Author Topic: GLXP Update Thread  (Read 93311 times)

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #100 on: 09/20/2014 05:32 am »
This is the project in question, picture from google images

http://themoonhouse.com/en

Edit: Added link

That is so funny. LOL. ;-)

Is his telephone ringing off the hook?

Online jamesh9000

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #101 on: 12/16/2014 06:52 pm »
Big update, the GLXP competition has been extended through to the end of 2016: http://lunar.xprize.org/press-release/deadline-30-million-google-lunar-xprize-extended-end-of-2016

For me the big news is that
Quote
As part of this revised timeline, at least one team must provide documentation of a scheduled launch by December 31, 2015 for all teams to move forward in the competition.

In other words, no one has a launch yet. Barcelona Moon Team booked on a Long March for June this year? Hasn't happened. Astrobotic on a Falcon 9, I guess it wasn't booked, or they wouldn't have said this. I wish the teams would just be honest with us about what they're doing and what's booked and what isn't. It makes this kind of thing really hard to follow if we can't trust any team updates.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #102 on: 12/31/2014 11:26 am »
Big update, the GLXP competition has been extended through to the end of 2016: http://lunar.xprize.org/press-release/deadline-30-million-google-lunar-xprize-extended-end-of-2016

For me the big news is that
Quote
As part of this revised timeline, at least one team must provide documentation of a scheduled launch by December 31, 2015 for all teams to move forward in the competition.

In other words, no one has a launch yet. Barcelona Moon Team booked on a Long March for June this year? Hasn't happened. Astrobotic on a Falcon 9, I guess it wasn't booked, or they wouldn't have said this. I wish the teams would just be honest with us about what they're doing and what's booked and what isn't. It makes this kind of thing really hard to follow if we can't trust any team updates.

Honesty nearly always loses out to survival.  Teams fear if they admit how bleak things really are, it will seal their doom because then they won't get any more money, donations, or volunteers.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #103 on: 12/31/2014 11:34 am »
Maybe it would be better for Google to just pull the plug.  Honestly, if teams haven't been able to raise the cash for launches yet, is another year really going to matter?

If nobody ends up winning the prize, dragging it out year after year has several negative effects.  It makes people sour on the idea of prizes for spaceflight.  It makes them sour on the idea of progress for spaceflight in general.  It makes them sour on the idea of commercial spaceflight.  It wastes the efforts of many volunteers and some paid employees working on these projects who could be contributing to something that could actually succeed, whether in spaceflight or something else.

I think prizes are a good idea, but the prize amount was too small for the requirements of this competition.  Its failure will make future space prizes less likely to happen.

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #104 on: 12/31/2014 03:02 pm »
Maybe it would be better for Google to just pull the plug.  Honestly, if teams haven't been able to raise the cash for launches yet, is another year really going to matter?

If nobody ends up winning the prize, dragging it out year after year has several negative effects.  It makes people sour on the idea of prizes for spaceflight.  It makes them sour on the idea of progress for spaceflight in general.  It makes them sour on the idea of commercial spaceflight.  It wastes the efforts of many volunteers and some paid employees working on these projects who could be contributing to something that could actually succeed, whether in spaceflight or something else.

I think prizes are a good idea, but the prize amount was too small for the requirements of this competition.  Its failure will make future space prizes less likely to happen.

I disagree. The ANSARI XPrize was started in 1997. The idea of someone making a viable, much less safe suborbital spacecraft seemed doubtful until Scaled Composites nailed it with Spaceship One nearly a decade later.

Innovation takes time. Funding takes time. Funding also requires more than good technology. It may require good salesmanship. I'm betting Scaled Composites couldn't go anywhere without making that good investment pitch to Paul Allen. Geeks have the technical savvy but only a few have the diplomatic savvy that pushes things to action.

The competition has fertile soil. Given that Elon Musk has a rocket that can easily send a small payload into TLI, it's a matter of funding and time. This prize would be impossible were it not for the advent of commercial rocket vehicle companies. But they're also in their infancy. One is thriving. Another is recovering. The oldest kid on the block is busy at their "real job" (ULA) and isn't into "hobbies."

Based on my scan of the Wikipedia article on the prize, the best option is for several companies to buy out a SpaceX launcher. I'm sure Musk would even cut a deal on a reused one, given he's part of the XPrize Commission. But as others have noted, the window is closing and there's a growing and long manifest. I'd hope the time is extended. It's a laudable quest.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #105 on: 12/31/2014 03:47 pm »
I think prizes are a good idea, but the prize amount was too small for the requirements of this competition.  Its failure will make future space prizes less likely to happen.
I don't think prizes at this scale are a good idea. I think trying to foster innovation and building a larger pool of credible teams (and companies) that can fly spacecraft to space is a good idea, but prizes haven't been doing that.

Things like university cubesat programs have done far more of that over last 10 years than GLXP ever did. As a young engineer it is far, far better to have a Cubesat ( even a failed one ) on your resume than being member of GLXP team.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #106 on: 01/25/2015 06:31 pm »
CNET is having a live chat on its website today with five of the competing teams for the GLXP.
I won't log in, but if you want to chat with the five teams, rake them over the coals today and demand to know what launchers they will use, if they have any lined up.

Offline SaxtonHale

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #107 on: 01/26/2015 07:18 am »
I'd be happy to answer any questions I can about Carnegie Mellon University's rover Andy.
Vimeo page with additional videos

We're partnered with Astrobotic, who are developing the Griffin Lander, which will carry our rover to Lacus Mortis.

This isn't anything official, I'm just a NSF member who is very excited about all of these missions, and happy to be involved with this one.

(I know those links aren't 'meaty' with the kind of detailed information we like here, but it is a quick introduction. Much is still up in the air, of course...)
« Last Edit: 01/26/2015 07:20 am by SaxtonHale »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #108 on: 01/26/2015 09:21 am »
I'd be happy to answer any questions I can about Carnegie Mellon University's rover Andy.
Vimeo page with additional videos

We're partnered with Astrobotic, who are developing the Griffin Lander, which will carry our rover to Lacus Mortis.

This isn't anything official, I'm just a NSF member who is very excited about all of these missions, and happy to be involved with this one.

(I know those links aren't 'meaty' with the kind of detailed information we like here, but it is a quick introduction. Much is still up in the air, of course...)

Great, thanks!

I have some questions:

1. How much is the Andy team contracted to pay Astrobotic for the ride to the moon?

2. How much of that has Team Andy already paid?

3. How much still needs to be raised from outside funding sources to reach the amount that must be paid to Astrobotic?

4. Does Team Andy pay Astrobotic the same amount if the launch and/or landing is a failure as if the Andy payload actually makes a soft touchdown on the Moon?

5. When is the Astrobotic launch scheduled?

6. Is there a firm commitment to a date?

7. How far is Astrobotic from reaching the funding level needed to pay for the launch?

Thanks!  I'm really looking forward to hearing these kinds of details.  I'd be thrilled to see someone win the GLXP, but I'd like to know how realistic that is before getting my hopes up.

Offline SaxtonHale

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #109 on: 01/26/2015 03:52 pm »
First, I'm just now shamefully remembering that this is the update thread. Construction and testing of the proto-flight rover will occur over the next few months, so it might make sense to start a separate thread for Andy soon.

An update, however - the milestone prize winners have been announced, and additional milestone prizes hinted at.

Back to your questions,
I'm sure you expected that those are all difficult to answer. Since this isn't anything official from the team, I'm going to be careful. Also, a lot of those contract details are still not nailed down, or are not made obvious to the students. But I will find out some of those details.

re the Astrobotic partnership - it is very collaborative since there is a close history. I don't know those numbers now, or if we'd make them public at this time.

We're doing fundraising, and have already raised a bunch- it doesn't look tight, although everyone always would like more money. Winning all three milestone prizes helps us in showing our system to other people.
Astrobotic is selling their lander's capability commercially, even on the first mission.

The relationship with the company that will launch us is also collaborative, as in, they want to get us there - it is more than just doing it for the check. You can guess which company that is.
Previous rumors of a firm launch were just rumors by ex-team members. Nothing public about the launch date, yet.


You're right to keep your enthusiasm in check. This year will show whether anyone is going or not.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #110 on: 02/23/2015 09:56 am »
Just saw reports that the representative team from Japan, HAKUTO, is also hitchhiking their little rover on Astrobotic's.

The launch date is stated as "2H 2016" - they better start final integration and testing soon.....  :-X
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #111 on: 05/03/2015 05:48 pm »
What went on the wire was an agreement between Astrobotix and Hakuto teams to collaborate on securing the launch.

I see no indication that a launch deal has actually been signed between the launch provider and customers in that press release, SpaceX wasnt a part of the PR. AFAIK they have never confirmed any launch slots for any of the GLXP missions, still, but then english is not my first language.

http://lunar.xprize.org/press-release/two-google-lunar-xprize-teams-announce-rideshare-partnership-mission-moon-2016

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online jamesh9000

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #112 on: 05/04/2015 04:26 am »
No, you've understood it correctly. Every couple of years a team 'announces' they've booked a ride on a rocket at a certain time, then awkward silence follows, and eventually the promised month comes and goes with not a word mentioned. Team Barcelona kicked it off in 2013. Hopefully this time it will be different.

Offline Quagga

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #113 on: 05/25/2015 01:46 pm »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #114 on: 05/25/2015 03:12 pm »
From the conditions for extending the deadline:
Quote
At least one team must provide XPRIZE and Google with notification of a launch contract by December 31, 2015 for the competition to be extended until December 31, 2017.

So they are forcing the teams to book a launch.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #115 on: 05/25/2015 10:21 pm »
From the conditions for extending the deadline:
Quote
At least one team must provide XPRIZE and Google with notification of a launch contract by December 31, 2015 for the competition to be extended until December 31, 2017.

So they are forcing the teams to book a launch.

They also explicitly say

Quote
If no team has provided XPRIZE and Google with notification of launch contract by December 31, 2015, the competition will conclude.

That confirms that no team yet has a firm launch contract, in spite of some teams implying in the past that they did.  And I think it also shows that Google thinks it is uncertain whether any teams will actually be able to come up with funding for the deposits on launch contracts by the end of this year.

On the positive side, I don't think they would have bothered with the conditional extension if they didn't think there was some hope some team would be able to come up with a launch deposit.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #116 on: 05/25/2015 11:14 pm »
IMO the only way one of the GLXP competitors can book a launch contract by the end of 2015 is if someone donate a launcher.  :(

Of course there is the freebie ride on the FH Demo flight next year. SX need a guinea pig customer.  ;D


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #117 on: 05/25/2015 11:26 pm »
IMO the only way one of the GLXP competitors can book a launch contract by the end of 2015 is if someone donate a launcher.  :(

Of course there is the freebie ride on the FH Demo flight next year. SX need a guinea pig customer.  ;D

If SpaceX were willing to donate the Falcon Heavy Demo flight to one of the GLXP contenders, I think they would have just done it by now and they would have a firm launch contract signed and Google wouldn't be threatening to pull the plug.

Just because the FH Demo flight is risky doesn't mean it has zero value.  I'm sure there are lots of organizations that would pay for it if the discount were big enough.  And SpaceX could decide to use it for its own purposes, as a PR stunt and/or to test in-space systems, such as Dragon 2.

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #118 on: 05/26/2015 07:04 am »
That confirms that no team yet has a firm launch contract, in spite of some teams implying in the past that they did.  And I think it also shows that Google thinks it is uncertain whether any teams will actually be able to come up with funding for the deposits on launch contracts by the end of this year.

On the positive side, I don't think they would have bothered with the conditional extension if they didn't think there was some hope some team would be able to come up with a launch deposit.

FWIW, Interorbital's web site still claims they are the launch provider for GLXP Team SYNERGY MOON and "is also under contract to launch test payloads on its N5 or N7 orbital rocket for several other GLXP teams.."
..but presumably lack of forward progress speaks louder than a web site entry.
 
http://www.interorbital.com/interorbital_05022015_013.htm

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: GLXP Update Thread
« Reply #119 on: 05/26/2015 09:37 am »
That confirms that no team yet has a firm launch contract, in spite of some teams implying in the past that they did.  And I think it also shows that Google thinks it is uncertain whether any teams will actually be able to come up with funding for the deposits on launch contracts by the end of this year.

On the positive side, I don't think they would have bothered with the conditional extension if they didn't think there was some hope some team would be able to come up with a launch deposit.

FWIW, Interorbital's web site still claims they are the launch provider for GLXP Team SYNERGY MOON and "is also under contract to launch test payloads on its N5 or N7 orbital rocket for several other GLXP teams.."
..but presumably lack of forward progress speaks louder than a web site entry.
 
http://www.interorbital.com/interorbital_05022015_013.htm

Presumably Google's requirement for a launch contract is with a launch provider that meets some minimum standards for being realistic.  Interorbital has been around for 19 years and still has yet to reach sub-orbital space, let alone orbit, let alone the Moon.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0