Well, I knew what the new prize was going to be this morning, but didn’t upstage them, out of courtesy.

Also, frankly, it’s sort of a yawner for me. I just can’t get as excited about it as I was supposed to be, based on all the pre-announcement hype.

I’m just not that into space science, or robots on other planets. I was hoping that it would be something that would further drive down the cost of space passenger travel. But hey, it’s Google’s money. Anyway, if it ups Elon’s launch rate, that’s all to the good.

[Update a few minutes later]

I knew this would happen. Per comments, look, I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. I’m not even saying that it’s not a good or worthwhile thing. I’m sure that there will probably be some good outcomes from it.

I’m just saying that if I had thirty million dollars, and wanted to put it toward a prize (or prizes) of some kind, this isn’t what I would have done with the money. And that I just can’t work up the kind of enthusiasm about it that many no doubt will.

[Another update]

Alan Boyle has more.

[A couple minutes later]

Wow. Alan’s comments section has certainly attracted a bunch of loons. In fact, sadly, they outnumber the sane ones.

[Another update]

A question in comments:

Do you find the search for habitable extrasolar planets to be an exception to your general lack of interest in space science?

Short answer: no.

Why would I? Barring some kind of FTL breakthrough, I don’t find habitable extrasolar planets an urgent issue. I think that it will be a lot easier to build habitats in the solar system than to go to extrasolar planets, for a long time, if not forever.

But I’ll repeat something I’ve written before. I’m not uninterested in space science. I just don’t find it any more fascinating than other kinds, and I don’t think that it can justify the amount of money that’s spent on it, relative to other kinds. That’s why I always say that it’s a dangerous argument for proponents of NASA funding to do it on the basis of “science” or “exploration,” because when the people with the money compare how much we’re spending on NASA relative to (say) the NSF, they may find themselves out on a breaking budgetary limb.

[Update again]

Bill White makes a good comment in comments, that I hadn’t considered. This is good for the people doing the Lunar Landing Challenge (Armadillo, Masten, et al). That ticks my excitement meter up a notch or two.

But it’s still down in the mud.

And it raises an interesting question. If the LLC is won this year (or next) will NASA fund a follow-on (higher, longer, etc.)? Or will this prize be the successor, in which the competitors for the prize bid for the services of the lander companies?

[Friday morning update]

Clark Lindsey responds to some naysaying from Popular Mechanics.

I definitely agree that Burt is irrelevant to this. I find all this Burt worship amusing. As I’ve written before, Burt isn’t God, and in fact there are many people who understand this kind of problem better than he does (something I’m sure he’d admit himself). The notion that if Burt is too busy to do something, it won’t get done, is ludicrous.

The reason that Burt won the X-Prize isn’t because he’s a genius who came up with the only way to do it. Burt won the X-Prize because his reputation allowed him to raise the money. There were lots of ways to skin that cat, and people who knew how to do it, but little funding for them.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Foust attended the announcement, and has pictures.

Mark Whittington doesn’t seem to understand the differences between SpaceX and RpK:

Charles Lurio has an interesting explanation why Rocket Plane/Kistler couldn’t raise funding for its COTS space craft and is now in great jeopardy of imploding. it’s [sic] all NASA’s fault. Of course that doesn’t explain why Elon Musk’s SpaceX seems to have no trouble raising private capital for the very same COTS competition that RP/Kistler seems to have failed at.

Well, actually, it does. SpaceX has no trouble raising private capital because a) it needs a lot less money and b) it has an angel investor, named Elon Musk. SpaceX has not been raising outside investment to date, whereas RpK has to. In addition, SpaceX anticipates other markets than COTS (and would be continuing to move forward in its absence, just as it was before COTS occurred), whereas it’s not clear if RpK (at least the “K” part of it) has a business plan that closes without it. So, yes, obviously, if NASA appears to be potentially fickle about whether or not it will eventually purchase COTS services at all (which it has), let alone from RpK, it will scare off needed institutional investors.

The real concern, though, as Charles pointed out, is that this can have a wider negative effect on space investment in general, even though there may be no logical relationship between the RpK deal and others.

And this is more of his typical nonsense:

Nothing is quite to irksome [sic] than to see people who pretend to be big boosters of commercial space who expect NASA or the government in general to guarantee the success of each and every commercial space company.

As usual, he does not (because he cannot) provide an actual quote or citation to support the assertion that there is anyone who has any such expectation. Because the only kind of arguments that he’s capable of knocking down are ones that no one actually makes.

Well, apparently RpK isn’t quite dead yet–it’s only mostly dead. But as Billy Crystal noted, there’s a big difference between dead and mostly dead. Alan Boyle has the latest. Apparently, if the money is pulled back, it will be recompeted.

[Afternoon update]

Charles Lurio has some a thoughts on the potential damage that NASA’s COTS approach may have done to the industry in general.

Well, apparently RpK isn’t quite dead yet–it’s only mostly dead. But as Billy Crystal noted, there’s a big difference between dead and mostly dead. Alan Boyle has the latest. Apparently, if the money is pulled back, it will be recompeted.

[Afternoon update]

Charles Lurio has some a thoughts on the potential damage that NASA’s COTS approach may have done to the industry in general.

Well, apparently RpK isn’t quite dead yet–it’s only mostly dead. But as Billy Crystal noted, there’s a big difference between dead and mostly dead. Alan Boyle has the latest. Apparently, if the money is pulled back, it will be recompeted.

[Afternoon update]

Charles Lurio has some a thoughts on the potential damage that NASA’s COTS approach may have done to the industry in general.

This piece at today’s issue of The Space Review seems to be…incoherent.

I know that this isn’t something that someone in Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) wants to hear, but in fact safety should not be the highest priority of an agency charged with opening the final frontier to humankind.

The STS-5 decision was needed to solve a problem that seemed simple enough. With the first four flights of the Space Shuttle, only two

Over at The Space Review today.

NASA is cutting off funding to RpK. It was inevitable, as long as they continued to miss their financing milestone.

The question now is–what will they do with the money? Personally, I’d like to see t/Space get a shot. Full disclosure, though–that’s partly out of self interest. If they do, I’ll likely get some contract work from them.

It’s actually kind of complicated, because it’s not clear how NASA will make the decision. Will they have to redo the competition? It’s been over a year since the original awards, and presumably the competitors could argue that a lot has changed. On the other hand, perhaps NASA could just ask for a new Best and Final Offer from the contestants.

[Afternoon update]

Clark Lindsey notes that it’s not quite a done deal. He also notes the chicken-and-egg nature of the problem (just like that of the launch-cost problem in general):

I’ve been told that the issue that kept coming up during RpK discussions with potential investors was the lack of a firm commitment by NASA to a contract for launches to the ISS if the demo was successful.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that’s the problem with any kind of government prize or guaranteed market. The government is fickle. In addition, in this case, the market wasn’t even guaranteed. A COTS participant has to make the numbers close on their business plan without NASA to raise the money, and that’s still a tough proposition, in terms of investor perception. RpK had a bigger problem than SpaceX (and t/Space) because their concept needs so much money.

NASA is cutting off funding to RpK. It was inevitable, as long as they continued to miss their financing milestone.

The question now is–what will they do with the money? Personally, I’d like to see t/Space get a shot. Full disclosure, though–that’s partly out of self interest. If they do, I’ll likely get some contract work from them.

It’s actually kind of complicated, because it’s not clear how NASA will make the decision. Will they have to redo the competition? It’s been over a year since the original awards, and presumably the competitors could argue that a lot has changed. On the other hand, perhaps NASA could just ask for a new Best and Final Offer from the contestants.

[Afternoon update]

Clark Lindsey notes that it’s not quite a done deal. He also notes the chicken-and-egg nature of the problem (just like that of the launch-cost problem in general):

I’ve been told that the issue that kept coming up during RpK discussions with potential investors was the lack of a firm commitment by NASA to a contract for launches to the ISS if the demo was successful.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that’s the problem with any kind of government prize or guaranteed market. The government is fickle. In addition, in this case, the market wasn’t even guaranteed. A COTS participant has to make the numbers close on their business plan without NASA to raise the money, and that’s still a tough proposition, in terms of investor perception. RpK had a bigger problem than SpaceX (and t/Space) because their concept needs so much money.

NASA is cutting off funding to RpK. It was inevitable, as long as they continued to miss their financing milestone.

The question now is–what will they do with the money? Personally, I’d like to see t/Space get a shot. Full disclosure, though–that’s partly out of self interest. If they do, I’ll likely get some contract work from them.

It’s actually kind of complicated, because it’s not clear how NASA will make the decision. Will they have to redo the competition? It’s been over a year since the original awards, and presumably the competitors could argue that a lot has changed. On the other hand, perhaps NASA could just ask for a new Best and Final Offer from the contestants.

[Afternoon update]

Clark Lindsey notes that it’s not quite a done deal. He also notes the chicken-and-egg nature of the problem (just like that of the launch-cost problem in general):

I’ve been told that the issue that kept coming up during RpK discussions with potential investors was the lack of a firm commitment by NASA to a contract for launches to the ISS if the demo was successful.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that’s the problem with any kind of government prize or guaranteed market. The government is fickle. In addition, in this case, the market wasn’t even guaranteed. A COTS participant has to make the numbers close on their business plan without NASA to raise the money, and that’s still a tough proposition, in terms of investor perception. RpK had a bigger problem than SpaceX (and t/Space) because their concept needs so much money.