In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

From the report: "Given the complexity and challenges of the new vision,
the Commission suggests that a more substantial prize might be
appropriate to accelerate the development of enabling technologies. As
an example of a particularly challenging prize concept, $100 million to
$1 billion could be offered to the first organization to place humans on
the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to
Earth."

Zow! I don't for a moment believe any such thing will happen, but it
sure is neat to see it recommended in an officially commissioned
report...

Can you imagine the trophy that would go along with a $1B prize?

Offering prizes are all very well, but think back to the Moon Race of
the 1960s. That was all about winning a coveted prize too: viz. the
prestige associated with being the first nation to land a man on the
Moon.

The trouble was that once America won that prize (and had basked in the
limelight for a while), both it and the Soviets seemed to lose interest
in the Moon, and turned their manned space efforts to other goals.

That raises the question of whether offering a prizes is such a good
idea in the longer term. It is all very well to attract interest, but
what happens after the prize is won? Will interest (especially investor
interest) be sustained? Or will the competitors and/or their investors
turn to other things?

After all, if they were serious in the first place, be about launching
someone into space or putting someone on the moon, they would not need a
prize to accomplish it.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/