The X Prize is stupid

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)
How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s? It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M
and it can take years to get a license from the FAA. So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

Ciao.

garfangle wrote:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)
How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

The fact that it'll be done *without* cost-plus government contracts
means a lot...

It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M

That's not etched in stone. The idea is to change that, too.

and it can take years to get a license from the FAA.

And with the ability impending, it's time to change those rules.
They're not etched in stone, either.

So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

See my first point. Even today, it's unlikely that any of the Big
Players(tm) you mentioned, could do it for what the X-Prize contenders
(not all of which are just out for the prize) are doing it. It will
suggest that actual orbital flight can also be done completely
privately, more efficently than a government program.

I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

Ciao.

Sailing and balooning are old, mature technologies. Suborbital flight
isn't, neither is orbital flight, and this is an incentive toward making
them so.

(garfangle) wrote:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)
How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,

I believe the theory is that it's a first step towards the eventual
goal of orbital capability. The goal of the actual competition isn't
particularly interesting, or significant.


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

(garfangle) writes:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)

To encourage private industry to develop private manned spacecraft,
even if the first generation of these is "only" suborbital.

How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

They're doing it cheaper than ever before and they're private
ventures, so they're hopefully more free of governmental control.

It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M
and it can take years to get a license from the FAA. So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

The breakthrough is proving you can run such a project for far less
money than NASA would require for such a project. Such a
demonstration will hopefully go a long way towards reducing fear of
investors in such companies. Currently such investors go to NASA for
advice and they're told things like, "We at NASA are the only ones
capable of such a project", or "You can't build such a system using
today's technology, look at how we failed at X-33", or "Why would you
ever want to compete with NASA?".

I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

Actually it does. When was the last time NASA sold anyone a trip into
space? The "thrill seekers" must look elsewhere. NASA isn't
interested in sending anyone into space besides their own astronauts
(they've got a glut of them).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Brett O'Callaghan writes:
I believe the theory is that it's a first step towards the eventual
goal of orbital capability. The goal of the actual competition isn't
particularly interesting, or significant.

Everyone takes baby steps before they learn to run.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

garfangle wrote:
Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight?

I'll assume you aren't trolling here...

How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

(1) cost: multiple approaches to the problem, and limited budgets both
serve to keep the cost down.
(2) get new people interested in building real hardware
(3) get people thinking about money making opportunities in suborbital
spaceflight

Once you have an industry established flying suborbital rockets it will be
easier to bring down the costs for orbital rockets.

It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M
and it can take years to get a license from the FAA.

Multiple groups working on the problem will bring the cost down and will
encourage FAA to adopt a more sensible licensing regime. Also bear in mind
that not everyone has to get permission from FAA - there are competitors
in Canada, the UK, Russia, Argentina, and other places I'm forgetting.


So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

Sure it will provide breakthroughs. Multiple groups are working on the
problem, bringing to bear their unique knowledge and skills. Evolution
makes many starts. The point is you don't know what will work until you
try it.

I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

You are aware, I assume, that both America's Cup and the various Balooning
challenges have helped drive technology development in their respective
areas. The X Prize is no different.

.......Andrew

--
--
Andrew Case |
|

jeff findley wrote:

Brett O'Callaghan writes:
I believe the theory is that it's a first step towards the eventual
goal of orbital capability. The goal of the actual competition isn't
particularly interesting, or significant.
Everyone takes baby steps before they learn to run.

Indeed. I'm skeptical about whether it'll ever actually do anything
helpful towards orbital capability, but at least someone is having a
go.


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(garfangle) writes:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)

To encourage private industry to develop private manned spacecraft,
even if the first generation of these is "only" suborbital.

How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

They're doing it cheaper than ever before and they're private
ventures, so they're hopefully more free of governmental control.

Cheaper doesn't mean viable. Just because you can launch something
once doesn't mean you have the necessary infrastructure to make it a
sustainable enterprise.


It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M
and it can take years to get a license from the FAA. So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

The breakthrough is proving you can run such a project for far less
money than NASA would require for such a project. Such a
demonstration will hopefully go a long way towards reducing fear of
investors in such companies. Currently such investors go to NASA for
advice and they're told things like, "We at NASA are the only ones
capable of such a project", or "You can't build such a system using
today's technology, look at how we failed at X-33", or "Why would you
ever want to compete with NASA?".

I am not arguing about NASA's role or not, I am saying that it doesn't
actually do anything in terms of engineering. All the companies I
cited have already proven that it is possible to get people into
suborbital space in the 1950s/1960s.


I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

Actually it does. When was the last time NASA sold anyone a trip into
space? The "thrill seekers" must look elsewhere. NASA isn't
interested in sending anyone into space besides their own astronauts
(they've got a glut of them).

Jeff

Having different people in space does not signify progress, just
duplication. As to the monies involved, they could be better used
elsewhere for more practical research.

Ciao.

garfangle wrote:

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(garfangle) writes:

Why is Peter Diamandis offering $10M prize awarded for the first
private venture to send a man into at least sub-orbital flight? (See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm)

To encourage private industry to develop private manned spacecraft,
even if the first generation of these is "only" suborbital.

How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

They're doing it cheaper than ever before and they're private
ventures, so they're hopefully more free of governmental control.

Cheaper doesn't mean viable. Just because you can launch something
once doesn't mean you have the necessary infrastructure to make it a
sustainable enterprise.

Turnaround and reflight within a limited time period is part of the
X-Prize rules.


It's not as if the prize itself means
anything when the costs to get a rocket into space are at least $30M
and it can take years to get a license from the FAA. So it cannot be
claimed that it is an incentive. Even if of the 3-5 eventual entries
one does make it to space, it won't provide any new breakthroughs
unlike the funding in typical venture capital or corporate research.

The breakthrough is proving you can run such a project for far less
money than NASA would require for such a project. Such a
demonstration will hopefully go a long way towards reducing fear of
investors in such companies. Currently such investors go to NASA for
advice and they're told things like, "We at NASA are the only ones
capable of such a project", or "You can't build such a system using
today's technology, look at how we failed at X-33", or "Why would you
ever want to compete with NASA?".

I am not arguing about NASA's role or not, I am saying that it doesn't
actually do anything in terms of engineering. All the companies I
cited have already proven that it is possible to get people into
suborbital space in the 1950s/1960s.

With major cost-plus government contracts, and a mandate to
outperform the Soviet Union, which meant that operating economically was
not a priority.

I am not saying that the thrill seekers cannot spend their money as
they wish to, but it all seems like a waste because it does not
signify actual progress, just another way for the rich to use their
idyll time, like Ellison with America's Cup and Branson with
ballooning around the world.

Actually it does. When was the last time NASA sold anyone a trip into
space? The "thrill seekers" must look elsewhere. NASA isn't
interested in sending anyone into space besides their own astronauts
(they've got a glut of them).

Jeff

Having different people in space does not signify progress, just
duplication. As to the monies involved, they could be better used
elsewhere for more practical research.

Having different people (that is, other than the major aerospace
contractors, who are accustomed to NASA and Military space projects)
bringing fresh ideas is a step in the right direction, and may be the
only way to *get* progress....

How does this improve on anything already been done by NASA, Russia,
China et al through contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Hughes
Aerospace etc. since the 1950s?

Because with the X-prize, someone is actually building and flying
hardware... not just generating more paper studies. And that's what we need
now: hardware. Studies don't fly, studies don't launch cargo, studies
don't inspire people... they merely use up forests and make people think
they've done something.