Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space News

NASA Planning Six More Centennial Challenges 89

Posted by samzenpus from the the-centennial-challenge-is-only-a-theory dept.
FleaPlus writes "NASA has announced plans for six more Centennial Challenges for space-related technological achievements. The X Prize-inspired competitions will have cash prizes of up to $5 million. The challenges are for an orbital fuel depot, a lunar-capable all-terrain vehicle, a pressure suit, a long-term rechargeable power system, a micro reentry vehicle, and a maneuverable solar sail. NASA is currently requesting feedback comments on its current draft of the contest rules."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Planning Six More Centennial Challenges More

NASA Planning Six More Centennial Challenges

Comments Filter:

  • Wish List (Score:5, Funny)

    by quokkapox ( 847798 ) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @05:28AM (#14676011)
    I long for a method of joining objects using fabric hook-and-loop fasteners. I'd even settle for some delicious nutrient-rich orange drink. Where are our priorities?
    • the main difference between X-Prize and NASA challenges is that research and development investments made by X-Prize participants had long-term value - even after tha challenge is over,, they still continue development (aimed for low cost launches and space toursim). There was a marked for that

      and what NASA challenge participant would do after e.g. pressure suit competition is over? Open space suit shop?
      Given that potential of return of investments is so small, the size of awards is ridiculous
      • *cough*DeepseaDivingShop*cough* 'scuse me!

        Anyway, plenty of technology from pressurized suits can be utilized in other fields, you don't have to just deal with that one prize winning object, you could use the lighter radiation sheilding you invented for it for hazard suits so when the next anti-mass spectrometer opens a gateway to another planet, the science guy who saves Earth will be wearing your suit! Free advertising, Score!
      • Sell the suits to X-Prize winners. Once space tourism gets profitable, there will be market for that too. Fuel depot - just put one in the orbit and put a big billboard with prices for the fuels and distance to nearest competitor gas station. ;) A lunar-capable all-terrain vehicle, well, lunar space tourism would have to take off first, but I can imagine the market, plus it wouldn't be so hard to make I think. A long-term rechargeable power system, enough of demand for that on Earth already. A micro reentr
      • the main difference between X-Prize and NASA challenges is that research and development investments made by X-Prize participants had long-term value - even after tha challenge is over,, they still continue development

        In a way, this is as it should be.

        If there is a near-term market for a service, then the government shouldn't get involved (unless other governments are promoting their own industries).

        The problem is that the rewards are probably far too low to be worth pursuing in themsleves. The Scaled ef
      • and what NASA challenge participant would do after e.g. pressure suit competition is over? Open space suit shop?

        Precisely. Actually, selling a number of pressure suits on the open market is one of the requirements for winning that competition. I suspect there's going to be a fairly large demand for such suits in the future, particularly for suborbital spaceflight.

        Indeed, I once saw a talk by one of the X Prize contestants (XCOR) mentioning that, somewhat unexpectedly, acquiring the necessary pressure suits
    • Homer speaking on the phone: Hello, is this President Clinton? Good! I figured if anyone knew where to get some Tang, it'd be you. ...Shut up!

  • space elevator (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that orbital fuel depot sounds like a great place for one of those space elevators.
    • that orbital fuel depot sounds like a great place for one of those space elevators.

      Well, more the other way round. The top of a space elevator is a good place for a fuel depot. You'd place your space elevator on the equator, preferably on a fairly remote island so that you can easily maintain a secure perimeter around it.

      Having built a space elevator, the top thereof is the start point for everything you do in space. You'd have workshops, shipyards, and yes, big badass fuel tanks.

      But to build a space

      • I don't think it would make any sense with the current technology to fill these space petrol stations from Earth, even if a space elevator would sometimes in the near future be available. It would make more sense to have one of those in L5, and fill them from ice found in space with electrolising water. But I think there is a plan for this since the 1970's, so nothing really new here, except of we couldn't make this work for the last 30 years.
      • I don't know about an island, wouldn't the massive support cables need to strech pretty far out into the ocean from that island? And a more level plane to place those guide wires would be more stable, wouldn't it (no seriously, I'm not positive; I'm no Structural Engineer!) I would perfer a nice high altitude, relativly dry plains land central in America (if such an ideal place exists! Our deserts may be too low altitude, I'm no Geographer either!)
        • I think the most proposed sites are out in the ocean as it lets you move the base of the cable. Also I don't think you really need guide wires, since a space elevator isn't resting on earth but rather hanging down from space.
      • You want to get a lot of mass to geostationary orbit to provide your topside anchor.

        You want it beyond geocentric orbit, the further away the less mass you'll need (but a longer cable).
        • Unless you plan on using bunjee jumping cords not having a geocentric orbit is going to be a problem.....

          You probably mean geosynchronous. Which is pretty much a MUST unless you are going to build a moving base that moves all over the equator.

  • Hey NASA, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quokkapox ( 847798 ) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @05:41AM (#14676037)
    Could we please focus on robotic exploration of the greater solar system, for now? It's cheaper, safer, and it stimulates development of better robots and computers that drive them. It's cheaper to send multiple generations of machines than one generation of manned spacecraft.

    We're having enough trouble convincing ourselves to keep Hubble (a robot currently in orbit) operational.

    You kicked out that nitwit [wikipedia.org], an encouraging step. Now defy Bush's grand plan for the boondoggle of manned Mars exploration and keep doing good science.

    • Re:Hey NASA, (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:37AM (#14676130) Homepage Journal
      Now defy Bush's grand plan for the boondoggle of manned Mars exploration and keep doing good science.

      Thats right, lets never go anywhere. How about we explore Antarctica with robots while we are at it. Much cheaper in the long run. Find a rock you can't climb to the top of: send a better robot next year.

      I'm sorry, some people (not slashdot people, I know) want to do more than sit on their backsides for their entire life. Some of us were born to go places.

      Not for a minute do I expect the US government to pay for that to happen. What I do expect is for them to not feed billions of dollars into the companies who have the expertise to provide launch services, to the point where it costs 100 million dollars to get anything into orbit at all.

      Sorry for the rant. We are not going to get cost effective access to space (for humans and machines) while LM and Boeing are so addicted to revenue from NASA.

      • "How about we explore Antarctica with robots while we are at it."

        Well, if it leads to McMurdo station being removed (imagine something that looks ugly like a miltary base, is staffed by defense contractors, and sprawls like something built by americans), that sounds like a good idea...
      • Thats right, lets never go anywhere. How about we explore Antarctica with robots while we are at it. Much cheaper in the long run. Find a rock you can't climb to the top of: send a better robot next year.

        It's cheaper to send humans to explore Antarctica than to develop robots to do the same work. So we should send people. For now.

        But it's (now) cheaper to send robots to explore Mars than to develop robotic spacecraft that happen to safely (according to NASA's definition of "safety") carry humans alo

    • Re:Hey NASA, (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 )
      Few nations are impressed by robotic missions. I mean, how many people here know that the Soviets made robotic missions on the moon? Now that you people know, how many care?

      Nations are only impressed by extravegant explorative programs. It was the same with the race to the north pole, who cares if you flew over it in a plane? You need to walk there, make a speech, and plant your nation's flag, proclaiming it for all the world!
    • I don't think the capability is that far off, but I think the desire to do so is. Sending robots just isn't all that exciting really. Everyone watched to moon landing...but how many people do you think even know we have been sending satellites and robots to mars? I think the thing that is destroying our exploration more than anything is a terrible lack of excitement. Noone cares, and televising a robot isn't going to generate alot of interest. Throw some people up there, waving at a camera, saying "Hi

    • Good Science is what you make of it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:02AM (#14676343) Homepage Journal
      The advancements generated to put men on Mars are not all known to us at this time. Just as we did not know the effects of going to the moon in the 60s.

      Is it a boondoggle to set hard goals? If man is going to have a presence in space then we need to start the work now. Sure we've been to the moon before but staying there is a whole new ballgame. Orbit? Been there, done that, hell we are practically trapped in it.

      Robots to the stars? Sure, but until we start pushing ourselves out there all we are going to have is the naysayers holding us back forever. Get there and then the naysayers can off to their next project.

      I suggest to quite a few /. readers that if any other leader had proposed going to Mars and the Moon again it would have been received a whole lot differently. NASA is finally again moving forward, we finally have someone who killed that damn shuttle program. Can you imagine being saddled with that damn system for another 20 years? The rest of the world would have been watching us from up there instead of looking to the stars to find us.

      Sometimes good science requires setting and then obtaining goals that others find silly or wasteful. Go look in history back at many of the major discoveries. You will find quite a few many labeled as folly until it was done
      • Now the NASA has gotten into 'competition' maybe they could review some older 'decisions'.
        Big Dumb Boosters [dunnspace.com] over the shuttle?
        EELV's [space.com] over the shuttle?
        EELV's [globalsecurity.org] over the CLV?
      • s it a boondoggle to set hard goals? If man is going to have a presence in space then we need to start the work now.

        No, but let's instead set goals that leverage our current expertise. WE seem to be getting good at sending robotic spacecraft. Let's do that 10x better, and reap the 10x benefits of that, rather than waste the same money planting another flag on the moon. I hate to be cynical, but the ISS project has been a disaster. What if we had put that money to work exploring Mars robotically? We'd

    • Robots are cheaper but are also much less productive that astronauts. I remember to read that one of the controllers of Spirit and Opportunity said that they could do in a day what an astronaut could do in 45 seconds!!
      • And that robot can do something in 45 seconds that a human could not do in a year. I mean it's not like humans have Spectrometer's growing out there ears. Sending 1000 robots to Mars is cheep than sending 1 human and it's much lower risk. When you send a human they have limited tools and they can't make new instruments while there. Sure they can lift an interesting rock you only get to send a human to one spot so you don't get to find many interesting rocks. Yea, they can find out lot's of interesting
    • Why not eradicate the entire space program? To paraphrase you it is certainly cheaper and safer. We should not focus on robotic exploration of the universe at large because despite the facts that it may be cheaper and safer it certainly is not better. Could we construct a robot to do your job? Probably not. I imagine that exploring the complexities of the solar system and beyond are more daunting tasks.
    • Robots are great if all you want to do is collect soil samples and take photos, but to really get the feel of a place, to perform real experiments in that environment - nothing, currently, is better then sending up an astronaut. More expensive yea - but face it, the price NASA pays is insanely high and that is the fault of our government. Space exploration could be much cheaper and safer but our government loves getting ripped off. Also, astronauts are not forced to go into space - they are selected (a v

    • I had a reply all typed out for you, but then remembered that someone else did a better job explaining this over 40 years ago:

      There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does

    • None of these prizes preclude the use of robotics. Who's to say the rover won't be robotically controlled, or that the recharger isn't for a robot, etc.?

  • 5 million doesn't seem like alot. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masterpenguin ( 878744 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @05:41AM (#14676039)
    In the grand scheme of things, a 5 million dollar prize doesn't seem like alot of money. With trillion dollar budgets, and billions going to nasa, 5 million is a drop in the bucket.
    • Right. It's not a lot. In fact, it's positively miniscule.

      If you can think of a better way for NASA to get the technology it wants for damn near free, let them know.
    • 5 Million (might) get you a hammer, but it definitely will not get you a Toilet. Hmm a toilet, just where this cheap proposal belongs.
    • A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.
      --Everett Dirksen

      Let's not lose sight of the fact that trillion-dollar budgets are made up of millions here and millions there. What seems perfectly reasonable ("just a drop in the bucket") to some seems like a foolish waste of money to others.

      I'm all in favor of NASA, space research, pure science, etc. However, when we start thinking of 5 million dollars as nothing to worry about, we've already lost our bigger budgetary bat

  • Is this the future of space research ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @05:44AM (#14676046) Homepage Journal
    There was a time when the military invested heavily into the space research program. These days with the cost cutting and budget crunches forced upon Nasa - they seem to have outsourced their research to private enterprenuer and pioneers with such challenges.

    Maybe it is a better way to utilize government money - but the research might end up being owned by a commercial entity rather than just being merely used by such an entity. Lockheed and Boeing have been workhorses for such research in the past (think about how the Jeep evolved).

    Does the future of space research lie with private efforts ?
    Or is it headed eastwards (or further westwards) towards China ?
    • I think China could do interesting things, but it is still too far behind. They need the next ten years to develop, what NASA already has. I wish China would team up with the Russians or ESA, because together they could make NASA run for their money. But I don't think this will ever happen.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I think you simply underestimate the chinese. Yes, what they do has a political part, but they will have cash from the science part sometimes in the future, and money also motivates them. And they can develop much cheaper as NASA. I think their overdeveloped military has also some fear, that the US can shut down their satellites, do other nasty things from space, and they want to defend themselves on this front also. So they care about this also because of non political reasons. But I also think they won't
        • at least science was also conducted.

          Did you know that the first scientist on the moon was Harrison Schmitt (a geologist)? He was part of Apollo 17. All prior crews were military guys.

        • > China (the government, not it's citizens) doesn't give a rats-ass about science.

          Yes.

          > To the government, going to the moon is all political.

          No.
          A lot has changed in Chineese government thinking over last 20 or so years. Science is still just a tool to their goals for them, they don't fund science for science, they fund science for purposes. But they realized the importance of money and shifted lots of weight from propaganda and ideology towards business. Chineese to the moon, important for politics f
    • There was a time when the military invested heavily into the space research program.

      And you don't think they've gotten anything out of it? They got their MIRVs, spy satillites, mach 10 jets, and GPS jammers. What else do they need?

      Just wait for the next world war... you'll see.

  • I think NASA is pushing the responsibility to this teams, who want to compete here. We could say, that if they are willing to take over why not, but by NASA defining the rules of what has to be done, I think they limit the outcome in a way, that is unhealthy in the long run. If your idea does not fit in there, because you imagine the future of space exploration in a whole other way, you don't fit into the infrastructure provided by them, then you are screwed, and there is only one prize, or two. If you don'

  • Nasa is now acting like a typical corporate entity (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Only $500,000 for a spacesuit?! $5 Million for an Orbital Fuel Depot !? These prices are absurdly low in terms of 2006 dollars and cents. I bet you could easily spend 10 - 20 times that amount researching and developing real functioning hardware.

    By creating these lowball prizes, instead of creating new jobs in-house, which are good government jobs, which pay high salaries and have good benefits, NASA wants to outsource its labor. If they hired engineers in this country to work for NASA, they would have
    • Only $500,000 for a spacesuit?!


      Dont' knock it. I'm sealing the holes in my jousting armour with silicone as we speak. Oh and as for that solar sail thing....thats covered with the solar superman style cape I'm bolting on the back. Orbital refueling? Easy....eat beans for a week before you get in the space suit. Actually that could help with the maneuverability thing too....hmmm....I'm gonna be RICH!

    • By creating these lowball prizes, instead of creating new jobs in-house, which are good government jobs, which pay high salaries and have good benefits, NASA wants to outsource its labor.

      Was DARPA "outsourcing its labor" when it ran the DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous vehicles?
    • From TFA
      "Fuel Depot Challenge: Expected to award a $5 million prize to the first team to build, launch and demonstrate a sub-scale facility that could store or produce liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen - used to fuel spacecraft - in Earth orbit. In November 2005, NASA chief Michael Griffin said future space missions would rely on privately built fuel stations for resupply."

      Basically this is little more than a satellite with onboard fuel storage / generation.

      Without a significant orbital industry, the only
  • It's good NASA are simply planning at this time. That is to say, no concrete blueprint is in place. I hope they are also cleaning up and removing junk and incopetent personnel withing their ranks. Remember billions have been wasted before at the hands of inept and incopetent managers at NASA. This should not be allowed to happen again. What about out-sourcing these efforts to more efficient companies?

  • Reentry vehicle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:52AM (#14676159) Journal
    Hmm. A smaller version of MOOSE [astronautix.com] would almost do the trick for the reentry one. Would need a bit of avionics though.

    (Goes off to look up old General Electric patents)

  • Centennial ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What 'Centenial' are we talking about here? NASA wasn't founded util the 1950's so any centennial of NASA is still many decades away.

  • Challange Price $5, Nasa Price $500m (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheekyboy ( 598084 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:27AM (#14676235) Homepage Journal
    Shouldnt nasa have a damn clue and expertises, minus the useless managers, to do this
    stuff cheaply, why ask private to do for $5m, what nasa with its 9-5 people * 3 oversight
    and redtape - for $500million. When there is no profit margin to 'match' to, you dont
    care iof it costs 100x

  • Difficult at best (Score:4, Interesting)

    by db32 ( 862117 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:36AM (#14676269) Journal
    I think some of these projects are an order of magnatude easier to accomplish. Pressure suit, moon vehicle, rechargable power source (someone should really just send them a pack of duracells and claim the 5 mil)...all of these seem like they would be pretty simple to research, build, and prove here on earth. Orbiting fuel depot? I think the ammount of time, energy, and money involved in making that one work isn't anywhere near the same challenge level. How do you prove that one? You would have to spend an enormous ammount just getting the thing up there to see if it will work, and god help you if you have to make any changes to your design.

  • How about a Human Reentry Vehicle? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:02AM (#14676341)
    Instead of a micro-reentry vehicle that safely sends back chicken eggs, how about a plan for developing an 'Escape Pod?'

    If something goes wrong during orbit, take off, or reentry at least this would provide a means to safely get back to earth if your space vehicle is damaged or malfunctioning.

  • The 7th challenge (Score:3, Funny)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:04AM (#14676351) Homepage
    Keeping the site from being /.ed?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Regarding the long term rechargeable power system they are looking for, is that for planetary and lunar exploration or will it be used in a zero-gravity environment. Without the restrictions of gravity perhaps a very efficient flywheel could be used.

      It's intended for lunar exploration. From their rules draft:

      The Lunar Night Power Source Challenge is designed to promote the development of power systems and technologies that can operate for long periods in a harsh environment. Historically, planetary surface

  • Budget problems... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by db32 ( 862117 )
    I think the idea that this is in response to budget problems is probably pretty accurate. It honestly probably is a better way to utilize what money they are getting these days. It worked with the X-Prize stuff, so maybe it will work out for them. I just hope this period of the religious policy of "Jesus is coming back to Earth, so we don't need to go anywhere" works its way out of our government soon.

    Meanwhile on the far side of creation...
    Jesus: "Dad? Where are these people? Shouldn't they be here
  • The egg delivery problem is easy to solve.

    Leave the egg in the chicken.

    Andrew

  • deliver at least six of 12 common hen eggs to Earth safely

    Is this to distinguish them from rooster eggs?

    Presumably they meant "chicken eggs".

    And (based on my 0% success rate in 7th grade) I can advise participants that just suspending the eggs with rubber bands inside a box isn't an effective strategy. You definitely need some kind of gradual braking mechanism during descent (e.g. parachute).

    • That takes me back to science olympiad. Maybe a better solution to this whole problem is to invest the the Middle and High School students in Science Olympiad with materials of higher quality than rubber bands, drinking straws, popsickle sticks and some paper....
  • I think a hovercraft would be the best design for the all terrain vehicle competition. The moon is very bumpy, you know, and a hovercraft could, like, hover of it all. And if you made the hover very, very, big you might be able to hover right back into moon orbit - the gravitation pull of the moon being so much less than that on Earth.

    Nasa must be very stupid not to have thought of this concept before - duh.

    - My hovercraft is full of eals.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Space Elevator 2010 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Wyrd01 ( 761346 )
    I think these monetary incentives to innovate are great. Nothing like a little competition to get people thinking creatively and working hard to realize their dreams. It has done wonders for the autonomous vehicle and commercial space shuttle fields, hopefully that will extend to all these other proposed areas.

    One other piece of "future tech" I am hoping it will pay off in is the development of the first space elevator. Another organization has set up an X-Prize style competition, one every year until
  • How about a prize of $5m for a NASA management plan that realises a 5% improvement in efficiency across the board?

    The money saved would then be able to fully fund these technology developments rather than them being seen as a joke as they are at present. People took notice of the X-Prize because it was a worthwhile goal and the money was *just about* appropriate. These aren't so nobody really takes any notice of announcements any more.

  • For 30 Billion dollars after it's build, we could have a moonbase...

  • There's also an article on this in New Scientist, which has the following interesting quote:

    http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8 701&feedId=online-news_rss20 [newscientistspace.com]

    NASA is also looking ahead to future challenges. Sponberg told New Scientist that the programme has already commissioned two studies - one by the X-Prize Foundation in Santa Monica, California, and one by Paragon Space Development Corporation in Tucson, Arizona, both in the US - to look into a possible challenge for the first private h

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close