"Prizes are useful in bringing credibility to an industry, inspiring entrepreneurs and investors, and attracting new customers to an industry. Both the aviation and space benefited from the Orteig and Ansari X prizes. But, by challenging people to perform what are essentially stunts, they do not always address the fundamental technologies required to truly move a sector forward. And that can have deadly consequences.…
There are a lot of X Prizes. Many, like the lunar prize, are not dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation The entire debate about a particular prize being nothing more than a stunt is a debate that doesn't fit well on HN. A private group getting to the moon and sending video back, could inspire others, which could get NASA a larger budget, or lead to more VC funding.
The article compares the Ansari X Prize [1], which Scaled Composites won, to the Orteig Prize [2], which Charles Lindbergh won. It's a statement on the efficiency of prizes, generally, in fostering technological change. Not a complaint abut a specific prize.
The evidence the author collects, across multiple articles and many decades show prize money is better spent on other things. The "inspire others" and "get NASA a larger budget" or "more VC funding" bits don't happen, or don't happen as effectively as if those goals had been directly pursued, e.g. paying for PR, lobbying or actually making the VC investments.
The optimizations made to win the prize rarely translate into broader success. The resulting disappointment(s) and inevitable hype-cycle end can end up doing more damage in the long run.