Sunday, December 30, 2007
Catching up on Unreasonable Rocket
I'm a bit late on this, but Unreasonable Rocket continues to be busy on the Lunar Lander Challenge and some other rocketry fun. A good portion of the activity is covered in the comments.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Energy Victory Interviews
I recently posted about Robert Zubrin's book Energy Victory, which advocates mandating all vehicles sold in the U.S. be flex-fueled (by which he means not just supporting ethanol and gasoline, but also methanol). The link above also describes some legislation supported by an organization he mentions in the book that includes flex-fuel and automotive prize provisions.
In a Space Show interview, Zubrin mentioned that the publisher is out of the book for now, and at the moment amazon.com still shows that it's out of stock. That's too bad - making a big post on a book you can't get. You can still get an overview of the idea, though, in the following interviews.
The Space Show - Dec 18 Zubrin interview, mainly on Energy Victory, but also linking the proposal to space efforts.
C-SPAN2 - 10:00 EST, Dec 29, Zubrin talk on Energy Victory at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
C-SPAN video library - I think this is the same talk that C-SPAN2 is playing tonight. In this case you can watch it on your own schedule on your computer.
Your mileage may vary -- I find his arguments that rely the most on his technical background rather than world politics or predicting the secondary results of the change to be the most convincing. Try to get to those parts.
In a Space Show interview, Zubrin mentioned that the publisher is out of the book for now, and at the moment amazon.com still shows that it's out of stock. That's too bad - making a big post on a book you can't get. You can still get an overview of the idea, though, in the following interviews.
The Space Show - Dec 18 Zubrin interview, mainly on Energy Victory, but also linking the proposal to space efforts.
C-SPAN2 - 10:00 EST, Dec 29, Zubrin talk on Energy Victory at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
C-SPAN video library - I think this is the same talk that C-SPAN2 is playing tonight. In this case you can watch it on your own schedule on your computer.
Your mileage may vary -- I find his arguments that rely the most on his technical background rather than world politics or predicting the secondary results of the change to be the most convincing. Try to get to those parts.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Lunar X PRIZE Team FREDNET
CNBC has an article about another potential Google Lunar X PRIZE team, Team FREDNET. A lot of the article content is in the video. The team is using an open source approach.
The article is in "Funny Business :) with Jane Wells" ... are they trying to tell us that the giggle factor is still there?
Update (Sunday Dec. 30): The Team FREDNET blog has a post about the CNBC article.
The article is in "Funny Business :) with Jane Wells" ... are they trying to tell us that the giggle factor is still there?
Update (Sunday Dec. 30): The Team FREDNET blog has a post about the CNBC article.
Is It Legal?
The Space Law Probe notes that there's a Google Lunar X PRIZE wager/trade capability at Intrade. This one is down towards the bottom of the Flyby list.
Mars Impact?
NASA Watch reports on an asteroid that may impact Mars. I mention this here because, although I'm fond of space access prizes, one of my favorite ideas for a prize - one that seems to me to fit very nicely with the advantages of prizes over other ways of getting things done, and one that perhaps doesn't even need to be in the millions of dollars to work - is a prize for detecting natural objects that will impact the Earth. I described this idea in one of my earliest posts (announcing the Planetary Society Apophis Mission Design Competition). One of the questions I asked about how the rules for such a prize should be designed was:
Would there be a bonus for detecting small impacts, or impacts to other solar system bodies, in advance so the impact can be monitored by scientific instruments?
At any rate, the (currently 4% with the data available) chance that we could see a decent-sized impact at Mars makes the Apophis competition all the more interesting.
Would there be a bonus for detecting small impacts, or impacts to other solar system bodies, in advance so the impact can be monitored by scientific instruments?
At any rate, the (currently 4% with the data available) chance that we could see a decent-sized impact at Mars makes the Apophis competition all the more interesting.
2008 NASA Budget Under the Microscope
Space Politics has an interesting post and comment discussion reviewing NASA's 2008 budget. As I mentioned earlier, Centennial Challenges is again not funded at all. I'm not sure if the will is there to correct that problem next year. Centennial Challenges is mentioned in one of the comments to the Space Politics post:
Of important note are the site-specific earmarks in the bill. I counted 81 such earmarks totalling over $83 million. A PDF of the bill is here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/omni/jes/jesdivb.pdf
The earmarks start on page 118 in the PDF (page 113 in the document).
It’s really hard to see the NASA connection in many of these earmarks. Some would appear to belong to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and even the Department of Health and Human Services. Here’s a sample:
... here the comment includes a long list of earmarks - but only a small fraction of the actual list - any of which would have been able to kick off at least one new Centennial Challenge ...
It’s very sad that Congress is willing to levy $83 million worth of uncompeted, low-return, and often non-relevant activities on NASA, but can’t find a lousy $4 million to expand and improve the number of highly competitive, high-return, highly relevant technology inducement prizes in the Centennial Challenges program, or $78 million to fully fund innovative, high-leverage, government/industry COTS partnerships that are proving to be critical to covering the “gap”.
This is only part of one comment in an interesting discussion on the budget that so far concentrates on the NASA COTS and Constellation funding problems.
I encourage you to check out the full Space Politics discussion, and also the budget document. To make the budget document fun, see which earmarks you'd like to replace with a Centennial Challenge or some other preference. The budget document includes the dollar amounts and descriptions for the various earmarks. For comparison, the Centennial Challenges program was looking for a modest $4M this year, and individual Centennial Challenge prize competitions so far have been in the ballpark of $1M (varying from prize to prize, and changing from year to year for most prizes).
Of important note are the site-specific earmarks in the bill. I counted 81 such earmarks totalling over $83 million. A PDF of the bill is here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/omni/jes/jesdivb.pdf
The earmarks start on page 118 in the PDF (page 113 in the document).
It’s really hard to see the NASA connection in many of these earmarks. Some would appear to belong to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and even the Department of Health and Human Services. Here’s a sample:
... here the comment includes a long list of earmarks - but only a small fraction of the actual list - any of which would have been able to kick off at least one new Centennial Challenge ...
It’s very sad that Congress is willing to levy $83 million worth of uncompeted, low-return, and often non-relevant activities on NASA, but can’t find a lousy $4 million to expand and improve the number of highly competitive, high-return, highly relevant technology inducement prizes in the Centennial Challenges program, or $78 million to fully fund innovative, high-leverage, government/industry COTS partnerships that are proving to be critical to covering the “gap”.
This is only part of one comment in an interesting discussion on the budget that so far concentrates on the NASA COTS and Constellation funding problems.
I encourage you to check out the full Space Politics discussion, and also the budget document. To make the budget document fun, see which earmarks you'd like to replace with a Centennial Challenge or some other preference. The budget document includes the dollar amounts and descriptions for the various earmarks. For comparison, the Centennial Challenges program was looking for a modest $4M this year, and individual Centennial Challenge prize competitions so far have been in the ballpark of $1M (varying from prize to prize, and changing from year to year for most prizes).
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Heinlein Centennial Short Story Contest
A couple months ago (sorry I missed it then), the Heinlein Society presented the rules for the 2008 Heinlein Centennial Short Story Contest. Entries are due June 1, 2008. First prize gets $5,000; second and third get $2,000 and $1,000, respectively.
Geneticists in a Candy Shop
Nature Genetics asks numerous geneticists
What would you do if it became possible to sequence the equivalent of a full human genome for only $1,000?
There are as many diverse and useful-sounding answers as geneticists answering the question. Actually, most of them couldn't contain themselves, and gave several different projects they'd like to see happen.
What would you do if it became possible to sequence the equivalent of a full human genome for only $1,000?
There are as many diverse and useful-sounding answers as geneticists answering the question. Actually, most of them couldn't contain themselves, and gave several different projects they'd like to see happen.
SpaceDev and the Moon
A Babe in the Universe discusses the Moon, with an emphasis on SpaceDev. The discussion brushes by the Lunar Lander Challenge, SpaceShipOne from the Ansari X PRIZE, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.
Mprize Newsletter
The Methuselah Foundation blog presents a detailed progress report, including a lot of information about the Mprize. The Mprize information is at the end of the post. For example:
The Mprize is designed to jumpstart scientific research into life-extending biomedicine with the twin incentives of (1) a large cash award, and (2) a prestigious public victory in a prominent research competition. The support of our generous donors is the key to this strategy: the magnetic draw of the Prize grows with every dollar pledged to this program. Therefore, we are pleased to report a substantial increase in the total amount of money in the Mprize fund, which now stands at $4.6 million.
They expect to get more competitor teams soon. They also have some ideas on lowering the costs of doing business for the teams. One is to outsource mouse trials. Another is described below:
Another way of limiting the cost and time required to perform anti-aging studies in mice is to encourage more researchers to compete in the Rejuvenation arm of the Mprize, which requires researchers to test their interventions in 16-month-old mice (instead of starting at weaning, as in the Longevity prize). Most of the Foundation's donors already favor the Rejuvenation Prize over the Longevity Prize by a very large margin, as measured in completed pledges to the two Prize funds: $1.48 million vs. $0.16 million - a ratio of more than 9 to 1. This preference is based on the urgent need to develop interventions that can extend the healthy life spans of people who are already middle-aged, in hopes that people alive today can still be rescued from a death by biological decay brought on by the aging process.
The Mprize is designed to jumpstart scientific research into life-extending biomedicine with the twin incentives of (1) a large cash award, and (2) a prestigious public victory in a prominent research competition. The support of our generous donors is the key to this strategy: the magnetic draw of the Prize grows with every dollar pledged to this program. Therefore, we are pleased to report a substantial increase in the total amount of money in the Mprize fund, which now stands at $4.6 million.
They expect to get more competitor teams soon. They also have some ideas on lowering the costs of doing business for the teams. One is to outsource mouse trials. Another is described below:
Another way of limiting the cost and time required to perform anti-aging studies in mice is to encourage more researchers to compete in the Rejuvenation arm of the Mprize, which requires researchers to test their interventions in 16-month-old mice (instead of starting at weaning, as in the Longevity prize). Most of the Foundation's donors already favor the Rejuvenation Prize over the Longevity Prize by a very large margin, as measured in completed pledges to the two Prize funds: $1.48 million vs. $0.16 million - a ratio of more than 9 to 1. This preference is based on the urgent need to develop interventions that can extend the healthy life spans of people who are already middle-aged, in hopes that people alive today can still be rescued from a death by biological decay brought on by the aging process.
What To Do When You Want a Bigger Energy Bill
From the X PRIZE Foundation, Tom Vander Ark looks at the somewhat indadequate steps of the recent Energy Bill, which he doesn't expect to be able to deliver either energy independence or sufficiently reduced pollution:
The recently signed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does little to improve independence or security. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a few small steps in the right direction but it’s not leadership, it’s bringing up the rear. By the time fleet averages are required to reach 35 mpg in 2020 the climate game will be lost. That’s about all we can expect out of a congress that is increasingly partisan and decreasingly able to address complex problems.
As is so often the case, solutions have to come from the private sphere. He lists a number of growing private efforts, including:
Prizes. A suite of X PRIZEs launched in the next 24 months will advance a set of compelling, difficult but achievable goals and will mobilize investors and entrepreneurs around the world to take big smart green risks. The results will include important breakthroughs, changed public perception, and reshaped markets.
The recently signed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does little to improve independence or security. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a few small steps in the right direction but it’s not leadership, it’s bringing up the rear. By the time fleet averages are required to reach 35 mpg in 2020 the climate game will be lost. That’s about all we can expect out of a congress that is increasingly partisan and decreasingly able to address complex problems.
As is so often the case, solutions have to come from the private sphere. He lists a number of growing private efforts, including:
Prizes. A suite of X PRIZEs launched in the next 24 months will advance a set of compelling, difficult but achievable goals and will mobilize investors and entrepreneurs around the world to take big smart green risks. The results will include important breakthroughs, changed public perception, and reshaped markets.
DeltaX and LaserMotive in the Media
The Space Elevator Blog features a BBC video that covers the Space Elevator Games, including representative teams in the Beam Power and Tether Challenges. It also gives a background on the space elevator concept.
Monday, December 24, 2007
All We Need Is a Good Map
Barbylon discusses the NASA budget in the context of lunar landers:
As NASA is underfunded in its ambitious Exploration program, it decided to cut the RLEP-2 lunar lander last year, saying all it needed for return to the Moon was "a good map." That might be true if you want to just land once, look around, and fly away. But this return to the Moon (we hope) will be so much more than that.
Yes, that "good map" statement (and related NASA decisions that seem to indicate the statement was made in all seriousness) was one of the more absurd ones we heard this year. If we returned to the Moon with humans with just the good map from precursor robotics, would we know where to go, what to do there, or why we're bothering? NASA's exploration program
is fortunate that foreign space programs, NASA's own Discovery program, and perhaps the Google Lunar X PRIZE are helping fill in some of the gaps while they concentrate on another NASA-designed and operated rocket or 2.
Barbylon compares small Lunar X PRIZE style missions to the bigger ones we might see from MSFC:
There are a lot of ideas out there for ultra-low-cost lunar missions, like little rovers for the Google Lunar X-Prize and other small sats. I'm all for creative design of lunar micro-orbiter or micro-landers. They could send back some cool photos or movies, and it would certainly generate a lot of excitement, which is political capital. But, those class of spacecraft can't do the real tasks that scientists and engineers need as part of renewed exploration - that is, sophisticated sample analysis at multiple sites, self-similar platforms to test human lander components, and sample return. To accomplish these significant tasks, we need a more serious investment. Even if you think NASA costs are bloated, try cutting them in half. The MER rovers cost $850 to launch. Cut it in half, then half again for a single lander - you're still over $200M.
I'd still like to see what kinds of cheap lunar missions Ames would come up with. I suspect they'd return more than just cool photos or movies, at a much lower cost than most would expect. Of course I don't know this for sure without seeing the proposals. Ames, bring 'em on!
It could easily be the case that multiple lunar missions in a sort of FDA food pyramid, with the big missions in the "Use Sparingly" category, would be the best approach.
I'd also like to see NASA encourage the Google Lunar X PRIZE teams to help NASA's goals by giving bonus prizes for meeting objectives of use to NASA. This could be, for example, scouting locations where NASA is considering sending humans, making specific science measurements, demonstrating some engineering capability, or delivering some small NASA payload. With this approach, a little incentive could go a long way. I'm not sure whether or not this meets the letter of the law of Lunar X PRIZE rules limiting government funding of teams, but it seems to meet the spirit, and is an opportunity NASA shouldn't miss.
As NASA is underfunded in its ambitious Exploration program, it decided to cut the RLEP-2 lunar lander last year, saying all it needed for return to the Moon was "a good map." That might be true if you want to just land once, look around, and fly away. But this return to the Moon (we hope) will be so much more than that.
Yes, that "good map" statement (and related NASA decisions that seem to indicate the statement was made in all seriousness) was one of the more absurd ones we heard this year. If we returned to the Moon with humans with just the good map from precursor robotics, would we know where to go, what to do there, or why we're bothering? NASA's exploration program
is fortunate that foreign space programs, NASA's own Discovery program, and perhaps the Google Lunar X PRIZE are helping fill in some of the gaps while they concentrate on another NASA-designed and operated rocket or 2.
Barbylon compares small Lunar X PRIZE style missions to the bigger ones we might see from MSFC:
There are a lot of ideas out there for ultra-low-cost lunar missions, like little rovers for the Google Lunar X-Prize and other small sats. I'm all for creative design of lunar micro-orbiter or micro-landers. They could send back some cool photos or movies, and it would certainly generate a lot of excitement, which is political capital. But, those class of spacecraft can't do the real tasks that scientists and engineers need as part of renewed exploration - that is, sophisticated sample analysis at multiple sites, self-similar platforms to test human lander components, and sample return. To accomplish these significant tasks, we need a more serious investment. Even if you think NASA costs are bloated, try cutting them in half. The MER rovers cost $850 to launch. Cut it in half, then half again for a single lander - you're still over $200M.
I'd still like to see what kinds of cheap lunar missions Ames would come up with. I suspect they'd return more than just cool photos or movies, at a much lower cost than most would expect. Of course I don't know this for sure without seeing the proposals. Ames, bring 'em on!
It could easily be the case that multiple lunar missions in a sort of FDA food pyramid, with the big missions in the "Use Sparingly" category, would be the best approach.
I'd also like to see NASA encourage the Google Lunar X PRIZE teams to help NASA's goals by giving bonus prizes for meeting objectives of use to NASA. This could be, for example, scouting locations where NASA is considering sending humans, making specific science measurements, demonstrating some engineering capability, or delivering some small NASA payload. With this approach, a little incentive could go a long way. I'm not sure whether or not this meets the letter of the law of Lunar X PRIZE rules limiting government funding of teams, but it seems to meet the spirit, and is an opportunity NASA shouldn't miss.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Apophis Tagging Mission Animation
Here's an animation of an entry to the Planetary Society's Apophis Mission Design Competition. The comment for the video is:
Based on my ART mission design proposal - an entry for the competition by The Planetary Society, B. Jones from London, UK had made this beautiful animation, bringing a whole new look to my design. Many thanks Jones for your work.
Based on my ART mission design proposal - an entry for the competition by The Planetary Society, B. Jones from London, UK had made this beautiful animation, bringing a whole new look to my design. Many thanks Jones for your work.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Site Covering Automotive X PRIZE
In the comments for the article mentioned in my previous post, I noticed a link to a site that covers the Automotive X PRIZE, X Prize Cars. Since this site is dedicated to covering this one competition, and clearly is covering it in a lot more detail than I am (with pictures, lots more AXP articles, and comparison tables for some AXP entries), I'd recommend going there rather than here if you're interested in that specific prize.
It's great to see a dedicated site, external to the official site, for the AXP. Now if I could only find an independent site totally dedicated to the Google Lunar X PRIZE, another for the Regolith Excavation Challenge, etc ...
It's great to see a dedicated site, external to the official site, for the AXP. Now if I could only find an independent site totally dedicated to the Google Lunar X PRIZE, another for the Regolith Excavation Challenge, etc ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
