Tom: I think all of these ideas (prizes, bounties, data purchase) are sensible variations on the idea of getting NASA (or any similar space agency) to purchase services from private entities rather than building everything itself.

NASA improving its procurement policies is a very good thing, but the mission critical task should be creating private sector demand for space flight. Unless prizes facilitate a follow on private sector market which views NASA (and tax payer funding) as irrelevant to their business case, we continue to run on the starter motor rather than the main engine which is the globalized world economy. Wikipedia estimate the global gross world product at $60 trillion dollars for 2005 – finding a few billions for space exploration is simply a matter of finding the right place to plug in a hose and I suggest the US taxpayer is NOT the best long term source for filling that hose even if taxpayer financing can and should play a role in getting us started..

I can (sort of) drive my car down the street using only the starter motor but it is far from satisfactory.

Of course I support well crafted prize programs and Congress should fund more of them. But prizes are not the goal, prizes are merely one tool to try and engage the private sector economy in the business of space exploration and commercial space exploitation.

Keep our eyes on the real prize, as it were.

http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2006/09/planetary-society-space-prize.html

I imagined this as an incentive prize for Earth-based observers that might give focus to amateur as well as professional astronomers, and might result in image processing and similar automation improvements for NEA detection and characterization. An pre-detected impactor that might destroy a car or house might earn a smaller prize than one that would destroy a city. I think it’s similar to your idea for actual space missions to asteroids in that a bounty would work, since it’s something that continues to have value even after won the first X times.

I think a bounty could have similar types of PR advantages (especially in the early phases) as prizes. You could even call it a “prize” depending on which word the public likes more. The down side, of course, is that it’s probably even harder to get the funding for multiple awards. You can also blur the distinctions with an ongoing prize program with multiple awards for the same accomplishment (perhaps, or perhaps not, with gradually diminishing award values). Possibly even better would be straightforward follow-on business of some sort related to the accomplishment.

Virgin Galactic is just marketing for the rest of the Virgin brand. As long as he roughly breaks even I’m not sure he cares.

— Donald

Those are possible extensions. I think the key would be to keep it simple at firms and closely linked to VSE to get the first act passed by Congress. Then expand it as the industry develops.

Right not just have the capablity to return lunar samples on a routine basis from multiple sites would be a major advance in technology and would really help plans for lunar development.

In terms of goals like orbital LOX or fuel I would favor more open ones. $/lb of lox delivered on the lunar surface, no matter the source (moon, NEO Earth, Mars…) then let the market decide. Same with LOX to LEO or Water on the Moon. A set price regardless of source and turn industry loose. It would be interesting to see the different vetures, from high-g single function maglifts on Earth to lunar, NEO and even martian mining for water and LOX. Let the market decide.

How about breaking it up into smaller segments and extending it to finished, marketable products. Offer a bounty for X kilograms of lunar or asteroid-derived LOX delivered to the Space Station’s orbit. Or, better, several parts of that process, e.g., $n for mining, $n for processing, $n for getting a local product (rocks and/or oxygen) into lunar orbit or off the asteroid in tact, $n for aerobrake into Earth orbit (or, to the surface in the case of rocks). This could keep the cost per development relatively small, a lot of the initial technology development could be done on Earth, and it could result in multiple companies competing for the same and different market segments, potentially avoiding monopolies. Each segment may be useful for multiple markets: e.g., the lunar surface to lunar orbit segment would apply to rocks and oxygen alike.

— Donald

Instead of prize program why not a simple bounty program for lunar samples? Bounties programs are something you could build a business plan around IF they are reliable. Generations of hunters and trappers, and the firms that supplied them, built their businesses around the government predator bounty programs. Yes in the process they drove most of the large predators to near extinction, not good, but the focus here is on economic effectiveness. And it was a very successful program in terms of industry creation and technology development for that specific mission.

Below is a presentation I made in 2005 showing how such a bounty program would enhance planetary defense while jump starting a NEO mining industry.

http://www.tlmatula.com/nsp/nspmatula7.ppt

A similar one focused on lunar sample return could do the same for lunar missions. Unlike prizes there are no single winners. The winners are those best able to repeatable conduct missions at below the bounty price. It rewards economy of scale and sustainability, not one shot stunts. Its something to build an investor driven business model around, with attractiveness to investors (via predictable ROI) increasing for every mission.

So how about the government offering $100 million for every 5 Kilogram sample returned by private firms from the lunar surface? This is $20 million a Kilogram. less then the roughly $500 million a kilogram (2005 dollars) paid by the government for the Apollo sample. The sample must be at least 25 kilometers from the last sample returned. A map will be posted of successful sample missions so firms would know where not to sample. And there would be basic requirements for protecting the samples from contamination to ensure their scientific value. You could also add some basic science measurements for the site as well. Anything over the 10 pounds which went to the government would be owned free and clear by the firm and any revenues from it would be tax free. Unlike X-prize program it would emphasis repeatability. And unlike the X-Prize actually serve to build a new industry of lunar resource development.

Some folks will say this is just data purchase with a new name. Fine, if it gives it political traction. But I know of at least 2 private lunar ventures I worked with that this would revive and finally allow them to have a viable business plan. By contrast a lunar challenge would not have any impact on them. I expect there would be others. Indeed, this might even tempt firms like Boeing and Lockheed to use their expertise to join in. More important, it would move the proposed lunar challenge out of the realm of a stunt contest like the X-prize into a real market capable of creating a real industry. And of directly benefiting the VSE by allowing hard data on lunar resources and possible base sites.

It would also stimulate the launch industry as firms purchase blocks of launches to force prices down per flight with an distinct advantage for those launch firms that lower costs. (Yes, Elon Musk would smile if their was such a program… and we would see just how economical an EELV or Sealaunch could be) And also demand or support services like an L2 Halo comsat to support far side sample return missions, financial services and insurance, post flight processing that meet the standards of bounty, etc. ) none of which a one shot lunar challenge prize would stimulate. And it will also drive continued innovation as any strategy or technology that reduces mission cost per pound of sample returned will go right to the firm’s bottom line. Do you really need retro rockets and parachute for re-entry? Or could you design a capsule that would survive an aerobraked 200 g surface impact with its sample intact… Let the lunar sample bounty decide…

Maybe extra cash prizes based on successfully sending back data, successfully landing or maybe some other accomplishments. Or offering a followup science mission to the best performer.

As far as the specific case of the proposed lunar prize, Tom has some points that such a prize would need to be designed to address. I could make up ideas for other space-related prizes where the potential follow-on market is more easy to envision than with the lunar lander – things that might help existing comsats, etc. For the publicity angle, competitions like the existing Lunar Lander Challenge have the advantage of a large crowd actually watching it, as well as potential business (suborbital rides, etc).

For a real lunar mission prize, the design of the prize could be such that there are 2nd and 3rd place prizes, which might alleviate some of Tom’s concerns. They could also be arranged as a series of related prizes (kind of like many Centennial Challenges are now), corresponding to potentially multiple lunar missions. A series of prizes could also solve the political problem of the MSFC office’s job (although it’s debatable whether they’d be an appropriate prize manager – see the RLV News discussion on this – I linked to it near the beginning of this thread). Alternately, part of the prize winnings could be a certain amount of NASA lunar business at a fixed price. The problem is that the more of this that you do, the more expensive it gets for NASA, which makes it less and less feasible given NASA budget issues.