Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck Science

NASA Prize Program Releases Workshop Report 75

Posted by michael from the friendly-competition dept.
colonist writes "NASA's prize competitions program, Centennial Challenges, held its first workshop June 15-16, 2004 to brainstorm ideas, define rules and set prize amounts. The post-workshop report (PDF) is available. New ideas for challenges should be sent to <ccideas@hq.nasa.gov>. The Centennial Challenges program is supported by the X Prize Foundation, the Aldridge Commission and some members of Congress, but not all."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Prize Program Releases Workshop Report More

NASA Prize Program Releases Workshop Report

Comments Filter:

  • Nasa is taking this seriously (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The0retical ( 307064 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:06PM (#9720816)
    I am very happy to see that NASA is taking the next generation of spacecraft very seriously. It is rather sad that it took two accidents to see that they really did need a new space craft.

    Hopefully it will get into space sooner and revive public interest in the space program though, since the private sector is very influential in pushing technology forward.

    • Re:Nasa is taking this seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StarWynd ( 751816 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:48PM (#9721360)
      It is rather sad that it took two accidents to see that they really did need a new space craft.

      It didn't take the accidents for NASA to see that they needed new spacecraft. Many at NASA knew long ago that new spacecraft were needed. Some argued for new spacecraft, but they were opposed by those who said 1.) it'd cost too much and 2.) that since the old fleet was still functioning well, they could still be flown even though the age of the craft was past what they were originally designed. Many people thought new spacecraft were needed, but some thought it wasn't practical at the time especially since there had been very few major catastrophies.

      My point is that many at NASA understood that new spacecraft were needed. The accidents didn't make them realize this. What the accidents did was take away the argument that the old equipment could still work well despite being older than what the original design specifications stated.
      • Furthermore, they either needed a vehicle with *all* of the capabilities of the shuttle to fulfill all of the future missions planned (mainly the massive assembly of the ISS) or they needed to keep the shuttle going at the same time as it's replacement until all of the missions had been completed. And they didn't have the money for two different spacecraft being operated at the same time.

        I think the real problem is they simply don't *know* what the lifetime of a shuttle is. They were designed for 100 or
        • And none of the real problems with the shuttle are actually things failing because of age, it's either disaster creeping up on them or a continuing increase in maintenence costs.

          Increase in maintenance costs is precisely because of age. As things get older, unexpected problems have a greater probability of showing up.

          I agree that the shuttle disasters were not because of wear and tear on the vehicle. But, no matter the source of the disaster, it vastly weakened the argument that the shuttle was stil

  • Submits plans for Death Star... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:06PM (#9720821)
    ...awaits first prize.
  • Why not do something useful? Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun? - George W. Bush
    • I know you're trolling, but maybe some more manned exploration would be worthwhile. Just think, we could send people to orbit Titan and look for signs of life. It is around the triple point of Methane much as we are around the triple point of water, CH4 could be the central to Titanian biology. Just don't try to land on Europa...
    • Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun?

      It would be a complete gas! That is, as long as we use Nuclear Rockets. I *don't* want to have the travelers sitting around for a year and a half while they wait to get to their destination. A NERVA rocket (1960's tech!) could get the astronauts there faster and cheaper. If properly developed, it could even make Mars trips practical.

      Personally, I'm thinking that NASA needs to be financially broken down by:

      - Science (Deep Space Probes, etc.)
      - Engineering (New *cough* propulsion methods)
      - Vehicles and Launch Support

      Congress would fund each of these individually, according to their needs. This way the long term projects (Remote Terrestrial Observation, or exploring Europa) would not be confused with shorter term projects (vehicle design) and Congress won't can the projects because "they're taking too much time and money".

      In addition, Congress can then see a very real return on the money they spend. Invest in a new engine, see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a vehicle (must be based on existing components put out by the engineering department) and see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a science probe and see the results 10 years later (as the plan calls for).

      • Re:Oh, I know something! (Score:4, Informative)

        by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @04:04PM (#9721528) Homepage
        I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.

        I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.
        • I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.

          No argument here, but the project did produce real technology that works today. The graphite problem was not a show-stopper, and the Phoebes engine DID burn at maximum power for 10 minutes. That alone is sufficient power to send a rocket on a Mars bound trajectory. (Especially if multiple engines are used.) Not to mention that 40 years of material sciences should help cure that specific problem.

          We *could* just wait around for Gas Core engines to reach maturity, but then we might be waiting a few decades. It's much better to use today's tech now, and let the knowledge gained through that use trickle into creating next-gen engines faster.

          Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to fund a prototype of Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. 7,000-10,000 sec ISP! We'd be cruising the solar system like it was our back yard!

          I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.

          Interestingly enough, opposition to nuclear tech is waning. A recent study by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 64% of respondents are in favor of nuclear power. That's a huge jump from 49% back in 1983. I think it's because a new generation has grown up without the fear of the Cold War, and the old timers are starting to forget what that was like. Without the fear of nuclear weapons, they have far fewer qualms about nuclear tech.

          • Re:Oh, I know something! (Score:3, Informative)

            by Rei ( 128717 )
            NERVA is a great concept, and they did manage to largely get around the vibration problems in the core that were ejecting fuel. However, they never did fix the corrosion problem, and I'm not so sure modern materials techs can.

            Nonetheless, for interplanetary-space use, is erosion of radioactive core materials really that serious of a problem? I doubt any of the ejected mass would ever come anywhere close to intersecting earth, and would probably end up escaping the solar system or intersecting the sun. T
          • I think what is happening with nuclear energy is that a generation of kids are (hopefully) being taught about nuclear physics by instructors that really know what is going on. It has been several generations now since nuclear reactors have been common place for power generation and running ships in the Navy. The reactors (except for Chernobyl and Three-Mile-Island) havn't had any serious accidents, and even the accidents that have occured was due to sloppy engineering that new reactors don't have to worry
  • It doesn't appear that the two Congressmen have anything against the Centennial Challenges program itself; instead, they are concerned NASA is moving too far ahead on the overall exploration program without Congressional approval. The denial of the reprogramming request probably means that NASA won't be able to announce any prizes until FY2005. The program had hoped to announce an initial set of prizes (valued at no more than $250,000 each, the current limit NASA is authorized to offer) by the end of the cu

  • Possibly misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:09PM (#9720879)
    According to the summary

    The Centennial Challenges program is supported by the X Prize Foundation, the Aldridge Commission and some members of Congress, but not all.

    And when the "not all" link is clicked on, here is one blurb

    However, in a June 17 letter to NASA, Reps. James Walsh (R-NY) and Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that oversees NASA, denied that request as well as another request to move $24.2 million from two space science missions. It doesn't appear that the two Congressmen have anything against the Centennial Challenges program itself; instead, they are concerned NASA is moving too far ahead on the overall exploration program without Congressional approval.

    This does not say that these Congressman are against the idea, it's possible that they just think NASA is jumping the gun.

  • Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vuvewux ( 792756 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:09PM (#9720884)
    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? I'd rather my tax dollars not go for just corporate handouts.
    • The money wouldn't be better spent on NASA projects [holt.org] as it costs a lot more to do it NASA's way than a private company can do it for. The money might provide a sort of competitve spirit so that people have a goal. It seems that competiton is as important as money to some people.

    • Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spacecowboy420 ( 450426 ) * <rcasteen@nospAM.gmail.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:25PM (#9721097)
      Remember these are prizes, meaning a contest of many parallel efforts which if NASA attempted would surely exceed budgets. It's like paying for a product, not the r&d of all efforts - which is what nasa has essentially been doing (10-30 mill "in house" wouldn't buy very much). No matter how you look at considering all facts, 10-30 mil isn't shit when considering the product produced. Especially when you consider NASA products normally cost amounts that begin with "B". C'mon - just think about the X-prize; 10 million for a reusable spacecraft? How much do you think Nasa would spend on the same endeaver. I would guess SEVERAL *B*illion.
      • 30+ million from a reusable *3 person very-suborbital* craft. X-prize contender craft are only useful for joy rides and for getting to places fast via a suborbital trajectory (I'm not sure how far they could make it on a craft like Rutan's... I'd have to simulate it first).

        • Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#9721314) Homepage
          SpaceShipOne isn't very useful for going anywhere, without major mods.

          Which is OK. SpaceShipOne and the X-prize was mostly there to show that it was possible, not necessarily to actually build the production vehicle.

          After SpaceShipOne flies some number of missions, they will probably have a pretty good idea for what the cost of a production space vehicle, operated like an airplane, would cost, so that folks can write up believable business plans to attract investors and not come off looking like pie-in-the-sky whackos.

    • Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:34PM (#9721194) Homepage
      Actually, the whole point is that these aren't even enough for big corporations.

      The whole point of such prizes is to get college teams, small startups, and millionare h4x04z like John Carmack to work on them. Because they'll probably be questioning assumptions the whole way.

      It's also a cost-multiplier effect. For every dollar spent by NASA, severl more dollars will be spent by financial backers, losing teams, etc.

      And the big thing is, for normal projects, to get it going, you just need to be good at powerpoint. For this one, no success = no money. So it really prevents folks from blowing money because they've got it. Or assuring NASA that the breakthrough technology that's needed to make the design work will be ready shortly (a la the X-33's lumpy composite fuel tanks that didn't actually work)
    • $30 million would probably not even pay for the studies necessary to decide which project should get funding in NASA-land. If they get any results at all from such a tiny amount of money, it's a real bargain compared to doing it in-house.
    • I think they should impose some spending caps (or other analogous restrictions) on prize candidates. That way, efficiency would be a prime concern.

  • The best thing about the prize system (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vuvewux ( 792756 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:11PM (#9720916)
    is that if a project horribly fails it, NASA doesn't have to pay! No risk!

  • Centennial of what? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:12PM (#9720919)
    Anyway as a challenge I am prepared to spare the life of anyone who can build and deploy for me a secret orbiting battle station to further my ambition of global domination.

    PS If it has Battlestar Galactica style fighter launch bays I might throw in an iPod

    PPS The laser cannons have to make really cool sounds when they fire or you die with the rest

  • New ideas for challenges should be sent to <ccideas@hq.nasa.gov [mailto]>.
    Challenges ? Buddy here's one for you, post your mail id at Slashdot and not get spammed ! Beat that and you get the prize!

  • Mother of all prizes (Score:3, Funny)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:24PM (#9721085) Journal
    How about if we just throw down the gauntlet. We'll give a large cash prize to anyone who can develop an interstellar drive and can demonstrate a working prototype. Extra money if they can make it FTL.

    • Anyone who comes up with that will make more money exploiting it than NASA could ever afford to give them!!

      I just wonder if it'll be some scientist who comes up with it first, or some College Dropout hacking in his garage in his spare time when not working at the Bicycle store down the street!

    • How about if we just throw down the gauntlet. We'll give a large cash prize to anyone who can develop an interstellar drive and can demonstrate a working prototype.

      Didn't Voyager leave the solar system and therefore demonstrate that a chemical rocket + gravity whip maneuver = interstellar drive ?

      Extra money if they can make it FTL.

      Hmm... You'd likely need to create a custom black hole. Maybe with an inverted nuclear explosion ? That might be a little dangerous...

      Has anyone ever tried to make a direc

  • The best idea so far... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:28PM (#9721127) Homepage
    Beat NASA to the Moon. As a "Friendly" competition, the goal would be to beam back pictures of a NASA lunar probe as it lands.

    They've got some good stuff there. A lot of "solve problems that have dogged NASA for a while" sort of things -- lightweight radiation shielding, tanks that can be used for long-term storage in space without the contents boiling off, stuff like that. There's a few big X-prize-ish challenges, like an orbital x-prize mission, a better sub-orbital mission, etc.

    And there's even some talk about some projects oriented at the hobyist or student, most specifically a space suit glove. They were seriosuly considering either lending out vacum chambers or providing the plans so that you could build one for around $300. Which I thought was especially good.

  • Centennial Challenge and X-Prize (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kris Magnusson ( 115926 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:29PM (#9721142) Homepage
    The X-Prize is obviously the model for the Centennial Challenge--in fact an X-Prize administrator participated in the Challenge. Clearly the X-Prize was the right idea at the right time. If NASA and Congress actually follow through, we might see some useful things come out of this.

    Personally, I liked the idea of a reusable first and second stage heavy-lift vehicle. I always wondered why they couldn't be reusable.

    ....... kris
    • Well, you would love the SpaceX Falcon [spacex.com] then. Reusable first stage. And, to their credit, the initial cut-rate launch costs are based on the assumption that the recovery parachute doesn't work, instead of assuming that everything works perfectly.
    • Personally, I liked the idea of a reusable first and second stage heavy-lift vehicle. I always wondered why they couldn't be reusable.

      Why reuse what is in effect a pressure tank? Have the engines, pumps, refrigerators, et al saved and throw the tank away. Tanks are cheap, rocket engines aren't. You'd have the advantage of the shuttle (reuse of the expensive stuff) without the disadvantage (throw tons of bricks and wings into orbit and watch them burn up on reentry).

  • one trillion dollars for the first person to create an engine capable of going light speed, 500 million for some one who creates an engine that goes at least .25 light speed.

    also, 1 trillion for the first person to develop an inertial bubble that allows the passenger to not feel the accelerations of the vehicle.

    aim high, right?

    • Re:here is an idea (Score:2, Redundant)

      by cmowire ( 254489 )
      Not necessarily.

      That's an awfully big chunk of technology that may take centuries and alot of money to develop. Most smart folks aren't going to try for it yet because they have no real idea about where to start.

      What you want is prizes that are just barely feasable in a reasonable span of time. And they need to be big enough that they are worth something, but not big enough to make it a reasonable big-company gamble. You want to get college students, crazy millionares (John Carmack, for example), and t

  • Dear NASA,

    I'd love to download your presentation [nasa.gov] but it's in PowerPoint (TM). Thankyou.

    A non-windows user

  • More contractor patty-cake mastrubation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by demo9orgon ( 156675 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#9721251) Homepage
    NASA loves wheels.
    They love to re-invent them.

    Why don't they just use a retro-fitted nuclear submarine?

    Oh yes, I went there.(stewie-ism)

    Remove the electric motors, repurpose the ballast as sheilding or water/env resources. and start training some divers to do EVA in NASA "stay-puff" suits.

    Put a sturdy self-contained, time-tested vehicle for transporting humans in an imicial environment into orbit. Compared to 3900 atmospheres, space is a cakewalk (with a cute caller who doesn't mind tounge-kissing you and cupping your ass too when she hands you the prize).

    Railgun that bastard into orbit without any squishy humans in it, or ask/pay Burt Rutan to make a really-fricken huge composite slingshot--just get it up there.

    Then send the crew up later.

    Retrofit the damn thing with some easily replaced external chemical/ion thrusters and fuel it up and go. Shouldn't take much reprogramming to interface to the thrusters with the existing computer control systems.

    Once it's powered up, everything is there. What the hell is so hard about that?
    Someone should make a damn movie about it. Knowing the guys that work on Anime, they already have and I'm just too poor to bother looking.

    There NASA. Simple enough? And free. Hell, let's GPL that puppy someone.
    • Didn't we have this talk over on NuclearSpace.com? I think we were discussing a Sea Wolf class shell.

      Honestly, there's nothing all that hard about getting a big space craft up there. There's just the problem of convincing someone to do it. The US Government hasn't wanted big launches (think hundreds to thousands of metric tones) since the Apollo missions, and even went as far as to dismantle the Saturn V program. The Sea Dragon program showed that it could build a Sea Wold-like shell as a super cheap rocket, but no one was willing to exchange massive payload for the cost reductions. Thus the Sea Dragon didn't get the time of day.

      And now Energia is sitting on a factory that could start producing the Energia Vulcan for the small cost of an 11 million dollar renovation, but the US wouldn't possibly even think of paying the Russians for a final anything. The Proton rocket only launches because Lockheed Martin (IIRC) bought it out.

      Let's talk about this topic again when someone with money is serious about putting real tonnage into orbit.

      • Looks like I've got a new place to lurk. Thank you.

      • What is really interesting is that back in the 1960's NASA had plans for an even bigger rocket than the Saturn V. I think it was called the Jupiter rocket or something like that. About 5x-10x the lift capacity of the Saturn V.

        KSC in Florida was actually built to accomodate that rocket, which could only be shipped from the manufacturing facility by barge, because there was no other known form of tranportation was (or for that matter is) capable of transporting a rocket engine that big over larger distance
        • I think it was called the Jupiter rocket or something like that. About 5x-10x the lift capacity of the Saturn V.

          You're thinking of von Braun's design for the Nova. Although ostensibly for the Moon program, von Braun wanted a rocket that would eventually be able to put astronauts on Mars. There's a ton of good information here [astronautix.com]; I've summarized the most important bits below.

          Kennedy's 1961 challenge to NASA ruled out the construction of a Nova-class Moon rocket--NASA felt that there wouldn't be time to

          • The truth here is that so much money was getting tossed around at the time for rocketry that it was often a "Flavor of the Month(tm)" for names and designs. The reason why it was called Jupiter was because it was supposed to succeed the Saturn-class vehicles in terms of size.

            The real reason they weren't use, like you mentioned, is that it wasn't really needed. Manufacturing facilities may have also been limited, but I seriously think that was not a major issue at the time. The Apollo project was in many
        • What is really interesting is that back in the 1960's NASA had plans for an even bigger rocket than the Saturn V. I think it was called the Jupiter rocket or something like that. About 5x-10x the lift capacity of the Saturn V.

          I think you're a bit confused. "Jupiter" was the name of some ICBMs of the time. As a fast track to building one of the biggest rockets of all time, the engines from these ICBMs were clustered together into a single shell known as "Juno V". Believe it or not "Juno V" eventually too

  • One billion quatloos (Score:4, Funny)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#9721319) Journal
    To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.

    • If it can send me to the planet of the cute co-eds with the tiny noses!

      Steve Dallas

      (It's Friday, been a long week, let's have a Bloom County Reference.)

      myke
    • To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.

      Could someone calculate the improbability factor of someone making a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference on Slashdot? What's that? It has a very low improbability? Well then, I'm just going to hop on the Heart of Gold and turn on the improbability drive. Then I'd NEVER have to hear ANOTHER LAME REFERENCE to H2G2 AGAIN.

      Wait a minute...

  • twice in the list of ideas was a "Quantum Gravity Gradiometer". For you gravity experts out there, how far-out is this? How small is a gravitational quantum supposed to be? Heck, what units is it measured in? (m/s^2? J?)

    There are a couple of mentions of nuclear-powered engines. Anyone know what "RTG Plutonium -- current 25%" might mean?

    The sonic-boomless airplane idea seems within reach. Any thoughts?

  • Another desperate bid from NASA bureaucrats (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday July 16, 2004 @06:06PM (#9722628) Homepage
    NASA continues to search desperately for ways to divert attention from their core failure areas. (No new launchers in 30 years, a space station with no mission, and space shuttles that blow up.) Congress needs to pull the plug on all NASA activities not directly related to putting stuff in space. General R&D funding should be done through the NSF and NIST, which have the charter to do that. NASA does not, and it's not very good at it. NASA is really good at taking credit and putting big color pictures of irrelevant stuff in their PR materials. But as a scientific R&D operation, they're a flop.
  • The big problem here that I see:
    There is a relative lack fo emphasis in the Nasa prizes in producing Open Source solutions. What that means is that for many of the more strategic prizes, we'll see a few large companies that have already acquired substantial monopolistic positions as the only 'competitors'. Since public funds are being used here, I'd rather see the objectives as things that might be useful to a broad range of the public. For example, demonstration of how to build an orbital launch system usi

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close