Tuesday, June 03, 2008
New XPF Advisor Gregory Pappas
Gregory C. Pappas, noted publisher, to join X PRIZE Foundation Advisory Council - X PRIZE Foundation news article
Kavli Astrophysics, Nanoscience, and Neuroscience Prizes
SPRING FLING WITH SCIENCE - Cosmic Log covers the World Science Festival, which included announcements of 3 Kavli Prizes. These prizes are in the same class as the Nobel Prizes in the sense that they are for past work rather than particular innovations specified ahead of time. The prizes are in:
- astrophysics (work on quasars in this case)
- nanoscience (quantum dots and carbon nanotubes)
- neuroscience (for understanding basic mechanisms that govern the development and functioning of the networks of cells in the brain and spinal cord)
There's more on the winners here. MSNBC also has another article on the Kavli prizes.
- astrophysics (work on quasars in this case)
- nanoscience (quantum dots and carbon nanotubes)
- neuroscience (for understanding basic mechanisms that govern the development and functioning of the networks of cells in the brain and spinal cord)
There's more on the winners here. MSNBC also has another article on the Kavli prizes.
SS1 Book, Diamandis and Breed on Prizes, XPC/LLC
RLV News has a number of recent prize-related posts of interest. Here are some of them:
Briefs: SS1 book; Diamandis on prizes; NASA's good week - I saw the SpaceShipOne book at the ISDC and also at the Air and Space museum not far from the actual craft. I was actually given a space book as a gift on the trip, but it wasn't that one. Cosmic Log reviews the book. See the RLV News post for the link to the book on amazon.
The other prize article, a Business Week article on Incentive Prizes, is mainly an interview of Peter Diamandis on the subject.
Briefs: Personal Spaceflight study; Better prizes; Low carbon suborbital space - This one includes a post at Unreasonable Rocket about the GLXP and his preference for prizes directly related to space access, like one for a reusable orbital vehicle.
I also like the idea of space access prizes, and think the original Ansari X PRIZE victory should be considered more like a battle won rather than a war won. I could see an orbital prize like the one Paul advocates. I could also see suborbital space access prizes for any (or all) of the following:
- take the Ansari X PRIZE to the next level (eg: considerably greater altitude or payload than the suborbital ships now under development)
- give the current set of manned suborbital ships under development more business (eg: demonstration of difficult suborbital science or engineering measurements using the vehicles integrated with payloads)
- encourage reusable unmanned suborbital launches to even greater altitudes than the manned vehicle(s) from my first bullet
- encourage smallsat launch from reusable suborbital vehicles
Still, although I see space access as the #1 problem to tackle, I have no problem with encouraging cheap robotic missions/smallsats, which I consider perhaps problem #2 or #3 to solve.
Briefs: LLC and XPC update; Astrium crew capsule picts; Space VidVision Contest - This covers the contest I first heard about in Greg Zsidisin's recent Space Show interview, and a Leonard David article on the X PRIZE Cup and LLC. The LLC article mentions a number of possible venues for the XPC that are circulating. My (outsider) understanding is that the XPF would like to continue the association of the XPC with the ISPCS, which makes any scenario that is too different from that one in time or space seem a little less likely. At any rate, we should know one way or the other pretty soon according to the note on the XPC web site.
Briefs: SS1 book; Diamandis on prizes; NASA's good week - I saw the SpaceShipOne book at the ISDC and also at the Air and Space museum not far from the actual craft. I was actually given a space book as a gift on the trip, but it wasn't that one. Cosmic Log reviews the book. See the RLV News post for the link to the book on amazon.
The other prize article, a Business Week article on Incentive Prizes, is mainly an interview of Peter Diamandis on the subject.
Briefs: Personal Spaceflight study; Better prizes; Low carbon suborbital space - This one includes a post at Unreasonable Rocket about the GLXP and his preference for prizes directly related to space access, like one for a reusable orbital vehicle.
I also like the idea of space access prizes, and think the original Ansari X PRIZE victory should be considered more like a battle won rather than a war won. I could see an orbital prize like the one Paul advocates. I could also see suborbital space access prizes for any (or all) of the following:
- take the Ansari X PRIZE to the next level (eg: considerably greater altitude or payload than the suborbital ships now under development)
- give the current set of manned suborbital ships under development more business (eg: demonstration of difficult suborbital science or engineering measurements using the vehicles integrated with payloads)
- encourage reusable unmanned suborbital launches to even greater altitudes than the manned vehicle(s) from my first bullet
- encourage smallsat launch from reusable suborbital vehicles
Still, although I see space access as the #1 problem to tackle, I have no problem with encouraging cheap robotic missions/smallsats, which I consider perhaps problem #2 or #3 to solve.
Briefs: LLC and XPC update; Astrium crew capsule picts; Space VidVision Contest - This covers the contest I first heard about in Greg Zsidisin's recent Space Show interview, and a Leonard David article on the X PRIZE Cup and LLC. The LLC article mentions a number of possible venues for the XPC that are circulating. My (outsider) understanding is that the XPF would like to continue the association of the XPC with the ISPCS, which makes any scenario that is too different from that one in time or space seem a little less likely. At any rate, we should know one way or the other pretty soon according to the note on the XPC web site.
May 28 X PRIZE Foundation Newsletter & What If? Competition
The May 28 X PRIZE Foundation newsletter has link-filled sections on a number of topics. The one that's new to this blog is the one on board member Anousheh Ansari, who is starting the What If? Competition. Here's the newsletter section:
Anousheh Ansari has announced a student competition called the What If? Competition. Students from two different categories, elementary and high school, are required to submit answers to a specific problem. Winning students will receive a variety of prizes from telescopes to a personal planetarium. The deadline for entries is August 1, 2008.
Here are the categories (see more details on the site on the prizes and details on the scenarios):
grades 1-5: WHAT IF you were the first astronaut to set foot on another planet?
grades 6-12: WHAT IF I was Living on Mars?
There are also sections of the newsletter on Tata Motors entering the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE, the Google Lunar X PRIZE Team Summit, the X PRIZE collaboration with an MIT class, news on board member Craig Ventor, and the featured GLXP Lunar Legacy.
Anousheh Ansari has announced a student competition called the What If? Competition. Students from two different categories, elementary and high school, are required to submit answers to a specific problem. Winning students will receive a variety of prizes from telescopes to a personal planetarium. The deadline for entries is August 1, 2008.
Here are the categories (see more details on the site on the prizes and details on the scenarios):
grades 1-5: WHAT IF you were the first astronaut to set foot on another planet?
grades 6-12: WHAT IF I was Living on Mars?
There are also sections of the newsletter on Tata Motors entering the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE, the Google Lunar X PRIZE Team Summit, the X PRIZE collaboration with an MIT class, news on board member Craig Ventor, and the featured GLXP Lunar Legacy.
DOE Lighting Prize
The Department of Energy has formed the L Prize, or the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, which it describes as
the first government-sponsored technology competition designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.
This is one of their solid-state lighting design competitions.
It seems like some of the details are still being worked out, but you can get a rough idea of the prize from their announcement:
The competition will award cash prizes, and may also lead to opportunities for federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and other incentives for winning products. ... The legislation challenges industry to develop replacement technologies for today’s most widely used and inefficient products, 60W incandescent lamps and PAR 38 halogen lamps. Today’s L Prize program announcement specifies technical requirements for these two competition categories. A future L Prize program announcement will call for development of a new “21st Century Lamp,” as authorized in the legislation. ... The legislation authorizes up to $20 million in cash prizes; the exact amount of the cash prize for each category will be determined based on DOE Congressional appropriations and supplemental contributions from foundations and utilities. DOE will contribute up to $1 million to the cash prize purse, subject to enactment of the FY 2009 appropriation. In addition, potential opportunities for future federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and other incentives for winning products may far exceed the value of the cash prize.
the first government-sponsored technology competition designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.
This is one of their solid-state lighting design competitions.
It seems like some of the details are still being worked out, but you can get a rough idea of the prize from their announcement:
The competition will award cash prizes, and may also lead to opportunities for federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and other incentives for winning products. ... The legislation challenges industry to develop replacement technologies for today’s most widely used and inefficient products, 60W incandescent lamps and PAR 38 halogen lamps. Today’s L Prize program announcement specifies technical requirements for these two competition categories. A future L Prize program announcement will call for development of a new “21st Century Lamp,” as authorized in the legislation. ... The legislation authorizes up to $20 million in cash prizes; the exact amount of the cash prize for each category will be determined based on DOE Congressional appropriations and supplemental contributions from foundations and utilities. DOE will contribute up to $1 million to the cash prize purse, subject to enactment of the FY 2009 appropriation. In addition, potential opportunities for future federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and other incentives for winning products may far exceed the value of the cash prize.
Monday, June 02, 2008
ACME Robotics Out of Regolith Challenge
There's still more news of teams exiting (or declining to officially register for) major prize competitions:
ACME Robotics will Not Participate in the Regolith Excavation Challenge - Newswire - Part of the trouble involves flooding, but, as we've seen in other cases recently, another part concerns prize management and rules. This is the 2nd time today, in 2 different competitions run by 2 different organizations, where I've read of a team objecting to rules taking too long, from their point of view, to pin down.
ACME Robotics will Not Participate in the Regolith Excavation Challenge - Newswire - Part of the trouble involves flooding, but, as we've seen in other cases recently, another part concerns prize management and rules. This is the 2nd time today, in 2 different competitions run by 2 different organizations, where I've read of a team objecting to rules taking too long, from their point of view, to pin down.
News on GLXP Teams Cringely, STELLAR, and SCSG
Briefs: Team Cringely on its own; Team Stellar - RLV News - This includes a link to an article on STELLAR and some interesting comments, but I want to focus on another part. Team Cringely drops out of the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition for political and economic reasons explained in the article. He has some criticisms of the X PRIZE Foundation in the article on issues like media rights. However, he still plans on a mission to the Moon, perhaps with a nice media deal to help fund the venture.
While I think a thoughtful pause may be in order at the X PRIZE Foundation on this and the SCSG exit, I don't really see a down side if they're going for a lunar mission on their own. That would sort of leapfrog past the prize step on the path to sustainable business, which sounds fine to me. That effort probably wouldn't have started without the GLXP. Meanwhile teams without the built-in media fundraising capabilities can continue with their (hopefully somewhat different) efforts.
Cringely also gives the following links:
Team Cringely Talks to the Space Fellowship about winning the Google Lunar X-Prize. - the media rule issue is mentioned
SoCal Selene Group Drops Google Lunar X Prize Bid - Slashdot on SCSG
Here's more news:
Getting Back in the Swing of Things - William Pomerantz - It sounds like Will has been very busy, with big personal events, travel, and of course prize work. He notes some other cases where prizes were mentioned at the ISDC, and the idea that similar panels may be held at later events.
Raleigh Team Shooting For The Moon - The Raleigh Chronicle
While I think a thoughtful pause may be in order at the X PRIZE Foundation on this and the SCSG exit, I don't really see a down side if they're going for a lunar mission on their own. That would sort of leapfrog past the prize step on the path to sustainable business, which sounds fine to me. That effort probably wouldn't have started without the GLXP. Meanwhile teams without the built-in media fundraising capabilities can continue with their (hopefully somewhat different) efforts.
Cringely also gives the following links:
Team Cringely Talks to the Space Fellowship about winning the Google Lunar X-Prize. - the media rule issue is mentioned
SoCal Selene Group Drops Google Lunar X Prize Bid - Slashdot on SCSG
Here's more news:
Getting Back in the Swing of Things - William Pomerantz - It sounds like Will has been very busy, with big personal events, travel, and of course prize work. He notes some other cases where prizes were mentioned at the ISDC, and the idea that similar panels may be held at later events.
Raleigh Team Shooting For The Moon - The Raleigh Chronicle
Googlokhod - Google Lunar X PRIZE Team from Russia
Media Coverage - Googlokhod - This blog links to a couple of articles in Russian with links for English translations on this unofficial team:
Patriotic team "Guglohod", consists largely of former engineers and some existing aerospace industry. It will have to compete with the 14 foreign teams from Italy, Malaysia, Canada, Romania and the United States, with some of them facing serious sponsors of the Western aerospace industry.
It's pretty tough for me to tell how far along unregistered teams are, or are likely to get. The Googlokhod site does have a number of links to unofficial teams, a few of which I've read about before. Some have probably already moved on to other things; others are currently university classes on the prize. In most cases I'll wait to see some registration news before posting on them. I'm about to make an exception for one of them, though ...
Patriotic team "Guglohod", consists largely of former engineers and some existing aerospace industry. It will have to compete with the 14 foreign teams from Italy, Malaysia, Canada, Romania and the United States, with some of them facing serious sponsors of the Western aerospace industry.
It's pretty tough for me to tell how far along unregistered teams are, or are likely to get. The Googlokhod site does have a number of links to unofficial teams, a few of which I've read about before. Some have probably already moved on to other things; others are currently university classes on the prize. In most cases I'll wait to see some registration news before posting on them. I'm about to make an exception for one of them, though ...
ISDC 2008 - Florida RLV Prize
RLV News covers the ISDC 2008 panel on government and private space interactions. This includes the following from Steve Kohler representing Space Florida:
Clarify Florida prize:
Kohler: $40M ($20M state, $20M private) will go for a Google Lunar X PRIZE like competition for RLVs.
Rules still being developed.
My notes on the brief discussion were similar (although of course the Ansari X PRIZE subject matter was an RLV, and the AXP is cited as a model in the bill):
In the hearings Steve went to the legislators were talking about the GLXP rather than the Ansari X PRIZE, so the GLXP may be a closer model than the Ansari X PRIZE to what they intend.
Clarify Florida prize:
Kohler: $40M ($20M state, $20M private) will go for a Google Lunar X PRIZE like competition for RLVs.
Rules still being developed.
My notes on the brief discussion were similar (although of course the Ansari X PRIZE subject matter was an RLV, and the AXP is cited as a model in the bill):
In the hearings Steve went to the legislators were talking about the GLXP rather than the Ansari X PRIZE, so the GLXP may be a closer model than the Ansari X PRIZE to what they intend.
ISDC 2008 - Procurement Panel
This panel was on NASA procurement: Government Acquisition: How Better to Help, or At Lest Not to Harm
The panelists included a NASA "big iron" procurement representative (working on things like Constellation), a SpaceX representative, and Thomas Olson. Only Olson mentioned prizes, although he pushed in general for non-traditional procurement approaches throughout his talk. Here are my brief notes:
Olson advocates something like prize-based methods or something new rather than traditional procurements. He would eliminate the cost-plus culture in favor of a prize or performance based model for smaller projects. His last slide states "Let 1000 prizes bloom".
The panelists included a NASA "big iron" procurement representative (working on things like Constellation), a SpaceX representative, and Thomas Olson. Only Olson mentioned prizes, although he pushed in general for non-traditional procurement approaches throughout his talk. Here are my brief notes:
Olson advocates something like prize-based methods or something new rather than traditional procurements. He would eliminate the cost-plus culture in favor of a prize or performance based model for smaller projects. His last slide states "Let 1000 prizes bloom".
ISDC 2008 - Election 2008 Space Panel
Miles O'Brien was the moderator for this panel with representatives from the 3 major Presidential campaigns. In my opinion, the winner of the panel was ... Miles O'Brien. I thought his questions and occasional dialogs with the panelists were substantive, fair, important, relevant, and balanced. Great job.
My pick for second place would be Lori Garver representing Hillary Clinton. Of course Lori had an advantage in having a lot of personal experience with the National Space Society. It didn't seem like the others even knew their audience, or in 1 case what basic issues like ITAR are.
McCain's representative wins 3rd place, and Obama's wins 4th, in my undoubtably subjective ranking.
The panel was on C-SPAN, but I don't see any video links to it. I do see an option to buy a C-SPAN DVD of it for 30 bucks though.
Space Politics has a review and discussions. (I referred to this link for the names of the other 2 panelists, which I didn't know).
The so-so space debate - The Space Review
NASA Watch - ISDC on CSPAN Today
Here's what I got about prizes from the panel. Many other subjects were discussed.
In talking about commercial space, Lori (Clinton) mentioned prizes for exploration in other parts of Clinton's planks, with the implication that prizes would be favored in the space area, too.
Miles cited commercial excitement in areas like the X PRIZE in a question.
LG (Clinton) - She gave an example of the GLXP. NASA should not smother commerce and compete with commercial areas.
Floyd DesChamps (McCain) - He supports cash prizes, and sees them as a good stimulus and the type of thinking we need.
Question for Steve Robinson (Obama) - Would he fund cash prizes? He didn't really answer the question specifically. He said he would support innovation.
My pick for second place would be Lori Garver representing Hillary Clinton. Of course Lori had an advantage in having a lot of personal experience with the National Space Society. It didn't seem like the others even knew their audience, or in 1 case what basic issues like ITAR are.
McCain's representative wins 3rd place, and Obama's wins 4th, in my undoubtably subjective ranking.
The panel was on C-SPAN, but I don't see any video links to it. I do see an option to buy a C-SPAN DVD of it for 30 bucks though.
Space Politics has a review and discussions. (I referred to this link for the names of the other 2 panelists, which I didn't know).
The so-so space debate - The Space Review
NASA Watch - ISDC on CSPAN Today
Here's what I got about prizes from the panel. Many other subjects were discussed.
In talking about commercial space, Lori (Clinton) mentioned prizes for exploration in other parts of Clinton's planks, with the implication that prizes would be favored in the space area, too.
Miles cited commercial excitement in areas like the X PRIZE in a question.
LG (Clinton) - She gave an example of the GLXP. NASA should not smother commerce and compete with commercial areas.
Floyd DesChamps (McCain) - He supports cash prizes, and sees them as a good stimulus and the type of thinking we need.
Question for Steve Robinson (Obama) - Would he fund cash prizes? He didn't really answer the question specifically. He said he would support innovation.
ISDC 2008 - Google Lunar X PRIZE Teams
RLV News has already posted notes from this ISDC panel (and numerous other panels and talks, I might add). Here's my version.
MC David Brandt introduces Will Pomerantz, and emphasizes his SEDS chapter experience.
Will: He was at the Washington DC ISDC 3 years ago, and was offered his current job there. He assumes we're all familiar with the Ansari X PRIZE. He gives a history of the GLXP. The GLXP was announced at the same day as the Japanese SELENE mission. These events show the Moon is open. He showed a brief video of the GLXP with Buzz Aldrin, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, James Cameron, Elon Musk, and Peter Diamandis for the Wired NextFest announcement. He gave a background on the teams, and briefly introduced the 5 panelists, each representing 1 of the teams present at the conference.
Bob Richards - Odyssey Moon - Bob saw both of the Ansari X PRIZE winning flights. He was inspired, and heard the GLXP "shot heard around the world". His was the first fully registered team, and they also had a business plan with the registration. Nine other teams were announced at a later event, and then there was the recent GLXP Team Summit. Their goal is to catalyze lunar commerce. They have the advantage that they aren't subject to the U.S. ITAR regime. The GLXP prize is just 1 of their goals. They have an experienced team. MDA is their prime contractor. They helped with the Phoenix Mars mission that just landed. There has been lots of media coverage. They want to prospect for resources. They have a July 2011 goal.
David Gump - Astrobotic - This is a Carnegie Mellon University/University of Arizona/Raytheon team. They are going to the Apollo 11 site. The University of Arizona is on Mars with their Phoenix spacecraft. They have lots of space heritage and optics experience. Raytheon specializes in high precision propulsion, such as the recent disabled satellite shootdown. Carnegie Mellon University has lots of robotics experience in scenarios like volcanoes, the DARPA Urban Challenge they won, desert, Antarctic meteorite searching, and NASA's SCARAB lunar robot prototype to search for ice. David showed graphics of a third generation robot and a view of a first generation robot test held in Pittsburgh (CMU's location). They are doing heavy field testing and testing of parts needed to be able to handle hard packed lunar terrain and soft patches. This is demonstrated in videos.
First mission: GLXP, proof of concept, precision landing, high-bandwidth communication, initial commercial markets, scene matching, imaging.
Phase 2: commercialize scout prospecting, miners, builders, comm infrastructure, education and entertainment.
Phase 3: Support human outposts on the Moon by 2020, expanding demand, lunar propellants, reaching asteroids and Mars.
Three classes (unfortunately when I took my notes I didn't write which of the following fall in which category - Ray): scout robots, worker robots, orbiters, landers, return vehicles. The prize is just 1 piece of their effort in the scout robot category.
Quantum3 - Paul Carlinger - local DC team - former government officials - Paul got familiar with NASA and NOAA during high-level government work. The contest is akin to Lindbergh's flight. It has the potential to change the paradigm of space like the Lindbergh Spirit of St. Louis flight did for aviation. They also want to give kids an interest in science as happened during Apollo. They have a major school outreach effort at all educational levels. They have a late 2009 launch goal. If it works, it can work in other places like asteroids and Mars. They will launch from the U.S. and want to lower space costs.
STELLAR - Jeff Krukin - a North Carolina team. They missed the recent International Space University GLXP Team Summit event. It's almost as tough to go from Raleigh North Carolina to Strasbourg France as it is to go to the Moon. Their registration fee came from the astronautical and mechanical engineering department foundation. They are a project of the Advanced Aerospace Resource Center. Part of the team is the Advanced Vehicle Research Center, which deals with vehicles and has fuel cell and autonomous vehicle expertise. Insight Racing is also part of the team. They were a team in the DARPA Challenge. There are other NC State groups participating in the team. One piece has expertise in sensors, and another has expertise in smallsats.
They don't intend to stay a North Carolina only operation. They are reaching out regionally. University focus is important to them. NC State and the University of North Carolina emphasize students developing commercially viable technologies. They have been meeting for months. Fundraising is in progress. They have an initial design.
Team JURBAN - Dr. Jayfus Doswell - Their team is a 501c3 research organization to improve STEM (science, technology, and math) human performance, especially for underserved populations. He explained their acronym. They started with the DARPA Urban Challenge. They entered to inspire underserved populations and to show STEM skills. This shows the importance of education. He presented a slide of the JOLHT craft. The robot's goal is to survive the conditions of the lunar surface. Their engineers gave a very exact projection of their schedule, down to "12:00 noon" on a certain day in 2012. They are looking at landing site possibilities. He showed the Juxtopia goggles in a slide.
Q&A session (Will Pomerantz asking the questions):
WP: For the newer teams, how did they decide it was for them?
JD: They had experience with advanced software, etc. They saw a decreased interest of youth in the field. Inspiration is more important to them than the prize money.
JK: This was an outgrowth of things already going on. They are interested in economic development in North Carolina. They want NC to be part of the new space industry. They believe we're in an Earth/Moon economic system, and that developing this system is more important than going to Mars.
WP: Two teams have involvement with the Phoenix mission. Were there any lessons learned from Mars Phoenix?
BR: "Space is hard". Hundreds of people were needed for 1 Phoenix instrument. However, small teams can bring economies.
DG: There was an earlier failure - that's why it's called Phoenix. They need to make it all work right before launch.
WP: Some had plans before, some for after the prize. How important it the prize money to them? How big will the market be?
BR: It would be cool to win but they aren't depending on it. They need multiple lunar participants.
JK: Same comments - educational value is equal to the prize alue. Visibility isn the competition is also important. They need many particpants. International participation is needed.
WP: How are they getting a ride to the Moon?
DG: commercial launch - they intend to announce it soon
BR: commercial; they need a good price
The other 3 also said commercial.
WP: Do they have specific plans in outreach, for example, for elementary students?
JD: They have raised significant funds for outreach in the past. For example, the DARPA Urban Challenge involved a lot of this. Often their students have full time jobs and need the funds to be
able to participate. They use a mentoring process.
DG: The University of Arizona gets professors to mentor students, and the students in turn mentor high school students.
BR: The Planetary Society is their educational partner.
JK: NC already has strong education/workforce development efforts.
PC: They have after school programs.
WP: There will be an "Adopt a Team" effort where students can match with teams.
WP: Top 2 management issues?
BR: Experienced, energetic people
DG: Yes
JD: Management techniques include always assessing risks spiral process from CMU, Six Sigma, improve processes, early testing, proven methods
JK: Core management, subteams responsible for components, each subteam owned/operated by a sponsor
WP: Prizes allow parallel methods to be tackled, so they can see by experience what works.
MC David Brandt introduces Will Pomerantz, and emphasizes his SEDS chapter experience.
Will: He was at the Washington DC ISDC 3 years ago, and was offered his current job there. He assumes we're all familiar with the Ansari X PRIZE. He gives a history of the GLXP. The GLXP was announced at the same day as the Japanese SELENE mission. These events show the Moon is open. He showed a brief video of the GLXP with Buzz Aldrin, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, James Cameron, Elon Musk, and Peter Diamandis for the Wired NextFest announcement. He gave a background on the teams, and briefly introduced the 5 panelists, each representing 1 of the teams present at the conference.
Bob Richards - Odyssey Moon - Bob saw both of the Ansari X PRIZE winning flights. He was inspired, and heard the GLXP "shot heard around the world". His was the first fully registered team, and they also had a business plan with the registration. Nine other teams were announced at a later event, and then there was the recent GLXP Team Summit. Their goal is to catalyze lunar commerce. They have the advantage that they aren't subject to the U.S. ITAR regime. The GLXP prize is just 1 of their goals. They have an experienced team. MDA is their prime contractor. They helped with the Phoenix Mars mission that just landed. There has been lots of media coverage. They want to prospect for resources. They have a July 2011 goal.
David Gump - Astrobotic - This is a Carnegie Mellon University/University of Arizona/Raytheon team. They are going to the Apollo 11 site. The University of Arizona is on Mars with their Phoenix spacecraft. They have lots of space heritage and optics experience. Raytheon specializes in high precision propulsion, such as the recent disabled satellite shootdown. Carnegie Mellon University has lots of robotics experience in scenarios like volcanoes, the DARPA Urban Challenge they won, desert, Antarctic meteorite searching, and NASA's SCARAB lunar robot prototype to search for ice. David showed graphics of a third generation robot and a view of a first generation robot test held in Pittsburgh (CMU's location). They are doing heavy field testing and testing of parts needed to be able to handle hard packed lunar terrain and soft patches. This is demonstrated in videos.
First mission: GLXP, proof of concept, precision landing, high-bandwidth communication, initial commercial markets, scene matching, imaging.
Phase 2: commercialize scout prospecting, miners, builders, comm infrastructure, education and entertainment.
Phase 3: Support human outposts on the Moon by 2020, expanding demand, lunar propellants, reaching asteroids and Mars.
Three classes (unfortunately when I took my notes I didn't write which of the following fall in which category - Ray): scout robots, worker robots, orbiters, landers, return vehicles. The prize is just 1 piece of their effort in the scout robot category.
Quantum3 - Paul Carlinger - local DC team - former government officials - Paul got familiar with NASA and NOAA during high-level government work. The contest is akin to Lindbergh's flight. It has the potential to change the paradigm of space like the Lindbergh Spirit of St. Louis flight did for aviation. They also want to give kids an interest in science as happened during Apollo. They have a major school outreach effort at all educational levels. They have a late 2009 launch goal. If it works, it can work in other places like asteroids and Mars. They will launch from the U.S. and want to lower space costs.
STELLAR - Jeff Krukin - a North Carolina team. They missed the recent International Space University GLXP Team Summit event. It's almost as tough to go from Raleigh North Carolina to Strasbourg France as it is to go to the Moon. Their registration fee came from the astronautical and mechanical engineering department foundation. They are a project of the Advanced Aerospace Resource Center. Part of the team is the Advanced Vehicle Research Center, which deals with vehicles and has fuel cell and autonomous vehicle expertise. Insight Racing is also part of the team. They were a team in the DARPA Challenge. There are other NC State groups participating in the team. One piece has expertise in sensors, and another has expertise in smallsats.
They don't intend to stay a North Carolina only operation. They are reaching out regionally. University focus is important to them. NC State and the University of North Carolina emphasize students developing commercially viable technologies. They have been meeting for months. Fundraising is in progress. They have an initial design.
Team JURBAN - Dr. Jayfus Doswell - Their team is a 501c3 research organization to improve STEM (science, technology, and math) human performance, especially for underserved populations. He explained their acronym. They started with the DARPA Urban Challenge. They entered to inspire underserved populations and to show STEM skills. This shows the importance of education. He presented a slide of the JOLHT craft. The robot's goal is to survive the conditions of the lunar surface. Their engineers gave a very exact projection of their schedule, down to "12:00 noon" on a certain day in 2012. They are looking at landing site possibilities. He showed the Juxtopia goggles in a slide.
Q&A session (Will Pomerantz asking the questions):
WP: For the newer teams, how did they decide it was for them?
JD: They had experience with advanced software, etc. They saw a decreased interest of youth in the field. Inspiration is more important to them than the prize money.
JK: This was an outgrowth of things already going on. They are interested in economic development in North Carolina. They want NC to be part of the new space industry. They believe we're in an Earth/Moon economic system, and that developing this system is more important than going to Mars.
WP: Two teams have involvement with the Phoenix mission. Were there any lessons learned from Mars Phoenix?
BR: "Space is hard". Hundreds of people were needed for 1 Phoenix instrument. However, small teams can bring economies.
DG: There was an earlier failure - that's why it's called Phoenix. They need to make it all work right before launch.
WP: Some had plans before, some for after the prize. How important it the prize money to them? How big will the market be?
BR: It would be cool to win but they aren't depending on it. They need multiple lunar participants.
JK: Same comments - educational value is equal to the prize alue. Visibility isn the competition is also important. They need many particpants. International participation is needed.
WP: How are they getting a ride to the Moon?
DG: commercial launch - they intend to announce it soon
BR: commercial; they need a good price
The other 3 also said commercial.
WP: Do they have specific plans in outreach, for example, for elementary students?
JD: They have raised significant funds for outreach in the past. For example, the DARPA Urban Challenge involved a lot of this. Often their students have full time jobs and need the funds to be
able to participate. They use a mentoring process.
DG: The University of Arizona gets professors to mentor students, and the students in turn mentor high school students.
BR: The Planetary Society is their educational partner.
JK: NC already has strong education/workforce development efforts.
PC: They have after school programs.
WP: There will be an "Adopt a Team" effort where students can match with teams.
WP: Top 2 management issues?
BR: Experienced, energetic people
DG: Yes
JD: Management techniques include always assessing risks spiral process from CMU, Six Sigma, improve processes, early testing, proven methods
JK: Core management, subteams responsible for components, each subteam owned/operated by a sponsor
WP: Prizes allow parallel methods to be tackled, so they can see by experience what works.
ISDC 2008 - Teachers in Space
Ed Wright - Teachers in Space: Pathfinder Selection Competition
Teachers in Space was started in the 1980's at NASA. Then Challenger accident happened. TIS was replaced with "Educator Astronauts" which means the teacher leaves their job to become an astronaut, and doesn't have much of an opportunity to bring the lessons back to the class.
The goal of this new TIS idea is to revive the original dream, but to work with the suborbital vehicles. They would like 200 teachers per year to fly - 4 for each state. NASA has lost the goal of reducing the cost of space access with Constellation. This will involve more money to send fewer people to space. A slide documented the trend of the number of NASA pilots and non-pilots to space. It continues to shrink. Ed asks what message this sends to kids. He also shows a downward slope in a plot of NASA astronaut recruitments.
TIS has donations of 5 flights from 5 companies, plus US Rocket Academy has purchased a block of flights from XCOR.
They don't have the funds or experience for the program yet, so they are doing experimental programs first. They will have different rules for different Pathfinder programs. They announced 2 at last year's X PRIZE Cup. One was for math and science teachers, and one was for general teachers. Both are now open. The idea is for the teacher to show what they can do on a suborbital flight. They will select the first 2 astronauts in the Fall after narrowing the list to finalists. The announcement will be at a teacher's conference.
In the Fall they also plan to announce a 3rd Pathfinder competition. The rules will be different. The specifics aren't clear yet. Some ideas are competitions for student teachers, American Indian teachers, a state-specific competition, or teacher bloggers. All are possible. They'll learn from the Pathfinders to help them with the full-scale effort.
Teachers in Space was started in the 1980's at NASA. Then Challenger accident happened. TIS was replaced with "Educator Astronauts" which means the teacher leaves their job to become an astronaut, and doesn't have much of an opportunity to bring the lessons back to the class.
The goal of this new TIS idea is to revive the original dream, but to work with the suborbital vehicles. They would like 200 teachers per year to fly - 4 for each state. NASA has lost the goal of reducing the cost of space access with Constellation. This will involve more money to send fewer people to space. A slide documented the trend of the number of NASA pilots and non-pilots to space. It continues to shrink. Ed asks what message this sends to kids. He also shows a downward slope in a plot of NASA astronaut recruitments.
TIS has donations of 5 flights from 5 companies, plus US Rocket Academy has purchased a block of flights from XCOR.
They don't have the funds or experience for the program yet, so they are doing experimental programs first. They will have different rules for different Pathfinder programs. They announced 2 at last year's X PRIZE Cup. One was for math and science teachers, and one was for general teachers. Both are now open. The idea is for the teacher to show what they can do on a suborbital flight. They will select the first 2 astronauts in the Fall after narrowing the list to finalists. The announcement will be at a teacher's conference.
In the Fall they also plan to announce a 3rd Pathfinder competition. The rules will be different. The specifics aren't clear yet. Some ideas are competitions for student teachers, American Indian teachers, a state-specific competition, or teacher bloggers. All are possible. They'll learn from the Pathfinders to help them with the full-scale effort.
ISDC 2008 - NSS Space Elevator Team Status
As with all such conference notes that I make, take to heart my usual warning that the following is just a rough approximation based on scribbled notes (I don't like using a laptop in a conference), partially correct hearing, etc. If you want a fully accurate account, check the sources.
You can see more about this talk at the Space Elevator Blog - ISDC2008 Day 3.
NSS Space Elevator Team Status - Bert Murray
Ben Shelef had a presentation before, or at the beginning of, this one on Power Beaming. He explained the Space Elevator and Power Beaming Challenge concepts. They want to leave the power source on the ground, and move up and down a cable. The teams must move a certain payload mass.
He then gave a history of the past Games. In 2005 at NASA Ames, it was the first time, so everyone needed to get experience in the competition. In 2006, they were at the X PRIZE Cup. This time Spaceward didn't give the teams the lights. This event had the first working models, more teams, 2 teams with microwave architectures, and 1 team with a laser architecture. The event was so close that they decided to make it harder so they wouldn't just be giving the money away the following year ... but in compensation, there was more money to be won. In 2007 there were even more teams, and they went faster and higher. Ben showed a night laser movie from 2007. Several teams got to the top. There has been lots of improvement from year to year.
That year, the laser industry saw the videos, and got interested. They decided to make the challenge harder again, but with more prize money to be won again. In 2008 the challenge will be to climb 1km at the same speed. They are talking about holding it at Meteor Crater, but they may or may not end up there.
Note that they had a detailed 3D display at the conference of what they competition would look like if held at Meteor Crater, with a model of the crater, the huge tether to climb, and a balloon holding the tether. The Space Elevator Blog has a video of the display.
Next the NSS Space Elevator Team was up with Bert Murray. This is their first year at the competition. Their motiviation is to demonstrate power beaming technology for the Space Solar Power and Space Elevator concepts, and to win the money.
The design uses a lightweight climber and a TRUMPF laser. They will have a 5-20kg climber with a 5 m/sec speed. They will use strict safety and standards. Bert went over what TRUMPF provides. The team needs to make their optics match TRUMPF's. They are looking at 2 optics solutions to deal with tracking their thermal PV array from 50m to 1000m range. Optics and tracking is the big challenge to them, not the climber. Tracking involves a small target at 3 times the height of the Empire State Building (1km).
The climber challenge is to get the most power per pound. The tradeoffs involve weight, dumping heat, and PV efficiency. The climber frame needs to hold the structure together in winds. For communication and control, they are using an on-board system to monitor things like temperature, and a PC ground system.
They have an article in Ad Astra (the NSS magazine), they blog, and they have a BBC appearance. They are looking for funding. They have a quilt raffle going on now.
You can see more about this talk at the Space Elevator Blog - ISDC2008 Day 3.
NSS Space Elevator Team Status - Bert Murray
Ben Shelef had a presentation before, or at the beginning of, this one on Power Beaming. He explained the Space Elevator and Power Beaming Challenge concepts. They want to leave the power source on the ground, and move up and down a cable. The teams must move a certain payload mass.
He then gave a history of the past Games. In 2005 at NASA Ames, it was the first time, so everyone needed to get experience in the competition. In 2006, they were at the X PRIZE Cup. This time Spaceward didn't give the teams the lights. This event had the first working models, more teams, 2 teams with microwave architectures, and 1 team with a laser architecture. The event was so close that they decided to make it harder so they wouldn't just be giving the money away the following year ... but in compensation, there was more money to be won. In 2007 there were even more teams, and they went faster and higher. Ben showed a night laser movie from 2007. Several teams got to the top. There has been lots of improvement from year to year.
That year, the laser industry saw the videos, and got interested. They decided to make the challenge harder again, but with more prize money to be won again. In 2008 the challenge will be to climb 1km at the same speed. They are talking about holding it at Meteor Crater, but they may or may not end up there.
Note that they had a detailed 3D display at the conference of what they competition would look like if held at Meteor Crater, with a model of the crater, the huge tether to climb, and a balloon holding the tether. The Space Elevator Blog has a video of the display.
Next the NSS Space Elevator Team was up with Bert Murray. This is their first year at the competition. Their motiviation is to demonstrate power beaming technology for the Space Solar Power and Space Elevator concepts, and to win the money.
The design uses a lightweight climber and a TRUMPF laser. They will have a 5-20kg climber with a 5 m/sec speed. They will use strict safety and standards. Bert went over what TRUMPF provides. The team needs to make their optics match TRUMPF's. They are looking at 2 optics solutions to deal with tracking their thermal PV array from 50m to 1000m range. Optics and tracking is the big challenge to them, not the climber. Tracking involves a small target at 3 times the height of the Empire State Building (1km).
The climber challenge is to get the most power per pound. The tradeoffs involve weight, dumping heat, and PV efficiency. The climber frame needs to hold the structure together in winds. For communication and control, they are using an on-board system to monitor things like temperature, and a PC ground system.
They have an article in Ad Astra (the NSS magazine), they blog, and they have a BBC appearance. They are looking for funding. They have a quilt raffle going on now.
Back From ISDC 2008
I'm back from the 2008 NSS ISDC, and should be posting some notes soon. Other than a burst of posts on the conference, posting may be slow this week as I catch up with what happened outside the conference, and even in the conference sessions I didn't go to. I was too busy the past week with travel, conference sessions, and visiting relatives to keep up with space news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
