Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lunar Spacecraft Compete For $2 Million NASA Prize

Posted by Soulskill on from the turbo-cratermaker-9000XL dept.

coondoggie writes "Nine rocket-powered vehicles will compete for NASA's $2 million, 2008 Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, Oct. 24-25. The goal is to accelerate development of commercial Lunar Landers capable of bringing payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. NASA of course would expect to use some of the technology developed at the Challenge. To win the prize, teams must demonstrate a rocket-propelled vehicle and payload that takes off vertically, climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time, and then land vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the launch pad. After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a pre-determined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad." Details about the teams involved with the competition are available at the X-Prize website. The event will be broadcast live via webcast next weekend.

48 comments

  1. I would have competed by stonefoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would have competed but I had an error in the firmware for the lander, meters converted to feet. Now I just have a crater in my back yard. Perhaps NASA doesn't need the help.

    --
    I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    1. Re:I would have competed by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yea, it seems like using a rocket & balloon combo for space launches might be cheaper or more fuel efficient, but there are also drawbacks. it would take a long time to get up to 80km using a balloon. i think hydrogen weather balloons are only used up to 40 km, above which sounding rockets are used. also, would hydrogen be practical for large payloads? you'd need a balloon large enough to lift a rocket + lunar lander. and AFAIK high altitude hydrogen balloons (and rocket + balloon combos) are only used with relatively small payloads.

      perhaps hydrogen balloons might be most efficient for applications that require little to no flight control and do not demand speed or safety. and unless you could recycle the hydrogen somehow, it'd be least wasteful to use hydrogen balloons when you need to keep something up in the air for long periods of time (such as scientific instruments for conducting atmospheric research). but i don't know what it costs to manufacture rocket fuel compared to hydrogen gas. it may very well be that for non-time-critical applications hydrogen is still cheaper than rocket fuel for launching something into space.

    2. Re:I would have competed by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      How would you launch a rocket from a balloon? From the top, sideways? In both cases it will destabilize the balloon (or burn it).

      --
      ics
    3. Re:I would have competed by Meumeu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the energy of a rocket is used to gain speed, not altitude. Even if you can reach 50km, that would only save about 1% of energy for a lunar rocket.

    4. Re:I would have competed by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Informative

      i don't know the exact details, but apparently others have given it some thought and seem to have arrived at various solutions to the problem.

    5. Re:I would have competed by Frools · · Score: 1

      but i don't know what it costs to manufacture rocket fuel compared to hydrogen gas.

      rocket fuel is hydrogen

    6. Re:I would have competed by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Low earth orbit is around 2000km up. Geosynchronous orbit is 35,786km above the Earth's surface. The height of the top of the stratosphere, which is about as high as you can get with a balloon, is 50km. It might be possible to get as high as 100km using a magic balloon. This would get you 5% of the way to LEO, or just under 0.3% of the way to geostationary orbit. The additional complexity of building something as massive as a balloon capable of getting a huge payload of rocket fuel to the edge of the atmosphere does not justify a 0.3% saving (closer to 0.1% in practice) in initial altitude. You can get a similar order of magnitude advantage without the additional complexity by launching from a large mountain.

      If you want a multi-stage design, you'd be better off looking at jet and scramjet technologies than balloons. A jet is much more efficient than a rocket, because the reaction mass and the oxidiser are both taken from outside - it only needs to carry the fuel. Remember, in getting to orbit speed is more important than altitude. Escape velocity is around 11km/s. If you start from a jet at Mach 1, you are at 3% of this speed already. If you start from a jet at Mach 4 and then use a scramjet to get up to Mach 17 (the speed of X30) you are at 50% of escape velocity (70% of orbital velocity) before you leave the atmosphere. This reduces the size of the rocket needed by a huge amount.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:I would have competed by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Informative

      Low earth orbit is around 2000km up.

      No, it's 200 km up.

      If you want a multi-stage design, you'd be better off looking at jet and scramjet technologies than balloons.

      That's been done already: Orbital Sciences offers the Pegasus which can launch up to 450 kg into a 200 km orbit. The Pegasus weighs 23 tons at launch.
      To scale this up, you'd probably need a specialized aircraft: Pegasus is about the limit for launching from underneath the fuselage (larger-diameter rockets just won't fit), so you'd need to launch from a wing pylon, and I think there are no aircraft in service that have wing pylons rated for that much weight.
      If you could modify an Antonov 124 to carry its full payload (150 tons) on a wing pylon, you'd get about 450x6=2700 kg in LEO.

    8. Re:I would have competed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, reformat! You've contracted the English virus. Before you know it, it'll be spitting out phrases like "How do you do old bean?", among other phrases that will drive you mad. HURRY, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE! Oh sh... [USER HAS BEEN BRITISHIZED]

    9. Re:I would have competed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good, just let me grab those parts from my garage.

    10. Re:I would have competed by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Most of the energy of a rocket is used to gain speed, not altitude.

      So what about an anchored ariel platform, suspended by balloons at say 10km, used as one end of a very large slingshot? All done up in high steampunk style of course. What could go wrong?

      --
      We are all just people.
    11. Re:I would have competed by Gregory+Arenius · · Score: 1

      The difference is larger than that because the atmosphere is densest for the first 50km. By launching from above the densest atmosphere you experience much less drag, so you need less fuel. If you need less fuel then you can either have a smaller rocket due to smaller fuel tanks or you can launch a heavier payload. The exact amount of fuel saved depends on the aerodynamics of the rocket in question and on the speed it flies at at low altitudes. Hope this helps.

      Cheers,
      Greg

  2. Autonomous flying robot competition? by TWX · · Score: 1

    For some reason one of the higher profile high school and college robotics competitions (whose name escapes me) would seem to lead toward this goal, at least as far as the frame and payload of a lander/takeoff vehicle is concerned. Of course, in this they'd have to switch from propellers to rockets, and they'd have to massively scale up both in size and in payload, but if the contest only covers the scope of the mechanics of flight and not the part about keeping occupants alive and comfortable then this could be interesting.

    I'd be perversely pleased if some high school club somewhere managed to make a design that passed the tests...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. Lunar Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm impressed that Armadillo Aerospace has claimed that they are making a profit. The big question of course is *how*? Are they selling a lot of t-shirts? Or are they raking in the cash from rocket racing investors?

    I actually think they'll be able to pull it off this year. The big question is whether they can beat Paragon Labs. I'm hoping that there will be more than one successful run this year.

    1. Re:Lunar Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm impressed that Armadillo Aerospace has claimed that they are making a profit. The big question of course is *how*? Are they selling a lot of t-shirts? Or are they raking in the cash from rocket racing investors?

      I actually think they'll be able to pull it off this year. The big question is whether they can beat Paragon Labs. I'm hoping that there will be more than one successful run this year.

      It's easy, they're taking advantage of prior art...

    2. Re:Lunar Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dallas Morning News.
      Carmack noted that the venture is now making a small profit after âoeeight years of being a money pit.â Carmack is spending 20 hours a week on Armadillo, on top of 40 hours at id Software; he said Armadillo is considering hiring a âoefull-time chief executiveâ in the near future."

    3. Re:Lunar Challenge by Teancum · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are three things about Armadillo Aerospace to remember:

      • They have (comparatively) low overhead for their facilities and personnel. While I think they now have a couple of full-time employees, it is just a couple of them... plus a couple of aeronautical engineering interns and others who are all making peanuts. John Carmack's salary doesn't figure into the equation (yet). Being in Texas and Oklahoma doesn't hurt either, especially with the decommissioned air base in Oklahoma that is desperate for customers and practically subsidizing Armadillo's efforts.
      • They have been doing a couple of smallish contracts for NASA and a few other companies that are mainly propulsion studies. Armadillo is widely acknowledged as having the most practical experience with smaller liquid-fueled engines than almost anybody in the industry at the moment, where the cost of the rocket fuel is one of the major budget items for them, which is generally something most rocket launchers typically ignore due to how insignificant it is compared to operations and vehicle costs.
      • Armadillo engines are being used with the Rocket Racing League, where at least six of them have been sold to paying customers. I believe this is the largest source of money at the moment, and something that looks like a steady source of future income.

      John does post on here occasionally, so he might fill in some details, but there is a source of income for the company. They are also not stopping with these few revenue streams either, but have some huge ambitions for the future.

  4. Land? IRL? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not ready to be landing spacecraft on the moon IRL. I can't even do it in the simulator

  5. Re:One thing for sure by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1
    My money is on Team Paragon:

    Team members: Marie Ange Chan, Lee Laperriere, TJ Laurenzo, Michael Mathews, Duncan McDonald, Mike Newton, Mike Pollmiller, Todd Wetzel

  6. Re:second post by Professr3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On a scale of one to ten, I give this troll a nine. Great wordmanship, good subject, but no buildup. If you try for something more like a Bel-Air, you might have more luck. You have to sucker-punch people, and if you leave no mystery until the end, there's no oomph.

  7. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pics please. Otherwise we'll believe that Marie Ange Chan is a chink and not a black.

  8. DC-X ??? by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to what the NASA statement wants from the vehicle, this sounds exactly like what the DC-X already was capable of doing and that technology is already available and tested. Why re-invent the wheel here?

    I mean, am I crazy, or does it seem that NASA just likes doing the exact same thing over and over again, except using a whole new technology each time just to make everything more expensive than it needs to be?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:DC-X ??? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right that these projects are not doing much technically that's not been done previously by government programmes. Their innovation is that they are dramatically cheaper and that someone other than NASA is taking the risk and making the investment.

    2. Re:DC-X ??? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so should we still be using Atlas or Redstone rockets? or maybe we should scrap this contest and just reuse the Apollo Lunar Module design. there's nothing wrong with trying new & potentially better technology. that's the whole purpose of technological research--to drive technology forward.

      besides, the DC-X project was never completed. if McDonnell Douglas wants to complete the DC-X and submit it into the competition, then they're free to do so. of course, the prize for this contest is only $2 million, whereas the estimated cost of completing the DC-X was $50 million...

    3. Re:DC-X ??? by Sibko · · Score: 1

      Why re-invent the wheel here?

      Money.

      NASA pretty much doesn't have the budget anymore. They can't afford to keep the ISS running while operating all the various probes, funding new missions, and trying to develop new technology for more lunar missions.

      2 million dollars is a steal to develop the landing/liftoff component of a new lunar module. I imagine if it were left up to NASA it'd cost ten times as much.

    4. Re:DC-X ??? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Agreed, mod up.

      However such innovations are necessary to commercial development, and their importance should not be underrated. It's one thing to develop a technology, it's another to bring that technology to market. Both require the same level of ingenuity.

      Similarly, you wouldn't criticize Alexander Graham Bell for seeking outside help in turning his "Watson, I need you" gadget into the most valuable patent in the world. NASA is doing it in a way that I expect would be most embraced by the /. crowd. Would you rather some faceless corporation handle it?

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  9. Would a frog attached to a bottle rocket count? by fortapocalypse · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just asking... It seems like it would fit the definition:

    "Rocket-propelled vehicle and payload (the frog is its own vehicle and payload, and can be rocket-propelled via bottle rocket) that takes off vertically (frogs jump), climbs to a defined altitude (frogs can jump consistently to a defined height), flies for a pre-determined amount of time (frog stays in the air a while), and then land vertically on a target (a lilypad) that is a fixed distance from the launch pad (1.5 feet away). After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a pre-determined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad (frogs do this)."

    1. Re:Would a frog attached to a bottle rocket count? by dnwq · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... what sort of mutant frogs have you seen that can jump to the defined altitude of 150 feet?

    2. Re:Would a frog attached to a bottle rocket count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't RTFA either, of course, but I happen to know they do have a definition of the altitude (50m), time (90 and 180 seconds for level 1 and level 2) and distance (100m). So you'need one super-mega-mutant frog to achieve that - good luck.

    3. Re:Would a frog attached to a bottle rocket count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L'homme Super, peut etre?

    4. Re:Would a frog attached to a bottle rocket count? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a frog, but what about a hedgehog?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Only a regional competition? by vsage3 · · Score: 1

    I couldn't help but notice that 7 of the 10 teams were from California with the other 3 teams being from Texas, Idaho and Colorado. I have a hard time believing nobody on the east coast is capable of competing in this competition, so the question is then why is there so much apathy outside California? Perhaps it is exorbitant transportation costs and most of these teams appear to be amateurish, but I just can't help but think the competition isn't as fierce as it could have been.

    1. Re:Only a regional competition? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Aerospace has traditionally been a Midwest and West Coast tradition. With the exception of rare places like Huntsville, Alabama (where the Army ensured it got the space it needed), there just wasn't room on the densely populated East Coast for tests.

    2. Re:Only a regional competition? by mbone · · Score: 1

      Huntsville, Alabama (where the Army ensured it got the space it needed)

      More likely where the Senator from Alabama (back when Southern Senators basically served for life, and thus tended to have lots of seniority) ensured that Alabama got the Federal dollars it wanted.

    3. Re:Only a regional competition? by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Probably because, unlike the products of the Ansari X-Prize competition, these teams have little or no incentive outside the competition prize itself.

      There is no market for lunar landers right now.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  11. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can't believe it, you are completely ignoring the composition of Armadillo Aerospace...

    Team Armadillo is:
    John Carmack, James Bauer, Tommy Bishop, Russell Blink, Phil Eaton, Joseph LaGrave, Neil Milburn, Matthew Ross

    And just look at the progress pictures... the prettiest jet stream I've ever seen.

    This is surprisingly more exciting than sports.

  12. Armadillo Aerospace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has already done something like this, check out their videos.

  13. Why not be specific ? by mbone · · Score: 2, Informative

    climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time

    Why not be specfic, since the details are available ?

    There are two levels of difficulty. FTFA :

    Level 1 requires a vehicle to take off vertically from a designated launch area, climb to an altitude of at least 150 feet, remain aloft for at least 90 seconds while traveling horizontally to a landing pad 300 feet away, then land vertically.

    The much more difficult Level 2 requires a vehicle to take off from a designated launch area, ascend to an altitude of 150 feet, hover for 180 seconds, then land precisely on a simulated, rocky, lunar surface 300 feet away.

    You get to refuel, then you have to come back in the same fashion.