Slashdot Log In
Google's $30,000,000 Lunar X PRIZE
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Sep 13, 2007 03:05 PM
from the space-is-the-final-search-field dept.
from the space-is-the-final-search-field dept.
chroma writes "It's been a long time since anyone has explored the surface of the moon. But now Google has teamed up with the X PRIZE Foundation to offer a $30,000,000 bounty to the first privately funded organization to land a robotic rover on the moon. Google, of course, has offered the free Google Moon mapping service for a few years now. Looks like the other search engines have some catching up to do in the space exploration department."
Related Stories
[+]
Japan Launches Lunar Orbiter Mission 121 comments
Sooner Boomer writes "In a historic event, Japan today launched its first lunar probe. The mission is nicknamed Kaguya after a fairy-tale princess from Japanese myth. The news media is calling it the 'latest move in a new race with China, India and the United States' to explore the moon (don't forget Google). From the article: 'The rocket carrying the three-metric ton orbiter took off into blue skies, leaving a huge trail of vapor over the tiny island of Tanegashima, about 1,000 km (620 miles) south of Tokyo, at 10:31 a.m. (9:31 p.m. EDT) as it headed out over the Pacific Ocean. The mission consists of a main orbiter and two baby satellites equipped with 14 observation instruments designed to examine surface terrain, gravity and other features for clues on the origin and evolution of the moon. China has plans to launch an orbiter later this year, with unmanned rover lander mission scheduled for 2010. India and the US also have orbiter missions scheduled for next year.'"
[+]
Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon? 223 comments
Billosaur writes "With the recent announcement of Google's X-prize for a successful private landing of a robot on the Moon, someone has asked the Explainer at Slate.com if permission is required to land something on the Moon? Turns out that while there is no authority that regulates landing objects on another world, getting there does require the permission of the national government from where the launch takes place. This is in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by 91 nations, which regulates the uses of outer space by the nations of Earth. Specifically, Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' Start your paperwork!" J adds: The relevant quote from Destination Moon is "If we ask for permission, they'll find a way to block us. So we go now, as soon as we can!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Self serving (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Self serving (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Self serving (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
All fo these prizes are self-serving. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The Google Copernicus Hosting Environment and Experiment in
> Search Engineering (G.C.H.E.E.S.E.) is a fully integrated
> research, development and technology facility at which Google
> will be conducting experiments in entropized information filtering,
> high-density high-delivery hosting (HiDeHiDeHo)
Those acronyms have nothing on the Google Open Access Taut Sphincter Explorer, opening on a
Solomon
Shoot the Moon (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Shoot the Moon (Score:5, Funny)
Use a solar-powered antenna to broadcast this [evolution-control.com] on a HAM band. Once a month.
Then kick back and enjoy the FCC going into paroxysms of incoherent rage trying to shut down a pirate radio broadcaster who happens to have a transmitter on The Fucking Moon. (Sure, the FCC can pull your licnese, but it'll still have to divert half its budget into a followup lunar mission to shut the transmitter off!)
Parent
Re:Shoot the Moon (Score:4, Funny)
Winning the X-prize : $30,000,000.00
The amount of money the FCC wastes to shut down your lunar pirate radio : Priceless.
Parent
Inquiry (Score:2)
Or do they just press the 'I'm feeling lucky' button?
Prediction... (Score:4, Funny)
fuck that, lunar x-games! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lunokhod program; other thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Power was supplied by a solar panel on the inside of a round hinged lid which covered the instrument bay, which would charge the batteries when opened. A polonium-210 radioactive heat source was used to keep the rover warm during the long lunar nights.
During its 322 Earth days of operations, Lunokhod 1 traveled 10.5 km and returned more than 20,000 TV images and 206 high-resolution panoramas. In addition, it performed twenty-five soil analyses with its RIFMA x-ray fluorescence spectrometer and used its penetrometer at 500 different locations.
Lunokhod 2 operated for about 4 months, covered 37 km (23 miles) of terrain, including hilly upland areas and rilles, and sent back 86 panoramic images and over 80,000 TV pictures. Many mechanical tests of the surface, laser ranging measurements, and other experiments were completed during this time.
Also, rovers are a great way to captivate people's attention. Just look at how much the Mars rovers has increased people's attention at what's going on with Mars. For my generation, lunar exploration (human or robot) is something that exists only in history books. Seeing the Moon through the eyes of a rover (a rover put up by entrepreneurs, not a government) can change that, and increase support for human exploration of the Moon.
Also, I think this is a great way for the "space == science only" crowd to get interested in private space activity. Thus far, many of them have either been ambivalent about private space, or outright antagonistic about it ("just a way for rich people to waste money"). This prize helps cement the idea that yes, private spaceflight can have benefits for science.
Re: (Score:2)
Prize Not Quite Adequate (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditionally, prizes have encouraged people to invest a wide range of resources. Lindbergh was one of few to spend less than the prize amount during the Orteig prize--others, like Admiral Byrd, spent nearly $100,000, or four times the $25,000 prize value. It has been reported that Mojave Aerospace Ventures spent significantly more than the $10 million purse to win the Ansari X PRIZE. Teams are willing to spend more than the prize value, as they get to keep their intellectual property and capitalize on it. In the case of the Google Lunar X PRIZE, we expect some teams to be willing to spend more than the value of the prize. Other teams may be able to complete the mission at or below the value of the Grand Prize purse.
Just to put this into perspective, the pair of Mars rovers cost NASA $820 million [space.com]. Granted you're only expected to send one and it's only to the moon, NASA does already have the infrastructure & experienced personel to do this. Even an 1/8 of that cost is 3 times the prize money.
Add the requirements of a 500 meter 'rove' and hi def 'Mooncast' and I think you're looking at too much risk for any person--possibly any company.
Frankly, I don't think $30 million is enough. I know it may sound ridiculous but I personally think $300 million would start to entice competition. What intellectual property would you have in the end? You would have patents on specifically design tools for getting a piece of machinery to the moon only capable of Mooncasts & 500 meters of roving. I'm not so sure any company would try to enter this competition as it is a major investment and a major risk with very little gain.
Re:Prize Not Quite Adequate (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, to put it in perspective, 100,000$ in 1919 is 1.3 million [westegg.com] in today's dollars. A realistic price for this mission by small teams is 50-100 million, with a high risk of failure. For that kind of money, you're not going to get a bunch of little teams like you got for the regular X-prize, which was a (proportionally) extremely simple task. You're not even going to get the idealists. The budget rules out the vast majority of them, and the few idealists who love space issues enough to put forth that kind of cash -- like, say, Musk -- are already going to be putting their money toward space in their preferred method (with their own companies) instead of competing for some prize. That kind of money for investment in this prize would have to come from Wall Street, which wants a return on it's investment.
Not going to happen.
Parent
May not be so hard.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This rover could be Really Small (Score:3, Insightful)
And something that light should be able to piggyback on almost any launch.
Thad
robots.txt? (Score:5, Funny)
Will this robotic rover obey the moon's robots.txt? (It's available by querying the Tycho crater).
FYI the robots.txt for Jupiter's Galilean moons looks like this:
This is great for space exploration (Score:2)
Property Rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to up the stakes (Score:5, Funny)
I'll do my part. The pot is now up to $30,000,005.00.
That's cash money!
Privately funded? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean like Congress?
All the vehicles? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google Should Go Nuclear Instead... (Score:4, Interesting)
For those who missed it, Dr. Bussard gave a talk at Google, and the video is available here [google.com].
5 Reasons No One Will Win Google's X Prize (Score:5, Interesting)
The USSR did this in 1970 (Score:5, Informative)
The USSR sent robots to the moon in 1970 and 1973. [wikipedia.org] Big, car-sized rovers. They worked well, too. Lunokhod 1 was operational for 322 days, and and Lunokhod 2 for about four months. $1 travelled about 10km, and #2 travelled a total of 37km, so those large vehicles got around quite a bit.
It would be possible to redo that mission today. Lunokhod 3, never launched, is in a museum. Improved versions of the Proton booster used in 1970 are available from International Launch Services. The lunar landing module would have to be newly constructed, but the design is proven.
Already working on it! (Score:3, Funny)
I've got a subscription to the Iqbot magazine so in about a year I've got the robot covered.
Now for the launcher I'm going to need some help: send me all the rubber bands and pillows you can find. I'll need about 505 million and 4 rubber bands to get the robot into a decaying orbit around the moon. 5000 pillows should be sufficent to give the robot a soft landing.
Ofcourse the launch window has to be exactly right. This has to be Cowboyneals bedroom window, we might need to remove a few walls, roof and floor to accomodated for the rubber band robot launcher. And since we have to launch at exactly 11:23pm, some neighbours may complain about a bit of noise. This should be limited to about the sound of being in the center between 4 jet-engines running at full power, but should last only about 4.3 seconds. The ear ringing might last a week or two.
Ofcourse our research isn't complete yet. We are still working on the radiation protection of the robot, finding the cheapest sunblock creme isn't that easy. But we expect to be ready to launch around newyear 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
Brett
Re:$30,000,000 is a lot (Score:5, Informative)
I beg to differ. You can buy a human-safe launch, stay on the ISS, and return to Earth for $30m. You can get a lift to LEO with an LM-2C for $20m [spaceref.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$30,000,000 is a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, this isn't going anywhere, and Google knows it. Sure, it doesn't hurt to offer the prize. It's essentially free publicity for Google.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$30,000,000 is a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, it costs NASA billions to put them on the moon.
The point is to have private industry be able to do it for millions, or less.
Its not "Its been done before", its to make it possible to do it again, and again, and again.
Do it without putting the whole country into a deficit.
Make that possible, and then maybe the impossible that costs trillions can use the same technology.
A hand-made car, only a few can afford.
Mass-produced cars, we all can afford.
Get the space technology to that level, and finally we'll be able to really explore outside our planet.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the investments of participants from the last one, where Scaled Composites spent $20 Million for a $10 Million prize, I'd expect that if someone does this, it will be for less than $100 million. I would guess that to be able to get a capable robot to the moon would require a launch vehicle on the order of the Falcon 9,
its alot, but big business stands to make more. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Just one question. (Score:5, Informative)
They seem to hemorrhage money sometimes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just one question. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Easy, they don't pay (Score:5, Informative)
I think the odds of this being won in the next 20 years (and they only have 5 years to do this) are pretty small. This is similar to Branson's prize he's offering for removing CO2 from the atmosphere at some rather significant rate; the challenge to be surpassed in meeting the qualifications are high enough that there is little chance of having to make a payout.
If they do have to make a payout, the publicity is huge, and it's certainly possible that they have some commercial return in mind...perhaps rights to the rover design. I think the field of contenders will be small and weak, because the challenge is significant and the prize amount is unlikely to match the cost. At least for the original X-prize there was a hypothesized market for system developed as a result.
Of course, if I'm going to say this on Slashdot, I'd better be prepared to back it up:
The guidelines [googlelunarxprize.org] are that it must soft-land on the moon by the end of 2012, roam 500+ meters, and send back video and pictures. The basic prize is $20 million. If it can be done by 2014, the prize is $15 million. There is an additional $5 million if a second lander (by any competitor) to land by 2014. There is a bonus $5 million for extra duties like roaming 5000+ meters, photographing existing man-made objects on the moon, surviving the 14 day lunar night, or discovering water-ice.
The requirements and bonus objectives are roughly inline with the design parameters of the Mars Exploration Rovers. I'm sure a private group can build a device with that kind of capabilities for less than $30 million. However, I'm positive they can't get it to the moon for that little.
Landing a meaningful payload on the moon requires a fairly decent-sized launch vehicle. If we assume a mass similar to the old Surveyor Lunar landers, which were about 1/3 as heavy as the MER's (landing mass, not mobile mass) and not mobile, then we can start looking at launch vehicles capable of sending it on it's way.
The Surveyors were launched on Atlas-Centaur rockets, which have an LEO payload of about 5000 pounds. There isn't anything directly comparable currently on the market. There's few offerings that are too small. A Falcon 1 ($8 million, 1500 pounds) won't cut it. A Falcon 9, on the other hand would be significant overkill, with 21,000 pound LEO capacity and a $35 million price tag.
A Russian Dnepr would probably be the best bet. These converted ICBM's are what Bigelow hired to launch his two prototype inflatable modules with. It has an 8000 pound LEO capacity and costs $15-20 million.
So you're left with $5-10 million (because the last $5 million are only available to a second mission) to develop and build the rover (piece of cake), but also a reliable landing platform and an earth departure stage. The latter can probably be adapted from existing upper stage products, but the first two are being done from scratch.
I just can't imagine that much work being accomplished, even with heavy use of volunteer labor, for that price.
However, if somebody out there has got the money to front and wants a mechanical engineer to work for peanuts part time on such a nerdy project, the above doesn't mean I'm not interested.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A colosal waste (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html [ethicalatheist.com]
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html [thespaceplace.com]
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/usa-001012.htm [fas.org]
http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/space_program_spinoffs.htm [look-to-the-skies.com]
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/02/space.medical/index.html [cnn.com]
And on and on and on.
Parent
Re:A colosal waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent