NASA Eyes Cash Prizes Of Its Own

joeldg writes "Wired is reporting that NASA is considering offering cash prizes for space innovation. 'Lembeck said NASA would consider offering $10 million to $30 million in prizes to encourage private investors to develop space vehicles. Such prizes appear compatible with the vision for space exploration released last week by a White House commission that studied President Bush's plan to send Americans back to the moon and possibly to Mars.'"

space prizes

[loid_void]

I can see it now. Space Sailing, Moon Boarding, Zero G MotoCross... ESPN EXXTREME SPACE.

Re:space prizes

[HarveyBirdman]

ESPN EXXTREME SPACE.

Add an X and go for spacepr0n.

The Spice Network presents EXXXTREME SPACE!

Just think, in microgravity everyone has perky breasts!

Just wear those condoms, guys. We don't need your spooge getting in the attitude controls.

Re:space prizes

[idfrsr]

that's nothing.....Reality TV is the way to go

Next on HBC.... Average Joe Wants to Marry A Trillionaire On Survivor Asteroid

god i hope not

[waspleg]

i'd hate for aliens to see MTV first and think the whole world is that way

One Question

[Enlarge Your Penis]

I'm British. If I develop something, will the NASA reward actually manage to convert the units properly this time?

Re:One Question

[sjwaste]

Mod me down for this if you must, but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful? Sarcasm != insight.

But in the spirit (pun intended) of the good ol' USA, we might've missed a couple conversions, but both of our mars rovers are looking pretty good right now, aren't they?

Re:One Question

[fucksl4shd0t]

but how on Earth (no pun intended) was the above comment modded insightful?

Perhaps he was modded insightful when the mod meant funny, but the mod wanted him to get actual karma for the mod? I've noticed people seem to be doing that lately as a form of protest against the fact that funny mods don't get karma anymore....

Re:One Question

[Andy Mitchell]

But in the spirit (pun intended) of the good ol' USA, we might've missed a couple conversions, but both of our mars rovers are looking pretty good right now, aren't they?

Don't be too hard on the Beagle.

To understand what happens its useful to know a little of the background of the people and places behind this project.

For many years the BBC used to have a television production facility on the same campus as the open university, where Colin Pillinger works. In this fertile environment Mr Pillinger would of come into contact with BBC employees. Now, the BBC is well known for its innovative techniques in special effects and ground breaking children's television.

With hindsight it is perhaps too easy to suggest that he should not have been so influenced by the construction techniques on the children's television show known as "Blue Peter".

By using the same techniques and the customary large quantities of sticky back plastic, old washing up liquid bottles and lots of sticky tape the team was able to put together a space probe in record time.

An interesting note is that the project nearly had to be scrapped as Mr. Pillingers mum was using fairy liquid and as we all know a small amount of that brand goes a long way and she was not willing to allow her son to have the bottle until she had used every drop. This particular bottle was needed to construct part of the mechanism used to deploy one of the airbags.

This is where the project downfall came from. On their tight British project budget they had no choice but to purchase their own bottle but could only afford the supermarkets own brand. Unfortunately the lower quality of the plastic in this product is now suspected to have caused a catastophic failure to deploy one of the airbags.

While you Americans may be tempted to look down on our brave little attempt this would not be wise as we might then have to remind you about the following probes: mars observer, climate orbiter and the polar lander. If that fails we might then have to mention a nasty incident during the war of 1812 that required the white washing of a well known building located in Washington D.C. :-)

Re:One Question

[shadow_slicer]

If you're hoping they'll convert newtons [nicecupoft...itdown.com] to pounds [bbk.ac.uk] for you you're out of luck.

But they might be able to give you a league [northwestern.edu] for your foot [foottalk.com].

Re:One Question

[jd]

No, the NSA will steal it from you, sell it to NASA, and then ignore any action you take against them.

cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[sjwaste]

Obviously the $10M X-Prize got a few groups together to be the first. Most if not all of them have put in more money than the prize would bring in for winning, but there's something about our competitive nature as people... NASA should strongly consider this. If you want innovation, make it a contest. There's a ton of people out there who are that damn competitive that they'll sink their own money to win. I personally think it's great.

Early flight was the same

[DonGar]

Much of the advancement in early flight was related to similar contests of the time.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[bwy]

The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.

So, NASA wants to award a prize for the development of a deeper-space vessel. If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA? Do they expect that they'll get design rights to the spacecraft? I just don't understand why government would be giving away our tax money as a prize for a private company to make money. Maybe it is time for NASA to just go away completely. Any of NASA's space technology necessary for national defense or the like could be absorbed into USSTRATCOM. It is clear that at the very minimum, NASA needs to be completely rebuilt. What remains of the shuttle fleet is old and outdated and expensive to fly. We have a partially assembed ISS that seems to serve little purpose unless it is built out to allow for a larger crew as originally designed. The Mars Rovers offer good science but you could easily retain those talented guys as part of a new organization or a stand-alone JPL.

That being said, I'd donate in a heartbeat to a private X-Prize II contest that would have awards for a manned Lunar or Mars mission.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[DAldredge]

No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[bwy]

No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.

I would find that model acceptable. Whoever buys copies of SpaceShipOne will get a good deal- the X-Prize footed the $10M and someone like Virgin is going to come along and order a few copies and just pay for the spacecraft.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[DAldredge]

Because NASA has a lot of overhead (the goverment uses NASA to funnel support to our aerospace industry, like food stamps is used to subsidize our farmers and grocery industry. It doesn't upset the WTO).

IOW, NASA's base cost would be 50%-500% more than a small companies. That is where the cost savings comes from. And don't forget, NASA doesn't really build anything, the subcontract most of that work out to large aerospace corps.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[fucksl4shd0t]

If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?

Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that? So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they h

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[fucksl4shd0t]

For those of you who are hard of reading, here's what I wrote again (emphasis added):

So offering prizes that bring about competition to accomplish the goals NASA sets for the prizes (

the goals being in line with NASA's space mission), then NASA is accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, by offering prizes instead of contracting development, NASA can really save some real money on development and at the end of it they have several development projects to choose from rather than the one they sunk all their

Private enterprise brings different priorities

[Syncdata]

The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.

All you say is true, but this can be viewed as a retroactive subsidy towards R&D. If a company like Scaled has some plans to exploit this potentially lucrative market, the prospect of potentially spending 10 million if you win is much more palatable then a gauranteed expenditure of 20 million in R&D. Demanding success of the prize recipient also removes the risk of fraud by questionable contractors.

As has been mentioned, the aviation industry has progressed rapidly through such "contests", particularly the lockheed martins, et all. Stealth didn't become so common because private industry wanted it, or because government invented it. The government set the challenge, and let Private industry worry about keeping the margins low.

Finally, we've all,as you do in your post, griped enough about NASA expenditures to know this is a good idea. I'm inclined to think that a private company would not have come up with a re-entry shield that is composed of hundreds of ceramic tiles, all of which have to be inspected pre and post launch. It would simply not be cost effective. We already ran the crash program to space. Now lets run the slow, sensible one. Get private industry involved. Allow the profit motive in the lifting stage, not just the payload stage.

The sooner we ween space transport off of the government teat, the sooner we stop hearing about all the better ways government can spend money on this or that social program. If all that can be done is to remove that chestnut from the debate, I say it's worth it.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Winged Cat]

There are some ideas [erps.org] out there as to how to structure it so it'll be profitable, at least for the first place winner.

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[__aadhrk6380]

Yeah,and Google is just a search engine. GMail is a gimmick. Free as in beer. Etc, etc.

Give the money and the brains a chance and let's see what happens. How many "Hack This" contests have there been with a reward attached?

Nothing new here.

At least, not yet. Open source space. Ahhh! ;-)

Re:cash prize, like.. the X-Prize?

[Media Withdrawal]

Makes you go hmm, that's for sure. I've been for this sort of thing for a long time, but now I have my doubts.

NASA is very competitive in its own right, having been invented essentially to put the Soviets out of the space biz. After Apollo (mission success?), the Agency refused to die, and, sadly, its competitive culture survived along with it, with dire consequences for progress in space.

Hallway talk at NASA centers is brazenly disdainful of outsiders. This results in frequent miscommunications with contractors. This broken flow of information played a major role in the failure of Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander.

NASA officials routinely steer potential investors clear of launch startups. This happened to the Rotary Rocket engine team, who were labelled "amateurs." NASA recommended its own FasTrac engine instead. Investors went along with it, and Rotary's engine team got canned. BTW, the rotary team re-formed as XCOR, which, on a pathetically tiny shoe-string budget, built numerous rockets and the first rocket plane ever licensed to perform at an air show. Meanwhile, FasTrac limped along into obscurity.

NASA is brutally competitive. It's used every rule at its disposal for over 46 years to keep space exploration within a small, trusted club of fat insiders. It will be trivially easy for NASA to stack its prizes with enough complex filing and eligibility rules to keep the rabble distracted and on the ground.

Roton

[jmichaelg]

Funny you should use the Rotary Rocket as your example. This past weekend, we ran into the test pilot for the Roton while we were in Mojave to see the space shot. Asked him why the Roton never went anywhere.

"Didn't work." was his reply. The thing was too heavy.

sweet!!!

[the_2nd_coming]

yes, this is exactly how research on high tech pie in the sky stuff like next generation space vehicles should be done.

then all NASA needs to do is sit back and let private companies do the engineering which means that they can send the rest of the ash over to propulsion research.

this works well because it helps mitigate the investments made by companies that win and the recognition of the win helps future sales of the products based on the new tech.

Re:sweet!!!

[sjwaste]

I agree with you completely. If you look at state run enterprises in general, their industry is usually one where a private company would not take on the risk. I think space is past that. If private contractors are building satellites, pieces of the space station, etc for NASA, the next logical step is for these private companies to build the means to move such objects into space. While it's not exactly profitable yet, the pride factor alone will compel many. Soon enough, private space travel WILL be profitable. Wouldn't it be sweet to take a trip above the Earth before we're dead?

Re:sweet!!!

[Cerilus]

Isn't this how the Internet got started? A bunch of contracts from DARPA (now ARPA) to spend a bunch of money without a real clear ROI (return on investment).

I like it. There's some bureaucracy, but not in the actual design, construction or testing elements. The government wants the paper to prove it's doing a good job, but with private grants at least there's a point where the paper-for-paper-sake ends.

Re:sweet!!!

[_Sprocket_]

then all NASA needs to do is sit back and let private companies do the engineering which means that they can send the rest of the ash over to propulsion research.

Which would be really great if NASA's budget worked as a big sum of money they're free to spend any which way they choose. However, thanks to Congress and earmarked funding, that is nowhere near the current reality. From the CAIB Report [www.caib.us] (Volume 1, Chapter 5, Pg 8):

Pressure on NASAs budget has come not only from the
White House, but also f

Details of the prize just in

[Enlarge Your Penis]

Apparently, if you can think of a way of preventing NASA developing anything new for the next 20 years you win something called a "pork barrel"

Hmm...

[CompSurfer]

The question is, are prizes of 10 to 30 million USD enough for corporations to spend that much or more developing space tech? Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house? Or would the prize money be better spent on NASA projects?

Re:Hmm...

[the_2nd_coming]

well, since these companies get patents on this equipment which gives them a monopoly on the access the tech allows for 15 years, I think that is a pretty good incentive.

Re:Hmm...

[sjwaste]

NASA's bloated and inefficient these days, just like most of our agencies. Private companies exist to turn a profit. If they're willing to undertake these projects, you'd bet they're going to try to come out ahead on the ledger. Because of that, I would bet that private companies will generally develop space tech cheaper than NASA would. Otherwise, they'll likely pass on the opportunity at the cash prize. Or, some takers will sink a load of cash just to say they did it. In that case, the economy comes

Re:Hmm...

[grozzie2]

Nasa with it's current beaurocracy couldn't even consider writing the proposal that proposes creating a committe which would ultimately reccomend a study, without spending this much money.

The prizes are to small considering the scale of the achievements required. X-Prize was a 'radical' venture, with a 10 million dollar prize, but that's just for sub-oribital. If you want to truely inspire a 'gold rush' mentality, it's not hard. Set a worthy jackpot for an 'impossible' task.

The current environment of government contractors hanging around the 'space business' today just couldn't survive without a few open ended contracts to manage/maintain equipment on a cost plus basis. Serious prizes will generate serious ingenuity to win them. If Nasa offered 10% of it's annual budget in this fashion, they would achieve on the order of 10,000% the results they currently get by feeding the beaurocracy with nothing but money, money, and yet more money.

If you think about it logically, a martian sample return mission done by current nasa methodologies, would require a multi billion dollar budget, and it would still be looking at a high probability of failure. A billion dollars payable on reciept of 25kg of martian soil. this is not a contest, it's an offer to purchase. Publicize the offer, and verify the 'terms of purchase' via published documents. Sit back, wait. Somebody will deliver.

This is actually perfect for the existing bearocracy. They can get out of the business of doing scary things that kill people, but still keep enough beaurocrats on staff to administer the payouts. Not really a lot of change from what nasa is today, a 'space agency' that doesn't fly into space, just spends money.

The true elegance of this scenario, it's a results oriented system, that precludes any opportunity to pork barrel with the money. Fair value for work done will probably bankrupt a few companies currently working on Nasa projects tho, especially if contractual terms are changed from cost-plus to a results oriented system.

Re:Hmm...

[FleaPlus]

> The true elegance of this scenario, it's a results oriented system, that precludes any opportunity to pork barrel with the money.

Sadly, this is also why things like this are probably going to end up being extremely limited, at least coming from the government.

Re:Hmm...

[jdray]

One other advantage to this scenario is that NASA only pays for the successful results, not the failures. In the unfortunate event that a returning cargo-laden lander drills into the center of a city, NASA doesn't have to bear the cost of the cleanup. In a simpler scenario, they don't have to pay for all the failed attempts at figuring out what sort of fuel combination to use, a la John Carmack and company [armadilloaerospace.com], though I continue to be hopeful for their success either in the X-Prize competition or out of it.

Re:Hmm...

[grozzie2]

pay for all the failed attempts at figuring out what sort of fuel combination to use, a la John Carmack and company,

The only competition carmack and crowd are in, is for the mindset of /. junkies. Nothing they have done even remotely resembles a serious attempt at lofting a spaceship. It's good for the pr machine tho, and I'm sure they sell a lot of $125 'droppings' on thier website. It's an interesting business model they have tho, play with rocket parts, write a blog about it, then sell the broken

Re:Hmm...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, as flamebaited as this is, I suggest you go take a look at the movies on the Armadillo site. They're getting very close to launching the big rocket and testing it's landing. Armadillo's got a rocket (it's a prototype) that can launch straight up and then hover to a landing. Doesn't look like they've tested the thing flying around in the atmosphere yet, though.

Impressive stuff, in spite of your flamebait-colored eyeglasses.

Re:Hmm...

[wass]

Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house?

I used to work on a DARPA-funded project, and I can tell you - almost certainly.

There has been a push w/ governmental agencies, including NASA, to use COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) products. A private company researches and develops a certain product product (which NASA could do as well), but can then sell the products to a variety of outlets for profit (which NASA is forbidden to do). So NASA buying a one-off of a COTS component pays only a fraction of the R&D cost that the company spent making it.

As an example, I know of a group that needed a very linear high-bandwidth op-amp for a project. Such an op-amp within their specs didn't exist, so they began the intensive effort of designing one themselves. Halftway through the process another company (maybe Burr-Brown? I forget) put a device on the market that did meet their specs. Although they spent time/money on the research, they still saved out in the end because they just bought and used that op-amp without wasting further development efforts.

The big win for COTS comes from the fact that NASA and other governmental agencies and labs CANNOT sell products for profit, but private companies CAN. For example, the lab I worked in (not my group, though) did alot of radar research. After proving new radar concepts would work, companies like Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon would go and build many of them, making millions of $$$ for themselves. Such is the life of research ;-)

Re:Hmm... you mean 'yes'?

[smurfnsanta]

Considering the X-33 development case, obviously it would be much cheaper for NASA to 'prize out' all the innovation they can. They have fantastic scientists, but a glacially slow dev mentality caused to some degree by over abundant funding. (Three years of study after the second scramjet desinigrated was ridiculous.)

A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently one could receive a prize for:-

". . .for returning a piece of an asteroid to Earth."

Does the asteroid have to originally be part of the Earth?

Does the asteroid have to be collected whilst it is outside the Earth's atmosphere?

How big of a piece is required?

Indeed,

"the first soft landing on the moon"

Begs the question what exactly is a hard landing?

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

hard landings are considered crashing into the moon, like some proposals meant to crash and cause a crater to form and to see what is down in the moons crust.

a soft landing is like the moon landings, nice and soft...

while its cool...

[ResQuad]

while this is cool and will get more people intrested in space travel.... Isnt this comming a little late? I mean the X prize has been out there for a very long time, and now NASA is finally getting into it.

Hopefully we'll be able to hop a flight to the moon in the next 50 years.

LAte?

[YrWrstNtmr]

No. The X-prize hasn't been claimed yet, and there are other avenues and goals to reach.

Diversity is a good thing.

Re:while its cool...

[grozzie2]

Isnt this comming a little late? I mean the X prize has been out there for a very long time, and now NASA is finally getting into it.

There's probably a few people at Nasa see the big light bulb coming on. Scaled has achieved sub-orbital capability on a budget rumored between 20 and 35 million dollars. This included the design, build, and test flight stages of the program. The same program running in the Nasa culture, using Nasa methodologies, would not be finished the preliminary design study before i

I'll start

[Vertex Operator]

$10 to the first company that develops a
spaceship that flies to Mars and back.

Re:I'll start

[fimbulvetr]

I'll pitch in $100. +$20 if you take me with.

Re:I'll start

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 if you take my mother-in-law and don't come back.

smart idea

[firstadopter.com]

This is definitely a smart idea. Think about it? The smartest people are in the private sector, why not use their skills and efficiencies to benefit the race to the stars?

Re:smart idea

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The smartest people are in the private sector

That's a pretty big generalization you got there, pilgrim.

Re:smart idea

[wass]

The smartest people are in the private sector, why not use their skills and efficiencies to benefit the race to the stars?

That's not really true, so I'll take it you haven't worked with NASA much at all. I've worked with NASA scientists on several projects and the scientists/engineers there are typically top-notch. Much more knowledgeable than most engineers I've dealt with from the private sector. NASA's problems primarily stem from its bureaucracy and red-tape, not from shortcomings of its engineers.

And to take your skepticism further, the smartest people I've encountered to date have been university professors (at least in physics). Usually more likely to collaborate w/ NASA than with the private sector, too.

Re:smart idea

[Planesdragon]

The smartest people are in the private sector

Nope. The smartest people aren't in any "sector"--they've made their ten million, got out, and are working on whatever the hell they want.

Wage-slaves, be they government or private or non-profit, are simply not motivated enough to be the smartest people in the world.

Thieving bastards

[duncan bayne]

So, they think their funding is under threat from private enterprise - so they plan to use Other Peoples Money to do what private enterprise can already do, only better than NASA. Thieving bastards.

Space exploration is yet another field that should be handled entirely by private enterprise & charity.

Re:Thieving bastards

[DAldredge]

Where is the profit motive in sending probes to the outer solar system?

Re:Thieving bastards

[fucksl4shd0t]

Um, to find new customers?

Re:Thieving bastards

[joeljkp]

By your definition, everything publicly funded is "coercive". The president's salary is "coercive". The financial aid for college students is "coercive". Unemployment benefits are "coercive".

The public is not forced to finance any specific project. This is not a case of taxation without representation. Congressmen and the President are your voice for how your money should be spent.

Each member of society, however, cannot be given a choice as to exactly what their individual sum of money will be used for. S

Risky bussness venture

[autopr0n]

The problem is, if you try and make a bussnes around winning those prizes you might lose even if you have a good idea if someone else finishes first.

And that would, you know, kinda suck.

Re:Risky bussness venture

[saiha]

And this is different from the "real" business world how? Look at why different techs are adopted, not always because they are the best engineering, etc... Many times it is because they got to the market first.

And I don't think anyone would try to make a business out of the prize money alone. Spaceship One is costing around $20million with a prize of only $10million. The investers know this, but what it does give them is (if they win) a bit of a coupon for some of their R&D but mostly they huge huge pu

don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[Camel Racer]

Maybe step one would be not to criminalize model rocketry

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/ro ck etry_future_000823.html

and

http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2003-02-28/feature s/ body.html

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[ratsnapple tea]

Would it be too much trouble for Slashcode to automatically make links out of text starting with http://? Just a thought.

Re:don't crininalize the model rocket enthusiasts.

[fucksl4shd0t]

I think Anonymous Coward url postings should automatically be made links under the assumption that ACs are too stupid to do it themselves.

The rest of us can write html, right?

In Other Words...

[MaineCoon]

... NASA wants some of this spotlight, and will gladly make hints of support and pose for the camera.

NASA has a budget of USD$16 Billion for this year alone. $10M to $30M?

Lets see prizes in the range of $100M on up. That would make the financial investment risks FAR easier to swallow, and we might actually see more serious commercial enterprises make the attempt.

Seeing SpaceShipOne's successes makes me dream of a brighter future. I'd love to see serious interplanetary space travel within my lifetime.

Re:In Other Words...

[swordgeek]

FUCK that idea!!!

This whole thing stinks. I'm fully in favour of private space research--but having NASA give money away makes it "publicly funded private enterprise." In other words, companies are spending tax money on personal profit.

Have one or the other, or even both, but don't give public money to private enterprise.

Re:In Other Words...

[aelbric]

Yeah, it's not like that tax money came from private enterprise or the private taxpayer in the first.......oh, wait

Re:In Other Words...

[sql*kitten]

Have one or the other, or even both, but don't give public money to private enterprise.

Right now, NASA is giving money - billions and billions of dollars every year - to contractors like Boeing and Lockmart. And they're getting precisely NOWHERE. But you have no problem with that?

For a fraction of that amount put into a prize foundation, private industry will do the rest. Here's a hint: you don't fly on a government airline, do you?

I think you need to see past your socialist "public good, private bad" i

how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[0111 1110]

100 billion USD to the first person to invent a workable interstellar propulsion system [nasa.gov] that could theoretically make it to alpha-centauri within 300 of our years (yes, you'd have to have sex in space). Any takers?

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[burns210]

Yes, I have already begun a project to achieve this goal... Now, you gotta hear me out...

1. Invent interstellar propulsion system
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[comet_11]

you'd have to have sex in space. Any takers?

Sure, but we've only just met...

Re:how about 100 billion for a space drive?

[fucksl4shd0t]

$1 billion to the first person to establish some sort of viable industry in orbit.

Um, I think that prize is already being offered by basic economics. Or something comparable, at least.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Compatible with Bush's vision?

[gad_zuki!]

Huh? How are a few fledgling attempts to break the 100km barrier anything close to a feasible manned Mars mission?

I guess its Lembeck's job to say nice things about NASA and those who control its purse-strings, but its a bit too optimistic to expect private industry to do a Mars launch anytime in the forseeable future. Heck, its hard to see NASA doing it, or any good reason to do it as a moon base would be safer, cheaper, and practical!

This sounds like damage-control after Scaled's success yesterday. Is NASA scared perhaps? Or maybe they don't want to look like a lumbering dinosaur to the tax payers.

Dunno, but the timing of this is very suspicious.

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[cowscows]

Maybe some of the administrators at NASA watched Scaled do their thing, and suddenly believe that maybe private industry actually can pull this stuff off. I don't think anyone expects Scaled or anyone else to go to mars any time soon, but life is not an all or nothing game. If some company can figure out a way to get materials into orbit for significantly less money than is currently possible, that'll make it much easier for NASA to move their cool Mars ship pieces into space and then assemble them for the

Re:Compatible with Bush's vision?

[cyclone96]

This is a great comment - right on target. I'm a NASA engineer (who currently works on shuttle and space station), and myself and everyone I work with were thrilled to see Rutan and Scaled Composites pull this off.

I don't quite understand a lot of opinions out there that imply that NASA folks think that this is "stepping on their turf". Nothing could be farther from the truth. We'd dearly love (and hope) to see the day where we are able to buy "cargo delivery" to low earth orbit at relatively low cos

It's good business

[LuxFX]

Of course NASA is interested! Rutan's ship took a $20 million investment from Paul Allen to get off the napkin it was first drawn on. And it stands to win only a $10 million prize! NASA's must be hoping they can get work done for half the price.

Re:It's good business

[Stray7Xi]

Half? getting a lot better value then that, since many teams are putting forth different designs. You get a quasi-survival of the fittest.

Re:It's good business

[LuxFX]

You get a quasi-survival of the fittest.

Now there's a reality show I might actually watch!

Finally, a reasonable use for NASA launch money

[nasor]

Considering the roughly $900 million that NASA spent on the X-33 shuttle replacement before simply canceling the project, or the $400 million that they spend on each shuttle launch, I certainly think they should be able to spare a hundred million or two as a prize for someone can develop a private, x-prize style orbital vehicle.

We live in a very strange world

[ArcticCelt]

I just opened my browser on slashdot and I saw two news, one under the other but very different.

One is about a group of hard working scientists who dream of a world where new possibilities are created and human kind evolve to a higher level and the other about a group of litigious bastards who dream of a world where they have so much money that it leaks through their ass and everybody listen to the same crappy music made by some fake overpaid artist.

Mmm, we live in a very strange world. :|

suggested goals

[tmortn]

100 million to the first LEO vehicle that meets the same requirments for reusability that the X prize requires.

500 million ( or more ) for the first circum lunar vehicle that meets those requirements.

1 billion for first lunar landing system which can accomplish those requriments. ( launch withen two weeks of return though instead of two weeks from first launch date ).

10 billion for a man on mars and safe return.

Re:suggested goals

[emorphien]

I'm good with those. Really, I think those are not unrealistic values, if maybe a little low for the lunar trips. Either way, if a company can do it, while the $$ offered is probably minimal by comparison, its the competition and the science that are the point and science will benefit.

More info on Lembeck

[cyclone96]

Mike Lembeck is head of the requirements division at the exploration office at NASA headquarters, often referred to as "Code T". He is tasked with being the NASA architect for much of the new "exploration vision".

What is interesting is his background....he is not a career civil servant, He's been at NASA for less than two years. Before that he was with small to medium sized companies trying to break into the space business, including Space Industries (who built Wake Shield, that flying saucer thing that was deployed by the Space Shuttle on three missions) and Orbital Sciences (which is turning a fairly nice profit from some of their projects, notably the Pegasus air launched booster).

And he's a damn smart guy with lots of cool ideas that I've known for about seven years. He very much breaks the mold of the staid NASA manager, I'm sure he'd feel right at home with most /.ers and their ideas on how NASA ought to be changed (and from reading this, he's sure trying).

No patents!

[One Louder]

Any prize money should come with a requirement that any technology that is developed that could be or is covered by patents must be made royalty-free to anyone or assigned to the public domain.

It makes no sense to have the government effectively subsidize the development of a proprietary technology.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

NASA's Centennial Challenges Program

[FleaPlus]

Here's the official [nasa.gov] and wikipedia [wikipedia.org] links to information on NASA's Centennial Challenges Program, which is what the article is presumably referring to. The contests haven't been decided on yet, but currently things like "very low cost spacecraft missions", "breakthrough robotic capability competitions", and "revolutionary technology demonstrations" are under consideration.

Speaking of, has anybody heard about what happened at the Centennial Challenges Workshop [nasa.gov] on June 15-16? I haven't been able to find any reports on it. Hopefully at least one slashdotter attended...

Real Incentive...

[PetoskeyGuy]

The money will be paid in one lump sum.
In Cash.
Tax Free.

The Catch? The cash is sitting in an unmarked briefcase somewhere on the moon.

Re:Real Incentive...

[Tumbleweed]

Hmm. I propose a giant 'tongue' made of buckyballs to spring outward from Earth, capture said unmarked briefcase on the Moon, and bring it back to me.

With said money, I will promote the best roadside attraction ever: a giant tongue that stretches from the Earth to the Moon! Can't lick _that_!

Profit.

This is old news: NASA's Centennial Challenges

[colonist]

The Wired article uses information from this Reuters article [reuters.co.uk] by Deborah Zabarenko.

Reuters: "Within hours of the first private flight to outer space on Monday, a NASA official said the agency might offer millions of dollars in prizes..." This is misleading. NASA's Centennial Challenges program has been in the planning stage for quite some time now.

• Centennial Challenges - NASA [nasa.gov]
• NASA Needs Prize Contest Ideas - Slashdot [slashdot.org]
• Centennial Challenges - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

My opinion on prizes: Prizes are great, but they should complement grants, not replace them. An analogy: If we want to catch Osama bin Laden, we should put a big bounty on him. But that doesn't mean we should call off the military and the CIA. We should post a big bounty AND fund the military and the CIA. Same thing with space: Put a big 'bounty' on space achievements, but fund NASA too.

So we let some rich guy innovate in space?

[doormat]

It doesnt sound so bad really. Offer prizes to those who can build stuff to get achive certain objectives. The big downside is that I doubt one person (cept for 50 richest people) can bankroll development on things like ion drives and other future propulsion technology.

Remember, this was to only get three people to 100km. Yes its a lot, but a far far away from going to Mars or transporting 500 people to the moon colony for the day.

You cant take the sky from me

[isorox]

Take me out, to the black, tell em I 'aint coming back

Heres to the lunar colonies and the right to read

Industrial Space Facility

[Syntroxis]

During the Reagan administration, this idea was floated. Getting private industry involved with NASA, that is.

After a few years, and several millions of $$ in development, the big contracting hogs managed to get it all snuffed. Cost a lot of people their jobs, and led to a nearly useless space station at several factors the cost of the Industrial Space Facility.

Seems to me that companies would be very hesitant to get into this type of realtionship with NASA again.

Syntroxis

Can NASA learn from NSF and Darpa?

[FleaPlus]

I can't help but wonder if NASA would be more effective if it took on a model much more like NSF's [everything2.com] or DARPA's [everything2.com]. Instead of splitting up tasks between their own field centers and painstakingly managing everything, it could become more focused on providing funding to foster the nation's space infrastructure and using programs like Centennial Challenges [nasa.gov] to accomplish specific tasks. Existing NASA centers could compete for this funding just like other organizations like universities and private companies. Doing things in this manner would also limit NASA's PR liability in the event of catastrophe, keeping the space program from becoming completely paralyzed every time a disaster happens.

Of course, this would also limit the potential for pork-barrel spending, and would thus experience difficulties in actually becoming enacted.

Well I'm offering $10,000,000 of my own money...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...to whoever develops the warp drive and twice that for the transporter.

How to deal with the red tape of going orbital?

[FleaPlus]

Presumably, in the near future we'll be seeing a variant of the X Prize for orbital flights; perhaps in the interim we'll see things like X Prizes for transcontinental flights.

I'm curious though: How can contestants be able to deal with all the liabilities which that entails? With the test flights of Scaled Composites and Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com], before being allowed to fly they've had to make various government official certain that in a worst-case scenario their craft would remain within the testing zone. With orbital (or even transcontinental) flights, their flight range will have to extend beyond the testing zone and into inhabited areas (even other countries). Governments are able to test things like this because they can deal with the liability, but what about private companies?

No, no no

[dbc001]

The government should not give $30 million dollars away for spaceflight when we have unemployment, poverty, unequal healthcare, violent crime, drug addiction, cancer, and AIDS - all of which would benefit *us* far more than space travel. Oh yeah and then there's also the fact that the market is taking care of the space thing already.

NASA Surrenders

[tinrobot]

Quite honestly, I see this as NASA flat out admitting they can't do innovative development on the cheap.

Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.

He went sub-orbital on $20 million, I couldn't imagine what Rutan could do with a few hundred million. That's only a fraction of NASA's budget.

Re:NASA Surrenders

[delong]

Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.

That's mostly because the US government got there, oh, nearly 40 years ago.

SpaceshipOne is not innovative in any way technologically. It's revolutionary because for the first time, a non-governmental organization did it.

That said, the promise of Apollo was that we'd all be flying to vacations in space in no time. Well, here we are, 30 some odd years since the first Moon landing, and nothing. NASA can't open up the frontier. Private, profit making corporations will. I hope this is the start of the deluge.

Disgusting.

[aleonard]

This disgusts me. The Ansari family, and Peter Diamandis (I think) before them, took their hard-earned money to reward someone. NASA will take their "free" money (partially confiscated from any winner their prize would have, and from people like the Ansaris) and give it to someone who makes new craft. No thanks, I'd rather not take that blood money.

How long before NASA starts crying about how no private citizen should have the right to launch into space? That's the opinion they've held for ages, and now they have to get off their ass and try to codify it.

Losers. Death to NASA, glory to the new order.

hrmmm

[ShadowRage]

Anyon else think this is nasa basically shitting its pants in the reaction of spaceshipone being successful?

you're damn right it is.

Now they wanna try getting innovators to innovate for them, since they're stuck, one catch though, they'll basically take your idea, give you half the money you deserve from it, and then they end up getting 10 times the funding and the control over space again. Just like any good monopoly over anything, they're trying to pull anything to ensure they keep their superiority and political rights over space. My science teacher did contract work for NASA and recalls it being the worst job he ever had, spending was horrible, and many people were underpaid, and only the higher ups made the most cash. it was a job you had to have a passion for, and NASA did a great job at killing a lot of people's passion for space. My teacher actually gets paid more for teaching than he did working for NASA. Sad as it is.

I dont think too many people will jump at this, because the x-prize is much more fun, and you get to keep your soul afterwards.

Re:Excellent.

[Stray7Xi]

Explain, why can't it?

Just because its privatized doesn't mean it can't be government funded (vouchers) and it still can be required to meet federal requirements.

Re:Help mummy!

[bobhagopian]

The parent post is pretty insightful, IMHO. NASA's biggest problem in the last 20 years has had nothing to do with engineering, but with public relations. Add to it two major accidents and you're left with a pretty unhappy public questioning (unfortunately) the need for NASA. Imagine the kind of hell NASA would have to pay if it suffered another accident. NASA is already under tremendous scrutiny by Congress; what would happen if Congress was given yet another reason to cut the NASA budget? How much worse would public opinion get? Now consider the alternative: NASA offers a monetary prize for private companies seeking a route to space. The risks are the same -- people may die, and unlike the parent, I believe that NASA cares about these people. However, NASA avoids the added risk of organizational self-destruction. I've been pretty impressed with NASA in past years. Unlike many governmental organizations, they don't seem to demand credit for everything that is done; if someone gets to space on their own, NASA will be cheering them on. A monetary prize just allows them to promote the exploration of space (with all the risks that it carries) while avoiding the one extra risk of permanently turning the tide of public opinion against it.

Re:Help mummy!

[BLAG-blast]

How about:

• $50million to put a certain strenght, certain protocal communications satellite at that nice point for putting things between the moon and the earth (can't remember what it's called).
• $75million to put a communication satellite orbiting mars around the light/dark equator. Talks to the half way sat.
• $100million to put a $Xmillion robot on the face of the moon. Teams must pay $Xmillion deposit to try this million. Loose the bot, loos

Re:Incentives, not plans

[ArsSineArtificio]

Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materials and wealth itself are fundamentally limited and therefore to be hoarded and controlled -- rather than created. Out of this post-Apollo mentality, a deeply rooted cynicism has led young people into careers as lawyers and financial manipulators rather than farmers, inventors and engineers. It has led to an environmental movement which loathes humanity's natural capacity to transform h