NASA Offering $2 Million Prize for Lunar Lander

coondoggie writes "If you build it, NASA will not only come, it'll give you $2 million dollars for your troubles. The space agency today said it will offer $2 million in prizes if competing teams can successfully build a lunar lander at the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge at Holloman Air Force Base, in Alamogordo, N.M. Oct. 27 and 28th. To win the prize, teams must demonstrate a rocket-propelled vehicle and payload that takes off vertically, climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time, and then lands vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the launch pad. After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a predetermined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad."

Economics?

[mastershake_phd (1050150)]

The thing I always wondered about these kinds of contests, like the x prize, is doesn't it cost more to build your craft than you win?

Re:

[shaneFalco (821467)]

Call it a labor of love.... the guys that go for it are not so much interested in making it rich but in contributing to the next space landing...... Super Geeks... with a capital S

Re:Economics?

[Xeth (614132)]

For a full-scale thing? Probably. But this is a much easier challenge. From TFA:

There are two levels of difficulty, with awards for first and second place at each level. Level 1 requires a vehicle to take off vertically from a designated launch area, climb to an altitude of at least 150 feet , remain aloft for at least 90 seconds while traveling horizontally to a landing pad 300 feet away, then land vertically. Level 2, which is a more difficult course, requires a vehicle to take off from a designated launch area, ascend to an altitude of 150 feet, hover for 180 seconds, then land precisely on a simulated, rocky, lunar surface 300 feet away.

I think this is really geared toward groups of students, and clever entrepreneurs.

Re:

[Have Brain Will Rent (1031664)]

I'm sure the rules have something to disqualify it but a $100 model helicopter will do all the things described.

Re:Economics?

[pushing-robot (1037830)]

Yeah, the rules specifically state that it has to be entirely rocket-powered.

A.4.2 Vehicle must take-off vertically utilizing only rocket power from Point A. No aerodynamic or air-breathing methods of hovering, propulsion, steering, or landing are permitted except in the case of abort.

Sucks, as I didn't see that until I'd already built a lander with repulsorlifts.

Re:

[servognome (738846)]

The thing I always wondered about these kinds of contests, like the x prize, is doesn't it cost more to build your craft than you win?

But if you win you are the leader for any big money contracts that follow.

Re:

[iminplaya (723125)]

If you win, your project will probably be hijacked by the lowest bidder that actually wins the contract.

Re:

[DerekLyons (302214)]

The thing I always wondered about these kinds of contests, like the x prize, is doesn't it cost more to build your craft than you win?

But if you win you are the leader for any big money contracts that follow.

Not in this case - because the contestants are going to be universities and small private teams, which in no way have the ability to develop, design, and manufacture a real lunar lander. (Nor even to manage such an effort.)

This prize really is something of a boondoggle for the taxpayers - be

Re:

[Grave (8234)]

Actually it makes complete sense. The idea isn't so much to actually find a viable lunar lander design (though it is possible for it to happen), as it is to generate interest and excitement about it. At the moment, space exploration barely gets any attention on the nightly news, and despite many other countries planning for moon trips, the public doesn't seem to be very interested in it. On the other hand, if you asked most people if they believe we'll still be limited to the Earth in a hundred or two hu

Re:

[DerekLyons (302214)]

Here's the thing - this 'get the public interested' card has been played again and again - and it never works. The general public simply isn't interested in space travel, and except very briefly in the 1960's - never was. The public isn't stupid and sees stunts for what they are.
 
As for space not being in the nightly news - why should it be? Like Antarctic exploration, it has become routine. Routine stuff, especially stuff with low viewer interest never makes the news.

Re:Economics?

[RedWizzard (192002)]

The thing I always wondered about these kinds of contests, like the x prize, is doesn't it cost more to build your craft than you win?

These sorts of prizes are not intended to be money making schemes for the competitors. They are intended to offset development costs for technology that has value in its own right. For example Scaled Composites did not spend $20M or whatever to win the X Prize in 2004, they were developing a commercial venture that happened to be close to the X Prize requirements. Similarly Armadillo Aerospace are not building rockets just to compete in the LLC, rather the LLC happens to be something they can compete in without radically altering the direction of the development they were already doing. Though if they won both levels they would recoup the majority of their costs.

Cement Truck

[WED Fan (911325)]

I think I could do it, using the tumbler from a cement truck and some off the shelf hardware.

Come on Armadillo!!!!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been paying attention much to other groups, but Armadillo Aerospace is already very close to meeting that mission profile.

Re:

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

Armadillo Aerospace is already very close to meeting that mission profile.

And I'll bet they've spent a lot more than 2 million. NASA may end up paying out on this, but it will be to an existing established aerospace company that has already spent much more than 2 mil.

Re:

[DoktorFaust (564453)]

To answer your questions -- apparently Armadillo will be the only team competing this year [livescience.com]. According to last year's wrap up [armadilloaerospace.com] they spent "...six months and about a quarter million dollars in direct pursuit of this...". Of course, more money has been spent since then, but even if they quadrupled the amount they spent, they'd still come out way ahead.

Re:

[RedWizzard (192002)]

But they haven't won yet, they have no lander. I'm saying it can't be done for anywhere near 2 mil.

They haven't won yet, but they have successfully flown the level one mission [armadilloaerospace.com] outside of competition. So they certainly do have a lander. I don't know if their costs have exceed $2M, but if they have it won't have been by much. Carmack makes the point in this post [armadilloaerospace.com] that their vehicle is probably the first rocket in history to have more spent on consumables than on the vehicle itself:

Pixel had more rocket powered flight time that weekend than Space Ship One had in all of its flights combined. We have also spent more on operational consumables (helium, lox, alcohol, truck rental) than the vehicle itself cost, which is probably a first for any rocket vehicle.

That means the costs so far are almost certainly below $2M.

kidding, kidding

[User 956 (568564)]

The space agency today said it will offer $2 million in prizes if competing teams can successfully build a lunar lander

Do they give you a bonus for also constructing a sound stage that looks like a lunar surface?

Significantly different?

[FalconZero (607567)]

Surely the mechanics of the device would be significantly different on the moon vs. on Earth?
Surely the enormous difference in atmospheric pressure and gravity mean the only thing that's reasonably useful is the guidance mechanism?

Any rocket scientists out there have any idea what the real benefit of the challenge is?

Re:

[SamP2 (1097897)]

Agree to that. The 6x gravity on Earth vs moon, as well as all ballistic and overheating problems associated with the atmosphere, would not be present on the moon. For other issues it's vice versa, like requiring a completely airtight compartment for lunar landing and withstanding the pressure difference (BTW, due to properties of material resistance, building a vessel that has internal pressure higher than external (spaceship, lander) is MUCH tougher than a vessel with external pressure higher than interna

Re:Significantly different?

[peragrin (659227)]

ah but that is the point. without having to deal with air resistance, and only 1/6 the gravity if you can go 150 feet up on earth you can easily go 1000 feet away from the moon. You also need that increase in fuel as one would be trying to reach lunar orbit. which because of the amazing 1/6 gravity difference is a heck of a lot easier.

So any vessel that could survive in earth's atmosphere doing such tests would be already 75% done for lunar module.

Also the company that does it will most likely win the $2 billion dollar contract to build the lunar module for the government. or at least $100 million dollar help us get started fee.

Re:

[Frequency Domain (601421)]

If that's the point, I don't get it. It means the engine has to be way over-engineered relative to what's needed for the moon, with huge mass penalties, which boost the fuel requirements, which boost the mass even more... It would almost make more sense to me if they permitted you to use floatation to offset 5/6 of the weight.

Re:

[Orange Crush (934731)]

Wouldn't overheating be an even bigger problem on the moon? There's no atmosphere to conduct/convect away waste heat.

Re:Significantly different?

[MightyYar (622222)]

Any rocket scientists out there have any idea what the real benefit of the challenge is?

IINARS. But, I can think of why this would be beneficial. If you can meet the challenge here on Earth, and you can do it for round-bouts $2 million, then you have figured out how to do a complex task very cheaply. NASA won't be sending a slightly-modified version of your lander to the moon, but they may well come away with some cost-saving ideas.

And then there's the whole fun of it.

Re:

[camperdave (969942)]

The more difficult course, Level 2, requires the rocket to hover for twice as long before landing precisely on a simulated lunar surface, packed with craters and boulders to mimic actual lunar terrain. The hover times are calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulates the power needed to perform the real lunar mission.http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge/ [xprize.org]

Re:

[lexarius (560925)]

At the last minute, NASA will announce that the launch site is somewhere in Texas, and the fixed landing site for the test will be in the Sea of Tranquility. Teams are, as mentioned in the rules, welcome to refuel their craft before the return trip if they like, of course. I think this would be a good test of the robustness of their solutions ;)

CHA

[User 956 (568564)]

Nevermind the lander... Given that Microsoft paid $240 million for 1% of facebook, how long until someone offers a milti-million dollar prize to build a laser that can carve their corporate logo into the surface of the moon?

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

I was just thinking a Ballmer flying chair could win this prize.

Of course, we'd have to ship Ballmer to the moon, but that would be an easy problem to solve.

We have a winner!

[r00b (923145)]

I just copied the actual lunar lander, and added this cool racing stripe.

Re:We have a winner!

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

I just copied the actual lunar lander, and added this cool racing stripe.

You do realize that you could hook that up to the Internet and patent the whole thing?

Prior art

[dotancohen (1015143)]

...takes off vertically, climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time, and then land vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the launch pad. After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a predetermined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad.

Er, don't helicopters do this? Grow the moon an atmosphere (Anybody see the movie Red Planet?) and it'll fly there too.

Re:

[camperdave (969942)]

From the rules:No aerodynamic or air-breathing methods of hovering, propulsion, steering, or landing is permitted except in the case of abort.

In other words

[microbee (682094)]

NASA is now outsourcing its jobs.

Perhaps they're doing it right

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

NASA is an Admininstration, filled with administrators. It says so right in their name. They should not be doing actual engineering (they are not called NASE). Instead they should be providing an administrative service that supports aerospace development.

Trying the X-prize model might be just the right way to tackle this.

Time to boldly go...

[Pausanias (681077)]

where we already went 40 years ago with computers that would be 0wned by a calculator today. Way to go firing up the imaginations of the next generation of space scientists, NASA.

That's so 1969...

[tinrobot (314936)]

It makes me sad that almost 40 years later, they have to reinvent the technology from scratch.

We should be competing for a Mars lander by now.

They have to.

[freeze128 (544774)]

The original designers of all that equipment have either retired or died. The manufacturing methods were too slow anyway. It's also possible that some of the components may have even become outlawed because of environmental concerns (lead solder or maybe some really toxic fuels). Does the lander HAVE to be wrapped in gold foil like the LEM? I have heard that the price of copper is going through the roof. It just makes sense to completely re-invent the technology, and start fresh.

I'm not worried about the t

Re:

[everphilski (877346)]

The original designers of all that equipment have either retired or died.

Not completely - I work as a NASA subcontractor, and I work with a few people who were around for the tail end of Apollo (granted, most are looking to retire soon - but they are still very sharp). But the real problem is information rot. Think about it - all the designs and reports from the 1950's and 1960's are written in paper. Fourty year old paper and photographs. Even in the best of storage conditions, these things degrade. I'v

Re:

[Lumpy (12016)]

but it's not.

The Apollo lander was a dirty hack. It worked but it was incredibly hackish. Remember you have a decent motor that is single use. then you have a single use acent motor that is seperate and only lifting 1/3rd the weight as you left the base, most of the fuel tanks, and other gear behind. (also pray the cable/hose seperation system worked or you are a dead man dangling at the end of a rope until your acent motor dies.)

Any lunar lander crash even at low speed would have been incredibly bad. t

Mission accomplished

[r_jensen11 (598210)]

NASA must have their heads in the sand, because the private sector has already accomplished said task [frontiernet.net].

Important Clue for the Mystified

[Crypto Gnome (651401)]

For all those who're whining about issues such as

• difference in gravity between moon and earth
• atmosphere here, none there
• etc

Remember that there's recently been *much* talk about actual landings on planetary bodies other than the moon (mars, anyone) where variable factors mentioned above will still be a consideration, but "simply" (for want of a better term) different values for the same problem.

For those who're reading slashdot while still mostly asleep/inebriated/high .... If you can do this on earth (and accomodate the inherently *non-trivial* issues from relatively large gravity and atmosphere) then tweaking the solution to work for select random() from "moon,mars,??" is a significantly less complex problem.

If you don't know how to build a car, building a world-land-speed-record-breaking car is *very difficult*, if you regularly design and build performance cars for a living, it is a significantly less complex problem.

How many years did it take men to build a working powered flying machine? How many years *after* that before they tweaked the design for

• Passenger flights
• supersonic flights
• heavy lifting caro capacity
• remote-controlled flight
• etc

Seems Nasa has realized that being an overbloated government controlled bureaucracy is not necessarily conducive to rocket-science/heavy-engineering/economically-optimal-solutions (ie stuff they are supposed to be achieving).

Perhaps now NASA will focus more on hard-science and rely on commercial enterprise to handle issues like basic-engineering and economical solutions.

Government science projects should not be expected/required to be economically viable/turn a profit - their research is for the generic betterment of mankind and should be available to all. Commercial interests should not be relied upon (certainly not exclusively) to carry out the brunt of core scientific research - much scientific research is *exceedingly* expensive with no obvious expectation of Return On Investment (the space program has "struck it lucky" with many useful and commercial inventions as a result, but nobody said "lets put a man on the moon because we need to invent microwave ovens").

If only we could convince *all* world governments to use 90% of their military budget for scientific research. Wars could be prosecuted with personal combat (trial by arms) and we'd have cured cancer/aids/parkinsons/the-common-cold years ago.

What?

[Dunbal (464142)]

ONLY $2 million? You've got to be joking.

The amazing thing

[WindBourne (631190)]

is that NASA, like the DOD, heavily overpays the industry, but will then go real cheap on these prizes. It is 2 million for a lunar lander, while Google offers 30 million for a lunar rover (which is NOT that much past a rover).

Re:Now we all know (math wrong)

[SamP2 (1097897)]

Should be 7,500 lunar landers. :-) Moreover, each one should be designed from scratch.

Re:

[RedWizzard (192002)]

If you read TFA you'd know that "the Lunar challenge is part of the 2007 WireFly X Prize Cup event at Holloman."

Re:

[servognome (738846)]

I think this loosly describes throwing a ball twice upwards and catching it, as long as you can do it in a predictable way.

Or in other terms, rocket propelled juggling

Re:China and Japan are already there

[RedWizzard (192002)]

Will they let the chinese show up? Or maybe the Japanese?

Those are orbiters, not landing modules, so no. Anyway the Lunar Lander Challenge has nothing to do with sending anything to the moon. Rather it requires the ability to fly a particular (VTOL) flight profile and quick turnaround times. It's aimed at getting private developers to develop technology that none of the world's governments seem to be working on (i.e. quick turnaround).

I'm so tired of my tax dollars being wasted on international dick-waving contests like this. I wish NASA et al would just whip out the rulers- it'd be cheaper. Then again, it wouldn't feed the defense contractors, now would it?

I'm tired of people making uninformed comments about stories they clearly haven't even read and still getting modded up for it. We don't always get what we want.

Re:

[FleaPlus (6935)]

Will they let the chinese show up? Or maybe the Japanese?

FYI, the Chinese and Japanese craft (while cool) are orbiting lunar probes, not landers. The Chinese are eventually planning on doing a lunar lander, but that won't be until 2012 at the earliest.

Re:China and Japan are already there

[Uberminky (122220)]

We're all entitled to our opinions about how NASA is running their show, but even still, I have to disagree with your post.

From what I saw on those links you pointed out, those projects have very different goals from the lunar lander challenge. In both cases (as far as the articles made clear) the respective countries were running state-sponsored (not privately funded) programs to get their gadgets into orbit around the moon to take measurements, test out equipment, etc, without ever touching down. The lunar lander challenge, on the other hand, isn't really about the moon part, so much as the lander part (hell, the challenge takes place on earth). My understanding is that it is geared towards developing privately funded solutions capable of performing a task roughly equivalent to what a helicopter can do (vertical takeoff, controlled flight, vertical landing), but without an atmosphere. It's not nearly as much of a marvel as putting a probe in orbit and mapping out a planet (or moon), as NASA has already done (though maybe not to the degree that these new projects plan to), but it's privately funded, and I believe it is done in the name of making future trips to other planets cheaper. NASA's $2M prize is nothing compared to what the various companies could (and probably already have) shell out, so in fact this is actually a money-saver for NASA. If/when we have any sort of permanent setup on the moon, whether it is a colony of humans or an automated ore-extracting plant, or whatever, we will need this capability. Sure, we have it (NASA has done it, and with people onboard to boot), but the basement designers will, out of necessity, find ways to do it that are cheaper, requiring less-exotic materials, less human interaction, etc. These groups will explore the problem space in a way more akin to how the Russians developed much of their space technology (fly it until it breaks, redesign until it flies again, rinse, repeat... which resulted in some pretty bulletproof systems).

Opinions about NASA aside, I would personally like to see us build colonies off of this planet. Maybe we've got plenty of time left on this one, maybe not, but we don't really know, and I would love to visit the moon one day. And if I can develop something in my basement that makes that more affordable for the next generation, I'm gonna give it a try.

America is dying

[megaditto (982598)]

$2M for a working rocket spaceship
$2B for a half-assed video hosting site Youtube

I am the only one saddened by this?

Re:America is dying

[Plutonite (999141)]

No, you missed the big news:

15B for a "social-networking" website where people can "poke" each other and buy each other little gifts that are pictures of teddy bears and ducks.