An addendum to yesterday’s post about NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s speech Friday on the space agency’s commercialization efforts. Since the speech was part of a ceremony recognizing Armadillo Aerospace for winning the largest prize awarded to date in NASA’s Centennial Challenges to date, one would expect Griffin to talk about prizes in general, and that he did.
Griffin said he favored the use of prizes in general, but did not believe they were always the best solution for the agency. “For example, I think it would be fruitless for the American taxpayer to sponsor multi-billion prizes manned missions back to the Moon or to Mars as some prominent members of the chattering class have suggested,” he said, an apparent reference to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has proposed such mega-prizes (giga-prizes?) before. “The high upfront cost and technical complexity of such missions to me renders them unrealistic for a private concern to undertake at this time. It’s an interesting thought experiment, but it’s not an idea which would gain much traction in the real world, in my opinion.” He added that if establishing a human presence on the Moon was a national priority, the US government should be actively pursuing it. “We should either care enough to make it happen, or not bother.”
So when are prizes most effective for NASA or other government agencies? According to Griffin, it’s when such agencies “are actively seeking individuals and companies who would not normally participate in a traditional government procurement process.” He added: “Prizes entice the kind of people who are repelled by the cumbersome nature of government processes.” He cited examples ranging from Charles Lindbergh to Peter Homer, who won a prize in NASA’s astronaut glove prize competition last year.
“Those of us on the government side of the space business must recognize a fundamental truth: if our experiment in expanding human presence beyond the Earth is to be sustainable in the long run, it must ultimately yield profitable results, or there must be a profit to be made by supplying those who explore to fulfill other objectives,” Griffin concluded. “We should reach out to those individuals and companies who share our interest in space exploration and are willing to take risks to spur its development.”
Also: audio of Griffin’s and other’s speeches is on the Commercial Space Wiki, thanks to Ken Davidian. And you’re bored, here’s a collection of images of the event, including the obligatory oversized check photo op.
One thing often overlooked by prize advocates is that even small prizes have not been supported by Congress. When the administration put in a small amount of prize money, Congress took it and put it somewhere else. You cannot blame Griffin for not supporting this option when it’s clear that Congress does not.
By extension, this highlights the problem with really large prizes. One major impediment has always been the fact that current Congresses cannot commit future money. So something like a ten billion dollar prize is impossible, because there is no guarantee that the money will exist when it is time to collect and every potential competitor will know that. The government cannot simply put the money in escrow.
Prize advocates need to work on Congress, not NASA. That’s where the problem lies.
Hey, Griffin and I agree on something.
That aside, we must try to find a way to make space profitable. Once that happens, the government will have an incentive to encourage its growth (not to mention tax it…sigh) which means that businesses can find even more cost cutting ways helping humanity become a space faring species.
Note to those who disagree: If Griffin is wrong, then do a favor and enlighten me (after all, our goal is to settle the final frontier by all means–ethical means that is).
“The government cannot simply put the money in escrow.”
Why couldn’t the Congress just make an entity like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and have them run a prize? Wouldn’t the money then be considered “spent” for legal purposes?
NASA could soft land a ton of rhodium on the moon. That would be worth a billion or two, and no way to renege on it.
“One major impediment has always been the fact that current Congresses cannot commit future money.”
Not true. Fiscal years are calculated based on the year that funding is appropriated (committed) by Congress, not when it is spent. So Congress can appropriate funding in fiscal year 2010 for a prize that won’t pay out or expire until calendar year 2015, 2020, etc. The 2010 money just stays in NASA’s accounts at the Treasury until the prize is won or expires.
This is how all of NASA’s funding works — appropriations are committed in a particular fiscal year (fiscal 2010, fiscal year 2011, etc.) and are available to be spent for a certain amount of time (one year, two years, three years, indefinitely) depending on the type of expense involved (salaries, contracts, construction, prizes, etc.).
“So something like a ten billion dollar prize is impossible, because there is no guarantee that the money will exist when it is time to collect and every potential competitor will know that. The government cannot simply put the money in escrow.”
If Congress and the President want to commit to a multi-billion prize for anything, they can use the existing appropriations process. There’s nothing structural that prevents them from doing so. A proponent might become the next Senator “Moonbeam” for spending taxpayer dollars on such a “silly” expense as a human-lunar or human-Mars shot, but there’s nothing that prevents them from doing so if they have the votes and the White House agrees.
“Prize advocates need to work on Congress, not NASA. That’s where the problem lies.”
While Congress has been loathe to fund prizes at both DARPA and NASA, in the case of NASA, advocates need to work on both the agency and Congress. Despite nice words about prizes early in his term (and last week), Griffin never stepped up to the plate. The little bit of funding (~$12 million, IIRC) that the NASA program received was obtained under O’Keefe and Steidle. Griffin never managed to add another dime. And it’s not clear that prizes will continue to receive even that meager amount of support at NASA HQ., depending on who is the next Administrator.
FWIW…
Long term prizes in the billions will not work because very few people will believe that future Cingresses will not raid the prize fund for some other purpose before the prize is won and due to be paid out.
WHITTINGTON: Long term prizes in the billions will not work because very few people will believe that future Cingresses will not raid the prize fund for some other purpose before the prize is won and due to be paid out.
You are correct that there is a risk here, but saying “will not” is an overstatement unless we actually experimented with this. The truth is that we don’t know. The problem you have identified is a real risk, but it is more one of perception, rather than what really would happen. If Congress offered a $5 Billion prize for putting a man on the Moon, and returning him safely, and somebody like Jeff Bezos succeeded in front of the entire world (with the huge publicity it entailed), the public pressure for the Congress to keep its promise would be huge, while the political benefits would be huge to be seen keeping its promise.
I do think there is a level of prizes that the community should focus upon, that is beyond the $10-25 million prizes we have seen the X-Prize raised, and below the multi-billion-dollar megaprizes that are being discussed by Griffin. There are a lot of prizes in the $50-500 million range — just beyond the level that private industry has demonstrated it can handle — that could produce dramatic results.
ANONYMOUS: Despite nice words about prizes early in his term (and last week), Griffin never stepped up to the plate. The little bit of funding (~$12 million, IIRC) that the NASA program received was obtained under O’Keefe and Steidle. Griffin never managed to add another dime.
Anonymous.space is absolutely right (as he usually is). O’Keefe started the current prize program. Credit should be given to O’Keefe.
Now Griffin should get a LOT of credit for ZeroG, and making the announcement that NASA will purchase all of its future parabolic flights from commercial providers. (However, you can be that the JSC bureaucrats who run the DC-9 program will try to overturn this on 20 January.) Griffin will also get credit if there truly is new funding for purchasing services from suborbital firms. Considering the Virgin schedule, which includes a long series of testing after SpaceShip Two starts flying, I am guessing there will be something in the NASA budget request in the outyears (something in Fiscal Year 2011 is my precise prediction.)
ANONYMOUS: And it’s not clear that prizes will continue to receive even that meager amount of support at NASA HQ., depending on who is the next Administrator.
True. Because NASA is only intermittently on the radar screen at the White House (as compared to major cabinet posts), personnel decisions really are policy. However, I do have my fingers crossed. The Obama space policy document stated “Obama will expand the use of prizes for revolutionary technical achievements that can benefit society”.
FWIW,
– Al
I agree with Dr. Griffin that, at present, there is no incentive that could be offered to make a private concern want to face the cost of a manned planetary exploration mission. However, that doesn’t mean that it cannot encourage the commercialisation of Earth-to-LEO flight.
This does not simply mean the private development of manned launchers (besides, that is already happening). This should also involve the private development of destinations in LEO, be they small ATV-like space labs or large-scale habitats. Fuel depots and Earth-to-LEO tanker services also should figure in this plan somewhere.
Once LEO is ‘civilised’ in this manner, there will be infrastructure on hand to support (and reduce the overall cost of) longer-range exploration.
Al: There are a lot of prizes in the $50-500 million range — just beyond the level that private industry has demonstrated it can handle — that could produce dramatic results.
Brit: I agree with Dr. Griffin that, at present, there is no incentive that could be offered to make a private concern want to face the cost of a manned planetary exploration mission. However, that doesn’t mean that it cannot encourage the commercialisation of Earth-to-LEO flight.
I agree with both of you. However, I would add that there are plenty of projects that might be in the “few hundred million dollar” class that could be applicable to deep space exploration. Some examples off the top of my head:
Land and demonstrate a sub-scale factory separating oxygen from a sample of regolith on Earth’s moon, a near Earth asteroid or three, and the Martian moons.
Demonstrate use of the resulting oxygen in a return vehicle.
Demonstrate delivery of the resulting oxygen to the ISS for use there.
Demonstrate refueling an weather or communications satellite with lunar- or asteroid-derived oxygen.
Demonstrate using rotation to generate a “gravity field” and keep plants and animals alive in lunar and Martian gravities for a few months or years.
Demonstrate outside of Earth’s magnetic field magnetic or physical shielding against solar storms sufficient to allow human survival.
Locate a mineral or metal on an asteroid that is sufficiently valuable to justify returning it to Earth (long shot, this one, but what the hell, if no one claims the prize we pay nothing).
— Donald
That aside, we must try to find a way to make space profitable.
Psst…. did you know that companies already make a significant profit in space. It’s a $200 BILLION industry.
I believe that a high end prize could work if it was predicated on two things.
First if it was a yearly prize amount:
” First team that brings back a sample back from the moon in 2009 wins 1 billion, if no winner is declared prize money is rolled over into next year’s billion”
That way the prize pool would automatically raise each year that no one wins it and the last years prize could be considered spent as it has been moved into the next years prize.
Second if the funds allocated for each year are locked up and the interest earned off the prize money is rolled over into the prize amount.
You would then have a base amount of yearly funding set fairly low but that over time keeps growing until it now becomes ever more tempting to make a play for.
Shubber,
Psst…. did you know that companies already make a significant profit in space. It’s a $200 BILLION industry.
While you definitely have a valid point, and while the original poster wasn’t particularly articulate, I think we both kind of know what he meant to say. I think most you as well as most of the rest of us here would like to see a future where space access is cheap, reliable, frequent, and in fact downright boring. One where not just satellites, but dozens of other space businesses of many varieties are profitable. One where more normal people can actually afford to go, if they want to.
Satellites are real, they make a lot of money, and provide us with many of the benefits of modern living. But since they are sufficiently valuable to exist even with today’s expensive and unreliable space launch systems, they aren’t actually doing much to enable the CRAATS that we need in order for our dreams to ever become a reality.
Just a thought.
~Jon