-
#40
by
Downix
on 07 Feb, 2011 05:54
-
I just read this passage in the "rules and regulations" section of the website
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/about-the-prize/rules-and-guidelines:
The competition's grand prize is worth $20 million. To provide an extra incentive for teams to work quickly, the grand prize value will change to $15 million whenever a government-funded mission successfully explores the lunar surface, currently projected to occur in 2013.
Is this new? I seem to remember that the deadlines used to be fixed.
What government-funded mission do they mean? Does NASA have a lander planned for 2013?
LADEE is for 2013, and is to study the regolith and atmosphere. Not a lander for se, but it is to operate close to the lunar surface.
-
#41
by
Robotbeat
on 07 Feb, 2011 06:10
-
Intel's Atom chip doesn't support ECC (unless that has changed in a new version). Perhaps they would be better off going with an ARM processor? They are industry standard, there are high-performance ones available, and some are available that are actually rad-hard. There are also some high-performance (dual-core, 7500 MIPS, 64-bit) rad-hard PowerPC processors that are available. But... I guess if you are willing to take a risk and only need to last a month and are able to have a little bit of shielding, and design the system to recover from errors... It's not irresponsible to go without a rad-hard CPU (but really? no ECC support?).
Are they using just one Intel Atom chip? If they are using multiples, I can imagine them doing a sort of redundant setup.
Replying to myself...
There is the possibility of using the cheapest rad-hard cpu (or even microcontroller) you can find for low-level control, but still use the Atom cpu for heavy-lifting. As long as you can recover very quickly from radiation strikes (i.e. quick power-cycle capability in case of latch-up, etc). If you can recover within a fraction of a second right where you left off, then having multiple radiation "events" every day is not a problem (assuming they are not permanent... latch-ups can sometimes cause permanent damage).
-
#42
by
docmordrid
on 07 Feb, 2011 06:53
-
The AMD Neo X2 L625 (64/32 bit dual-core for embedded systems) has ECC.
-
#43
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 07:37
-
Sending data to the lander like Pathfinder did should be the easiest way.
Not after you've traveled several km and lost LOS to the lander.
-
#44
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 07 Feb, 2011 07:44
-
Sending data to the lander like Pathfinder did should be the easiest way.
Not after you've traveled several km and lost LOS to the lander.
How about a hard-line link? A light fibre-optic data cable or something? How big would the drum need to be for, say 150 to 200m?
-
#45
by
mr. mark
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:26
-
Funny this has not received even a mention on the major media outlets. No msnbc, fox news, cnn or space.com or spaceflightnow.com ect, strange? Only spaceref.com, nasawatch.com and twitter based feeds carried it.
-
#46
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:31
-
SpaceX are yet to announce the same news in a release so... The Astrobotic release wasn't as widely distributed as far as I can tell.
-
#47
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:35
-
Does it say anywhere that this is a dedicated launch?
-
#48
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:38
-
Based on the stated mass of that thing, around 2 tons, I can't imagine being it anything else than a dedicated launch.
-
#49
by
rklaehn
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:39
-
Does it say anywhere that this is a dedicated launch?
The rendering from astrobiotic shows the lander as the single payload in the (mostly empty) payload fairing of the f9. So I guess that means yes.
Edit: see this lecture from Red Whittaker, at 04:08.
-
#50
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:46
-
This article has a couple of bits of info:
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-rocket-private-space-110207.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1There's room aboard the Falcon 9 for another 240 pounds of additional cargo, space Astrobotic Technology is selling for $700,000 per pound, plus a $250,000-per-payoad fee for integration, communications and other support services.
Aside from adjusting navigation software, Falcon 9 doesn't need any modifications to reach lunar orbit, Musk wrote in an email to Discovery News.
"Falcon 9 is capable of launching missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Payload to the moon is about three tons and to Mars about two tons, meaning Falcon 9 could have launched the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on a single flight," wrote Musk.
I find it interesting they can state with such a degree of certainty how much extra mass is available. Oh well.
-
#51
by
mr. mark
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:49
-
"SpaceX are yet to announce the same news in a release so... The Astrobotic release wasn't as widely distributed as far as I can tell."
....or even add it to the launch manifest. I'm sure they will post this in the update section soon.
-
#52
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 14:52
-
....or even add it to the launch manifest. I'm sure they will post this in the update section soon.
'Cause they demonstrated always keeping the launch manifest up to date, right?
-
#53
by
meekGee
on 07 Feb, 2011 16:07
-
Yes, we get it. First couple of launches of a brand new rocket weren't on schedule.
Can we repeat that a couple of more times? It is obviously such a deviation from all rocket development efforts of the past that it really does warrant extra scrutiny and definitely means that we can extrapolate from that to the future and hint that SpaceX will never be able to launch according to their manifest.
-
#54
by
mr. mark
on 07 Feb, 2011 16:40
-
"Yes, we get it. First couple of launches of a brand new rocket weren't on schedule.
Can we repeat that a couple of more times? It is obviously such a deviation from all rocket development efforts of the past that it really does warrant extra scrutiny and definitely means that we can extrapolate from that to the future and hint that SpaceX will never be able to launch according to their manifest".
Of course, this could be said of any and every launch provider. Just look at the current shuttle schedule as an example.
-
#55
by
wjbarnett
on 07 Feb, 2011 16:55
-
Yes, we get it. First couple of launches of a brand new rocket weren't on schedule.
Can we repeat that a couple of more times? It is obviously such a deviation from all rocket development efforts of the past that it really does warrant extra scrutiny and definitely means that we can extrapolate from that to the future and hint that SpaceX will never be able to launch according to their manifest.
I think the comment above was more about SpaceX's website being sadly out of date (constantly) and it's policy of dating launches (even past ones) by the arrival of the vehicle at the launch site, rather than the planned launch date or even year.
-
#56
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 16:58
-
I think the comment above was more about SpaceX's website being sadly out of date (constantly)
Correct. Some posters should tone it down on their jumpiness to interpret everything said as an attack on SpaceX and their accomplishments.
-
#57
by
meekGee
on 07 Feb, 2011 17:04
-
I think the comment above was more about SpaceX's website being sadly out of date (constantly) and it's policy of dating launches (even past ones) by the arrival of the vehicle at the launch site, rather than the planned launch date or even year.
If that's the case then I humbly withdraw my sarcasm.
Yeah, SpaceX is not PR-heavy, but it doesn't take much to keep those few web pages up to date, and definitely I'd rather have a "Vehicle ready to launch" date than a "hardware on cape" date.
This is nitpicking though - I've seen worse, and all I'd really like to see from them is contracts and launches, and they're doing very well on that.
[EDIT] Actually nevermind the "if" - rereading Ugordan's post I stand fully corrected - his point is well made - my bad.
-
#58
by
mr. mark
on 07 Feb, 2011 17:15
-
I have to admit looking at the launch manifest it looks awfully crowded. A launch in December of that year would make 6 launches. I'm not sure that is achievable with their current manufacturing base. I'm hearing talk about a additional assembly facility but, for now just rumors in the space community.
-
#59
by
ugordan
on 07 Feb, 2011 17:34
-
It's highly unlikely that this launch would occur right at the NET date anyway.
Elon said recently they are now at about 1 F9 every 3 months. In 2012 their aim is to build 1 F9 every 6 weeks.