4 ms·

There are a lot of X Prizes. Many, like the lunar prize, are not dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_P

There are a lot of X Prizes. Many, like the lunar prize, are not dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation The entire debate about a particular prize being nothing more than a stunt is a debate that doesn't fit well on HN. A private group getting to the moon and sending video back, could inspire others, which could get NASA a larger budget, or lead to more VC funding.

Retric 9y ago
Launching a rocket capable of getting even a penny into space is dangerous. Reasonable precautions can mitigate those risks, but these things are not toys.
- melling 9y ago
  Look these are long discussions. Here's the one we had 3 years ago. You even chimed in. No one said they were toys. Should we just stay at home? You didn't think so 3 years ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540279 Are Turing_Machine and JoeAltmaier still around?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Should we just stay at home? The legacy of Scaled Composite's air launch approach, aerodynamic re-entry, and piloted design--all fair decisions for a quick daredevil run to space--cost Virgin Galactic and its investors hundreds of millions of dollars. Their delays, overruns and mistake, in turn, made life difficult for SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra, and a handful of other space start-ups. Customers, Congress and investors now had a well-publicized promise, and failure to deliver, in mind.
    - melling 9y ago
      Look, if we're talking manned space flight, I was arguing against it 3 years ago in favor of robotic exploration. HN said I was wrong. As for X-Prizes, in general, I think they're a great idea. My blog is http://h4labs.org http://h4labs.org I took h4 from the first "X-Prize". H4 was the version of the watch that won the money. It has been explained repeatedly why they're a great idea. Should I rehash it on my blog, because I'm not going to do it here, again? Btw, it sounds like we might simply be arguing over what's a good "X-Prize"?
      - Retric 9y ago
        Yea, you completely misunderstood my point. Even just building and testing rocks has killed people because they are fucking dangerous. However, so is putting solar panels on people roofs. That does not mean nobody should build rockets, just that safty is a major consideration when building them. IMO, astronauts are almost irrelevant from an overall safty standpoint. Rocketry has killed more people on the ground than it has people trying to get to space, though this may change over time as we get away from those extremely dangerous early days. Ex: Just VLS-1 an unmanned rocket killed 21 peopel more than the total number of US astronauts killed so far.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      What difficulties did Scaled Composite cause for SpaceX or Blue Origin? SpaceX is doing great, and the flying turtle has consistently achieved laudable milestone after laudable milestone.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The entire debate about a particular prize being nothing more than a stunt is a debate that doesn't fit well on HN The article compares the Ansari X Prize [1], which Scaled Composites won, to the Orteig Prize [2], which Charles Lindbergh won. It's a statement on the efficiency of prizes, generally, in fostering technological change. Not a complaint abut a specific prize. The evidence the author collects, across multiple articles and many decades show prize money is better spent on other things. The "inspire others" and "get NASA a larger budget" or "more VC funding" bits don't happen, or don't happen as effectively as if those goals had been directly pursued, e.g. paying for PR, lobbying or actually making the VC investments. The optimizations made to win the prize rarely translate into broader success. The resulting disappointment(s) and inevitable hype-cycle end can end up doing more damage in the long run. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize
- melling 9y ago
  There are dozens of "X Prizes". The idea goes back hundreds of years. https://longitudeprize.org/about-us/history https://longitudeprize.org/about-us/history I think you'd have a really hard time raising the money to pay for lobbying to get more research.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > There are dozens of "X Prizes" I don't condemn prizes as a category. The Longitude Prize and DARPA's self-driving car competitions were successful. Here's what differentiates them: the people who wanted to buy the product set the rules of the prize to yield something useful to them. The products of the X Prizes either have terrible product-market fit ("market" to be read broadly to include non-commercial users) or pursue the wrong goal (e.g. manned spaceflight crowding out launch-cost reduction, et cetera).
- georgeecollins 9y ago
  Yeah but it is cool.
rtpg 9y ago
I think the debate forces an acknowledgement that the objectives themselves don't always have intrinsic value. I agree there's a lot of things that can be gotten from it like NASA funding, but many people do not really "know" the utility of going to the moon. For example, people will talk about mining on the moon, but I've only ever seen articles debunking the utility of this, and not a single in-depth analysis in favor of this. I might be looking in the wrong spots. My theory is that relatively few people can justify the value of these efforts convincingly. This is part of why NASA doesn't have a bigger budget. "Whitey on the moon"[0] has a ring of truth to it. Developing strong arguments for further development is one of the most effective ways for people to support further development. Otherwise you end up with things like "We'll go to Mars for space tourism/exploration!". Which is... well you do what you want with your money, but that's a hell of a lot of money for tourism. Public funding will be hard to come by. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

Retric 9y ago

Launching a rocket capable of getting even a penny into space is dangerous. Reasonable precautions can mitigate those risks, but these things are not toys.

melling 9y ago
Look these are long discussions. Here's the one we had 3 years ago. You even chimed in. No one said they were toys. Should we just stay at home? You didn't think so 3 years ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540279 Are Turing_Machine and JoeAltmaier still around?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Should we just stay at home? The legacy of Scaled Composite's air launch approach, aerodynamic re-entry, and piloted design--all fair decisions for a quick daredevil run to space--cost Virgin Galactic and its investors hundreds of millions of dollars. Their delays, overruns and mistake, in turn, made life difficult for SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra, and a handful of other space start-ups. Customers, Congress and investors now had a well-publicized promise, and failure to deliver, in mind.
  - melling 9y ago
    Look, if we're talking manned space flight, I was arguing against it 3 years ago in favor of robotic exploration. HN said I was wrong. As for X-Prizes, in general, I think they're a great idea. My blog is http://h4labs.org http://h4labs.org I took h4 from the first "X-Prize". H4 was the version of the watch that won the money. It has been explained repeatedly why they're a great idea. Should I rehash it on my blog, because I'm not going to do it here, again? Btw, it sounds like we might simply be arguing over what's a good "X-Prize"?
    - Retric 9y ago
      Yea, you completely misunderstood my point. Even just building and testing rocks has killed people because they are fucking dangerous. However, so is putting solar panels on people roofs. That does not mean nobody should build rockets, just that safty is a major consideration when building them. IMO, astronauts are almost irrelevant from an overall safty standpoint. Rocketry has killed more people on the ground than it has people trying to get to space, though this may change over time as we get away from those extremely dangerous early days. Ex: Just VLS-1 an unmanned rocket killed 21 peopel more than the total number of US astronauts killed so far.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    What difficulties did Scaled Composite cause for SpaceX or Blue Origin? SpaceX is doing great, and the flying turtle has consistently achieved laudable milestone after laudable milestone.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> The entire debate about a particular prize being nothing more than a stunt is a debate that doesn't fit well on HN The article compares the Ansari X Prize [1], which Scaled Composites won, to the Orteig Prize [2], which Charles Lindbergh won. It's a statement on the efficiency of prizes, generally, in fostering technological change. Not a complaint abut a specific prize. The evidence the author collects, across multiple articles and many decades show prize money is better spent on other things. The "inspire others" and "get NASA a larger budget" or "more VC funding" bits don't happen, or don't happen as effectively as if those goals had been directly pursued, e.g. paying for PR, lobbying or actually making the VC investments. The optimizations made to win the prize rarely translate into broader success. The resulting disappointment(s) and inevitable hype-cycle end can end up doing more damage in the long run. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize

melling 9y ago
There are dozens of "X Prizes". The idea goes back hundreds of years. https://longitudeprize.org/about-us/history https://longitudeprize.org/about-us/history I think you'd have a really hard time raising the money to pay for lobbying to get more research.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > There are dozens of "X Prizes" I don't condemn prizes as a category. The Longitude Prize and DARPA's self-driving car competitions were successful. Here's what differentiates them: the people who wanted to buy the product set the rules of the prize to yield something useful to them. The products of the X Prizes either have terrible product-market fit ("market" to be read broadly to include non-commercial users) or pursue the wrong goal (e.g. manned spaceflight crowding out launch-cost reduction, et cetera).
georgeecollins 9y ago
Yeah but it is cool.

rtpg 9y ago

I think the debate forces an acknowledgement that the objectives themselves don't always have intrinsic value. I agree there's a lot of things that can be gotten from it like NASA funding, but many people do not really "know" the utility of going to the moon. For example, people will talk about mining on the moon, but I've only ever seen articles debunking the utility of this, and not a single in-depth analysis in favor of this. I might be looking in the wrong spots. My theory is that relatively few people can justify the value of these efforts convincingly. This is part of why NASA doesn't have a bigger budget. "Whitey on the moon"[0] has a ring of truth to it. Developing strong arguments for further development is one of the most effective ways for people to support further development. Otherwise you end up with things like "We'll go to Mars for space tourism/exploration!". Which is... well you do what you want with your money, but that's a hell of a lot of money for tourism. Public funding will be hard to come by. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4