There was a lot of acclaim for the X Prize competition recently when it was won. I've read some arguments for the establishment of more such prizes. There is even a scheduled annual X Prize Cup. I believe this to be a generally bad idea as the people who won the X Prize are in the best position to win everything in the first Cup, and will discourage investors and inventors from trying other approaches.
This is my alternative.
An organization is established to handle competitions of all sorts, with people securing funding from sources of all sorts (governmental agencies, ngo's, private donations). Each donation is tagged for a specific goal. First applicant to orbit a person around the globe 3 times and bring them home alive, first applicant to orbit a person around the moon 3 times and bring them home alive, first applicant to sustain a person on the moon for 3 days and bring them home alive, etc.
Not all the money would go to the first person though. The money would be split into 17 shares, with ten going to the first successful applicant, five to the second, and two to the third (provided that the second and third used notable different methods/technology than the first), thereby encouraging other people to try alternative methods of achieving the same goal.
Not only would it encourage alternative methods, but by keeping open the types of competitions, donors, and prize amounts, people could put money towards goals they were interested in, be it a lunar landing, tuberculosis vaccine, or proof of french vertebrae. While not everyone can put up $10 million for such a competition, a large group of interested people putting up smaller individual amounts could reach similar totals.
There are already multiple prize organizations, to include the
X Prize and
RSA Labs. A pooling of resources would benefit potential donors as well as competitors.
Goe, hasn't anything witty to put here.