Google Sponsors Lunar X PRIZE to Create a Space Race for a New Generation

[mr.columbus]

hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007  2:15 PM

Oh 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...

[sammie]

Hey, somebody revive Transorbital, they at least had a plan and the powerpoint presentation to prove it.

http://www.transorbital.net/bluespartan/index.php

*15mln For the first landing of a rover, plus driving somewhere
*5mln for second place
*Special bonus for finding water and surviving the night

Maybe Pillinger can sell the plans for his Beagle 2 rover....

[MKremer]

mr.columbus - 13/9/2007  1:50 PM

hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007  2:15 PM

Oh 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...

Probably a result of being rushed for time, rather than funding (well in advance) a studio to create some unique 3D vehicle and launch video. (X-Prize apparently doesn't have the most organized management for making sure all the PR and organizational details for future events are covered.)

[mr.columbus]

meiza - 13/9/2007  1:56 PM

Okay, 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.

[hyper_snyper]

SpaceX is offering a Falcon 1e at a discounted price for this competition.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/13/358739.aspx

How much is the F1e performance to LEO?  It has to be at least 500 kg or thereabouts.

[psloss]

hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007  3:38 PM

SpaceX is offering a Falcon 1e at a discounted price for this competition.

Yeah...there was this bit from the Google press release:

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.

[Seer]

Elon Musk believes that falcon 1 is adequate for this mission. He talks of drop tanks on a lunar lander. There would only be one and a half stages in that case.

[rpspeck]

bad_astra - 14/9/2007  12:06 PM

I 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.

I 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.  Continuing robotic exploration of the Moon (Ice at the south pole?) can attract both public and research interest.  

Bigelow's plan is to entice smaller nations with cost effective orbital research on his space stations.  This includes nations which have spent $ 1 Billion dollars on the ISS for ZILCH in terms of research results.  This lunar technology will allow these same nations to participate in deep space exploration (nearly as interesting as the Mars rovers) for $20 to $50 Million for each follow on lunar rover.  This is an interesting market!

Sponsorship of course is also a real factor as lunar rovers can be more interesting to watch than many sports events.

[mr.columbus]

hyper_snyper - 13/9/2007  3:38 PM

SpaceX is offering a Falcon 1e at a discounted price for this competition.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/13/358739.aspx

How much is the F1e performance to LEO?  It has to be at least 500 kg or thereabouts.

They want 7 million USD for the normal Falcon 1 and 8.5 million USD for the Falcon 1e - they claim Falcon 1 has a payload capacity to LEO of 650 kg, so I assume 1e would have a payload capacity of 800kg. Still, Falcon 1 needs to successfully fly first and show some reliability, before an XPrize team should reasonably think about it launching their rover on a mission to the moon which in itself is already highly risky and complicated. There are enough alternatives in the world that would be comparably priced, especially if such a team would come up with a proposal that has a lower weight than Falcon 1's capacity (under 500kg) or obviously if the proposal requires more payload capacity to LEO.

[mr.columbus]

bad_astra - 13/9/2007  2:06 PM

I can't see what kind of a market that this prize is hoping to foster.

It is not fostering any market. Nobody is mentioning that it is designed to do so.

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.

As outlined above, that is not correct. It is entirely possible to pull of a mission at the cost or below the cost of the price money. The problem of course is that you have to pre-fund your (extremely risky) endevour. And in that money categories we are talking about (10million+) it is hard to find people giving you the money other than governments. I see that the most likely competitors are student groups at universities - it does not have to be expensive to build a rover and a descent stage during two semesters - of course at some point each team will have to ask itself how they should come up with the costs for launching their payload into orbit.

I doubt any serious teams will even bother trying. Maybe X-Prize can get that Discraft guy to sign up again.

As mentioned above, other than teams from various universities I dont't think anybody will try to win this X-Prize. There is no business prospect or money in it for the private industry and you can't entice investors into such a project like you actually could do with a good proposal for suborbital flights.

[hyper_snyper]

Musk mentioned Armadillo.  Do they really have a shot at it?  I mean how much of what they've done will be able to stand up to the difficulties of flying to the moon and landing autonomously?

[Namechange User]

Wow, 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.    

[meiza]

mr.columbus - 13/9/2007  8:31 PM

meiza - 13/9/2007  1:56 PM

Okay, 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.

Yep, it was just a "one line" favourable estimate. Realistically the lunar paload could be tens of kg:s with a Falcon 1e.
There are quite high-isp storable propellant engines and some are even throttlable. 320 was probably pushing it too much though. Nozzle sizes might make the dry weight big too, which is not nice.

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.

10 kg rover minimum mass, not necessarily. You could have over a week of time if you arrive early in the lunar day, and you'd have constant sunlight (angle would change though). It pays off to spend considerable money to lighten up this thing.
In ten days it's 50 meters per day. Using 4 hours of every day for debugging and navigation planning you have 50 meters in 20 hours and 2.5 meters per hour. The speed ain't staggering. It's possible to have the rover be relatively unautonomous, either have more logic at the landing station or then completely script all driving commands from earth as the delay is just seconds. This was done with the Lunakhods.

[bad_astra]

OV-106 - 13/9/2007  3:17 PM

Wow, 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.

[Namechange User]

Why 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.

[Thorny]

rpspeck - 13/9/2007  2:49 PM

I 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.

[nacnud]

There was a proposal from SSTL for a very low delta-v luna transfer, I'm trying to dig up the details but I'm drawing a blank so far.

Here is some detail from wikipedia: Low Energy Transfers

"The transfer used by Hiten is a revolutionary new type of low energy transfer to the Moon derived from Weak Stability Boundary Theory. See Capture Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in Celestial Mechanics. Unlike the standard three day route to the Moon, called a Hohmann transfer, this low energy route does not require large rocket engines to slow down to be captured into lunar orbit. It also takes three months instead of three days."

[kevin-rf]

Ummm using a high ISP ION engine a patient team could crash a probe into the moon. Attempt a hard landing (refer to NASA Ranger 5 ) with a large solid sky crane attached to the rover which is stored inside of air bags (refer to the mars rovers).

Could be done and the rover need not be a light weight, nor does the probe need to obtain lunar orbit before decending... Direct decent uses less fuel.

So who wants to give me the $$$ and a pegasus to try it with?

[bad_astra]

OV-106 - 13/9/2007  3:37 PM

Why 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.

There'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.

As for technology that needs to be developed: it's not the development, it's the price tag.  If you're going to have to use a low thrust option to get there you might get stuck having to build an ion engine.  Not many of those in private hands right now. The long time to get to the moon will mean more expense of having to keep someone on payroll monitoring it until it gets there. RAD hardened circuits. Landing will require thrusters. Everything will have to be tested, and there will have to be redundancy built into it or someone is out a lot of money.

8 million of it will go to the launcher alone. That leaves 12 million to build, test, integrate, deliver, and control a lunar spacecraft and rover. And for the sponsor, great odds of having your name attached to a dismal failure vs. minor rewards of winning a prize no one but alt.space fans will pay attention to.

[William Graham]

Off the top of my head, I'd say launch on a collision trajectory using a Dnepr with ST-1 upper stage, using the second stage of the ST-1 as a coast/crasher stage. Then use small hypergolic thrusters on a lander to complete the flight. Deploy a small rover, the size of a toy remote control car, from the lander.

I'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.

The lander design could subsequently be used as a transport system, conveying commercial payloads to the Moon.

Feel free to pick holes in this.