This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
TrumpSpace

Newt Gingrich Has A Space Posse – And A Space Plan (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 26, 2019
Filed under
Newt Gingrich Has A Space Posse – And A Space Plan (Update)

GINGRICH: We Need A Competition To Get America To The Moon – And Mars, Daily Caller
“We are not suggesting the traditional approach be changed in any way. The NASA bureaucracy should continue working with its traditional contractors to try to establish a permanent settlement on the moon and then on Mars. However, we are suggesting that by having a modest $2 billion prize (about the cost of one launch with the Space Launch System) it might be possible to have entrepreneurs, like Musk (whose Falcon rockets at SpaceX are the most successful reusable rockets in history) and Jeff Bezos (who already puts $1 billion a year of his own money into Blue Origin developing reusable rockets) step up to the plate and get the job done much faster and cheaper than traditional bureaucracy.”
Keith’s 26 August update: NASA is fighting an uphill battle right now to get the $1.6 billion supplemental appropriation just to make the whole Moon 2024 thing start. That is still an uncertain eventuality. It is going to be even more difficult to get the many tens of billions more to actually make this entire program happen. Trying a Plan B – one reliant upon prizes – would only serve to undermine the program of record – the one that is kept in place by the Alabama and Texas delegations. To be certain, the use of prizes has clear, inherent merit and deserves to be tried. But right now NASA and Congress have erected a status quo that would be threatened by prizes. As we have seen that status quo fights back whenever it is threatened. Until and unless someone find the right Jedi mind trick to get Texas and Alabama to change their ways the notion of prizes will remain a notion.
The Moon-Mars Development Prize Competition, Gingrich 360
“A number of us have been working on prizes for lunar development (for an illustrated outline of possibilities that currently exist or are in development go to Gingrich 360 for a paper inspired by Gen.l Kwast and his team). We believe that a prize open to American companies and American teams would attract a lot of talent and private investment. We also believe that such competitive innovation and entrepreneurship will create new assets and capabilities for the emerging Space Force.”
Keith’s 21 August note: Its hard to argue with most of what Newt and his gang say. One major problem: none of this will happen – at least not as they imagine – under the current administration since it would upset a serious portion of congressional power centers that are heavily invested in the SLS/Orion/Gateway architecture. We have already seen how the mere suggestion of commercial alternatives for EM-1 was stomped out by Sen. Shelby within hours. Just last week we saw the Human Lunar Lander program handed to the same center in Alabama that has given us the chronically delayed and grossly over-cost SLS program.
However, some of what Newt’s posse has suggested may well happen anyway – without any prodding from government prizes. Let’s wait and see what SpaceX and Blue Origin do – with their own money – for their own reasons. Its called disruptive innovation and it is happening in plain sight in Boca Chica. When SpaceX’s Starship reaches orbit things will change forever.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

67 responses to “Newt Gingrich Has A Space Posse – And A Space Plan (Update)”

  1. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I hope Newt does have a plan. I’m glad someone does. NASA seems to have been missing a plan since 2004.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      You folks still think its NASA that comes up with the plan? Go bark at your senators and representatives.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        No, its important to have a plan and get the senators and representatives support, their buy-in, and the money that is required. But NASA, which is the expert, ought to be the one to establish the plan.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          You’ve got it backwards my friend. The President and Congress sets direction. Hard to make a plan when the direction changes every 4 years.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Not really. Indeed there have not been that many changes over the years as it seems. The Orion dates to Dr. Griffin (2006) and is only now close to flying. the Ares I/Ares V he proposed (2006) and built from legacy Shuttle hardware was simply combined into the SLS built from legacy Shuttle hardware and now finally close to flying. Dr. Griffin did kill the OSP program, but Boeing’s entry has returned as the CST-100. Present Obama did kill the Lunar Lander when he focused on asteroids as the next stop, but the lander was not beyond the view graph stage and the view graphs of the lander appear to have re-emerged. And Mars has been the ultimate NASA goal after the ISS since the 1990’s. Also I am unable to find and President or Congressional directive for the Gateway NASA is charging forward with. And CCP is just an extension of COTS which was an extension of alt.access from the same time frame.

            So really, although there have been a lot of announced changes by politicians, in practice NASA has just been plodding along the same path to no where for at least 20 years giving mostly lip service to whatever the President or Congress does, as is the case for most government bureaucracies.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            Because there is no real national will.

          • chuckc192000 says:
            0
            0

            Indeed. I’ve yet to find a civilian who has even heard of Artemis or SLS. Plenty of people have heard of SpaceX. The national will may have been under 50% during the Apollo program, but at least practically everyone knew about Apollo.

          • MAGA_Ken says:
            0
            0

            So really, although there have been a lot of announced changes by politicians, in practice NASA has just been plodding along the same path to no where for at least 20 years giving mostly lip service to whatever the President or Congress does, as is the case for most government bureaucracies.

            ——-

            The NASA bureaucracy supporters keep saying that NASA is being jerked around by Presidents and Congress but their flagship HSF program has been literally written into law since 2010!

            Now all you hear is caterwauling when a President actually expends political capital to use the systems they’ve been working on for 14 years to achieve a goal that NASA has been wanting to do since 1972.

            I just don’t understand these people.

    • Jeff Greason says:
      0
      0

      Interesting choice of date. That was when NASA had one brief episode of actually asking people to develop plans under Admiral Steidle, and some really excellent ones came out. The reaction to which has been “Let us never speak of this again”.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Yes, there was a brief moment where a thousand interesting flowers bloomed when NASA openly admitted that they were not certain how to implement the VSE. Then Mike Griffin showed up and that was the end of that brief experiment.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        Yes, I was a part of the activity to establish the plan and I was also a part of the activity to establish the plan n 1989 for the VSE. Right now we have a lot of pieces of hardware either in final prep or still on the drawing board, but no actual plan for what to do with it.

  2. SpaceRonin says:
    0
    0

    “When SpaceX’s Starship reaches orbit things will change forever.”

    I really really do hope so. We have been here before though: SpaceshipOne was in 2004! Back then I really thought that was a red letter day. Perhaps it was just not in the way we expected…

    • Sam S says:
      0
      0

      I felt the same way when SS1 won the X-Prize. I still don’t really understand why the forward progress has been so slow with them – maybe Richard Branson just isn’t putting the necessary amount of money where his mouth is.

      SpaceX, however, is making progress that is visible to the public on almost a weekly basis, and they actually have the most important ingredient that few of the other big new-space names have – product delivered to paying customers. Rocket Lab is the only other new-space company that I know of which has actually completed a job for money.

      So maybe it really is picking up steam now. I keep hoping that there’s going to be a single moment where it’s like turning on a light switch, and suddenly everybody is serious about getting out of here, but maybe it’s just going to quietly sneak up on us and one day we’ll just wake and be like, “huh, I never noticed how many people are living in space these days.”

      • DiscipleY says:
        0
        0

        Living in space is hard and expensive (even with cheap rockets). I see a flood of people signing on, and after a couple months coming to really appreciate what we have here on Earth. I expect most people will come back and share that appreciation for how special Earth is. This is something that has been happening with all astronauts,
        but with this, done on a massive scale, we could see a paradigm shift in humanity’s perspective of itself.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Frontiers have always served as a filter, the more difficult the frontier the greater the filtering effect. Yes, 99 percent of humanity would not even start the journey, and 90 percent of those who do won’t settled permanently in space. But the .1 of 1 percent that do will give their children a galaxy to settle.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Yes, there is an old joke among science fiction fans, to the effect that “the meek shall inherit the Earth” is very true, but it also tells us who will inherit Mars.

      • David_McEwen says:
        0
        0

        People and nations are going to get serious about getting out of here when they realize the world is literally burning to the ground and we’ve past the point of environmental recovery.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That assumes we still have the resources to get out at that point. Thank you for pointing out one of the solutions to Fermi’s paradox.

          • SpaceRonin says:
            0
            0

            and on that cheerful note.. will the last soul in the hothouse please turn the lights off?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The interesting thing is that the same technologies needed for self-sufficient space settlement (intensive closed agricultural systems and extensive recycling) are the same technologies needed to adapt to and reduce the impact of climate change on human society. So the goal of space settlement would produce the technology to save human civilization on Earth as a spin-off.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Despite all the talk of spinoffs, it’s gone the other way as often as not. NASA might have driven development of computers in the 1960s, but today, spacecraft are definitely riding on the commercially-driven advances in microprocessors. I’m not sure, but I believe that’s also true of solar power. And 3D printing wasn’t invented for or by NASA.

        • SpaceRonin says:
          0
          0

          Sunshades in space. Every launcher has to dump a load of balloons in LEO 3-4 year orbital decay on the perigee drag.. Kessler syndrome limiting and buys time for carbon capture. Or to give shape to a previous discussion on HSF. We can move gigatons of asteroids up there for shade, HSF destinations, planetary protection and processing.. We just grind them to dust and de orbit the dust. Krakatoa in 1883 put enough dust in the high atmosphere to drop the temperature worldwide by about 1 degC until 1888… Mark my words!

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      You’re making me feel old. When I was ten, people were saying, “When the Space Shuttle reaches orbit things will change forever.”

      • SpaceRonin says:
        0
        0

        In fairness I remember that too. But that was a government program and even back then I wondered how such a flying brickyard, impressive as it was, could possibly be the future. Shortly thereafter I came across transpiration cooling and thought it the only way to go. 40 years later….. nothing new. Even beloved SpaceX are hardly moving the technology ball down the field a lot. About the only cool thing out there is Skylon and that’s not much more than fancy CAD files and a patented heat exchanger. So yeah, I feel old too.

  3. Keith Vauquelin says:
    0
    0

    When the Starship flies…space exploration, colonization, and industrialization will be unstoppable.

    Adios, SLS and Senator Shelby. Dinosaurs are extinct for the same reason you will be – they could not evolve or adapt.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      This is what I’m hoping for, but I don’t expect it to happen right away. Even though we’re seeing prototypes of Starship being built, they’re still just prototypes. And it seems like SpaceX has been having a hard time getting approvals for a more than 200 meter high “hop” in Texas for Starhopper. So, IMHO, there is always the possibility that politically motivated regulatory roadblocks might pop-up that slow down, or even stop, development of Starship/Super Heavy. And even if those regulatory roadblocks aren’t politically motivated (e.g. hypothetical internal changes within the FAA making approvals slower/harder to get), the result will still be the same.

      • Keith Vauquelin says:
        0
        0

        I hear you, Jeff – I expect if Draconian, federally-caused interference occurs, the lawsuits will be astonishing, and well-earned by this sick and dysfunctional federal government we are suffering from.

        Interestingly, and to your other point – who has built an orbital-class reusable launch vehicle / spacecraft of any type in under a decade? Five years? Three years or less? Even as a prototype? The genie is out of the bottle, and even with a serious failure, Musk and Bezos will not be defeated until they are dead.

      • ExNASA says:
        0
        0

        Could always move the operation to Australia (Starhopper testing)

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Nope, it’s a Moon Agreement nation. They would be forced to share their technology and revenue with all the other Moon Agreement nations. It’s why Australia is a dead end for any space commerce venture.

          • Sam S says:
            0
            0

            The Moon Treaty is like a bad parody of a Kumbayah Fever Dream, definitely. But I don’t know if that means that you couldn’t test technology in a MT nation, you just couldn’t launch an operational mission from that nation without dealing with all the headaches.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            It depends on how the lawyers decide to interprets the treaty. But what would be the point of flight testing if you have to go to another nation to launch it.

            But the problems SpaceX is having is from a poor choice of a test location. It they did there flight testing at the old Matagorda Airfield where Space Services use to launch from they wouldn’t have any problem with a license.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            There are always places like Kwajalein or Māhia. The existing facilities would have to be rented and expanded, but neither the Marshall Islands nor New Zealand have signed the Moon treaty. Although I’m not sure about their environmental laws; that might be an issue.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Kiribati Island is one of best places in the world for a commercial spaceport, along the northeast shore near the old airfield. But you would have to structure it to benefit locals. They are still understandably unhappy about how the U.K. used the southeastern portion of the island as a base for offshore nuclear testing in the 1950’s and then left afterward. But a properly constructed offer could work.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I assume you mean Kiritimati in particular, since you mentioned the nuclear tests. That’s got possibilities. The transportation infrastructure isn’t there. The information about the airport I could find makes it look like a second world war leftover. The population is also quite small, and they might not welcome an invasion of foreign technicians. But I suppose something could be worked out. It is annoying how the military (not just ours, everyone’s) has such a talent for turning good, undeveloped land into Superfund sites.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I’m hesitant to blame the delays on anti-SpaceX pressure within the government. The FAA just realized Starship, or even the hopper, is really loud and possibly a really big thing to be flying anywhere even vaguely near people. Dr. Matula has mentioned the proximity to South Padre Island, and lots of rich people vacation there. The idea of many millionaires complaining about noise pollution and having their windows rattled does matter to a government agency. Potentially as much as what Senator Shelby thinks.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, some years ago I went through the EIS for Boca Chica on the FAA AST website and it seemed to me to be barely feasible for the Falcon 9.

          The Starship alone appears to have about the same thrust as a Falcon 9, but it will linger in the area on hop tests changing the sound footprint and duration. The Super Heavy by contrast will be a Nova class rocket, 2-3 times as powerful as a Saturn V if reports are accurate. It needs a lot more room when it fires off its engines.

          I expect test flights will shift to the Cape soon as the other options, building platforms offshore or moving to Matagorda Airfield will take at least a year. Spaceport America could have also been an option for the suborbital, but it would take time to shift there as well.

          I think the FAA will say it’s OK for the last Starhopper flight, but I expect to see the Texas Starship on a barge soon enroute to the Cape for its flights. Incidentally, there is an opportunity here for the state of Texas to build a state run spaceport at Matagorda AFB. Not just for Starship/Super Heavy, but New Glenn and all those small sat launchers. The Cape simply
          won’t be able to handle them all and there are few alternatives. Indeed, only Wallops Island (MARS) come to mind as one for the coastal U.S., although Guam would have potential as well.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Guam? Why not Hawai’i? It’s about six degrees farther from the equator, but that’s not a fatal problem. There are some reasonably unpopulated areas along the eastern coast. The weather isn’t perfect (especially wind in the south end of the island) but Florida isn’t ideal in that respect either. For that matter, I’d expect there were some other locations along the (continental) east coast. I’m afraid I don’t know what the Florida coast north of Canaveral, or up into Georgia, is like. Is there anything there?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            There have been at least two proposals over the years for Hawaii, both on the main island, but Hawaiians have strongly opposed them. There are a number of villages along the east coast of Hawaii and old temple sites. The vacant areas are generally recent lava flows. It’s a hornets nest best left alone.

            The east coasts of the Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas have really filled up since WWII and air conditioning. Other than the existing sites of Wallops and the Cape you would need to move a couple, not a cheap or easy process. Really options for coastal spaceports are pretty limited.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          While on one hand that sounds reasonable, on the other hand, what in the heck did people think SpaceX was going to do when they got approval to build a launch facility in Boca Chica?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            How many rich beach vacationers think about the space program or SpaceX? Or know how loud rockets are? As for SpaceX themselves and the FAA, I don’t think they realized how big Super Heavy would be. If memory serves, SpaceX was all about the Falcon and Super Heavy was just a vague idea in the back of Mr. Musk’s head, when they purchased the property.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      Nope. We’re still a long way away from that. Things like radiation countermeasures, ECLSS….There is STILL a long way to go.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The solutions to all of those have a single answer, mass. The 150 tons spacelift of the Starship will make is possible to life the mass needed in supplies and shielding.

      • Keith Vauquelin says:
        0
        0

        We have been a long way from everything until it’s solution or time arrived. Saturn V arrived on time, when it was supposed to. Who would have thought it possible in 1950? 1955? The same arguments illustrated herein were being made, then. The solutions to radiation and ECLSS will happen. It is only a matter of time. Instead of saying “why?”, we must say “why not?”

  4. Andrew Sexton says:
    0
    0

    As Keith alluded to, the prize that Newt refers to is already there … 1st to market is likely 1st to significant market share and the potential profit stream. Those profit streams, and the capital flows that will underpin further development, are keys to SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s further plans.

    • jm67 says:
      0
      0

      Potential profit stream doing… what? Carting ore back to Earth at $$$ per metric ton? Flying a few space tourists for joy rides?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Moving communications satellites from low Earth orbit to geostationary orbit, using hydrogen and oxygen made from lunar ice. And doubling the lifetime of those satellites by refueling them as needed. Companies like SES S.A. and Intelsat would be more than happy to pay for that.

        • SpaceRonin says:
          0
          0

          Every study I read makes that underlying assumption that keeping old birds flying is profitable. As if the failure mode is in the fuel tanks. Usually by the end of life the satellites have power constraints, the SA’s are fragged, TWTAs are dead so they are traffic limited, most of the mechanisms are balky (cold welding, plain old surface wear, fatigue blah blah blah) and they are also near their thermal limits. While it is possible in theory to fix any of these issues I am not sure that fixing them all could be be made even remotely economically equivalent to launching a new one. The real killer though is If you look at the market now GEOs are going away. Primarily because they are simple one way ‘bent pipes’ in a market that requires interactivity and feedback. The market is going more two-way and discreet. This would require much more intelligent signal handling up there than we have on the horizon. It would also put serious sell by dates on any hardware up there as Moores law drove things in the usual direction. Hence all the interest in these mega-constellations. Really though all the money in that sector will head for more deep sea cables.

          I suppose that maybe there would be a niche market outside the military for the seriously paranoid who were loath to send their digital packets over the easily intercept-able terrestrial network but that has to be a pretty limited market. You never know though.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Given the value of short development cycles, I suspect refueling and servicing is not going to be a big market. You’re right about that. But I think there is value for a LEO-GEO tug, using extraterrestrial propellents. I don’t see geostationary orbit disappearing as valuable location. As long as people want spacecraft there, such a tug would reduce deployment costs substantially. It could also enable really big geostationary spacecraft with many of the capabilities you mention.

  5. jm67 says:
    0
    0

    Technologies that can turn a profit advance rather quickly through the private sector. The internet went from an academic network to the engine of the economy in just a decade or so. The current smallsat space boom in LEO is another example. But there is no realistic economic return for landing on the moon, so the private ventures to do so will not take place in any sustainable way. SpaceX or some other company may do a one-off just to show off their capabilities, but will quickly lose interest after the initial headlines.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, there is and it’s been rotting in the vaults at JSC and WSTF for decades, namely the 800+ pounds of Moon Rocks. NASA could easy find a return to the Moon by selling half of its hoard of Moon rocks.

      • jm67 says:
        0
        0

        Really? You think you can drive a commercial space sector on the moon by selling rocks?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          This came up a month or two ago. If memory serves, a bunch of us argued it over in comments on NASA Watch, and settled on the idea selling rocks could fund one low-cost, commercial landing. Then the price would fall as the novelty and intrinsic value (e.g. to scientists) wore off. After that, if you could market it right, you might be able to subsidize further, low-cost landings at the 10% level. But that’s my memory of the discussion. I also remember we didn’t really reach a consensus.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, it was a function of the costs involved and how to build a sustainable fashion market, like the one for Beaver Furs.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Mink, not beaver. Just make it rare and expensive enough, or even just something someone famous wears, and you can turn semiaquatic rats with a bad disposition into money. Beaver fur is for the little people who can’t afford mink fur.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Which was why Beaver was a market large enough to drive the settlement of Canada (The Hudson Bay Company), the American West along with the Russian expansion into Siberia and the Northwest. Fashionable folks in Europe needed (must have!) beaver hats to keep them warm in the Little Ice Age and so they scooped them up. By the 1850’s it was warm enough that silk hats could replace them and the market disappeared.

            A “social status” product made from lunar regolith and targeted at the middle class could serve a similar function. But as in rabbit stew, you first have to catch your rabbit before making the stew and in this case you first have to have an assured supply to start the process of building it into a fashion statement. If you could develop a production system that would lower the price to about that of Gold, say $40-45 gram or $18,000 to $20,000 a pound you should be able to do it. The marketing campaigns in the 1920’s and 1930’s to make smoking and diamond rings popular would be a good case study for how to do it.

        • james w barnard says:
          0
          0

          Don’t you remember when Pet Rocks were the rage? Just think…”Pet Moon Rocks, only $xxx.oo each! Think how jealous your friends and neighbors will be!” And if they could verify which astronaut picked them up!

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I can’t see it in this case, but a prize competition doesn’t have to directly lead to profits to work. I doubt the $25,000 Orteig Prize covered Lindbergh’s costs for flying across the Atlantic, and I don’t think he ever made a dime on trans-Atlantic transportation services. But winning that prize was worth quite a bit in reputation and status. And that’s something you can cash in on. (Although it can also backfire, as in Lindbergh’s case.)

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Actually it did cover all of his costs. His plane, based on a Ryan mail plane design that had been in service for about a year, only cost $15,000, so the St. Louis investors came out ahead. It was so cheap because what Ryan did for the Spirit of St. Louis to redesign their existing mail plane design into a flying fuel tank. Really, it was no leap forward but just basic aeronautical engineering. NACA did put out a technical note on it in 1927 written by its designer, Donald Hall.

        http://www.charleslindbergh

        But the actual technology for transatlantic commercial aircraft flights was a decade away in the form of flying boats, and nearly two decades in terms of land aircraft. This is often the problem with using prizes to force a market, as the Ansari X-Prize has shown. SpaceShipOne was a one trick pony that barely worked to win the prize which was why SpaceShipTwo has taken so long to develop. And it still questionable if it will make a profit.

  6. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    We frequently see a similar type of thinking in the design biz, mostly, as the case here, formulated by well-meaning folks who’ve not really thought through the issue (an unusual criticism of the Speaker, I admit).

    Take the case of a local mega church. Some years ago, they offered a substantial contract for design services: engineering, architecture, site planning. This isn’t small potatoes, if you realize that these churches don’t construct buildings: they establish a sprawling campus. And while the fee seemed large, in fact it was about what would be normal in the business.

    But here’s the thing: a design effort of this magnitude is extremely costly for the design firm, costs that can easily be nine figures. And the firms tat would even consider such a dicy thing? They are already busy with clients that actually pay for design. This leaves the start-ups, with very little experience, or the second tier design firms, unlikely to produce what is required. We took a pass on it.

    Many times, as in this case, a naive entity isn’t really equipped to asses proposals, seeing the contest as a self-winnowing effort. However, if they cant assess firms at the start, they also cant assess the design submittals.

    A few years before that, a local developer offered my firm, and two others, a modest fee for preliminary design work. The main thrust was a sort of conceptual plan that could draw on experience and require very little staff time. The idea was simple: gain the benefit of experience as seen through the eyes of seasoned professionals. We were happy to do it, although the offered fee did not entirely cover the costs. I did the work myself on weekends.

    Generally considered these offers reflect very little thinking from those offering, and little respect for the time and experience of the design professionals.

    In the case at hand, what company will invest millions with only a chance of recouping costs? It’s extremely chancy, and there is an additional unknown: politics being what it is, the best design may, or may not, finish first.

  7. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    You would think they would have learned from the failed Ansari X-Prize and Google Lunar X-Prize. Prizes only worked when they are able to harness the creativity of the public, which is what limits their scope.

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Well things just got very serious in Boca Chica as someone realized just how powerful these rockets are. If the risk is this great with a single Raptor imagine the risk from the three on the Starship MK1 Prototype.

    https://twitter.com/BocaChi

  9. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    I don’t like the prize idea as it is the opposite of sustainable.

    I floated the idea of granting mineral rights but if that is too complicated, I suggest the prize being an exclusive contract (20 years?) with NASA to provide hydrogen and oxygen from the lunar surface at some fixed rate like $20,000/lb.

    That’ll promote a lunar economy, provide fuel for Mars and other missions, and offload mundane activities to commercial enterprise.

    • Not Invented Here says:
      0
      0

      Prize doesn’t hand you the entire solution, what it does is to show something is possible, in this case, landing on the Moon for $2B investment can be done, an existence proof if you will.

      Why is this important? Because Elon Musk said himself that it would take more time to convince NASA that he can land Starship on the Moon than actually do the landing. Right now nobody in NASA and AF is taking Starship seriously, and it is basically being funded by a Japanese billionaire, which should be a national disgrace for the US. A $2B prize could greatly accelerate the progress of Starship, bringing it into reality quicker so that all the naysayers in NASA and AF would have to shut up and start working Starship into their plans.

      • MAGA_Ken says:
        0
        0

        Again make the prize a long term contract for some valuable resource instead just plunking down $2 billion.

        Why would we offer money as a prize for something somebody is already doing?

        • Not Invented Here says:
          0
          0

          Again make the prize a long term contract for some valuable resource instead just plunking down $2 billion.

          Ideally it should be a long term contract for lunar transportation, which is just like COTS/CRS. Mining resource is whole new ball game comparing to just transportation, too much unknowns right now (what resource would be valuable?)

          Right now NASA’s Human Lander System RFP is putting a lot of constraints on what company could bid (for example there’s a mass limit because it has to dock with Gateway), these constraints should be removed so that architectures unlike the 3-piece reference lander can compete, but given this is now managed by MSFC I’m not keep my hope up. This is why a prize focused on lunar transportation can be useful.

          Why would we offer money as a prize for something somebody is already doing?

          Because we want it to come into existence quickly? There’re many facets in the Starship project, right now SpaceX is on a shoestring budget and only focused on getting it to orbit, with more money they can start working on other aspect such as ECLSS, orbital refueling, cargo handling, ocean launch platform, etc.

    • CB says:
      0
      0

      There is no legal authority right now to award a procurement contract as a “prize,” and the US doesn’t have authority to award “mineral rights” on the moon – but if the technology was more mature (and it’s heading that way), I could see a competition for a contract to extract and deliver lunar resources at a fixed price (if NASA could identify a requirement – unfortunately, I don’t think NASA has anything in its current lunar architecture that could use in situ resources like you describe – the focus right now per last Space Council meeting was nuclear to support lunar surface operations).

      But NASA has done some interesting contracts along those lines (the Sabatier water system on the ISS comes to mind but that was a while ago now), where the actual contract was for on-orbit delivery of processed water based on a negotiated price per liter. (The system is still operating today.) However, NASA forwarded-funded water delivery at a discounted net present value, which provided an income stream to the contractor to fund the development. (The contractor retained ownership of the hardware.)

      The contractor was at significant risk if it wasn’t able to deliver the technology (so they were incentivized and delivered the hardware in two years), NASA received discounted water for a time (since once the technology was delivered to ISS, water delivery on orbit was prepaid up to the advance) and NASA now pays a predicable flat rate per liter and the contractor has an income stream as a payoff of the risk it took on to complete the development.

      Of course, that was a Jason Crusan’s brainchild and unfortunately he’s no longer at NASA.

      https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sabatier.html

  10. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Seems to me awarding prizes is fun but limited. Charles Lindbergh earned the NY to Paris prize in 1927 but it took 20 years and a world war to boost aviation for transatlantic flights to become routine. Burt Rutan and others earned the spaceship prize in 2004 but we are far from routine spaceflight.

    We have a couple billionaires with some extra cash to spend building spaceships but too early to say. The VP Pence has huge interest in going back to the moon but nobody outside the space industry and interest have heard of Artemis, and the program is struggling for funding.

    Starship may become successful but it may be limited like private jets, helicopters, and yachts. These items are vastly more advanced than what was 30 years ago but their use is limited to just very wealthy.