Knowledge Ecology Online has an interesting and up to date survey paper Selected Innovation Prizes and Reward Programs. In spite of the word "selected", it's pretty comprehensive if you're just looking for the most prominent innovation prizes. It covers prizes, organized into categories like "Aviation and Outer Space" in the TOC and by date in the main matter, from hundreds of years ago up through today - or close enough. Here's their announcement of the paper.
To show how active they've been, especially in the area of medical prizes and patent debates, here are some other updates:
Feb 8 GWU & KEI Workshop on Medical Innovation Prize Fund
Jan 28/9 KEI & UNU-MERIT Medical Prize Fund Workshop
They also have some new papers and links to prize proposals, but I'll refrain from mentioning them individually until/unless I get a chance to read them. Check the site or their page Prizes to stimulate innovation if you're interested.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Laser Power Beaming Article
The Space Elevator Blog posts on an article in Laser Focus World by George Treusch of DILAS Diode Laser, which is supplying lasers for some of the beam power teams this year. It covers the 2007 games and the approaches that may be used by several teams in 2008.
Mission Virgin Galactic
I'm one of those people that thinks (let's be honest: wildly guesses) that suborbital space tourism isn't enough, and the suborbital rocket companies need to aggressively pursue other businesses like science experiments, remote sensing for commercial and government customers, smallsat launch, White Knight Two-type tourism flights (in the case of Virgin Galactic) for those who can't afford suborbital but still are really into it and want the next best thing, and more. RLV News lets us know about a Virgin Galactic contest called Mission Virgin Galactic for UK students that sounds like it might bring forth some ideas along those lines:
They will work in teams of four to design a marketable product that demonstrates one or more of the science, technology or engineering principles used in the Virgin Galactic programme.
They will work in teams of four to design a marketable product that demonstrates one or more of the science, technology or engineering principles used in the Virgin Galactic programme.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Mega-Prizes
In his Stanford Entrepreneurs talk, Peter Diamandis briefly mentioned the idea of "Mega-Prizes". There's a line of thought that holds that the benefits of prizes wane at a certain point because the larger dollar amount implies a more difficult challenge that's beyond the reach of small entrepreneurial teams, and large corporations are not as interested in investing the efforts of large groups on such difficult challenges. There's another line of thought that says that's nonsense. Personally my guess is that there's a lot of truth to the skeptical perspective, and I'd probably be inclined if I were making prizes to stick with many smaller ones and see how that works out.
Anyway, Peter Diamandis had (or at least was scheduled for) a talk at the Pioneer Institute in November 2007 on mega-prizes:
Can mega-prizes inspire better solutions to social and political problems than governments? Dr. Peter Diamandis, founder and CEO of the XPRIZE Foundation, thinks so. An MIT PhD and Harvard MD, he created the XPRIZE in 1995 to inspire radical innovations to benefit humanity. With $10 million in private funding, the first XPRIZE was awarded to a team led by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and aviation pioneer Bert Rutan, who launched SpaceShipOne to the edge of space twice in two weeks in 2004. Dr. Diamandis will deliver the 2007 Lovett C. Peters Lecture, offering his thoughts on how mega-prizes can help solve seemingly intractable problems. We in Massachusetts have our share of such problems. Could an XPRIZE or two help? *Invitation Only*
Medical Hypotheses - a blog from the editor of a journal of the same name, that has a post/paper/editorial on "Mega-cash prizes for revolutionary science". The recommendation to provide incentives for revolutionary science, which otherwise may be rejected as a career path in favor of high-volume incremental science because of the difficulty and risk of failure:
We suggest that mega-cash prizes (measured in tens of millions of dollars) are a suitable reward for those individuals (or institutions) whose work has triggered radically new directions in science.
Medical Hypotheses also has another editorial in academic paper form in response to the first recommendation. This response points out that smaller prizes have also been shown to be effective. The history of bigger prizes is also reviewed. Mega-prizes are thought to be beneficial, but some drawbacks are noted, such as the necessity to "climb the whole mountain" instead of taking steps - so perhaps partial credit might need to be awarded.
Anyway, Peter Diamandis had (or at least was scheduled for) a talk at the Pioneer Institute in November 2007 on mega-prizes:
Can mega-prizes inspire better solutions to social and political problems than governments? Dr. Peter Diamandis, founder and CEO of the XPRIZE Foundation, thinks so. An MIT PhD and Harvard MD, he created the XPRIZE in 1995 to inspire radical innovations to benefit humanity. With $10 million in private funding, the first XPRIZE was awarded to a team led by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and aviation pioneer Bert Rutan, who launched SpaceShipOne to the edge of space twice in two weeks in 2004. Dr. Diamandis will deliver the 2007 Lovett C. Peters Lecture, offering his thoughts on how mega-prizes can help solve seemingly intractable problems. We in Massachusetts have our share of such problems. Could an XPRIZE or two help? *Invitation Only*
Medical Hypotheses - a blog from the editor of a journal of the same name, that has a post/paper/editorial on "Mega-cash prizes for revolutionary science". The recommendation to provide incentives for revolutionary science, which otherwise may be rejected as a career path in favor of high-volume incremental science because of the difficulty and risk of failure:
We suggest that mega-cash prizes (measured in tens of millions of dollars) are a suitable reward for those individuals (or institutions) whose work has triggered radically new directions in science.
Medical Hypotheses also has another editorial in academic paper form in response to the first recommendation. This response points out that smaller prizes have also been shown to be effective. The history of bigger prizes is also reviewed. Mega-prizes are thought to be beneficial, but some drawbacks are noted, such as the necessity to "climb the whole mountain" instead of taking steps - so perhaps partial credit might need to be awarded.
SCSG Meetings
Deborah Castleman of the Southern California Selene Group GLXP team discusses meetings, new members of all ages, and a lot of details on design work in some important subsystems. Also mentioned is a meeting photo album.
Saltire Marine Energy Prize
Gizmag has an article on the Saltire Prize for "renewable marine-based energy". I described this in an earlier post, but I thought the article had a cool picture.
Plans for Energy and Environment X PRIZEs
Business Week has an article on the X PRIZE Foundation's goals for its Energy & Environment X PRIZE Suite. The plans for the Biofuels Prize, the next one planned after the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE, are described:
... foundation President Tom Vander Ark said the biofuels prize would be launched late this year, followed by the other categories over the coming two years. The biofuels prize will be worth at least $10 million, he said. ... Among the rules are that contestants must produce a biofuels plant that uses nonagricultural fuel. The plant must also be small-scale and easily shipped, thus making the technology applicable anywhere in the world.
There are also more hints about later energy and environment prizes, with a goal of $100M in prizes:
He says one prize will be for innovation in providing water, broadband, and clean electricity to villages in the developing world. Other energy categories will be for innovation in energy transmission and the construction of energy-efficient houses and commercial facilities.
... foundation President Tom Vander Ark said the biofuels prize would be launched late this year, followed by the other categories over the coming two years. The biofuels prize will be worth at least $10 million, he said. ... Among the rules are that contestants must produce a biofuels plant that uses nonagricultural fuel. The plant must also be small-scale and easily shipped, thus making the technology applicable anywhere in the world.
There are also more hints about later energy and environment prizes, with a goal of $100M in prizes:
He says one prize will be for innovation in providing water, broadband, and clean electricity to villages in the developing world. Other energy categories will be for innovation in energy transmission and the construction of energy-efficient houses and commercial facilities.
Monday, April 28, 2008
New Japanese Beam Power Team
The Space Elevator Blog interviews a new beam power competitor. The interviewee notes that, on top of all the other hurdles inherent in the Beam Power Challenge, it's going to be especially difficult for overseas teams this year to transport the equipment needed to win the difficult challenge to the competition site. They're still going for it, though, which shows the spirit of these prize teams.
The Moon on a Shoestring
Hometown Annapolis has an article on local space entrepreneur Liam Sarsfield of Google Lunar X PRIZE team Quantum3. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Mr. Sarsfield's work for the Rand Corp. entitled, "The Cosmos on a Shoestring," is widely considered the primer on smaller scale space exploration.
Mr. Sarsfield and his two prime partners, Paul Carliner and Courtney Stadd, both veterans of the U.S. space program, said putting a much smaller craft on the surface is easier to do than the larger craft in the Apollo program, and they don't have to bring anyone home.
The 30-person American team hopes to take home the prize with a launch some time next year.
Their ambitions go beyond the prize:
In addition to rising to the challenge of the Google Lunar X PRIZE, Quantum 3 is developing plans to move well beyond the prize mission. He said the goal is to be able to continue missions that are reliable.
"We will be able to do this quickly, effectively and repeatedly," he said. "We have a mission planned to land on Mars. We also are aiming to land a craft on an asteroid."
They want to get the public involved, with a mission control glassed in a public area, and with a lot of types of student participation.
Mr. Sarsfield's work for the Rand Corp. entitled, "The Cosmos on a Shoestring," is widely considered the primer on smaller scale space exploration.
Mr. Sarsfield and his two prime partners, Paul Carliner and Courtney Stadd, both veterans of the U.S. space program, said putting a much smaller craft on the surface is easier to do than the larger craft in the Apollo program, and they don't have to bring anyone home.
The 30-person American team hopes to take home the prize with a launch some time next year.
Their ambitions go beyond the prize:
In addition to rising to the challenge of the Google Lunar X PRIZE, Quantum 3 is developing plans to move well beyond the prize mission. He said the goal is to be able to continue missions that are reliable.
"We will be able to do this quickly, effectively and repeatedly," he said. "We have a mission planned to land on Mars. We also are aiming to land a craft on an asteroid."
They want to get the public involved, with a mission control glassed in a public area, and with a lot of types of student participation.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
More X PRIZE Foundation Insights From Diamandis Talk
I took some notes on the Peter Diamandis podcast from the Stanford Entrepreneurs program, but am only now getting a chance to post them. It was a wide-ranging interview, and I only noted things that were new to me, or at least a different perspective on something old ... and also I only noted things about prizes. In other words, the notes are quite selective, and barely give an idea of the content of the talk. Your interests or background may be different, in which case you might want to listen to the podcast. Here are my notes:
They're working on various new X PRIZEs:
- a series of deep ocean prizes, for example, to map the ocean floor
- a cancer prize with Lance Armstrong
- a human longevity prize, with a goal to double or triple the healthy human lifespan
For those interested, they do have summer internships.
They're investigating an idea on "Mega-Prizes" for things that seem almost impossible now.
In the Q/A session, someone asked Peter to expand on the undersea X PRIZEs. His response:
They're working with various people, including advisory board members like James Cameron, on the prize. Only 3% of the ocean floor has been mapped, and even with that small fraction we've found the biggest "waterfalls", underground lakes, and mountain ranges. Deep ocean thermal vents are of special interest. Over the next year they'll decide what the ocean prizes should be. Possibilities:
- design of robotic technology to swarm and cooperatively map the ocean floor
- new human exploration technology (we're still using the MIR submersibles from 30 years ago for deep ocean exploration)
- ocean health
The deep ocean exploration community is stuck in the same way that the space community was stuck.
Peter also described an idea called "My X PRIZE". This is for people to join together to form prize concepts for their local community, or perhaps for a "thin community" around the world like those interested in curing a rare disease. They would make a set of prize rules. It's meant for lower prize amounts like $1,000 to $1M. The idea is to make efficient marketplaces for problems and problem solvers. (My comment: That sounds a bit like an Innocentive for communities).
They're working on various new X PRIZEs:
- a series of deep ocean prizes, for example, to map the ocean floor
- a cancer prize with Lance Armstrong
- a human longevity prize, with a goal to double or triple the healthy human lifespan
For those interested, they do have summer internships.
They're investigating an idea on "Mega-Prizes" for things that seem almost impossible now.
In the Q/A session, someone asked Peter to expand on the undersea X PRIZEs. His response:
They're working with various people, including advisory board members like James Cameron, on the prize. Only 3% of the ocean floor has been mapped, and even with that small fraction we've found the biggest "waterfalls", underground lakes, and mountain ranges. Deep ocean thermal vents are of special interest. Over the next year they'll decide what the ocean prizes should be. Possibilities:
- design of robotic technology to swarm and cooperatively map the ocean floor
- new human exploration technology (we're still using the MIR submersibles from 30 years ago for deep ocean exploration)
- ocean health
The deep ocean exploration community is stuck in the same way that the space community was stuck.
Peter also described an idea called "My X PRIZE". This is for people to join together to form prize concepts for their local community, or perhaps for a "thin community" around the world like those interested in curing a rare disease. They would make a set of prize rules. It's meant for lower prize amounts like $1,000 to $1M. The idea is to make efficient marketplaces for problems and problem solvers. (My comment: That sounds a bit like an Innocentive for communities).
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Slate on Prizes
In my earlier post on the PETA chicken meat prize, I noticed another Slate article that asks the question Should the government start handing out prizes for science breakthroughs? The discussion is framed in the classic economic political and academic controversy over inefficiencies in the existing patent system in encouraging certain types of socially beneficial innovations. (See the articles in the "Papers" section - and their references - on the right for much more of this). The article mentions the Sanders bill to replace patents with prizes, a wholesale change that I think would be very risky and have a lot of obvious drawbacks.
Prizes have great advantages in particular situations, especially, as we've seen, prizes targeted towards specific, well-defined and well-chosen innovation objectives. I think they'd lose most of their benefits in a wholesale replacement like the Sanders proposal.
The Slate article's author seems to have a similar opinion:
The successful prizes—that is, those that found a winner—tended to have a few features in common. They were usually for solutions to specific, clearly defined problems, rather than being part of a blanket system to reward all innovations. They also allotted a generous amount of time for the feat to be accomplished before the prize expired (if it expired at all); they offered high rewards that presumably outweighed the costs of research as well as the profits that could be earned from diverting resources into alternate endeavors; and they were high-profile, guaranteeing the prizewinner fame as well as fortune.
I doubt that the rewards outweighed the costs of research and opportunity costs if you're just considering the monetary prize, but combined with other parts of the reward (the fame, the move towards a business, the fun etc), that must have been true, or at least expected by the competitors. I agree with the rest of the excerpt above without similar qualifications.
The Slate article concludes with a recommendation that doesn't try to kill the patent system, but rather that gives the innovator a choice to go for the patent (with the resulting monopoly that has a cost for society) or accept a prizes in exchange:
The good news is we don't need to punt the whole patent system to promote research for neglected diseases or other worthy causes. Instead of setting up an industrywide prize system, a few reputable charities (or a government agency with a brilliant PR team and an ironclad escrow account) should offer attractive prizes for solutions to carefully chosen problems. After all, if a malaria-vaccine prize could match or even surpass the expected profits for a weight-loss/hair-growth/allergy drug, companies would follow the money. And if the prize were given on condition of forgoing a patent, the drugs could still be manufactured royalty-free.
Prizes have great advantages in particular situations, especially, as we've seen, prizes targeted towards specific, well-defined and well-chosen innovation objectives. I think they'd lose most of their benefits in a wholesale replacement like the Sanders proposal.
The Slate article's author seems to have a similar opinion:
The successful prizes—that is, those that found a winner—tended to have a few features in common. They were usually for solutions to specific, clearly defined problems, rather than being part of a blanket system to reward all innovations. They also allotted a generous amount of time for the feat to be accomplished before the prize expired (if it expired at all); they offered high rewards that presumably outweighed the costs of research as well as the profits that could be earned from diverting resources into alternate endeavors; and they were high-profile, guaranteeing the prizewinner fame as well as fortune.
I doubt that the rewards outweighed the costs of research and opportunity costs if you're just considering the monetary prize, but combined with other parts of the reward (the fame, the move towards a business, the fun etc), that must have been true, or at least expected by the competitors. I agree with the rest of the excerpt above without similar qualifications.
The Slate article concludes with a recommendation that doesn't try to kill the patent system, but rather that gives the innovator a choice to go for the patent (with the resulting monopoly that has a cost for society) or accept a prizes in exchange:
The good news is we don't need to punt the whole patent system to promote research for neglected diseases or other worthy causes. Instead of setting up an industrywide prize system, a few reputable charities (or a government agency with a brilliant PR team and an ironclad escrow account) should offer attractive prizes for solutions to carefully chosen problems. After all, if a malaria-vaccine prize could match or even surpass the expected profits for a weight-loss/hair-growth/allergy drug, companies would follow the money. And if the prize were given on condition of forgoing a patent, the drugs could still be manufactured royalty-free.
N-Prize Team?
RLV News has more on the N-Prize, including a team that may try to win it, CU Spaceflight. "CU" is for Cambridge University. They have a lot of other activities. The comments include a clarification by the sponsor. (As usual I assume no impostors - I can't check up on every poster).
Popular Mechanics DNA Day X PRIZE Article
Inside the Forgotten X Prize—the One That Can Save Your Life - From the title, it seems like Popular Mechanics doesn't think the Archon X PRIZE gets enough attention. This article lets you know some of the potential benefits of the prize for the general public, and features some pictures and descriptions of one of the teams' sequencers, the Polonator.
Local Team American Rocketry Articles Continue; MSFC Student Launch Initiative
More on TARC finalist teams:
Team from Air Force's national museum qualifies for world's largest rocket contest
- This is about a team from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, which features the team on their front web page. The team's rocket's name is "Falcon 1". The article also has a few pictures.
TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL NOTES - This is from The Oregonian. One of the brief notes is on a TARC team.
Rocket team blasts off to finals - This one is from DelmarvaNow!.com. It not only features the team, but mentions the demographic problem the aerospace industry faces, and how TARC is trying to let students know about the opportunities in the space industry.
Note entirely unrelated, MSFC has an article about the Student Launch Initiative happening right now.
Team from Air Force's national museum qualifies for world's largest rocket contest
- This is about a team from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, which features the team on their front web page. The team's rocket's name is "Falcon 1". The article also has a few pictures.
TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL NOTES - This is from The Oregonian. One of the brief notes is on a TARC team.
Rocket team blasts off to finals - This one is from DelmarvaNow!.com. It not only features the team, but mentions the demographic problem the aerospace industry faces, and how TARC is trying to let students know about the opportunities in the space industry.
Note entirely unrelated, MSFC has an article about the Student Launch Initiative happening right now.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Big KC Space Pirates Sponsorship and Media News
The Space Elevator Blog has some important news from the KC Space Pirates. Better yet, it's a 2-for-1 news update. First, KC Space Pirate Brian Turner tells us:
I am going to be interviewed about the Space Elevator on NBC’s Late Night with Conan O’Brien.
Date Friday May 2nd
Time: Very late. After the Tonight Show - Around 11:30 in Kansas City
I have read repots estimating 2 million viewers.
That's a cool way to get the news out about the Challenge. You never know how something like this is going to turn out, of course. Hopefully the audience will get a sense not just of the potential of these games and the technologies (for example power beaming not just for space elevators but for all sorts of other applications, including space and Earth applications) but also of the fun involved. This could bring a lot more fans to the Games.
The other news, again straight from the SE Blog post:
We have landed National Instruments as a sponsor. For those of you who don’t know them, they make the coolest automation software out there (LabView) and all the hardware to go with it.
It would be good if the media attention results in more sponsorships all around.
Another Space Elevator Blog post links to video from the 2008 Space Elevator Games from Bitter Jester Creative. The KC Space Pirates also have a post with the video links. Bitter Jester is making a documentary on the Games.
Meanwhile, USST's main page has an April 15 note on the end of the semester, and there's also a note from the new President of the team I haven't seen before (I'm not sure how old it is, though).
I am going to be interviewed about the Space Elevator on NBC’s Late Night with Conan O’Brien.
Date Friday May 2nd
Time: Very late. After the Tonight Show - Around 11:30 in Kansas City
I have read repots estimating 2 million viewers.
That's a cool way to get the news out about the Challenge. You never know how something like this is going to turn out, of course. Hopefully the audience will get a sense not just of the potential of these games and the technologies (for example power beaming not just for space elevators but for all sorts of other applications, including space and Earth applications) but also of the fun involved. This could bring a lot more fans to the Games.
The other news, again straight from the SE Blog post:
We have landed National Instruments as a sponsor. For those of you who don’t know them, they make the coolest automation software out there (LabView) and all the hardware to go with it.
It would be good if the media attention results in more sponsorships all around.
Another Space Elevator Blog post links to video from the 2008 Space Elevator Games from Bitter Jester Creative. The KC Space Pirates also have a post with the video links. Bitter Jester is making a documentary on the Games.
Meanwhile, USST's main page has an April 15 note on the end of the semester, and there's also a note from the new President of the team I haven't seen before (I'm not sure how old it is, though).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
