Talk:N-Prize

Promotion

The N-prize is not a commercial venture. It is a bona fide competition to stimulate novel thinking about cheap access to space, and to encourage innovation. In this sense, it is not unlike the X-Prize (which has a Wikipedia page) but, if anything, the N-Prize is less commercial. (The small cash prize is being awarded from the private funds of the organizers; there is no entrance fee for the competition).

As the organizer, I believe that the N-Prize is a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia page. We certainly hope to stimulate interest in the competition, but I see this as a legitimate goal.

Why is this competition notable? Please sign your comments on a talk page. Bit Lordy (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my research it is the first competition to encourage research into a highly constrained (by means of budget) means of orbital access. --Garf444 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats sufficient for notablilty. Also as you are the organizer you are not writing from a Neutral Point of View Bit Lordy (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the organiser - I'm the creator of this article. The organiser made the first post in this discussion and didn't sign his comment. If you need references as to why the competition is important, there are many organisations that would benefit from the research that will fall out of the end of this competition eg educational (http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/sshp/organisations/educational.html). The n-prize is aimed specifically at research into means of low budget, low mass, low earth orbit satellite injection, and in my opinion deserves an entry. --Garf444 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[Comment from organiser, Paul Dear] As I understand it, the main objection to this article is that it promotes the N-Prize. However, as noted, the N-Prize is an intellectual challenge, not a financial venture. I would be very grateful if the deletion could be deferred until others have had a chance to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.7.55 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[Apologies for earlier unsigned comments - I have now created and accounut and logged in] Further to my previous comment, I note that the neutrality of the article is disputed. I would argue that neutrality is a relevant criterion for deletion primarily when (a) the author is seeking financial or other benefit or (b) the article presents a biased view of a controversial topic. I don't believe that either of these criteria apply in this case. Please note that the N-Prize has attracted considerable attention both on the Web and in the media, none of it with a commercial bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd1684 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, promotion can occur for any reason, on any subject. The Neutral Point of View policy stipulates that all articles must be written from a neutral standpoint. While this venture is a noble one, not-for-profit, and worthy of support, the article on that venture must still be neutral and dispassionate. We can say "The N-prize is Z, Y, and Z". but we explicitly cannot say "The N-prize is X, Y, and Z, and this is why those things are good, and you should support the N-prize because of A, B, and C." The article also contrasts this event with larger competitions, including discussing the difference between the size of the award here and elsewhere. Doing so without an independent, reliable source to document the difference can be interpreted as a statement from the organizers (to whom the rationale is attributed), and that falls under self-promotion. Let me see if I can copyedit this down a little, as it absolutely should be kept if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've toned down some of the language - but feel free to add more detail if there are additional sources to support it. I also added a reference and stub-tagged the article. Hope this helps, and feel free to ping my talk page with any questions. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice piece of editing - thanks. --Garf444 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know it can stay. I'd disagree that the lengthier text was not neutral - my earlier version of the article was (I think) fairly factual (for example, in stating that the scale of the prize and the budget we small in order to attract amateurs rather than commercial ventures), rather than arguing that (for example) amateur involvement in space was a good or bad thing. Regarding the lack of a independent reliable soure regarding the comparison with the X-Prize, I think I stuck to fairly factual points (ie, the X-Prize was a much larger fund); the sizes of the respective prizes are given in the linked web pages.--Phd1684 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how to expand the existing stub (as requested on its page) - any suggestions as to the type of content that would be acceptable? Or would it better if done by someone who has no connection with the competition?--Phd1684 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the older stuff - specifically discussing the goals of the project and why it was set up the way it was set up - could probably be reinserted, with the caveat that it has to be backed by an independent source. You can't really say "The N-Prize was set up this way because of X, Y, and Z" without a source that says that, because then you're speaking on behalf of the organization/organizers, and that isn't a neutral point of view. I realize that you actually are the organizer, and good on you - I like this idea - but that just means that you have to be extra careful to be neutral in your writing about the project. The alternative would be to give us some of the information you would want to add, with links to sources, and I'll see what I can do about copyediting it into a neutral tone. Like I said, we're all on the same team. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a brief quotation from the rules of the N-Prize (available on the linked site), which I hope can be considered objective whilst clarifying the purpose behind the challenge. Hope this is OK.--Phd1684 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference on the [X-prize] entry as requested by the orphaned note. It may be that the Spinoffs section could be updated too. --Garf444 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Related articles

Is Rockoon really a related article worth mentioning here? Joel.Gilmore (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Initial conversations among n-prize entrants on the google n-prize forum showed that use of a rockoon was a potentially useful strategy for this particular competition's set of requirements. If more entrants add external links to their blogs, then it may make the reference clearer. --Garf444 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Is the external link by Generation Space under the References section warrented? I ask because it's not specifically referenced by anything in the main body of text. --Garf444 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Economics

It would be kind of interesting with some sources on the economics of this prize. I mean, for a sum equivalent to the launch budget, SpaceX offers to put 5 times the payload mass into orbit, if my calculations are not mistaken. I can see there may be some advantages with doing your own launch, like saving the payload shipping cost. But I'm not really convinced that the technology produced to solve this challenge is actually a step forward... would be nice with some figures for comparison or just some arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersFeder (talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Status of current development efforts

Are there any recent reliable sources that indicate any of these teams are still active in the competition? Teams with realistic plans to attempt a launch to compete for the prize before the prize deadline? Or alternatively, any news that some teams have dropped out? N2e (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Some updates would be great here. --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on N-Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sarocketry.co.za/projects.asp
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kiwi2space.co.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)