stockman - 13/9/2007 12:23 PMWell thats disappointing. Hardly what I would call Pardign shifting... I would have been more impressed with an orbital MANNED race than a lunar robot. Quite frankly I find this disappointing news...
vt_hokie - 13/9/2007 10:38 AM I think it'll be pretty near impossible to do that for $30 million or less.
Where is the requirement that spending on the mission must be constrained to $30 million? What if a competitor uses secondary markets to make up any costs over $30 million?
todd5ski - 13/9/2007 1:36 PMQuotestockman - 13/9/2007 12:23 PMWell thats disappointing. Hardly what I would call Pardign shifting... I would have been more impressed with an orbital MANNED race than a lunar robot. Quite frankly I find this disappointing news...You have to crawl before you can walk man. The only other space related competition was to get a vehichle into space on a suborbital mission. That required so much money and technical know-how that only one of the teams actually came close to it and actually won it by investing over $20 million to win 1/2 of the investment back and in the process hopefully jump start an industry. Getting anything to the moon will require 15 times the amount of fuel/speed.Besides, think of the public sector involvement. What better way to reinvigorate the general public than to have a little rover with a camera sending back video as the rover approaches Tranquility Base..... Maybe even have the rover with a robotic arm to lift the fallen American Flag and place it in a holster built into the rover itself so it will forever more be standing....
meiza - 13/9/2007 10:37 AM With only 5 years time, some drastic hardware developments would need to be done. First of all, an existing rocket would have to be used for launch from earth. I don't know what the rules say about this. The 20 million prize money (for the winner) then is quite small for that. Tell me again about those Russian sub launched missiles...
Are you sure about your assumptions?
Antares - 13/9/2007 12:43 PMIn the first X Prize, it cost at least $25M (plus all of the $ spent by non-winners) to win $10M, but now we have Virgin Galactic and a whole bunch of hardware start-ups. How much capital is $30M going to bring?Todd, love the idea of landing near Tranquility Base. Prove the naysayers wrong once and for all. However, precision landing might be a costly luxury.
vt_hokie - 13/9/2007 12:38 PMI think it'll be pretty near impossible to do that for $30 million or less.
meiza - 13/9/2007 1:56 PMOkay, let's assume a 8.5 million dollar Falcon Ie launch, say it places 800 kg to LEO. From there we have 6 km/s to the lunar surface.Let's use two 3 km/s stages, both having an ISP of 320 s, meaning a mass ratio of 2.55. We can round off to 2.67 or 8/3 to account for tank and thruster mass, and get the payload mass which is 3/8*3/8*800 kg ~= 130 kg.
bad_astra - 13/9/2007 1:06 PMI can't see what kind of a market that this prize is hoping to foster.
hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007 2:15 PMOh man, watch the announcement video on XPrize.org. For a private effort, they seem to love using Constellation footage. :laugh:
mr.columbus - 13/9/2007 1:50 PMQuotehyper_snyper - 13/9/2007 2:15 PMOh man, watch the announcement video on XPrize.org. For a private effort, they seem to love using Constellation footage. :laugh:And it seems they think the only available launcher for the rover can be Ares V... which would put the mission at a price tag of at least 1 billion USD and with a NET launch date of 2020...
hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007 3:38 PMSpaceX is offering a Falcon 1e at a discounted price for this competition.
Strategic alliances that support this new competition include:• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), run by entrepreneur and X PRIZE Foundation Trustee Elon Musk, which is offering competing teams an in-kind contribution, lowering the cost of its Falcon Launch Vehicle. SpaceX is the first preferred launch provider for this competition;• The Allen Telescope Array (ATA), operated by the SETI Institute, will serve as a preferred downlink provider for communications from the Moon to the Earth; operated by SETI, which will provide downlink services at no cost to competing teams;• The Saint Louis Science Center serves as the Foundation’s official education partner and the coordinator of an international network of museums and science centers; and• The International Space University (ISU), based in Strasbourg, France, will conduct international team outreach and facilitate an unbiased judging committee.
bad_astra - 14/9/2007 12:06 PMI can't see what kind of a market that this prize is hoping to foster. Unless there is sponsorship, no one's going to make money off of this. If it was doable even near that price, AMSAT probably would have had a Lunar OSCAR by now. I doubt any serious teams will even bother trying. Maybe X-Prize can get that Discraft guy to sign up again.
hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007 3:38 PMSpaceX is offering a Falcon 1e at a discounted price for this competition.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/13/358739.aspxHow much is the F1e performance to LEO? It has to be at least 500 kg or thereabouts.
bad_astra - 13/9/2007 2:06 PMI can't see what kind of a market that this prize is hoping to foster.
Unless there is sponsorship, no one's going to make money off of this. If it was doable even near that price, AMSAT probably would have had a Lunar OSCAR by now.
I doubt any serious teams will even bother trying. Maybe X-Prize can get that Discraft guy to sign up again.
mr.columbus - 13/9/2007 8:31 PMQuotemeiza - 13/9/2007 1:56 PMOkay, let's assume a 8.5 million dollar Falcon Ie launch, say it places 800 kg to LEO. From there we have 6 km/s to the lunar surface.Let's use two 3 km/s stages, both having an ISP of 320 s, meaning a mass ratio of 2.55. We can round off to 2.67 or 8/3 to account for tank and thruster mass, and get the payload mass which is 3/8*3/8*800 kg ~= 130 kg.Your calculations are not describing a realistic scenario.
A two stage scenario would use just one stage for the Earth departure and a second stage for course-corrections, lunar orbit insertion and the landing on the moon. The ISP of 320s for the first stage (that does not need to be restarted or endure a long time in space) is realistic, for the second (restartable) stage a lower ISP should be assumed, especially considering its rather small mass and the fact that this mission will probably not focus on high-performance stages, rather on getting the cargo save to the surface. Let's assume an ISP of 300, which corresponds favourably to Apollo's LM descent stage. A 1:10 propellant/dry mass ratio for the first stage and a 1:7 propellant/dry mass ration (both without cargo) are reasonable assumptions as well. The first stage needs to do a minimum of 3.2 km/s while the second stage needs to do a minimum of 2.8km/s. However these are minimum numbers and do not include any margins. Realistically we need to assume about 3.6km/s for the first stage and 3.2km/s for the second stage.Considering the above, a 130 kg payload (that is rover, structure in that the rover is placed, avionics, transmitter, etc.) requires a second stage (descent stage) with a weight of 500 kg (dry weight approximately 80kg. The first stage would then be required to approximately 2400 kg. LEO weight would be approximately 3 metric tons.I personally think any proposal that wants to win this XPrice needs to take a minimum cost and minimum size approach. That is they have to start thinking about the smallest possible rover that could achieve 500m "roving" on the lunar surface and then calculate backwards to what the LEO payload would be. I personally think a rover needs to be at least 10 kg to effectively be able to compete the 500m on the lunar surface. In addition structure for the payload, transmitter, computers and avionics on the descent stage will at least require another 20kg effective payload mass. Assuming 30kg effective payload and the ISPs and fuel/dry mass assumptions for the stages mentioned above, the payload a team needs to get into LEO would be at a minimum 400-500 kg. There are several launch options currently available for such a small-sat: Disregarding piggybag-rides on large rockets, a 500kg payload can be launched on Rockot as one of the prime payloads on a multi-payload mission for a launch fee between 6-10 million USD (depending on the other payloads, time pressure, USD exchange rate developments etc.). Assuming that a team (probably a university team) can put together the rover, the transmitter station on the descent stage and the two stages, it is reasonable to assume that such a mission can be pulled of with much less than 30 millions - therefore I believe this XPrize is more or less a race, a race between university teams (who are able to get money upfront) were there really is only one winner and all others will have "wasted" money for nothing.
OV-106 - 13/9/2007 3:17 PMWow, I am surprised....and a bit disappointed....in the negative attitudes. This place used to be a welcome retreat from the normal "blogosphere" where everyone is a critic and say's it can't be done, acmchair quaterbacking 101.
rpspeck - 13/9/2007 2:49 PMI have noticed that Spirit and Opportunity have attracted A LOT of public attention. At present a smaller portion of the Lunar surface has been explored in detail than the Mars surface.
OV-106 - 13/9/2007 3:37 PMWhy not? Name some technology that needs to be developed. By no means do I say this will be cheap but private industry has it's focus on the bottom line because it has to be there. The government business model does not apply here.
bad_astra - 13/9/2007 3:30 PMQuoteOV-106 - 13/9/2007 3:17 PMWow, I am surprised....and a bit disappointed....in the negative attitudes. This place used to be a welcome retreat from the normal "blogosphere" where everyone is a critic and say's it can't be done, acmchair quaterbacking 101. I think a lot can be done. I'm the last person you'd call a cynic. I'm sure some uni or private group could get a vehicle with rover developed and landed on the moon. But not for $20 million.
True, I should have said "the group has recommended that funding be made available", but it looks like the ball is rolling now. I have already found out via the BNSC that a long term policy on no British astronauts (since the Apollo days apparently) has been overturned. That has got to be a major shift. Discussion here.
DJ Barney
bad_astra - 13/9/2007 5:11 PMThere's no private business to be done on the moon right now. Why should private companies bother to prospect it when they know several governments are about to do it for them.
GW_Simulations - 13/9/2007 6:27 PMI'm not sure of costs, but I think that should be profitable. I'm allowing about 20 million dollars for launch (not sure if this is right, but I seem to remember reading that Dnepr launches cost about $13 million (I could be wrong), and assuming that the upper stage wouldn't cost as much as the carrier rocket). Not much money would be left for the spacecraft. I'm allowing about $3m, assuming everything can be built at the cheapest price, and the design kept really simple. One of the bonust prizes would be required to make sure the venture is profitable.
HIP2BSQRE - 13/9/2007 9:24 PMGuess what---once you land a rover what else might you land on the moon very cheaply? You might have all the things for a lunar base just waiting for the astronuats to set up shop! Additionaly, futher development of the rocket could be used to bring logistics supplies to the base?One last thing---how many people have followed the mars rover over the last 2+years? Would people pay $x to "drive" a real life rover on the moon for x seconds? People would follow the explots of "Microsoft/Google Moon Rover"!
OV-106 - 13/9/2007 7:55 PMQuotebad_astra - 13/9/2007 5:11 PMThere's no private business to be done on the moon right now. Why should private companies bother to prospect it when they know several governments are about to do it for them. See, that's what I have an issue with. You say above you are not a person that is negative about it but by this statement here you are saying essentially "why bother"
wannamoonbase - 15/9/2007 4:33 AM{snip}Navigating and Landing the payload softly is the hardest part in this challenge and its pretty hard. {snip}
wannamoonbase - 14/9/2007 11:33 PMI would approach it as a secondary payload to minimize launch costs and make the rover as small as possible and still make the 500 meters in one lunar daylight period. (its hard to imagine a solar power vehicle surviving a cold lunar night but perhaps its possible, I don't know if anyone has tested it, but maybe thats on technology that would be found)
Navigating and Landing the payload softly is the hardest part in this challenge and its pretty hard.
I think there will be several teams in position to win this prize and perhaps the bonus money. Universities world wide could form groups with lots of students doing grunt work and programming, using Masters and PHD students to do some heavy lifting. Many schools will want to wave the flag of winning the Google X-Prize.
I can also easily see SpaceX just throwing money and a launch vehicle at it and not to make the money. SpaceDev maybe but being publicly traded would make it tougher. Then there is the billionaire benefactor that just does it for kicks. Also, I think a group like a low cost group of Indian engineers could be a series threat.
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007 1:04 AMa) Lunar X prizeSay 444 kg in LEO landing 300 kg on Moon. This mass includes the lander.b) Use a larger rocket and scale up the Lunar Lander.4444 kg in LEO landing 3000 kg on Moon. Say half to be the final payload.c) Use an EELV25mT in LEO landing 17mT on Moon.
CommercialSpaceFan - 15/9/2007 8:00 AM Question, who are the likely competitors?
mr.columbus - 15/9/2007 9:40 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007 1:04 AMa) Lunar X prizeSay 444 kg in LEO landing 300 kg on Moon. This mass includes the lander.b) Use a larger rocket and scale up the Lunar Lander.4444 kg in LEO landing 3000 kg on Moon. Say half to be the final payload.c) Use an EELV25mT in LEO landing 17mT on Moon.Unfortunately, for such LEO mass/payload efficiencies you need a propulsion system with an ISP of more than 2000. So you would need to wait for a high thrust implementation of concepts such as VASIMR...
To give you some references on large payloads on their LEO mass/payload to the moon efficiencies - EADS calculated a 1:9 ratio for Ariane 5 ECA (23 tons into LEO; 10 tons into GTO; 2.6 tons of effective cargo on the lunar surface.
A smaller robotic mission put together on a shoestring budget cannot aim of course to the performance of an Ariane 5. I have calculated one scenario above, that yielded a mass/payload ratio of about 1:20. Your 444 kg LEO mass would give you an effective payload mass of approximately 20-25 kg on the lunar surface (still enough for a transmitter on the base and a small rover)
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007 2:31 PMHow you actually land with an ion thruster I do not know.
A_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007 5:31 PMOpps I rounded the wrong way. It should have been 280 kg on Moon.The basis of these estimates was the SMART-1 mini spacecraft that was crashed into the Moon in September 2006. The launch mass was 367 kg, propellant 82 kg and 287 kg (633 lb) was non-propellant (their rounding errors).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart-1For my calculations I was using an ISP of 1530 seconds, a Delta_V of 5.93 km/s and an initial LEO mass of 443 kg.Total Delta_V = Delta_V (LEO to EML-2) + Delta_V(EML-2 to lunar surface) = 3.43 + 2.52 km/shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget
hop - 15/9/2007 10:09 PMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 15/9/2007 2:31 PMHow you actually land with an ion thruster I do not know.I do think some of the smallsat folks (MOST comes to mind) might have a decent chance of pulling it off with that kind of money, but I don't see them getting the cash up front to try, and it would be very hard to break even.
mr.columbus - 16/9/2007 3:37 AMIn any event, I still feel the biggest question is how small the rover and the base station hardware required beside the rover really can be made. Maybe we will be pleasantly surprised by a team presenting a viable proposal for a microrover (under 1 kg) that still can meet XPrize requirements (video camera, roving over 500m etc.).
wannamoonbase - 16/9/2007 3:45 PMAgreed, this variable determines the rest of the parameters like lander size, propellant needed, launch vehicle size. Secondary payload will be the way to go but I don't know the upper mass limit on a secondary payload for commercial launchers.
Interesting discussion.
I was just reading the excellent speech by John Marburger ( Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President ), which very clearly puts across important information about the context of the Google Lunar X Prize.
I had not realised the enormity of what is happening ...
"FOR EARTH:
Supply clean baseload power to the earth (and enable clean transportation fuel using off-peak power.) Direct implications include:
• Energy independence from petrochemicals.
• Large scale reduction of carbon inputs into the biosphere.
• Increased wealth and security with resulting decrease in rate of population expansion as per capita energy use increases in the developing world….without threatening the biosphere." (from the speech)
I'm already scrabbling towards half forgotten rocket engine manufacturer info in my archive. I'm also thinking of how the Orbiter Simulator could be used to test various ideas. It is not recommended to use it to test the actual mission, but it could be used to rule out unrealistic ideas.
I also found that I did'nt know about. A supporting statement by Arthur C Clarke.
This is just wonderful. If the commercial viability can be proved, then will we see the oil magnates shifting their huge resources and finances into space futures ? From a resource that already has a time limit on it ? Will we see the the same forces that build oil tankers, one day building transportation as big to move resources from the Moon ?
A_M_Swallow - 16/9/2007 4:20 PMThe electronics in the rover will not like the radiation, so GTO is better for this competition.
A_M_Swallow - 16/9/2007 5:20 PMUsing satellites to beam solar power to the Earth is almost certainly uneconomic, the Moon is further way making it even worse.
... soft land a craft on the Moon that roams for at least 500 meters ...
hop - 16/9/2007 12:02 AM John Marburger's speach also doesn't seem to have much connection, as no one has really explained how the Lunar X-Prize furthers those goals.
So the Virgin Galactic Spaceport in Nevada has no connection with the previous X Prize ? A whole history of innovation in technology over the last 200 years has no connection with solving problems and meeting challenges ? I quote from the recently signed Global Exploration Strategy that addresses similar concerns ...
"Theme 1: New Knowledge in Science and Technology
At its core, exploration is about taking manageable risks to discover what is unknown. Significantly, much of what it reveals is unknowable in advance. This presents challenges for those wanting to weigh the risks against the returns from new investments.This problem is as old as innovation itself; when Heinrich Hertz developed the first apparatus to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves in 1887, he hardly envisaged the vast global telecommunications networks of today, or the economic activity they sustain." (page 7-8)
In effect your kind of statement asks us to prove a negative. To predict how the Google Lunar X Prize will meet the goals that Marburger discusses, is demanding the answers to questions that have not yet been answered. A sort of Chicken and the Egg Problem. The whole point of this kind of enterprize is to stimulate the kind of activity that we need, that will score the goals that can solve the problems of our age. Energy, environment, population.
DJ Barney - 16/9/2007 4:29 PMSo the Virgin Galactic Spaceport in Nevada has no connection with the previous X Prize ?
The whole point of this kind of enterprize is to stimulate the kind of activity that we need, that will score the goals that can solve the problems of our age. Energy, environment, population.
hop - 17/9/2007 2:31 AMIf you could repeatedly send minimal rover to the moon for a cost of 19 million, it's not at all clear that you could sell many of them.Perhaps I just lack the vision see it.QuoteThe whole point of this kind of enterprize is to stimulate the kind of activity that we need, that will score the goals that can solve the problems of our age. Energy, environment, population.And landing a toy on the moon relates to this how ?
hop - 17/9/2007 2:31 AM QuoteDJ Barney - 16/9/2007 4:29 PM So the Virgin Galactic Spaceport in Nevada has no connection with the previous X Prize ? This is an apples to oranges comparison.
DJ Barney - 16/9/2007 4:29 PM So the Virgin Galactic Spaceport in Nevada has no connection with the previous X Prize ?
Or Planets and Moons ?
I don't see how the state of the art will be advanced, or new markets opened.
Take a look at the history of innovation and technology. Pick a random technology or endeavour on Wikipedia and trace it's development. There are common factors that inspire innovation, too numerous to list here, and easier to understand if you have first hand knowledge, or have at least engaged with the spirit of the endeavour.
In fact, look at Wikipedia. An idea that seemed ridiculous not so long ago. Mass editing of a single article ... chaos ! Of course now we know.
I was watching a video of Sergey Brin , one of the founders of Google. This guy followed up an idea in his college days that was regarded as "impossible", a comprehensive algorithm that could actually index the internet properly. He "dropped out" and their idea worked ! He is now worth 16.6 billion dollars. In the talk that was recorded in 2005, the Google relationship with NASA comes up (I remember hearing about this in 2005). Brin perks up, and says "maybe we'll build space tethers later on, but we're just more interested in some office space at the moment.." :bleh:
I'm starting my own Rover team, or at least, would like to join one. I may not attract big funding, or get very far, but I know I can participate. Anyone can.
savuporo - 17/9/2007 11:31 AMthinking about the problem a bit, i think it would be doable within $20M budget if all and any feature creep can be avoided.No science payloads at all. Just the equipment to fulfill competition rules ( wheels, cameras and antennae are pretty much the only requirement ).Perhaps no solar arrays at all. to fulfill the 500m driving distance, a set of batteries could be enough. You can get up to 350Wh/Kg from non-rechargeable batteries, and up to 200 from rechargeables. Maybe just have thin-film solar cells on the body of the thing, to prolong the battery life a bit.
DJ Barney - 17/9/2007 8:44 AMTake a look at the history of innovation and technology. Pick a random technology or endeavour on Wikipedia and trace it's development. There are common factors that inspire innovation, too numerous to list here, and easier to understand if you have first hand knowledge, or have at least engaged with the spirit of the endeavour.
The suggestion of "scaling up" the results to support manned exploration is ludicrous.
Thorny - 14/9/2007 3:03 PMQuoterpspeck - 13/9/2007 2:49 PMI have noticed that Spirit and Opportunity have attracted A LOT of public attention. At present a smaller portion of the Lunar surface has been explored in detail than the Mars surface. No, that's not true. There were six manned lunar landings in Apollo, plus various Surveyor and Lunakhod rovers. There have been five successful Mars landings (Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity.) Apollos 15, 16, and 17 each covered more ground than Spirit and Opportunity have to date.
savuporo - 17/9/2007 11:20 PMWhile technically its ludicrous, what a lot of people seem to miss is a different type of scaling up: organizational.Thats the same argument that is often made that suborbital launchers are no stepping stone to orbital ones.Thats wrong, because it neglects organizational issues. You see, having an organization ( likely a company, maybe a nonprofit entity ) that has done successful manned suborbital launches, is far more likely to pull off successful orbital launches than the one that starts from zero. While the technology may not directly apply, experience base, contacts in industry and existing organizational structure all apply.
we could use aerobraking instead of having to rely on rocket thrusters.
savuporo - 19/9/2007 10:12 PM In other words, interesting website and PR material for Google to use.
I don't understand what you're saying savuporo. First you support this prize (in your posts above) and then you try and shoot it down. What is your stance. Where do you stand ?
For anyone who is interested I have just written a blog about the wider aspects of the Lunar X Prize and similar endeavours.
colbourne - 19/9/2007 4:37 AMI guess an inflatable crash bag could do the trick if we can slow the spacecraft down with the ion drive enough.
colbourne - 19/9/2007 1:37 AMI wish that the competition had been to Mars instead , as then we could use aerobraking instead of having to rely on rocket thrusters.
I guess an inflatable crash bag could do the trick if we can slow the spacecraft down with the ion drive enough.
savuporo - 20/9/2007 12:47 AM When i said "PR material for google", i meant it as a good, useful PR material ( since when did any mention of PR begin meaning "shooting it down?" )
I thought you were being facetious. In the UK any mention of PR, or "Spin" is usually a chance to have a gripe at the system and the money bags. So, yes, nothing wrong with Google generating a bit of publicity ... the whole point of this commercial space enterprize anyway, is exactly that, to be commercial !
Google is a internet company, they should know how to present stuff on the net to attract lots of public interest, there are plenty of opportunities here. However, you need to have some good core material to keep people interested and coming back to your site. Having rough plans from teams competing, publishing progress news once in a while, the works. Lunar Lander Challenge website for example got off to a good start ( http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge/ ) with the Participant overview, "Team Matchup page" and so on. However, it hasnt been updated much and isnt very well publicised, people dont stumble on it often. There is no comments section, no updates from teams ( or at least aggregated newsfeed from team blogs or something ) Google definitely has resources to pull something better off.
I'll have a closer look at the site. That's a good point. As a net enthusiast myself I know what you mean. It's at it's best when there are up to date continuous reports. When a remote interested party actually feels like they are being bought into the buzz of the whole thing. Maybe something like NASA TV's "The Edge" program would do the trick. Where we have the "expert" and the "newbie" interviewing various people in a humorous way. That could be published on Google Video. I wonder if it would stretch to a full time streaming TV channel ?
I have aspirations of joining a team, but I don't have engineering or development skills. I do have lots of multimedia and artistic skills though... hmmmmmmm.
I received this information from X Prize..
Subject: RE: Publicity Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:36:51 -0400 From:"Becky Ramsey" To:"barney holmes" Thank you for your interest in the Google Lunar X PRIZE! We are setting up a team information section on the Google Lunar X PRIZE website (www.googlelunarxprize.org), which will include: general team information, a way to contact the teams, blogs, multimedia, upcoming events, etc. This section will include a way to express interest in joining a team or offering a particular area of expertise to teams. We are just now beginning to receive official team registrations, and teams will need some time to gather content for the team information section. I encourage you to watch the website for future updates! Regards,Becky Ramsey
Thank you for your interest in the Google Lunar X PRIZE! We are setting up a team information section on the Google Lunar X PRIZE website (www.googlelunarxprize.org), which will include: general team information, a way to contact the teams, blogs, multimedia, upcoming events, etc. This section will include a way to express interest in joining a team or offering a particular area of expertise to teams. We are just now beginning to receive official team registrations, and teams will need some time to gather content for the team information section. I encourage you to watch the website for future updates!
Regards,
Becky Ramsey
Keep an eye out for Odyssey Moon Ventures — one of the contenders in the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize competition — to announce they have partnered with NASA for development of a robotic lunar lander
Of the current lineup, Odyssey moon and Astrobotic, perhaps also Selenokhod seem almost credible. Any one that talks about developing their own launchers can be counted out.
I think Astrobotic has chartered a Falcon 9 launch in 2012-2014. Anybody have that press release on hand?
I thought ARCA looked quite credible, and they're developing their own launcher:
NASA says it'll buy up to $30.1 million worth of data about robotic lander projects - basically doubling the potential impact of the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize.
Whatever happened to this prize? How could a participant afford a launch to the Moon for such a small prize?
Quote from: Danderman on 07/24/2013 03:48 pmWhatever happened to this prize? How could a participant afford a launch to the Moon for such a small prize?http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/media
Non-US teams might try one of the Russian ICBM launchers?
Quote from: R7 on 07/24/2013 09:41 pmNon-US teams might try one of the Russian ICBM launchers?I don't any Russian ICBM that is cheap enough and capable enough for a lunar mission with a total budget of $30 million.
What's the going rate for Strela? Wiki listed $5M, astronautix $10.5M1.7t to LEO, own TLI kick stage required.
Development of such a TLI stage is a non-trivial effort.
This is a purely subjective observation, but I do not believe that NPO Mash will ever sell a Strela, for certain internal purposes.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/25/2013 02:36 pmDevelopment of such a TLI stage is a non-trivial effort.No doubt, but ought not to be insurmountable for teams developing lunar landers.Quote from: Danderman on 07/25/2013 02:37 pmThis is a purely subjective observation, but I do not believe that NPO Mash will ever sell a Strela, for certain internal purposes.Rokot then? More expensive but the 3rd stage should be able to provide at least part of the TLI burn.
I suspect that Google is going to have to pay for the TLI of three leading entries. Falcon 9? Antares? Something else?
Prize money in such competitions is never meant to cover the entire budget, but instead give a generous financial boost. Participants have to find other, preferably sustainable, funding to achieve the competition objectives.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/25/2013 06:27 pmI suspect that Google is going to have to pay for the TLI of three leading entries. Falcon 9? Antares? Something else?Nope.Google's contribution is the prize money. There is no ethical way that Google could fund any portion of a team's budget before the prize is won.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/25/2013 07:44 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/25/2013 06:27 pmI suspect that Google is going to have to pay for the TLI of three leading entries. Falcon 9? Antares? Something else?Nope.Google's contribution is the prize money. There is no ethical way that Google could fund any portion of a team's budget before the prize is won.A two part competition could be held. The prize for the first part is a trip to Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) and awarded to 3 competitors.
Non-US teams might try one of the Russian ICBM launchers?And then there's ARCA...http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htmIt looks so real!
Things take time, much longer than you think it will at first. Rutan's bird is just now getting ready to send people (and even then, it will take a while until paying folk go... I'm sure a good year after first breaking the Karman line in SpaceShipTwo), SpaceX took longer to get payloads to the Space Station than first expected, and there are several other examples.Should we throw up our hands and give up? Does this mean it's all fake? Nope and nope.It's taking longer than original projected, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of fake.
510 kg empty?16 tons fully loaded?What is that rocket made of? Unobtainium?
What is that rocket made of? Unobtainium?
That's only a 32:1 ratio of fueled to empty weight; given Atlas had over 50:1-at least as far as I can tell-it seems reasonable enough.
Huh, which Atlas?
Stage 1. 1 x Atlas D. Gross Mass: 113,050 kg (249,230 lb). Empty Mass: 2,347 kg (5,174 lb).
In any case it's apple (real 1.5STO) vs orange (imaginary SSTO)
The ignorance displayed on this thread in the last dozen posts (except for Robotbeat) is shocking.Go read about the progress that the various teams are making. It's still likely that Moon Express will make the deadline, and maybe a few others too.As for the prize money total, you *never* want to offer a prize so big that it attracts people who only want to win the prize and then go back to working on other things (or the next prize). What would be the point of that?
Seems obvious to me.In 2007 NASA was going to the moon. Now they're not.
Barcelona Moon Team announces a new date for its launch attempt. It will be during June 2015 according to the new estimations of the team.
QuoteTeam Indus also needs $34 million (about Rs 200 crore) to build and launch the spacecraft. Isro itself will charge about Rs 100 crore for the launch
Team Indus also needs $34 million (about Rs 200 crore) to build and launch the spacecraft. Isro itself will charge about Rs 100 crore for the launch
I'd love to see someone win this prize, but sadly it's looking pretty unlikely. Or is there reason for optimism that I'm missing?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/05/2014 08:14 amI'd love to see someone win this prize, but sadly it's looking pretty unlikely. Or is there reason for optimism that I'm missing?Based on how the rules have been modified before, I guess there's a reason to be optimistic that the deadline for winning the prize will be extended once again.
At least one team does have a signed launch contract; Barcelona moon team.
Quote from: Kryten on 09/05/2014 08:27 pm At least one team does have a signed launch contract; Barcelona moon team.I think there's a difference between signing a deal for a launch and actually coming up with the money to pay for it later on when it becomes due. Is there any indication that Barcelona Moon Team has come up with the money to keep their launch on track? I haven't seen anything about a concrete launch date or position on the Chinese launch manifest.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/05/2014 08:45 pmQuote from: Kryten on 09/05/2014 08:27 pm At least one team does have a signed launch contract; Barcelona moon team.I think there's a difference between signing a deal for a launch and actually coming up with the money to pay for it later on when it becomes due. Is there any indication that Barcelona Moon Team has come up with the money to keep their launch on track? I haven't seen anything about a concrete launch date or position on the Chinese launch manifest. This news posts shows they do have specific launch date arranged with CGWICG; beyond that there's a frustrating lack of specific information from either party. Their posts show that they've also ordered their lander's propulsion system from CGWIG, but none of them explicitly state if work has actually started on it or if it's part of the same contract. They haven't posted updates of any kind since february.
Could they go as a secondary with a Com Sat, preferably on a super synchronous orbit?
WASHINGTON — A German team competing for the Google Lunar X Prize said Nov. 29 that it has signed a contract to launch its lander, carrying two rovers, by late 2017.Berlin-based PT Scientists said that it signed a contract with Spaceflight Industries for the launch of its lander as a secondary payload on a vehicle yet to be identified. Seattle-based Spaceflight serves as a broker for secondary payloads and works with a number of launch service providers.Karsten Becker, head of electronics for PT Scientists, said at an online press briefing Nov. 29 that a SpaceX Falcon 9 is the most likely vehicle that Spaceflight will use to launch their lander. “We are very confident that it will be a Falcon 9, but we cannot say that it will be a Falcon 9 just yet, because Spaceflight needs to confirm it with their other customers, and SpaceX,” he said.
German X Prize team announces launch contractQuoteWASHINGTON — A German team competing for the Google Lunar X Prize said Nov. 29 that it has signed a contract to launch its lander, carrying two rovers, by late 2017.Berlin-based PT Scientists said that it signed a contract with Spaceflight Industries for the launch of its lander as a secondary payload on a vehicle yet to be identified. Seattle-based Spaceflight serves as a broker for secondary payloads and works with a number of launch service providers.Karsten Becker, head of electronics for PT Scientists, said at an online press briefing Nov. 29 that a SpaceX Falcon 9 is the most likely vehicle that Spaceflight will use to launch their lander. “We are very confident that it will be a Falcon 9, but we cannot say that it will be a Falcon 9 just yet, because Spaceflight needs to confirm it with their other customers, and SpaceX,” he said.- See more at: http://spacenews.com/german-x-prize-team-announces-launch-contract/#sthash.0VA7C9ZZ.dpuf
WASHINGTON — After months of stating that it would offer no further extensions of the Google Lunar X Prize competition, the X Prize Foundation announced Aug. 16 it was effectively giving the five remaining teams a little extra time.In a statement, the foundation, which administers the lunar landing competition, said that teams now had until March 31, 2018, to complete all the requirements of the prize, which include landing on the lunar surface, traveling at least 500 meters, and returning video and other data.
Scoop: No team will win the $20 million @glxp grand prize in March, and @Google is set to let its backing of the Lunar @xprize endhttps://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/google-will-not-extend-lunar-xprize-deadline.html
