Bezos suggests NASA pursue prizes and “gigantic” technology programs

[fredinno]

http://spacenews.com/bezos-suggests-nasa-pursue-prizes-and-gigantic-technology-programs/

Quote

Bezos, though, believes NASA should go after something bigger, such as a prize for a Mars sample return mission. “One thing that the government could do is just offer a very large prize to whoever first brings back some Mars samples,” he said. “It would be very interesting. That kind of horserace would create lots of attention. People would compete for it.”

I think a lot of people here have similar sentiments, but let's not forget that space prizes have a spotty history- Bigelow's Space Crew Transportation prize fell flat, the Google Lunar X-Prize has constantly been delayed, and a similar prize is unlikely to be repeated.

 

Honestly, a more "CCdev" solution is probably better (Bezos apparently didn't like it tho, they felt NASA had too much involvement in it), with there being less of a prize, than a contract for spacecraft based off that design. This would likely limit that program to Orbiters (and possibly asteroid sample return missions/ asteroid probes in general, since asteroids and comets have huge amounts of variety, and a similar design can be used for each.)

More specialized things like Mars Sample Return, and rovers could then instead be placed into NASA's Discovery, New Frontiers, and Flagship Programs- thus, allowing for more 'experimental' missions in those programs that can't use a common design, and putting less pressure on (esp. Discovery Program).

After all, only "big" companies like LockMart, OrbitalATK, SpaceX, etc. would be able to compete, and similar things, like Mariner, using the same baseline design, were a success (though did it actually save $$$?).

Only problem is Mars Sample Return ends up in the Flagship Program anyways. Probably not a huge deal, considering it's nearly a HUGE NASA priority (right next to Titan/Enceledus, and Uranus) and we already have the caching rover in development, and the orbiter being pitched to Congress. The pickup rover can be derived off MER, and a Pheonix-based lander carrying a rocket to rendezvous with the orbiter. That section only may just fit in the New Frontiers budget.

Quote

In conjunction with large prizes, Bezos suggested NASA also pursue ambitious technology development efforts. “I would also advise that NASA needs to go after gigantic, hard technology goals,” he said, that would be too difficult for private industry to do on its own. Examples he gave were in-space nuclear reactors and hypersonic passenger aviation.

I doubt that would work. Way too experimental and risky for a private company to get into (unforeseen difficulties in the technology), and especially nuclear reactors are something it would be difficult to even get funding. There's a reason NASA doesn't X-planes and tech development internally.

[PB666]

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I doubt that would work. Way too experimental and risky for a private company to get into (unforeseen difficulties in the technology), and especially nuclear reactors are something it would be difficult to even get funding. There's a reason NASA doesn't X-planes and tech development internally.

Oh but you think hypersonic is Going to work? 

Well news today we have a 300 meter asteroid within 3 to 9 million miles that is clearly within reach, lets prize a return sample there for the funds neede to build a mars satellite return which then funds the mars sample return, allow two entries for each with a lessor payoff  for second return. 

Edit: I think hypersonic planes is a terrible NASA goal, if we recall it was Britian and France that pushed the Concorde, I think that hypersonic woukd fair wirse than Concorde. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by PB666

[Bill Phil]

One of NASA's directives is to incite competition... Which the SLS is breaking by the way.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

Oh but you think hypersonic is Going to work? 

Well news today we have a 300 meter asteroid within 3 to 9 million miles that is clearly within reach, lets prize a return sample there for the funds neede to build a mars satellite return which then funds the mars sample return, allow two entries for each with a lessor payoff  for second return. 

Edit: I think hypersonic planes is a terrible NASA goal, if we recall it was Britian and France that pushed the Concorde, I think that hypersonic woukd fair wirse than Concorde. 

But it's not in a stable orbit. If the prize is delayed (not unlikely), the entire spacecrafts must be redesigned, and a new LV bought.

Also, hypersonic would work, but it's still not easy, and we don't even have a Concorde 2.0 anyways. What would be the point, there doesn't seem to be a real demand.

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

One of NASA's directives is to incite competition... Which the SLS is breaking by the way.

Well, NASA has to always file a report explaining why there was no competition for that contract if there is no competition for an SLS contract.

So, they aren't truely failing.

[PB666]

36 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But it's not in a stable orbit. If the prize is delayed (not unlikely), the entire spacecrafts must be redesigned, and a new LV bought.

Also, hypersonic would work, but it's still not easy, and we don't even have a Concorde 2.0 anyways. What would be the point, there doesn't seem to be a real demand.

Well, NASA has to always file a report explaining why there was no competition for that contract if there is no competition for an SLS contract.

So, they aren't truely failing.

Well contracts are made years in advance, so if capabilities increasing they can call it lag effects.

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, PB666 said:

Well contracts are made years in advance, so if capabilities increasing they can call it lag effects.

I don't get it? Capabilities increasing?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

I don't get it? Capabilities increasing?

If capacity is increasing in the industry and prices are falling it might take a gov time (i.e one administration to the next) to respond. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by PB666

[wumpus]

19 hours ago, fredinno said:

There's a reason NASA doesn't X-planes and tech development internally.

Didn't NASA just announce the contract (or completion of plans, it was hard to tell) of the X-57 (all electric plane)?  Of course with no other X-planes for awhile, it is easy to forget they occasionally produce one.  As far as "done internally", NASA (and largely the US government) doesn't do *anything* internally.  Almost everyone hired to work "for NASA" are actually contractors.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

Didn't NASA just announce the contract (or completion of plans, it was hard to tell) of the X-57 (all electric plane)?  Of course with no other X-planes for awhile, it is easy to forget they occasionally produce one.  As far as "done internally", NASA (and largely the US government) doesn't do *anything* internally.  Almost everyone hired to work "for NASA" are actually contractors.

I know that, it's not "commerical" tho, either. Generally, anything NASA contracts out by its design is "done internally".

And they have a bunch of other modern X-planes, some are classified tho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-56

 

[LordFerret]

The prize is the sample returned. Who are they kidding?

[Arieoreos]

The best thing to do now for space exploration is probably to develop small companies. Really, the space industry isn't very profitable, as said in the article. And even then, there's very little you can do if you're a small company, unless you plan to create part designs and sell the designs to bigger people. Even with small parts, that can cost millions. So, I'd rather have NASA partner with small companies, and maybe increase the amount of competitions and prizes (but smaller prizes, to make it more achievable for NASA and the smaller companies).

 

Something very important, too, is to find more commercial uses and increasing demand for going into space. Space tourism can work, and it is a little. Satellites at this point are also useful, but the market isn't growing fast enough to grow the space industry. Once it becomes a fully-fledged industry, it will quickly become much cheaper. Now, the problem is to create demand.

[Van Disaster]

On 06/17/2016 at 0:51 AM, PB666 said:

Edit: I think hypersonic planes is a terrible NASA goal, if we recall it was Britian and France that pushed the Concorde, I think that hypersonic woukd fair wirse than Concorde. 

A little orthogonal to the thread topic, but it should be pointed out that Concorde begat Airbus in a very real sense ( technology as well as politics ). In American terms it'd be more like Boeing and Bombardier collaborating with respective government backing than a NASA-lead project, though. Tangible commercial product doesn't seem like NASA's thing. Researching large hypersonic airframes in general does sound fruitful.