Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Next NASA Centennial Challenge Competition

Posted by Zonk on from the ready-set-space dept.

Andrew-Unit writes "NASA today announced the next competition in the Centennial Challenge series. A prize of $250,000 USD will be awarded to the team that can autonomously deliver the most lunar regolith to a collection device in 30 minutes. From the press release: 'This challenge continues NASA's efforts to broaden interest in innovative concepts ... We hope to see teams from a broad spectrum of technical areas take part in this competition,'"

109 comments

  1. Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    $250,000 USD will be awarded to the team that can autonomously deliver the most lunar regolith to a collection device in 30 minutes.
    I can see exactly where this is going*...
    • 300,000 USD First craft to achieve orbit.
    • 350,000 USD First craft to carry man in orbit.
    • 400,000 USD First craft to reach Moon.
    • 450,000 USD First craft to orbit Moon and return.
    • 500,000 USD First craft to take man to Moon orbit and return.
    • 550,000 USD First craft to land on Moon, take off and return.
    • 600,000 USD First craft to land Man on Moon, take off and return.
    • 650,000 USD First craft to land materiel on Moon, build structure.
    • 700,000 USD First craft to land Man and materiel on Moon, build structure, inhabit for one day and return.
    • 750,000 USD (optional) First craft to land Man on moon who spends 1 night in haunted Moon Mansion and return alive (Bonus: Gets eccentric uncle's inheritance)
    • 800,000 USD First to build town on Moon
    • 850,000 USD First to build domed city on Moon
    • 900,000 USD First to build Monorail (Monorail, a monorail!) on Moon

    NASA, if very, very cagey can do what they want on a pittance, letting people knock each other over trying to do for piddly prizes. Of course, Richard Branson will probably end up owning the Moon anyway...

    *Prizes not necessarily in order. Actual prize amount may vary. NASA employees and their family members not eligible (especially if an abnormal amount of materiel is missing from NASA) Offer subject to withdrawal at whim of sponsor or Congress.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Soft · · Score: 4, Interesting
      NASA, if very, very cagey can do what they want on a pittance, letting people knock each other over trying to do for piddly prizes.

      Actually, with adequate funding, this could be a nice incentive. As Henry Spencer said:

      As I've noted before, if the government wants to put Americans back on the Moon and is willing to spend (say) ten billion to make it happen, much the most effective way is to simply announce that the next hundred Americans to walk on the Moon will each be given $100M. It will be the biggest stampede you've ever seen, and nobody will have to "oversee" anybody.
      More mundanely, consider having NASA announce that starting in 2010, each year it will buy 20 round-trip tickets to the Moon from the lowest bidder, bids not to exceed $50M/ticket. If concerned about safety, stipulate that each year, one of those tickets will be used to fly a randomly-selected senior executive of the spaceline, refusal being grounds for cancellation of the contract.
    2. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative
      First craft to land Man on moon who spends 1 night in haunted Moon Mansion and return alive

      You didn't specify, but I presume you meant a Lunar Night. Spending roughly two weeks there is far more worth a prize than a mere eight to twelve hours.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget 1,000,000 USD if you figure out how to put someone with some brains in Congress.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Are we to assume that you were joking? The entire sum of your prizes is 7.8 million dollars. It's questionable whether you could even pull together an X-prize style "low delta-V minimal payload rocketplane" for the sum of all of your prizes together. *Real* launch costs on cheap Russian rockets would get you a single launch of 1,000kg to LEO for all of that prize money combined.

      You're orders of magnitude off.

      Prizes are nice for some things, but in general, they don't really apply to space contracting. Big ticket items don't get "competitors" willing to throw huge sums away on a money-losing contest, because you don't become a company with those kind of cash reserves by tossing it at money-losing ventures.

      That doesn't mean that NASA's current contracting approach is good, mind you. They should shift (and are shifting) away from cost-plus to results-based contracting. Also, prizes can be nice on small-ticket items - even miserly companies can be willing to spend small sums on a competition if it will be good PR for them or get them on a potential major-contractor's good books.

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    5. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Nahor · · Score: 1

      # 600,000 USD First craft to land Man on Moon, take off and return.

      With or without the man? Because it's easier without, less weight to bring back, especially if he's American...Sorry.

    6. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Are we to assume that you were joking? The entire sum of your prizes is 7.8 million dollars. It's questionable whether you could even pull together an X-prize style

      Ah, a literalist. May I direct your attention to the conditions, located in the footnote.

      Granted and granted and granted, etc. But the idea seems rather sound even if the prizes were higher. As Open Source development teaches us, many eyes make for better code, same applies for engineering. NASA has been without peer and yet the Russians with their old rockets have shown whizzy isn't necessary to get the job done. Who knows what some band of geeks in the desert can accomplish?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by gtkuhn · · Score: 1

      Am I right in thinking that this contest doesn't actually take place on the moon? For a quarter million devalued American pesos they want an autonomous earthmover, right? The sort of thing that might be good for sending to the moon on a much larger budget.

    8. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      That might not actually be a bad idea! Although I think they'd have to offer a lot more than a million dollars.

    9. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The footnote doesn't change that these prizes are orders of magnitude too small to even be humored.

      But the idea seems rather sound even if the prizes were higher. As Open Source development teaches us, many eyes make for better code, same applies for engineering.

      There aren't "many eyes" who have tens of billions of dollars, and the ones who do have that money didn't get it by flitting it away on prizes. Please either reread my post on the subject, or respond to my particular critiques.

      the Russians with their old rockets have shown whizzy isn't necessary to get the job done

      Don't deceive yourself - Russian rockets are no low-tech contraptions. They're cheaper for a number of reasons - lower labor costs and surplus capacity often playing big roles, but also the long-time use of the same general model (almost any model, used long enough, will become "relatively" cheap). As for the US, our only "expensive" launcher of sizable payloads is the shuttle; the rest of our prices aren't bad (have you looked at a Delta-IV heavy's prices?)

      Who knows what some band of geeks in the desert can accomplish

      Without a personal fortune, not much. Physics is a harsh mistress, and the simple facts are that even LOX/LH2 exhaust leaves the best-designed engines at a fraction of merely LEO orbital velocity, requiring a huge difference between propellant and craft mass (and beyond that, complex stagings and/or expensive advanced materials), and all you get out of it is a tiny payload fraction. Because of this, orbital craft are monstrous things with a lot of materials and labor costs. It's nice to think that anything can be accomplished if someone wants it enough and works hard enough, but this is a world without fairy elf magic.

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    10. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      or respond to my particular critiques.

      OK. How's this:

      You're overanalyzing.
      Not merely preaching to the choir, but shouting at it.

      the long-time use of the same general model

      Exactly what I meant, but please do over extrapolate.

      It's nice to think that anything can be accomplished if someone wants it enough and works hard enough

      Yet we've made astounding advances using better understanding of physics, better materials and different approaches to challenges. Don't assume just because it all looks like a wall, LEO can't be accomplished by more means.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    11. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Don't assume just because it all looks like a wall

      Don't just assume that because you want something to be true, it is.

      A smart person puts their money on physics winning over wishes. There's no magical way to get to LEO. If you think you have one, state it. If not, don't come here and pretend that someone else does.

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    12. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by corngrower · · Score: 1
      850,000 USD First to build domed city on Moon

      How much for building a doomed city?

    13. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like NASA is just trying to find a way to get corporate sponsors to do thier bidding and find more economical ways to do what they spend large sums of tax money doing. Who knows, NASA could learn a thing or two from the business world! (maybe)

    14. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Krimszon · · Score: 1

      Man, I wish it would go down like that! Because it just sounds really honest and actually makes sense (well, to me it does).

    15. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, I'm a lowly AC and even I got the joke. Please, watch some Monty Python or something and develop a sense of humor.

      As for getting to orbit...chemical rockets are far from optimal. Exhaust velocity's too low. The "nuclear lightbulb" concept could get us there a lot cheaper, and safer to boot, with minimal risk of radiation release (certainly minimal enough if you launch from the middle of the Pacific). Google for "nuclear lightbulb rocket."

      Then there's the space elevator, which is looking like it might be feasible in the next couple decades, and eliminates the need to lift any fuel. Capital cost in the same neighborhood as some of the very large buildings or bridges we've built.

      No magic, just physics.

    16. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Rei · · Score: 1

      The "nuclear lightbulb concept"

      is still far from existing. We don't even have a viable solid core design, let alone a plasma core design. The tech just isn't there. Even if it was, the concept of a team of amateurs on minimal budget building a hundreds of tons high performance critical operation gas core nuclear reactor based rocket is just laughable.

      Then there's the space elevator, which is looking like it might be feasible in the next couple decades

      Yes, keep telling yourself that (just ignoring that no small budget team would be able to afford it even if it was possible). The truth of the matter is that the strongest measured single walled nanotubes are just over 60GPa, and bundles notably weaker (I think they've gotten a very small bundle almost 20GPa, and a bulk fabric of around 5GPa). Space elevators call for indefinite-length 100GPa bundles. Undercutting the requirement causes geometric price growth. We're nowhere close.

      Increased structural purity and type-selected nanotubes will increase tube performance, but probably not enough. Longer tubes (hard to achieve) will improve bundle performance, but certainly not higher than the performance of the tubes themselves. Tube interlinking (sp2 (graphite) for sp3 (diamond) bond changing) would increase intertube bonding strength plenty, but would likely weaken their lengthwise tensile strength.

      It may not even be physically possible. Even if it is possible, we're nowhere close to achieving it in the lab, let alone producing it on the large scale.

      Capital costs in the neighborhood as some of the very large buildings or bridges we've built

      The most expensive building that I can find is Mori Tower, at $2.3B (only 56 stories, but they're monstrous in area - 50,000 square feet each). For comparison, the Sears Tower cost $150M in 1973. The world's most expensive bridge is the Seto-Ohashi-Kojima bridge, at 8.3B$. Dr. Edward's calculations, probably the cheapest and most realistic, call for a 120GPa ribbon, and cost 40B$ (incl. $1.56B for 10 years operation). That's very hypothetical, of course, given that the most critical element, the cable, is currently impossible.

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    17. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd encourage you to read Edward's paper more closely. Indefinite-length nanotubes are not required or even desirable. The design is for 3-cm tubes in a low-melting-point epoxy, which gives sufficient strength and allows the elevator to disintegrate harmlessly if it's ever broken. Nanotubes of this length have already been produced. Breakthroughs in nanotube production occur on a regular basis. There are a lot of engineering hurdles left, including making an epoxy that binds strongly enough to the nanotubes.

      Cost estimates have been as low as $10 billion. You keep referring to low budgets, but the profit potential of an elevator is so enormous that an investment like that is hardly out of the ballpark.

      The nuclear lightbulb project certainly can't be done by a small team, but unlike the elevator it doesn't require any breakthroughs in materials science. It just takes engineering. If little or no radiation release is a design requirement, it's probably easier than solid core.

      There's no particular reason why an X-Prize have to be low budget. It seems to be by far the most cost-efficient method of funding development projects, and so far we've seen no indication that large projects won't have similar savings. Certainly I'd think it would be a good idea to go at it gradually...$10 million worked, there's currently a $50 million prize for an orbital craft, and we can scale up from there.

      In any case, a point you kept driving home was that we can't argue with physics...so I was merely pointing out that it is in fact physically possible to get launch costs much lower than they are now. There are other methods I could have mentioned that don't require lifting fuel, such as beamed power using lasers or microwaves. Obviously a laser launching system would require much larger lasers than we have now...but there's certainly nothing in physics that prohibits large lasers. It's another engineering problem, possibly a difficult one, but hardly impossible.

    18. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I've read Edwards' paper about a dozen times; I used to be a major participant on the Highlift message boards. It's not an answer (if it were, it would already be in use!). Regular composites using epoxies can be quite strong because the epoxy itself has strength qualities comparable to those of the fibers that they're bonding. This isn't true with nanotubes. Whatever epoxy you use, it will be far weaker than the CNTs.

      The reality of the situation is that CNTs gain their truly incredible strength from using purely graphene (sp2) bonds. How do you keep the individual tubes together? Well, you can either trade out sp2 bonds (for say, sp3 (diamond)), or rely on inherent attractive forces (such as Van der Waals force and pi bonding). The former is achieved through pressure-induced interlinking, but reduces tensile strength. The latter requires long tubes to be significant.

      Epoxy isn't a magical substance. It needs to interact with what it is epoxying together if it wants to gain any of its tensile properties. What method of interaction do you propose that provides any sort of gain over what CNT bundles do naturally?

      Cost estimates have been as low as $10 billion

      1) Edwards' current budget projection (for the total project) is 40B$.
      2) That is assuming a ~120 GPa ribbon (reality: 5-10 GPa exists; we probably won't get better than 20 in the next several decades)
      3) Requirements grow geometrically inverse to tensile strength

      It just takes engineering

      My main gripe was with those who were trying to claim that a group of dedicated nerds in the desert were going to cheaply hop into space.

      Still, plasma core is a pretty extreme concept; even solid core designs still have a long way to go before they're ready. I don't think this is the sort of thing you want to skip a generation on, don't you? Especially as far as safety concerns go.

      seems the most cost effective method of funding development projects

      Then why aren't they used throughout the business world? When an oil company wants a new refinery built, why don't they just off a prize for it?

      The fact is that while prizes are great for small items, they're not for big ticket items. Everyone participating in the X-prize knew full well that they were, on average, expected to be taking it at a loss. They participated nonetheless - for fun, for national pride, and for advertizing of their companies/groups.

      That works great when your costs are in the low single-digit millions. That doesn't work when your costs are in the billions. There aren't enough potential funders and enough fiscally-loose potential participants. A million dollars can be cheaper than an ad campaign. A billion means destroying even a large company's fiscal soundness. On large ticket items, companies have no choice but to analyze chance of success vs. cost, which defeats the primary benefit of prizes (that competitors throw more money into the competition than the competition pays out).

      That doesn't mean that cost-plus is the answer. There's an in-between contracting system: pay for results. If results aren't delivered, there is no payment.

      it is in fact physically possible to get launch costs much lower than they are now

      Hey, now, I would *never* argue with that!!! :) I expect to see 3k$/kg (in present dollars) in a decade or two - we're overdue for a price cut like that, and the recent wave of new national space programs taking flight, new programs from existing national space programs, and sizable private launch interests (SeaLaunch, Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, etc), combined with advancing materials tech, should finally deliver. Beyond that will be tough, however.

      One thing that could really change things is if carbon-carbon or a better material could be fabricated more cheaply, perhaps through an efficient high-speed lower energy CVD process. Boeing's work with mass-scale carbon fiber production might help with this - while carbon fibre

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    19. Re:Man.. I Can See Where This Is Going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Very interesting response, thanks!

      Fwiw...here's an Aug 2005 article by Edwards in which he estimates $6B to build the structure, plus a wild-assed guess of $4B for regulatory/political costs. Of course it's all a w.a.g. when you don't know how to make the ribbon.

      Gascore seems more advanced than solid since the performance is better, but I wonder if it's really more difficult. Barring catastrophe there's no concern with radiation release, since the reaction is fully enclosed. And the design I saw had three separate safety mechanisms, each capable of shutting down the reaction in about a millisecond. I don't know enough to evaluate whether the quartz enclosure really could be kept cool enough by the exhaust gasses flowing past, but if they didn't flub the math on that, maybe it's just a better design. (Not that I would complain if someone built a good solidcore rocket of course.)

      On prizes, I guess you're probably right that nobody's going to speculate on a billion dollars. It might still work out if you had a lot of smaller prizes for milestones along the way. Or, if the project can benefit a company even if it doesn't win the prize...you can end up with a working rocket after all (or whatever), even if another company beats you to it by a month.

      Conversations like this make me want to break down and finally get an account here.

  2. Surefire plan by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Pacific Ocean is my container. A lasso is my collection device. If I get it all, I win $250,000, right?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Surefire plan by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Pacific Ocean is my container. A lasso is my collection device. If I get it all, I win $250,000, right?

      How about just buy a missile from DPRK, blow up the Moon and catch pieces with a butterfly net?

      oh, you wanted to do something else with the Moon?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Surefire plan by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "How about just buy a missile from DPRK, blow up the Moon and catch pieces with a butterfly net? "

      No fair, you used gravity to move the samples. I used a lasso.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Surefire plan by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      Why bother blowing it up when you can simply extort ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS from the UN by threatening to send the moon on a collision course with the White House using your stash of WMD stolen from Iraq?

  3. The new NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    A prize of $250,000 USD will be awarded to the team that can autonomously do our job for us

  4. Can't wait to get started by joeflies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now where did I leave my Saturn V and lunar lander? Maybe I can get one on Ebay?

    1. Re:Can't wait to get started by Saiyine · · Score: 1


      Now where did I leave my Saturn V and lunar lander? Maybe I can get one on Ebay?

      Yeah! It will be a buck for the item and $500M in shipping costs.

      --
      Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
      Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

      --
      Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
  5. Cheese Grater by mysqlrocks · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not just use a cheese grater?

    --
    Bradley Holt
  6. I'm thinking the best method-- by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    a small package, that when it hits, inflates some HUGE MOTHER tires,, 10 meter diameter, 1 -2 meters wide.. .. covered with super glue or some other adhesive-- roll it out, roll it back.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  7. You mean by lilmouse · · Score: 1
    900,000 USD First to build Monorail (Monorail, a monorail!) on Moon
    You mean First to build a Moonrail.

    • 1,000,000 First to play chicken with Moonrail.
    • 10,000,000 in compensation for First killed by Moonrail while playing chicken.


    --LWM
  8. How accurate? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can I just detonate a fusion bomb and send NASA guys out into the parking lot to catch the debris that rains down?

    1. Re:How accurate? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Using small explosive charges is not such a bad idea. You know, mining on earth hasn't quite been the same ever since Nobel discovered cheap and safe dynamite.

  9. Blow up the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Do they subtract points if the collection device is The Earth?

  10. Meritocracy over aristocracy by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article does make a good point when it says that these competitions let everyone compete on a level playing field.

    We get to see a published set of standards, an open competition, and the winner isn't based on who has taken whom to dinner.

    Wow! Making awards based on what one has accomplished rather than who one knows. This could have a major impact on business integrity if it's widely adopted.

    --
    Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
    1. Re:Meritocracy over aristocracy by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "The article does make a good point when it says that these competitions let everyone compete on a level playing field. "

      There are playing fields on the moon? I knew about the golf course where Shepard teed off, but what team sport do they play there?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  11. How about a giant vacuum cleaner! by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    1. Create atmosphere on moon
    2. Drop vacuum cleaner by parachute
    3. Suck up regolith for 30 seconds
    4. Profit!

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:How about a giant vacuum cleaner! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That idea just sucks!!!

      Har Har Har Har

    2. Re:How about a giant vacuum cleaner! by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      you forgot the "???" step!!!
      Now its doomed to fail

  12. Wow, Imagine that. by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 4, Funny



    Millions of years of evolution.

    Thousands of years of painstaking acquisition of knowledge.

    Decades of space exploration.

    The next big challenge:

    -- How to get dirt into a bucket. --

    "How do I get out of this chicken shit outfit?"

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
    1. Re:Wow, Imagine that. by mashedpatatas · · Score: 0
      How to get dirt into a bucket

      you are clearly misinformed, that was the challenge back then. the challenge now is:

      "How to get regolith into a collection device"

      it was stated clear as day, how could you mix them up?

    2. Re:Wow, Imagine that. by paco3791 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it can be overstated how important automation is to our future.

      If we can turn technologies like this into something that: collects, proccesses, and utilizes' raw matireials, and self replicates, the possibilites are limitless. If we can get automation sufficiently advanced we can send a small robotic factory to the moon or mars and have a habitate, fuel, air, water, and bio-mass ready for use when we get there. Terraforming and other "sci-fi" ideas become a little more plausable.

      The raw matirals are out there that will allow the human race to expand away from the "one planet, one disaster away from extinction" problem. And the solution isn't people in space it's automatons as an extention of our will.

      *checks above post* Whoa! Too much Red Mars today.

    3. Re:Wow, Imagine that. by Andrew-Unit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Secure that shit, Hudson!

    4. Re:Wow, Imagine that. by uberdave · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight... Your plan to win the contest is to make a robot out of dirt. Good luck with that.

      --
      "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
    5. Re:Wow, Imagine that. by khallow · · Score: 1
      The raw matirals are out there that will allow the human race to expand away from the "one planet, one disaster away from extinction" problem. And the solution isn't people in space it's automatons as an extention of our will.

      But if people don't actually leave Earth, then we're still in the "one planet, one disaster away from extinction problem". The solution is people in space. And if humans do leave Earth, then why not put them to work?

      Further, I think there's a dangerous "we need to do X first" syndrome here where "X" is some complicated technology or (in the case of some environmentalists) some sort of magic knowledge. If you want automation on the Moon, then put someone up there who needs it. Then it'll be worth figuring out and someone will have great incentive to do just that.

  13. $250,000 Vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically, the designers of the best vacuum get $250,000? Am I missing something here?

  14. Moon damage. by RUFFyamahaRYDER · · Score: 0

    Someone is going to make some crazy gadget and create some moon damage. The face on the moon will never look the same again...

    1. Re:Moon damage. by DarkYoshi · · Score: 1

      We could give him a scar, just like Harry Potter has!

    2. Re:Moon damage. by the+darn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Charo wanted for questioning

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post.
    3. Re:Moon damage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now is the time to contact Mothers Against Moon Damage and start a protest! ...and everybody should write to their representatives and let them know how you'll vote next time if Moon Damage occurs.

  15. John Henry by lilmouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have they already ruled out a guy with a shovel? I bet John Henry would break down less often, as well as maneuvering around objects more quickly.

    I know, let's put a penal colony on the moon! That way, we'd have cheap labor there, and could remove troublesome elements from our society. At least until they start raining gravity bombs on our head...

    Seriously, though, a guy with a shovel is at least a viable option. Abrasive lunar dust is gonna suck for anything out there, and spacesuits may well be cheaper then gears for robots.

    --LWM

    1. Re:John Henry by ShentarZ31 · · Score: 1

      I know, let's put a penal colony on the moon! That way, we'd have cheap labor there, and could remove troublesome elements from our society. At least until they start raining gravity bombs on our head... Thats not bad. Put the prison in orbit and say, "Sure, you can escape. I won't stop you."

    2. Re:John Henry by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      1. Establish penal colony on moon
      2. Give each laborour a shovel
      3. Instruct chain gang to breath OUT when they go through the airlock
      4. Supply new gang every 2 minutes
      5. Profit...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    3. Re:John Henry by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      I know, let's put a penal colony on the moon! That way, we'd have cheap labor there, and could remove troublesome elements from our society. At least until they start raining gravity bombs on our head...

      Hey, Mike? Where are you? Can we get on this thing? I'm thinking we'll call it 'Little David's Sling.'

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    4. Re:John Henry by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      But what about securing arrivals and departures?

      Granted, not every convict can pilot a Soyuz craft...

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    5. Re:John Henry by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      How do I sign up to be an inmate in this penal colony you talk of? Do I have to kill someone for such a sentence? Oww.. hope not. How about a premeditated murder of a fly or mosquito? I might be willing to commit such a selfish act of specieism motivated atrocity, but there should be less harsh means to hitch a ride, to be among the cargo of the inmate ship delivery?

  16. What about gravity? by Dareth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will the difference in gravity between Earth and the moon make a difference in the performance of these devices?

    Oh, and will any of them bounce over craters, and have massive 2 directional (front and above) firepower?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  17. How about a realistic mission? by joebok · · Score: 1

    I like the idea of going back to the Moon, I like the idea of contests to get people interested - but this seems a bit absurd. The old Apollo program brought enough regolith back - when they started training astronauts in field geology is when they started getting the good stuff.

    How about a contest with a little bit more realistic mission profile?

    1. Re:How about a realistic mission? by kevin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's not realistic? They have another $250k challenge to see who can extract the most oxygen from the regolith in 8 hours. If you wanted to establish a base, you need something to bring all that regolith to get oxygen from.

    2. Re:How about a realistic mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this seems a bit absurd. The old Apollo program brought enough regolith back

      Who said anything about bringing regolith back? As far as I can tell, this is about gathering lunar soil for mining the moon. To extract minerals / metals, or to make bricks. The goal will be to build things on the moon - not take more lunar soil back to Earth.

      It's easy to imagine a machine which gathers soil and dust - filters, compacts and heat-treats - then spits out some sort of brick which can be used to construct walls or help cover / bury underground living quarters. And automating this process (so robots can have built a structure before astronauts have even arrived) is going to be extremely important for permanent moon habitation.

    3. Re:How about a realistic mission? by joebok · · Score: 1

      Er, well, that's what I get for not RingTFA. I was thinking why all the regolith, why only 30 minutes? It all makes sense now.

    4. Re:How about a realistic mission? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      From an increasingly large distance, no less. Once you deplete the regolith in the immediate area, you'll have to go out and get stuff from further away.

      Oxygen on the moon is a non-renewable resource. You can harvest and conserv, but you can't really wait for it to grow back.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    5. Re:How about a realistic mission? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      But the thing is, it's not like you're losing any oxygen from the system. When we go back to the moon it will be in a sealed environment, and the oxygen will probably be used to grow plants and sanitize things just as much as its used for breathing. You don't need to dig up more than you need to sustain yourself plus a little extra for emergency purposes.

      On the other hand, the moon is rich in certain minerals and it might be lucrative to keep going and extracting oxygen simply because it enables you to get to the minerals better, which allows you to grow the moon compound.

      Of course, we won't see any of this in our lifetime; we might get back to the moon, but a permanant moonbase is still years and years off.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    6. Re:How about a realistic mission? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I suspect large-scale leaks are going to be fairly common, and small-scale leaks unavoidable. There's any number of ways to lose material from your environment, from micrometorites to equipment breakdowns necessitating the dumping of waste outside.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  18. NASA's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    0 - Get billions of dollars from government.
    1 - Get citizens do their job for a few grands.
    2 - Fake spending those billions of dollars.
    3 - ??? (this step is optional)
    4 - ??? (this one too)
    5 - Profit !

  19. And the winner goes to: by temojen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Catterpillar. Oh wait... there's probably weight restrictions.

  20. vacuuming in a vacuum? by raygundan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps you are missing that you can't vacuum so well on an airless rock, since the whole idea of a vacuum cleaner depends on there being some air pressure to work with.

    1. Re:vacuuming in a vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make negative air pressure.

      Duh.

  21. Domed city or doomed city? by ChickenFan · · Score: 1
    I misread that the first time I read it... although I think it sounded better.

    $850,000 USB First to build doomed city on Moon.

    Also don't forget

    $1,500,000 USD First to build graffiti-removing robots to clean up after street punks.

  22. Hungry Hungry Hippos by ShentarZ31 · · Score: 1

    So this is sorta like a high tech lunar version of Hungry Hungry Hippos? I think I have my entry, I mean device, in the garage still.

  23. Confused by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I should have RTA better, but how is this going to work?

    Are we supposed to send our own bot to the moon to pick up dirt? Or will Nasa take a bunch of selected bots to pick up dirt?

    Whats so hard about picking up dirt? What am I missing? Someone care to explain!!

    1. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Someone care to explain!!"

      No.

  24. Is this for the Oxygen conversion? by Cerdic · · Score: 1

    As previously reported, there is a $250,000 prize for converting regolith into Oxygen.

    I can see where this is going. Next competition will be $250,000 for converting regolith into water and then there will be $250,000 for converting it into food.

    --
    Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
    1. Re:Is this for the Oxygen conversion? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And then 500,000 for converting it into women who actually will have sexual relations with someone who converts regolith into water.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Is this for the Oxygen conversion? by markana · · Score: 1

      You mean Soylent Green will really be made of rocks????

    3. Re:Is this for the Oxygen conversion? by Cerdic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soylent green is regolith! Reeegooliiittth!

      --
      Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
  25. Teams required to pay $300 registration fee. by ChickenFan · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the rules (http://www.fsri.org/Grant%20Process%20Chart/DRAFT %20MoonROx%20Rules.pdf):

    "b. Teams are required to pay a registration fee of $300."

    So it's going to cost you to enter your Hungry Hippos idea.

    1. Re:Teams required to pay $300 registration fee. by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Weeds out the people who are just throwing something together.. the US Govt. should take their hint and do this with the DARPA project, though, with already resource strained teams it might not be as great an idea. Maybe only a hundred dollars or so.

      Besides, unlike gambling, this $300 could have a much larger payout, and if your idea's good enough it can probably be used here on Earth as well, and might be worth some money to escavation companies (if you aren't one of those companies anyways).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  26. US FIRST by orn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like one of the US FIRST competitions. Perhaps FIRST should pick up the project and end up giving a small pile of cash to the school that wins it...

    --
    1. 2.
  27. CHA by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    lameness filter in action!
    lameness filter in action!

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  28. Corporate entry... by moviepig.com · · Score: 1
    ...deliver the most lunar regolith to a collection device in 30 minutes...

    ...Domino's Pizza can do it, and it'll still be warm...

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    1. Re:Corporate entry... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Domino's Pizza can do it, and it'll still be warm

      Reminds me of what a friend of mine once told me. Back during the 70s and early 80s, she worked as a Russian translator for the US army.

      The US and USSR entered several nuclear disarmament pacts, in which both sides would agree to destroy a given number of missiles. She described these as kind of a PR scam, because both sides really wanted to get rid of their old missiles anyways. Teams were exchanged to verify disarmament of the said number of missiles, which had the authority to inspect any area large enough to conceal a treaty-limited item. She was on one of those teams.

      She and some people she knew who were on the team thought it such a waste to destroy these missiles. Here they had devices which could send a large payload to anywhere on the planet in an hour, and they were being scrapped. Doing some back of the envelope calculations, they figured that for the cost of reinforcing the heat shield, installing a parachute, installing racks, and making and securing raw pizzas, one of the ICBMs being destroyed could have been used for intercontinental pizza delivery that, with a full load of pizzas, would cook them at reasonable temperatures on reentry. They would be sellable break-even for 20$ per large.

      She jokingly mentioned this plan to.. I believe she described it as the Russian equivalent of a colonel. He looked at her like she was crazy.

      --
      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
  29. My idea by SpaceAdmiral · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just going to buy a Roomba and spray-paint my name on it.

  30. Roomba! by MattyDK23 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1) Buy a Roomba
    2) Spraypaint your name on it.
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

  31. Poor choice of rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The constraint in collecting moon rocks is not time, it's weight. This contest would be much more useful if the time limit were eliminated and replaced by a limit on the combined weight of the system and fuel. Better yet, determine the required amount of moon rock up front, and award the prize to the lightest system that succeeds in gathering that amount.

  32. So I get to by geekoid · · Score: 1

    kill some guy for pissing me off, AND I get a trip into orbit? sweet!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. In Soviet Russia... by maird · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a space pen versus pencil thing:

    shovel
    wheelbarrow

    So, where's my quarter mil for saving cost and using some common sense

    Given the number of peoples that can build a home or village and in some cases a city from dirt and water I vote we make the astronauts do some manual work for their Tang

  34. Centennial? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I didn't know NASA was 100 years old.

    1. Re:Centennial? by bjomo · · Score: 1

      100 years of flight just past.

    2. Re:Centennial? by bjomo · · Score: 1

      100 years of flight, not 100 years of NASA.

  35. $0.25 mil? *yawn* by Nepharis · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is pathetic. I'm sure people remember the last "competition", where there was the same monetary reward for generating 10 kilos of O2 from regolith in 8 hours. The lab I work in has the capability to do this, in fact at the time we had a contract with NASA to show electrochemical reduction could in fact solve this problem. The problem is that given the scale of our lab set-up, we would have had to run... wait for it.. 2000 amps through our system for eight hours. Were we to properly scale up our electrolysis unit, test it, and run it under the competetion specs, we estimated it would cost around $0.3 Mil to ensure that it worked.

    I like that NASA is opening up it's engineering to potentially innovative ideas from outside, but these incentives are kind of a joke. Just more proof that if there's going to be any major boost to the space race, it's going to come from private sector, not government.

    ~nepharis

  36. So what happens... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    What happens when they've given away enough prizes and gained enough research to throw together a moon mission, but it turns out that each of the bits don't fit together because the software was written in different languages or the square filter doesn't fit in the round hole?

    "Houston... we've had a problem..."

  37. The culmination of all of these prizes.... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    The final centennial prize will be awarded by NASA to NASA: One ginuiiine billion-dollar streak in the midnight sky.

  38. Same Old Price by mbaker2004 · · Score: 1

    Let me guess. NASA is gonna give this 250k award to the winning team, then have ownership of their plans, and award a $100 million dollar contract to one of the biggie aerospace guys to make the thing 10% more efficient and "flight ready." How is this going to save us money?

  39. Monolith? by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
    Carry the monolith back from the moon? I thought that movie was fiction. On reflection, I suppose that makes it a better cover-up.

    ...Oh, regolith? That would be different.

    --
    Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  40. Tonka Trucks in the Sandbox by CyberVenom · · Score: 1

    There is no mention of transport to or from the moon, so I would assume there is none.
    The article doesn't specifically say, but it seems to imply that this competition will be the excavation of some sort of simulated regolith here on earth.

    I'm sure there are going to be some specific rules to try to make this slightly more akin to a moon mission that for example the Caterpillar working in the vacant lot next door. Restrictions on interaction with the environment, for example (no intake of atmosphereic gasses like oxygen)

    Still, it sounds like CMU might just jeed to convert a Caterpillar to run on DC, bolt on a massive battery pack that can last 30 minutes, and retrofit their autonomous vehicle AI to it... ...No, there has got to be some size/weight restriction here.

  41. Battlebots by sammyo · · Score: 1

    Don't believe me, RTFA buckos:

    "The challenge will be conducted in a "head-to-head" competition format in late 2006 or early 2007 and will require teams to excavate and deliver as much regolith as possible in 30 minutes."

    Sure sounds like all the excavatuion bots will need to defend and to win, disable the evil Chinese, Japanese and Russian bots. This will be the REAL space race!

    1. Re:Battlebots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't really need to collect more than an ounce or so of material if you "accidentally" disable the opposing robot? I think this is doable. Does the other robot's collected regolith count if you push their mangled hull into the collector?

  42. NASA Study: Advanced Automation for Space Missions by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    Those of you interested in space-based automation should take a look at the Advanced Automation for Space Missions report on Wikisource. Basically, it's a study which NASA sponsored back in 1980 to brainstorm and analyze different ways of using automation in space. Although it's fairly old, a lot of their analysis is still relevant today.

    Here's the chapters:

    1. Introduction
    2. Terrestrial Applications: An Intelligent Earth-Sensing Information System
    3. Space Exploration: The Interstellar Goal and Titan Demonstration
    4. Nonterrestrial Utilization Of Materials: Automated Space Manufacturing Facility
    5. Replicating Systems Concepts: Self-Replicating Lunar Factory and Demonstration
    6. Technology Assessment of Advanced Automation for Space Missions
    7. Conclusions and Implications of Automation in Space

  43. Lots of Robot news today. by olddotter · · Score: 1

    There are two general purpose robot announcements, a smallest robot, this contest, and a life guard. Links to articles here. Kinda makes one think.

    --
    Think Deeply. ...
  44. Simulated? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    $250,000 USD will be awarded to the team that can autonomously deliver the most lunar regolith to a collection device

    If that's not simulated lunar regolith, I think they'd be quite willing to pay a lot more.

    1. Re:Simulated? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      They did not say deliver it to Earth. Whatever your gadget, it should work well with simulated regolith delivering the stuff within a few hundred feet radius both here on Earth, and up there on the Moon.

      Whatever happened to those autonomos car-driving teams that made it across the nevada desert? They sure have the capacity to cook something up. This challenge is to get electrical/mechanical engineers excited too, besides the chemists thinking about oxygen extraction techniques.

  45. Urbana Entry - Electrostatic Monolith Mass Driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why not charge up the monolith with nice big
    charge and launch it across the Lunar plains to
    the designated destination. No wind drift or
    atmospheric loss due to friction. Heck you
    could make a big pile of them pretty quickly.
    Perhaps beam microwaves at the launcher.

  46. NASA vs X Prize by heroine · · Score: 1

    The X Prize worked because it lead to something you could build a business on. You could theoretically make money hurling people into low earth orbit for 30 seconds. The NASA prize doesn't seem to lead to anything. Whose going to pay to move lunar regolith to a collection device?

    1. Re:NASA vs X Prize by bjomo · · Score: 1

      NASA or any other space agency interested in "live off of the land" technologies.

    2. Re:NASA vs X Prize by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well what happened to that Chess Prize challenge, offered to anyone who can build a computer program that could beat a grandmaster? IBM came up with Deep Blue, that had chess moves implemented in hardware. It beat the world chess champion. Did they do it for the money? Yeah, sure, what a great investment it must have been! Wall Street was in ecstasy! IBM's computer beat Kasparov! Weee! And their stock instantly went through the roof because of the huge income from that prize! These things are not about profit from the prize, but for prestige. The profit from these feats comes later, perhaps a century later, the amount money is just a symbol, of relative significance.

      I bet you anything that Deep Blue was a lot more costly than any kind of chess prize it could get in exchange. I bet you the whole Deep Blue project ended with a big number in red ink at the quarterly bottom line. Just like research, or even marketing keeps producing negative quarterly bottom lines. Try running a company without research or marketing - you're destinded for obsolescence and extinction. The Deep Blue project wasn't about immediate profit, but it was a significant step for humanity when it comes to artificial intelligence. One bastillon of what we used to call human intelligence striked down. We keep finding out that we're not that special, we're not the center of the universe - Copernicus, Darwin, Wohler, Deep Blue.. what's next? Our forward scouts, our humans of inhuman intelligence, such as accountant-number-adders, or grandmaster-chess-players, they keep retreating. The last bastillon of 'human intellgience' is probably gonna be held by women, in the form of interpesonal and social skills that they excel at and computers or even nerds really suck at, because these "manly" abstract but concrete mathematical challenges are more and more likely to be tackled by machines, way before they can engange in a pleasant conversation with any of us. See this

      Similarly, successful extraction of moon oxygen is not just gonna be for "the prize", but it's a way to pave the future. One important thing that would result in having breathable oxygen is being able to create a self sustaining human+tropical rainforest ecosystem on the Moon, and on Mars, as an insurance policy against human stupidity here on Earth, against the nullifying effect of a WW3. Chances are humans won't be stupid enough to pull the nuclear trigger on each other, with the promise mututually assured destruction looming over their heads, but do you like betting chances? Let's talk to Mr. Murphy, and ask him to revise his Law. Here is the optimist version of Murphy's Law: If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, except when chances of it going wrong are minute. Now, with this newfound optimism we can start betting chances! How about not having to bet when you don't have to, how about establishing certainty instead of having to rely on luck in a risk? How about having an ecosphere on the Moon and Mars who can be remote spectators to some idiotic WW3 going on down here on Earth, and they can just sit back in their couches and shake their heads, and say, "man, those idiots down there don't know what they are doing, they've all gone nuts!" The farther they can spectate from, the better chances they have of not getting involved. At least somebody then would survive, and when the dust settles on Earth, and radioactiviy dies down, a century later maybe, then these Moon and Mars and Saturn-freaks can take a trip back here, bring their rainforest seeds and their elephant babies and their kitties and rabbits with their Noah's Ark's along, and replant the rainforest, one seed at a time, and let earth turn green again, and the rainforests loud. They'd send a team of explorers, to boldly go where man has been before, except his stupidity got the best of him.

      Besides such insurance policy against some imminent apocalypse, the success of moon-mineral processing would have relevance to raw material extracti

  47. Re:$0.25 mil? *yawn* by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    It was 5 kilos of O2, 11 lbs, and you had the capability, to do it for a day maybe, but your device would have been chewed to pieces by corrosion in no time. There is a reason why they offered it to the public. $200,000 is not about the money, it's a gesture, it's about something that NASA - listen up, NASA! - is asking help with. They have no problem with controlling and talking to something flying by Pluto. Pluto!!! That's the big deal there, the bowing, the recognition that you'd like a helping hand, because you're not all that, you're not the shit, and something this simple stupefies you. Well, of course you could do it, anything is doable - you could vaporize everything to ions, and produce 2 nanograms per hour. Nasa could do it today, but what they are asking for is doing things efficiently, and economically, which is a topic they usually don't have to deal with. They are used to complete luxury, getting any amount of money or energy they want, but when it comes to oxygen extraction from the mooon to save money or energy, that's a new ballgame for them.

    Platinum electrodes/crucible? Forget it - metallic silicon corrodes platinum even at 800C. Melting the regolith? You need 1600C for that. Graphite crucibles? They will slowly gasify at that temperature by reacting with the oxygen compounds. Wait, quartz crucibles, they melt at 1700C. Duh, you're trying to rip quartz apart, whatever you do, you're doing it to quartz. Half of the beach sand on Earth world is quartz. Half the minerals on the Moon have quartz. Separate it from the rest? Good luck. Maybe magnesium oxide crucibles? Yeah, that too will slowly be dissolved away by the silicate lava. By the way metallic calcium and magnesium are vapors at temperatures above 1300C, even above 900C in vacuum - how are you gonna keep them from dissolving in your melt and wandering over to your oxygen electrodes? How about attacking and alloying with your crucible/electrodes. Whoever did such a test in a lab, noted a funky blue vapor, and intese fizzing at the cathode - I bet you those are metallic sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium and zinc vapors, at 1600C. You know how potent and corrosive those things are? Good luck with it. Ah, you want to use flux, bring the temperature down. Say 900C. What are you gonna use as flux, and there are always losses, how are you gonna replace it? Keep bringing it from earth? Any chemicals you use that are different from what you're facing on the moon need to be super-efficiently recycled - you can justify losing maybe 0.1% into your products, that means 1000x reuse before it's consumed away, before you need to replenish it from Earth. That might be a fair deal, get 1000 lb product for each trip from earth, plus all the headache of running a process on the moon, without full self-sufficiency, but do you have such a process? Can you come up with a process, equipment, that either lasts without using any other chemicals, or a process that uses other chemicals without losing say more than 0.1% per equivalent weight? Hydrogen? Fluoride? Sulfur? Carbon? Cloride? Iodide? Nitrogen/ammonia? What is your effluent, what are your products, and how much of the above mentioned reactants are you dragging out from your process? Purifications are very expensive.

    If money were the issue, if that $0.3M is what you really needed to make it work.. hell.. take $5M, just make it work, make it work well. It takes $20,000 per lb oxygen to get lifted into space. 11 lbs O2 is $220,000, pays off in less than a trip. That's why whoever pushed this out the door from NASA could get away with it, and encounter no resistance - how can you argue with that on a financial basis? It's not about money, it's all about pride, and NASA wasn't too proud, in the end. And who knows, that days of Tesla and Edison, and Heroult-Hall, and Ford and Benz might return. It takes $580M for a single shuttle lunch, a lof of that cost is energy, and the bulk of the weight is oxygen, because 2g H2 go with 16g O2, 8x more oxygen is dragged along on the trip. If you could just make a pi