The New Space Race 2007

[owenander]

Well, I posted a thread a couple weeks ago asking for space agency budgets because I've been working out the details of this idea... <br /><br />Please check it out and email me any comments you have and would like added, I will add new content as soon as I get it.<br /><br />Thanks for any support and to those who helped!<br /><br />http://NewSpaceRace.googlepages.com/home

 

[webtaz99]

We need to learn to crawl first.<br /><br />Where is the prize for 4 people for 3 years in a completely <font color="orange">closed and independent environment</font> even on Earth?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

I have liked the prize money concept for a long time, although like webtaz I imagined smaller goals, especially ISRU goals such as extracting oxygen, manufacturing solar cells, smelting. Learning to survive in a closed environment is a vitally important one, and not just for space colonisation. It would answer so many questions about managing the earth's biosphere... so that prize shouldnt just come from the space budget!<br /><br />Here is a comprehansive looking link on current state of various ISRU technology.<br />http://www.sop.usra.edu/rasc-al/forum_2007/research.shtml <br /> there are a lot of different areas of research and clearly it would require some expert body to decide the worth of each... also that worth might suddenly change in the event of other breakthroughs.

 

[owenander]

Just the big ones, small goals would be accomplished along the way.

 

[spacelifejunkie]

The X-Prizes allow for foreign competition, which is great. America's Space Prize does not. I think that is great, also. We are now at the stage where private enterprise is beginning to have goals and real working hardware to accomplish what NASA has been doing for a long time. Namely, LEO access (SpaceX), space stations (Bigelow) at costs that are a fraction of traditional systems. I am also looking forward to Moon and Mars missions by private enterprise as well. In fact, the prize system you mention will be the fastest way to accomplish these missions.<br /><br />How is this competition going to get around ITAR? National security is a real issue and the USA's interests need to be protected. Also, I like international cooperation but I don't always trust the other nations in what they can provide for the future. It's hard enough keeping Congress and NASA in a fixed direction let alone trying to get the rest of the world on the same track as well. Good luck getting the ESA and money strapped Russians to pony up their share of the prize money. And if they do, the US's contribution will far outweigh the rest of the world's. What happens if the Chinese win a few of the competitions and they suddenly decide not to share the technology at a later time? The US would be stuck reinventing it with even more tax money. <br /><br />I like the prize idea but I'm wary of depending on international cooperation too heavily. It's not paranoia, simply practicality.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[owenander]

I think I've shown that even if it is only NASA that contributes, theres a way to still do it under budget. International competition would be better because there would be more teams, more prize money, and maybe we'd stop some hate.

 

[brandido]

In general, I think that the idea of prizes are great - they get people interested and excited, they spur innovation by allowing people to try new possibilities outside the normal channels, and they pay for results instead of pretty power point presentations.<br /><br />That said, I still think that it should be a portion of the NASA budget (maybe a third?) that goes to prizes, as I think NASA serves a huge function of pushing forward basic science, both in the development of new tech, and in the pursuit of science missions. That would leave NASA with $10B+, and provide private industry with $5B+.<br /><br />And, with all the talk of how private industry can be 5X or 10X more efficient than NASA (from me too ) that $5B should be worth $25B or $50B. I mean right now SpaceX is progressing on a budget or $280M over 2 or 3 years, a fraction of the Orion Program, so what could be done with $5B a year (not necessarily by SpaceX)? <br /><br />As an additional modification, I would recommend awards that include development contracts, similar to the COTS program. In this type of contest up to three winners of a prize get some lump of cash (1st place would get the biggest, 2nd and 3rd some smaller amount), and then also get a milestone based contract for further development of their capability. <br /><br />For instance, a prize for human spaceflight:<br /><ul type="square"><li>$100M, $75M and $50M for first, second and third place for orbital flights with humans<li>$250M contract over 2-5 years to develop for lunar orbit with human<li>Payments would be made as given milestones are met. <li>Final awards for lunar orbit with human - maybe $200M, $100M and $50M <br /></li></li></li></li></ul>Of course, other companies could vie for the lunar orbit prize without first winning the earth orbit prize, but they wouldn't get the initial prize or a dev contract. And there could be follow on dev contracts and prizes, including Lunar Landing, Asteroid Orbit, Mars orbit, etc. <br /><br />I think this is a goo

 

[owenander]

Just imagine all the rich people who would start space companies to go after a $5B prize to create a lunar outpost?<br /><br />God, I wish it would happen , it'd be so exciting.

 

[brandido]

Having the Billionaire "Angel" investors is a large part of what has made the "New Space" industry happen. However, we can't depend on that for a sustainable industry, as it is too easy for the short-comings of one or two people to seriously damage the entire industry. I think it needs to be a broader based endeavor. <br /><br />I think having incremental goals that build on each other and provide for development contracts as part of the prize would allow for people and groups other than Billionaires to play in the game. This would help to provide for more variety to explore the solution space, and provide more resilience to the misadventures of individual efforts. Particularly given that this is a risky business, it is good not to have all our eggs in one or two baskets.<br /><br />Also, it provides a potential offset for some of the risks that have been keeping venture capitalists out of the game. Having to go from zero to lunar orbit would be a huge risk that would keep most investors unable to evaluate risk vs. reward. However, if there were achievable prizes along the way, they could scale there investment with how many of these milestones had been achieved.

 

[owenander]

Right now there is very little incentive to get into the space industry as its hard to make a profit except for space tourism.<br /><br />If there was large prizes for accomplishing big goals, the little advances in technology would be accomplished in time.<br /><br />Imagine Bill Gates with his $50B worth starting a space company? He has 50x the wealth of Elon and Elon has accomplished tons, but you need incentive for them to get started.

 

[webtaz99]

In my Oh So Humble (not) Opinion, we should concentrate almost exclusively on Earth to LEO. Cheap heavy lift is the crux of the biscuit in space development - everything else depends on it. <br /><br />Secondary to that is simple, reliable, effective and above all sustainable life support, working towards closed loop. We are nowhere near as far along in this as most people seem to think, and it's pretty important if we're ever going to get beyond the "camping out" level of space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

We have done enough LEO.. Time to move on...

 

[webtaz99]

Then why is Earth to LEO still so expensive?<br /><br />And what mission doesn't start with it? <br /><br />I'm all for living in space and developing Lunar, Martian and asteroidal colonies and economies, but it all starts by lifting heavy loads off the Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[owenander]

If you take BIG steps, the small steps are achieved along the way.

 

[hansolo0]

Didn't Bigelow have a 50 million prize to a company to get a craft into orbit and at least demonstrate it could dock with ISS by 2010???<br /><br />

 

[no_way]

just FYI, Ferris Valyn publshes a weekly diary with ungodly amounts of links on the new space race here:<br />http://ferrisvalyn.dailykos.com/<br /><br />good to read in one chunk if you dont follow hobbyspace.com and such daily.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Then why is Earth to LEO still so expensive? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Single line answer: nobody has ever really applied market forces to the problem.<br />

 

[owenander]

Single line answer #2: NASA has had a monopoly on the market forever.

 

[no_way]

wrong answer. NASA is not at fault, as such. RSA, JAXA, ESA etc are launching stuff, there is low volume commercial satellite launch market and so on.<br /><br />however, there is little competition between commercial entities, driven by profit motive, and a lot of government interference.<br />Not enough volume for real market driven forces to kick in. the lack of volume can be attributed to many unfortunate historical events, not the least of them the first space race on past century, between governments.

 

[owenander]

if there was no NASA somebody else would step in and do it<br />pretty simple concept

 

[no_way]

maybes, but you still cant fault NASA as the sole reason for the current high launch costs around the world. they have had the role in perpetuating the public image of space being hard and impossible to do by private entities, but this alone is not the reason.

 

[webtaz99]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you take BIG steps, the small steps are achieved along the way. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I agree on a philosophical level, but...we have been to the Moon, and sent probes out of the solar system. Where is the low cost heavy lift? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

I don't think that a prize that can be won will be sufficient motivation. The way you are suggesting the set-up is merely shifting the risk from one entity to another, but the real overall prize, some decent economic benefit, remains highly uncertain. Even if we do find, on the Moon or on Mars, something that is extremely valuable here on Earth, the cost of getting it will still be prohibitive. Even if we find some primitive life on Mars, that would then be interesting for journalists and scientists, but it would not materially change our lives. There is simply not enough to look forward to in our solar system by the looks of it. Space travel could of course deliver us inventions and beneficial discoveries, but buying a lottery ticket offers about the same chance of juicy gain, and is millions of times safer, easier and cheaper to do. I am not suggesting that the aforegoing is my own view, but it seems to be the view of the majority of Earthlings. <br /><br />That is nothing new of course, for Henry the Navigator had to motivate his captains and sailors to dare go past the horn of Africa, Columbus had to motivate Isabella and Ferdinand to make available the necessary funds, etc. And in all of these cases it boiled down to the same thing it boils down to today, namely, it is highly chancy and dangerous and 'is there a cauldron, well filled with riches, at the end of the rainbow?'

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Even if we do find, on the Moon or on Mars, something that is extremely valuable here on Earth, the cost of getting it will still be prohibitive. ...And in all of these cases it boiled down to the same thing it boils down to today, namely, it is highly chancy and dangerous and 'is there a cauldron, well filled with riches, at the end of the rainbow?'<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is, we know it. If nothing else, there are abundant precious metals available. Looking at the "World stripped bare" articles here:<br />http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2605.html<br /><br />One would make a guess that cost of utilizing the existing sources will only go up in time. This includes energy cost, monetary costs, and also environmental damage costs. Recycling only helps us so much.<br /><br />At some point, project to go after space based resources will start to make both economic and ecologic sense. Currently, the payoff time would be very long ( but not infinite ) and upfront investment huge which is why existing organizations are not pursuing this venture.<br /><br />With volume of space activities going up, costs will drop, and at some point somebody will undertake this mission.<br />If nobody else, then a nation that feels that they should have their own source for this or that metal, and they dont want to depend on Norilsk Nickel.<br /><br />

 

[eaglesindiana]

This is probably not true if there was no Nasa or space program we would all still think that the Earth was at the center of the universe (the early Catholic Church believed this.)