Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Winner In NASA's Moon-Dirt Digging Competition

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the not-even-close-and-still-no-cigar dept.

Engadget is reporting that NASA's recent moon-dirt digging competition has concluded without a winner being named. "The excavator built by Technology Ranch was able to notch first place by relocating just over 143-pounds in 30 minutes, but fell quite short on picking up any award monies. So for those of you who weren't exactly ready to go mano-a-mano with these guys and gals this time around, next year you've all got $750,000 on the line."

115 comments

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    We can put a man on the moon but we can't build a decent....moon dirt digging device?

    1. Re:What? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      We can put a man on the moon but...
      Stop right there. We can't.
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:What? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      If we were highly motivated we could go back sooner than you think - unless you're one of those "the moon landings were faked" bozos. Then "we" doesn't include you. Because when they can identify them before they plan the kidnapping, they don't allow psychotics to join the space program.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're trolling, but if you think that (even given the budget and the will) that we could do it in less than 8 years, I think you're dreaming.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:What? by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Often times people are only satisfied with mystery, conspiracies and a sense of paranoia that stems from a general mistrust of authority. It's impossible to logically argue with those people that give credence to the conspiracy theories, simply because they base their "logic" on fallacy to begin with.

      Back on topic, I am really not surprised by the outcome of this contest. I can't for the life of me find the original link (why the heck do you link to a blog, and not even the contest page?!) but if I recall correctly, the stipulations for successfully completing the challenge we incredibly insane. You had to keep a low weight, had to be able to move immense amounts, and given the reduced gravity of the moon you had to remain stable the entire time... There was even more involved, but I'm really not surprised...

    5. Re:What? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No, we can't get there all that quickly. We can't use the old Apollo system as we have no heavy load rockets and the Shuttle can't lift the payload in one piece (it may not even be able to lift some of the pieces period). I doubt we could even recreate the Saturn V or even Apollo systems right now with less effort than building a new system from scratch. So you'd need a new rocket and a new lander, unless you want to shove some overcomplicated beast into 5+ shuttle loads.

      The Russians probably have a better chance at pulling this off but they don't have the money.

    6. Re:What? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm glad you don't think I'm trolling, because I don't do that. But I do think that given the budget and the will - both of which are conspicuously absent - we could get to the moon in less than eight years. Besides the general subject of advances in science since the last moon landing, there's also the fact that there's simply many more firms in aerospace today. I think that the only missing ingredient is the will, really, but it's definitely absent.

      This does (once again) raise an interesting point, however. I've still never gotten a reasonable answer as to why we don't have all the documentation from all the prior NASA missions. How is it possible for blueprints to go missing? Whose idea was it to not update the blueprints as parts were changed on the vehicles? What is the source of the gross incompetence that has NASA engineers studying NASA designs in museums to find out what we have forgotten? And how quickly can we get a mission together to land them on the sun?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:What? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The rocket scientists dont look after the blueprints. The janitors do.

    8. Re:What? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The rocket scientists dont look after the blueprints. The janitors do.

      In some of the more competent places I've worked, the janitorial staff would not touch anything on the floor outside the trash can. If that meant they couldn't vacuum completely, so be it. If you even wanted a box in the hall picked up you had to put an orange TRASH/BASURA sticker on it.

      There is no excuse for not having a comprehensive policy for data retention, especially when the taxpayer is footing the bill for those documents.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:What? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Blueprints wouldn't do much good, things have changed so much and old parts no longer are produced that it'd take a massive effort to update to modern parts the spaceships. A lot of things simply aren't on blueprints that would matter in such a case. You don't care if part X is there, you care why part X was put there and if part Y can be used instead. More importantly you care about what effects part Y would have. Experience cannot be distilled into writing and NASA's experience in this area has retired or died.

      NASA has very little experience now with capsules anymore or large rockets (likely less so than when Apollo was started). On the other hand they do have better tools than before. In the end it likely is faster and cheaper to make the whole thing from almost scratch but that would take many years. And no, I don't trust the same sort of people who ok-ed the space shuttle to make any design more advanced that Apollo in basic principle. The moon doesn't need any more craters.

    10. Re:What? by lexarius · · Score: 1

      This would be much easier if rocket scientists properly commented their projects. When I open a panel on my lunar lander module, the first thing I want to see is a Post-It Note that helpfully says:

      // ok, I tried all the components in box m56, and this one seems like it fits right.
      // it should probably work. If not, the thingy under panel 245 looks
      // like it should fit. Either way, it makes the lights blink.

    11. Re:What? by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      The taxpayer isn't footing the bill for the documents. The taxpayer is footing the bill for the finished product, of which the documents are a necessary precursor and side effect.

      And they do have a comprehensive policy for data retention: retain what you need, for as long as you can afford to, within the limits of the funds you've been given.

      The complaint most people seem to have about this policy is that their idea of what is really needed, for how long, and at what cost, is far beyond what the actual rocket scientists think is needed over the same time period (and let's not even talk about the realities of the aerospace R&D budget!).

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it was the same engineers who had designed and built the Apollo spacecraft that designed the Space Shuttle. Astronautics is still an evolving field, in which the "art" evolves through design iterations. Except that there has not been the support to move on to the next iteration for some time. Add to that the fact that a 30 year old imperfect vehicle is worse than a the same when new... then you have even more problems.

    13. Re:What? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No, the people who designed the original version of the shuttle weren't idiots. The people who ok-ed the final version and forced the inane air force requirements onto it were idiots. There is no next iteration of the space shuttle, it took 30 years to realize that the original small people carrying ship is actually what is needed. Untold billions have been wasted in the Shuttle, every launch costs 5 times more than it should. In some ways we've wasted 30 years worth of time and effort on projects which if ever used again will need to be redone from scratch anyway. Large scale reusable vehicles given current technology and needs (few launches) are simply impractical in all sense of the word. They did try again with the Venture Star for some insane reason, they scrapped it when it became questionable if it could even reach orbit given the state of the technology.

      The soviets and now Russians despite having an atrocious safety record (they had capsules reenter upside down, still attached to another piece, had rockets fail on launch, etc.) have a lower death rate with their space vehicles than we do, that's beyond sad.

    14. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soviets and now Russians despite having an atrocious safety record (they had capsules reenter upside down, still attached to another piece, had rockets fail on launch, etc.) have a lower death rate with their space vehicles than we do, that's beyond sad.

      Lower in total? Lower per launch? Lower per unit of time? Or not lower at all? From Wikipedia:

      About two percent of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and the Shuttle having almost the same death rates.

    15. Re:What? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      If NASA controlled the press, their failure rate would be a lot lower too.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    16. Re:What? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The Soyuz lost only one crew, 30 years ago or so due to a bad valve. Their bodies came down intact but they died of decompression but they simply couldn't close a valve fast enough once they noticed a problem.

      Now including a failure that happened 30+ years ago in a much older version of a vehicle to that of a much newer vehicle is beyond arsine. Since the time the shuttle started flying there have been 0 deaths on Soyuz craft. Even if we include it we see that:

      There have been 96 Soyuz flights with 1 loss, assuming equal number of crew per flights thats a failure rate of ~1% in both craft and crew (per launch).

      The shuttle has gone up 117 times with 2 losses, assuming an equal number of crew per launch that is a failure rate of ~2% in both craft and crew (per launch).

    17. Re:What? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Last I checked the soviet union collapsed somewhat over a decade ago and these accidents aren't trivial to hide. Given the number of near failures that are known about and the implausibility of hiding a full out failure (you know the CIA would notice that all 3 crew of the recently "returned" soviet craft no longer show up anywhere) yes the soviet/russian Soyuz craft has a better track record.

      It's take insane amount of incompetence to make it otherwise, the capsule design is simply inherently safer compared to the shuttle (due to it's simpler design, better failure modes, fewer fragile bits, ease of upgrading, etc.). I think they had a rocket explode on the launch pad but the crew survived as the capsule simply ejected from the rocket right before it happened (try doing that with a shuttle). I'm not saying a reusable vehicle can't be safer but simply that current technology does not allow this.

    18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember this: The space program and the moon landings were made during the height of the cold war. What were the Apollo rockets but massive interplanetary missiles holding scientific payloads? Everything that could be made top secret probably was. What is currently available about the program falls under: Blantantly obvious, We've got better for less or showing off.

    19. Re:What? by kune · · Score: 1

      There have actually been two crew losses by Soyuz: One cosmonaut at Soyuz 1 and three others at Soyuz 11. In the first case the main parachute didn't deploy and in the second case a valve were not closed during the landing. So the failure rate of the Space Shuttle is actually better 2/117 < 2/96. However the Soyuz had no crew loss since 1971, so the early issues have been fixed. It will be quite difficult to make this statement about the Shuttle.

    20. Re:What? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The taxpayer isn't footing the bill for the documents. The taxpayer is footing the bill for the finished product, of which the documents are a necessary precursor and side effect.

      The taxpayer paid the entire operating budget. As such, the taxpayer is footing the bill for the documents. Claiming anything else is disingenuous.

      And they do have a comprehensive policy for data retention: retain what you need, for as long as you can afford to, within the limits of the funds you've been given.

      Losing the documentation and therefore the research means that the research was wasted (since we didn't do anything actually useful on the moon while we were there, except bring back some rocks. Whee!)

      let's not even talk about the realities of the aerospace R&D budget!

      My point is that there's no point spending money on new research if you're not even preserving the old stuff.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Success for the program by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If not for the participants.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Success for the program by madprogrammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      They could have been more successful (participants *and* program) if they had been better organized and provided better information to the competitors about how the competition would be run.

      I was working with a team that was going to compete, and as of last August they still hadn't been told the rules, or even what material would be used to simulate lunar soil.

  3. Goatse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Guy Opening Ass To Show Everyone

    In case it's not already set as your wallpaper.

  4. Better Link by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    A better link with no subscription required.

    It should be noted that this is the sixth of seven Centennial Challenges to go unawarded since 2005 by NASA. They have strict contests because they actually intend to implement the winner's idea. 150 kgs on 30 Watts? Good luck, nobody should be ashamed not to hit that mark!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Better Link by CastrTroy · · Score: 0

      150 KGs on 30 watts? I thought I'd do some calculation, but then I realized that it makes no sense. Watts is a measure of energy over time. I could make a machine that would excavate 150 KG of dirt with 1 watt, but it would take a very long time to complete the task. If they listed some kind of time constraint, as well as what type of distance the dirt was being moved to count as excavation, then you could probably do some useful calculations.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Better Link by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It was 30Kw IIRC, still no mean feat given the weight constraints.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time constraint is in the summary, it's 30 minutes.

    4. Re:Better Link by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

      The time limit to move the 150kg was 30 minutes. You already knew about the 30 watt limit. Calculate away.

    5. Re:Better Link by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      Watts is not energy over time. Watts is Amps times volts.

      30 watts to move 150KG means the device can NOT draw any more than 30 watts during operation. from startup surge to continuous operation.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Better Link by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Units of time... You mean like when they said 'Within 30 minutes'? You can calculate watts, joules, etc but you are still comparing it to a variable rate of efficiency, since there is no claim of genuine *work* being done. If they had said 'Use 30 watts to move 150kg of soil into a bucket whose opening is 5m up from the surface' you would have been able to start crunching. Don't forget to adjust for lunar gravity!

    7. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was 30Kw IIRC
      According to the competition page, it is 30 Watts, not 30 Kilowatts:

      • Each team's excavation system must be fully autonomous
      • Systems will perform in a square sandbox filled with compressed lunar regolith simulant.
      • Mass of the system cannot exceed 40 kilograms.
      • 30 Watts of DC power will be provided to the system.
      • Each system will have 30 minutes to excavate as much regolith as possible and deliver it to a fixed collector adjacent to the sandbox.
      • The total purse of $250,000 will go to the winning teams excavating the most regolith above 150 kilograms.
    8. Re:Better Link by srn_test · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1 Watt == 1 Joule per second

      That also is 1 Amp at 1 Volt per second, but that's not the primary way you talk about a Watt.

      A Watt is a unit of work, i.e. Energy per Time.

    9. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watts is not energy over time.

      Incorrect.

      Watts is Amps times volts.

      Correct.

    10. Re:Better Link by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they listed some kind of time constraint, as well as what type of distance the dirt was being moved... The articles seem to make it sound like there is a 30 minute time limit. As for the distance, it looks like the machines only lift it out of the ground into a collection bin close by (you can probably assume a meter or two).

      If we assume a 30 minute time limit, we could move 150kg on the moon (with gravity of 1.6m/s^2), a max of 225m high, on earth it would be a max of 36.7m high. Of course, that is with 100% efficiency. This could obviously be moved a lot further horizontally and the numbers will probably have to be cut in half since we would only be carrying a load for half the time (the other half would be going back to dig).

      In any event, the 30W limitation is quite reasonable, assuming the 30 minute time limit and that it doesn't have to be moved too far.
      --
      Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
    11. Re:Better Link by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's both. When your computer power supply is rate for 300 W, that means that it doesn't use more than 300 J of energy every second. Watts is a measurement that requires time. Even if you define it Amps times volts, you would notice that an Amp (ampere) is 1 coulomb per second.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:Better Link by khallow · · Score: 1

      Can't find the rules page at the moment, but it was a two meter or so sandbox filled with lunar regolith simulant with the destination box right next to it.

    13. Re:Better Link by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 0

      Give me 3 spacesuits and a truck. I'll go by Home Depot on the way home and pick-up an excellent set of moon-dirt digging machinery. All for less than $20/hour - for the 3 items. NASA can figure out the getting to the moon bit.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    14. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this shit is insightful?

      watt is power
      joule is work
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

    15. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but not in context of the challenge.

    16. Re:Better Link by jgoemat · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as you, your three friends and the equipment all weigh less than 40 kg total, that is probably ok. Also if strapping 30 watts of DC power to your testicles will make you work :)

    17. Re:Better Link by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Hello

      What does 1 Volt per second mean? And whatever happened to P = IV (power = current*voltage)?? My memory can't be that bad.

    18. Re:Better Link by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      For the sake of correctness:

      1 Volt is the potential difference between 2 points between which a current of 1 Ampere flows while dissipating 1 Joule per second.

      So I might have misunderstood the parent. Apologies.

    19. Re:Better Link by srn_test · · Score: 1

      Teach me for posting too early in the morning.

      1 Watt is 1 amp at 1 volt potential; an Amp is a Coulomb per second, which is where the time dimension comes from.

    20. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in earth gravity, assuming 100% efficiency, that would be enough energy to move that much mass 36.7m upwards. now, assuming their bucket was only 1m high, they'd only need 2.7% efficiency to reach the goal. nothing that impressive.

    21. Re:Better Link by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      While you're there, pick up some illegal beaners in the parking lot. They're just doing the work moonies won't!!!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    22. Re:Better Link by mpe · · Score: 1

      Watts is not energy over time. Watts is Amps times volts.

      Watts are a measure of power. The units of power are energy per period of time. One Watt is the same as one Joule per second. The Volts times Amps (or Amps Squared times Ohms or Ohms over Volts squared) applies only to electrical energy. Even if the machine in question is entirely electrically driven you still have kenetic and gravitational potential energy to consider.

    23. Re:Better Link by mpe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When your computer power supply is rate for 300 W, that means that it doesn't use more than 300 J of energy every second.

      It may well mean that it can supply no more than 300J of electrical energy. Though as the sum of the maximum power ratings of each of its outputs.
      In order to do this it has to take in more than 300W. This extra energy typically appears as heat.

    24. Re:Better Link by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was 30Kw IIRC, still no mean feat given the weight constraints.

      No it was 30W, which is actually quite a bit of power for something intended to be soft landed on the Moon. Where your only practical power source is however many photovoltaic cells the thing can carry with it.

  5. just like.. by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    it looks like the quarter-million dollars in prize money will indeed be rolled over to next year.

    Just like the lottery. Think of all the entries as the prize money goes up.

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
  6. What you can't move with 30 Watts... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can move with 3 pounds of dynamite....or c-4 if you want something actually --stable-- you weenies. Explosives have worked well at moving dirt for a good while.

    Oh, sorry, you wanted it moved from here to there, not just "moved."

    1. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      We really just need to send people and supplies, and let them do their jobs.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    2. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by Dragon+By+Proxy · · Score: 0

      Explosives have worked well at moving dirt for a good while. Until you forget to add that pesky oxygen gas to the equation. Blast! Another folly!
    3. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by rts008 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Until you forget to add that pesky oxygen gas to the equation. Blast! Another folly!"

      What do you mean? Most if not all explosives used for excavation/mining produce their own O2 (that's why you can 'fish' with dynomyte- those sticks don't have gills!).

      Now trying to use Fuel Air Explosives on the moon would make your comment relevant, but that would be sill as FAE's need a lot of volume to be effective...not anything an intellegent person would try to use for excavation/mining.

      Maybe you want to try coffee or Mountain Dew BEFORE Physics 101 instead of after you wake up at the end of class.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Note to self: USE PREVIEW!

      That should read Chemistry 101 instead of Physics 101, my bad.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      That's okay.

      As the saying goes, psychology is biology, biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, physics is math, and math is hard.

    6. Re:What you can't move with 30 Watts... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      This was really my thought as well... but serious. Put a big bag around some location, drill some holes, explode some small charges inserted to some depth... profit? wait I mean, the regolith goes flying, a winch closes up the bag... then something drags the regoltih where it needs to go.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  7. they simply should... by cosmocain · · Score: 1

    ...build an "mechanic yellow press journalist"[MYPJ](tm). they are used to muckrake all day long. so they'd easily perform the task.

  8. I figure... by Mockylock · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you could stop at your local day-worker site with some space suits, I bet those fuckers could move some moon dirt in wholesale fashion. We're talking 1000 kilos in 30 minutes, for $50 a head. Saves you lots of money in R&D and I guarantee you can fit 40 of them in one capsule.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    1. Re:I figure... by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just don't ask them to write their essays about it.

    2. Re:I figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you thought the conversion between metric and imperial was bad...

    3. Re:I figure... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      Saves you lots of money in R&D and I guarantee you can fit 40 of them in one capsule.


      The problem isn't fitting 40 in 1 capsule, but fitting 40 in 1 capsule, plus all the 40 oz. Colt 45s and/or Mickey's. Additionally, you have to figure in the expensive of removing the gang tags once they get there.

      --
      My blog
  9. So... by Zero+Degrez · · Score: 1

    Does this officially mean we have a device to move planets?

    1. Re:So... by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      It's called a lever: http://www.exnet.com/

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  10. Dynamyte.. pff Wuss bag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use the nitroglycerin. Get a bigger bang for the ounce.

  11. oblignignokt by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    The entrants all made the mistake of constructing the means to move dirt in Earth's three puny dimensions.

    On the moon, they have five.

    Thousand.
    Yes, five thousand. Don't question it.

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    1. Re:oblignignokt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, obviously attempting feeble humour, but moon gravity *is* lower, and there is no air resistance
      I wonder if digging strategies would be possible on the moon that aren't possible here. Say, throwing very accurately.

    2. Re:oblignignokt by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      He's quoting something.

      It was funny.

    3. Re:oblignignokt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful with your moon humor there... might cause Boston PD to panic and declare a bomb threat.

    4. Re:oblignignokt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose the mooninite aura gives it extra funniness by association.
      To some.

  12. Conveyor belt by markov_chain · · Score: 5, Funny

    It looks like Slashdot's resident armchair engineers made a pretty good call. That's what the top entrant used.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    1. Re:Conveyor belt by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      I'm an armchair engineer, you insensitive clod!

  13. Not good enough? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems odd NASA would need to move so much in such a short time. Although I have no problem with there being no winners in a competition where the guidelines are set, however, once on the moon, I would imagine time is not of a great significance. The cost of getting there is far more important than the cost of the time it take to move dirt. I would be more interested in who could build the lightest machine to move rock.

    Then again, as I think about it, 140 lbs is not a whole lot of rock. Doing some quick calculations if might take several months to excavate a useful cavern at that rate. Hrmm... *goes back to his calculations*

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:Not good enough? by umStefa · · Score: 1

      140 lbs might not be a whole lot, but in order to win the competition you need to be able to move 150 kilograms (333 lbs). The best entry was only able to move 43% of that.

      --
      Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
    2. Re:Not good enough? by Mockylock · · Score: 1

      140lbs isn't a lot of anything. I mean, I could make a machine to throw some dead bodies around in no time.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    3. Re:Not good enough? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      140 lbs is not a whole lot of rock.
      In doing your calculations, you might want to note that the contest calls for 150kg of rock/dirt (~330 lbs) in 30 minutes.
      --
      My blog
    4. Re:Not good enough? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      The lbs/kg comments aside, you do make a good point. Why is the 30 minute rule so important? Clearly some time constraint is reasonable, but with the very low power requirement, it seems reasonable that they could ease up the time restriction a little and greatly increase their chances of success.

      Could it be related to the amount of soil they expect to need over a given timeframe to generate adequate oxygen or other resources for consumption or usage by humans?

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    5. Re:Not good enough? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      A)It's kilograms
      B)That's earth weight.
      On the moon that's close to a ton of rock every 30 mins.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    6. Re:Not good enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^Err I was thinking about the goal which is 150 kilograms (~1990 pounds on the moon) not the amount moved which was only 75 (still a good amount on the moon).

    7. Re:Not good enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is it's unlikely that they'll be able to create a 100% automated and reliable excavation & building package.

      So you'll probably need humans for:
      * PR
      * Replace worn parts
      * Remove/workaround unforeseen obstacles
      * Kick the dang thing when it seizes

      If humans are part of the package, then time == consumables == increased cost/risk.

    8. Re:Not good enough? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think this is for moving loose rock & sand, not excavating through solid material.

    9. Re:Not good enough? by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Kilograms are a measure of mass not weight, so your mass in kilos is the same on the moon (well, minus the fairly miniscule relativistic effects of changing your frame of reference), even though your weigh in pounds will go down. The SI unit of weight is the Newton.

    10. Re:Not good enough? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      It seems odd NASA would need to move so much in such a short time.
      There are couple of potential uses for regolith digging. In order of technical feasibility : cooking out oxygen from it, sintering and depositing solar cells on the surface, extracting HE3.
      As a side product of oxygen processing, you can get metals like aluminium and iron.

      Looking at oxygen alone, its primary use would be to refill the propellant tanks of some future lunar lander, secondary to provide breathable atmosphere for astronauts. Propellant is the pacing item, as it takes in the order of tons to be useful.

      So you can go and calculate, at competition rate of 5KG/minute of regolith, how long would it take to refill say around 5-ton tanks of Oxygen which is about the useful size for three-man lander.

      Now oxygen might yield feasible timeframes as the rocks are around 10% oxygen by weight IIRC, but when you look at He3, to get a gram out you have to sift through tons of regolith.

      So thats where the requirements come from.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    11. Re:Not good enough? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      Your point? The experiment was conducted on earth therefore the conversion is proper.
      If a machine moves 150kg on the earth (330 pounds) then on the moon where gravity is ~1/6th the strength it's reasonable to assume the machine could move 6 times as much; 1980 pounds also known as a ton.
      (There are of course problem with moving more like that since the machine has to do things like spin faster or have bigger buckets which it might not be able to do, but 6 times as much is still a good ballpark figure)
      Now go get clue before you try to correct someone again.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    12. Re:Not good enough? by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      A)It's kilograms
      B)That's earth weight.
      On the moon that's close to a ton of rock every 30 mins.


      Point B is redundant/incorrect. Kilograms are not a measure of weight and are the same everywhere +/- the effects of Relativity, so once you say "it's kilograms" there's no need to say "earth weight," since kilograms are the virtually the same on the Earth and the Moon and are not a weight.

      It might however be helpful to say, "the machine will move 150kg on Earth," since you are right that a machine that can move 150kg on the Earth will probably be able to move 900kg on the Moon, but bear in mind that it's not necessarily the case. Say for example we're talking about a machine that pushes 150kg blocks over an icy surface on the Earth. It would not be helped by the lower gravity on the Moon and would have the same limitations as on Earth. Similarly, a conveyor belt digging system might be more limited by inertial forces than gravitational ones. On the other hand, these digging systems are mostly about moving the rocks up rather than out, so that would probably be the limiting factor for the design, in which case they could move a Moon-ton of rocks.

      Anyhow, just relax. I was merely pedantically pointing out a minor mistake in your use of terminology. There's no need to get upset about it and tell me to "get a clue."
  14. turn around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    NASA: "To all contestants, thanks for your for your effort. Now that we have some ideas and research, we're building it ourselves.

    Congress, more funding please..."

    1. Re:turn around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got modded funny, but I think that is basically the plan. It's a relatively cheap way to get more people contributing ideas. The participants, mostly students, it sounds like, get tangible design experience to carry forward and a shot at prize money. Win-win.

      Same goes for the glove competition that was reported on last week.

      At the same time, they're under no obligation to use any of the designs from these competitions.

  15. No, it is 30 W. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This came up on the other posting and if you go back to the .pdf on it (check the original story), you will see that it is 30 watts. Pretty wicked.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:No, it is 30 W. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Ouch, 30W is downright paltry for something moving that much rock.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:No, it is 30 W. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yeah. Worse, that is on earth. The good news is that the money will encourage SOMEBODY to build one that works.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. The Moon rulez #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now everyone please bow your heads and pretend to be serious.

  17. Any Mooninites? by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 1

    The Moon Rulez #1!

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  18. Mano-a-mano? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

    Isn't it "mono-a-mono..." or "one-on-one?" Am I mistaken/not getting a joke?

    1. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "hand to hand" in some crazy moon language called "Spanish".

    2. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mono a mono means monkey on monkey. You were thinking 'mano a mano' :P

    3. Re:Mano-a-mano? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      mano-a-mano => man to man mono-a-mono => ??? (Although I get your drift)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    4. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mano = hand, so it's "hand-to-hand," as in combat.

    5. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mono = monkey
      mano = hand
      uno = one

      "mano-a-mano" or "uno-a-uno" is the same.
      "mono-a-mono" it's a different story.

    6. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Tejin · · Score: 1

      "Mano-a-mano" is "hand to hand" in, I believe its Spanish. Some Latin based language at any rate.

      --
      The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
    7. Re:Mano-a-mano? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

      Haha, wow, my whole life I've had that phrase wrong. I knew something was up when I didn't see any comments on it, probably should have googled it first :-)

    8. Re:Mano-a-mano? by PezJunkie42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As pointed out in one of the other posts, "mano" is hand.
      "Mono" is spanish for monkey. =)

    9. Re:Mano-a-mano? by cching · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was mano y mano, but maybe I'm wrong.

    10. Re:Mano-a-mano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      y = and
      mano y mano = hand and hand

      a = to
      mano a mano = hand to hand

    11. Re:Mano-a-mano? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Actually, he was referring to homosexual monkey sex.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:Mano-a-mano? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      and don't even think about "mano-a-mono"...

  19. Who needs to move dirt? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Who needs to move dirt. How about who can dispose of the greatest number of AOL CD's in 30 minutes?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  20. Gravitational Difference? by misterthirsty · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't 150 kg be easier to move on the moon than on earth? The gravity on the moon is only 1.6 m/s^2, so it should require significantly less work to move a given mass on the moon.

    1. Re:Gravitational Difference? by einnar2000 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps NASA already calculated the difference in asking for 150kg here.

      They're pretty good at conversions.. well.. except for meters to feet...

    2. Re:Gravitational Difference? by IhuntCIA · · Score: 1

      short: Yes.
      long: Yes, but moving heavily loaded excavator might be difficult on the moon surface since the "soil" might be loose and soft.

      There is no atmosphere on the moon so it is possible to throw the regolith in to the container without any need to use the conveyor belt or to move the excavator to the destination box. I am surprised that no one used any similar design ( no details on excavators ) as it eliminates the need for moving the excavator to and from the collector and such design might be more useful on the moon.

  21. Re:Better Luck by IhuntCIA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    150 kgs on 30 Watts ... on Earth. On the Moon should be more than enough. However low gravity on the Moon might make the scooping inefective if not dificult at least. ... why this competition anyway? Surface of the Earth is diferent than that of the Moon. On the Moon it might be more eficient to throw packed regolith in to the container, and use recoil momentum to power the scoop. Regolith is not the sand and dust only, it contains irregular shaped grains that may vary in size. If the competition is to make the useable prototype digger than NASA might use more coarse simulant.

  22. But the dirt must flow... by Jarred+Capellman · · Score: 1

    I guess we need sand worms after all

  23. Repeat after me: Sub-scale prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this isn't even a prototype level device. My understanding of the purpose of the competition was to foster some creative approaches to solving the problem. One common human fault is once we solve one problem and move on to the next, we just take the old solution and modify it a little bit. By getting some sharp thinkers who don't have the established mindset of how to solve these problems looking at them, you stand a pretty fair chance to bring in some ideas you'd never thought of before.

    So here they came up with something superficially similar to a challenge they expect to face in the future, and gave a bunch of students a reason to knock their heads together thinking of approaches. If they get something feasible that can be scaled up and mounted as the main feature on a big, mobile lunar digger, the project is a success.

    If you think about it, you could come up with a laundry list of differences between this and what NASA will eventually need to go digging holes on the moon, but it's getting the creative gears turning, which is where they need to be at this point.

  24. Dark matter engines by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

    The trick is to use dark matter engines and move everything, but the dirt...

    --
    alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    1. Re:Dark matter engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "dark matter" you mean slaves, then yes, that's a good idea.

  25. Am I the only one noticing.. by metushelach · · Score: 1

    That the sums stated in TFS are wrong?

    In the article its stated that the prize this year was 125,000$ and not 250,000$. it is then stated that next years prize will be 375,000$ and not 750,000$.