Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Armadillo Aerospace Claims Level 2 Lunar Lander Prize

Posted by kdawson on from the putting-it-down-easy dept.

Dagondanum writes "Armadillo Aerospace has officially won the 2009 Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge Level 2, on a rainy day at Caddo Mills, Texas. Reports came in from various locations during the day and spectators posted videos and images using social networking tools such as Twitter. The Level 2 prize requires the rocket to fly for 180 seconds before landing precisely on a simulated lunar surface constructed with craters and boulders. The minimum flight times are calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulates the power needed to perform a real descent from lunar orbit down to the surface of the Moon. First place is a prize of $1 million while second is $500,000."

14 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Woohooo by arikol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cool.
    The flight looked amazingly stable.

    GO Armadillo Aerospace. I'm just impressed and pleased that they made it.

    1. Re:Woohooo by bcmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      I should have watched the end of the video first: around the three minutes mark you can clearly see the plume moving from side to side while the machine stays almost still relative to the ground.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Woohooo by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      left arrow, left arrow,left arrow,right arrow,up,up,Up,UP,UP!,UP, shit, we made it.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Woohooo by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, the main engine is thrust vectoring. Roll control is handled by small cold-gas thrusters that use the same helium supply that pressurizes the main propellant tanks.

      Note also that "it most certainly looks top-heavy" is actually an example of the pendulum fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the center of mass is far above, a little above, or below the rocket engine, you need active stabilization on a hovering rocket. (On a rocket flying a vertical trajectory, passive stabilization via fins will suffice to hold it basically straight.)

  2. Google x-prize? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps, just perhaps, this will land on the moon within 2 years. That would be a spectacle to see. I think that if I were Apple or Ellison, I might consider funding it. ANother one might be Paul Allen. Allen has always been on the cutting edge of tech (and unlike his previous partner, not stealing it). Hopefully, he considers talking to carmack and getting this going there. Something like would be likely to spark the kids a bit more.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Google x-prize? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then maybe the time limit should be extended. And perhaps it should be geared more towards research teams from academia rather than commercial industries.

      First off, this is a much loftier goal (far more difficult than suborbital space flight), so naturally it will take longer to achieve. That's to be expected.

      Secondly, these type of high-risk, low (immediate) commercial return ventures are inherently unappealing to private commercial industries. Things like space exploration and basic research are long-term investments in the future of humanity. Private industries prefer short-term investments with immediate returns. That's why government agencies like NASA and publicly-funded research organizations like CERN are needed. Otherwise these tasks would never be undertaken.

      Lastly, it would probably speed up the process (of returning to the moon) if NASA hadn't decided to take all that publicly-funded space research/technology and auction it off to the highest bidder, basically turning it into private research (to be guarded as trade secrets) and proprietary technologies that are inaccessible to public researchers. I mean, we went from having no space program to landing on the moon in just under 11 years. Returning to the moon 4 decades later in 5 to 7 years really isn't that unreasonable—given that we're able to build on previously acquired knowledge and experience and actually have the motivation as a society to return to the moon.

  3. good... so far by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They seemed to be attempting to land on the X, but gave up in the end. Having to put the thing out with a fire extinguisher is a bit worrying too. Otherwise, looks good.

    However, the article really shouldn't say "claims prize" when they just didn't fail. The comp isn't even over yet!

    1. Re:good... so far by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      It may be standard practise to put it out with an extinguisher. I was reading about a recent test of a much larger rocket (I forget the details), and it was suggested that it was doused with CO2 at the end not because it wouldn't burn out on its own, but to preserve the engine in whatever state it was at the end of the burn to allow more information to be extracted from it.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:good... so far by gclef · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wow...so many things wrong in so few sentences.

      1) They landed on the X (well, with the X within the space defined by the legs of the craft). In fact, the craft didn't move much horizontally in the last 30 seconds or so...it pretty much hovered over the X for long enough to meet the 180 sec limit.

      2) The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself. If I were them, I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.

      3) The contest is run in stages, and there are prizes for being the first (and second) team to finish each stage, so they did in fact claim a prize for being the first to finish stage 2 of the contest. Yes, there is still a stage 3, and there is a separate prize for being the first to finish stage 3.

    3. Re:good... so far by Narishma · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not correct. First, they already won Level 1 last year, so there's only 2nd place of Level 1 available for grabs. This year the rules were changed a bit so that each team can try for the challenge at their home bases, and only Armadillo has so far. There are 2 other competitors that have yet to fly. If they succeed at the Level 2 then they will determine who gets first place by looking at who landed the closest to the center of the pad. So even though Armadillo succeeded, the other teams can still do better in theory and claim first place.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
  4. Not impressed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not impressed by NoYob · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!

      I had a great set for my faked Moon landing. It looked perfect as the rocket came down on its parachute! For some reason folks said it didn't look like a real Moon landing - go figure!

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  5. Actually it was by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Funny

    set cg_bobroll "0"

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  6. Girlfriend's reaction by YourExperiment · · Score: 4, Funny

    My girlfriend* just walked in the room and saw me watching the video of the successful flight. All she said was "No, you can't have one."

    To be fair, she was joking... I think.

    * Don't even think about it.