Here are a few links related to the Space Elevator Games:
The Space Elevator Reference notes that their SpaceRef On Orbit service includes a Space Elevator forum. One of the contributers will be Ben Shelef from the Spaceward Foundation that runs the games. Other Space Elevator notables will also contribute. Here's the forum and here's a post to get things rolling from the SE Reference's Mark Boucher.
By the way, I already posted about the Space Elevator Games press release a couple days ago, but here's an article on it from On Orbit, just so you can get a sample of that new service.
Universe Today also has a discussion about the Spaceward plans.
Meanwhile, the Space Elevator Blog has a post on the machine that tests the strength of the tethers in the Tether Challenge.
Finally, I already linked to this RLV News post because it fit in with a different topic I was writing about, but it also fits in with this post, so it gets another one. One of the items in the post is about carbon nanotubes, which are (so the scientists and engineers tell me) probably the way to go in the advanced stages of the Tether Strength challenge.
Update (Jan 20): Here are a few more Space Elevator links:
The Space Elevator Blog explains a technical mistake related to tether strength, and tells us about future posting plans.
Tether team Delta-X also clarifies the strength issue.
Climber team USST held a meeting on Jan 8, and plans another Jan 21 (that's tomorrow). Potential new team members are invited.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
LM Space Day and TARC
Lockheed Martin Space Day is supporting the Team America Rocketry Challenge, but is phasing out the Space Day Design Challenges.
V Prize Bill Moves Along
At the bottom of this post from Spaceports is the latest step in the progress of a Virginia bill in support of the suborbital point-to-point V Prize.
Unreasonable Rocket Programming
Unreasonable Rocket gives some insight into their vehicle control by showing some software variable declarations and comments. There's also a pointer (no I'm not talking about code any more) to an automated helicopter article.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Will Pomerantz on the Google NASA Talk
Yesterday I posted on Google CEO Eric Schmidt's talk on NASA's anniversary. That was just based on an article I read, but the X PRIZE Foundation's Will Pomerantz was there, and posts a lot more about the talk. There's quite a lot about prizes like Centennial Challenges and the Google Lunar X PRIZE in Schmidt's talk and Pomerantz's analysis. There's also a lot about other important topics, like opening up NASA and making it more responsive to the public using models familiar to companies like Google.
At the end of his post, Will has a number of other notes of interest:
Dr. Bob Richards, the CEO of Odyssey Moon, was on The Hour tonight. Worth watching!
Tomorrow--Friday, January 18th--we'll be presenting the Conrad Award at NASA HQ. It should be broadcast live on NASA TV. I'll post more about this on Tuesday
Also on Tuesday, I'll be speaking at a Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus briefing entitled: "Nanotechnology and Innovation, Commercialization, and Prize Competitions" over in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Should be fun--hopefully I'll blog about that next Tuesday!
The Pete Conrad Award press release is found in a lot of places - for example, see Earth Times.
RLV News has a post with a number of prize-related pieces, including Will's post. It also links to the fast-paced interview of Dr. Bob Richards that Will mentioned.
Wired Science has more on the Google speech, including a video of part of the speech. You should be able to find the rest of it by clicking on the video and going to YouTube.
At the end of his post, Will has a number of other notes of interest:
Dr. Bob Richards, the CEO of Odyssey Moon, was on The Hour tonight. Worth watching!
Tomorrow--Friday, January 18th--we'll be presenting the Conrad Award at NASA HQ. It should be broadcast live on NASA TV. I'll post more about this on Tuesday
Also on Tuesday, I'll be speaking at a Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus briefing entitled: "Nanotechnology and Innovation, Commercialization, and Prize Competitions" over in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Should be fun--hopefully I'll blog about that next Tuesday!
The Pete Conrad Award press release is found in a lot of places - for example, see Earth Times.
RLV News has a post with a number of prize-related pieces, including Will's post. It also links to the fast-paced interview of Dr. Bob Richards that Will mentioned.
Wired Science has more on the Google speech, including a video of part of the speech. You should be able to find the rest of it by clicking on the video and going to YouTube.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Coalition for Space Exploration and NASA Mean Business
From Aero-News.net comes an article about the Coalition for Space Exploration sponsoring the 2008 NASA Means Business competition. The article describes the competition, and this year's particular version of the competition.
Google Asks NASA to Work With the Public
Infoworld has an article on a talk by Google CEO Eric Schmidt about NASA's 50th anniversary:
Schmidt praised programs such as NASA's Centennial Challenge, which awards cash prizes to inventors that come up with solutions to the agency's needs. Last year, NASA awarded $200,000 to Peter Horner, an unemployed engineer from Maine, who created a new space glove using a common rubber glove.
Google has sponsored the X Prize Foundation, an organization that runs similar competitions, with an award of up to $30 million for a group that can design and launch a lunar lander with a robotic explorer on board. In many cases, the teams competing for the prize in these types of competitions spend more than the total prize money, but the public awards spur competition, Schmidt said.
"Why would we do this?" Schmidt said. "Because it's fun."
...
"The best way to be lucky is to create more luck," he said. "And the best way to create more luck is to create more at-bats."
Schmidt praised programs such as NASA's Centennial Challenge, which awards cash prizes to inventors that come up with solutions to the agency's needs. Last year, NASA awarded $200,000 to Peter Horner, an unemployed engineer from Maine, who created a new space glove using a common rubber glove.
Google has sponsored the X Prize Foundation, an organization that runs similar competitions, with an award of up to $30 million for a group that can design and launch a lunar lander with a robotic explorer on board. In many cases, the teams competing for the prize in these types of competitions spend more than the total prize money, but the public awards spur competition, Schmidt said.
"Why would we do this?" Schmidt said. "Because it's fun."
...
"The best way to be lucky is to create more luck," he said. "And the best way to create more luck is to create more at-bats."
Which is More Dangerous?
Personal Spaceflight notes that a suborbital spaceflight prize has been dropped from a charity auction because of safety concerns.
Spaceward Press Release
The Space Elevator Blog posts the latest press release from the Spaceward Foundation on the Space Elevator Games.
More on Gingrich and a Mars prize
Space Politics has more on Newt Gingrich and space prizes. You can also see a copy of the interview discussed at Space Politics at Newt.org. Innovation prizes are discussed several times in the interview:
JB: ... You propose, in “Real Change,” a new kind of space program, for, giving prizes, for example, to go to Mars. How can the bureaucracy permit you to go past them and accomplish something like this?
NG: I think the bureaucracy will probably do everything it can to stop it. In 1903, the Smithsonian had been working on airplanes for 10 years, and had spent over $50,000 in tax money, and the Wright brothers, who were two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, flew. Now, they actually had a fundamentally different model than the Smithsonian model. It was much lighter, it was much smaller, it had a different set of aerodynamic principles, and it worked. It’s only great virtue was that it actually flew. Now you would never have gotten it funded by the National Science Foundation, you never would have gotten it approved at the Smithsonian, because they didn’t believe in it intellectually. It’s not that they were bad people; but they were wedded to a bad idea.
NASA today has managed to make space dull, expensive, bureaucratic, and slow. This is an enormous achievement: it’s just a dumb one. I think what we want is to find ways to break out. What I propose is to go back to a model that worked in aviation for 50 years: Offer very large prizes. I had a very senior member of the Air Force say to me, if we had a $5 billion tax-free prize for the first team to get to Mars -- think of it as the 21st Century America’s Cup, ‘cause, you know, there are millionaires and billionaires out there who spend an amazing amount of money on yachts in order to compete for the America’s Cup.
If we had a 21st Century America’s Cup in space, this particular expert in the Air Force said to me, they thought we’d get there in about five years and save about $220 billion dollars in federal spending over the next generation. So, you look at that sort of thing, and I don’t want to try to fix NASA, I want to try to create a competitive, prize-based system. I want to do the same thing in health. Alzheimer’s, a terrible disease, is a $1 trillion, 200 billion [threat??] to the baby boomers. What if we had a substantial prize: a billion dollars or more, tax free, for the first breakthrough that blocks the effects of Alzheimer’s. If any bright scientist anywhere wanted to stay up late at night, just invent it. Don’t fill out forms, don’t send in 70 copies, don’t wait to be peer reviewed: if you can meet the standards, and you can meet the challenge, you can get the money.
JB: Somewhere in my desk at home I have a copy of the Wright brothers’ first contract with the United States Army for their flyer. I believe it’s three-and-a-half pages long. I don’t know that you can get there from here in our current system. How can you get Congress to understand the value of such prizes and change it? You’re talking about real change in your book, and you’re defining it in terms of real leadership. Explain please.
NG: Well, we have been first of all, talking with many members of the House and Senate, as well as Governors and state legislators, and I’m getting a pretty significant response. I think there will be bills introduced in the next two months on a whole series of prizes. And I think there’s real interest: for example, at least one presidential candidate has picked up the idea, $1 billion for the first mass produced car that can do 100 miles to the gallon, which begins to change the whole economy for gasoline and for oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran. So I think you’re going to see the idea of prize dramatically reenter the public dialogue, and that’s one way I think “Real Change” is going to turn out to be a pioneering book that really does create a fundamental shift in the national dialogue. We found in our polling -- which is at AmericanSolutions.com -- if you click on ‘research’ there, we did six national polls this summer, and overwhelmingly we had people who think prizes are a good idea. We saw the X prize being offered several years ago, for near space: $200 million was invested, to get a $10 million dollar prize. Because you stimulate the competitive spirits, you encourage the entrepreneurial mindset, you say to people who have lots of money and strong egos, “Let’s see if you can do it.” Not, “let’s see if you can apply for the paperwork,” -- “let’s see if you can actually do it.”
...
NG: ... I would say that you could look at this whole issue of prizes. Overwhelmingly the American people are worried about their energy future. They feel very uncertain about having Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia. How can a rational country rely on those sources of energy? And so I think if there was an aggressive opportunity to say to every entrepreneur in the world, “Look. If you can get us out of this mess, you’re going to get very rich very fast,” I think you’d see dramatic change.
Here's some polling results from the site Newt mentions, AmericanSolutions.org:
PRIZES
Prizes should be given to companies and individuals that invent creative ways to solve problems.
We support giving large financial prizes to companies and individuals who invent an affordable car that gets 100 miles to the gallon. (77 to 15)
We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents new ways to successfully cut pollution. (79 to 18)
We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)
Also see pages 94-97 here.
JB: ... You propose, in “Real Change,” a new kind of space program, for, giving prizes, for example, to go to Mars. How can the bureaucracy permit you to go past them and accomplish something like this?
NG: I think the bureaucracy will probably do everything it can to stop it. In 1903, the Smithsonian had been working on airplanes for 10 years, and had spent over $50,000 in tax money, and the Wright brothers, who were two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, flew. Now, they actually had a fundamentally different model than the Smithsonian model. It was much lighter, it was much smaller, it had a different set of aerodynamic principles, and it worked. It’s only great virtue was that it actually flew. Now you would never have gotten it funded by the National Science Foundation, you never would have gotten it approved at the Smithsonian, because they didn’t believe in it intellectually. It’s not that they were bad people; but they were wedded to a bad idea.
NASA today has managed to make space dull, expensive, bureaucratic, and slow. This is an enormous achievement: it’s just a dumb one. I think what we want is to find ways to break out. What I propose is to go back to a model that worked in aviation for 50 years: Offer very large prizes. I had a very senior member of the Air Force say to me, if we had a $5 billion tax-free prize for the first team to get to Mars -- think of it as the 21st Century America’s Cup, ‘cause, you know, there are millionaires and billionaires out there who spend an amazing amount of money on yachts in order to compete for the America’s Cup.
If we had a 21st Century America’s Cup in space, this particular expert in the Air Force said to me, they thought we’d get there in about five years and save about $220 billion dollars in federal spending over the next generation. So, you look at that sort of thing, and I don’t want to try to fix NASA, I want to try to create a competitive, prize-based system. I want to do the same thing in health. Alzheimer’s, a terrible disease, is a $1 trillion, 200 billion [threat??] to the baby boomers. What if we had a substantial prize: a billion dollars or more, tax free, for the first breakthrough that blocks the effects of Alzheimer’s. If any bright scientist anywhere wanted to stay up late at night, just invent it. Don’t fill out forms, don’t send in 70 copies, don’t wait to be peer reviewed: if you can meet the standards, and you can meet the challenge, you can get the money.
JB: Somewhere in my desk at home I have a copy of the Wright brothers’ first contract with the United States Army for their flyer. I believe it’s three-and-a-half pages long. I don’t know that you can get there from here in our current system. How can you get Congress to understand the value of such prizes and change it? You’re talking about real change in your book, and you’re defining it in terms of real leadership. Explain please.
NG: Well, we have been first of all, talking with many members of the House and Senate, as well as Governors and state legislators, and I’m getting a pretty significant response. I think there will be bills introduced in the next two months on a whole series of prizes. And I think there’s real interest: for example, at least one presidential candidate has picked up the idea, $1 billion for the first mass produced car that can do 100 miles to the gallon, which begins to change the whole economy for gasoline and for oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran. So I think you’re going to see the idea of prize dramatically reenter the public dialogue, and that’s one way I think “Real Change” is going to turn out to be a pioneering book that really does create a fundamental shift in the national dialogue. We found in our polling -- which is at AmericanSolutions.com -- if you click on ‘research’ there, we did six national polls this summer, and overwhelmingly we had people who think prizes are a good idea. We saw the X prize being offered several years ago, for near space: $200 million was invested, to get a $10 million dollar prize. Because you stimulate the competitive spirits, you encourage the entrepreneurial mindset, you say to people who have lots of money and strong egos, “Let’s see if you can do it.” Not, “let’s see if you can apply for the paperwork,” -- “let’s see if you can actually do it.”
...
NG: ... I would say that you could look at this whole issue of prizes. Overwhelmingly the American people are worried about their energy future. They feel very uncertain about having Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia. How can a rational country rely on those sources of energy? And so I think if there was an aggressive opportunity to say to every entrepreneur in the world, “Look. If you can get us out of this mess, you’re going to get very rich very fast,” I think you’d see dramatic change.
Here's some polling results from the site Newt mentions, AmericanSolutions.org:
PRIZES
Prizes should be given to companies and individuals that invent creative ways to solve problems.
We support giving large financial prizes to companies and individuals who invent an affordable car that gets 100 miles to the gallon. (77 to 15)
We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents new ways to successfully cut pollution. (79 to 18)
We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)
Also see pages 94-97 here.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Software Choice at Unreasonable Rocket
Unreasonable Rocket posts on a GPS open source and commercial off the shelf solutions.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Prize4Life Donation Effort
Prize4Life is looking for lots of unique donations (they don't have to be large) so they can win $50,000.
More on AXP at the Detroit Auto Show
X PRIZE Cars blog continues to gather numerous articles on Automotive X PRIZE teams at the Detroit Car show, as well as some information about other companies with similar goals.
Also, from the X PRIZE Foundation news scroller comes an audio interview about the Automotive X PRIZE at AutoWeek. A prize amount of $10M was mentioned in the interview ... but is that the grand prize, with other smaller ones?
Also, from the X PRIZE Foundation news scroller comes an audio interview about the Automotive X PRIZE at AutoWeek. A prize amount of $10M was mentioned in the interview ... but is that the grand prize, with other smaller ones?
Space Pirates Wielding Lasers
The Space Elevator Blog is keeping up with the Kansas City Space Pirates' switch to laser power. They sound optimistic, and are covering the technical, business, and management problems that confront every Space Pirate:
We have done some testing with low power lasers horizontally at 1km. We have lined up two different Solar cell providers depending on what laser we end up using. We have one or two answers for every technical challenge we have anticipated. We have a few parts for the ‘08 climber in house that are awaiting testing along with some sketches of where to put them.
Our focus has been in making sure we have a viable plan, but the fund raising environment seems warmer than last year.
We have recruited some more expertise this year to make sure we have all the skills needed.
We have done some testing with low power lasers horizontally at 1km. We have lined up two different Solar cell providers depending on what laser we end up using. We have one or two answers for every technical challenge we have anticipated. We have a few parts for the ‘08 climber in house that are awaiting testing along with some sketches of where to put them.
Our focus has been in making sure we have a viable plan, but the fund raising environment seems warmer than last year.
We have recruited some more expertise this year to make sure we have all the skills needed.
The Importance of Blogging Earnestly
William Pomerantz posts on early challenges met by Peter Diamandis, Bob Richards, and Todd Hawley, as well as on taking notes or blogging or similar measures when involved with such challenges.
One of the things he mentions in the post is a requirement of all Google Lunar X PRIZE registrants to blog. Odyssey Moon, the first team to register, has already started, with 3 posts in the last couple weeks, pictures of the team rollout, and video coming soon. First, Loretta Whitesides kicks off the first of the New Years' posts. Then, Robert Richards gives an overview of the company. Finally, Chairman Ramin Khadem explains the business reasons why they're doing it. Here's part of the reason:
... we are not competing with Space Agencies. On the contrary, we see ourselves working with them and being responsive to their requests should they have small payloads they wish ejected onto the lunar surface. We also believe if you are clever, nimble, of the right size and right ambition you can do what major space agencies cannot achieve. This we believe constitutes the sweet spot of private enterprise.
Will also posts on the Google Lunar X PRIZE forum. Here's an interesting discussion that explains why the prize includes a requirement for a small payload and self-imaging.
One of the things he mentions in the post is a requirement of all Google Lunar X PRIZE registrants to blog. Odyssey Moon, the first team to register, has already started, with 3 posts in the last couple weeks, pictures of the team rollout, and video coming soon. First, Loretta Whitesides kicks off the first of the New Years' posts. Then, Robert Richards gives an overview of the company. Finally, Chairman Ramin Khadem explains the business reasons why they're doing it. Here's part of the reason:
... we are not competing with Space Agencies. On the contrary, we see ourselves working with them and being responsive to their requests should they have small payloads they wish ejected onto the lunar surface. We also believe if you are clever, nimble, of the right size and right ambition you can do what major space agencies cannot achieve. This we believe constitutes the sweet spot of private enterprise.
Will also posts on the Google Lunar X PRIZE forum. Here's an interesting discussion that explains why the prize includes a requirement for a small payload and self-imaging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
