Given that another post generated a vigorous discussion about funding for NASA’s Centennial Chalelnges program, I thought I would pass along a message that Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier Foundation sent me yesterday. He makes the case that the space advocacy community, particularly the pro-entrepreneurial elements of it, need to do more to ensure the program is funded in FY07 and beyond.
Rick’s message, after the jump:
The most disappointing thing about the state of the Centennial Challenges is that the pro-frontier/pro-NewSpace community hasn’t made Congress change its position.
Given the importance we have all attached to prizes and new ways of NASA/USG doing things in space, the tepid response of this community and its inability to raise enough pressure to get the prizes funded shows we are either too weak to effect significant change, too disorganized to do so, or we simply don’t care or aren’t willing to put our muscle where our mouth is.
We have a few weeks to put that pressure on and bring one home for the cause. The leaders of this community, including many of the great bloggers out there, need to wake up and make this happen. We need to both focus attention on the committee(s) involved and on NASA to fight for one of the brightest spots in its otherwise dark future. This isn’t about who does the prizes or competes for them, or even how soon anyone wins, it is about the concept of trying something new with hundreds of years of proven track record, changing how we do space, supporting the fledgling NewSpace industries and movement, and showing that those of us who care about humanity’s future in space is worth fighting for.
I noticed someone posted links to the Appropriations committee and its staffers. Those in the know as to how the machine operates should enlighten their readers, and we all should step up to this one.
I saw Pixel (Armadillo’s vehicle) hovering above the desert [at the X Prize Cup], and it was a magical sight. Not just because it was accomplished so cheaply and by pseudo volunteers, nor that it and the tether challenges inspired so many and generated such news, not even for the looks of the amazed children in the audience, but because it signaled what is possible at a fraction of the cost of today’s old space industrial complex.
There are many who would be quite happy to see this sort of symbol just fade away, but for those of us believe in the dream of an open frontier in our lifetimes it is time to stop whining and get something done.
I urge you and your readers to take action. Organize your local space groups, spend a tiny bit of the time they use typing at each other on these forums and weigh in with those who need to feel the heat.
If we can’t win something this relatively small in the battle to change our national space agenda, it bodes extremely ill for our chances not only to force NASA to implement a pro-frontier strategy, it also is an ill omen for our ability to defend the newborn child of NewSpace and our chance to move beyond governments into space.
In the next weeks I and my associates in the Foundation are going to do what we can. I ask those others who care to do the same.
I cannot help but admire the eloquence of Sam Dinkin’s post over at Transterrestial Musings on this thread on this same topic. The only thing I’d like to add over here as the place that started this argument is that since the argument a few days ago I went and read the rest of the challenges.
For the most part, these all seem like great graduate school projects and judging by the list of participants at the spaceward foundation challenge, it would seem that this holds out to be true. Even a look at the sponsors confirms this as the majority are related to promoting education: spaceward foundation, spaceflight america, CSEWI, and FSRI. The prize purse itself is more aimed at inspiring grad students and hobbyists as the prizes are so low in dollar value ($200-300k) instead of being in the millions which would bring in more serious small business. The only exception to this being the Lunar Lander Challenge, which to me seems like a natural extension for the x-prize with or without NASA’s backing.
Maybe support of the Centennial Challenges should not be couched in terms of promoting NewSpace and entrepreneurship but in terms of promoting education and inspiring the next generation of engineers to enter the field. Terms that Congress, especially Democrats now running it, understand and readily support.
On a side note if Mr Tumlinson is reading this is perhaps to look at other programs like SBIRS as something they can also concentrate on getting better funded or raising their cost caps. SBIRS is in my own opinion one of the best areas that the government has truly gotten right in promoting small, entrepreneurial firms. While not as glamorous perhaps as Centennial Challenges, it is perhaps much more effective.
Maybe there should be a letter/email writting section—where people can put in their personnel information and a letter goes out to thier congressperson and senator. If not that..prepare a bolier letter and let people send it to their representatives/sentators. If you want people to act–then make it easy for them to act. People want action from Congress but not if it is going to take a lot of effort on their part.
NASA Watch posted some talking points NASA supposedly issued with objections to Congressional funding bill content.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22585
According to NASA Watch’s presentation of the memo, NASA has objections to reductions to spending on the NASA-designed/built/operated Ares I and CEV and related items, etc. The Ares I/CEV part in particular carefully identifies the local areas that benefit from that program. I will not say it’s just pork (in fact some of the goals are similar to Centennial Challenges goals), but the NASA memo sells it as if it’s pork.
Nowhere is there a complaint about Centennial Challenges being zeroed in the Senate appropriations bill. In spite of the Aldridge Commission finding that entrepreneurial space and prizes are the key to the success of the VSE, some parts of NASA don’t seem to be too interested. So, if like Rick Tumlinson you want to see the new Centennial Challenges happen, you’ll need to get in contact with your Congressperson before the Senate and House committees iron out their differences on this issue.
Ray http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/
I for one am putting my pen where my mouth is and using a little of my Thanksgiving vacation to mail a letter (see bottom) to Senator Mikulski (the incoming chair of NASA’s appropriations subcommittee). I also plan to fax the letter and put in a follow-up call to her office. Here’s the contact info:
The Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski
Suite #503
Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
tel (202) 224-8858
fax (202) 224-4654
I plan to do the same with Paul Carliner, who appears to be Democratic clerk on NASA’s appropriations subcommittee holding up Centennial Challenges funding. He presumably answers to Mikulski. His contact information is:
Mr. Paul Carliner, Clerk
Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee
S-146A Capitol Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
tel: (202) 224-7277
fax: (202) 224-2698
I encourage anyone who cares to do the same, especially anyone in Maryland (I’m not) or in states with Senators or Representatives on NASA’s appropriations subcommittees. You can find them, their contact information, their staff, and their staff’s contact information here:
House — http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=happr9&pcommid=happr
Senate — http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=sappr2&pcommid=sappr
The letter below emphasizes the next prize competition taking place in Maryland (Mikulski’s state). Feel free to copy it, but you may want to modify if you’re mailing to a different Congressman or staffer.
Here’s the letter I’m sending:
=== begin letter ===
November [XX], 2006
The Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski
Suite #503
Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Mikulski:
I am writing to increase funding for the NASA Centennial Challenges Program in the FY 2007 budget. I am an aerospace industry professional [or other relevant background] and a citizen of [Your State].
This spring, a Maryland organization (Volanz Spaceflight Inc./Spaceflight America) will conduct a prize competition for breakthrough astronaut glove technology. The NASA Centennial Challenges Program sponsors the prize for this competition and that program is in jeopardy.
Centennial Challenges is NASA’s pilot program of prize competitions, a new and critically important tool to stimulate innovation in our civil space program and in the aerospace sector at large. In less than two years, this remarkable program has:
— Induced a small, private company to develop and fly a new rocket-powered vehicle with vertical take-off/landing and fast re-flight capabilities that are applicable to NASA’s future lunar landers and the emerging sub-orbital space flight industry. This vehicle was built for a very small fraction of comparable military efforts ($200 thousand versus $58 million) and with the company’s own dollars.
— Encouraged dozens of university and company teams to develop and demonstrate high-density wireless power transmission systems and high strength-to-weight materials. These are key technologies for making NASA’s lunar return sustainable and aerospace vehicles more efficient.
— Partnered with six external organizations to manage these and other future prize competitions at no cost to the taxpayer. Prizes pay only for demonstrated success and are a proven tool for innovation with a history going back centuries. Centennial Challenges is perhaps the most efficient program at NASA and has great potential for the aerospace sector.
The FY 2007 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Bill (S. 109-280) terminates funding for the NASA Centennial Challenges Program for the second year in a row. I respectfully request that funding be restored and increased to $20 million during the House-Senate Conference markup.
Plans and studies for future prize competitions, as detailed in NASA’s FY 2007 budget request, are exciting and highly relevant to NASA’s mission. Please ensure that this important pilot program receives the support it deserves.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Very sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
=== end letter ===
On a final note, the $58 million Pixel comparison is to the stated build costs of the DC-X, which one can find here:
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/
It’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s the most relevant one. And $58 million is actually an underestimate as it does not include site or operations costs.
Here’s hoping that prizes at NASA survive Congress…