(Note: Don't miss my post from yesterday--a recap of a lecture given by Stephen Hawking on Monday. Along with this post, that completes the two recaps I've been promising on Twitter.)

On Wednesday, I gave a talk at the Spring 2008 NASA Masters Forum, a semi-annual meeting that brings "together some of the best project managers and engineers from NASA, private industry, and other government agencies." I received the invitation from the editor of NASA ASK Magazine--who I met by chance on an airplane several months back. As mentioned previously, I have an article published in the most recent issue of that magazine, and my presentation yesterday was essentially on the same topic: lessons NASA program managers can learn from the teams competing for our prizes--especially the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.

When writing that article, I put in calls to several of the teams competing for that Challenge. I told that that I had a an opportunity to be a mouthpiece directly to a group of NASA Program and Project Managers, and that I wanted to give these team members an avenue to pass along lessons that might be useful to the agency. In my estimation, a lot of these teams have a bit of a love/hate relationship with NASA--they love what it is meant to do, and love a lot of what it does, but hate the agency's inefficiencies and a number of the policies and directions the agency has taken over the years. However, when presented with an opportunity like this to provide some guidance and direction to the agency, the "love" side of that relationship clearly kicks in, and they were all happy to share.

From those conversation, I pulled out four major points to highlight in my article and, later, in my talk. I hope you'll read the full article (and give me feedback!), but I'll summarize the main points below:

• Build, Test, Fly, Destroy, Repeat. I could (and, at some point, probably will) do an entire blog post on this one. For now, suffice it to say that small, entrepreneurial teams seem to understand better than large government agencies the value of not being afraid to fail every once in a while.
• "Not Invented Here" Leads to "Not Invented". I've mentioned this a few times in the past, but I find continually impressive and heartwarming the extent to which these companies in direct competition with each other for sizable sums of money freely share data, analysis, suggestions, et cetera. Things like the aRocket email list have become great resources for the community.
• Size Matters. Most of our teams / companies are extremely small--in the two to ten people range. Teams this small can work incredibly efficiently. No matter how good a manager is, no one can coordinate labor among a group of 25 people the way that, say, a father/son team like Unreasonable Rocket can.
• We're Entrepreneurial Space, and We're Here to Help. Many of the above lessons--especially "Size Matters"--could never be applied by NASA. Although spinning off small "tiger teams" or "skunk works" operations is possible (and often advisable), there are some projects which by necessity involve large numbers of people. Additionally, political and financial realities sometimes mean that certain practices that work well for a small entrepreneurial company can't be put into place at a large government agency or major prime contractor. For those types of occasions, I urged the program mangers in the room to think about how theycan engage the private community to outsource work--taking advantage of those companies' efficiencies when they can't be copied. This last bullet point is extremely similar to what was talked about at the US Air Force / FAA-AST Summit a few weeks back, so I presented a condensed version of my notes from that event.

I stuck around after the talk for a few hours, and had a chance to listen in as the participants engaged in a recap session going over what they'd heard in the first day and a half of the Masters Forum. It was clear that many of the attendees had quickly parsed my talk into some valuable nuggets to take home, as the focus of the comments seemed to be on two main topics: incentive structures for teams or individual employees; and how to view risk as a positive tool, rather than something to be feared. The first one has obvious bearing on any X PRIZE talk; the second is a good way to boil down the "Build, Test, Destroy, Repeat" section of my talk.

I was very pleased to hear these NASA managers talking this way. They raised some interesting dilemmas and though experiments, talking about how NASA can engage risk. It's a fascinating question to think about, in my opinion. As one participant pointed out, NASA is on the one hand uniquely well suited to accepting risk--given their large size, large and relatively stable budget, and reputation for doing really hard things--but on the other hand is uniquely poorly suited to do the same thing--given the huge amount of political and popular pressure on the agency to succeed in every single mission. Figuring out how to balance the two is a difficult and extremely important job for everyone from the NASA Administrator to the media pundit.

So, all in all, I was very happy and honored to have a chance to talk to this crowd. They were clearly a good group of people, and many of them seemed to get quite engaged. One other thing I really liked was that there was a "Graphical Facilitator" there taking a cool set of graphical / artistic notes. Below is my quick photo of the notes the artist took during my talk (Click to view much larger). I thought this was a very useful and very cool idea.

Visual notes taken during my talk at the NASA Masters Forum yesterday.
Artwork by Nora Herting. Photo Credit: W. Pomerantz, X PRIZE Foundation.

Finally, one last note: a while back, during a blog post about Arthur C. Clarke, I mentioned that maybe I should go and talk about the X PRIZE Foundation and about the wonderful things our teams are doing at Science Fiction conventions. I'm pleased to report that I've followed up on that... and that I'll be speaking RavenCon in Richmond, VA, this coming weekend.

(As regular followers of either the "GLXP" or the "PomerantzReport" twitter streams already know, I had a chance to attend a cool lecture early this week, and to give one at a cool meeting yesterday. This post is the first of those promised recaps!)

A few months ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a lecture here in DC as part of NASA's 50th anniversary series. On Monday, the next lecture and that series finally took place, and it was a great one. The speakers: Professor Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, and his daughter and co-author, Lucy Hawking.

Stephen Hawking and Lucy Hawking, presenting as part of NASA's 50th Anniversary Lecture Series.
Photo Credit: P. Vaujour, X PRIZE Foundation.

I was lucky enough to grab some seats to attend this event, held at the George Washington University, not too far from my own office in downtown Washington, DC. The event was mostly full--some obstructed view seats towards the edges remained empty--but the talk was also broadcast on both NASA-TV (warning: link doesn't play well with Firefox, at least not version v3β5) and C-SPAN.

Hawking had written this particular talk specially for the occasion--what he called a "50th Birthday Present for NASA." The title of the talk--"Why We should Go Into Space"--was apt, describing exactly what the talk was about. For about 45 minutes, the two Hawkings both gave a passionate, persuasive argument for why we should explore space.

Many of the arguments Hawking presented were quite familiar to those of us already passionate about space, but Hawking was an eloquent and effective messenger to carry those arguments out to new ears--including, hopefully, the ears on Capitol Hill responsible for controlling NASA's budget. As the lecture is archived online, I won't quote big tracts of it, but I did want to cite one section I found particularly effective.

Spreading out into space will have an even greater effect [than Columbus's voyage to the New World]. It will completely change the future of the human race -- and maybe determine whether we have any future at all. It won't solve any of our immediate problems on Planet Earth, but it will give us a new perspective on them, and cause us to look outwards rather than inwards. Hopefully, it will unite us to face a common challenge. ... Even if we were to increase the international budget 20 times, to make a serious effort to go into space, it would only be a small fraction of world GDP ... There will be those who argue that it would be better to spend our money solving the problems of this planet, like climate change and pollution, rather than wasting it on the possible fruitless search for a new planet ... I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, but we can do that and still spare a quarter of a percent of world GDP for space. Isn't our future worth one quarter of a percent?

Professor Hawking eloquently sums up a point many of us space geeks have long known: the "choice" between space exploration and solving other problems is a false one--this is not a zero sum game. Not only does investment in space exploration result in the immediate employment of large numbers of productive members of society and the near-term creation of countless valuable spin-offs that improve the quality of life around the world--it is also along term investment in the success or perhaps even the survival of our species. It's a good argument, and I hope that it fell on the right ears.

In the past few weeks , we've made a concerted effort to spread out the Google Lunar X PRIZE presence on a number of interesting social networking websites. Prizes are always more effective the more people know about them, and this one is no exception. Hopefully, sites like Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, can help us both reach a wider audience and also better inform the audience we've already reached.

Below is a list of ways you can follow us online. In many cases, you'll need to sign up for a membership with the site to view our page / group / whatever; but if you do, these tools will give you fresh updates, rich tools, and another network of like-minded people with whom you can associate. Please check them out, and spread the word!

• Twitter: This microblogging / liveblogging site is incredibly addictive. Built off an SMS-like model (messages are capped at 140 characters), Twitter is useful to provide very brief, very fresh information. Sometimes it's links, sometimes it is reporting from a conference, sometimes it is gripping about being stuck in an airport! There are a few X PRIZE related twitter streams; users can follow all of them by viewing the "with friends" option on twitter user "GLXP".
• Facebook: Facebook seems to be emerging as the new king of social networking sites. We're fully on the bandwagon. You can view the page, become a fan, or join the group. Several Google Lunar X PRIZE teams also have pages!
• MySpace: Though Facebook's star is ascending, MySpace is still the number one social networking site, I'm told. We've got a page there, too. Don't ask me why we count as an 80 year old female!
• YouTube: This one is Foundation-wide, not just X PRIZE Space. But you can find all sorts of great videos on our YouTube channel. I'll also occasionally post video blogs up there.
• RSS Feeds: Scatter all throughout the X PRIZE Foundation and Google Lunar X PRIZE webpages, you'll find links to RSS Feeds. If you sign up to these, every relevant post (so, for example, the relevant posts for this feed are every blog post by every Google Lunar X PRIZE Team) from that feed will be pushed out to an aggregator site like Google Reader. Signing up for RSS feeds for all of your favorite sites will give you a convenient one-stop-shop to read all of them. Many aggregators have very convenient mobile versions, so you can keep up with the news from your cell phone, Kindle, et cetera.
• Forums: I've posted about the Google Lunar X PRIZE Community Forum before, but I did want to note that we are implementing some changes to help the signal rise further above the noise. Of course, the best way for that to happen is for all of you to go and post more good points--and just drown out the noise with lots of good signal!
• Google Gadget: Users of Google's iGoogle can add a Google Lunar X PRIZE Google Gadget to their iGoogle homepage by clicking on this handy button here: . The gadget will put Google Lunar X PRIZE news, videos, and more directly onto your iGoogle homepage, so that you are never out of touch.
• Newsletter: In addition to the Foundation-wide newsletter, you can now sign of for a Google Lunar X PRIZE-specific email-based newsletter. It comes out once a month, and will collect together some highlights and links to topics of interest, like upcoming events, recent announcements, Lunar Legacies, et cetera. You can sign up on the left hand side of the Google Lunar X PRIZE website.

We've got many more products in the works--but we think you'll be pleased with this bunch already. Hopefully, we'll soon complement these with things like Google Moon content, KML layers for Google Earth, et cetera. So, stay tuned!

(Note: This is a continuation of another post I made yesterday about the RLV Summit that also occurred in Colorado last week. Be sure to check that out... and don't miss my quick post about Armadillo Aerospace.)

This was meant to be another video blog, but it turns out that essentially none of the video I took in Colorado last week was usable. Between poor lighting, bad sound quality, and me sounding like a frog thanks to a bad cold, it wasn't anything I wanted to subject you to, dear readers. So, forgive me for the tardiness of this old fashioned text-based blog! It is a good incentive, though, to start thinking about picking up a real camcorder to do more video blogs. Anyone out there have any good recommendations?

Anyway, as the title of this post implies, I went out to the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs last week. Though it was the 24th time that conference had been held, it was actually my first time attending. For those of you who have never attended, it was quite a show! It's something that has to be seen to be believed, but I'll try my best to describe it here, for those of you who have never been able to attend--though I saw a few other bloggers out there (like Jeff Foust of Space Politics, Personal Spaceflight, et cetera), but haven't read any play-by-plays. This isn't really a play-by-play either, I suppose--but some insight is better than none (I hope!)

NSS, it turns out, is a show unlike any other. The sheer volume of the event is astounding. The week kicks off with an opening ceremony complete with a well known band (Big Bad Voodoo Daddy - warning: link will resize your window) and fireworks. Unlike many other conferences, NSS has only a single track, with very high level panelists or speakers talking to an audience of thousands. The exhibit halls are enormous, and the displays glitzy and impressive, with swag galore. And, of course, the parties are spectacular and unbelievably numerous--I counted about 30 on Wednesday night alone, each with a theme and an open bar.

One reason I hadn't attended NSS in previous years was that I felt that as an X PRIZE employee, I operated in a different circle than that which you see on display at NSS. For years, it seems like alt.space and traditional space haven't mixed--or haven't mixed well. One side dismisses the other as a group of dinosaurs; looking back across the aisle, the other group sees insignificance, bravado, or petulance. Both groups are probably partly right and partly wrong, like in so many other things. But in recent times, that attitude seems to be changing. We see some key examples: Northrop Grumman's sponsorship of the Lunar Lander Challenge; Northrop's acquisition of Scaled Composites; Raytheon's role on team Astrobotic; Lockheed Martin's partnership with Spaceport America and UP Aerospace; et cetera. This year seemed like as good a time as any to go and actively engage the traditional aerospace community, and to see how X PRIZE can further help bridge that gap between the two factions.

Overall, I was quite pleased with what I found. We weren't the only ones represented there--Google Lunar X PRIZE teams Astrobotic, LunaTrex, and Odyssey Moon were all represented there, as well as other new space players like SpaceX and XCOR.

Like so many other good conference, NSS is all about the side meetings. It was strange to realize that I spent half of my time in meetings with other people based in DC, but that's how these things work. In any case, it was a productive event.

But most pleasing of all was the general attitude I heard towards prizes in general, the X PRIZE Cup, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Big aerospace is starting to learn about these kind of efforts, and to embrace them--both at a personal level and at a corporate level. It's personally reaffirming to hear people talk glowing about those projects, sure; but much more importantly, it's a good sign for the greater aerospace community, I feel.

(From Left to Right) William Pomerantz, Nicole Jordan, and Bretton Alexander, all of the X PRIZE Foundation.

Photo Credit: N. Jordan, X PRIZE Foundation.

When I posted a short while ago, I promised another blog post this afternoon about the National Space Symposium... but I'm pulling a switcheroo, as I had a quick update. The NSS post may slip to tomorrow, as I'm headed to the airport soon.

As most of you have no doubt already seen, Armadillo Aerospace was featured prominently in the Rocket Racing League announcement that happened yesterday. We are excited and proud for Armadillo, a wonderful group of people and a great team that has been doing really fantastic work. Their selection as a partner for RRL was well deserved.

I did want to clarify one issue, though. Many places in the media have picked up a quote from John Carmack, the leader of team Armadillo, indicating that because of this deal with RRL, Armadillo would not compete in or would downgrade their efforts to win the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.

After we talked directly to John, I'm happy to report that that is not the case. Armadillo does indeed still plan on competing in the Lunar Lander Challenge this year. They are excited to have the new business--but the NGLLC definitely still fits into Armadillo's plans, and they are excited and confident about their chances to when it this year. I don't know if John was misquoted or if he misspoke, but either way, the wrong message got out. I'm happy to correct it here.

(Note: This is part of a two-part series recapping my trip to Colorado last week. I hope to post the second part this afternoon.)

I took a Sunday night flight out to Colorado Springs last week so that I could attend the "Commercial Space Entrepreneurial Reusable Launch Vehicle Summit" (now there's a name!) jointly offered by the US Air Force and the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. It was a half-day, closed door session wherein the Air Force brass and some of the leaders of the entrepreneurial space community got to know each other a little better, and then talked about how they could better work together. Preceding the National Space Symposium by a day, the session was well attended--though small in size, it was a gathering of good and important people.

The initial sessions were a little bland--simple recitations of what people are working on in various branches of the Air Force, and what capabilities they would like to have. But the discussion at the end made it all worthwhile. Entrepreneurial space CEOs and high ranking Air Force brass (3- and 4-star generals included) had an honest and frank discussion, moderated by Acting Associate Administrator George Nield and other FAA/AST personnel, about how entrepreneurial space can work with the US military and how the military can make sure the community is there to do so. I'm sure I'm not allowed to quote anyone directly, so I'll summarize what I thought were the key points here in my own words:

• Adopt your needs to the available solutions, rather than the other way around. In the past, it seems that many government customers have come to entrepreneurial community and said something to the effect of "Do you have a 6-person orbital vehicle that can launch within 10 hours of an initial request? No? Well, come back to us when you do." In an ideal world, of course, the answer to that question would be yes. But in the real world, especially when the government customer can't fund the development of such a vehicle, that's not going to happen. Instead, the government customer might be better off figuring out what the community can offer, then figuring out how that can be useful. A vehicle like XCOR's Lynx, for example, might be pretty far off from that initial request, but it still has substantial value--say, for example, as a first stage for a limited capacity orbital launch system. Government customers should think about if and how they can take advantage of what is available now, simultaneously gaining a benefit for themselves and stimulating the private companies to develop bigger and better things.
• Adjust contractual mechanisms to reflect entrepreneurial realities. Sure, contractual mechanisms may not be the world's sexiest conversation topic. But they sure are important. Many standard governmental contracts come with a lot of strings attached--things like cumbersome accounting procedures that require a standing army of personnel to observe. Those strings are no big deal for the larger aerospace companies, which are well accustomed to meeting them. But for smaller companies, the cost of implementing those procedures can make the contract not worth having. If the US Air Force or other customers want to get the smaller companies interested in their smaller contracts, they have to work out a way to lose this baggage. NASA's Space Act Agreements are a great example.
• Be aware of the importance of timing. For the smaller, newer companies that make up the entrepreneurial space community, the success of the company depends not only on the number of dollars they bring in from big contracts but also on the timing with which it comes in. As a small company tries to transition an idea from paper concept to demonstration to manufacturing to implementation, there may be some key "valleys" where the money is not flowing in. To best take advantage of these technologies--including ones that the Air Force has helped fund through SBIRs, et cetera, they should be cognizant of this fact, and think about how it can be avoided.
• Clue the community in to your future needs. This is fundamentally linked to the first point, I think. When the government isn't paying for the development of a vehicle, it is unreasonable to expect the community to make it to order. The entrepreneurial community will always design the vehicle it thinks will best serve the market--and the government is only one portion of the market. That said, if government customers can clearly project what their future needs will be, the good entrepreneurs out there will diligently look at what it will cost to implement design changes to help meet those needs. Right now is the time to do so--so many different entrepreneurial companies in the design phase of various vehicles. In the future, making changes to accommodate USAF needs will be more expensive than it is now, when designs are still flexible.

Looking back over my list, it almost seems a bit petulant--like a list of demands. But following along in real time, that wasn't the sense I got at all. Indeed, it was clear to me that the commercial space representatives were as patriotic as they were entrepreneurial, and were certainly interested in seeing the USAF succeed in all aspects of its mission. For their part, the Air Force personnel were extremely receptive--and in some cases, were already working on these types of things. I'd be remiss to not mention some Broad Area Announcements that already went out that will surely help matters, such as BAA-ORS-08-01.

So, all in all, I found it to be very productive. Hopefully, the USAF leadership learned a little bit more about both what the alt.space community has to offer, and how to take advantage of it. Kudos to Dr. Nield, FAA/AST's Brooke Owens, and all of the rest of the FAA/AST and USAF staff for putting together a great summit!

A video blog from the UK Space Conference

Having a little fun with our rover....

The sad news of Sir Arthur C. Clarke's death leads me to a renewed resolution.

Presenting the winners of the 2008 Botball Design Challenge, which focused on the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Some very impressive work done by very young students lends hope to all of us who are confident that students have an important role to play in this prize!