Launching Commercial Space Flight: Part One - Finding the New Spirit of St. Louis

Many people look at the X PRIZE Foundation and say, "WOW" - what a great idea." What they may not know is how one person's initial concept evolves to that "WOW" stage of achievement. Here's my journey.

I am a space cadet.

Since the age of 6, I've always wanted to go to space. So, I studied medicine - thinking that was my path to orbit, but alas, NASA didn't agree, so I had to find another plan - a plan that led to the founding of the first X PRIZE.

In 1994, to motivate me to complete my pilot's license, my good friend, Gregg Maryniak, gave me Charles Lindbergh's autobiography of his solo flight across the Atlantic. The Spirit of St. Louis told the tale of Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic to win the $25,000 Orteig Prize. I had no idea his motivation was a prize - and suddenly, my path was clear. If it worked for Lindbergh, it would work to incentivize private spaceflight and in the course, my trip to space. My first hurdle was to find the seed money to get the idea off the ground. The active space communities seemed a natural fit, but my friend, Doug King, the newly installed President of the St. Louis Science Center, proposed that St. Louis would be the ideal place to launch the X PRIZE. The synergies were obvious: it was where Charles Lindbergh raised the seed money to build his prize-winning aircraft nearly 75 years earlier; it was home of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation which had built the Mercury and Gemini Capsules; and St. Louis is historically known as the Gateway for early exploration of the West.

I had my first meeting with Al Kerth, head of the St. Louis community's Civic Progress Organization, the man whom I was told was "the guy you have to convince in St. Louis." I will never forget the moment, when halfway through my impassioned pitch about my X PRIZE vision, Al got up out of his chair and said "I get it! I get it! This is huge! We need to do this in St. Louis!"

Over scotch that evening, Al told me about his own vision for the X PRIZE - to find 100 St. Louisans to each pledge $25,000 (the size of the Orteig Prize that Lindbergh won) to form the NEW Spirit of St. Louis. Together, Al and I met one-on-one with incredible people ... folks like spirited explorers Lotsie Holton and Doug King; civic leaders such as Dick Fleming, Walter Metcalfe and Hugh Scott; corporate giants like John McDonnell and Andy Taylor; and entrepreneurs like Bill Maritz and Marc Arnold. Through their generous contributions, the X PRIZE now had the opportunity to revive the pioneering legacy of Lindbergh and the original Spirit of St. Louis and to find the Lindbergh of our generation.

On May 18, 1996, underneath the St. Louis Gateway Arch, and on stage with NASA Administrators, FAA Associate Administrators, Buzz Aldrin, Byron Lichtenberg, Owen Garriott and 17 other astronauts, along with members of the Lindbergh family (including X PRIZE Trustee Erik Lindbergh), we announced the $10 Million X PRIZE for the first private team to fly two consecutive flights to the edge of space within two weeks. With more than 50 media outlets recording this incredible event, I was convinced that the hardest part was behind me and that we would rapidly find a purse sponsor. With the support of NASA, the FAA and some of the biggest names in the Space industry, who wouldn't want to get involved? Especially since they would only have to pay if the prize was won! The harsh reality, though, was that every CEO said the same three things: "Can anyone really do this?" "Isn't someone going to die trying?" and "Why isn't NASA doing this?" It was a long struggle with a few high points, like when Tom Clancy spontaneously donated $100,000 during our 1997 gala. But the $10 Million title sponsor, our holy grail, still evaded us.

That was, of course, until a magical moment in 2001 when I met the Ansari family, who immediately saw the vision and signed on as the title sponsor of what we would historically rename the "Ansari X PRIZE." Five years after we announced the competition, I could finally take a deep breath and enjoy the fact that the purse money was secured. But then the real challenge began - making sure there would be a winner...

Please tune in next week and every Friday through October 2, to read the inspirational stories of the visionaries and heroes who turned my "crazy idea" into a reality. Next week we will hear from the Romanian team who overcame significant hurdles to compete for the Ansari X PRIZE, and is now set on winning the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Other guest bloggers in this series include Anousheh Ansari, Ansari X PRIZE title sponsor; Brian Binnie, the astronaut who flew in the Ansari X PRIZE winning flight; Lori Garver, NASA Deputy Administrator; and Will Whitehorn, President of Virgin Galactic, the personal space tourism company now licensing the Ansari X PRIZE winning SpaceShipOne design and technology.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

Marvelous story and I look forward to more. The concept of prize money to spur industry is very alluring and as you say, it's worked in the past.
All efforts to accelerate our space developement are most welcome and I hope that support comes from many corners both in government and industry. So many of earth's challenges can be addressed from space: solar energy satellites in geosynch orbits to reduce our need for carbon fuels, an ideal platform from which to observe long term phenomenon on earth and in space (think of the size of an instrument that can designed and constructed in zero g), further exploration of both the Moon and Mars will be far easier when we operate from stable orbits far beyond Low Earth Orbit, and yes, even tourism (I'd rather go to an L5 postion so I could feast my eyes on both Earth and the Moon, and the station itself). We know how to do this, and we know it will pay off. This time we need to go for something other than military high ground and national presitige, and instead go for the benefits of space, materially (it's raining soup)and in the sense of the planet's security in its energy future, its climate study, and I think most seriously, the ability to detect and act when an impactor of significant size is located as surely it will be..

[SanDiegoView]

On behalf of the aerospace junkies and engineers down here in San Diego, where The Spirit of St. Louis was designed- built and tested, the real prize should go to the next advancement in propulsion. We need to stop flying on fire, the shuttle SRBs for example burn 700 tons of perchlorate into the atmosphere for every launch down at the Cape. There are some studies and developments, testing and analysis already long in process that may mean serious economic changes up ahead in the aerospace sector and then other economic dynamics across the board. San Diego has one of the great aerospace histories on the earth and we hope to continue that into the future. Hopefully the cheap launch cost of the Russians and Chinese will not keep back the money needed to further the new developments. A new Apollo program, with a fat prize kicker from uncle Sam and private interest, perhaps. Many however seek new theories and developments simply out of the appetite to advance technology and/or to go. It may not be an American page that is written for the next advancement in propulsion since we have stopped funding much in U.S. aerospace challenges.

[ancientmarinader]

Hopefully if NASA goes with the Augustine Deep Space option we'll get some Vasimir engines for space travel. But I don't see chemical rockets going away for leaving earth.

[MPAndonee]

The problem with NASA is the regulations. Not that there is anything wrong with regulations, but regulations drive costs up. There are thousands and thousands of pages of safety regulations to get a Shuttle up into space safety.

What the Ansari X Prize tried to prove was that space flight can be done a lot cheaper than that. This does not mean without safety -- not at all. But sometimes, regulations become a culture, and the culture becomes so ingrained that the people become frozen and do not feel like innovating. That is what has happened in today's NASA. How do I know? I have worked in the far outside orbit of NASA and have repeatedly interviewed for positions within and/or very close to NASA. And what has consistently driven me away is that ingrained culture.

Out here the spirit is alive -- in there, sometimes people get set in their ways and their way of thinking and don't want to change.

Yes, private space flight is expensive now, but the promise is there. And unless the private ventures succeed without government support and outside the government arena, then the dream of space exploration and space expansion will die.

[EllaMcD]

Actually, Shuttle has decades worth of innovation with new & improved internal system designs that have been implemented over the years. NASA must have a list somewhere.

The regulations are there because NASA manned spaceflight has already been through the early dumb engineering mistakes & repeated failure stages (see beginning of "The Right Stuff" movie).

So the rules & regs etc. are there to prevent wasting huge sums of taxpayer funds by new generations burning through taxpayer $$ repeating the same old dumb engineering mistakes again & again.

The big diff in safety margins for NASA vs. commercial is the single fault tolerance vs. double fault tolerance, 3 main engines vs. two, as in the current Shuttle vs. twin engine aircraft, & other things like that in engineering for safety & the Failure is Not an Option original mandate for success from JFK.

[FerrisValyn]

Shuttle has many single fault tolerant systems - If it lost an engine during the early part of the flight, it would not make it to orbit. Thats single fault tolerance.

There is a reason why NASA has a RTLS Abort, and TAL Abort - because if an engine failed too early in flight, it would not make it into orbit.

Now, if you want a rocket that does that, well, you'd have to look at Falcon 9 - having 9 engines makes you much more fault tolerant

[EllaMcD]

A very lovely, heartwarming, inspirational story!

Especially so, since it apparently doesn't involve any US taxpayer funding - a real genuine "Commercial" enterprise (for a change)! A truly pioneering effort . Wish it all the best success!

But, as Lori Garver herself once said in a PBS interview.­...... "the Devil is in the Details".

So, if anybody in this forthcoming series intends to sell the political community into supporting the diversion of NASA funds, or any other US government funding by taxpayers, to this effort
-Very Bad Idea (& Obama needs some new space advisors!)

Besides commercial spaceflight tourism being a Personal Luxury, rather than a public necessity,
just one of the many issues of diverting NASA funds to support "commercial" is because it may mislead or imply some sort of "NASA safety endorsement" of commercial space vehicles.

NASA Human Spaceflight Safety, Quality, & Reliability standards are infintely more stringent than commercial airplanes, even with FAA oversight (& reference NASA aircraft study).

And since taxpayers have apparently already paid "bailouts" to Boeing for the Dreamliner fiasco (see WTO Boeing vs. Airbus case), at least commercial airlines are closer to being a "public necessity" rather than Private Luxury spaceflight.

So all the best, but keep the hands off NASA & the taxpayers $$!

[FerrisValyn]

No, its a very good idea. NASA already spends money on companies, for space. NASA does not build its vehicles in house - Shuttle was built by Rockwell, Station was built by Boeing, and Orion is being built by Lockheed Martin.

That means that we are already spending money on Commercial companies, for space. The question is, are we getting the best value for our money? And I would say absolutely not. Orion & most of Constellation do almost nothing to move us towards becoming a spacefaring, particularly when it comes to lower the cost of and providing reliable access to space.

And the idea is to use commercial spaceflight as part of an overall strategy to make us spacefaring, which is absolutely a necessity.

And as far as NASA Standards being more stringent than commercial airplanes? Hardly. If that were the case, there I have no doubt we'd see people flying on NASA spacecraft already.

The question is can a commercial spaceflight industry serve NASA's needs? And the answer is a definite yes

[BonesofWrath]

"And as far as NASA Standards being more stringent than commercial airplanes? Hardly. If that were the case, there I have no doubt we'd see people flying on NASA spacecraft already."

Proof that they are not stringent please. I am not one who agrees because you say so. If commercial enterprise is the way to go why haven't they done it? Waiting for an answer....­.......*cr­ickets* I'll help you. It's not profitable yet. There are ideas that the moon or even Mars may have resources to use for energy here planet side. The commercial area is going to wait until NASA gets us there more frequently. If we spent the money we use researching and producing high tech weapons we would be in space already.

"The question is can a commercial spaceflight industry serve NASA's needs? And the answer is a definite yes"

Again, it is not profitable yet. Supply and demand. There needs to be a sizable demand for something like this. Besides the space station there needs to be a place to go to stay. A space resort you might say. A commercial operation could do something there but they wont. Once a rec station is up you would have a profitable reason to fly up there.