Draft Rules for X Prize Lunar Lander Challenge 175
IZ Reloaded writes "X Prize Foundation is asking the public to comment on the draft rules set for its lunar lander challenge. From Space.com: According to draft rules for the lunar lander contest, competitors will be challenged to build a vehicle capable of launching vertically, travel a distance of 328 to 656 feet (100 to 200 meters) horizontally, and then land at a designated site. A return trip would then occur between 5 minutes and 30 minutes later...Comments are sought by March 1 with initial sign-ups slated for May 15, according to draft rules, though Murphy added that the comment period could be extended to 30 days."
Mythbusters (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:2, Informative)
Episode 32: Jet Pack
In this "twin-taled" episode, Adam and Jamie embark on the longest and most ambitious build they've ever undertaken: creating their own personal flying machine from scratch. Are these machines as magnificent as their designers claim? To make the project more realistic, the two limit themselves to a build period of
Re:Mythbusters (Score:2)
Adam investigates the nutritional qualities of frozen chicken
Kari knits up some spacesuits
Grant checks to see how long he can hold his breath (Sorry, Grant)
Tory scours the neighborhood for 2L bottles
Yeah, I could see that
Does this count? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does this count? (Score:2)
I wonder what score gets me $10,000.
Re:Does this count? (Score:2)
Link to the rules, not a story about them. (Score:5, Informative)
My Comment: (Score:3)
Sorry, I'm bordering on rant status here...
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Don't you mean it's been 30 years since NASA's moon landing hoax [nasa.gov]? ;-)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
His name is Stephen Spielberg. His basement is just so bloody big it won't fit under his house.
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:2)
Re:My Comment: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My Comment: (Score:5, Informative)
The cost of the Apollo program was $135 billion [wikipedia.org] in 2005 dollars.
George Sr.'s Gulf war cost $61 billion [wikipedia.org]. The cost of the current Iraq war is in excess of $240 billion [nationalpriorities.org] and rising. Apollo didn't even come close.
Re:My Comment: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:3, Informative)
3.2.18.1 Take-off vertically under only rocket power from Point A. No aerodynamic or air-breathing methods of hovering, propulsion, or landing are permitted except in the case of abort.
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
The gravity is lower, but it's probably safe to assume that a vehicle coming in to land on the moon is going to have a -much- higher initial velocity, and it needs to get rid of that velocity to keep from crashing. When you take that into account, the energy requirements are probably pretty similar.
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Luna's gravity is abou 1/6 of Terra, not 1/16.
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
Knew I should have double-checked that. Or written, "a fraction" (always safe.) I see the point, however; you can't afford to have something under-performing when you're on another planet and your life depends on it.
Armadillo (Score:2)
Re:Here's a Solution (Score:2)
If someone can work on the ship design... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If someone can work on the ship design... (Score:2)
Manned or unmanned? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Manned or unmanned? (Score:2)
figures (Score:5, Funny)
Murphy always makes things take longer than you planned...
Very cool, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Now all we need is guys driving 4x4s with gun racks, Confederate Flags, Calvin pissing on a [automotive brand] logo, and an X-Prize stencil on or around the back window.
(seriously, the I think the X-Prize is an incredibly awesome thing... this idea just made me chuckle.)
Re:Very cool, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Close, no cigar. Back on Earth, would break out the Photoshop, make cut-paste thing.
- Lunar buggy.
- Way too much air in right-hand-side tires.
- Mass driver.
- "Free Luna!" flag.
- Cartoon Burt Rutan pissing on a NASA logo.
- Drive clockwise around crater rim.
> (seriously, the I think the X-Prize is an incredibly awesome thi
1st contestant (Score:2)
/greger
Armadillo Aerospace (Score:2)
Well... once they get their new engines under control, which from the last update looks like it should be soon, they should be able to do this already: they've already done the vertical liftoff/hover/landing, and they have done countless controlled hovers while driving it around with a joystick. Piloting it up, over, and down shouldn't be much more difficult.
btw, the movie of the liftoff/hover/landing (well, the landing wa
Rope and missile. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Rope and missile. (Score:2)
My Boy Scout Master, Ol' Half-Hitch, would be shocked!
Re:Rope and missile. (Score:2)
Re:Rope and missile. (Score:2)
What gravitational field? (Score:2)
Re:What gravitational field? (Score:2)
Unless the people putting in all of this intense thought and effort into the prospect of moon landings are so completely stupid that they seriously thought they were going to invent anti-gravity just to simulate the moon's mass for their contest.
Although I have to admit that it would be a pretty big ego boost for you, if they did happen to overlook that particularly obvious problem, while you were able to pick up on it right away without giving the matte
Is this a joke? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also: traveling horizontally for 100-200m? I'm guessing there are more crosswinds on earth than on the moon. Also, once again, the same thrust that might move you 100m on the moon wouldn't move you 10m on earth. This seems like a ridiculous standard to meet, and it's going to require far more engineering to accomplish than is necessary for lunar travel.
Or am I missing some large part of the puzzle here, like their
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the Draft:
Since the moon does not have an appreciable atmosphere, if the system can meet the goals on earth it shouldn't have any probl
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Not only that, but the energy required to enter orbit is somewhat more than that required for short-term hovering. I suspect that the energy cost of hovering at a certain altitude in Earth's gravity and entering orbit in lunar gravity are probably somewhat similar. Anybody with a better understanding of orbital mechanics than me care to do the calculations?
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Makes pretty good sense (Score:2)
2. You should find some time and place where there isn't much crosswind for the test. There are plenty of such places, including indoors.
3. Air resistance is pretty negligeble at small speeds, so I don't think the lateral movement part changes much. And gravity doesn'
Re:Makes pretty good sense (Score:2)
The argument that it's "as close as we can get" just doesn't make sense to me. If you can't simulate any of the envi
Re:Makes pretty good sense (Score:2)
Um... it's not like they're going to take the winning vehicle, toss it on a booster as-is, and see if it'll land on the moon. The thing is supposed to be a technology demonstration. The lunar environment isn't exactly the same as what
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Sure, it might be more difficult, but it's still going to be easy enough that there's probably going to be at least one likely winner. For example, a couple years ago John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace demonstrated the vehicle shown in this video [armadilloaerospace.com], which climbed to 134 feet and landed back down less than foot away from the landing point. A new vehicle with straightforwar
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
But a lunar lander needn't be (and shouldn't be confined to) an aerodynamic design. That's a huge constraint. Huge. Maintaining position, with the help of inertia, it also a lot easier than horizontal flight. Again, aerodynamics will play a large role there, when they needn't be considered at all for lunar travel.
Just because someone can do it and win the prize doesn't mean the best design for the moon wasn't eliminated because it wa
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think aerodynamics is such a big deal. For the sorts of VTOL rocket-powered vehicles we'll probably see in this competition, aerodynamics is just another source of maneuvering noise, which any proper control algorithm should be able to deal with.
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
I should also add that Armadillo Aerospace's vehicle is definitely -not- an aerodynamic design, and doesn't need to be.
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:2)
They point you may be missing is that this demonstration does not need to reach any speeds higher than a pedestrian. It hovers!! At those speeds, air resistance can safely be ignored. And it would probably not be safe to go much faster than that anyway.
Realistic moon conditions.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Realistic moon conditions.. (Score:2)
One fellow I spoke with once who, well, was a rocket scientist, said that GPS can be used in earth orbit, but you typically need to use specialized code that, for example, doesn't assume that the receiver will be under (that is, nearer to the center of the earth) the satellites.
So GPS can be used in space, but there is probably a limit to how far away it could be used. The satellite antennas are optimized to send signals towards the surface, and at some point the delta b
Re:Realistic moon conditions.. (Score:2)
Is GPS really unusable near the moon?
There are two problems, both of which I think makes GPS unseable on the moon.
1. Signal strength. The moon is about 240,000 miles from the earth. The GPS satelites are at about 12,000 miles. Maybe you can have a very high gain antenna to boost the signal, but signal strength is going to be a problem.
2. Lack of triangulation. As you pointed out because of the extreme distance, you're not going to get very good triangulation from any of the satelites. Assuming you coul
Re:Realistic moon conditions.. (Score:2)
Re:Triangualtion? what triangulation? (Score:2)
Re:Triangualtion? what triangulation? (Score:2)
It's just another way to look at it.
The way I said it, the angles become too small.
The way you say it, the ratio of the delta between the transit times and the transit times themselves becomes too small.
Re:Triangualtion? what triangulation? (Score:2)
Re:Realistic moon conditions.. (Score:2)
Armadillo Aerospace (Score:2)
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/H o me/News?news_id=272 [armadilloaerospace.com]
If they put their mind to it they should be able to fullful this challenge in a number of weeks.
Excellent! (Score:2)
Tough. (Score:2)
First Rule for a Lunar Lander contest (Score:2)
Otherwise, it's kind of pointless, don't you think?
Second rule is, nobody talks about Lunar Landing Contests!
Dang, guess I can't compete. Good thing Paul Allen can take my place with his super secret company on the Seattle waterfront that noone knows is designing and building spacecraft and that you can see with Google Earth
Feet (Score:2)
Re:Feet (Score:2)
Daft Rules ... (Score:2)
I'll say.. oh wait..
Anybody got the engineering drawings... (Score:2)
After a series of successful DC-X tests the idiots then in charge at NASA picked the unproven VentureStar design instead, and it turned out that even NASA couldn't afford to buy enough unobtanium to build a working VentureStar.
(The DC-X was destroyed by human error in a test, but the vehicle performed well in all the prior tests. There was no good reason not to pursue the Delta Clipper design, other than that apparently the t
Re:Anybody got the engineering drawings... (Score:2)
What's a Meter? (Score:2)
3.24E-15 to 6.48E-15 parsecs
7407 to 14815 M&Ms (13.5mm nominal diameter, plain)
When a spec utilizes metric units there really is no need to convert from otherwise nice round, sensible figures like 100 and 200 to 328 and 656. While it is true that I, like most US citizens, default to thinking in terms of yards and feet, we're not (contrary to what is often asserted) incapable of coping with the occasional meter.
Re:What's a Meter? (Score:2)
The latest news: the use of metric measurement standards in the United States has recently been authorized by law.
http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external. cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:14 _339 [cornell.edu]
(39th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 301, 302. 1866)
SpaceDev's lunar lander simulator (Score:2)
Partnership with NASA; contenders (Score:2)
Also, there's already a couple of groups which look l
Re:Commercial Moonlandings? (Score:4, Insightful)
Could such an obvious question be an attempt to stimulate a half-hearted chuckle or is the source more close linked with stupidity?
Re:Commercial Moonlandings? (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
Inspiration (Score:2)
The GP never said that Space Ship One was going to 'evolve' into something more, or even that it demonstrated useful technology, just that it might spur someone's imagination. And if that wasn't clear enough he even went so far as to say that SSO would never see orbit. You even used the word 'inspire' in your post, which was the whole point of the original post, but evidently you don't understa
Re:Inspiration (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't a fairer comparison be a pleasure yach (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
DM+LM Mass: 14,696 kg (these won't be even close).
LM mass: 4,547 kg.
Why was it so large? Because it had to handle a lunar descent and ascent, of course, with all the delta-V that implies, with several hundred kilograms of human payload, plus one-way scientific gear on the way down and sample returns on the way up.. Yet, its engines were small:
DM thrust: 4491 kgf (3.3 mass/thrust ratio)
LM thrust: 1588 kgf (2.9 mass/thrust ratio
You are missing the point (Score:2)
You have the comparison wrong... (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
(I had the fortune to see somebody fly one of these, live. At the noise level it operates, 20 seconds is plenty. Videos don't do it justice.)
Re:Time to go (Score:2)
Of course you'd need automated control of the nozzles, and that would add weight and complexity, and it still wouldn't reach the 90 second time requirement. However, this was just an example of how simple, how poor performing of a device we're talking about is needed to win such a challenge.
Re:Wow, controlled hover with a rocket. (Score:2)
The old Bell rocketpack (as seen in the opening sequence of "Thunderball", among many others) is one such, using a hydrogen peroxide monopropellant and two nozzles. All guidance and control provided by the pilot.
The more recent DC-X, using LH2/LOX in four modified RL-10 engines (modified mostly to operate at sea level by cutting back the engine bells) did this just fine. As of course did the Apollo LM descent module, using hy
Re:why take off vertically, inefficient anyone? (Score:2)
Re:why take off vertically, inefficient anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because this is meant to simulate a Lunar Lander.
Re:Real Simulation? (Score:2)
Re:Did they say Moon or Dune? (Score:2)
Re:Since the moon is 100 meters away... (Score:2)