ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The next X Prizes

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:48 PM by Alan Boyle


Team Italia via XPF
Click for gallery: See
concepts for the Google
Lunar X Prize contest.

Even as the X Prize Foundation kicks off its $10 million competition for super-efficient automobiles, it’s working on plenty more prizes to come. X Prize co-founder Peter Diamandis says he’s aiming for two new prizes every year, focusing on five fields.

Much has happened in the three and a half years since the foundation passed along its first $10 million check, to reward the winners of the Ansari X Prize for private-sector spaceflight.

Two years ago, the foundation has established yet another $10 million prize, the Archon X Prize for Genomics, which is backed by Canadian millionaire geologist Stewart Blusson and would reward the first team to decode 100 different human genomes in 10 days, at a cost of less than $10,000 each. (To date, just a handful of complete genomes have been sequenced, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per person, if not more. Among the X Prize competitors are Harvard geneticist George Church and the British company Base4 Innovation.)

Last year, the foundation rolled out the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize to encourage privately funded exploration of the moon's surface. (To date, no one has landed a spacecraft intact on the moon for more than 30 years, although NASA's Lunar Prospector and Europe's SMART-1 made smash landings.)

The X Prize Foundation has also been involved with other projects, ranging from a feasibility study for an orbital space prize to the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, which carries a $2 million purse put up by NASA.

It's taken well more than a year to put together the backing for the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize, and there are still a lot of details to be worked out over the next couple of months before teams can officially register for the contest. But Diamandis is already deep into the strategic planning for the next X Prizes. Here's what he had to say about the challenges to come:

"We've refined our strategy, and we are planning X Prizes in five vertical fields that we've defined. The first is exploration, which includes space and underwater. And we are looking at some deep-ocean X Prizes that would help get at 97 percent of the ocean floor, for example.

"We are looking at life science-related X Prize, where the Archon X Prize for Genomics is the first. We're looking at areas such as cancer and human longevity.

"Our third vertical is energy and the environment, where Automotive [X Prize] is the first of that. But we're looking at the production, storage and transmission of energy. Education is the fourth vertical. And the fifth vertical is global development, trying to address issues of poverty and the needs of the developing world. ... We expect to roll out two a year."

Diamandis – who won the Arthur C. Clarke Award for Innovation for bringing the $10 million Ansari X Prize to fruition four years ago – also paid tribute to the science-fiction author he called his "friend and mentor."

"He told me something once that I thought was incredibly valuable. He said, 'Peter, there are three phases of a good idea. The first phase is, people tell you it's a crazy idea, it'll never work. The next phase is, they say, it might work but it's not worth doing. And the third phase is when people tell you, "I told you that was a great idea all along."'

"The X Prize has definitely gone through those three phases, and I think of Arthur every time I talk about that. I'm thankful for his support ... and also for his absolute passion regarding the need of the human race to evolve beyond the earth."

Clarke must have loved thinking in threes: In addition to the three phases of a good idea, he came up with Clarke's Three Laws of Prediction, and passed along three wishes for his 90th birthday last December. He also expressed these three wishes for the next 50 years in an interview with Saswato Das for IEEE Spectrum:

1. A method to generate limitless quantities of clean energy.

2. Affordable and reliable means of space transport.

3. Eliminating the design faults in the human body

It sounds as if the X Prize agenda is on the right track to help those three wishes come true.

By the way, IEEE Spectrum has brought forth Clarke's "last interview," conducted by Das in January at the author's hospital bedside. Check out the article as well as the companion podcast for Clarke's final thoughts on building the space elevator, terraforming Mars and looking for E.T.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

RE SpaceShipOne's 'carefree re-entry' from space...due to innovative foldable wings...those foldable wings and other whirlygigs almost killed the pilots twice...and...most importantly...SpaceShipOne has never, and SpaceShips Two,etc, will never 're-enter' from space...100 miles up does not reguire any re-entry...look it up...Columbia started burning up at about 250 miles up...
all good on these guys, but c'mon... enuf with the hyperbole...
A ten Million prize for a 100 mi/gal car? The government is subsidising ethanol production to the tune of 50 cents per gallon.  It is expected that the country will produce 6 billion gallons next year.  If the federal government would put that kind of money into promoting plug in hybrids a great many drivers would not need any gasoline at all as their commutes would be completely from grid electricity.
An electric car still requires electricity which we get from burning fosil fuels such as coal, while it is an improvement, still doesn't remove dependency on fossil fuels.
Tom Vander Ark from the X PRIZE Foundation had a detailed talk last Fall where he discussed, among various other things, possible future X PRIZEs.  My post on it (with a link to the podcast of Tom's talk) is here:

http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2008/03/tom-vander-ark-podcast-on-x-prize.html

Also, the X PRIZE Foundation site recently linked to an article about a Biofuels Prize in the planning stages.  Based on the information in that article, I gathered various related links here:

http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2008/03/x-prize-foundation-and-biofuels-prize.html

The directions they seem to be going in are very interesting.  I wonder if they can manage to create prizes that benefit multiple areas at the same time.  For example, I could imagine space-related prizes that benefit energy or the environment (for example, a prize for a reusable suborbital vehicle that makes quality environmental science measurements, or highly efficient space vehicle power systems).  I could also imagine a deep-sea prize that as a side effect helps space exploration.  The Biofuels Prize seems designed to help the energy/environment and global development areas at the same time.  All of their prizes have educational components.  It would be a positive step to get these distinct communities to be aware of and supportive of each other.
For steve smyth: No, the vast majority of the Earth's atmosphere is below 100 miles, and re-entry starts in earnest somewhere below that.  As for the 250 miles you quote for where Columbia's disintegration started: the number is more like 250,000 feet, i.e. 50 miles or less.  The hyperbole is yours.
Biofuels are going to prove to be a dead end solution to a growing problem. If they don't kill us off first.

Conversion of food supply,  which is fuel for human beings, into fuel for automobiles is going to be prohibitively expensive and will only stretch fossil fuel supply by a quarter at most, probably less.  

Only electricity can power transportation, with production by nuclear power the only method of generating electricity without increasing greenhouse gases.  Continuous solar energy based in space can beam power down to ground terminals but would be extremely expensive to produce in reliable volumes.

Storage of used radioactive materials will not accumulate to problematic proportions because human beings are inherently inventive and will learn how to re-activate and re-cycle such supplies.  

In the meantime, biofuel conversion will denude jungles and forests, eliminate animal forage (another food source for human beings) in favour of single-crop intensive cultivation and its attendent dangers of genetic modification, which are now coming to light in increased pesticide- and fungicide-resistant bugs and fungi.  

How much can we afford to pay?  We'll soon enough find out.
Hey Mike,
You are correct. Thanks for the info. Maybe you know how burn in speeds of (?)16,000mph are generated by a falling object...what about terminal velocity?
It's always good to get correct info out there.
The burn in speed has confused me since the 1950's...never have heard an acceptable answer.
Des, you've obviously missed the bit about the company in Arizona that's working on making biodiesel out of algae.  

http://www.byrneltd.com/AlgaePowered.html

Since pond scum isn't in our daily diet (I know it's not in mine!) this seems to be the best way to have the biodiesel cake and eat it too.
Des: If we limit biofuels to corn ethanol, I agree that it's not going to solve the world's energy/fuel problem.  However, there are numerous other sources of ethanol (and don't leave out methanol!) fuel that can be developed.  This is entirely compatible with and complimentary to efforts like plug-in electric hybrids vehicles and the Automotive X PRIZE as parts of the solution.

I'm sure the XPF people are aware of the current limitations of biofuels, which is probably why they're thinking about a biofuels prize.  I don't know how it's going to develop, but here's an excerpt from the Santa Monica Daily Press article on the potential Biofuels X PRIZE that gives a glimpse into the kinds of biofuel improvements the XPF folks are thinking about:

“Current biofuel technology is not fully sustainable, competes with food crops and doesn’t work on a decentralized small scale for local communities,” Stein said. “Instead, the Biofuels Prize will spur the creation of new small-scale production systems that can be placed in villages and towns anywhere in the world where non-food crops can be grown and converted to biofuels.
I think that when people see both the Mprize and now the Xprize focusing on aging and cancer, people will realize that life is too short (wait till your 40 and try to get a new tech job) and money and things are really a false mirage...especially when the growth of science and technology now show us that it is indeed possible (10-25 years) to manipulate our genetic machinery and renew our cells, after all, our cells are just complex genetic machinery...we now have a world of people who now how to design/build/modify complex computer hardware/software systems, our genes in our cells are just another version of hardware software information systems (cells, dna, rna, squishy they may be), but still, they are complex information systems (dna programs building dna/rna systems)...we can and will need to build other complex information sytsems, for instance: nanobots which are computers driving nanosensors and nanomanipulators which will enable us to fix/mantain/modify our cells to reverse and eliminate aging/cancer etc.  Nanotech is also represented as one of the current or future X-prizes too.  One of the inportant things about nanotech is that its full development will allow us to develop much more eco-friendly tech and also use less resources to build our cities/products and recycle 100% of our garbage, for instance, new high-efficient solar cells materials are coming out of current nanotech research.  Plus the future ability to download and make most of your items yourself may mean that you would not have to rely on a single country (and transportation,political costs, for all of your consumer items as you could (within reason), have your own nano-fabricator. (bigger items may need a local plant for efficiency purposes)
Long term it's got to be electricity, generated in surplus by waves, geothermal, sunlight, hydro or running water.  All are carbon and heat neutral apart from the hardware, and all we would do is move the waste heat they would have produced somewhere else.  You Americans have Yellowstone - why not cool it down a bit by massive power extraction before it erupts again?  Even the nature-worshippers might see the sense in it.  HVDC lines can carry the power long-distance to where it's needed.

Electricity should be free, or capitalists could use GPS & cellphone for some sort of metering / charging capability.  Roads could have induction loops every N feet to allow vehicles to uptake the power they need, with batteries, capacitors or closed-loop hydrogen generation / combustion to fill in the gaps.
I'm beginning to wonder about some of these prizes. One of the entrants in the X-Prize is Damandis' buddy (and fellow space entrepreneur) Elon Musk. Musk is behind one of the entrants, Tesla Motors, that already has a vehicle in production and is well past the 100 mpg equivalent. It's not hard to envision Tesla winning easily.

Then there's the first X Prize. Only one team came remotely close to winning that. It's the only company that's ever flown anything into suborbital space in the last four years. The whole prize seemed almost designed for Burt Rutan to win, right up to dropping the required altitude from 100 miles to 100 kilometers.

Johnny Ramone...you, Sir, are smarter than the average bear...Branson didn't get involved to lose... and as far as Diamanides goes...can you say 'stepped in it, and came out smelling like a rose'?
Until Virgin came along, the X-Prize was a pipe dream with no $ten mil to pay anyone...that's why Scaled won...nobody else could afford to try with no ten mil at the end...they drew the funds after Sir Richard, EnviroMentalist Supreme got involved...gotta give the guy credit...I cannot imagine anyone else running a total petro chem/carbon fuel/product based biz...everything from Virgin Air to plastic jewel cases for Virgin CDs...and still having the stundeens to pitch hisself as the face, voice, and conscience of the future...from his private rock in the ocean...TRIPLE GEEZ!!!
What a letdown, eh?
Steve, "burn in" speeds are generally not due to falling in the usual sense, but rather to the velocity prior to entering the atmosphere. In meteors and such it's due to the fact that they're travelling up to several miles per second on their own when they encounter Earth. They can traverse the atmosphere so fast that they can punch through it without appreciable slowing. In orbiting objects, it's because they've been traveling somewhere around the 16,000 MPH you mention, and have either slowed enough or otherwise altered their course so that they encounter atmosphere, which slows them to near landing speed via air braking. They only slow enough for this, not for a complete stop above a certain location. A complete stop would require about as much energy as it took to take it from a complete stop to orbit in the first place, the retro-rocket would be roughly equal to the minimal launch vehicle. To lift that massive retro would require an even more massive launch vehicle. Air braking is far more economical.

I said not "falling in the usual sense" because orbiting is in essence falling -- it's falling towards Earth while having enough forward speed that falls past the Earth.

As for terminal velocity for vehicles or other objects not having orbital or high intrinsic velocity, terminal velocity depends on shape. A human's terminal velocity ranges from about 100 to 300 MPH (the record is 614 MPH) depending upon how they're oriented. We have been launching up-and-down sounding rockets into space since the late 1940s. A highly aerodynamic body in free fall can hit 4000 MPH before slowing down in the atmosphere and then stabilize in air at speeds less than the maximum allowed by the fluid dynamics of the air, which is Mach 1. For example, the NASA Aerobee sounding rocket had a terminal/impact velocity of about 660 FPS (450 MPH). Higher speeds can be acheived, but if allowed to fall for long enough, the body reaches a speed which stabilizes at the balance between the force of gravity and the force of air resistance. This is the definition of terminal velocity. To be more precise but more complicated, as the body falls it encounters more air resistance with increasing air pressure. The terminal velocity goes down until impact (or something else happens to slow it farther, like a parachute deployment). The record human free fall speed was set at high altitude because of this. At altitudes where air density is sufficient that no breathing equipment is necessary, the maximum can be taken as the record for lower altitude free fall, which is 312 MPH.

Note also that "burn in" is due to aerodynamics. Heating is not due to friction as is often stated, but rather due to air pressure. The terminal velocity here is the speed at which a body moves so fast that the air can't get around it fast enough and gets compressed into a pile in front of it. It's this pressure which causes the air to heat, and that heat gets tranfered to the vehicle. A highly aerodynamic vehicle can have an impact terminal velocity closer to Mach 1 than say, the blunt air braking shape used by the space shuttle and other manned craft or sensitive instrumented vehicles. The Apollo capsules would have impacted at about 200 MPH, as would the shuttle if it didn't switch to gliding while still moving greater than Mach 1. The Genesis probe that crashed was such a blunt body, and it impacted at about that speed. Even a relatively small amateur high powered rocket that reaches several miles altitude can, if the reovery system fails, "auger in" (or "prang" as the Brits say) at around 400 MPH, because its shape allows air to get around it more efficiently. Regardless, Mach 1 is the limit for impact velocity, given sufficient slowing time and lack of thrust. In order to test reentry speed on some abalative shield designs, some sounding rockets actually fired downwards to keep their velocity high when encountering the air. When reentering from orbit, an efficient aerodynamic body will stop "burning in" and reach its terminal velocity at a higher speed than a blunt object.

In order to see the effect of impact velocity above the Mach limit, consider the Tunguska event. It has been calculated that the leveling of 830 square miles of forest was due to a 10 to 15 megaton explosion when a body less than 100 feet diameter encountered the atmosphere fast enough to reach 3 to 6 miles above the ground. But it wasn't fast enough to reach all the way to the ground itself before exploding and burning up. What reached the ground was the shock wave from its hypersonic speed, some of which translated into the explosion of the body (calculations done while considering the body itself was not explosive, but just reacting to the pressures). A body that actually impacts itself would have not only the kinetic energy of the body itself, but also of the shock wave carried all the way down. In such an impact, the shock wave would hit the ground first with such force that it would probably disrupt the surface before the body hit. The far reaching destructive power would be due to the shock wave from the atmosphere trapped between the body and the Earth getting squeezed out from between them, and the actual impact of the body causing secondary, local damage resulting in a crater on the surface. Making a crater would use up much of the kinetic energy, whereas the shock wave would be part of, and so travel easily and far in, the atmosphere. The radius of even minimal destruction in Tungus was about 20 miles and destruction from an phsyical impact would have been much less, but the shock wave was detected in England. These data are supported by examing the data from the 2002 Eastern Mediterrainian Event, a non-impact atmospheris explosionof a 30 foot diamater body, which produced a 26 kiloton blast, greater than the Tunguska event.

So, there's burn-in and there's bore-in. The greatest reentry speed of a constructed vehicle is Stardust, at 29,000 MPH (8 miles per second, MPS). Most known meteor showers come in at 10 to 40 MPS. Stardust was designed to slow down, meteors are not, and still they tend to burn up rather than bore in. The few that do land have usually slowed enough that any damage is a puncture and very little creater, slowing to less than Mach and so no blast effect. Larger bodies might or might not impact. The speeds of the bodies listed in the Near Earth Object database range from 1 to 20 MPS. But due to enormous mass they could reach low enough that whether or not they bore-in their pressure wave from the burn-in could be more than a bit of a boom. Not even the International Space Station, the greatest mass of human contruction in space, carries enough mass in a sufficiently low-drag shape to reach lower atmosphere and produse blast effects.

"An electric car still requires electricity which we get from burning fosil fuels such as coal, while it is an improvement, still doesn't remove dependency on fossil fuels."

  Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels and it's easier to clean up the emissions from a small number of power plants than each internal combustion engine vehicle. (and electricity from solar, hydro and nuclear don't have greenhouse gas issues)

"right up to dropping the required altitude from 100 miles to 100 kilometers."

  The X-Prize goal was *never* 100 miles. Most nations (the US being a curious exception) regard 100km as the beginning of 'space.' (but then, we're also a curious exception in being non-metric, as well.) But it should also be noted that Astronaut Wings were given to those who flew above the less-challenging altitude of *50* miles. Of course all orbital flight crews exceeded this figure, but a handful of X-15 pilots did so suborbitaly, too.

  And Burt Rutan has explicitly said in the past that the kind of inherently stable 'carefree re-entry' of SS1 and SS2 can't work for descending from orbit. One look at the way the joints would be exposed to serious heating shows that to anyone. Also, even for a return from sub-orbit, that mechanism MUST work. But there *is* some modest heating of SS1s leading edges, requiring different materials for the ship's nose...

  And is it Scaled's fault that no one else came particularly close to an X-Prize attempt when they did? Is it Armadillo's fault that no one's come close (yet) to their performance at the X-Prize cups?

Some things may be conspiracies, some things just happen to work out in a given way...


Dennis McClain; That write up was very informative, thank you for taking the time to do that detailed explanation on terminal velocity.
Dennis...WOW!...clearest ever...thanks.
Does this mean that the old saw about a pound of lead falling at the same speed as a pound of feathers isn't true?
I'll wager there isn't one person in 10,000 who grasps what you wrote...weird...
Oh, yeah...you also just explained why Gaia Two works so well...thanks again...
Also, why can't an orbiting vehicle just stop while in space? That wouldn't require any more than existing retro rocket tricks. The vehicle would then fall out of orbit instead of burning in...slowing things way down, eh?
I just hope any future X-Prizes can stir up more than one serious financial backer. Paul Allen can't fund everything.
I do agree abpout the use of highly efficient electric car. What America needs to focus on is to build more nucleor power plants to solve polution problems, and future uses of electisity if it even be using electric cars in the future. I personaly like the idea of using air cars insted. The French have the right idea in my view.
http://www.zeropollutionmotors.us/video.html
I honestly don't get it and probably never will? You offer $10 million to anybody who can create from scratch an automobile that gets 100 miles to a gallon, is none polluting and easy on the pocketbook too.  First of all, you are appealing to the superrich already, for the average hard-working inventor can't afford to build that kind of prototype vehicle to win the $10 million dollar cash prize.  Whatever happened to that fair play philosophy, where the little guy was given a chance to cash in on that kind of deal?  I have already envisioned several inventive concepts vehicles with no money to bring any of them to life.  Creating an inexpensive car that gets 500 miles to a gallon of fuel, would be the kind of challenge I would gladly take-on.  In addition, if we use our God-given imaginations, perhaps we could multiply that incredible mileage by a factor of 10. It's like inventing that awesome microprocessor and those clear LEDs that have brought forth a king's ransom by enhancing all those crank and shake to charge forever flashlight inventions out there.  I have no doubt, whatsoever that with out argument the clear LED is the greatest invention since Thomas Edison stumbled on that incandescent bulb.  In conclusion, many rich dummies will try to invent that kind of cheap car, and they will all fail miserably in the attempt.  Until people like you finely give us poor struggling geniuses the chance to prove our inventive expertise, you won't see any cars like that for many decades to come.

Sincerely yours, just another self-claiming poor scientist and inventor!

P. S.

      The only way to create a car like that is to apply the RPS principal with a power utilization curve into the infinite. (*RPS=T+P=SP< D) you would think that those billion-dollar car manufacturing dummies out there, with all those incredibly naive engineers would have already figured it out by now.

PEACE!!!


"First of all, you are appealing to the superrich already, for the average hard-working inventor can't afford to build that kind of prototype vehicle to win the $10 million dollar cash prize.  Whatever happened to that fair play philosophy, where the little guy was given a chance to cash in on that kind of deal?  I have already envisioned several inventive concepts vehicles with no money to bring any of them to life."

  If you're able to do it, you go and do it.

  If it's a problem that requires 'superrich' pockets, let them have at it.

  Where is it written that the engineering required to solve a certain problem is 'fair?'

  The laws of physics may not all be known, but they're the same for everyone. If there's any 'fairness,' that's it.

  And yes, I agree that a lot of seemingly radical ideas that may nevertheless be both possible, and practical, die on the vine for lack of finance.

  There's nothing inherently 'fair' in the difficulty of rasing capital.

  That's why it helps to have enough money to be (at least initially) self-funding. You don't have to explain or justify, when it's out of your own pocket.



There's a crop called "guayule" that's also supposed to be a good source of biofuel.

http://guayuleblog.com/29/alternative-energy/
world-needs-alternatives-to-biofuels-from-food-crops/


Evidently, it's some kind of cactus that can be grown in the desert. Doesn't need much water, it's naturally resistant to insects, and it can also be used to make rubber! Pretty cool stuff - maybe that's the winner of the biofuels X-Prize.

Algae biodiesel sounds cool too - thanks for the link.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=790970

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google