Brief Update on the Elevator:2010 Competition
I arrived home from the X-Prize Cup this afternoon. Once I catch up on sleep, I’ll sort through the photos I took and post them, as well as my thoughts and comments on the entire event (but particularly the Space Elevator games portion, of course).
For those of you who don’t know about it, Ted Semon’s Space Elevator Blog had a remarkable number of updates each day of the competition, and he also summarizes the results as of Sunday night. Until I can post more, here are some links to various interesting articles about this year’s SE Games.
- MSNBC: “Thrills and spills abound at rocket fest”
- NewScientistSpace.com: “Tensions Rise at SE Challenge”
- NewScientist blog: “Space elevator scandal”
- Space.com: “SE Challenge Extended by One Day”
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:44 am
I am not in the position to fully judge the SE games, because I was not there. But from what I read in the media, it sounds that the organisation was not very well. Put on top of that the gaps in the game rules (no power limit, so you can use as many spotlights if you want).
If the SE games want to be a serious attempt to accelerate SE development, it should be well organized and the rules must be such that real innovation will be the product. Climbing a ribbon with a robot is already proven by Liftport. So the real innovation should come from power beaming. That is CONCENTRATED, efficient beampower with AUTONOMOUS beam tracking. Anything less is not real innovation to me and will degrade the competition to a media stunt rather than an driving force behing SE development.
Maybe we should be glad that nobody won the competition this year. This way, the prize will be more serious next year (0.5M$) and it gives the organization time to change the rules to make sure there is a fair competition which will really produce technical innovation.
Don’t interpret my comments too negatively. I am sure it was great if you where at the games, seeing a lot of bright SE enthousiasts working on their design. But the (objective) media picked it up differently and now we have to move forward and give a positive twist to this. I am looking forward to an honest review from within the SE community!
October 24th, 2006 at 12:50 am
You raise some good points, Jasper. If the purpose of the space elevator games is to spur innovation in ways to meet a reference architecture than, as you suggest, the rules should spur the development of concentrated, efficient beam power with autonomous beam tracking. I suggest though that the first purpose was to get people aware of and interested in promoting the concept of building a space elevator as a viable one that can and should be funded. To do this you give prizes and create a regular event that will perk people’s interest. Each year you tighten the rules and lead to what you want but first you get people thinking and involved. The catch is that if you play to long than the annual event is never taken seriously and the public gets the idea that building a real space elevator is not a serious possibility. Perhaps the third year is the best time to get serious.