Private Company First to Take on Lunar X Challenge

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Private Company First to Take on Lunar X Challenge

Posted by Zonk on Thursday December 6, 2007 @11:09PM from the to-the-moon-google dept.

explosivejared writes "A private company by the name of Odyssey Moon has become the first team to complete registration for Google's Lunar X Challenge. They will likely be competing with several heavyweights in the field, as Carnegie Mellon University, along with many others, has already expressed an interest in the competition."

65 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hey! by eniac42 · 2007-12-06 23:19 · Score: 1

Thats no Odyssey Moon, its a Tycho Magnetic Anomaly!

--
"A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
1. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer the shit eating one :(
2. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  how do you feel about eating an 11 year-old girl's shit?
Newsflash! by LM741N · 2007-12-06 23:44 · Score: 0, Troll

Private company first to contribute space debris.
What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-06 23:48 · Score: 0

So they offer US 10 Million to simply get a craft into space twice within two weeks. Any self respecting nerd knows that the challenges of even getting into orbit are a lot higher. Yet, for this challenge, you need to get a craft into orbit, then TO the moon, orbit the moon, land on the moon, then deploy your vehicle and move it around. And they only double the prize to US 20 million? Wow, talk about incentive. I think they're a little low on the reward by a factor of 10 or 20.
1. Re:What a joke. by Loke+the+Dog · 2007-12-07 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, what do you think it should be then? 100 million? If you have 100 million, I'm sure no one would mind of put that up as a prize as well. If you don't have 100 million, you can only be happy that someone with a lot of money is willing to put it up as a prize, rather than complaining that the prize is too small.
  
  Besides, someone is apparently willing to do this, and that means the reward is good enough.
2. Re:What a joke. by maroberts · 2007-12-07 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  There are costs you don't have to bear also in the new expedition. You don't have to transport humans and your craft does not have to come back.
  
  That aside, getting to the moon (250k miles away) does seem to be a different order of magnitude than getting 100km above Earth....
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
3. Re:What a joke. by Bucc5062 · 2007-12-07 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  IANARS but I think it would not be orders of magnitude getting to the moon. The hardest part of the trip is getting out and back into the Earth's atmosphere and gravity well. Lots of energy required out, and lots to dump in.
  
  It is like climbing a rather steep hill to reach a plateau. After the climb the long walk on the top is much easier. Now if you want to get from Earth to Moon quickly you may need to bring along more energy, thus even harder to get out of the gravity well, but that is choice.
  
  I think if I was going to the moon I'd toss up fuel and supplies in an unmanned launch first. The module to get me to the moon from orbit to orbit could be a simple container with control rockets. Now if I want to land on the moon ???? Profit?.
  
  I am bad with titles but I remember Robert Hienlien wrote a book about some kids who traveled to the moon. I hope we get back there and not just by government effort.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
4. Re:What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  "Besides, someone is apparently willing to do this, and that means the reward is good enough."
  
  Anyone that referes to the competition in "internet bubble terms" ("moon 2.0") might have a skewed view of economics.
5. Re:What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  >getting to the moon (250k miles away) ... getting 100km above Earth....
  
  You work for NASA, right? Designing Mars orbiters perhaps?
6. Re:What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  > IANARS but I think it would not be orders of magnitude getting to the moon. The hardest
  > part of the trip is getting out and back into the Earth's atmosphere and gravity well. Lots
  > of energy required out, and lots to dump in.
  
  There are two other hard parts: doing a soft landing on the Moon, and controlling the rover
  in real time. The control issues are, for the most part, well understood and can managed, thanks
  in no small part to the work that NASA has done building Lunar and Martian rovers. The soft
  landing part, however, is going to be difficult. It is a solved problem, again thanks to NASA, but
  the engineering is complex and there is a lot that can go wrong.
  
  Leaving and entering Earth's orbit is actually not that hard, it just takes fuel and timing.
Moon 2.0 by rvw · 2007-12-06 23:52 · Score: 1

Wikipedia: Google Lunar X Prize
The Google Lunar X PRIZE, sometimes referred to as simply Moon 2.0
I would like to register too with my new company: Capricorn 2.0!
Dilbert by eulernet · 2007-12-06 23:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Currently, Dilbert contains material related comics.
For example:
http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007152781206.gif

Coincidence ?
1. Re:Dilbert by gstoddart · 2007-12-07 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Currently, Dilbert contains material related comics.
  
  I have long since stopped marveling at how apropos Dilbert can be at times.
  
  Scott Adams has been able to consistently put out stuff for a long time that at any given time, a whole lot of geeks read and say "how the heck did he know that?".
  
  It's eerie sometimes. Really, who among us hasn't come into work in the morning, fired up our daily Dilbert fix, and see our lives right in front of us?? At least three times in as many months, the latest daily describes my 'yesterday' to T.
  
  It's probably coincidence, but impressive nonetheless.
  
  Cheers
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Productivity... by Slashidiot · 2007-12-07 00:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm eagerly waiting for this to develope. It's all stuff that has been done by a government agency, but a private company is certainly bound to be more efficient and productive, lowering the costs of lunar travel. This is serious fuel for a new space war, when prices go down, and it ends up becoming something normal for the people. Let the free market do its thing.

It is following the exact path of civil aviation. I have high hopes of it developing in the same way.

Sorry, a bit of daydreaming is good for me... let the SciFi lover in me have a bit of fun.

--
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
1. Re:Productivity... by Tony+Hoyle · 2007-12-07 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly I doubt they could get the costs down that much.. Space flight is very complex and dangerous. Secondly the costs of entry to the market mean that it's likely to be a natural monopoly anyway, so competition won't exist in any meaningful sense (I also doubt there's any profit in it in the medium term so most companies wouldn't bother even if they could afford it - the 20 million prize wouldn't pay for a tenth of the development costs).
2. Re:Productivity... by Mutant321 · 2007-12-07 00:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Some people thought there'd be a world market for about 5 computers, for similar reasons. Wasn't even that long ago either.
3. Re:Productivity... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  > It's all stuff that has been done by a government agency, but a private company is certainly
  > bound to be more efficient and productive, lowering the costs of lunar travel.
  
  There are lots of cases where private companies have been far less efficient than governments. One of the big reasons that this company will probably be able to put a rover on the Moon for less than it cost the US government is that NASA has already done the fundamental research, and developed much of the technology, needed to do it. This tends to be rather expensive for space flight, so having had the government already do it is going to save them a lot of money.
4. Re:Productivity... by Loke+the+Dog · 2007-12-07 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, its not following the path of aviation. See, aviation competed with trains and boats, and eventually won. The space industry isn't competing with any other industry. While there are many reasons to go from London to New York, there are few reasons to go from some pacific island to the moon, other than research or publicity.
  
  Now, as long as there are no reasons to go into space, the Free Market is getting nowhere here. All these projects you see are funded on charity. People with too much money pay to do something mostly to keep the industry alive.
  
  Space exploration is actually following the path of polar exploration. Many people got both private and government funding to go to the poles, and some of the succeeded. But very few things except for science came of it, and that was the government funded kind of science.
  
  Sure, some fishermen had semi permanent settlements on the the south pole, but they have mostly been replaced by scientists now. It's possible we'll see mining or oil drilling on the poles, but this hasn't happened yet, partly for legal reasons but also actually for practical reasons. There is some tourism too, but its pretty insignificant, and it will be the same for space. Once the hype fades, interest will drop. After all, a private island in the pacific is nicer than orbit around space.
  
  Don't get me wrong, I think this is exciting too, but don't get too optimistic. Comparing it to aviation doesn't make sense at all. There is no brave new world here, just barren wastelands. Obviously, one day it will become profitable to bring platinum and other really expensive metals back to earth, and at that point the free market will take over, but I'd say that's atleast 100 years away. Deep sea mining will happen long before that, for example.
5. Re:Productivity... by your_neighbor · 2007-12-07 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Civil aviation was something complex and dangerous too! At the beggining, aircraft had "militar" genes, reusing bombers wings etc. Maybe it can evolve, although I cant see actually great economical use of such technology... space tourism? Its usually something that comes after commercial exploration! Get ships-> War, commerce, fun Get planes-> War, commerce, fun Get steam engines -> War, commerce, fun etc I cant see where commerce appears in space exploration.
6. Re:Productivity... by InbredTom · 2007-12-07 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  If your allusions to civil aviation are true, maybe one day we will see a Greek-owned space corporation called EasySpace?
7. Re:Productivity... by gogodidi · 2007-12-07 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  What about the space elevator? Teleportation? Yeah, those arent really there yet, and much less developed than the spacecraft, but airplanes were pretty unrealistic from a locomotive conductors point of view also. There will be competition for getting into space. Just because they arent around yet doesnt mean there wont be.
  
  --
  ugh...
8. Re:Productivity... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  All these projects you see are funded on charity.
  
  As in voluntary association? The core principle of free market economics?
  
  I don't think you understand the meaning of free market economics. There are precisely two ways to achieve funding: voluntary association (i.e. persuasion), or coercion (i.e. taxes or theft). Free market economics is founded on the former, not the latter.
  
  Obviously, a true charity must be 100% voluntary, and therefore derived from the basic concept which makes a free market work: free choice. The fact that you may or may not not recieve a monetary return on your investment is irrelevant; the defining prerequisite of a free market transaction is voluntary association.
9. Re:Productivity... by ultranova · 2007-12-07 05:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  While there are many reasons to go from London to New York, there are few reasons to go from some pacific island to the moon, other than research or publicity.
  
  Actually, the fastest way from London to New York (or any other point on Earth) is a ballistic arc. And the ballistic arcs for any significant distances - meaning you'd consider using an airplane - go through space.
  
  A ballistic arc from London to New York isn't far from LEO as far as speed and altitude goes. From New York to Tokyo would be even closer. And the hard, dangerous and expensive parts of space travel are precisely entering orbit and entering atmosphere.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
10. Re:Productivity... by LWATCDR · 2007-12-07 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  True but I don't think most people would really enjoy a ballistic arc.
  Now for next day or same day ship cargo this could be useful.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
11. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-07 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, its not following the path of aviation. See, aviation competed with trains and boats, and eventually won. The space industry isn't competing with any other industry. While there are many reasons to go from London to New York, there are few reasons to go from some pacific island to the moon, other than research or publicity.
  Most of the business that airlines serve didn't exist when there were only boats and trains. I'd say most of the passenger traffic is short term business or tourism trips. Go somewhere else in the world by plane, stay a few days or weeks, and return. Airlines don't compete with anything else for that business. Same goes for cargo. Most of the cargo is probably urgent to some degree. In the absence of airlines, there is no "next day delivery" for example unless the destination happens to be near by. Also, let us remember that suborbital transportation would compete directly with airlines.
  
  Now, as long as there are no reasons to go into space, the Free Market is getting nowhere here. All these projects you see are funded on charity. People with too much money pay to do something mostly to keep the industry alive.
  Wait, you go from "few reasons" to "no reasons". Research and publicity are reasons to go into space. Further, you seem to confuse capitalism with charity. Most of the funding goes to businesses that have some expectation of turning a profit.
  
  Space exploration is actually following the path of polar exploration. Many people got both private and government funding to go to the poles, and some of the succeeded. But very few things except for science came of it, and that was the government funded kind of science.
  Sure, some fishermen had semi permanent settlements on the the south pole, but they have mostly been replaced by scientists now. It's possible we'll see mining or oil drilling on the poles, but this hasn't happened yet, partly for legal reasons but also actually for practical reasons. There is some tourism too, but its pretty insignificant, and it will be the same for space. Once the hype fades, interest will drop. After all, a private island in the pacific is nicer than orbit around space.
  When it's illegal to look for resources in the Antartic, then it doesn't make sense to consider the "practical reasons".
  And look we have another reason that you ignored above. Space tourism may be a flash in the pan. But it is interesting to note that many other tourist destinations have remained active for centuries, a few even for millenia (like Rome or Jerusalem). I see some level of long term interest in space. After all, its where the rest of the universe is.
  Finally, I don't know the price comparison of an island in the Pacific to a trip in space. But my take is that the former is more expensive even than the trips on the Soyuz. But maybe you can get an island and the necessary living arrangements for around 20 million dollars. At least with a space trip, you aren't paying for it years down the road.
  
  Don't get me wrong, I think this is exciting too, but don't get too optimistic. Comparing it to aviation doesn't make sense at all. There is no brave new world here, just barren wastelands. Obviously, one day it will become profitable to bring platinum and other really expensive metals back to earth, and at that point the free market will take over, but I'd say that's atleast 100 years away. Deep sea mining will happen long before that, for example.
  You need to come up with valid reasons why aerospace isn't comparable to outer space. Saying that their competitive environments are slightly different isn't really saying much.
  As you can see from the criticism, I don't agree with you. I think the problem with space development is a bit different. IMHO, there are a huge number of things that people would want to do in space. Visit Pluto, the furthest and coldest "planet" in the Solar System? Sure, I'd pay $5000 for a th
12. Re:Productivity... by MobyDisk · 2007-12-07 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Saying there is no reason to go into space is like saying there is no reason to go into the air. We go into the air because it is the fastest way to get from point A to point B, not because there is something intrinsically useful about the air itself. Same with space: you could design a plane that could go from New York to Tokyo in 3 hours if you used a space plane, even though the space itself is not useful. Air became tactically useful in warfare, and space can be the same way. Also, the barren wastelands you refer to are also inexhaustible non-polluting power sources. That is like saying there's nothing in the desert but sand. Yet people live in deserts all around the world because some of them are on oil fields, on giant aquifers.
  
  As it was with air, so it shall be with space.
13. Re:Productivity... by flappinbooger · 2007-12-07 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Space flight is very complex and dangerous.
  
  So, how did it happen the way it did the first time? (moon 1.0)
  
  With computing power on par with an 86 Chevy Citation and slide rules, how did we send living breathing men to the moon, and bring them back, without a hitch?
  
  I'm not saying we didn't, just that either it wasn't that hard, or there is more to the story as to how hard it really was, or some reason why it's "so hard" now. It's been almost 40 years, I'm just asking why it hasn't been done since. Is it cost? Red tape? Why?
  
  Is it one of those things where Kennedy's mandate allowed the US to throw everything plus the kitchen sink at it, so we pulled it off, but now the budget has been cut so much that the "big hammer" approach isn't feasible? Tech advances hasn't been in areas that have simplified anything critical enough to make space travel ubiquitous? The risk the first time was so high we'd never be allowed to do it that way now? All the above?
  
  --
  Flappinbooger isn't my real name
14. Re:Productivity... by Teancum · 2007-12-07 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  True but I don't think most people would really enjoy a ballistic arc.
  Now for next day or same day ship cargo this could be useful.
  
  If it meant that I could travel from Chicago to Beijing in under 3 hours? Or London to Syndey in less than 5 hours?
  
  You had better believe that there would be demand for genuine ballistic arcs around the world. Indeed there is demand for sub-orbital flights right now.... if the equipment technology (read safety concerns) and the costs dropped to something a little cheaper than the current $1 Billion USD per flight that NASA does for Shuttle flights.
  
  Also, next day cargo is already being done by current air freight businesses. It is in fact a huge industry in its own right. "Previous day" shipment (crossing the international time line to travel to yesterday) suddenly becomes a reality when you include potential ballistic arcs for shipping cargo.
  
  A hard data point on what people are willing to pay for high speed travel can be found with the Concorde super-sonic flights between New York and London. People were routinely paying $10,000 per seat, and strong sales whenever it was available. Certainly there were some sound business reasons why you might want to send a salesman or corporate executive on one of these high-speed flights instead of a sub-sonic commercial flight.
  
  The reason the Concorde isn't flying any more had more to do with safety concerns and the age of the airplanes that were in service, rather than a lack of demand for something which could go that fast. The market certainly is there... if you can build the machine to make it happen.
  
  Not only would I, myself, be willing to "volunteer" to take one of these flights, there certainly is a price well above normal commercial air travel that I'd be willing to pay for the privilege myself. I could also calculate and demonstrate from a raw energy and physics perspective how you could eventually save money and make a ballistic flight through the vacuum of space cheaper than plowing through the troposphere in an airplane, especially for longer flights. In other words, even for point to point travel from different locations on the Earth and nowhere else, you can make a hard case for space travel being something eventually routine.
  
  And once you are already in space (essentially LEO), getting to the Moon is in comparison trivial. Or the rest of the Solar System. In fact, I've seen some good numbers that show it is easier to get to Phobos than to the Moon, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
15. Re:Productivity... by LWATCDR · 2007-12-07 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I would go also but most people I just don't think would want a 3 hour roller coaster ride.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
16. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-07 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  The reason the Concorde isn't flying any more had more to do with safety concerns and the age of the airplanes that were in service, rather than a lack of demand for something which could go that fast.
  
  The only reason Concorde could afford to fly was the two goverments involved wrote off the development costs and presented them to the respective airlines for free. (And, not incidentally, save face for the respective goverments and enlarge the size of the virtual national penises.)
  
  The market certainly is there... if you can build the machine to make it happen.
  
  Sure, the market is there for supersonic flight. We can also build a machine that can make it happen. (So long as you constrain it to essentially transatlantic ranges.) What can't do is build said machine at a price the (fairly small) market will support.
  
  Supersonic civil aviation is one of those technologies that was hyped long before the reality was known.
17. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-07 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, its not following the path of aviation. See, aviation competed with trains and boats, and eventually won. The space industry isn't competing with any other industry. While there are many reasons to go from London to New York, there are few reasons to go from some pacific island to the moon, other than research or publicity.
  
  Most of the business that airlines serve didn't exist when there were only boats and trains. I'd say most of the passenger traffic is short term business or tourism trips. Go somewhere else in the world by plane, stay a few days or weeks, and return. Airlines don't compete with anything else for that business.
  
  You are confusing then and now. At the time aviations infancy - most travel was commercial or high end tourist. The aviation industry took on those markets head on, competing with ships and trains, and beat them hands down. The short term business and tourist trips common today came about much later as the industry matured.
  
  You need to come up with valid reasons why aerospace isn't comparable to outer space.
  
  He came of with plenty of valid reasons. You need to come up with better criticisms than incorrect historical references, airy handwaving, and unsupported "I believe"'s,
18. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-07 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing then and now. At the time aviations infancy - most travel was commercial or high end tourist. The aviation industry took on those markets head on, competing with ships and trains, and beat them hands down. The short term business and tourist trips common today came about much later as the industry matured.
  Exactly the model that space flight would use if it gets anywhere. Start with small markets that can be served best by space flight and expand from there. A good part of the reason space flight is a lot like airflight.
  
  You need to come up with valid reasons why aerospace isn't comparable to outer space.
  He came of with plenty of valid reasons. You need to come up with better criticisms than incorrect historical references, airy handwaving, and unsupported "I believe"'s,
  So you say. I point out two relevant details. First, it's not terribly important that airplanes had competition from other transportation sectors. In fact, that would inhibit air travel because the presence of alternate forms of travel would take some of the demand that would otherwise go to airplanes. Second, space flight can compete with all these modes of transportation via suborbital flights. So space flight inherits whatever magical property airflight gets from that.
  
  The original poster's ultimate flaw was the assertion that there were "few reasons" (elsewhere "no reasons") to go into space. I point out that the real problem is that there are plenty of reasons, but space flight costs too much. Why does this matter? Because we can consider what happens if space flight goes down significantly in cost. If there are "few reasons" to go into space, then that price drop is not going to result in a jump in demand. But my scenario means that we see considerable rise in demand because there will be reasons that were too expensive in the past to entertain, but are now affordable to pursue.
19. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-07 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason Concorde could afford to fly was the two goverments involved wrote off the development costs and presented them to the respective airlines for free. (And, not incidentally, save face for the respective goverments and enlarge the size of the virtual national penises.)
  Well, it can't have been too large an expense, if the planes flew until there was an accident. As I see it, if it were a real burden, they would have found some way to kill it much earlier while saving face.
  
  Sure, the market is there for supersonic flight. We can also build a machine that can make it happen. (So long as you constrain it to essentially transatlantic ranges.) What can't do is build said machine at a price the (fairly small) market will support.
  Maybe all such modes of transportation will be too expensive for the market size, but we need more than one data point.
20. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-07 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Most people probably don't enjoy air flight as it is. Speed (or just getting there in a timely fashion) is often the primary concern.
  
  Freight is a strong point too. You probably could do eight hour delivery end to end almost anywhere in the sufficiently developed world. Maybe even six hours.
21. Re:Productivity... by Bearhouse · 2007-12-07 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Urm...no. Aviation was started by inspired, (and slightly crazy) amateur inventors.
  
  But the, civil aviation, (not GA), took off (sorry) after sucessive wars provided the civil market with massive amounts of cheap matériel, ('planes, pilots, runways, navigation, engines....)
  
  Even today, Boeing and Airbus are propped-up by massive Govt. subsidies, as are many airlines.
22. Re:Productivity... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the fastest way from London to New York is by teleporter. If those lazy scientists would get off their butts and invent one we wouldn't be bothering with this discussion.
  
  And given how much a ballistic arc looks like a ballistic missile on radar, I think I'd rather return from my vacation to the UK by airplane for the time being, even if one does take 12 hours and the other 45 minutes.
23. Re:Productivity... by LWATCDR · 2007-12-07 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Well, it can't have been too large an expense, if the planes flew until there was an accident. As I see it, if it were a real burden, they would have found some way to kill it much earlier while saving face."
  Oh the UK and French Goverment lost there shirts on the Concorde. They where for prestige only. Why do you think so few where made? Take a look at the 777. It was much cheaper to develop than the Concorde but it took over 100 planes for Boeing to make a profit. I think Britsh Airways eventually made a profit on the operations but just. I don't think the French ever did.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
24. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-08 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing then and now. At the time aviations infancy - most travel was commercial or high end tourist. The aviation industry took on those markets head on, competing with ships and trains, and beat them hands down. The short term business and tourist trips common today came about much later as the industry matured.
  
  Exactly the model that space flight would use if it gets anywhere. Start with small markets that can be served best by space flight and expand from there. A good part of the reason space flight is a lot like airflight.
  
  Sure - but first you have to have a competitive market where spaceflight is better. There isn't any, which pretty much invalidates the entire comparison.
  
  You need to come up with valid reasons why aerospace isn't comparable to outer space.
  He came of with plenty of valid reasons. You need to come up with better criticisms than incorrect historical references, airy handwaving, and unsupported "I believe"'s
  So you say. I point out two relevant details. First, it's not terribly important that airplanes had competition from other transportation sectors. In fact, that would inhibit air travel because the presence of alternate forms of travel would take some of the demand that would otherwise go to airplanes. Second, space flight can compete with all these modes of transportation via suborbital flights. So space flight inherits whatever magical property airflight gets from that.
  
  First, it's vitally important that said competition exists, because (as in any market) demonstrating a demand makes it far easier to get capital, far easier to market, etc... etc... It also means that space travel can start small and compete in a segment of the market rather than the entire market. (So far, just like the development of aviation.) But it's on your second point that your comparision falls apart - because suborbital travel cannot compete with air travel. Air travel got it's start on short high demand routes (between NY and Chicago, or between London and Paris, for examples), and no such analogous route exists for suborbital travel. You pretty much have to leap from short routes to intercontinental routes, which is leaping from the Ford Trimotor to the 747 in a single bound. The cost of development and the cost of the infrastructure means the flight costs cannot possibly be competitive - unless you can find somebody to write off a few tens of billions of dollars.
  
  And that's ultimately the key problem - the extraordinarily steep learning curve and incredibly high entrance costs.
  
  The original poster's ultimate flaw was the assertion that there were "few reasons" (elsewhere "no reasons") to go into space. I point out that the real problem is that there are plenty of reasons, but space flight costs too much.
  
  You confuse far fetched science fiction scenarios with reasons to go into space. Even if what is usually considered space flight in these discussions (LEO) is cheap, your destinations will remain expensive - because they have special requirements above and beyond orbital acess. The rest of us are discussing how to cross the English Channel - and you are discussing voyages to Australia. Your arguement is thus moot.
  
  But my scenario means that we see considerable rise in demand because there will be reasons that were too expensive in the past to entertain, but are now affordable to pursue.
  
  The problem is your scenarion bears no relation to reality, it much more resembles that of the underpants gnomes.
25. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-08 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason Concorde could afford to fly was the two goverments involved wrote off the development costs and presented them to the respective airlines for free. (And, not incidentally, save face for the respective goverments and enlarge the size of the virtual national penises.)
  
  Well, it can't have been too large an expense, if the planes flew until there was an accident. As I see it, if it were a real burden, they would have found some way to kill it much earlier while saving face.
  
  You confuse two different costs. The airlines could afford to operate the aircraft - but the could not afford to buy the aircraft, because the enormously expensive development program, when amortized across the few aircraft built, meant they would have been unaffordable. Ticket prices that included both the purchase cost and the operations costs (as ticket prices usually do) would have been in the high six figures. But the British and French goverments paid off those development costs, and presented the aircraft to the airlines for free.
  
  Sure, the market is there for supersonic flight. We can also build a machine that can make it happen. (So long as you constrain it to essentially transatlantic ranges.) What can't do is build said machine at a price the (fairly small) market will support.
  
  Maybe all such modes of transportation will be too expensive for the market size, but we need more than one data point.
  
  We have a whole stack of data points - Concorde wasn't the only SST under development, just the only one that had someone willing to foot the [enourmous] bill so that it could it be completed.
26. Re:Productivity... by Teancum · 2007-12-08 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Define "most people"?
  
  When was the last time you flew in a commercial airliner during bad weather?
  
  I remember one particularly nasty flight that went through what I swear was a hurricane that was essentially a 3 hour ride in a roller coaster. And that was a regularly scheduled commercial flight with over 300 passengers on board. I'm sure the pilots of that plane weren't exactly having an easy time on the flight either, but the point is that even existing transportation systems experience some interesting acceleration forces. This particular flight lasted nearly 10 hours (going from the USA to Brazil) but for at least 3 hours it was a real wild ride. And I experienced G forces that were very much equivalent of what I would have in a roller coaster... including some very unpredictable direction changes going up, down, and side to side, that simply wouldn't be found in a rocket. In some ways, going into space is quite a bit more predictable than air travel.
  
  I know that most air travel happens at high altitudes that try to get "above the weather", but my point is that I don't think most of those passengers of nearly every age that I was traveling with (newborns to senior citizens...certainly not all of them at peak physical fitness) ever considered that it would be their last flight when the plane landed on the ground. And this isn't an isolated experience.
  
  I just don't buy this argument against people going into space even for point to point travel on the Earth.
27. Re:Productivity... by Teancum · 2007-12-08 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, the market is there for supersonic flight. We can also build a machine that can make it happen. (So long as you constrain it to essentially transatlantic ranges.) What can't do is build said machine at a price the (fairly small) market will support.
  
  Supersonic civil aviation is one of those technologies that was hyped long before the reality was known.
  
  You miss the point I was trying to make here. I'm suggesting that the price that people were willing to pay for commercial point to point services at high speed can be derived from the price they were willing to pay for a Concorde. Not that I was defending the costs of the next generation of super-sonic aircraft or the technical challenges that would go into building them.
  
  If you have at least a rough idea what people will pay for these services, at least you can begin to come up with a business plan if you want to even design something like a sub-orbital spacecraft.
  
  In addition, sub-orbital can do distances much larger than just trans-atlantic travel, which in comparison is a trivial distance. This makes for a much larger time savings that can be justified for paying yet higher prices.
  
  This still says nothing about if a particular spacecraft design can be financially successful, but I am suggesting that there is a non-zero dollar figure you can use right now to make a business case for making a competitor to Virgin Galactic that would do a trans-atlantic flight hop... provided you could bring the cost of the aircraft/spaceship down to something under the budget based on these numbers.
  
  It is entirely a different issue if such a spacecraft could be built for that cost.
28. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-08 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  You confuse two different costs. The airlines could afford to operate the aircraft - but the could not afford to buy the aircraft, because the enormously expensive development program, when amortized across the few aircraft built, meant they would have been unaffordable. Ticket prices that included both the purchase cost and the operations costs (as ticket prices usually do) would have been in the high six figures. But the British and French goverments paid off those development costs, and presented the aircraft to the airlines for free.
  Development costs are sunk costs. But I will grant that they are relevant to developing further supersonic transport vehicles.
29. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-08 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, development costs are not sunk costs, if an aircraft builder does not recover development costs, they go out of business.
30. Re:Productivity... by khallow · 2007-12-09 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Look up sunk costs. Point is that it can still make economic sense to fly a plane even if it doesn't recover development costs because you lose less money that way. And even successful aircraft builders routinely fail to recover development costs.
31. Re:Productivity... by ultranova · 2007-12-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I would go also but most people I just don't think would want a 3 hour roller coaster ride.
  
  Roller coaster ? Being in a ballistic arc means you're in freefall most of the trip. Being in freefall means it is impossible to tell the whole thing is moving without looking outside. You aren't subject to any forces - not even Earth's gravity - during the ballistic part of the trip, so you'll simply float, weightless like a feather.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
32. Re:Productivity... by DerekLyons · 2007-12-09 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I know quite well what sunk costs are. I also know that loss aversion is a fallacy - doubly so in this instance as the profit margins aren't that big on commercial aircraft. And no, sucessful aircraft builders don't 'routinely fail' to recover development costs - because if they did, they would be bankrupt. Period.
Re:Googles Comment.... by frith01 · 2007-12-07 00:11 · Score: 3, Informative

WARNING: This is a link to a corrupt site. It contains script virus and other malware.
A drawing is worth a thousand words by Yvanhoe · 2007-12-07 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

This should be in every interplanetary hitch-hiker guide : Delta-V budget

The energy budget to go from Low-Earth Orbit to the moon is half of the one to go from earth to LEO. So I would say that the reward is surprisingly on-spot. Of course this is not taking into consideration the fact that the weight of a spacecraft increase exponentially the closer it comes to escape velocity, and the fact that lunar landing, lunar-earth telecommunications, space travel are a different kind of challenge than in the Ansari X-prize, but I think that 15 millions are quite fair for this.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
1. Re:A drawing is worth a thousand words by ultranova · 2007-12-07 05:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The energy budget to go from Low-Earth Orbit to the moon is half of the one to go from earth to LEO. So I would say that the reward is surprisingly on-spot.
  
  It gets even better when you consider the issue of thrust. To lift from the Earth you need a lot of thrust simply to raise from the ground. This translates directly into consuming a lot of energy and reaction mass, which rules out things like solar panels and forcing the spacecraft to carry all its energy within. This makes the spacecraft heavier, increasing the needed thrust and thus fuel usage even higher and leading to a vicious circle.
  
  On the other hand, once you're in LEO, you're in freefall. There is no more any minimum thrust treshold to change your velocity. You can use solar sails, ion engine powered by solar panels, or whatever to speed you on your way. It will take weeks, if not months, to get to the Moon this way, but you will get there eventually.
  
  The hard part is getting into an orbit, any orbit as long as it's outside of atmosphere. Once you're there, the rest is (relatively) easy, at least as long as you're not in a hurry.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I second that by explosivejared · 2007-12-07 01:12 · Score: 1

I'm normally the first to be wary of businesses and the whole corporate idea, but given Congress's penchant for stripping NASA's budget, this seems like it's going to be necessary to jumpstart any exploration of space. The possibility of civil space travel is far off, but the possibility of discovery is immediate. Space travel has a special way of presenting all new angles of attacking problems that have historically led to fantastic inventions. Having a private monopoly on space research would be bad, but using market forces to stimulate is a great idea in my book, though.

--
I got a catholic block.
With some Canadian Content by farrellj · 2007-12-07 01:18 · Score: 1

One of the companies behind the project is MDA (MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates) out of Richmond BC, the Canadian company that buils the Canadarm for the Space Shuttle, and the Canadarm 2, which is on the Space Station. So these people are really "rocket scientists" from Canada, and other places around the world.

ttyl

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
1. Re:With some Canadian Content by camperdave · 2007-12-07 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, to be fair, the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator systems on the shuttles were designed/built by SPAR Aerospace in Bramton, Ontario. SPAR Aerospace's robotics division was acquired by MDA, but well after the arms were built for the shuttles. MDA is doing the work for the Canadarm2, in use on the International Space Station (as well as the boom extension for checking the shuttle underbelly tiles, I believe)
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
2. Re:With some Canadian Content by kryliss · 2007-12-07 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  And the shirts that they wear.
  
  http://www.cafepress.com/buy/science/-/pv_design_prod/p_1697668.56556143/pNo_56556143/id_6016809/fpt_/opt_/c_666/pg_14
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
The Chinese got there first by joaommp · 2007-12-07 01:34 · Score: 0

You know how the chinese people will get there first? They will climb one upon another, stepping on the shoulders, one chinese above one chinese, above another, above another, above another...

--
Onda Technology Institute
Missing the point. by untree · 2007-12-07 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't need to recoup all the winner's costs. You just need to give the company a bit of a reward to help them get back out of the red more quickly.

Take the $10M prize, as an example. It is estimated that the winning team spent around $25M to win that $10M. But they now have a contract with Virgin Galactic to build many more vehicles, because they have the know-how and a workable basic design.

The goal is to stimulate, not to reimburse all costs.
Re:Googles Comment.... by Branc0 · 2007-12-07 04:01 · Score: 1

It is a link to a gif image... where is that script?

--

rm -rf /home/leia
Re:Googles Comment.... by frith01 · 2007-12-07 04:45 · Score: 1

It is a google search to a site which presents a gif image, but there is a vb script which is presenting the gif image, and the vb script is being flagged by my Avast program as a "VBS:Script-gen" warning on //members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp233996323
Ice Fishin? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-12-07 05:35 · Score: 0

>>Sure, some fishermen had semi permanent settlements on the the south pole

What exactly would one fish for at the South Pole? Wikipedia describes it as "a featureless windswept icy plateau at an altitude of 2,835 meters (9,306 ft), about 800 miles (1,300 km) from the nearest sea" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole).

I do, however agree with the spirit of your post. I have never seen a business model for the Moon that makes sense, even with far-flung technology.
"Without a hitch"? by Bearpaw · 2007-12-07 10:03 · Score: 1

With computing power on par with an 86 Chevy Citation and slide rules, how did we send living breathing men to the moon, and bring them back, without a hitch?

Apollo 1 was a pretty damn big hitch.

Even if we just look at the Apollo 11 mission itself, there were hitches. For one thing, the landing went "long" and that "computing power" was taking them toward a rock-strewn crater. If Armstrong hadn't taken manual control for the landing, things might've gotten really hitched.