Draft Rules for X Prize Lunar Lander Challenge

IZ Reloaded writes "X Prize Foundation is asking the public to comment on the draft rules set for its lunar lander challenge. From Space.com: According to draft rules for the lunar lander contest, competitors will be challenged to build a vehicle capable of launching vertically, travel a distance of 328 to 656 feet (100 to 200 meters) horizontally, and then land at a designated site. A return trip would then occur between 5 minutes and 30 minutes later...Comments are sought by March 1 with initial sign-ups slated for May 15, according to draft rules, though Murphy added that the comment period could be extended to 30 days."

Comments

Mythbusters

[iCharles]

Somehow, I think the Mythbusters will crank out an entry with the stuff around the shop...

Re:Mythbusters

[natedubbya]

They had an episode where they tried to make a single-person jetpack, not too dissimilar from this, only on a smaller scale. It didn't go over too well, but they got close!

Episode 32: Jet Pack
In this "twin-taled" episode, Adam and Jamie embark on the longest and most ambitious build they've ever undertaken: creating their own personal flying machine from scratch. Are these machines as magnificent as their designers claim? To make the project more realistic, the two limit themselves to a build period of one month and a budget of $10,000. Then, the MythBuilders tackle the myth that preserving the pharaohs involved much more than mummification, that it was the shape of the pyramids themselves -- in particular, their cosmically inspired geometry -- that kept the bodies of Egyptian kings intact. Is it all a load of rot, or can the build team's homemade pyramids keep fruit fresh and razors sharp, as new-age gurus claim?

Does this count?

[FrontalLobe]

Practice/simulations here

Link to the rules, not a story about them.

[temojen]

In case anyone actually wants to comment.

My Comment:

[bobcat7677]

Just friggin get on with it! The time has passed to sit around talking about it. It's been what? 30 years since we last landed on the moon? We need action!

Sorry, I'm bordering on rant status here...

Re:My Comment:

[bobcat7677]

I for one look forward to mining the moon for all it's available natural resources. I'm sure there has to be some useful minerals in it's composition and if there is ice on it, that will be helpful to keep my drink cold.

Re:My Comment:

[yeremein]

Sure, the RACE to the moon was full of innovation, but other than really proving it wasn't made of cheese, it was a more colossal waste of cash than both Gulf Wars put together!

The cost of the Apollo program was $135 billion in 2005 dollars.

George Sr.'s Gulf war cost $61 billion. The cost of the current Iraq war is in excess of $240 billion and rising. Apollo didn't even come close.

Re:My Comment:

[jheath314]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I for one would argue that taking the first steps towards human interplanetary and interstellar travel were worth a lot more than fighting some stupid wars. Developing the technology to go to the moon is one thing, but there is no substitute for proving you can by actually doing it.

Here's a Solution

[sbowles]

By the summary, it sounds like a Helicopter could win this.

Re:Here's a Solution

[Michael Duggan]

: By the summary, it sounds like a Helicopter could win this.

3.2.18.1 Take-off vertically under only rocket power from Point A. No aerodynamic or air-breathing methods of hovering, propulsion, or landing are permitted except in the case of abort.

If someone can work on the ship design...

[sootman]

...I've got the software end covered.

Manned or unmanned?

[kclittle]

TFA doesnt' specify...

figures

[SgtXaos]

"Comments are sought by March 1 with initial sign-ups slated for May 15, according to draft rules, though Murphy added that the comment period could be extended to 30 days."

Murphy always makes things take longer than you planned...

Very cool, but....

[smaerd]

...these rules make me think of one thing: NASCAR.

Now all we need is guys driving 4x4s with gun racks, Confederate Flags, Calvin pissing on a [automotive brand] logo, and an X-Prize stencil on or around the back window.

(seriously, the I think the X-Prize is an incredibly awesome thing... this idea just made me chuckle.)

Re:Very cool, but....

[Tackhead]

> Now all we need is guys driving 4x4s with gun racks, Confederate Flags, Calvin pissing on a [automotive brand] logo, and an X-Prize stencil on or around the back window.

Close, no cigar. Back on Earth, would break out the Photoshop, make cut-paste thing.

- Lunar buggy.
- Way too much air in right-hand-side tires.
- Mass driver.
- "Free Luna!" flag.
- Cartoon Burt Rutan pissing on a NASA logo.
- Drive clockwise around crater rim.

> (seriously, the I think the X-Prize is an incredibly awesome thing... this idea just made me chuckle.)

Mycroft wonders if chuckle is funny-once or funny-all-the-time. Crazy thing. (Luna ain't only harsh mistress around here. Should see Moondot moderators someday.)

Re:Commercial Moonlandings?

[Gherald]

> Could this prize be an attempt to stimulate commercial moon landings alongside commercial spaceflight?

Could such an obvious question be an attempt to stimulate a half-hearted chuckle or is the source more close linked with stupidity?

Rope and missile.

[xanderwilson]

So you attach a rope to a missile, fire the missile at the moon, and then pull it back when you're done. What's the problem here?

Is this a joke?

[StikyPad]

Because launching from the earth is the same? Clearly I'm not a rocket scientist, but with 1/6th the gravity, wouldn't it take far less propulsion to get off the ground on the moon?

Also: traveling horizontally for 100-200m? I'm guessing there are more crosswinds on earth than on the moon. Also, once again, the same thrust that might move you 100m on the moon wouldn't move you 10m on earth. This seems like a ridiculous standard to meet, and it's going to require far more engineering to accomplish than is necessary for lunar travel.

Or am I missing some large part of the puzzle here, like their .15Gee test field?

Re:Is this a joke?

[twostar]

The idea is that if it can do 100-200m on earth it can do much more on the Moon. The whole system is suppose to show capability of a Lunar transit system.

From the Draft:

The (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans between lunar orbit and the lunar surface.

Since the moon does not have an appreciable atmosphere, if the system can meet the goals on earth it shouldn't have any problems on the moon. The big problems are developing the propulsion systems cheap and light enough. Turning them on and off at different times doesn't change much in the scheme of things if they can provide enough thrust at the right times.

Realistic moon conditions..

[Vellmont]

The draft of the rules mention that you need to use rocket power, and not some kind of aerodynamic lift, but that's it. I think they should specify a more realistic conditions of the moon. Obviously you can't have it fly in a vacuum, but you could expose the craft to a vacuum before the flight to make sure it can survive a vacuum. You could do the same thing with the temperature extremes. At the very least a craft shouldn't be able to rely upon earth based navigation aids, like GPS, the suns position in the sky, or even the earths magnetic field.

Re:why take off vertically, inefficient anyone?

[BiggerBoat]

why does it "have" to be vertical takeoff, why not horizontal like a plane? make use of air's capacity to lift

Because this is meant to simulate a Lunar Lander.