Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Google's Moon Race, Teams Face a Reckoning

Posted by timothy on from the cheese-mines-should-be-enough-incentive dept.

waderoush writes "The Google Lunar X Prize, announced in 2007, challenges private teams to send remote-controlled landers and robot rovers to the Moon by December 31, 2015. At the moment, 26 teams are still in the running — but organizers say 2012 could be the shakeout year, as many teams realize they can't go it alone or that they can't raise the tens of millions of dollars needed to reserve a launch vehicle. Xconomy talked with officials at Google, NASA, the X Prize Foundation, and two of the competing teams, asking whether the prize is really winnable in the face of the formidable fundraising obstacles the teams face. The piece also looks at the technology being developed by two of the teams (Moon Express and Team FREDNET), why lunar exploration matters to Google, and how Tiffany Montague, Google's manager of space initiatives, is working to improve the teams' chances."

52 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Launch vehicle by NASA? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    Just use a katapult!

    1. Re:Launch vehicle by NASA? by durrr · · Score: 2

      I'd recommend that google leases a bunch of spaceX heavy rocket, fills it with all the contestants vessels and drop them off in LEO to let them race eachother to the moon in a no-holds-barred robotic deathrace.

      Televised in glorious full HD of course.

  2. Launch vehicle? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just build a space elevator, dummies!

    1. Re:Launch vehicle? by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      Yeah, can we have that thrown together by next week? You know, we're gunna have to do this on a budget, too... so... you know, make it cheap.

      I'm practicing for a job in management. :)

    2. Re:Launch vehicle? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      So you're gonna write the $6 billion check for that?

    3. Re:Launch vehicle? by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      That's an incredible modest figure, actually.

    4. Re:Launch vehicle? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was being generous to him. $6 billion is the low-range of the fixed costs for the construction. More realistic is easily double that or more.

    5. Re:Launch vehicle? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      No, i'm not. I'm quoting the fixed-costs price range that NASA had someone come up with about 7 years ago. But there is obviously more to the costs than just that. Even more recent estimates are around $20-40 billion. Your trillion dollar estimate is what is silly.

    6. Re:Launch vehicle? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Well of course there are plenty of design issues. The point of my original post was that the person was being extremely silly with the 'just build a space elevator' comment.

    7. Re:Launch vehicle? by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      And pay cash.

    8. Re:Launch vehicle? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Is that cost estimate before or after we discover unobtainium?

      Got a link to that estimate?

      If it could be accomplished for any dollar amount work would have already been started on getting it done.

      A space elevator is one of those things, that once put in place it will change society as we know it. The benefits are astronomical.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:Launch vehicle? by sortadan · · Score: 1

      If it's just a robot why not just shoot it out of a big cannon?

    10. Re:Launch vehicle? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      If you want a cannon, use an actual cannon, and not an electromagnetic accelerator. Pipe is way cheaper than than a series of coils and a frickin huge power supply to feed them. These big electromagnetic launchers leave out the part about how they brown out an entire state when launching. One Space Shuttle engine had the equivalent of 4 Hoover Dams power output (8 GW), or 8 nuclear power plants. The StarTram Generation 1 system will need 53 GW for 30 seconds.

      This gun was built in the 1960's and reached orbital altitude but not orbital speed:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

      This one reached 3/8 of orbital speed in the early 1990's

      http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sharp.htm

      Slightly faster one (1/2 orbital speed) would be a very effective launcher, replacing the whole first stage of a two stage rocket.

    11. Re:Launch vehicle? by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      Nah, one is enough. They better save some money for setting up the first Lunar Apple Store, and fighting of the intergalactic patent trolls.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    12. Re:Launch vehicle? by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it they probably need to set up a sweat shop at Alderaan as well.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
  3. Google's X Prize for those going to the Moon by Evisscerator · · Score: 1

    We are going to have to move the planet off of the current financial system in order to bring about real work to accomplish goals like this. Money is a ROAD BLOCK to fully achieving success as a PEOPLE and a PLANET Cost is not a factor. It is the willingness and willpower of the People who live here to come together and make it all happen.

    1. Re:Google's X Prize for those going to the Moon by KYPackrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Money is nominally a store of the value of people's labor(*). That's why we donate money now: we're giving the "liquid" form of our labor to a charity group, so that they can directly buy the products and labor to fill a need.

      The existance of Google's competition directly refute your idea. It's private money being staked by Google and the team sponsors that made this price possible. Even governments have to use taxed money: moving the labor from those taxed so that the people in NASA/ESA/etc. can get fed. Without some way to "move" people's labor efficiently, you can try the North Korea approach (a country of slave labor), but we can all see how efficient that is.

      A lot of people have come up with alternate economies, and most just call money by some other term. The rest usually just starve.

      (*) In a fractional-reserve system like ours, where money gets "created" when it's borrowed, money is really a promise of future labor instead of a store of past labor. This makes a lot of the characteristics of the current economy a lot easier to understand. (IMHO, you can argue that money is an energy proxy, and that human energy (i.e. labor) will soon be less valuable than other kinds of energy, but that's an entirely different topic.)

    2. Re:Google's X Prize for those going to the Moon by Bigby · · Score: 1

      The GP is actually proposing that without money, all the reserves could be spent doing things like this. There would be a single entity that redistributes the excess time/resources to "advance" society in certain directions. It is basically communism without money.

      In this case, society would produce food/shelter/energy and we would do away with vehicles, vacations, TV, games, entertainment, luxuries, etc... in order to fund a space elevator that may or may not work; and if it works, may or may not amount to anything of value. The wonderful world of central planning.

    3. Re:Google's X Prize for those going to the Moon by camperdave · · Score: 1

      (IMHO, you can argue that money is an energy proxy, and that human energy (i.e. labor) will soon be less valuable than other kinds of energy, but that's an entirely different topic.)

      Human energy is already less valuable than other kinds. Why do you think we use construction machinery instead of thousands of slaves for mining and road work. Human energy just doesn't have the bang for the buck that a thousand horsepower diesel motor does.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Google's X Prize for those going to the Moon by Jeng · · Score: 1

      If you remove the carrot and stick of a currency based society then society is more likely to de-evolve into a land of lotus eaters rather a society of extra-planetary explorers.

      One of the big motivators to have more money is so that you can do less.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  4. Lame. by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Insightful
    How, exactly, does this advance science, the public interest, or be anything but a publicity stunt that only the wealthy can participate in? If you're going to 'crowd source' (I despise that phrase), then shouldn't your project be carried out in phases, and as each phase is accomplished a reward is granted to the winning team?

    It would be a lot more successful and have more entrants (read: ideas), if the cost of entry wasn't in the tens of millions. Who wants to blow 10 million dollars (or more) to get a 1 in N chance of getting any return on the investment? Poor planning, Google.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Lame. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You would rather that only governments could participate in big science stunts?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Lame. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      You would rather that only governments could participate in big science stunts?

      No, you blithering half-wit, I want more people to participate in science, not less. It's the closest thing we have to a democratic institution in this country.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Lame. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues. But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Lame. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues.

      Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.

      But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.

      By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Lame. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.

      I think you're confused about that. And about the concept of social interaction in general.

      But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.

      By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.

      It won't work. A moon shot is just too big a project to benefit substantively by breaking out a few small parts. By all means, invite participation from one and all but recognize that the core of the project is big and expensive, must be engineered accordingly, and at commensurate cost.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. why lunar exploration matters to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    why lunar exploration matters to Google

    Oh. My. God. They're going to put ads on the moon.

    1. Re:why lunar exploration matters to Google by Americano · · Score: 2

      World's largest billboard.

    2. Re:why lunar exploration matters to Google by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:why lunar exploration matters to Google by sconeu · · Score: 1

      DAMN... link didn't come through. The Man Who Sold the Moon.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:why lunar exploration matters to Google by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Although technically, I believe it's implied that he sold the advertising rights to Moka-Cola who wouldn't turn it into a giant billboard...

    5. Re:why lunar exploration matters to Google by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Google Maps

      Earth's Moon
      Your Rating: 4 stars!
      You would also like the Rock of Gibraltar

      5 other people have +1 Earth's Moon.

  6. Walk before you can run. by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Assuming for a moment some of the teams might have experience working on commercial earth satellites, wouldn't it still make more sense to have a few milestone events before going straight the lunar rovers? It's a challenge simply getting a craft into lunar orbit, so maybe start there. Landing on the moon is another big milestone, even without the rover component.

    I'd love to see a team win this, but they need to have permission to launch reserved by December. None of these teams has a rocket built/purchased.

    Tall order.

  7. Re:railgun by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    I think if your gear could take 50g, which is respectably high, you'd need a 100 km track to accelerate to 11 kps, and that escape velocity doesn't take air resistance into account.

  8. Google's manager of space initiatives by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Now that's something I'd like to have on my calling card...

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Google's manager of space initiatives by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Do you think her existing official title of "egalitarian" is any better/worse?

  9. Pioneer anomaly mission? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    I wonder if a private party could launch a simple, spin-stabilized probe, with well-understood thermal behavoir, that could be used to test the Pioneer Anomally once and for all....all it would need is a clock/ doppler-pinger and a spin and maybe slingshot out of the solar system... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

  10. Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The single biggest problem that any team is facing is getting cash and sufficient cash to pay for a launch. This has been a problem for Astrobotic (and why they have postponed to 2015). This has been an issue for Moon Express. This is an issue for Rocket City Space Pioneers. And, yes, it is an issue for Team Phoenicia (my own team). For FredNet, too. Getting material donations has not been difficult. Just the $. That's why Team Phoenicia has been selling engines and rockets. If you want to help and not just snark, go to your favourite team's website and hit the donate button. They all have them. If /. or any other entity would use the /. effect to that end, it'd be a wondrous and helpful thing.

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      You know, you could have provided a link. :)

    2. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by sortadan · · Score: 1

      What are your thoughts on Evacuated Tube Transport as a launch system for the future, or do you have hopes for some other technology? I realize this may be out of scope for your single launch for the moon, but the ETT technology is a fascinating next step that seems elegant to me as an aerospace outsider with an engineering background and would cut down on the actual launch costs. I wonder why the side of a big mountain near the equator is not already a planning site.

    3. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 1

      The Romanians considered the rockoon approach and discarded it. Instead they are building - yes, really! - a rocket powered seaplane to do an air launch of their rocket carrying their moonbot. They are nuts. And they are soooo fscking awesome. The problem with the rockoon is that even once you are outside the atmosphere, you are still subject to the rocket equation of getting to the moon with the delta V. Some things just don't scale down well.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    4. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I could and probably ought to have. http://teamphoenicia.blogspot.com./ The donate button is on the right. :)

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    5. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, no. If there is someone to talk to about that, point me that way! That'd be awesome and I'd happily list /. as a backer/sponsor. That said, if you are looking for an open source team, you are looking at FredNet. If you are looking for the Silicon Valley big money team, you are looking at Moon Express. If you are looking at the university student/professor teams, you are looking at Astrobotic, PennState, and Omega Envoy. If you are looking for the traditional aerospace guys, you are looking at Rocket City Space Pioneers. If you are looking for very STEM oriented, educator focused, you are looking at JURBAN. If you are looking for the scrappy Silicon Valley startup, that'd be us: Team Phoenicia. There are more. Go to the Google Lunar X Prize website (http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams) to check us all out. Take a look at what Mike Doornbos of evadot has to say through his rankings of the teams: http://evadot.com/glxpscorecard/

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    6. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by gQuigs · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://teamphoenicia.blogspot.com/ An extra dot/broken link.

    7. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 1

      thank you.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    8. Re:Speaking as a Team Leader... by anzha · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter's highest projects are in the six figure region. Launches are in the eight figures minimum.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  11. Re:railgun by Jeng · · Score: 1

    A rail-gun that can put something in orbit around the Moon can land a warhead anywhere on Earth and with practically no warning.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  12. Re:railgun by Jeng · · Score: 1

    No warning aside from the two or three days it takes to get here..

    It would only take three days if you put it on a trajectory where it goes around the moon, if you are trying to nuke someone with no warning why would you send it around the moon first?

    A railgun powerful enough to launch something to the moon is also capable of shooting a smaller payload a shorter distance. And unlike an ICBM it can be fired again, and again, and again.....

    Good tool to have though if we do find an asteroid heading at us. In a case like that the more railguns the better.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  13. Re:What a waste of money by hammeraxe · · Score: 1

    Yes, that is what makes them awesome.

  14. Re:railgun by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but if you are firing a nuke to someone on the other side of the planet, slinging it around the moon gives you plenty of time to get to the target so you can see the look on their face as the nuke hits!

  15. Re:railgun by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I don't think you have thought your cunning plan all the way though.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  16. Re:railgun by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    No, no, I assure you. The math is good. The math is good!