Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

X Prize Foundation Announces Lunar Lander Competitors 97

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the rooting-for-the-underdogs dept.
Raver32 writes to tell us the X Prize Foundation has announced eight of the nine groups planning to compete in this year's Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. "The ninth team requested to remain confidential, lending an air of controversy to the announcement. Space bloggers have surmised the ninth team is Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, but sources told SPACE.com that information was wrong. Their confidentiality period ends 60 days before the start of the competition at which time the X Prize Foundation will announce the team's name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X Prize Foundation Announces Lunar Lander Competitors More

X Prize Foundation Announces Lunar Lander Competitors

Comments Filter:

  • Been Done (Score:4, Funny)

    by Divebus ( 860563 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:24PM (#19639659)
    Pow - Zoom - Right to the moon, Alice!

  • The secret contenders are ILM (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:27PM (#19639695)
    And my money is on them to win by not just landing on the moon but converting it into an orbiting battle station and calling it a death moon or something like that.
    • Man, I hope it's not ILM. Then the fake moon landing conspiracy theorists will really have some ammunition!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by socz ( 1057222 )
        "Old tricks are the best tricks A?"

        and LOL at "Golden Palace .com must be the confidential one. " For some reason it's not hard to imagine "Hollywood" sign style letters visible from earth with the naked eye on the moon.

        "Golden Palace.com" hmmm

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taniwha ( 70410 )
      don't be silly - ILM will be doing the FAKE moon landing challenge

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by saskboy ( 600063 )
      Golden Palace .com must be the confidential one. Why gamble about going to the moon, when you can gamble ON the moon?

      Although, since they sponsored the failed Da Vinci Project that was supposed to launch from Kindersley, SK, I don't have much faith in their ability to pick a winner.
    • The Institute of Leadership & Management [i-l-m.com]
      Oh they might like a death moon or something, but could they organise one?
  • those guys building one in their garage for under two hundred grand have set a tough task for themselves. the other night on american inventor they had a guy who has put more than that into developing a toy centered around drag racing match box cars.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 )
      Well one of the major reasons Burt Rattan won the previous challenge was because Paul Allen bankrolled the whole thing to the point where the prize fund became irrelevant. Whether this was out out curiosity to see it does or as potential investment or both I dont know.
      • Winning the prize is not meant to fund ALL of it. It does get multiple companies shooting for it, all with differing designs.

        Allen bankrolled it, because he is a futurists. He is the ONE person behind getting the internet on cable. He started in 1991, LONG before TCI was interested. Now, he is quietly going after the next level.
    • Just because it takes $200k to make a toy can does not mean it will take $200M to build a bigger thing to go to the moon.

      Making a product (toy car) is very expensive. Moulds for plastic injection moulding can cost $50k+ each. Processes for making 1 off parts cost a lot less.

      • exactly. i didn't say anything about $200M and basically everything else you've said backs up my point. building stuff is expensive - so i'd be interested to see how they can build a rocket that can meet the demands of this competition on that budget.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdray ( 645332 )
        They don't have to go all the way from here to the moon, just hop from one place to another [xprize.org] successfully.

    • seriously (Score:4, Interesting)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:54PM (#19640001) Homepage Journal
      It's not Blue Origin. They're known to be using hydrogen peroxide as the fuel for their 'mystery project', which isn't going to get anyone to the moon, considering rockets based on H2O2 are barely enough to get you into a suborbital flight.

      I'll bet it's Burt Rattan and Scaled Composites, but this time instead of being backed by Paul Allen, they'll be backed by Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic outfit. They may even be using the Virgin Galactic as the team name. It's just Branson's style to pull something like this.

      My other guess, if that doesn't pan out, is Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX. SpaceX may have only barely got a prototype rocket into space, but they have a lot of very smart people on that team. Somehow I doubt it's them, because I don't think hiding the team's name is Musk's style.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by garoo ( 203070 )
        Would that be Burt Rutan, or a range of cheerful woven-palm furniture particularly popular for the modern conservatory?

        And then I looked up this mistake on Google and found out just how common it is [google.co.uk].

        Oh well. Can't do anything these days without composite materials...

      • It's not Blue Origin. They're known to be using hydrogen peroxide as the fuel for their 'mystery project', which isn't going to get anyone to the moon, considering rockets based on H2O2 are barely enough to get you into a suborbital flight.

        You do know that the lunar lander challenge has nothing to do with going to the moon, right?

        I'll bet it's Burt Rattan and Scaled Composites, but this time instead of being backed by Paul Allen, they'll be backed by Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic outfit.

        I can't see what Scaled Composites have to gain from it. The challenge is to lift off, move horizontally some distance and then land on a small concrete pad. Then repeat within a certain time limit. Scaled Composites have been focusing on a complete different approach - plane based launch systems. And of course they are now concentrating on getting a commercial operation up and running. Why would they distract them

        • You do know that the lunar lander challenge has nothing to do with going to the moon, right?


          I guess I didn't remember that until you pointed it out, no.

          I can't see what Scaled Composites have to gain from it.


          No, but I can see what Burt Rutan and Richard Branson personally have to gain from it. These guys are high-achievers. They want to be on top, and they will stop at nothing to be on top.

      • ...which isn't going to get anyone to the moon, considering rockets based on H2O2 are barely enough to get you into a suborbital flight.

        H202 based rockets are actually capable of making all the way to orbit if you're using it in combination with a fuel, like kerosene. Witness the British Black Arrow [wikipedia.org]. It may not be the best way to do it, but it's got the capability.

        But anyway, this competition isn't about getting something from Earth to the moon, it's about demonstrating the performance to fly between

  • Fine (Score:5, Funny)

    by zdude255 ( 1013257 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:37PM (#19639825)
    Fine, I'll make my own Lunar Lander, with Blackjack and hookers!
  • The mystery ninth team is a group of Mexicans and their landing craft involves a famous Killer Whale. http://www.buddytv.com/articles/south-park/top-10- best-tv-moments-of-2006-2718.aspx [buddytv.com]

  • What is our limitation? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xzvf ( 924443 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:41PM (#19639875)
    Imagine what it would be like today if we kept going to the moon through the last four decades. The costs are minor compared to the social programs and the military budget. Why can't some senator earmark a space program, like they do for bridges and museums? It holds about the same priority in the budget.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Arterion ( 941661 )
      What's on the moon that's so great? All the other things you mentioned are useful to society. How does society benefit from trips to the moon?
      • this is where we got quite a bit of our everyday tech from. items like cordless tools, heart rate monitors, durable glass... even things like (some specialty) tape and adhesives.

      • LOTS of reasons... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by charleste ( 537078 )
        Just to name a few:
        Kevlar
        Teflon
        Velcro
        TANG!
        Astronaut Icecream (love it when I'm backpacking)
        Plus loads of other things developed for the space program, that are in common use today. And if you think R&D will come up with stuff like this without the fire under their arses - that is the space program - you're mistaken. Few new ideas and revolutionary materials come about without a reason for application. For the most common example: Einstein didn't try to make a bomb - he came up with the idea... once th

      • Helium 3 (Score:2, Informative)

        by Klaus_1250 ( 987230 )

        What's on the moon that's so great?
        Helium 3, which can be used in future generation fusion plants and is an incredible good power source.
        • And oxygen. Everyone is speculating about possible water on the moon, but if they can find ice on mercury using radar [nrao.edu], why haven't they found any on the moon? Maybe there is a little, but unless you find concentrated ice deposits, you'll have to set up quite a mining operation.

          If you can extract oxygen, I think it would make more sense to mine that than to go hunting water that very possibly isn't there. Hydrogen is much lighter, so cheaper, to haul into space. Oxygen makes the bulk of the weight.

          Transporti
        • Yeah, that's a great reason to go to the moon... so we can collect resources to power imaginary fusion plants.

          Honestly, how does that *not* sound incredibly silly?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        Asteroids. Lots of them. Read Dennis Wingo's Moonrush [amazon.com].
      • There'll be benefits if every few years citizens could vote for someone to be sent there (one way/return).

        American Idol? Survivor?

        How about "Vote Em Off The Planet" ;).

        But you're right, just orbital would be good enough.

  • the anonymous team is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:44PM (#19639893) Homepage
    ...the animated corpse of Howard Hughes. He's building the lander out of wood.

  • My money is on Billy Mitchell (Score:4, Funny)

    by El_Smack ( 267329 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:45PM (#19639909)
    Billy Mitchell [wikipedia.org] is pretty good at lots of games, so I'm guessing he could practice up and be a contender on Lunar Lander.
    Scott Safran [wikipedia.org] will undoubtedly win the next contest, which I assume to be Asteroids, since it was released next.
    After that, BattleZone, Missile Command, Centipede, Tempest, etc.
    I think it's pretty cool that these X-Prize guys have taken an interest in classic Atari Coin Op.

  • Lunar Lander? Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:46PM (#19639923)
    I logged many many hours simulating a Lunar Lander [wikipedia.org]. Hopefully they kept the controls the same.

  • Not on the Moon.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by frakir ( 760204 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:46PM (#19639925)
    Competition summary:

    The Competition is divided into two levels. Level 1 requires a rocket to take off from a designated launch area, rocket up to 150 feet (50 meters) altitude, then hover for 90 seconds while landing precisely on a landing pad 100 meters away. The flight must then be repeated in reverse--and both flights, along with all of the necessary preparation for each, must take place within a two and a half hour period.

    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.
    • until I learned that they didn't actually have to land it to the Moon to win the prize. Durn.

      Still, it's obviously not an easy task and is an important step.

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )
      WHat's silly about this kind of "competition" is that you and I and everyone out there can offer a 100 million bucks to someone who can put a lander on the moon. Why? It's not going to happen. This sort of thing does not come out of garages or even small warehouses.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        WHat's silly about this kind of "post" is that you and I and every slashdotter out there can put forth our pearls of 'wisdom' without reading the article.
    • IANA Rocket Scientist, but don't you need a *lot* more thrust to hover in earth gravity than lunar gravity? It seems like the lander would have to be significantly over engineered to complete Level 2. For example, the lander legs have to be stronger (and heavier) to support the weight of the vehicle on earth.

      Also, this test seems like it would eliminate any possible alternative to standard rocketry. Much the way a solar sail is useful in space, some alternative lower output thrust technology may be pract
      • Oops, I should mention two things about the link I provided. 1) I didn't read beyond the first caption before posting. 2) Nonetheless, the last paragraph emphasizes that it was a pilot training device, not a prototype for the lunar lander.

      • IANA Rocket Scientist, but don't you need a *lot* more thrust to hover in earth gravity than lunar gravity?

        Yes you do, but the Lunar Lander Challenge is not meant to demonstrate a vehicle capable of flying the same profile on the moon as it does in this competition. It's meant to demonstrate the performance necessary to fly between the lunar surface and lunar orbit -- basically, if you can hover in Earth's gravity for 180 seconds (the requirement for each leg in the Level 2 challenge), then you've demonst

  • Disney is the Mystery Team (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:48PM (#19639937) Homepage
    It's obvious. The mystery team is Disney. They plan on opening a theme park on the moon. They already have their top fungineers working on the design.

  • Already been done... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Froze ( 398171 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:53PM (#19639991)
    Just not officially, from their latest news;
    "Full LLC1 flight
    One June 2, we conducted a complete LLC 1 operational profile at the Oklahoma Spaceport. Everything went great. Representatives from AST and the X-Prize Cup were present. This was the first flight under experimental permit rules from a licensed spaceport. Both legs of the flight landed within a meter of the pad center, and our operation time was only an hour and a half."

    Read the whole description here [armadilloaerospace.com]. It is full of all manner of technical goodies. In fact I can't wait for their next monthly update.

  • The secret contender (Score:4, Funny)

    by bflong ( 107195 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @02:58PM (#19640047)
    The ninth team requested to remain confidential..... Their confidentiality period ends 60 days before the start of the competition at which time the X Prize Foundation will announce the team's name.

    And the winner is.......... _Drumroll_..... NASA!

    • I'm trying to think ... which response would be wittier:

      1) Yeah, but they missed the application deadline.

      2) Let's see, invest $100 billion, get $2 million in 40 years. BRILLIANT!

      3) They would apply, but "The probability of success is 100% minus epsilon" doesn't mean what you and I think it does.

  • Lunar lander [lego.com]

    Where's my prize?
    • Well I assume getting a lego lunar lander up to an altitude of 150 feet would be pretty easy. ( by just strapping a rocket to it ).

      I'm just worried about the hovering for 90 seconds, might be a bit tricky.

      Oh. That AND trying to steer it onto landing sites without exploding from impact.

      That's just me though.
  • OK, this is neat, and a Lunar lander is something we definitely need if we're to go back to the moon. Granted.

    But personally, I would be far more excited by advancements in getting things cheaply into orbit. Followed by getting things cheaply out to Lunar orbit. Then followed by getting things down to the lunar surface and back up into Lunar orbit.

    So far, we've had success with the X Prize for getting something up into space. Which is a major accomplishment, to be sure, but it's about 7kps in angular veloci

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )
      The point that should be made here, however, is that there are plenty of people (both detractors as well as supporters) who are working on this problem. And there are contracts that have been signed by SpaceX and Kistler to supply the ISS at supposedly cheap rates to demonstrate such capabilities.

      The problem that NASA is facing is that there has only been two vehicles that have ever been designed by realistic aeronautical design teams to be able to deal with the environment on the Moon. And both were desi

  • Are moonshots easier with ISS in orbit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @03:14PM (#19640217)
    I don't have the tools to calculate this, but if you can get a lunar lander/command module unit up to the space station (I'd guess it would fit in the shuttle's payload bay), wouldn't a moon landing be a relatively easy next step? I just watched the Pluto mission special on the Science Channel and it made moon orbit in friggin 9 hours! Of course, it's smaller.

    • Re:Are moonshots easier with ISS in orbit? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Manhigh ( 148034 ) on Monday June 25, 2007 @03:29PM (#19640423)
      The ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees relative to the equator (this was the lowest inclinations the Russians can get to from Balkanor without a costly plane-change maneuver)

      For us, going to ISS is somewhat less efficient because we have to launch on a northerly azimuth out of the Cape instead of due east, which would maximize the 'boost' from the earth's rotation.

      In short, the ISS is a research lab, not really a truck stop. Going there wastes propellant.

      And while the CM and lander might be able to be designed to fit in the shuttle bay, the earth departure stage to push them to the moon is very large. Getting to lunar orbit in 9 hours is impressive for such a small vehicle, but it didn't have to enter lunar orbit, it just flew by. Slowing down to enter orbit takes a lot of propellant if you want to get there fast (have a high relative velocity)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Freak ( 16973 )
      As another poster mentioned, yes, it is possible to use the ISS as a 'launching post', but horribly inefficient. The Pluto mission didn't '[make] moon orbit', it made it to lunar SPACE. It was going WAY too fast to actually have a chance of decelerating and actually entering lunar orbit. It also made it to Jupiter significantly faster than dedicated Jupiter probe Galileo, because Galileo had to be going slow enough to enter Jupiter orbit.

      And, yes, a lunar landing mission spacecraft would fit in the Shutt

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Teancum ( 67324 )
        One of Werner Von Braun's original concept of going to the Moon was to establish a space station with a "drydock" facility that would be able to assemble lunar craft in orbit. In many ways I regret that he didn't go this route as it would have put a usable infrastructure into orbit for a sustained presence on the Moon and would have ensured that manned spaceflight would have continued throughout the 1970's in a substantial fashion. BTW, Skylab was a part of that planning, but it turned into something more

  • Launch Permits? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Locarius ( 798304 )
    And where are they going to launch these craft? Not in the USA.... Bob Bigelow [wikipedia.org] had to take his launch to Russia.
    • And where are they going to launch these craft? Not in the USA.... Bob Bigelow [wikipedia.org] had to take his launch to Russia.

      Bigelow was/is launching modules, not the full rocket.
      From your link:
      "Bigelow Aerospace planned to launch the initial Genesis I module in November 2005 on the maiden launch of the SpaceX Falcon 5 rocket. This launch was delayed to Q4 2006 and subsequently to Q1 2008. In the meantime, the initial Genesis I flight was switched to the Kosmotras Dnepr rocket."

      Not a case of 'not i

      • Not a case of 'not in the USA', but rather his initial choice of launch vehicle didn't pan out.
        No, no, no. Don't you know how Slashdot works? If you don't bash America you're never going to get modded up!
    • No, Bigelow _chose_ to launch them on the Dnepr. If you can pony up the cash, BoLockMart will happily launch your payload from the Cape or Vandenberg.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tmack ( 593755 )

      And where are they going to launch these craft? Not in the USA.... Bob Bigelow [wikipedia.org] had to take his launch to Russia.

      RTFA or go read up on the X-prize cup. Yes, in the USA, and no, this is not the first time they have been launched, and no its not really going to the moon. New Mexico has the US's first private space port down near Whitesands, where Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic is supposedly going to be launching their commercial flight venture from. Other teams competing in this challenge have already been launching, with Armadillo Aerospace already completing the requirements without a problem (at last year's even

  • I think we'll soon be seeing an announcement of Google Lander Beta.
    • I thought it'd be Microsoft. After Vista seems to have trouble taking off, maybe Moonstruck would make a landing...

  • SpeedUp, Laramie and Chugwater, WY: Led by Robert Steinke, a former employee of NASA.s Jet Propulsion Lab, SpeedUp plan to use a non-propellant engine.

    Lol, will be fun watching this one not fly! Someone should let the space.com people know the difference between a mono-propellant and a non-propellant engine.
  • I just don't wanna see the X-Prize become some reality tv show or something. Anyway, what I want to see out of this stuff is some sort of jump gate network in orbit. Like they gates are magnetic catapults and you just put your ship or whatever payload or something in it and you get tossed to the moon! Or string them up to mars! It would be cool methinks. It could be the answer to making private owned travel cheaper if it is cheaper energy-wise? I dunno cuz I'm not a physicist or engineer, just a guy with
  • Why not just use nasa's lunar lander design?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )
      Using the old Lunar Lander design in todays world of more modern technology would be like using a model T ford in a world of more modern cars.
      • "Why not just use nasa's lunar lander design?"
        "Using the old Lunar Lander design in todays world of more modern technology would be like using a model T ford in a world of more modern cars."

        They could probably make the same design with half the weight and all the circuitry in a board the size of a quarter. Kinda reminds me of what apple did back in the day.
  • and it's from EVERETT Washington

  • MS (Score:2)

    by wikinerd ( 809585 )
    I only hope the ninth team isn't Microsoft

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close