X Prize extends its reach

Duncan Ormaugh, Berkeley, CA — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:40:17 GMT

The X-Prize Foundation needs to have another manned space prize in its portfolio to really get the public fired up, or hopefully even several. Bigelow's prize is a joke, so there needs to be real leadership involved pushing the envelope in manned orbital space and beyond. GLXP helps extend mankind's information sphere to the Moon, but does not directly extend its physical sphere, so there should also be pursuit of a manned lunar prize on an order sufficient to stimulate real competition.

There could be a "vine of prizes" manned space firms could climb to push the boundaries, along with many supportive offshoots along the way. Mainline prizes: Manned orbit, circumlunar, large-scale (mass-defined) unmanned lunar landing, manned lunar landing, and long-term lunar habitation (time-defined). Possible supportive prizes: Docking, refueling, long-term space habitation, lunar ISRU (can be demonstrated robotically), on-orbit construction, cost-effective range facilities, capacity prizes (people or mass per unit time - could be many flights or a lot of people/mass on fewer flights), distance prizes, speed prizes, and long-term Fund Prizes started by anyone with definable and appropriate goals that grow in value over time until they're won. At about 5% average ROI (a reasonable return even by "safe" markets' standards), a fund's value would roughly double every 20 years, yielding a fund 16 times its original value 100 years later if it hadn't been won. A well-managed fund could have several times that growth. Likewise, the funds dealing with benchmarks that move forward such as speed, distance, time, and capacity could be funded with perpetual funds from capital donations, pledges, and bequests. The beauty about a pledge prize is that the donor doesn't have to pay unless someone wins.

There is a whole world of possibilities that should be explored.

X Prize extends its reach

Dr. Doug Haynes — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:59:32 GMT

Commander Dr. Haynes, CEO of BRN Spaceline celebrates Juneteenth with UFO

Commander Haynes displays his Haynes Saucer for the spectators and media after his flight during the celebration of Juneteenth this week in Denver Colorado.

Juneteenth is the anniversary designation marker commemorating the day when the last of the American slaves were finally declared free. Though Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slave two years early (1863) the disobedient slave owners of Galveston, Texas refused to respect this law until the Union Army forced their hand on the 19th of June 1865, two months after the Civil Wars conclusion marking the 360 degree return to leadership for a civilization of Kings and Queens who were enslaved for a brief moment in history.

Dr. Haynes and his airline, Blue Ridge Nebula Spaceline continual this 360 degree return to leadership transition by becoming the world first operation of its kind registered and certified by the FAA/ AST. Blue Ridge Nebula Spaceline is currently the only civilian space transportation firm with an operation prototype spaceship capable of single stage to Lunar landing, VTOL, Green flight characteristics. Next public flight of the Haynes Saucer commanded by Dr. Haynes will be at out 14th annual airline certification ceremonies in mid October.
As always you’re invited to come see our Haynes Saucer fly into history again and God bless you all.

X Prize extends its reach

Ernie Genss, Las Vegas, NV — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:59:04 GMT

OK, I usually get in too late to see any responces to my ideas, but any storage that can produce hydrogen could be sent back to natural gas companies like reverse metering with electric utilities. And how about flywheel tech as posible battery use?

X Prize extends its reach

John D. — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:11:00 GMT

The X-Prize going global is both a good and bad thing. It is good because of increased competition. It is also bad because of increased competition. I believe what has made the X-Prize so successful is the fact that it is a competition where hard work and determination lead to great rewards. Thus, competition is good. However, another factor that has made X-Prize so successful is the real possibility of a reward, since the typical size of X-Prize competitions has been relatively small. If the X-Prize goes global I hope they take into consideration that increased competition is not always a good thing. That is, much like economic productivity, perhaps too many competitors can decrease the overall effectiveness of the x-prize. Someone group may have a good idea, but because they know they are competing against many people, they realize their chances are diminished. Thus, I believe a multi-tier style competition would be more effective as the number of competitors grows.

X Prize extends its reach

Greg Williams — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:21 GMT

Very interesting difference. I like how Diamandis says they look at the problem and offer a prize for the best solution, not taking a possible solution and giving a prize for doing the best you can with it. There are several ways to improve transportation costs, but which is best????

X Prize extends its reach

Chris, KS — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:20:39 GMT

I think McCain's battery plan is a pretty good idea. Better battery technology would be helpful in many areas. Hopefully, any technology capable of storing more power in the same space would be scalable. The problems would obviously be increased cost of electricity controlling the chemicals in the battery (unless we can figure out a really safe way to store electricity). There's probably other stuff I'm overlooking too. All the X-prize contests are fantastic in my opinion as well. People should expect money from innovation anyway because of the profit from selling it, but the prizes definitely convince people to take more risks.

X Prize extends its reach

Ray — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:36:04 GMT

Duncan: "The X-Prize Foundation needs to have another manned space prize in its portfolio to really get the public fired up ..."

Someone expressed a similar thought here: http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=7137

My reply is there, too, but basically it comes down to actually having the money.

I'll also note 2^5=32, and don't forget compounding in the math.

John: "If the X-Prize goes global I hope they take into consideration that increased competition is not always a good thing."

The X PRIZEs have always been global in the sense that you're using it (global competition). They're using it in the sense that they'll be working with a non-U.S., and global, company with the corresponding implications.

The factor that you're talking about (more competitors scaring off teams) has been seriously considered in academic Economics papers. I suspect it might be more of a factor in a more accounting-oriented business environment (eg: replacing patents with a prize system), but it seems so far that with these prizes, teams often seem to thrive on the increased competition and even encourage each other. In some cases more competitors means more publicity which they often like, and in others the teams are hoping that someone wins even if it might not be them because they're dedicated to the goal.

X Prize extends its reach

Calvin Dodge, Tucson, Arizona — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:25:58 GMT

If one actually DOES THE NUMBERS, the near-future energy source with the biggest impact is nuclear. That generally means generating electricity. So promoting higher-capacity batteries (as McCain is doing) seems like a VERY GOOD IDEA, Mr. Diamandis notwithstanding.

X Prize extends its reach

Duncan Ormaugh, Berkeley, CA — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:19:18 GMT

Ray: "basically it comes down to actually having the money."

XPF shouldn't be afraid to investigate alternative fundraising structures, or take another look if they did so earlier in their history. They've had one just-barely successful prize and may be overfitting their strategy to that "winning formula" of a single full-sponsorship donor per competition. Topics their board should research: Matching-fund pools, strategic sponsorship coalitions, conditional pledges, long-term bond funds (the donor or a policy firm pays the penalties for early redemption if the prize is won), and plenty of other subjects that aren't occurring to me. The most exciting of those in my opinion would be the matching-fund pools, because you can identify an anchor sponsor and then develop donors willing to give x% of the prize-founding contribution up to a specified maximum, and that percentage can be whatever the donor wishes. I'm sure someone has looked at whether "long tail" economics can apply to philanthropy, and what kind of money could be had from ordinary enthusiasts (like me) who might be willing to write up to a three-figure check IF it was accompanied by a large amount from an anchor sponsor. A prize is just a way to leverage money, so it's important to pursue all useful maximization strategies. BTW, you're right on the math, I just got my wires crossed.

X Prize extends its reach

John D. — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:28 GMT

Ray- "The X PRIZEs have always been global in the sense that you're using it. They're using it in the sense that they'll be working with a non-U.S., and global, company with the corresponding implications."

From http://www.xprize.org/, regarding the Google Lunar X-Prize:

"About 34% percent of those people identified themselves as being from the USA. Some of the potential teams did not voluntarily identify their country, but of those that did (just under two thirds), more than half were from the USA."

Typically a large percentage of people competing are from the US or have strong US ties. The article itself clearly says, "until now, the California-based foundation's activities have been mostly U.S.-centric." Undoubtedly, the X-Prize going global, in the sense of partnering with BT will create in increase in non-US competitors, and thus an increase in the overall number of competitors. This was the sense of going "global" I was using. You know what they say about assuming...

Ray:"The factor that you're talking about (more competitors scaring off teams) has been seriously considered in academic Economics papers. I suspect it might be more of a factor in a more accounting-oriented business environment (eg: replacing patents with a prize system), but it seems so far that with these prizes, teams often seem to thrive on the increased competition and even encourage each other."

I am certain that academic papers have considered it in depth. I would like to think they are the theory explaining the observations. Unfortunately, theory does not always accurately predict such chaotic systems (something many people have a hard time understanding). Until we observe the effects of increased global competition I do not think it is wise to speculate (hmmm, I have heard that word a lot recently...) about the effects. The only thing we can do is be cautious. If we find that increased global competition is not as effective I hope the X-Prize will adapt the competition appropriately. Adapting is something many organizations have a very hard time with. This becomes even more difficult as organizations grow. However, I think the X-Prize has enormous potential and I am very excited about the possibilities.