Slashdot Mirror


X Prize Foundation Announces Lunar Lander Competitors

Raver32 writes to tell us the X Prize Foundation has announced eight of the nine groups planning to compete in this year's Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. "The ninth team requested to remain confidential, lending an air of controversy to the announcement. Space bloggers have surmised the ninth team is Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, but sources told SPACE.com that information was wrong. Their confidentiality period ends 60 days before the start of the competition at which time the X Prize Foundation will announce the team's name."

26 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Been Done by Divebus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pow - Zoom - Right to the moon, Alice!

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
  2. The secret contenders are ILM by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    And my money is on them to win by not just landing on the moon but converting it into an orbiting battle station and calling it a death moon or something like that.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  3. Fine by zdude255 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine, I'll make my own Lunar Lander, with Blackjack and hookers!

    1. Re:Fine by jizziknight · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forget the Lunar Lander and the Blackjack!

      --
      Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
  4. Re:unrealistic by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well one of the major reasons Burt Rattan won the previous challenge was because Paul Allen bankrolled the whole thing to the point where the prize fund became irrelevant. Whether this was out out curiosity to see it does or as potential investment or both I dont know.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  5. Building a product can be very expensive by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Just because it takes $200k to make a toy can does not mean it will take $200M to build a bigger thing to go to the moon.

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

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  6. What is our limitation? by xzvf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine what it would be like today if we kept going to the moon through the last four decades. The costs are minor compared to the social programs and the military budget. Why can't some senator earmark a space program, like they do for bridges and museums? It holds about the same priority in the budget.

    1. Re:What is our limitation? by Arterion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's on the moon that's so great? All the other things you mentioned are useful to society. How does society benefit from trips to the moon?

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    2. Re:What is our limitation? by TroyM · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I think they're made in China

  7. the anonymous team is... by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the animated corpse of Howard Hughes. He's building the lander out of wood.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  8. My money is on Billy Mitchell by El_Smack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Billy Mitchell is pretty good at lots of games, so I'm guessing he could practice up and be a contender on Lunar Lander.
    Scott Safran will undoubtedly win the next contest, which I assume to be Asteroids, since it was released next.
    After that, BattleZone, Missile Command, Centipede, Tempest, etc.
    I think it's pretty cool that these X-Prize guys have taken an interest in classic Atari Coin Op.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  9. Lunar Lander? Excellent! by Applekid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I logged many many hours simulating a Lunar Lander. Hopefully they kept the controls the same.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  10. Not on the Moon.... by frakir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Competition summary:

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

    The more difficult course, Level 2, requires the rocket to hover for twice as long before landing precisely on a simulated lunar surface, packed with craters and boulders to mimic actual lunar terrain. The hover times are calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulates the power needed to perform the real lunar mission.

  11. Disney is the Mystery Team by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's obvious. The mystery team is Disney. They plan on opening a theme park on the moon. They already have their top fungineers working on the design.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  12. Already been done... by Froze · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  13. seriously by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

  14. The secret contender by bflong · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ninth team requested to remain confidential..... Their confidentiality period ends 60 days before the start of the competition at which time the X Prize Foundation will announce the team's name.

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

    --
    Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
  15. Are moonshots easier with ISS in orbit? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Are moonshots easier with ISS in orbit? by Manhigh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees relative to the equator (this was the lowest inclinations the Russians can get to from Balkanor without a costly plane-change maneuver)

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

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

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

      --
      "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
    2. Re:Are moonshots easier with ISS in orbit? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      And, yes, a lunar landing mission spacecraft would fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay, but that would be a ridiculously expensive way of carrying it to orbit. Better to use a single smaller rocket to get it there, that way you don't have to carry the entire weight of the Shuttle, too.

      The only way an Earth-orbit space station would be a decent 'launching post' for a lunar mission would be if they were to find a cheap way to launch fuel into Earth orbit (cheaper per pound than launching the actual spacecraft,) and make the space station a refueling post. You'd launch the lunar lander into Earth orbit with just enough fuel to make it to the space station, then refuel in Earth orbit. Otherwise, you might as well just launch completely ready to go to the moon.

      A *MARS* mission, on the other hand, makes a little more sense, because for such a long voyage, you would want a spacecraft that is really too large to launch straight to Mars as one piece. So you launch the individual pieces into Earth orbit, join them in Earth orbit, then leave for Mars. In that case, ISS makes a perfectly logical assembly point. (I am also a fan of the two-stage Mars launch, where you launch the return vehicle to Mars, along with fuel and supplies, unmanned. Then, once those are safely on Mars, you launch a smaller 'outbound-only' ship. This way, you don't have to launch one single large ship.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  16. Launch Permits? by Locarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  17. LOTS of reasons... by charleste · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:LOTS of reasons... by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kevlar

      Invented in 1965 as one of the many random synthetic fibers DuPont tried. The goal was to replace steel in tires, although Kevlar didn't get used for that for some time. Not developed for the space program.

      Teflon

      Egad, why do people believe this one? Teflon was invented accidentally in 1938. Non-stick teflon cookware was invented in 1954. Definitely not developed for the space program.

      Velcro

      Patented in 1951. Not developed for the space program.

      Tang

      Went on sale in 1959. Not developed for the space program, although later popularized by it.

      Astronaut icecream

      The only thing on your list actually invented for the space program. And it only flew on Apollo 7.

      And if you think R&D will come up with stuff like this without the fire under their arses - that is the space program - you're mistaken.

      Teflon was an accident. Velcro came from a Swiss engineer taking walks with his dog. Kevlar and Tang came from R&D people trying to develop new products with only ordinary corporate "fire under their arses". Manned spaceflight is heavily overrated.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    2. Re:LOTS of reasons... by theJML · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree some of those are a bit off in popular thought, but check this list out http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html for a list of NASA Spin-offs and space benefits.

      I really think that one of the best things from a space program is not any product, it's the realization of a vision. When a generation realizes that even something like the moon or planets is within our grasp, it's awe-inspiring and creates a positive in a world full of negatives. It gets people to believe in their dreams and aspire to be more than just another drone in society.

      --
      -=JML=-
  18. Helium 3 by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's on the moon that's so great? Helium 3, which can be used in future generation fusion plants and is an incredible good power source.
    --
    It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  19. This is cool and all... by kaizokuace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just don't wanna see the X-Prize become some reality tv show or something. Anyway, what I want to see out of this stuff is some sort of jump gate network in orbit. Like they gates are magnetic catapults and you just put your ship or whatever payload or something in it and you get tossed to the moon! Or string them up to mars! It would be cool methinks. It could be the answer to making private owned travel cheaper if it is cheaper energy-wise? I dunno cuz I'm not a physicist or engineer, just a guy with fantasies about space travel.

    --
    Balderdash!