I'm not sure I believe that scorecard; OdysseyMoon seems one of the more professional teams, yet scores very low (mainly due to a lack of public information)...
They want to land on the moon by the end of 2012. What a joke.
Just to make sure - who is they that you refer to?Because if you said it in the context of video I linked to - the year that appears there is 2013. And even if it won't be 2013, but 2014 or even never, your attitude is still very rude.
{snip}I'm not sure what Swallow means about the FH. Its first flight was never planned for 2012.
Quote from: koraldon on 12/09/2011 07:08 pmJust to make sure - who is they that you refer to?Because if you said it in the context of video I linked to - the year that appears there is 2013. And even if it won't be 2013, but 2014 or even never, your attitude is still very rude.Space IL. Their website says "by the end of next year." I wish them all the best, but extreme-overly-optimistic statements like that damage their credibility in my opinion.
Moon Express Inc - Shooting for the moon — to mine ithttp://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-naveen-jain-20111210,0,4780820,full.story
Do you expect MoonEx to be profitable?We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't think it could be a profitable business.
Can you say, feature creep ?
Quote from: savuporo on 03/06/2012 12:54 amCan you say, feature creep ?Can I say "frickin awesome" instead? Thanks for posting that article. That's really interesting news! I wonder what the Chinese will think of Astrobotic taking their crater!
MoonExpress rox.
Not visiting a historic site seems like throwing money away.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/07/2012 02:08 pmMoonExpress rox.Is this sarcasm?
Can't post the link right now, but just saw this in my news feeds: a Spanish GLXP team signed a launch contract with Chinese for a launch on Long March 3b in 2014.Also making them subject to ITAR
http://evadot.com/glxpscorecard/
Quote from: Hernalt on 10/22/2012 12:40 pmhttp://evadot.com/glxpscorecard/It looks like those scorecards are 2 years old.
GLXP News: SpaceIL, Odyssey Moon Team Uphttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/11/21/glxp-news-spaceil-odyssey-moon-team-up/LOS ANGELES, CA, Nov 20, 2012 (SpaceIL/Odyssey Moon PR) – SpaceIL and Odyssey Moon Ltd., two teams competing in the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE, announced today a joint teaming deal to pursue the competition purse. Odyssey Moon, the first team entrant in the Google Lunar X PRIZE, is joining SpaceIL, the most significant international teaming deal in the private $30 million race to the Moon. Together, the alliance formed under team SpaceIL will compete in the competition and, according to many, the most likely team to succeed in this dramatic race to the Moon.The joint teaming arrangement is based on an innovative commercial partnership model that infuses high impact scientific missions with a commercial enterprise funding element. This dynamic partnership brings together the best characteristics of non-profit activities with commercial and entrepreneurial skill sets.
The falcon 1 is only suitable if you have a dedicated kickstage on your mission.I think most, if not all, teams prefer a more energtic launcher which can do the TLI, or most of it, for you.So the falcon 1 has no impact imho, on the prize. High costs of launchers in general, falcon 9 included, do.
A change of subjects...slightly.The Israeli team vying for the GOOGLE lunar X Prize.1) I know that they are not intending to land a rover on the Moon.2) The hardware they are intending to land on the Moon is tiny in mass;not much more than the mass of the Blackberry (if you have one) in your hands when the lander is devoid of braking propellant.3) I get regular email updates from the team.4) My query to them as to what kind of booster they intended to use wasnot answered with a direct reply, but left plenty of hints.5) Over 150 volunteers and a tiny paid staff work on the project in Israel,including members of the Israeli MILITARY. There's your first hint.6) A converted-demilitarized (surplus) Jericho-1 missile/booster to serveas first stage is the conclusion they left me to conclude.7) Indirect confirmation of the upperstages being converted Israelimilitary missiles (including converted portable antitank and antiaircraftmissiles can be drawn from one of their sponsers). 7b) The Israeli government is 'secretly' supporting this project. Why not?Proverbial ballistic swords into space-exploration plowshares; Israeli hardware on the Moon; something Jews in Israel would take pride in.
QuoteThe Falcon 1 could loft considerable mass to high energy orbits. Any decent lunar lander could probably perform the final TLI burn from HEO.Danderman, what is considerable mass?
The Falcon 1 could loft considerable mass to high energy orbits. Any decent lunar lander could probably perform the final TLI burn from HEO.
@jeff_foustRichards: Moon Express is "doing well." On a Series B round now; when it closes, will be at $10M raised, a key milestone. #spacetechexpoRichards estimates cost of lander mission at $50M; worried it would be $100M. Believes can be profitable at that cost. #spacetechexpo
Via Twitter (from the Space Tech Expo conference going on in LA right now):Quote@jeff_foustRichards: Moon Express is "doing well." On a Series B round now; when it closes, will be at $10M raised, a key milestone. #spacetechexpoRichards estimates cost of lander mission at $50M; worried it would be $100M. Believes can be profitable at that cost. #spacetechexpoThat puts things in perspective. So they're almost 20% of the way to the amount of funding they need. Kudos for being up-front about where they are financially though. It's pretty easy for space companies to talk about having billionaire investors and just let people assume that that means that they have a lot of money. $10M is nothing to sneeze at, but it's good to actually get some numbers from one of these companies about where they're actually at.~Jon
With Astrobotic quoting a mission mass of <300 kg isn't it safe to assume it will be a secondary payload?
I thought Moon Express was going to win
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/11/2013 07:33 amI thought Moon Express was going to winTweets and "social media presence" dont actually keep the spacecraft warm in space.
With Astrobotic quoting a mission mass of <300 kg
ME seems to be ticking along quite nicely. They have a very significant test coming up tomorrow: a GNC closed loop test on NASA's Mighty Eagle robotic lander.
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/11/2013 07:33 amWith Astrobotic quoting a mission mass of <300 kg Where did you get that number by the way ? From their website:Lander Mass: 525kg(Red) Rover Mass: 80kg
Today the NASA Mighty Eagle prototype lunar lander took flight for the first time with Moon Express navigation and control (GNC) software in the driver’s seat.In a relatively brief (in human terms) flight, our GNC software successfully controlled the vehicle in a tethered hover flight and landed with all nerves and pieces intact.Of course today’s flight was actually a relatively conservative logical next step beyond our September 20th open loop free flight test, and was a very carefully planned event supported by high confidence at Moon Express and NASA due to many rigorous simulations, reviews and empirical data. Still, spacecraft GNC involves highly complex software algorithms and the vehicle itself is in a high energy state where safety has no room for compromise. We congratulate our GNC team for a job well done, particularly our Principal GNC Engineer Jim Kaidy and Software Engineer Mike Stewart (pictured here with the Mighty Eagle today), and we continue to be impressed and appreciative of the support and professionalism of the Mighty Eagle team.The second pic from today's flight test shows the "Mighty Eagle" going through its pre-flight "burp sequence" where it basically warms up the rocket engines. You can see the tethers attaching the vehicle to its launch pad. As today's test was about validating our GNC software logic and command sequences, not about flying high, the use of tethers is a standard and logical safety measure in early flight software testing. We hope to be able to share further pics and videos soon once released from NASA.We will be analyzing the flight data with NASA over the coming days and determine whether we are ready to move on to a closed loop free flight test. We have certainly learned a lot in this flight test series and NASA Marshall and its Mighty Eagle team have been very supportive and helpful throughout. The entire experience has been a great example of collaborative efforts between NASA and the private sector to advance new capabilities of mutual benefit.We’ll post more news as we come to understand the volumes of data arising from today’s test flight, and meanwhile you can continue to follow the Moon Express / Mighty Eagle post-flight test news through Twitter at @NASAMightyEagle and @Moon_Ex.
“These are previous models to study the mechanics and some of the subsystems such as the guidance and control, power and communications” said Claramunt, “after them, the qualification and flight models will be built, tested, and finally will travel to the Moon by mid 2015”.
About the size of a large coffee table, the MX-1 is a completely self-contained single stage spacecraft that can reach the surface of the Moon from a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) commonly used to place communications satellites above the Earth. It is also designed to be a flexible spacecraft platform that can support a number of applications including serving as a flexible, agile upper stage for existing launch systems enabling Earth orbit cubesat deployment, satellite servicing, and "space tug" applications such as cleaning up space debris.Full press release: http://moonexpress.com/#newsMirror: http://spaceref.biz/2013/12/moon-express-unveils-breakthrough-mx-1-commercial-lunar-lander.html--It uses HTP/RP-1 and is being built by Tim Pickens in Huntsville, Alabama.
Team Phoenicia will provide launch opportunities to Pennsylvania State University’s Lunar Lion Google Lunar X PRIZE team, California Polytechnical University at San Luis Obispo, Tyvak Nanosatellite Systems and Spaceflight Services, Inc. on the Phoenicia-‐1 (P-‐1) mission using a commercial domestic launch vehicle. The launch will carry over twenty small satellite payloads and potentially up to 75 cubesat payloads.
The Phoenicia‐1 launch will be scheduled for the 4th quarter of 2015.
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/prize-details/rules-overview"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."December 31st, 2010 I wonder what happened since then to make it look less likely that a government-funded mission to successfully explore the lunar surface would be American.
Google Lunar XPRIZE Selects Five Teams to Compete for $6 Million in Milestone Prizeshttp://www.astrowatch.net/2014/02/google-lunar-xprize-selects-five-teams.html
Could some of them go as a secondary payload on another launch, in which case they would need a hefty kick motor to get to LTO.
No teams have announced firm launch dates, but of the 18 participants, a group of five teams has demonstrated good progress...One highlight of this year's summit is the variety of additional projects the teams have taken on, in part to fund their expensive missions...Astrobotic, the Carnegie Mellon spin-off, announced this week that its lunar vehicle will carry a capsule provided by a Japanese beverage maker. The capsule will contain titanium plates with notes written by children, and it will also include a powder package of Pocari Sweat, a sports drink. Astrobotic says this is the first marketing campaign to be delivered on the moon.But that wasn't the only lunar stunt discussed at the summit. Swedish artist Mikael Genberg saw the moon race as the perfect opportunity for an art project. His idea: building a traditional Swedish house on the moon.
But that wasn't the only lunar stunt discussed at the summit. Swedish artist Mikael Genberg saw the moon race as the perfect opportunity for an art project. His idea: building a traditional Swedish house on the moon.
This is the project in question, picture from google imageshttp://themoonhouse.com/enEdit: Added link
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.
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-2016For me the big news is that QuoteAs 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.
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 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'd be happy to answer any questions I can about Carnegie Mellon University's rover Andy.Vimeo page with additional videosWe'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...)
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.
From the conditions for extending the deadline:QuoteAt 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.
If no team has provided XPRIZE and Google with notification of launch contract by December 31, 2015, the competition will conclude.
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
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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/25/2015 10:21 pmThat 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
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2015 11:14 pmIMO 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. 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.
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.
Audi is taking off for the moon – along with the Part-Time Scientists. Nearly 45 years after NASA’s Apollo 17 completed the last manned mission to the moon, the cooperating partners have selected the old landing site of Apollo 17 as the new target.A group of German engineers in the Part-Time Scientists team is working within the Google Lunar XPRIZE competition to transport an unmanned rover to the moon. Audi is supporting the Part-Time Scientists with its know-how in several fields of technology – from quattro all-wheel drive and lightweight construction to electric mobility and piloted driving.“The concept of a privately financed mission to the moon is fascinating,” says Luca de Meo, Audi Board Member for Sales and Marketing. “And innovative ideas need supporters that promote them. We want to send a signal with our involvement with the Part-Time Scientists and also motivate other partners to contribute their know-how.” Luca de Meo is presenting the partnership today at the international innovation forum Cannes Innovation Days.Prof. Dr. Ulrich Hackenberg, Audi Board Member for Technical Development, said: “We are pleased to support the project with our know-how in lightweight technology, electronics and robotics.”
Better to carry Dragon 2, it could survive failure of rocket. An opportunity to test in flight high altitude abort is expensive.Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/25/2015 11:26 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2015 11:14 pmIMO 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. 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.
After the failure of the F9/Dragon launch attempt last month, Elon Musk needs to 'test' an approved F9 with a payload this year.
Well you still could piggyback the GLXP payload with a Dragon 1 or a Dragon 2 for a trip to the Moon. The GLXP payload is a featherweight.
Manoeuvres before lunar injection greatly depend on the Keplerian elements of the initial orbit. The launching inclination should ideally be within the moon inclination interval. If it isthe case, a transfer is almost manoeuvre-free, or has a small mid-course manoeuvre,if the spacecraft is launched with optimal conditions of:•argument of perigee and right ascension of ascending node, for GTO transfers•right ascension of ascending node only for LEO transfersSome rare GTO Ariane 5 launches provides such conditions.None-optimal conditions would require expensive manoeuvring which may doublethe trajectory total Δv cost
Delivery of a Rideshare P/L to GSOA. Atlas V 551 can deliver 19,620 lbs (8,900 kg) to a GTO orbit.A 5M fairing is required for a GSO type missionB. To deliver a rideshare P/L to GSO: requires an extended-mission-kit, a 5M fairing, a long coast, an additional burn to achieve GSO orbit.C. To enable a 2,200 lbs (1000 kg) Rideshare mission, the Primary would be restricted to 10,700 lbs
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/14/2015 12:03 pmWell you still could piggyback the GLXP payload with a Dragon 1 or a Dragon 2 for a trip to the Moon. The GLXP payload is a featherweight.Actually no, you cannot. Finding a favorable launch opportunity for ride-share for an actual lunar lander is almost next to impossible.Here is one masters thesis on the subject:http://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099.1/9666/memoria.pdf?sequence=1QuoteManoeuvres before lunar injection greatly depend on the Keplerian elements of the initial orbit. The launching inclination should ideally be within the moon inclination interval. If it isthe case, a transfer is almost manoeuvre-free, or has a small mid-course manoeuvre,if the spacecraft is launched with optimal conditions of:•argument of perigee and right ascension of ascending node, for GTO transfers•right ascension of ascending node only for LEO transfersSome rare GTO Ariane 5 launches provides such conditions.None-optimal conditions would require expensive manoeuvring which may doublethe trajectory total Δv costEDIT: And here is some information on rideshare capabilities that ULA provides for example. All options are pretty much tiny, for a lunar landerhttps://icubesat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/icubesat-org_2013-a-2-1-mule_szatkowski_201305281629l.pdfQuoteDelivery of a Rideshare P/L to GSOA. Atlas V 551 can deliver 19,620 lbs (8,900 kg) to a GTO orbit.A 5M fairing is required for a GSO type missionB. To deliver a rideshare P/L to GSO: requires an extended-mission-kit, a 5M fairing, a long coast, an additional burn to achieve GSO orbit.C. To enable a 2,200 lbs (1000 kg) Rideshare mission, the Primary would be restricted to 10,700 lbs Good luck finding that opportunity
We have been waiting for this moment for five years! We are proud and honored to announce, that we signed a launch agreement. In the end of 2017, Our spacecraft will be launched on SpaceX's Falcon 9 outside the atmosphere, and start it's journey to the Moon. SpaceIL is the first and only GLXP team to reach this major milestone, which gives us a real ticket to the Moon
SpaceIL signed a launch agreement with SpaceX for a Falcon 9, as per their FB page (other details are scarce):QuoteWe have been waiting for this moment for five years! We are proud and honored to announce, that we signed a launch agreement. In the end of 2017, Our spacecraft will be launched on SpaceX's Falcon 9 outside the atmosphere, and start it's journey to the Moon. SpaceIL is the first and only GLXP team to reach this major milestone, which gives us a real ticket to the Moonhttps://www.facebook.com/SpaceILEDIT: They seem to be answering questions pretty openly on their FB page, so you can ask any questions there (or ask here and I'll translate it and ask on the page).
Fortunately for Moon Express and the other contestants, they all now have until the end of 2016 to produce a verified launch contract, thanks to SpaceIL.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 06:23 pmFortunately for Moon Express and the other contestants, they all now have until the end of 2016 to produce a verified launch contract, thanks to SpaceIL.I wonder if any other GXLP contenders will share that specific ride. I think the Astrobotic/Hakuto mission would be too massive, as that would more than triple the payload going beyond SSLEO when the Falcon upper stage re-lights after the SSO satellites are deployed, but maybe one of the smaller ones could go.
Astrobotic has just announced that Team AngelicvM has booked a spot on the lander. That means at least 3 rovers (Carnegie Mellon, Hakuto, and the Chilean team) have money down. edit: removed info by request
Looks like Moon Express are in the press.. http://www.americaspace.com/?p=89409 Not sure how booking a flight on a rocket that hasn't flown yet validates their project though ... Just seems odd to me..any one else think so? GLXP looked like a good idea at the start..with GLXP validating this contract to me isn't a good idea. I would have told MoonEx to book a rocket already has flown..jb
Money is money. Sounds like they feel confident enough in their entry to book a flight, but with the Israelis now having a flight booked..
While the announcement said that Terra Bella will be a “co-lead” on the SSO-A mission, Blake said that the company will be the only customer with that designation on the mission, giving it more control over the launch schedule. SpaceIL, an Israeli group competing in the Google Lunar X Prize competition, had previously been named a primary payload for the flight, but Blake said their lunar lander will fly on another, unnamed launch.
One got in Chancery and then there were four.www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/19/astrobotic-pulls-out-google-lunar-prize/
Wait, did Moon Express drop out too? Or did you mean Astrobotics? I stayed at the time where Moon Express did have 2 secured launches to the moon with RocketLab. Assuming Electron is still upgoing, I don't see Moon Express retiring on its own...Nice news for Hakuto. I have great hopes for their rover (and doubts about Team Indus Lander...)
SpaceIL, an Israeli nonprofit, will use a SpaceX Falcon 9 to get off the ground. ... As with other teams, SpaceIL is still readying its spacecraft, which is being built at an Israel Aerospace Industries facility. The team’s launch contract is for a six-month window that extends into 2018. If it can’t make the 2017 deadline, SpaceIL still aims to go to the moon: “We have an educational mission that we are intent on achieving that has little to do with the time frame of the competition,” Lichtenstein says.
https://qz.com/962696/spaceil-the-israeli-team-competing-for-the-google-lunar-xprize-wont-make-it-to-the-starting-line/It would seem that 2017 is getting away on the GLXP contestants. I consider the teams flying on Rocket Lab's Electron to have virtually no chance of launching on time, and the team flying on Interorbital's powerpoint rocket to have a negative chance, which is a mathematical impossibility, but there you are.
Really, Team Indus and Hakuto on the PSLV are the only realistic candidates at this stage, however, we don't know what stage the actual hardware is at. Of course, the deadline may just be extended again. I remember reading that they weren't going to extend it anymore, but there may be some kind of loophole they'll use. Either way, its been going on for a long time now, and it all seems to be a bit of a bridge too far. I hope I'm wrong.
Some news out of SpaceIL - Positive progress mixed with negative financial outlook: http://www.spaceil.com/news/spaceil-alerts-the-national-dream-in-danger-of-closing/
Sources said TeamIndus was unable to mobilise the funds or technological resources to put the mission together. It was planning to build India's first privately funded spacecraft, which would have been able to achieve a soft-landing on moon, piggybacking on Indian space agency ISRO's PSLV rocket.
I doubt anyone is going to make it to the moon by March 2018.It is probably GLXP call, but if they make it March 2019, this might help. Of course, we might say the same thing in a year's time.Except for SpaceIL updates and now team indus pullout, I'm not sure what are the other teams status.I know astrobotic is out but still working on something? The same for PT scientists...
Moon Express would seem to me to be the only one still capable of a flight around the time of the deadline. More likely they will be delayed beyond that, but I would still say the only one likely to fly this year.
Quote from: Phil Stooke on 01/10/2018 02:41 pmMoon Express would seem to me to be the only one still capable of a flight around the time of the deadline. More likely they will be delayed beyond that, but I would still say the only one likely to fly this year.Did they show anything more substantial than a model spacecraft?
Kinda wish GLXP would die so we can see if there's any deep pockets willing to pick up the pieces.
Two things missing from GLXP - structuring the deadline, and assessing reasonable launch contracts. Too much upfront time to get to an advanced state (e.g. a credible mission), too little time to finance/launch such. Launch contracts should only have been acceptable if said LV had even made it to any kind of orbit a once, and that the contract/deadline, relative to the provider/means, could actually make it to the pad before expiration (including stand-downs/other issues).If you were going to do a "GLXP 2", you'd want to clear away the "launch obstacle" better.
2017 has been a defining year for TeamIndus and as we move into the New Year, we want to thank you all for the support till date.Since the beginning, we’ve tried to make this an open and accessible mission. Stay tuned as we share what the future holds for us on 25th Jan.
So if there is "no there, there" (flight-ready lander hardware) from Bob Richards and Moon Express, then the recent successful orbital launch of the first Electron LV from Rocket Lab would seem to make no difference.I thought I saw that Moon Express was still pushing that Electron launch by 31st March 2018. No?Anyone have insight into that?
First, a little disclosure, for anyone who doesn't already know: I was the main author of the Google Lunar XPRIZE rules, and I ran or was part of the team running the prize from its inception through early 2011. So, obviously I've got both knowledge and bias on this topic!
I'll be sad if it does indeed wind down in the next few months without a winner, but mainly I'll be pleased that (I suspect) multiple teams will live through that ending and continue on as serious, meaningful efforts. Don't get me wrong, not awarding a prize will be a bummer to me personally, but despite what the heart feels, the brain knows that what comes next is actually what matters most.
The fact that teams are still in it for the moment despite the three pillars upon the prize was built (a flush venture capital market, cheap access to space in the form of Dnepr and Falcon 1, and massive lunar programs from basically every government space agency) all being knocked down within a year or so of the prize being created is truly astounding to me. The fact that more than 3x the target number of teams registered to compete, and that some of those teams were as talented as they were, still boggles my mind.
There are still some untold stories that both thrill and devastate me. The most tantalizing/frustrating of which is that there was an individual investor who was prepared to write a >$100M check to fund a single team all the way back in 2008, but eventually was so put off by the fact that the university affiliated with the team was going to take out such a large amount of overhead that the deal never closed, and the team never even registered. The fact that the prize got such a deal to the point where it was literally one phone call away from happening tells me it was probably worth doing even if just for that.
Some other thoughts, in response to these:Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/10/2018 11:32 pmTwo things missing from GLXP - structuring the deadline, and assessing reasonable launch contracts. Too much upfront time to get to an advanced state (e.g. a credible mission), too little time to finance/launch such. Launch contracts should only have been acceptable if said LV had even made it to any kind of orbit a once, and that the contract/deadline, relative to the provider/means, could actually make it to the pad before expiration (including stand-downs/other issues).If you were going to do a "GLXP 2", you'd want to clear away the "launch obstacle" better.I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean with the first part of this quote. The GLXP is intentionally pretty unstructured on purpose. The thought is that if, let's say, Blue Origin, Skunk Works, and Masten each tried to win the prize, they'd take three very different paths and proceed along three very different timelines. We very much want to be open to each path, because I for one think any of the three of those have the capability to win the prize and to persist afterwards.
A similar type of theory applies to the second point. When I was in charge of the GLXP, we kept all of the initial hurdles as low as possible. To register a team, you basically had to be able to raise $10,000 and you couldn't be relying on alien technology or artificial gravity. This means that we admitted teams about whom we were incredibly skeptical. But our guiding thought was that if prize runners set high hurdles at the beginning or in the middle of prize competitions, rather than just at the end, we likely would never have had a John Harrison or a Charles Lindbergh in those competitions. To bring that forward to today, if we applied those kinds of tests, I probably wouldn't have kept TrueZer0 or Unreasonable Rocket in the Lunar Lander Challenge--a lot of very smart people were very wrong about both of those groups, and they continued being wrong about them basically right up until the moment they had rocket taking off under the watchful eyes of our awesome judges.
Lastly, in regards to removing the launch obstacle, this is a very sensible solution. It's actually something we looked at when I was still at XPRIZE. We internally considered lowering the prize purse a bit, but then going out and procuring a ride on a Falcon 9. It was an intriguing idea, but ultimately we decided against it for several reasons.
* It would put us in the position of picking who got a spot on the rocket. Certainly a fairly likely scenario is that only a few teams would have anything resembling flight hardware, but what if more teams want spots than there is room on the rocket? Is XPF really a good org to pick who gets the spots and who doesn't? Would we leave a future Lindbergh on the ground because we filled up the rocket with Fonck, Nungesser, and Byrd?
* How do you divvy up the rocket into discrete spots? Presumably you carve up the total TLI capacity of a rocket into a certain number of equal mass, equal volume spots. But what if teams think the best design is a little bigger than that? Or what if it's actually much much smaller than that? How early do you call your shot, and how? Can you set up some kind of auction system? How?
* For that matter, is TLI the right 'place' to send the rocket? Some teams innovated about their cruise stage--are we basically eliminating that part of the competition? Should we? Or maybe we should go further, and go all the way to lunar orbit insertion, or something else...
* We're putting all of our eggs in one basket. What if the launch fails? Or the fleet is grounded?
* How do you pick a launch vehicle without favoring some teams over the others? If we pick the Falcon 9, does the team based in China really have a chance? Do all teams based in the US have an advantage over everyone else? Similarly, if we pick the PSLV, are we adding a burden to our US teams?
* Let's say we solve all of the above, pick a vehicle, pick a selection method. Then, on final integration day, only one team shows up. Do we delay the launch? Does we really have the guts to launch a rocket that is 75% empty (presumably not literally empty, but empty of prize competitors? Is that really even a good thing to do?
I thought, and continue to think, that this is a fascinating idea. And I bet you could make a cool competition out of it. It's just not clear to me that it would actually be a better competition than what the GLXP was. If I could send a message back in time to the days when we were designing the GLXP, I'd probably start with other tips.
It’s official: The X Prize Foundation says today no team will be able to claim the $20M Google Lunar X Prize.9:45 AM - 23 Jan 2018
Which is why I'm attempting to contribute back here to you in a supportive way.And this is a mere post. Meant to be crisp. Take it in the spirit of how it is offered.
But it's not as interesting a competition to me personally, in part because my gut feel is that it wouldn't actually increase the likelihood of achieving the long terms goals of the effort--e.g. not just a prize victory, but a lasting change to the industry/field.
It is precisely the short-term, high-energy, ideate-anything, build-a-minimum-viable bit-of-a-product attitude so prevalent in hackathons that helps ramp up innovation.I was involved in a hackathon in New York City last summer, and will be in one in Denver next month, both ideating and building apps for the fast-moving blockchain space.
