X-Prize Lunar Lander Competition a Go

Tiger4 writes "The X-Prize foundation and NASA have signed off on a $2.5 million prize for proof of concept lunar lander vehicles. From the article, 'NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale told MSNBC.com that the point of the competition was to "take advantage of new innovative technologies that have been developed" since the last lunar landing, during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972." There are two levels of competition, "In the Level 1 competition, the vehicles must be in the air for at least 90 seconds during each leg of the round trip, and land on a flat, even surface. The Level 2 competition is harder -- requiring 180 seconds of flight each way, with a rocky, lunar-style landing site.' NASA and X-Prize people are still working on the final rules, but they are already signing up teams and expect to see vehicles in time for the X-Prize exhibition in New Mexico, October 18-21, 2006."

Comments

Consolation Prize

[foundme]

Is there a reason to have consolation prizes for second and third place? I wouldn't mind "cost-recovery" of up to $xxx for non-winners, but to actually award them a prize? There is no room for "good enough" in Space.

Re:Consolation Prize

[fishbowl]

>Do you understand the point to the X-Prize at all?

I don't. It occurs to me that anyone capable of claiming such a prize should be doing it *anyway.*

It would be more impressive if somebody did it without regard for the prize. Didn't even claim the prize, didn't even enter the contest, just fulfilled the requirements ahead of any of the contestants.

That would be hilarious.

Re:Consolation Prize

[Jafafa Hots]

Are you kidding? Space is OFTEN about "good enough." Weight is at a premium.

In the lunar lander for Apollo, you could puncture a hole clear through the hull by dropping your screwdriver. In some places it was as thin as several stacked sheets of aluminum foil. It held in the oxygen so it was "good enough."

Looking at the shuttle, there are many places where they settled on "good enough." In fact, you could say the entire design was a "good enough" compromise from the SSTO concepts they had started out with. And frankly, in a lot of ways, the shuttle turned out not to have been good enough at all.

Not me, I'm waiting for the X-Prize to...

[dietrollemdefender]

Andromeda. The hundred-trillion-gagillion dollar prize would be worth it then.

Ok, dumb joke. But, it's like the X Prize Organization is escalating it's spnsorship to new heights. I find this quite encouraging. What a way to push science and engineering. This really tickles my libertarian bone - no government involvement.

Oops, I forgot! There's some real libertarian haters here on /.. I guess because they confuse Libertarians with conservative Republicans?

NOTE: Using a lowercase 'l' when describing my Libertarian tendancies was to hint that I haven't quite drank their Kool-Aid (TM).

Armadillo for the win.

[kraemer]

Armadillo Aero has this one nailed. http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/

This is the Government...

[Ruff_ilb]

$2.5M is NOTHING to them. Nothing.

I hate to play this card, but by the end of 2006, we will have spent a (conservative) estimate of $315 billion in Iraq.

Heck, compare this to non-government entities. If ol' Bill could get college students to write him a completely new OS for 2.5M, he'd probably jump at the chance.

something isn't quite right about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

$350,000.00 for first flight? I don't think so. A decent aerospace engineer must cost a business around 120 grand or so for a year of work, and then there are all the materials, construction, infrastructure.

This sounds more like a bonus add-on to the existing x-prize than the "new prize" it's being touted as. Or maybe it's another cookie to try and get a guy like Paul Allen to dump far more into it then he'll ever get back...except it is a nice thing for him to do...give back.

Don't get me wrong...I'm all for moving the pork away the government and back to the citizenry...my quibble is with the portrayal.

If I'm right, this has a stink to it...media hype. Just be honest about what it is...a little extra cash to the current X-prize competitors to move in a different direction for awhile.

it would be great to see one or more small, agile aerospace companies emerge from this. The entrenched players (raytheon, lockmart, boeing) are pretty fucking pork laden, massive management overhead, shareholder burdens, lobbying payola. Not bin laden, pork laden.

Back in the day.

[PatTheGreat]

You know, it's vaugely surprising that they're even testing modules. Back in the day, when they were doing this the first time around, the lunar lander set down on the moon without ever being tested. They were depending on the relatively low gravity on the moon, and thus the lander could not actually stand up under it's own weight on Earth. So they couldn't test it under Earth gravity, and so they didn't test it at all.

Hey, NASA can do cheap, too...

[jpellino]

There's a story in "Chariots for Apollo" about the potential problem of hitting the descent stage engine bell on a uncharted rock. They had to consider that landing on a rock could damage the bell, push the bell into the ascent stage, etc... But they had neither the time nor the money to design and execute a test + spare LM to see what would happen. One day as they were moving the LM on a crane, the rig slipped, and the whole thing landed, engine bell down, on a pile of crates. No significant damage. One of the managers turned to the team and said someting like "You just got your million dollar test for free."

Re:Cost control measures...

[DerekLyons]

This is probably a good way to gain technology while minimizing cost. How much would it cost for NASA to do this in house? 100 million? 200 million? Too expensive? Here's the solution. Offer college students 2.5 million as a prize for a "competition". Good work guys.

Historically such competitions and prizes tend to breed solutions optimized towards winning the prize or competition - not general technologies.

Furthermore, I fail to see what 'technologies' NASA stands to gain here. Vehicle control algorithms of this nature are medium well explored and must be tailored to the individual vehicle, so this contest doesn't really much offer there. The fuels, engines, controls, guidance, tankage, and structure of a full scale lander will be radically different from a model lander as well. (Take guidance for example - the real thing will use inertial/radar with visual backup (from the cockpit). The models will almost certainly use GPS with visual backup - from the operators position.)

The contest makes NASA look modern, using 'open source' and 'competition' and 'the marketplace' and all the other current buzzwords, but it's almost certain to yield little beyond good press.

Bigger prize

[Council]

Am I the only one who sort of wants them to say, "Hey! Anyone who goes and builds a moon colony gets all our money."

Enough with this baby-step stuff.