X Prize $30 Million Robot Race To the Moon Is On

Seriously? by blair1q · 2011-02-17 12:04 · Score: 1

I could do that with parts on the shelf.

But I don't know if $30 million will cover fuel and insurance.

Re:Seriously? by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:28 · Score: 1

Awwe, how cute. A moon landing conspiracy theorist. Shouldn't you be out hunting bigfoot or something? Maybe you would have a better time catching him if you weren't wearing that tinfoil hat. He probably sees the shine!

Push it further. by DigiShaman · 2011-02-17 12:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ya ya, I know. But it sure would lead a thunderous applause if man landed on the moon (again) to hand deliver the robot onto the lunar surface. I mean, that would just be epic!

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Push it further. by guybrush3pwood · 2011-02-17 12:18 · Score: 2

Hehe... yeah, that'd be cool. It'd be even cooler if the robot stayed there for 20 years. It'd be uber cool if the guy stayed 20 years.

--
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
Re:Push it further. by Teancum · 2011-02-17 12:43 · Score: 1

It would be simply awesome if you could have a vehicle be able to remain on the Moon and operational for more than a year. A Soviet crawler/lander stayed up there for about five months, which is the current "record" in terms of survival on the Moon at the moment for even a robotic vehicle. Yes, the environment on the Moon is that harsh.
20 years would be a huge accomplishment, which would be able to at least demonstrate that sustained operations on the Moon would be possible. I don't really care what or who goes back, noting that anything going back to the Moon is a huge step forward at the moment.
Re:Push it further. by guybrush3pwood · 2011-02-17 12:59 · Score: 2

We need a Big Brother Moon Edition. Those fuckers are dead weight here on Earth anyway...

--
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
Re:Push it further. by KeensMustard · 2011-02-18 01:51 · Score: 1

More like a storm of shoulders shrugging - historical re-enactments aren't really that interesting for most people.
Re:Push it further. by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:30 · Score: 1

More awesome yet, I want to see someone drop a new battery in one of the old lunar buggies left by Apollo. It'd be sweet if it actually still works!
Re:Push it further. by jgtg32a · 2011-02-18 02:34 · Score: 1

That's exactly what I was thinking, do a maned mission to the moon. Land on the moon and before you climb down the ladder take your probe and literally drop kick it out of the lander onto the surface of the moon.
Re:Push it further. by mdielmann · 2011-02-18 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except it's not a re-enactment, it's a re-attainment. I'm hard pressed to think of another milestone like this that we've achieved, and then lost the capability to repeat. That's amazing and disappointing to me.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Push it further. by KeensMustard · 2011-02-18 11:58 · Score: 1

We didn't lose the capability to repeat past exercises, it's more that we don't - we moved on, we can't be bothered. So, 'manned' spaceflight (even the term itself is a misogynistic anachronism) is exactly like other outdated technologies and techniques - steam engines, horse drawn carriages, the Supermarine Spitfire. We no longer have the capacity to produce thousands of Spitfires a year for the defence of Great Britain. Nevertheless, this is not a sign that our society has regressed - we could do it if there was a reason to, but the reason doesn't exist. What interest there is in this technology is as a recognition of it's historical significance.
And just as the jet engine has replaced the V12 Rolls Royce Merlin as the powerplant of choice for defensive aircraft, so to, robotic craft have replaced human carrying craft as the exploratory vehicle of choice for outer space. The reasons are obvious, they consume power only when they are needed, and are therefore lighter, more agile, and can travel far further, deliverying a hundred times the value. We might as well fantasise about steam propelled rockets, or rockets controlled by the tapping of keys on mechanical typewriters, as fantasise about craft that must carry human to function correctly.
Re:Push it further. by mdielmann · 2011-02-22 03:01 · Score: 1

The key difference is, for every thing you describe, we can do it better. For space, we can only do less. Smaller payloads, shorter missions, lower orbits. The only saving grace has been that technology has improved at an exponential rate, so we can do more with less. And that's not going to help much when (statistically, there is no if) there's a big rock pointed in our direction.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Re:Only $30 million? by guybrush3pwood · 2011-02-17 12:05 · Score: 1

There surely is a "priceless" joke somewhere; I'm just too lazy to find it.

--
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.

Is that enough money? by chemicaldave · 2011-02-17 12:05 · Score: 1

Seriously. Getting into orbit is one thing. Going to the moon is another. Is that even possible on a budget of $20 mil?

Re:Is that enough money? by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2011-02-17 12:34 · Score: 1

In terms of energy cost, getting to Earth orbit is the hard part. Transition to Lunar orbit is relatively cheap. The next hard part is getting down to the surface without making a new crater.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:Is that enough money? by Teancum · 2011-02-17 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real news of the day isn't the contest itself, which has been discussed elsewhere including on Slashdot previously. The big deal is that a contract for a flight to the Moon has been inked and a launch slot set aside to put the vehicle up there.
I don't know how much this particular group is going to be making in terms of a profit, but they got their rocket and have some serious money behind them in terms of helping to finance this trip. This particular team is also the one to beat, or at least a top contender as well. I'm sure that over the next few months that several other teams are going to be announcing flight schedules too.
The low-cost launcher to watch for that might turn a "profit" is ARCA who has already launched a vehicle and has a rather unique approach for orbital spaceflight. Stuff is happening and money is being spent, so this is a good question to ask.
Re:Is that enough money? by tibit · 2011-02-17 16:21 · Score: 2

xkcd would disagree. It seems that getting to the LEO (Shuttle/ISS altitude) seems to get you about 1/6th of the way there, in terms of energy expenditure. Going back is much easier, of course -- about 20x so.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Is that enough money? by WegianWarrior · 2011-02-17 20:07 · Score: 1

To be honest, "Earth orbit" can just as easily mean geostationary orbit as it can mean Low Earth Orbit... and once you are in a geostationary orbit you don't need much of an extra kick to get to the moon

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Re:Is that enough money? by Sulphur · 2011-02-17 20:37 · Score: 1

Seriously. Getting into orbit is one thing. Going to the moon is another. Is that even possible on a budget of $20 mil?
Getting into orbit $10 mil.
Getting to the moon $20 mil.
Getting back Priceless.
Re:Is that enough money? by TuringCheck · 2011-02-17 20:39 · Score: 1

Living in Romania and knowing ARCA I can tell spending money is the norm here. As well as getting academic interesting results that will never be applied. It's not a gravity well, it's a money black hole.
Re:Is that enough money? by Teancum · 2011-02-17 22:26 · Score: 1

Most spaceflight activities usually are a fiscal black hole. It is a dirty little secret that the rest of the world already knows full well.
My comment about ARCA is that at least they are trying to figure out things from a fresh perspective, and that at least they have flying hardware and a steady rate of progress on their vehicles. They are also one of the official Google Lunar X-Prize teams, hence the relevance to the main topic of conversation here. As to if this is a responsible way for tax dollars or other money raised in Romania to be spent, I'll have to leave that to the Romanian people. They are one of the leading groups that I believe has a legitimate chance of winning the big prize, so certainly it is a group to watch.
As an American, I'm glad that tax dollars are regularly spent on spaceflight even if the entire budget of ARCA since its inception is routinely misappropriated and embezzled on a daily basis with the American spaceflight program. Then again, America has much more money than Romania, so that isn't a fair comparison either.
Re:Is that enough money? by necro81 · 2011-02-18 01:31 · Score: 1

The prize itself has never been billed as a way to make money. This is nothing new. The prize is there to spur innovation, and is very effective at that: probably 10x-100x the purse amount is spent by the competitors. None of the X-Prizes have paid out anywhere close to the costs the winner has put into it, and obviously nothing to the losers. The same was true with the DARPA Grand Challenge. The same was true with Orteig Prize won by Charles Lindbergh. There are plenty of reasons one would want to participate anyway, even if you lose money in the process.
Re:Is that enough money? by tibit · 2011-02-18 01:38 · Score: 1

True.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Is that enough money? by tibit · 2011-02-18 01:40 · Score: 1

He does a good job of explaining scales of things. Would make Feynman's dad proud.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Is that enough money? by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:31 · Score: 1

Great! Let's give an extra kick to all the satellites carrying reality tv then!!!
Re:Is that enough money? by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-02-18 05:41 · Score: 1

If you got that from that particular XKCD, you didn't understand it.
DeltaV to reach LEO is on the order of 10000 m/s.
From LEO, it takes about 6000 m/s more deltaV to land on the moon.
In terms of mass ratios, using an Isp 450 fuel-oxidizer combo (LH2-LO2), it requires about 9.25 tons of fuel to put a ton into LEO from the ground
It requires about 3.8 tons of fuel to put a ton on the moon from LEO.
Or 35 tons of fuel to put a ton on the moon from Earth.
Note, of course, that the ton you are putting somewhere in the above examples includes the rocket engines, fuel tanks, that sort of thing.
Note, by the way, that if you can get your lunar injection stage and lander down to 1000 Kg, then a Falcon 1 can put it into LEO for less than $11 million.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:Only $30 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 12:07 · Score: 1

It's for the prestige, the glory and winning the pissing contest.

Hey guys! We won the X Prize! In your face!

Geeze!

Re:Only $30 million? by anzha · 2011-02-17 12:12 · Score: 1

And for the tech we get to develop and have developed. O:) The IP that is being generated out of the Prize is worth more than the Prize itself.

--
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?

Prize is not intended to fund the effort by tm2b · 2011-02-17 12:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cue comments about $20 Mil not paying the bill.

The prize is not intended to entirely pay for the effort, it is intended to lower the cost and provide a base level of return as well as publicize the effort. The X-Prize to "space" did not pay nearly enough to pay Rutan's costs, and people don't work at getting a Nobel for the cash prize.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny

Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-02-17 12:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Nobel prizes are not given for accomplishments. They are a call to action, and a reward for effort and initiative. [citation needed], you say?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by BZ · 2011-02-17 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Look, everyone understands the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Many people/organizations who get it really deserve it. But laureates have also included Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, the UN, UNHCR, and a few other questionables (your list of questionables may obviously differ from mine). Obama's case is more glaring than most of those because for the most part the laureates had done things (even if what they did was to kill lots of people and then stop)....
But you're tarring with a broad brush if you think that all the Nobel prizes work the way Peace does. The difference is in who's doing the awarding. The Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Literature Nobels are awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences (which hands out physics and chemistry), the Karolinska Institute (a medical university), and the Swedish Academy (which consists of people who actually deal with language for a living).
In all four of those cases, the prize-awarding body selects a small committee to propose laureates, then take a vote in a much bigger group (the full membership for the two academies and a 50-person group appointed for the purpose at the Karolinska Institute.
For peace, on the other hand, the selection is done entirely by the 5 members of the committee, who are not in the business of "peace" themselves but are effectively political appointees (appointed by the Norwegian Parliament).
So the peace prize process is really sort of set up to fail to start with, compared to the other four.... It's a pleasant surprise that it doesn't fail more often than it actually does.
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by aliquis · 2011-02-17 16:10 · Score: 1

Norwegian Nobel price....
What to expect?! ;D
No but seriously. The Norwegians only handle the peace price. Everything else is handled over here in Sweden. Maybe their ideas differ? =P
It's only this way because they where supposed to be more alliance free or whatever back when we owned them. Now it's the other way around, or well, at least they own our workers and their asses :D
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by krynsky · 2011-02-17 16:52 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing this out Tm2b. Also, the big payoff for many teams that are recognized as competitors is the exposure they get which often leads them be to sell their services or technologies to companies or governments. Several of the teams competing in the Google Lunar X PRIZE have gotten contracts with NASA . Also if you didn't know, Burt Rutan who won the first Ansari X PRIZE sold his technology and services to Richard Branson which has now become Virgin Galactic. (disclosure I work for X PRIZE)
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by tm2b · 2011-02-17 17:39 · Score: 2

As most people were able to understand, I was speaking of the scientific Nobel prizes and not the political ones. Einstein did not win the Nobel prize as a call to action in his work on the photoelectric effect, but for his achievement.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-02-17 17:41 · Score: 1

Look, everyone understands the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke
Really? Are you sure about that? There are a hell of a lot of people out there who worship the NPP and consider it a crowning achievement of civilization. Many of them are journalists and NGO members.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by BZ · 2011-02-17 17:49 · Score: 1

Well, ok. Everyone I'd want to actually have a conversation with understands it's a joke. And some of them are even NGO members... ;)
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by h4rm0ny · 2011-02-17 23:01 · Score: 2

They gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger. If that's not evidence of a sense of humour, nothing is.

And the awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama was widely criticized as devaluing it. He was awarded it for saying that he was going to engage in more conciliatory international relations. Awarding politicians for what they promise to do is a bad, bad idea, imo.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by tehcyder · 2011-02-18 01:56 · Score: 1

Al Gore did it for the money. He certainly didn't do it for anyone but himself.
Yes, because we now know absolutely that there's no such thing as AGW so he was just trying to profit from people's fear. These are FACTS and anyone who disagrees is a communist, a liar, a terrorist, a fantasist, a moron and a cad.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Prize is not intended to fund the effort by sheehaje · 2011-02-18 07:08 · Score: 1

Al Gore did it to stop manbearpig.

Unfortunately, by publiclurker · 2011-02-17 12:13 · Score: 2

not only are many of the parts no longer on the shelf, but nobody even remembers how to make some of them anymore.

Re:Unfortunately, by blair1q · 2011-02-17 12:20 · Score: 1

Um...rocket...computer...RC car*...iphone...
* - with RC slightly modified to buffer more commands and data.
If you don't have to keep a human alive and you aren't trying to pare excess baggage down to the last kilogram it gets pretty simple.
Re:Unfortunately, by RichardJenkins · 2011-02-17 12:24 · Score: 1

Get to it then!
Re:Unfortunately, by mrsquid0 · 2011-02-17 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, it is not that hard to put something on the Moon. We have the parts, and we know how to make them. We can soft-land rovers on Mars, and the Moon is a lot easier to get to and easier to land something on than Mars is. The problem is not the technology, that is essentially a solved problem. The problem is doing it cheaply.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:Unfortunately, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 13:26 · Score: 1

Not to split hairs but that's still a technological problem, just not one of capacity.
Re:Unfortunately, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 13:45 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't think an iPhone is going to work very well on the Moon. It barely works in New York City.
Re:Unfortunately, by joe_frisch · 2011-02-17 13:52 · Score: 1

Hard is a relative term, there are lots of things that have been done but are still difficult. The first satellite launch was 50 years ago but private companies still have difficulty doing this without using old expensive technology.
The difficulty of testing sub-systems in a realistic environment means that the designs need to be very conservative (expensive).
I think it is an interesting challenge and it might just be possible, but I don't think it will be easy. My bet is that no one will make it, but I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
Re:Unfortunately, by pookemon · 2011-02-17 14:14 · Score: 1

It'll be OK - no one will be holding it on the moon so it'll get great reception. And given they're so tough the extremes of space will not be a problem.

--
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Re:Unfortunately, by taiwanjohn · 2011-02-17 17:03 · Score: 1

Actually, landing on Mars is much more difficult. Yes, the atmosphere is barely thick enough to allow air-braking, but it's way too thin for a conventional parachute landing. That's why most Mars landers use rockets in the final descent. Also, the atmosphere is too thin for airplane-style flight, but just thick enough play havoc with navigation. There was something about this on /. some years ago, but I'm too lazy to dredge it up. However, google offers up this piece in the same vein: engineeringchallenges.org/cms/7126/7622.aspx

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Re:Unfortunately, by MacGyver2210 · 2011-02-17 17:55 · Score: 2

It is in no way easier to land on the moon than on Mars. There is an atmosphere on Mars, albeit not a life-supporting one, which allows for the use of parachutes and non-vacuum equipment.
The moon does not have the same benefit, and therefore all forces generated throughout all of landing and maneuvering must be created with thrusters of some sort. It also exposes the equipment sent there to some serious temperatures, constant vacuum, and some really really nasty dust. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the difference in gravity would make it harder as well.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Unfortunately, by GooberToo · 2011-02-17 18:25 · Score: 1

Also, the atmosphere is too thin for airplane-style flight
Not true. The problem is one of bulk of mass, not of flight. Several aircraft have already been specifically designed to fly in the this martian air which are capable also addressing the bulk/mass transportation issues.
In the next decade or two, its very likely you'll see pictures taken from a plane (UAV) flying on Mars. The real question is, if and when the vehicle will be able to hitch a ride.
Re:Unfortunately, by ArmchairGeneral · 2011-02-18 00:41 · Score: 1

An Android device was tested at the upper limits of a balloon ascent and descent. http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/12/android-in-spaaaace.html
Not that the iPhone wouldn't perform similarly, but I would think the open-source nature would be a better fit for this project. I'd hate to have a launch being delayed because I was waiting for the app to be approved.
Re:Unfortunately, by tehcyder · 2011-02-18 01:46 · Score: 1

We could even send an iPhone to Uranus.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Unfortunately, by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:18 · Score: 1

Do you think you can get your rover control app approved at the app store? Better go Android to be safe.
Re:Unfortunately, by j00r0m4nc3r · 2011-02-18 02:18 · Score: 1

The problem is not the technology, that is essentially a solved problem.
That's kinda like saying communications were a solved problem when all we had were tin cans and string. Yes, we have the technology to put something on the moon if we really want, but I wouldn't exactly call it a solved problem since it's still a really really difficult thing. I would say it's not solved until we can do it without even trying.
Re:Unfortunately, by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:22 · Score: 1

Airplane flight on Mars has been simulated many times and is often suggested when it is time to dream up the next rover project. So far what we know indicates that it is more difficult than on Earth but still quite possible. I won't go out and say it IS possible until it has been done but current expectations are that it is.
Re:Unfortunately, by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:23 · Score: 1

Speaking of gravity, don't forget that the moon has lumpy gravity which makes even orbiting it more difficult.
Re:Unfortunately, by morgauxo · 2011-02-18 02:27 · Score: 1

Wow, I didn't know that all the people who live in the country and still have buggies (for recreation) or even as their main vehicles (such as the Amish) and all those buggy drivers you find in touristy areas selling rides are using antique whips! What will they do when they run out? At what point will the renaming whip supply be so low that they are too valuable to use anymore and must go into a museum? Maybe I should get one while I can so I can reverse engineer it before that day comes. I'll be rich!!!
Re:Unfortunately, by sjames · 2011-02-19 07:46 · Score: 1

All you'll need then is to harden it all against radiation, extreme cold, vacuum, and very fine and incredibly abrasive static charged moon dust. That and how to keep the colored dots in the iPhone from triggering...

Dear Moon and Low Earth Orbit, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 12:19 · Score: 1

Get ready for lots of new junk!!

Re:Only $30 million? by whereiswaldo · 2011-02-17 12:23 · Score: 2, Funny

This is no time to joke. And stop calling me Shirley.

Once again science get crap funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 12:24 · Score: 1

while big corporations piss-off 100million$ for a 30 seconds super bowl commercial. Yeah, those are your first priorities America.

Re:Once again science get crap funding by allusionist · 2011-02-17 13:40 · Score: 1

considering what they're getting from 30 seconds of exposure on the most watched event on television, that $100million is a fantastic investment for the company.
just like the multi-million dollar salaries for the athletes playing in said event are fantastic investments for the amount of ticket sales, merch, food at events, etc they bring in.
the worth of a purchase is based on what it brings to the person writing the check, not to what someone else (or even humanity) could get if the checkbook was in their hands instead.
Re:Once again science get crap funding by AsmCoder8088 · 2011-02-17 14:05 · Score: 2

Not to mention, it's not $100 million, it's actually $3 million...
Seems like anytime you get into the millions, people seem to stop caring about how accurate their numbers are in an argument
Re:Once again science get crap funding by ElderKorean · 2011-02-17 19:01 · Score: 1

considering what they're getting from 30 seconds of exposure on the most watched event on television, that $100million is a fantastic investment for the company.
I'm in Australia and didn't watch the Super Bowl as it means nothing to most people outside the USA (not even sure it was shown here), though I would watch a moon landing.
Re:Once again science get crap funding by Vectormatic · 2011-02-17 20:57 · Score: 2

now there is an idea
X-prize lunar landing control center transcript
*beginning lunar decent*
*30k feet to go, firing retro rockets*
*20k feet to go, retro rockets to full thrust*
*10k feet to go decent velocity at 100 feet/second*
*1000 feet to go, beginning final decent, scouting for landing spot*
*500 feet to go, and we'll be right back after a message from our sponsors*
COCA COLA, IT EVEN TASTES GOOD ON THE MOON!!!

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Once again science get crap funding by yeshuawatso · 2011-02-17 21:17 · Score: 1

Fine, the World Cup broadcasters get millions of dollars for a commercial and science still gets crap.
Satisfied?
Re:Once again science get crap funding by Teancum · 2011-02-17 22:35 · Score: 2

Between the pre-game shows, the post-game show, and the sum total of nearly all of commercials combined, I'm sure that Fox Television pulled in at least a revenue of over $100 million for what was just a one day event. Comparisons between that the costs for spaceflight are interesting to say the least.
Most people are more interested in watching football than watching some guy play golf on the Moon, so it should be obvious where the money is going. It turns out that spaceflight is more expensive than even putting on a spectacle like the Super Bowl too.
Re:Once again science get crap funding by mdarksbane · 2011-02-18 01:36 · Score: 1

Honestly, why the hell not? Would the original moon landing have been any less epic with a coca-cola symbol on the side of the lander?
Nearly all of the early explorers to the "new world" were trying to turn a profit. Profit makes the world go round. For the people who disagree, how many of you are doing your job for free today?
Re:Once again science get crap funding by Vectormatic · 2011-02-18 01:44 · Score: 2

there is a difference for me between having a coke symbol on the side of the rocket, and interrupting the show right at the moment supreme for commercials
the former i wouldnt mind, hell, i enjoy all sorts of motorsports, and actually think all the sponsor logo's add a lot of visual flair to the cars, but commercial breaks, i hate them with a passion

--
People, what a bunch of bastards

The Mythbusters should try to win this! by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-02-17 12:25 · Score: 3, Funny

The Mythbusters should try to win this!

Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by Verloc · 2011-02-17 12:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Masters of cinematic effects != rocket scientists.
Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by 0100010001010011 · 2011-02-17 12:46 · Score: 4, Funny

But bad rocket science = masterful cinematic effects.
Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by macshit · 2011-02-17 12:59 · Score: 3, Funny

"Well Bob, it looks like our calculations were completely wrong, and our lander's going to impact at incredible speed, resulting in a giant explosion!
We are rocket scientists: MYTH BUSTED!
...
Good thing we've got that camera crew in lunar orbit ready to capture it in ultra slow motion..."

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by mdielmann · 2011-02-17 17:04 · Score: 1

If Mythbusters took this on, they'd say it's impossible to get to the moon. But rockets look cool when they blow up.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by Anubis+IV · 2011-02-17 19:10 · Score: 1

Who's Bob? It's Jamie and Adam on the show...
Re:The Mythbusters should try to win this! by kaizokuace · 2011-02-18 00:35 · Score: 1

Bob is Jamie's stunt double!

--
Balderdash!

Re:Only $30 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 12:32 · Score: 1

The IP that is being generated out of the Prize is worth more than the Prize itself.

Shouldn't that be LP - Lunar Property?

Several robots on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 12:36 · Score: 1

Quite interesting to think that by 2015 there might be several robots on the moon. Many of these competing teams have contracts with various organizations (some even NASA). Just because someone else gets there first doesn't mean the others will just give up after all the time, effort and expense invested.

Space Robot Fight? by Stregano · 2011-02-17 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I would personally put some kind of weapon on my robot in the case the other robots got there first. Send a signal back to earth of my robot kicking your robot's ass. That would be badass

--
The world is how you make it

Re:Space Robot Fight? by Vectormatic · 2011-02-17 21:07 · Score: 1

just as long as Craig Charles can do the commentary on the BBC broadcast, i would so watch that!

--
People, what a bunch of bastards

Lunar Lander by mrbcs · 2011-02-17 12:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please, please, please, would the winner send back a hi def photo of some of the Nasa junk left there. This would end all tinfoil hat theories on whether Nasa actually went there.

--
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.

Re:Lunar Lander by theycallmeB · 2011-02-17 13:32 · Score: 1

The only way you would end any significant percentage of the nutters 'theories' that we never landed on the Moon would be to go up there and deface the lunar surface to look like a giant Pepsi logo.

Even that wouldn't convince everybody, and especially not the Coke faithful, because the Moon is just a liberal myth to begin with.
Re:Lunar Lander by Thing+1 · 2011-02-17 13:43 · Score: 1

Cue the tinfoil on future explorations...

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Lunar Lander by nzap · 2011-02-17 14:21 · Score: 2

What's to stop people from claiming the robot landing was faked?
Re:Lunar Lander by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-02-17 14:31 · Score: 1

$20 million to send a robot with a camera to a recording studio in Pasadena?
I'm game.
Re:Lunar Lander by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-17 16:06 · Score: 1

This would end all tinfoil hat theories on whether Nasa actually went there.
No it wouldn't. Most of the pro-hoax arguments can be refuted without any special knowledge. Hell, some just require you to turn on a couple of lights. Nothing will defeat the conspiracy theorists except ridicule and time.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:Lunar Lander by bluemonq · 2011-02-17 18:57 · Score: 1

They'd just claim that the team who made it to the Moon was in cahoots with the government.
Re:Lunar Lander by Anubis+IV · 2011-02-17 19:14 · Score: 1

I've personally been in the vault at Johnson Space Center that holds the rocks that were brought back by the Apollo missions. There were also some in there that the Russians brought back (unmanned missions, obviously) which were given to NASA. If seeing things like those, which are also on display to the public at the space centers and are available for scientists to request for research isn't enough, there's also the fact that you can pick up the light reflections from the stuff left on the moon with a decent telescope or the right equipment.
Nuts will be nuts. There's no changing them.
Re:Lunar Lander by Kokuyo · 2011-02-17 20:11 · Score: 1

Frankly, even if you did that, it wouldn't prove that someone was up there. I think that doubt will only go away once everybody has a realistic chance of going there themselves.
And frankly, I find your painting all skeptics with the broad nutter-brush to be very, VERY unscientific. There is doubt. And as long as there is doubt the true scientific approach would be to objectively look at the doubt, create a test to verify AND falsify the theory behind the doubt and go check.
I am willing to bet that 99% of the people calling the doubters nutters haven't done that. So, frankly, go fuck yourselves. You don't know any more about science than a conspiracy 'nut'. You're exactly at the opposite of that spectrum: You believe for the heck of it.
Re:Lunar Lander by Maritz · 2011-02-17 20:21 · Score: 1

But... but.... the shadows!!!! There wouldn't be shadows in space!!!!!

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Lunar Lander by WegianWarrior · 2011-02-17 20:22 · Score: 1

Which would be awesome, but it wouldn't convince any of the moonbats - all it would prove to them is that NASA paid the winning team to join the cover up... Heck, most of them would refuse to believe it if you brought them to the moon and let them see the remains in person.

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Re:Lunar Lander by Maritz · 2011-02-17 20:23 · Score: 1

That's the beauty of conspiracy. Any contradicting evidence is part of the conspiracy. No amount of evidence will take away their smug assurance that they've been behind the curtain, and you're the fool with the wool firmly over his eyes.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Lunar Lander by GooberToo · 2011-02-17 21:12 · Score: 1

This would end all tinfoil hat theories on whether Nasa actually went there.
Absolutely it would not.
Study after study after study all document the same result. These people have a pathological need to believe in grand conspiracies. Its literally part of their self identity. You can bury people in a mountain and facts, all of which invalidate their conspiracy, and in turn destroy any and all credibility of their conspiracy theory, and they will always insist everything has been faked. In turn, your evidence only further empowers their delusion of conspiracy; to wit you are presumed to be a player or a patsy.
You can't reason with stupid. Its true for moon landing conspiracy people then and as true today for 9/11 conspiracy people ("Truthers") today.
Basically, any time you find someone who believes either the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy, you literally have identified someone who has lost a couple of ball bearings. Because of that, facts and knowledge are not a replacement for lost ball bearings.
Re:Lunar Lander by GooberToo · 2011-02-17 21:24 · Score: 1

And frankly, I find your painting all skeptics with the broad nutter-brush to be very, VERY unscientific.
Admittedly, I'm guilty of painting with a wide brush. But then again, I also presume people understand what we're really talking about here. There is a difference between ignorant people who just don't know the facts and have doubt. In contrast there are pathological nutters (extremely well documented and frequently associated with paranoia as well as other disorders) who insist it never happened despite being aware of the endless evidence which proves it did, all while completely invalidating their own "proof." Its the later to which everyone is really referring.
Its really pretty simple. If anyone has doubts about landing on the moon, or 9/11 for that matter, either you don't know the available facts or your roller skate has one wheel. The former can be easily remedied while the later means you're screwed.
Re:Lunar Lander by Vectormatic · 2011-02-17 21:25 · Score: 1

Even if you forget all the back and forth discussion about flopping flags, prop-marked rocks and such, there is one very good reason to believe the moon landings actually happened:
If there ever was one party that would have anything to gain by discrediting the US moon landings, it would be the soviets (just think of the propaganda), if there ever was a party that would have the means to discredit the moon landings, it would be the soviets (hell, drive up there with a robotic lander and show the crashed space-debris they shot at the moon to fool the radars), it would allow them to also claim that space victory for them selves, on a slightly more leasure timetable (the US wouldnt bother with keeping up right untill the soviets prove them to be frauds)
Did they? NO

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Lunar Lander by AmiMoJo · 2011-02-17 21:28 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it wouldn't. Some people believe that the first moon landing in 1969 was faked but that some of the later ones were not. NASA needed to fulfil the "before this decade is out" bit and ran out of time. That is supposedly why you can see the Apollo 16 landing site with a telescope but can't see Apollo 11.
Even if you did manage to find Apollo 11 I'm sure they would just claim that NASA put an empty lander up there at some later date, although explaining the flag might be harder.
The Apollo landing sites are also not that interesting from a scientific point of view. All the interesting geology and potential commercially exploitable stuff is a long way from there. That is the main reason they build the Lunar Rover, to get to the interesting stuff. A manned lander needs a large flat area to land, a robot can cope with a field of rocks and craters.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Lunar Lander by GooberToo · 2011-02-17 21:41 · Score: 1

I forgot to add this to my other comment. Sorry for split posts.
As a side note, if you really want a good semi-moon landing related conspiracy, its semi-recently been released that the US space program was mothballed to allow the Russians first space access so as to allow for international precedence of the legality of space overflights. It was feared that if the US was the first to do it, the Russians would create a huge stink over it. Keep in mind, at the time, the US President was requesting unilateral overflights of nuclear facilities to mitigate a nuclear arms race. The Russians told the US to get bent. As a result, the US was looking and strategically planning on several alternate fronts. This one of such alternative. Of course there were political reasons too, which include the US' program really being a German program.
And so, Van Braun's rocket project was literally halted and placed into storage more than a year before the Russians launched Sputnik. After all the brouhaha was all done and over with, Van Braun's rocket was removed from storage, placed on a pad, and successfully launched into orbit. This was, of course, after the Air Force's rocket program kept blowing left and right.
Basically, the only thing the conspiracy failed to account for was the public's reaction to the Russians being first to space.
So if you want a nice conspiracy story, the US could have beat the Russians into space by roughly a year if it were not for the need for international cat-n-mouse politics with the Russians.
There are now several books out on the topic. PBS's Nova did a nice documentary too.
Re:Lunar Lander by Teancum · 2011-02-17 22:59 · Score: 1

Add to that where the Soviet Union did end up sending a robotic rover on the Moon, and that was supposedly after the Apollo landings. They even sent up a spacecraft which did a fetch and retrieve mission to collect some Moon rocks.
The findings of the Soviet effort to study lunar rocks? The samples collected by the American astronauts really were rocks from the same planetary body with roughly identical chemical composition and age. Yeah, if there was a way for the Soviet Union to scream that the whole thing was a fraud, they would have had the means and the motive to get that accomplished.
If anything, the manned spaceflight effort sort of validated the concept of manned space exploration, as the Apollo selenology survey provided a much more diverse and varied collection of samples than the Soviet effort. It was so varied that the rocks are even today still being actively studied to gain an understanding of the minerals that are found on the Moon.
Re:Lunar Lander by Teancum · 2011-02-17 23:08 · Score: 1

I think you could fly some of these Moon landing hoax idiots to the Moon, have them see the flag that Buzz Aldrin put up on the Moon, look at the very footsteps of Neil Armstrong and "touch" those footprints, and they'd still call the whole thing a hoax with the site set up as a part of the ruse to perpetuate the conspiracy.
I agree with you that there is no possible way to convince these people that the Apollo landings were genuine as bashing them in the head with a Moon rock is certainly not convincing enough. Obviously Nazi Germany got there first and is directing the Bavarian Illuminati to take over the world... if you want to believe a couple of other similar conspiracies.
Re:Lunar Lander by thijsh · 2011-02-17 23:10 · Score: 1

You can't discount all conspiracy theories like that. It is a documented historical fact that some wild stories were true (but most aren't, I agree)... The only thing conclusive for scientific people can be facts and knowledge like you point out. In the case of the moon landings the facts and knowledge are overwhelming, you have to be a nut to still claim it's all fake (but unrelated to this I would love to see pictures of a lander and flag just for fun). In the case of 9/11 on the other hand the facts and knowledge are hardly conclusive... I'm not trying to start a whole new discussion about that subject but there are enough open ends and suspicious facts to still warrant a proper investigation at what exactly went down on 9/11... The official investigation was inconclusive on some interesting details. I don't believe in wild conspiracies, but I would like to know more facts and knowledge about this important historic event that shaped the world political landscape in the past decade.
Re:Lunar Lander by CaptainAmerica1941 · 2011-02-18 02:49 · Score: 1

Maybe you should ask Buzz Aldrin about it. Be sure to duck after you do - he throws a mean punch!
Re:Lunar Lander by mrbcs · 2011-02-18 03:02 · Score: 1

hehehe, Ya, but did you bring popcorn to this thread? If nothing else, it's entertaining.

--
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Re:Lunar Lander by Artifex33 · 2011-02-18 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm sure that even a quantum-cryptographically received photo would not be enough for the foil-hats. They'll just bend their world-view to fit like a Catholic explaining bible unicorns.
Re:Lunar Lander by GooberToo · 2011-02-18 05:44 · Score: 1

You can't discount all conspiracy theories like that.
I didn't think I did. I was specifically referring to moon landing hoax and 9/11. For example, the officially acknowledged facts for the JFK assassination don't match the official story in the least. I'm not saying it must be a grand conspiracy but just the same, there is legitimate reason for pause there. Some conspiracies are real. But that need not mean that even the JFK assassination involves the mob and government insiders.

In the case of 9/11 on the other hand the facts and knowledge are hardly conclusive...

Actually they are. Only tiny, tiny elements of the official story create some ambiguity or a gray area, but otherwise the official story, not to mention physics and every computer physics simulation to date, all completely validate the official story; including debris and body placement inside the Pentagon. Meaning, some minor details might require revision but it never seems to be of a quality which effectively changes the official account such that it really matters. The proof there is overwhelming for anyone who cares to look. And ultimately that's the problem. Some people don't want to look because unconsciously they know it will throw their grand conspiracy out the window.

I don't believe in wild conspiracies, but I would like to know more facts and knowledge about this important historic event that shaped the world political landscape in the past decade.
I don't have a problem with such a position. But honestly, what facts have not been addressed? I've not heard a single Truther "fact" which hasn't already been addressed either directly by the official account or by unofficial accounts which still more or less meld well with the official account. Worse, the most popular Truther videos, which are widely regarded as the strongest evidence to support a massive new investigation are verifiably incorrect in almost every assertion it makes. So when the "strongest" counter argument is verifiably wrong, what exists to further the need for an additional, official, investigation?
And aside all that, the conspiracy required to support the 9/11 Truther's argument is mind numbing. Do you honestly believe 10,000 - 50,000 people of the general public could keep such a conspiracy quiet? Because that's the numbers the Truther's counter argument requires as projected by many experts and even reporters. Wikileaks and the press would be having a field day. As one reporter said, finding a massive conspiracy would be one of the greatest stories known to man. It would make my carrier for life. Unfortunately, even reporters have been completely unable to uncover a collection of facts which significantly deviate from the official story to any degree worth discussion.
As a side note, the Truthers who lead the cry for a new investigation all make a living (documentaries, books, and publicity) from keeping the Truther movement alive. So which conspiracy is most likely? A tiny conspiracy which is supported by the facts or a grand conspiracy which have absolutely no evidence? Exactly.

Re:With old tech not new :( by khallow · 2011-02-17 12:47 · Score: 1

I would rather see the money spent on something like EMdrives propellantless solution instead of this rocket technology. Which reminds me.Google comments and web-pages, likely funded by interest groups (ie the rocket industry) on technologies like EMDrive, and than Baidy Chinese comments. It seems that the chinese have a different view to the mostly retarded crap spouted by western rocket industrialists when the future is Emdrive.

Screw EMdrive. My money is for the reality warping device that will be needed to make EMdrive work.

Re:With old tech not new :( by Goaway · 2011-02-17 12:50 · Score: 1

You'd rather give money to frauds than to people doing actual work?

"master competition masters" by BitHive · 2011-02-17 12:55 · Score: 1

really?

Re:"master competition masters" by Thing+1 · 2011-02-17 13:44 · Score: 1

really?
Yeah, and their last name was Bates.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:"master competition masters" by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-17 15:03 · Score: 1

And they are excellent debaters.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:"master competition masters" by Thing+1 · 2011-02-17 15:14 · Score: 1

I was referring to The Toy, with Richard Pryor engagement.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:"master competition masters" by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-17 15:49 · Score: 1

The correct response would have been "but only in groups."

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

high Def Video?? by markass530 · 2011-02-17 13:06 · Score: 1

so what if something happens and a team only sends a 480p signal, then no Joy???

I'll put up $100 by adenied · 2011-02-17 13:15 · Score: 2

It's official. I'll put up $100, but only if your robit looks like Bender and is powered by cheap bourbon. Sabotaging your competitors earns a 10% bonus.

Re:I'll put up $100 by Xyrus · 2011-02-17 13:42 · Score: 1

If my "robit" looks like Bender, I've either been drinking way too much cheap bourbon or I need to see a doctor. Stat.

--
~X~
Re:I'll put up $100 by Anubis+IV · 2011-02-17 19:18 · Score: 1

Kickstarter your idea?

It was all a fake by Just_Say_Duhhh · 2011-02-17 13:21 · Score: 3, Funny

So, to claim the $20 million, all I have to do is drive my robot out to an abandoned warehouse in Arizona, let it drive around and take a picture of one of the LEMs (they left them in the warehouse, didn't they?) and then publish the picture?

SCORE!

--
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.

Not News by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-02-17 13:38 · Score: 1

WTF? The google Lunar X-prize was first announced back in September of 2007. I can name a few companies right off the top of my head that have been working on getting there since then. Interorbital Systems is the first one that comes to mind (though I think they got axed from the roster due to wanting to use hypergolics or something like that). Astrobotics has been working on this for awhile as have Odyssey Moon, White Label Space...The list has been up on Wikipedia for well over a year now. How the hell did this make it to the front page of Slashdot?

*Scans Official X-Prize Website*

Oh! I see! The foundation simply down selected for the final *official* roster. The prize isn't anything new at all. The actual news is that the final competing team roster has been settled. As usual, the summary and TFA completely gloss over the actual new development to ramble on about something that isn't particularly new to anyone that has been paying attention to the commercial space market (or slashdot) for the last few years. And, of course, they don't list the final roster. Here's the actual news portion of this story.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!

Re:Not News by Teancum · 2011-02-17 23:27 · Score: 1

In fairness, there are other recent developments by the teams themselves that deserve some recognition, although settling down on a "final" list of teams is something reasonable. If you want to try and claim the prize at this point but are just starting out, it would be better to work with one of the existing teams rather than trying to start out completely from scratch so I think the finalization is a good thing.
Hardware is being built, test videos are showing up on YouTube and elsewhere, and it looks like at least somebody might make the deadline although I am not so sure who might get that accomplished. I don't see a team like Scaled Composites that is so far ahead of the rest of the competition that other teams don't have a chance to catch up. There are a couple of teams I'd consider hopeless in terms of being able to make it to the Moon, but even those teams seem to be in better shape than many of the original X-Prize teams shooting for the 100 km prize.
The one "dark horse" that might be able to come in and make a huge difference is Armadillo Aerospace, as they clearly have a lander capable of going to the Moon, but to the best of my knowledge isn't actively involved with this effort. Armadillo has their plate full at the moment with some paying customers and an aggressive schedule to get their sub-orbital business going, so I do understand why John Carmack doesn't want to take the focus off of his current efforts to this interesting diversion. Still, if they decided to wait until next year before getting serious on a vehicle design, I think they could meet the final deadline in terms of actually landing something on the Moon.

I'll go build my own lunar lander.... by __aatirs3925 · 2011-02-17 13:52 · Score: 1

Ohhhh! No room for Bender huh? FINE! I'll go build my own lunar lander, with blackjack, aaaand hookers. In fact, forget the blackjack. Ah, screw the whole thing...

The Google X Prize site by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · 2011-02-17 13:58 · Score: 1

The fine story links to a blog. If all you want are the details about the competing teams, you can go direct to:

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams

As mentioned in the story, 29 teams are competing out of an initial field of 33. The names of the team range from the obvious, Moon Express; to the bold, Next Giant Leap and Independence-X; to the patriotic, Teams Italia, Indus (India) and Puli (Hungary); down to the irreverent, Part-Time Scientists and the cryptically named Mystery Team: Mystical Moon.

One of the four teams that withdrew is one called Micro Space. Maybe they failed to secure funding from a certain very rich philanthropist.

Re:The Google X Prize site by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 14:47 · Score: 1

If you were any denser you'd be giving off Hawking radiation.

Should be an extra prize for doing it = $20M by unil_1005 · 2011-02-17 14:17 · Score: 1

Say under budget, folks!

X-Prize's one off events. by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-17 15:34 · Score: 2

It's a shame that the X-Prize donors only fund single prizes. It would vastly increase the rate of technological development if they were regular contests.

Compare DARPA's robot car challenge (now Urban Challenge) to X-Prize's original $10m sub-orbital prize. The first year, no team even qualified for the DARPA prize. Hell no team completed more than a fraction of the course. The following year, most teams completed a more difficult course, and half of them qualified (finished in under 10hrs). A few years later, the things are running traffic in urban obstacle courses.

Meanwhile, you have the suborbital X-Prize. After 9 years with no attempts, Burt Rutan's team met the minimum requirements for the X-Prize. And no one has ever done it since, including Rutan. Imagine how much suborbital rockets would have improved by now if it had been an annual highest-flight-wins event.

And imagine if the Lunar Prize was... well, let's say, a quadrennial event. A prize awarded every four years for the longest rover trek on the moon. A Paris Dakar Rally on the moon.

DARPA had the right idea, the X-Prize donors don't.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:X-Prize's one off events. by ArmchairGeneral · 2011-02-18 01:14 · Score: 1

I see your point and while the X-Prize does have it's benefits, DARPA does seem to have the better approach. Maybe the first attempt should be to launch a satellite to photograph the moon from lunar orbit, then increase the difficulty each subsequent year(s).
Re:X-Prize's one off events. by m50d · 2011-02-18 01:42 · Score: 1

Darpa also has a reliable budget with which to sponsor annual contests. X-Prize relies on individual donations, and most donors would rather see something tangible now than set up a repeating but far smaller prize.

--
I am trolling
Re:X-Prize's one off events. by DerekLyons · 2011-02-18 06:32 · Score: 1

It's a shame that the X-Prize donors only fund single prizes. It would vastly increase the rate of technological development if they were regular contests.
It's worth pointing out that back in the days of aviation prizes - there was no cash award. But people and companies competed anyways, because developing the technology usually translated into directly being more competitive in the market. Even if it didn't, the publicity was invaluable.

There isn't a market for suborbital flight, let alone a competitive one. I grant that there is a lot of promise and potential, and a lot of people have bet money on that basis... But the market doesn't exist, it's entirely theoretical.

Meanwhile, you have the suborbital X-Prize. After 9 years with no attempts, Burt Rutan's team met the minimum requirements for the X-Prize.
I have it from several very reliable sources that Rutan was ready to compete several years before he actually did - but he waited for for the prize to be fully funded before going ahead.

DARPA had the right idea, the X-Prize donors don't.
That's because the space fanboy/advocate community in general really doesn't have any idea how the real world of economics and technology development works. Nor do they care - all they want is "teh sh1ny l33tness".
Re:X-Prize's one off events. by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-18 14:17 · Score: 1

Judging by the replies, the general interpretation of my comment was "X-Prize needs smaller goals, smaller prizes". But that wasn't my intent. It's the repetition that's the key.
Take the current lunar prize. I don't suggest making the first prize easier (such as your suggestion), I suggest that the challenge be repeated after it is first won. The technology will quickly develop as teams try to out-distance each other (meaning greater reliability, range, terrain handling, control, etc.) That first challenge will seem small, retrospectively, but only in contrast to how good they get: "500m? That's pathetic! Last year they cracked the 100km mark!"
OTOH, when the actual prize is won, development will simply stop. As DerekLyons says below, there's no natural market yet.
I do understand that the donors don't want to be on the hook for decades. I was mourning for lost opportunities, not complaining that the foundation itself is "doing it wrong." The foundation doesn't have a choice. Now if I was a billionaire philanthrocapitalist, I'd put my money where my fat stupid mouth is. But I ain't, so I can't.
(Oh, another example like DARPA. Years ago, the original UK Robot Wars show did a special here in Australia, Aussie teams challenging the Best-of-British. We were slaughtered. Why? We don't have a local contest. Aussie teams had clever engineers, but they didn't have the contest necessary to hone their craft. The first one you build is always the worst.)

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:X-Prize's one off events. by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-18 14:36 · Score: 1

every 4 years for a trek on the moon seems a bit farfetched
The Lunar X-Prize was announced in 2007. Four years ago. They've already finalised the list of competitors, and one team reportedly has already booked a launch.
And I think it's reasonable to assume that the gap between challenge and first win will be greater than the gap between the first and second. After all, if you can do is once, you can do it again. And a team who misses the first prize (due to some minor technical glitch) will be in a prime position to challenge for the second.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Moon Landing A Fake by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-02-17 20:24 · Score: 1

It's just that the hoax would be so mind-numbingly stupid. So awe-inspiringly pointless. If the soviet's caught them, it would be the greatest humiliation in the US's history. The US would be psychologically crippled, the soviet's would have effectively won the cold war. Why would they do it?

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Moon Landing A Fake by Maritz · 2011-02-17 20:36 · Score: 1

Your arguments are deeply unpersuasive and couched in the personal incredulity fallacy. "I can't imagine how they managed it, so they didn't manage it." You're contradicted, flatly, by vast amounts of evidence, some of it quite recent (the lunar reconnaissance orbiter's pictures of the surface from last year for example).

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Only $30 million? by h4rm0ny · 2011-02-17 21:37 · Score: 1

Any winner of this prize will not have done so using the same technology as in 1970. They will be pushing forward research and furthermore, any competitor in this project will not be doing so solely for the $30 million. They'll be expecting to make profits from the project independently of that.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:20 + 5 = 30 ? by hcs_$reboot · 2011-02-18 01:12 · Score: 1

Probably others figured out
1. first get 20M
2. 2nd get 5M
the rest being undisclosed - could be
3. 3rd 2.5M
4. 4th 1.25M
5. 5th 0.625M
...etc...

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Re:Only $30 million? by tehcyder · 2011-02-18 01:45 · Score: 1

Yes, big governments can send robots and people in space. The X-price is about *us* doing it.

Most of "us" don't have the money to build a fucking moon rocket as a hobby.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

a nefario plot? by metalmaster · 2011-02-18 02:06 · Score: 1

How can we be sure the X-Prize isnt just a cover for Gru and his minions?

Columbus was a fake! by tekrat · 2011-02-18 02:45 · Score: 1

You know, given the complete lack of technology *at all* back in 1692, I can't imagine that any rational person would step into a leaky wooden boat and travel vast unknown distances when they might fall off the edge of the planet.

Therefore I say that Columbus faked the whole thing. There is no new world, we Americans have been duped. We're really still living in Spain.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Columbus was a fake! - Wrong date by aardwolf64 · 2011-02-18 03:04 · Score: 1

1492... *facepalm*

Re:With old tech not new :( by Chris+Burke · 2011-02-18 03:36 · Score: 2

I actually looked EMDrive up and read one of their recent papers, and at first it didn't seem that wacky, at least not in the violates-conservation-laws way I was expecting. I mean it's basically just a photon drive. There's nothing reality-warping about using an electromagnetic field to carry momentum away, and thus propel you forward. And they do indeed have the advantage that they don't need reaction mass.

Then I read that they intend to use these things to lift vehicles out of earth's orbit. Okay now that's just crazy talk. Photons are the worst case scenario for energy vs momentum. A laser powerful enough to bore a hole into the earth isn't going to so much as make the laser itself bounce a little. Photon drives are for efficiently maneuvering around the solar system or inter-stellar space, not escaping the surface of a planet!

Ah well. Is it a sign of progress when the hacks/frauds/loons (whichever the case may be) at least respect the basic laws of physics?

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Only $30 million? by ShanghaiBill · 2011-02-18 03:54 · Score: 1

Surely it will cost way more than that to accomplish a lunar landing even by robots.

Not necessarily. I know someone working on one of these teams. Their robot is slightly bigger than a pack of cigarettes, and weighs less than a kg. Instead of expensive liquid fueled retro-rockets for a controlled landing, they will use cheap solid fueled retro-rockets, and absorb the rest of the impact with a kevlar balloon. The robot is designed to take a 20g landing.

Re:Moon Landing A Fake by k6mfw · 2011-02-18 04:25 · Score: 1

"I have worked for a long time in the software industry."

Well, software ain't hardware. And they actually had all their tweaking and damned they got it to work and landed on the moon. F1 engine was a horrible development activity, they can get it up to thrust but there was still problems with dynamic instability. During this time looking for solutions, including having a machinist drill as many holes in the injector plate (or whatever that portion was called which mixes H2 and O2 together) to see if it reduces the instability. There was lots of effort but eventually they solved it. F1 engine can be fired up at 1.5million lbs thrust, they detonate a small bomb in the nozzle and dynamics dampened out. F1 was certified to fly in 1965, F1 project manager died 6 months later.

An excellent book to read is "Apollo: Race To The Moon" by Charles Murray and Catherine Cox. Unlike other books on Apollo program that focuses on the astronauts, this 1989 book focuses on the managers, developers, and the titans of that time who built NASA and the Apollo program. Who are the ones that made it happen, astronauts were pilots or chauffers of the vehicles. Gene Kranz says ***this*** is the book to read about how it was done. Lots of good stuff in this publication, one of my favorites is discussion of Don "Mad Don" Arabian of MER (mission evaulation room). MER is part of "Mission Control" one of three portions MOCR (the operations room we see on TV), SPAN (interface between MER and MOCR). Don has lots of memorable quotes such as "we don't need any fancy damn consoles" and referring to NASA HQ in DC, "hubcaps, useless ornamentation."

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Come on, Carmack! by Artifex33 · 2011-02-18 04:44 · Score: 1

Armadillo Aerospace, this means YOU.

Re:Only $30 million? by tixxit · 2011-02-18 05:31 · Score: 1

Presumably, the winning company would also be able to make money on the tech they developed to put stuff on the moon. The prize is the icing on a rather large cake.

Re:With old tech not new :( by khallow · 2011-02-18 06:12 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, which was a while ago, they were claiming a closed system, no photons to carry away moment or anything. If it really is a photon drive, then I'll retract that complaint.

Team Cringely by juan2074 · 2011-02-19 12:14 · Score: 1

Where's Team Cringely?

Slashdot Mirror

X Prize $30 Million Robot Race To the Moon Is On

143 of 189 comments (clear)