Comments on: Prize hearing reminder

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:24:59 +0000

More support for use of prizes. WITNESSES EXPRESS STRONG SUPPORT FOR AEROSPACE PRIZES
$10 Million X-Prize Cited as Success Model
from the House Committee on science.

http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108-287.htm

By: colonist

colonist — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:56:01 +0000

The post-workshop report (PDF) is available.
http://www.centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/2004_cc_workshop_report.pdf

Committee on Science press release:
WITNESSES EXPRESS STRONG SUPPORT FOR AEROSPACE PRIZES
$10 Million X-Prize Cited as Success Model
http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108-287.htm

By: Dwayne A. Day

Dwayne A. Day — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:54:31 +0000

The testimony of Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is online here:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5637&sequence=0

He answered a few of my questions (although not fully). There are still some huge issues to be resolved in all this, such as intellectural property rights for winners, ITAR restrictions, etc. But there’s some good stuff there.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:08:50 +0000

In my opinion, the ultimate Prize would be this:

The US Congress deposits $1 billion or more of current cash in a secure account (not a future appropriation but current cash) and enacted full tax deductions for every private dollar donated to the Fund. The Fund would be operated by a private corporation and should (IMHO) be invested in non-speculative securities. Slow, steady but safe growth.

All money would accumulate indefinitely, whether decades or centuries, and paid in cash to the mother of the first child conceived and born on Mars. Obviously, Mom would have the right to assign her rights to a Terran sponsor corporation, although I favor the proviso that such rights could only be assigned on Earth and in person as one safeguard against unscrupulous behavior.

This Fund would have no interim payouts whatsoever although other prizes could certainly be established.

NO time limit and protections to make sure Congress cannot take the money back, ever.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:06:44 +0000

The canal analogy will only be an issue if the government specifies *how* we develop space capabilities. If it simpy demands a certain level of performance (e.g., a hundred dollars a pound to LEO, with maximum acceleration of, say six gees), then it won’t have to worry about picking the wrong technology or technical approach.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:29:11 +0000

I came away from the AIAA meeting thinking that there was general agreement prizes were very helpful = IF = there was a potential underlying business model to sustain demand AFTER the prize was awarded. The X Prize people are spending money primarily in anticipation of sub-orbital tourism revenue with the X Prize itself being a nice bit of frosting or gravy rather than the meal itself.

Jim Muncy (IIRC) said that unless there was an underlying commercial demand, it might be better to just go with contingent contracts rather than prizes.

Also, mention was made of the 19th centiry US investment in canals, which were built at great taxpayer expense only to be replaced by the railroads. Therefore, it was necessary to devise prizes that “guess right” about the future direction of space infrastructure.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:16:28 +0000

NASA Should Offer Prizes, Cut Red Tape, Officials Say can be found on the http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/ link.
Industry views in article include Elon Musk, Ty McCoy, George Mueller and Michael Kearney all weighing in with their thoughts on this issue.

Prizes can be a great tool but there are times when prises will not be enough for creativity from smaller companies that do not have the capitol to invest on high risk of no returns on investment.