May 7, 2006
VIRTUOUS LOOP:
NASA poses $2-million lunar rocket challenge (Associated Press, 5/08/06)
NASA said Friday it is sponsoring a $2 million (U.S.) contest to spur aerospace designers to build and demonstrate versatile rockets that may one day support a lunar mission.The competition is part of the space agency's Centennial Challenges program, which aims to foster innovation by offering prizes to teams that can solve a range of problems.
Competing teams have to build a rocket that can launch vertically, climb to a certain altitude and suspend in the air, land at a target over 90 metres away and then return to its original launch pad.
The competition has two levels of difficulties and several prizes will be awarded. The largest prize is $1.2-million.
The next X-Prize: How about a 250 m.p.g. car? (Mark Clayton, 5/08/06, The Christian Science Monitor
The challenge: Build the world's most fuel-efficient production car - one that gets maybe 250 miles per gallon and causes little or no pollution. The payoff: prize money from the group that awarded $10 million for the world's first private spaceflight two years ago.When the X-Prize Foundation unveils its new high-mileage car contest later this year, it will join a small but growing number of competitive prizes for energy development. Instead of watching President Bush and Congress wrangle for months to just get Detroit to boost fuel efficiency by a few miles per gallon, why not offer fat cash prizes to the private sector for breakthrough technologies? Proponents say it's a cheaper and faster way to unhook America from its oil dependency.
Why not have Congress offer the first folks to sell a few thousand of them several billion dollars, paid for from a hike in gas taxes?
MORE:
Gas prices fuel telecommuting (Marilyn Gardner, 5/08/06, The Christian Science Monitor)
Laurie] Shannon is in the vanguard of a quietly growing band of Americans turning to telecommuting to reduce gas costs. As they work at home, typically a day or two a week, they are spurring a shift that could eventually turn the United States into what workplace analyst John Challenger calls a "telecommuter nation.""Companies are just beginning to become aware that employees are coming to them here and there, asking for help," says Mr. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm headquartered in Chicago. "They're seeing more absences. It's still under the radar, but as gas prices hit $3 a gallon, it's beginning to make a real impact on people's decisions with their employer."
A push for cars to get better gas mileage: A key dispute is whether proposed fuel standards should apply equally to all vehicles. (Brad Knickerbocker, 5/08/06, The Christian Science Monitor)
Like the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental group of scientists and citizens, as well as other supporters of more rigorous CAFE standards, Mr. Becker asserts that the technology already exists to make all new vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within 10 years.Posted by Orrin Judd at May 7, 2006 6:34 PM"Taking this step would save the average driver over $5,000 over the lifetime of their vehicle, even after accounting for the added cost of the fuel-saving technology," he says. "At the same time, raising fuel economy standards would save 4 million barrels of oil per day - an amount equal to what America currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined."
raising fuel economy standards would save 4 million barrels of oil per day
No, it would not. Once again: increased fuel economy, like anything else that lowers the cost of driving, will in the long run lead to increased consumption of motor fuel. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 7, 2006 7:49 PMNo, the taxes would nip that in the bud.
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2006 7:52 PMHey, why not offer a prize of a billion dollars to the person who comes up with a perpetual motion machine or Socialism that actually works in practice? Prizes only make sense when the the goal is attainable and will offset the expenses incurred.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 7, 2006 9:12 PMShhhh.
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 7, 2006 10:55 PMRaoul:
We have perpetual motion and socialism has worked as well as the Europeans wanted it to. A more efficient engine is easy.
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2006 11:30 PMMaking a car that gets 250 mpg is easy. It's the extension cord that's hard.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 7, 2006 11:31 PMHow hard can that be? It just requires a big AFX track.
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2006 11:35 PMSo if the fuel isn't literally used in the vehicle, it doesn't count?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 8, 2006 10:45 AMListen carefully ... that sucking sound you hear is our money leaving to finance some of the most detestable nations on earth. And they're buying rope with it. "We have found the enemy ..."
Posted by: Genecis at May 8, 2006 12:05 PMAOG: That article about the X Prize is just some newspaper guy spouting off. I don't think that it will pay off just for a car that goes 250 mpg of gasoline. A high compression engine designed specifically for E85 would only have to get 38 mpg of E85 to manage that. A couple of gearheads could do that to a Prius in a week.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 8, 2006 12:19 PMMr. Cohen;
I was mocking OJ, not you. I thought your comment was both amusing and apropos.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 8, 2006 2:50 PM