Space Prizes - do they work?

[Danderman]

Given that the X-Prize actually produced a winner that went on to develop a commercial system, it would be hard to argue that space prizes don't work, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Who is to know whether Richard Branson may not have developed SpaceShip One and Two without the X-Prize?

Furthermore, as I noted in a post in another thread, to date, most prizes have resulted in only one team actually attempting to win the prize, which means that these have not been real competitions.

Lastly, I am beginning to think that the Lunar X-Prize funded by Google is dead in the water if the Falcon I continues to fly to watery landings.

[khallow]

I think it depends on the circumstances.  A sizeable one time prize for an impressive goal is only one form of a prize. In addition to the actual contestants and the technology they develope, you stir interest in the subject especially if there's considerable competition for the prize. You also have annual prizes for best performing technology, for example, the DARPA prizes for self-driving cars. That works out really well too.

[William Barton]

I think it's possible "stunt" prizes only produce historical results by accident. I find myself wondering how many such contests are lost to history because they produced no contestants, expired, and were forgotten.

In Lindbergh's day, intercontinental air travel was evolving in the form of airships and flying boats, and airliners would have come along anyway, though their development was hastened by the military's perceived need for strategic bombers. I think in the case of the X-Prize, the stunt prize had a chance result because there was a viable stunt performer.

Also makes one think about other historical prizes with interesting results. The "Longitude" prize, for example.

[hop]

Although only one team flew X-prize attempts, several other groups that started for the x-prize are still building and flying hardware (Armadillo and ARCA at least)

You could argue that those teams might have got into rocketry anyway, but it definitely helped motivate them.

We don't know whether Branson would have invested in suborbital tourism anyway, but having the prize claimed undoubtedly made the idea easier to sell. Would they have sold nearly as many advance tickets without the SS1 flights ? Would places like NM be building "space ports" ?

So from that POV, I think it's pretty clear the original x-prize worked. The prize isn't there to create an industry from scratch: ideally it should just provide that extra little bit of motivation needed for someone to actually achieve what is already an attainable goal.

To some extent, the same can be said of the LLC. Armadillo may be the only one to have flown but Masten and a couple of others have built hardware.

I don't think the availability of F1 affects the viability of the google moon prize much, but then again my personal opinion is that it is extremely unlikely anyone will even make an attempt. Even if I'm wrong, there are other launch options.

[antonioe]

Any such prize scheme works only when a) the goal is hard but definitely attainable and b) the prize money is of the same order of magnitude as the cost of attempting the goal (unless the cost is small and the prize money more honorific than financially stimulating).

In the case of the Orteig prize, the two key ingredients for success - a high-reliability reciprocating engine with the right horsepower to weight ratio and a low-parasitic drag, high aspect ratio airframe - were "just around the corner", AND had been developed independently from the NY-Paris attempts.  According to history, Lindberg paid Ryan $10,560 (including the J-5 Whirlwind engine, IIRC), so with other expenses - fuel, travel, etc - the attempt cost an amount comparable to the $25,000 purse.  And, note, Lindberg was not wealthy enough, so he had to have the backing of the St. Louis bankers.

In the case of the Ansari prize - and PLEASE do not read this as a criticism of its organizers or Burt Rutan - the "parameters" of the competition where just about what Burt thought he could JUST BARELY achieve.  In other words "tough, but doable".  And, while I am not at liberty to disclose what Burt told me the effort cost (other than it was within about 5% of the original budget... Wow!) I can state that it was "comparable" to the Ansari purse.  And, note, Rutan was not wealthy enough, so he had to have the backing of Paul Allen.

So in both of these cases, my two hypothetical conditions were roughly met.  But I wonder if Prizes do anything useful when the purse is orders of magnitude smaller than the minimum credible cost, given the difficulty of the objective AND that the cost is beyond a rich man's (or woman's) hobby dreams.

[pippin]

Any such prize scheme works only when a) the goal is hard but definitely attainable and b) the prize money is of the same order of magnitude as the cost of attempting the goal (unless the cost is small and the prize money more honorific than financially stimulating).

As in stimulating later commercial success I would add
c) the business case behind it (for the later success) has to be feasible if - and only if - you remove the risk associated to the initial try/development.

If the business case is obvious without it, the effort will be done even without the price. And if it's not feasible in itself, the price won't change that.

As in Lindbergh's case: The price will probably just have sped up something definitely in the making and I don't think it promoted any additional mid. or long term developments.

[khallow]

So in both of these cases, my two hypothetical conditions were roughly met.  But I wonder if Prizes do anything useful when the purse is orders of magnitude smaller than the minimum credible cost, given the difficulty of the objective AND that the cost is beyond a rich man's (or woman's) hobby dreams.

In that case, the key would be how many such prizes there were. If it cost no more than $100 billion to put a person on Mars, and there were a hundred $1 billion prizes or a million $100,000 prizes (ignoring the vast overhead associated with attempting to qualify for that many prizes). Then yes, the prizes would be meaningful even if a single one was orders of magnitude shy. Now, we're in an environment where there is typically no more than one prize for any given achievement. In that case, a prize would need to be a meaningful fraction of the cost of the achievement in order to have a measurable effect in my humble opinion.

[synchrotron]

So in both of these cases, my two hypothetical conditions were roughly met.  But I wonder if Prizes do anything useful when the purse is orders of magnitude smaller than the minimum credible cost, given the difficulty of the objective AND that the cost is beyond a rich man's (or woman's) hobby dreams.

In that case, the key would be how many such prizes there were. If it cost no more than $100 billion to put a person on Mars, and there were a hundred $1 billion prizes or a million $100,000 prizes [...]

Interesting point.  But I think there is a dilution effect if too many prizes are required to meet Antonio's hypothetical conditions.  Ansari would not have supported the X-Prize (or rather, purchased the insurance bond on the X-Prize) if its name recognition was too adulterated [sorry ... I just like that use of the word] with other brand names.

[khallow]

Interesting point.  But I think there is a dilution effect if too many prizes are required to meet Antonio's hypothetical conditions.  Ansari would not have supported the X-Prize (or rather, purchased the insurance bond on the X-Prize) if its name recognition was too adulterated [sorry ... I just like that use of the word] with other brand names.

At the level of funding that Antonio is talking about, there would be little name recognition unless the concept was outrageous. Say if a comedian were to offer a $100 prize for a working Dyson Sphere (shell of matter solid or not that intercepts all energy around a star) or a beer made of antimatter.

[Smoothie]

I don't think the availability of F1 affects the viability of the google moon prize much, but then again my personal opinion is that it is extremely unlikely anyone will even make an attempt. Even if I'm wrong, there are other launch options.

I think (hope?) you are wrong....

....and yes there other options.

[sammie]

This might be of interest:



An economist from "Marginal Revolution" on Space Prices.