Would this lander be big enough to investigate lunar polars for water. eg land in shadow crate and survive long enough to determine state water is in. This may be simple as scanner or more complex like robotic arm and means of testing sample.I guessing a life measured in hours.
Something doesn't add up.Their mission is supposed to cost $10 million -- $5 million for the launcher and $5 million for the lander. And the article says that they have bought two more launch vehicles and have options on two more. But their first launch attempt is supposed to be toward the end of 2017. The end of 2017 is the deadline for the GLXP. So, if their first attempt fails, how can they possibly have time to build another lander and launch it before the end of 2017? If they really have two more launch vehicles as a contingency, they would need to build two more landers as a contingency, pushing their costs to $30 million. And even then, if there's a failure on the first mission, there's a good chance it will take a while to figure out what went wrong and/or fix it -- whether it's the launch vehicle or the lander. So they've inflated their costs by a factor of 3 just to have only modest chances of being able to succeed if the first mission fails. And, it puts their costs over the total amount they could win even if they do succeed.S I doubt they really bought two additional launch vehicles as a contingency for the GLXP. They want to go into business post-GLXP with more lunar missions, so maybe they put down deposits on additional launch vehicles for that.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/23/2016 05:25 pmWould this lander be big enough to investigate lunar polars for water. eg land in shadow crate and survive long enough to determine state water is in. This may be simple as scanner or more complex like robotic arm and means of testing sample.I guessing a life measured in hours.Alternatively they land at the top of a crater and send down a rover that keeps coming back to recharge its batteries.
Synopsis:Added: Nov 01, 2016 7:59 amThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) is seeking information on the availability of small payloads that could be delivered to the Moon as early as the 2017-2020 timeframe using U.S. commercial lunar cargo transportation service providers. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cbcd56e6afbd7dfad1ef9cd0fb52b6f7&tab=core&_cview=0Nice to see NASA make use of these XPrize landers. At $10M for MX1, a lunar mission has never been cheaper. With <10kg payload to work with, science teams and their engineers are going need to be resourceful. Astrobotic lander can deliver few hundred KGS but mission costs are likely to be around $100m.
Doesn't Electron have an option for a 3rd stage kick motor? Are the payload capability figures all considered with the utilization of the optional motor?
“I love Elon and I love Jeff, and both are our neighbors at Cape Canaveral, so we are a good neighborhood there,” he said. “But – truth be told – they are all underachievers and unambitious people.”...“They are all stuck in low Earth orbit so far – and we are going to the moon this year,” Jain said. “We are the only company in the universe that has permission to leave Earth orbit and land on the moon. So when we talk about underachievers, that’s where we put Elon and Jeff. But someday, when they can land on the moon, they can come talk to me about it.”Truth be told, Moon Express hasn’t yet put anything in space, let alone on the moon. It’s relying on Rocket Lab’s low-cost Electron launch vehicle to send up its lander, but the Electron still has to face flight testing.
Uh... this is behind a paywall, is there a mirror?
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 16m16 minutes agoMoon Express shows off a full-sized model of its MX-1E lunar lander in D.C.; company CEO Bob Richards at left.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 14m14 minutes agoRichards says company is on schedule to launch its first spacecraft by the end of the year, pending availability of the Electron launcher.