Question 1 asked, “Why has NASA decided to offer prizes for the development of specific, discrete technologies (such as the development of a better astronaut glove) rather than for large technological feats (such as sending a person into orbit)?”

That question was not a rhetorical sucker punch against prizes. Far from it. It is an obvious reference to Senator Sam Brownback’s suggestion (just a month before this particular hearing) that NASA create a $100 million “John Glenn Prize.”

The Committee was asking why NASA didn’t allocate *more* money to *bigger* prizes.

Now, there is an unanswered question for you, Mr. Zelnio.

Why not spend more money on prizes instead of programs like developing Shuttle-derived boosters, which will increase the cost of access space, or creating the international socialist bureaucracy you have advocated?

I’ll bet you once again refuse to answer. Anyone want to give me odds?

“What I have yet to see is someone actually look at Congress’s questions that they posed and create a comprehensive response to them. Go back to the link of the July 16th, 2004 congressional hearing that I posted earlier, look at section 7 and provide some answers to that.”

The problem with these questions is that they’re over two years out-of-date and have largely been superseded by events. Just take a look at the questions posed to the NASA representative at the hearing:

“How does NASA plan to design and administer prizes to induce the greatest possible innovation and advances in space technologies?”

This is self-evident from the prizes NASA has started and executed to date. Each is managed by a non-profit organization at no cost to NASA, which, unlike DARPA’s Grand Challenge, keeps overhead costs to the taxpayer low and maximizes the amount of money available for prizes.

“Why has NASA decided to offer prizes for the development of specific, discrete technologies (such as the development of a better astronaut glove) rather than for large technological feats (such as sending a person into orbit)?”

NASA is not offering prizes for specific, discrete technologies. Some are for breakthroughs in fundamental capabilities (transmitted power and high strength materials in the Space Elevator Prize), others are for beating challenges in component or subsystem capabilities (overcoming the dexterity versus pressurization issue in the Astronaut Glove Prize), and yet others involve flight systems that allow competitors to incorporate a range of different components, subsystems, and approaches to providing a capability (the Lunar Lander Prize).

NASA and the X PRIZE Foundation have also studied options for a prize to send a person into orbit. See article here:

http://www.space.com/news/051208_xprize_hov.html

NASA has a good track record executing smaller prizes across the spectrum of technology development and they’ve studied and are primed to pursue larger prizes.

At this point, the only thing that’s keeping NASA from conducting a larger prize competition is the lack of funding from Congress. It’s time for Congress to stop with the red herrings and lame excuses and fund a larger prize.

“2. How does NASA plan to ensure that technologies resulting from a competition are safe, as well as relevant to NASA’s objectives?”

In the case of the Lunar Lander Prize, the FAA was responsible for ensuring the safety of the public, and Armadillo had to undertake considerable paperwork and tests to get their flight permit.

The technical goals embedded in the rules of the Lunar Lander Prize (flight profile, flight duration, landing site size, landing site terrain, repeated flights, access during turnaround) make the demonstrations relevant to advancing both NASA lunar goals (in terms of vertical landings, delta vee, landing systems, etc.) and the emergent suborbital industry (reusability, turnaround, delta vee, etc.)

Congress doesn’t need more plans from NASA on these topics. They have proof of safe and technically relevant execution in the first Lunar Lander Prize competition. Again, it’s time to ramp up the program and fund more and larger prizes.

“How involved does NASA plan to be in specifying either the technologies that must be developed (or the goal that must be achieved) to win a prize, overseeing the work of companies competing for prizes, and judging the outcomes of prize competitions?”

In all of the NASA prizes to date, prize goals are articulated in terms of capabilities (fly this long, carry this much weight, land in this environment), not specific technical solutions (this propellant, those rockets, that avionics system). Even the fundamental technology goals of the Space Elevator Prize do no dictate the type of power transmission (laser, microwave, etc.) or the type of materials (nanotube, composite, etc.) allowed.

And it appears that the non-profit organizations that manage the competitions for NASA are responsible for assembling the judges for each competition. In any case, the judging panels are dominated by experts from outside NASA, with the occasional NASA expert. This is no doubt a good mix to maintain the integrity of the competitions.

“Are there any models NASA is using in designing its prize program?”

It’s apparent that NASA has drawn from both recent and historical examples of successful prize competitions.

The Astronaut Glove Prize is obviously modeled on the British Longitude Prize. Both focus on a key technical obstacle embedded at a component level that requires innovative thinking, not a massive amount of infrastructure, to overcome. Just as a clockmaker came out of right field to beat astronomers to the Longitude Prize, I suspect we’ll see a fashion designer or garage mechanic beat the professional engineers and win the Astronaut Glove Prize.

The Lunar Lander Prize is obviously modeled on DARPA’s Grand Challenge, where teams run a common race course each year and the best performer (above a certain minimum performance) wins the prize. Again, though, NASA has improved on the DARPA model by having a non-profit (X PRIZE) run the competition using private (Northrup Grumman donated) funds, not taxpayer dollars.

The one model NASA has not yet been able to implement is the X PRIZE or Orteig Prize, a large prize for a first-of flight. But again, that’s a function of lack of Congressional funding, not a lack of NASA management or imagination.

“What are the benefits and drawbacks of prizes over other ways the government can spur innovation within the private sector? Are prizes better at drawing participation from non-traditional players in private sector who are not normally involved in government contracts?”

This is self-evident from the results of the first year of the Lunar Lander Prize. A new company (Armadillo) demonstrated a reusable, VTVL vehicle with significantly improved turnaround times and for pennies on the dollar when compared to similar efforts (e.g., DC-X).

I’d also note that NASA has not limited competitors to private sector companies. The Space Elevator Prize is dominated by university, student, and hobbyist teams, for example. This is good, because prizes are about identifying the best performing solution through actual performance, and the wider the field, the better the competition.

Again, to sum up, Congress’s questions have been asked and answered, not only on paper and in testimony but by NASA’s actual performance in implementing, executing, and managing a number of competitions.

What more could Congress want? There’s nothing more that NASA can do at this point to prove that prizes are effective tools and that NASA can effectively wield this tool. Time to dispense with the dithering, the red herrings, and false premises, ramp up the program, and fund more and larger prize competitions at NASA. As much as I support all of NASA’s activities to one degree or another, given the high performance and cost-effectiveness of this program to date, I can’t think of a better place to put an extra dollar at NASA.

As for Congressional attention, that needs to be focused on much bigger NASA programs with actual problems (Ares I, Constellation, RLEP). For example, it would have been nice to have asked some of the questions from the prize hearing when NASA’s lunar architecture was released.

Or to ask them now…

“The reason why this has not been put up yet is that there is no market for them. NASA has refused to even state that they would design the CEV or any other of their missions to have the capability for in-orbit servicing/refueling.”

Sorry, this is a patently false statement. Mike Griffin spent four pages of a speech to the American Astronautical Society describing how the Earth departure stage in the Constellation architecture is specifically sized and powered with the intent of leveraging future in-space fueling capabilities. See pages 6-9 in this PDF:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/145277main_STABreakfastremarks3-22-06final.pdf

And in-space fueling is repeatedly mentioned by other senior NASA managers in their speeches, for example by Shana Dale on page 4 of the following speech:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/145277main_STABreakfastremarks3-22-06final.pdf

In-space fueling clearly fits into NASA’s plans, there is clearly a future market for it, and it’s yet another market for new, lower-cost launch service providers like Space-X, Rocketplane-Kistler, etc. to address.

Even without this framework in place, NASA’s charter obviously includes the advancement of new aerospace technologies, which alone is justification enough for prizes that support the development of in-space fueling technologies and systems. Especially now that we rely on Russian capabilities for refueling and reboost of the ISS.

But with this framework in place, it really is time to drop the red herrings about NASA prizes for technologies or demonstrations of in-space fueling capabilities. To argue otherwise ignores the facts at hand and is just plain silly.

Folks with experience and expertise like Mr. Zelnio should absolutely weigh in on the specific technical goals and rules of such a competition when NASA releases the draft rules. But with the need so apparent and the long-lead times involved, Congress needs to appropriate the funding for one or more in-space fueling prizes now.

I don’t want people to get me wrong or put words in my mouth like Mr. Wright has seemed to have done. I am not said anywhere that I am opposed to the centennial challenge. I merely brought up the arguments that have been made in congress, which you would have realized had you followed any of the links I had posted. The original intent of this chain was to look at Congress’ view of centennial challenges and why it was not funded.

What I have yet to see is someone actually look at Congress’s questions that they posed and create a comprehensive response to them. Go back to the link of the July 16th, 2004 congressional hearing that I posted earlier, look at section 7 and provide some answers to that. There are thousands of lobbyists and federal agencies asking congress to appropriate $10M to their projects, and just like other agencies, NASA needs to provide adequate reasons as to why theirs should be funded to Congress. I would challenge someone here who was very passionate about these prizes to go and write an article and post it on the space review or some other public place that addressed the questions Congress asked as I think many of them are quite valid and pertinent questions.

As for orbital fuel depots, I am very much a fan of them and in a previous job I had did a lot of research on them. It is my belief that the technology to create them has been available for quite some time within the large space contractors and could probably be built for less than $200 million. The reason why this has not been put up yet is that there is no market for them. NASA has refused to even state that they would design the CEV or any other of their missions to have the capability for in-orbit servicing/refueling. Comsat manufacturers and operators are way too conservative to ever be early adopters of this and would wait to see someone else using it first. Add to that the fact that many of the comsat manufacturers use different fuels for their spacecraft so the question opens up as to what type of fuel to stock up your depot with. The NASA challenge I believe was geared towards a LOX and hydrogen solution which not one comsat uses especially as hydrogen fuel would involve having to added cryo to a spacecraft which would be expensive.

Now also add to that the issue of how does the fuel depot refuel itself. How expensive would it be given today’s current launchers? What will it take to create a full supply chain? Who is going to pay for it? In fact another problem with the centennial challenges is it doesn’t address who pays to launch to the depot in the first place. A $10M prize wouldn’t even cover the launch costs, not to mention insurance costs.

I do think an orbital depot is essential in the long-term for us to be a space faring society. It is just that all these questions combine to make me personally think if THIS PARTICULAR prize has been well thought out in the first place. I personally prefer the approach DARPA is taking in funding missions like Orbital Express to get us to a point where orbital depots make sense.

And to make sure no one takes this the wrong way, my critique of the depot prize does not reflect my thoughts on other prizes in any way, shape, or form.

As for my article on ILDA, that is a completely different subject which I would be happy to discuss with you Edward via email as it really has nothing to do with this discussion other than for you to attempt to attack my character. I’d love to talk with you if you’re really interested in critiquing ILDA. There was also a lengthy discussion of the article on the T.L. James’ blog in which I clarified some of my positions: http://www.marsblog.net/archives/001654.html

But was there a market before the X-prise was won? It seems to me there was no more market at the time the X-prise was started for sub-orbital tourism than there is now for, say, an orbital fuel depot. However, I suspect that, like the X-prise, build it and someone may find a marketable use for it.

— Donald

Last December, Mr. Zelnio called for the creation of a massive international socialist space bureaucracy. Such an “International Lunar Development Agency” would, of course, be funded mainly by the United States.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/510/1

Mr. Zelnio wants government funding of this socialist agency to be “mandatory.” In the best euro-socialist tradition, mandatory contributions would be based on each nation’s GNP. “From each according to his ability….”

On the one hand, Mr. Zelnio opposes allocating a mere $10 million to Centennial Challenges because there’s no proof (in his mind) that prizes are effective.

On the other hand, he wants the US government to commit to “mandatory funding” (which would doubtless run into many hundreds of billions) for an International Lunar Development Agency. There’s an enormous double standard here. Does Mr. Zelnio have proof that socialism, Marxian economics, and international bureaucracies are effective?

All of the questions being asked about prizes could also be asked about Zelnio’s international bureaucracy. Would ILDA pick the right areas to research? Would it be run the right way? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be prudent and see how the current socialist experiments (ISS, Amtrak, Cuba) play out before setting aside money for an even more expensive experiment?

Which is more of a risk, spending $10 million on an approach that has “unanswered questions” or spending $100 billion on an approach that we know doesn’t work?

“There may not be proof of the end-to-end cost effectivenss of NASA prizes,”

I disagree. For the first year of the Lunar Lander Prize, NASA has paid out nothing, in terms of actual prize dollars or money to run the competition. And in return, a new company has demonstrated a reusable VTVL rocket with turnaround times and development costs that are a fraction of what went before (e.g., DC-X).

Considerable technical gain in the numerator; no cost to the taxpayer in the denominator. If that ain’t a cost-effective ratio, I don’t know what is.

Time for Congressional staff stop nitpicking Centennial Challenges based on inaccurate information and false premises, ramp the program up with dollars for more and larger prizes, and turn their attention to much bigger problems elsewhere at NASA.

“But there is a need to prove that NASA prizes work — understand the difference?”

Sure. But we have evidence that NASA sponsors effective prize competitions. Witness the results of the Lunar Lander Prize after only six months of competition. Armadillo demonstrated a reusable VTVL rocket with turnaround times significantly shorter than any demonstrated to date and for pennies on the dollar compared to comparable vehicles (e.g., DC-X). If that ain’t the definition of a prize competition that “works”, I don’t know what is.

>>Are they picking the right areas to sponsor prizes?

Yes. The rules in the Lunar Lander Prize make the vehicles relevant to both lunar exploration (in terms of delta-v and landing system capabilities) and to Earth-based suborbital applications. It’s a win-win for NASA and a nascent industry. If that’s not the definition of the “right area” to run a prize competition, I don’t know what is.

>>Are they being run the right way?

Yes. NASA provides the prize money, but the X PRIZE Foundation runs the competition at no cost to NASA. The X PRIZE Foundation garners public interest in the competition by holding it at their annual X PRIZE Cup and solicits private sponsorship to cover operating expenses, in this case the Northrup Grumman Corporation.

In fact, one could argue that NASA manages prize competitions better than DARPA because DARPA reportedly spent something like $10 million to run the competition for its first-year $1M DARPA Grand Challenge prize. NASA paid nothing to run the competition for its Lunar Lander Prize.

If having a proven best-of-breed prize non-profit run the competition at no expense to the taxpayer, if garnering corporate sponsorship from an aerospace giant, and if doing better than other government agencies is not “good management” by NASA, I don’t know what is.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to be prudent and see how the current prizes play out before setting aside more money?”

Maybe a year ago, but not at this point. We have a proven tool for technical innovation (prizes) and we have an agency that has demonstrated that it can effectively wield that tool (NASA).

It’s now time to add funding and ramp the program up, not terminate its funding.

“Just follow DARPA’s approach of offering a nice shiny trophy for the winner,”

This is a false statement. The DARPA Grand Challenge offered two prizes totalling $3 million over two years. That’s a little more than a “shiny trophy”.

“freeing up millions for other programs”

There are no millions to be freed up. NASA’s prize dollars have apparently already gone to feed human space flight.

If one wants to rob another program’s bank to pay for science grants or aeronautics research, then one needs to pick a program with a sizable bank to rob. NASA prizes never had large bank to begin with and that bank has already been robbed. Given ongoing revelations about Ares I and the lack of any planning on RLEP after LRO (now THERE’S a program that hasn’t told Congress what it plans to do with its money!), the logical place to go in with guns shooting would be one of those two multi-billion programs.

DARPA offers prizes in the millions of dollars, not just shiny trophies.

> But there is a need to prove that NASA prizes work — understand the difference? Are they
> picking the right areas to sponsor prizes? Are they being run the right way? As even prize proponents
> argue, there’s not a lot of experience to date.

But there *IS* a lot of experience with the traditional NASA contracting system you favor, Joe — and that experience is not good.

You say Congress shouldn’t fund prizes until the cost-effectiveness of prizes has been proven. When are you going to prove the cost-effectiveness of your system, Joe?

Do you think the current system is flawless? NASA has made no mistakes?

You say “almost any other NASA program” would be better than offering prizes. Okay, let’s look at a few of those programs.

What about National Aerospace Plane, Shuttle II, X-2000, X-33, X-34, X-38, 2nd Generation RLV, and Orbital Space Plane?

What did those programs accomplish, Joe? Why were they preferable to offering prizes?

You say NASA shouldn’t offer prizes because no one is sure they’re sponsoring the right prizes. Are you sure that NASP and X-33 were the right vehicles for NASA to sponsor, Joe?

For 40 years, NASA has failed to reduce the cost of access to space. Now, NASA wants to spend tens of billions of dollars to develop new Shuttle-derived boosters that will *increase* the cost of access to space.

There may not be proof of the end-to-end cost effectivenss of NASA prizes, but there is ample proof of the end-to-end cost *ineffectiveness* of the traditional NASA contracting system.

Yet, you don’t say Congress should stop funding cost-plus contracts until NASA proves cost-plus contracts are cost effective. For prizes, no proof seems to be sufficient to satisfy you. For traditional contracting, no proof seems to be necessary.