito (The Little Cowboy) [xprize.org] from Argentina.

      Mind you, there are a few of the contestants who are rather barmy, and since most of the entries are from the western world, most of the oddballs are from there as well. Check out Micro Space [xprize.org], a somewhat redneck, risky way to get suborbital (more info at their own site [micro-space.com], including info on how they plan on using scuba-gear to survive in the rarified atmosphere up there).

    • You couldn't have read it that closely. The article has quite a bit of text talking about Geoff Sheerin, leader of the Canadian Arrow team in London, Ontario.

  • Is the X Prize really a good idea? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @02:52AM (#6604165)
    Since the Apollo program, manned space flight has been an expensive and dangerous waste of time. Nothing's been accomplished by the space shuttle that couldn't have been accomplished by unmanned craft. The "science" carried on by shuttle astronauts has been worthless PR-driven junk (see http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn022103.html).

    What we need is all funding currently thrown at manned space flight to be spent on projects which result in genuine science. Take the Hubble telescope: the total cost, including repairs, was $200m. Each shuttle launch costs $400m: ten times as much per tonne of payload than the cheap launch vehicles used by the Russians and Chinese.

    The X Prize just encourages the believe that manned space flight is a worthwhile end in itself. It isn't. To the extent it succeeds, it will continue the popular and political obsession with manned space flight and waste more money and lives.

    • Correction to Parent: Hubble Space Telescope Costs (Score:5, Informative)

      by jstockdale ( 258118 ) * on Monday August 04, 2003 @03:28AM (#6604251) Homepage Journal
      Well although the parent is quick to point out the $200m cost of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in comparison to the $400m shuttle launch cost thats just plain incorrect.

      The correct figures are as follows (taken from http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html + NASA STS-82 docs):

      Initial Cost: $1.5 Billion
      Yearly Cost: $230-250 Million
      STS-82 Repair:
      Parts: $387 Million
      Flight: $430 Million

      So if we tally the costs over the first 15 years of operation (up to say ~2000) we come to: $5.3 Billion
    • Nothing other than building the ISS, hmm the first permenant habitat off this little rock, seems like a really BIG nothing to me. Also Hubble would have been a complete loss without the shuttle or something like it. There are lots of things that can be done with dumb boom sticks, and there are other things that require humans, I like to use the right tool for the right job.
      • Ah, yes.

        "The International Space Station, starrring in the film Skylab 2: Bigger, More Expensive, and Less Science!"

        The ISS is an exceptionally pointless venture, and the single best justification for junking NASA since the boondgle of the space shuttle that the ISS was supposed to justify. There is exactly one accomplishment of the Shuttle-era manned space program -- Hubble. Which, frankly, isn't worth all the money we spent on the shuttle, much less fourteen lives.

        Maybe someday we'll have a real mann
        • What you want the money back so it can be wasted on a couple more high tech "stealth" bombers that aren't?? Look at it in historic terms, as a percentage of GPD the only time the US has spent as much on exploration as previous empires (going back to early Egypt) was during the Apollo program. The men and women who gave their lives to space exploration would hate to hear you say their lives were wasted and that the things they spent their lives on were worthless. Also the ISS has kept quite a number of Russi
        • Which, frankly, isn't worth all the money we spent on the shuttle, much less fourteen lives.

          Well those fourteen astronautes themselves thought it was worth it! They sure knew the risks. Who the hell are you to say they died for no good reason? Give these people the respect they deserve.. Jeez...

    • Although I agree that sometimes robots can do a human's work in space pretty well or better than a human, we have to think in terms of a long term horizon. We need to continue taking steps toward outer space now. Learning how to build space habitats and living in them for longer and longer periods of time. Whether it's a depletion of Earth's room and resources, or an immovable asteroid with our name on it, we need to spread humanity around the solar system to ensure the survival of the species.
    • Its worth it to see if we can do it. AS shown its not hard to throw up a ship full of metal. Its doesn't need air to breathe or get affected by g-force etc. Space travel is the pinnacle of human endeavour (along with genetic engineering). I believe that man landing on the moon was one of the greatest things the human race has down. ITs worth it!

    • The X Prize just encourages the believe that manned space flight is a worthwhile end in itself. It isn't.

      You are so right. For that matter, we should start phasing out comercial air travel. It uses enormous amounts of fuel, causes occasional spectacular loss of life, and to what end? The vast majority of people who travel anywhere by air go right back to where they came from within a month or so. What little real good is accomplished by maned air travel could just as well (and much more safely and ch

      • not irony, stupidity.

        Manned space flight has achieved nothing of note since Apollo. Nothing scientific, nothing cultural, nothing economic. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

        • not irony, stupidity.

          Agreed!

          Manned space flight has achieved nothing of note since Apollo. Nothing scientific, nothing cultural, nothing economic. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

          Agreed again. You forgot "ziltch" and "the big goose egg" but otherwise I agree withyou completely. I mean, here we keep sending these people into a mind bogglingly enourmous repository of natural resources, with more much energy, gold, iron, hydrocarbons, you name it than humanity has used in its entire existance just floating around

    • Whose money? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Julian Morrison ( 5575 )
      You speak like this was your money they were spending. NASA is, X-Prize isn't. They've explicitly disallowed state help or funding. It's the contenders' own money and they can spend it however they please, including on things you consider frivolous. Likewise they can risk their own lives, who the hell are you to tell them not to?

      Oh, and space flight isn't an end in itself (except to tourists and adventurers), but nor is it only there for some dry academic's miserly conception of "genuine science". It's a t
  • It involves big big machines. It involves complex formulas. It involves a lot of money. It uses gruff test pilots (who may not survive!). It involves a lot of speculation. It involves a lot of speculation and play by play action!! not to mention competition!
    Wait!
    I have a great idea for a slashdot theme... lets give geeks a sport! It'll be called... Make it to Space! and it will have all the qualities of football/basketball/baseball ... etc, but the goal will be for mass-suborbital-transportation
  • If this private commercial space travel industry really starts to take off in the coming years, I wonder how goverments will start responding to it. NASA isnt just about sending scientists up into space to see how frogs would do in zero gravity. Alot of thier work in space is directly linked to the US military and I can imagine theres some pretty top secret sensitive stuff happening up there. I can see some very big fights going on in the near future. Will goverments try to pull some kind of crap where they
    • Whatever if the US wants to kill off its civilian space industry then non-us Space pioneers can launch from Cuba. Havana Cuba is only 400 miles south of Cape Kennedy.

  • suborbital tourism economics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by voss ( 52565 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @07:10AM (#6604719)
    100k for a 15 minute trip to nowhere is not
    worth it.

    100k for a two hour suborbital flight
    from New York to Tokyo...the economics look
    far more appealing. Right now people pay somewhere in the range of 12000 for a first class seat from New York to Tokyo and still have to endure an 18 hour flight. There are plenty of superwealthy people whos time is worth more than their money.

    100k for the two hour delivery of a custom fabricated part to keep a factory running that has an idle cost of 10 million a day. Now you see
    there is a market.

    Now Same-day package delivery from Australia/Japan/China to the US might be worth something.

    • This is why you can never rely in government to get anything accomplished. When people ("the market") have a need, even a very very very specific need, things get done.

      Unfortunately, how many government laws and regulations have prevented the market from entering outer space? Does anyone even have an idea on the limitations of launching from the states?

      Many times it isn't the technology that is a barrier -- its the silent hand of government that keeps so many doors closed.

    • I think the problem is that suborbital New York to Tokyo is a much, much, much bigger scale trip than X-Prize. X-Prize is pretty much straight up and down. Ballistic New York to Tokyo requires fairly warm re-entry heats. You've seen the size of ballistic missiles to send footlocker sized nuclear devices half way around the world... ...moreover, how would you know which missiles, er, rockets have the million dollar part and which ones have the nukes?
  • It seems to me that there's a market for X-prize level suborbital flights, other than tourism. What if FedEx or a competitor offered an on-demand 90 minutes to anywhere flight for $250,000 or so? And a scheduled New York to Tokyo documents flight at 5:45 pm New York time at $25,000 a package? There are enough high-priority shipments to keep the Flight Courier [beatthemonkey.com] business going rather well.

    There'd be significant capital investment in space travel required. But if one courier bites, then there'd be competitiv

  • First X-Prize death (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khaine ( 260889 ) on Monday August 04, 2003 @07:13AM (#6604731)
    One thing worries me about the X-Prize and that is safety. During the cold war the space race was a matter of national security as well as national pride so huge amounts of money were spent on research and development. Dispite this huge spending there were a large number of systems failures and a number of deaths.

    Although we may have advanced in a number of technical fields since the 1950s space flight has not significantly changed. Is offering people money to win a race to get into space a good thing to add to the mix of small budgets and amateur rocketry?

    • Re:First X-Prize death (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 )

      One thing worries me about the X-Prize and that is safety.

      Why should that worry you?

      Anyone who gets hurt or killed has only themself to blame. {I'm assuming no collateral damage here - time will tell how valid that is. My guess is that a rocket probably will break up into chunks that are too small to do much harm to anything else}.

      For instance, back in the early days of steam transportation, people were quite unafraid to sit astride a tank of water over a coal fire. A few burst boilers later, peop

  • Screw the ID software guy.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2003 @07:17AM (#6604739)
    ....my money is on Rutan.

    I mean really... who in their right mind would want to return to earth strapped between hydregen peroide tanks (probably with enough contents left to be lethal in the event of a leak) on a nose first trajectory with a "crushable nose cone" to break your decent. I mean only the guy that came up with a quad powered rocket launcher jumping maneuver would think something like this up...

    • Rutan all the way (Score:3, Informative)

      by HenryWirz ( 174386 )
      My money is on Rutan I saw him this week at EAA Airventure. It sounds like he is real close. According to Rutan the best reason for XPrize is the children. He says "We cannot afford to bore our children"
  • Just curious... Is there any opinion (informed, not the usual guesswork type) as to who will make the trip first, and survive to collect the prize money? I have followed X-Prize news over the last few years, but recently I have been too busy in my soul-robbing, non-tech job to take notice!

  • Rocket powered helo? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thbigr ( 514105 )
    Hmmm... My best bet is on the "space plane" sollutions. I can't see anything based on a helo realy working. Fixed wings are much more effiecient lifters.

  • Rutan at EAA Oshkosh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HenryWirz ( 174386 )
    I saw Rutan at Oshkosh this weekend [airventure.org]. He said he was amazed at how expensive his program turned out to be. While he couldn't reveal the exact dollar amount only that it was as expensive as one Hour of science on the ISS. Oh and for those of you who were wondering the sigificance of N328KF. 328,000 feet is the goal. IMHO he is close, real close. If I had to pick a date it would be 10:35 AM December 17th 2003.
  • Has anyone considered whether a small suborbital vehicle could be used in conjunction with a space elevator? I suspect extending the elevator down to the surface might have serious problems (aircraft collisions, wind effects, etc.) What if a small suborbital vehicle could climb up to and capture the end of the elevator, from which it could be hauled up to higher orbit. Now you have a practical space transportation system! Any rocket scientists out there think this makes sense?
  • Instead of the cost-plus accounting that has kept space agencies so expensive, NASA should issue its own X-prize(s).

    First, award a contract for 20 heavy lift vehicles (100-ton+ payload) to the first company that can bring the cost to launch down to $1000/kg to LEO at a cost of $200 million per vehicle, or something close to that. This would finally open up space to NASA. The space station could have been built with three launches.

    NASA needs to stop throwing bricks into space with the shuttle and focus on
  • Shouldn't you be working on Doom 3? I mean, Christmas is right around the corner. Chop! Chop!
  • Incidentally, if Slashdot doesn't post info about the Xprize often enough for you, we (my design firm [themechanism.com]) just launched some message boards on the site. Hit www.xprize.org/messageboard [xprize.org] to join in the fun. __________________________

Slashdot Top Deals

In practice, failures in system development, like unemployment in Russia, happens a lot despite official propaganda to the contrary. -- Paul Licker

Close