Moon Mining Race Under Way

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 7, 2013 @08:57PM from the a-lot-of-cheese dept.

New submitter rujholla writes "The race to the moon is back! This time, though, it's through private enterprise. Google has offered a $20m grand prize to the first privately-funded company to land a robot on the moon and explore the surface (video) by moving at least 500 meters and sending high definition video back to Earth by 2015."

110 of 150 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's the bonus that concerns me by newcastlejon · 2013-03-07 21:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

A second-placed team stands to win $5m for completing the same mission, with bonus prizes for travelling more than 5km, finding water and discovering any traces of man's past on the moon, such as the Apollo site.
Wouldn't it be best to leave the Apollo landing site - even the footprints - alone for posterity?

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
1. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Barryke · 2013-03-07 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently Google wants to obligate the future Apollo site museum on the moon to reference them to explain the tracks that lead to a ducttape lego + webcam apparatus.
  
  --
  Hivemind harvest in progress..
2. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Why leave it alone?
  Protect the first foot prints and the first landing site as a historical thing yes, but why leave it alone?
3. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Bearhouse · 2013-03-07 21:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, they don't have to roll over and obliterate them, do they?
  Would be nice to see some of those artifacts filmed in modern high-definition colour. Especially ones never seen before.
  Also, why do we need to 'discover' these sites - don't we already know where they are?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon
4. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Tx · 2013-03-07 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why not preserve the whole moon for posterity, after all it's the site of mankind's first off-Earth planetary landing? Off course that's a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but arguably no one will actually be any the worse off in any quantifiable way in the future for being able to say "this is the Apollo landing site" versus "this is the Apollo landing site with some untouched footprints". History is about knowing what happened, and while pristine preserved artefacts can help tell the story, they're not the be all and end all of it, and you can't preserve everything.
  
  --
  Oh no... it's the future.
5. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by black3d · 2013-03-07 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Only those where the the prints were being directly blasted by burning fuel. No atmosphere so no billowing clouds of dust or anything. Any particles blasted up by the rocket would be dispersed in a fairly even wide radius.
  
  --
  "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
6. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Joce640k · 2013-03-07 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Watch the video, what do you think?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
  
  --
  No sig today...
7. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Joce640k · 2013-03-07 23:47 · Score: 2
  
  Well, they don't have to roll over and obliterate them, do they?
  Would be nice to see some of those artifacts filmed in modern high-definition colour.
  I wonder if it would shut up the moon hoax idiots.
  Nah.
  
  --
  No sig today...
8. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Joce640k · 2013-03-07 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't it be best to leave the Apollo landing site - even the footprints - alone for posterity?
  "Site"?
  Did you know there's more than one?
  Maybe they could leave Apollo 11 alone but Apollos 15-17? Can you even name the pilots...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by peragrin · 2013-03-08 00:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  My favorite scenario is we take all the leading moon landing hoax people to the apollo landing sites and ask them to remove their helmets.
  That will shut them up.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
10. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by DFurno2003 · 2013-03-08 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  Im not sure the footprints will be visible after all this time. The site itself should be left alone, but landing nearby and getting close enough to capture some video would (in my opinion) revive public interest in space.
11. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-08 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  OP here. I'm afraid the distinction between leaving the site - or sites - alone and protecting them as historical monuments is lost on me. What struck me when I first read this story was that we have an unprecedented opportunity because, meteors aside, the Apollo site should look exactly the same as it does now in thousands of years without the need for preservation efforts. There's more than enough Moon up there to leave even the smallest bootprint from the Apollo landing untouched.
12. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by war4peace · 2013-03-08 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet, half-way to the Moon we should tell them all "YOU WERE RIGHT" and then blast them into open space.
  At least they'll die happy.
  (disclaimer for the obtuse, it was a joke, I wish no one harm)
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
13. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by amoeba1911 · 2013-03-08 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Remove helmet? Just send them to the moon without helmets. According to them it's just a studio in Arizona, they don't need helmets there.
14. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by SpzToid · 2013-03-08 01:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The U.S. has already formally requested folks stay at least 75 meters (246 ft) from the site.
  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/science/space/a-push-for-historic-preservation-on-the-moon.html
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquility_Base
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
15. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Psychophrenes · 2013-03-08 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  New achievement: Travelled 5km on the Moon
  New achievement: Desecrated a historical site
16. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by rioki · 2013-03-08 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  Except that once space travel becomes feasible for more people, people will want to see the site. Best is I think it to build a visitor center / museum around it and shield that actual site, which is just a few hundred square feet.
17. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by WrecklessSandwich · 2013-03-08 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  (disclaimer for the obtuse, it was a joke, I wish no one harm)
  I do.
18. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Type44Q · 2013-03-08 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Is it just me or wouldn't the striking, starkly-defined, austere beauty of the lunar landscape look a whole lot more attractive without that shit just sitting there? (Footprints... isn't that what rakes are for?) :p
19. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Tim+the+Gecko · 2013-03-08 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  The original NASA policy document is worth looking at, especially as it collects together a lot of interesting photos: http://go.nasa.gov/JDYo9v (links to PDF)
  It is linked from the relevant X Prize press release: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/media/press-releases/nasa-offers-guidelines-protect-historic-sites-moon
20. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by lxs · 2013-03-08 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  There are too many historical monuments on Earth as it is. Let's not spoil the Moon as well with conservation mania.
  Instead of preserving the past in aspic let's look to the future for a change.
21. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-08 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Im not sure the footprints will be visible after all this time.
  Umm ... do you think the moon rain washed them away? Or was it the wind?
22. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by DerekLyons · 2013-03-08 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Im not sure the footprints will be visible after all this time
  Yes, they will. There's no wind or water on the moon, so the only erosion processes are thermal expansion/contraction and impacts... both of which are very slooooow processes.
  
  landing nearby and getting close enough to capture some video would (in my opinion) revive public interest in space.
  No, it won't. The original landings weren't enough to get people interested in space... so video of the sites won't either.
23. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-03-08 03:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not quite. Thermal cycling of the top inch or two of regolith means that the footprints are likely to be lost in a century or three. Even 45 years is probably enough to soften the sharp outlines. The flag will be UV-bleached-white or radiation-black. The descent stage and other equipment will be peppered with micro-meteorite holes.
  Frankly, this is another reason to preserve the sites. As experiments which provide 6 points of reference to calibrate the fine erosion rate for lunar features.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
24. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Frontier+Owner · 2013-03-08 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I would be curious to see what kind of damage has been done to the equipment left there for the last 40 years from space debris. Probably none, but it would give us an idea of how equipment and structures would hold up long term.
25. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by CraftyJack · 2013-03-08 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  Who is going to stop them once they're up there anyway?
  The spacecraft is "up there". "They" are actually down here, well within the reach of Buzz Aldrin's fists.
26. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by PPH · 2013-03-08 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for visiting the Apollo 18 site.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
27. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by SolitaryMan · 2013-03-08 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Never thought you can get too many of those.
  
  --
  May Peace Prevail On Earth
28. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-08 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and it probably would have been better if the first footsteps of creatures leaving the primordial soup of the ocean had been preserved. The question is: WHY?!?!?!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
29. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-08 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  You've heard of that monkey theory thing?
  I remember Buzz and Neil. That's about all that fits into my cast of characters from fifty plus years of life. I mean - it's not like I flew to the moon with any of them. Had that occurred, I'd likely remember that man's name too!!
  Maybe I can push Christopher Columbus out of my mind, and make room for another moon landing pilot. Nahh - that bastard won't go.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
30. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Runaway1956 · 2013-03-08 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=vacuum+roomba&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=3277722441&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15525844751505260305&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_9jgayv3tx_b
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
31. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-08 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I generally agree that there are too many historical sites on Earth, however the Apollo 11 site would be a place that nearly all moon visitors and residents would want to visit. It would be a shame to see it spoiled by the first few moon tourists. I would like to see a gentleman's agreement that the site be off limits until it can be properly preserved.
32. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by Baldrson · 2013-03-08 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Since the US landed men on the moon 40 years ago, why can't it at least land robots to guard the site?
  Oh, that's right. THAT "US" has been replaced by a much "stronger" US through "diversity" and as we all know, "weakness is strength", "war is peace", etc.
  
  --
  Seastead this.
33. Re:It's the bonus that concerns me by luis_a_espinal · 2013-03-08 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why not preserve the whole moon for posterity, after all it's the site of mankind's first off-Earth planetary landing? Off course that's a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but arguably no one will actually be any the worse off in any quantifiable way in the future for being able to say "this is the Apollo landing site" versus "this is the Apollo landing site with some untouched footprints". History is about knowing what happened, and while pristine preserved artefacts can help tell the story, they're not the be all and end all of it, and you can't preserve everything.
  We need breathing room.
Mining for video data by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 21:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Retrieving video data does not count as "mining".
1. Re:Mining for video data by progician · 2013-03-07 23:08 · Score: 2
  
  Data mining?
Men on the Moon by ixarux · 2013-03-07 21:13 · Score: 1

They'll have to battle the five-foot-high Selenites before they get to do so...
Seems easy by Thanshin · 2013-03-07 21:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I must see too much SF because this seems intuitively too easy.
500m and HD video is an hdpro in a transparent sphere with springs. The landing itself will make it move more than 500m.
I rationally know that sending a 300g mass to the moon isn't trivial, but it does look easy.
Now that I think on it, GoPro (the company) should try shooting a couple thousand of their cameras to the moon just for PR reasons.
1. Re:Seems easy by nedlohs · 2013-03-07 21:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You don't think the spec of a $20 million contract will be specific about just what that 500m of movement means?
2. Re:Seems easy by dbIII · 2013-03-07 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to dump on the above poster, but I think this is a sign that we are not teaching enough mathematics in schools. A twelve year old in the 1970s living just about anywhere on the planet would not make the same assumptions and not embarrass themselves with such a stupid bit of magical thinking.
3. Re:Seems easy by sidevans · 2013-03-07 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a 1980's kid with only year 9 Australian Education, and I think GoPro's would be a cheap alternative if they work in a vacuum.
  I think we need a quad-rotor drone with a giant balloon and hydrogen generators, it takes a balloon trip with quad-rotor power most of the way up and uses solar power to harvest hydrogen from the atmosphere, then once the balloon is useless it dumps it and burns hydrogen rockets (with the hydrogen it gathered on the way up) to escape Earth's gravitational pull. Set course for the moon, gather data, then head back to earth using boosters to slow down before re-entering the atmosphere then quad-rotor power to make a safe landing somewhere back on earth.
  Repeat process to gather more data... The only things that would need to be replaced are hydrogen generators because (from my knowledge) most metal decays when producing hydrogen and generating electricity from it. Also, the Moon doesn't interest me much, the Kuiper belt on the other hand does, but I'm glad Google are aiming for something I see as possible these days.
  
  --
  I'm not signing anything
4. Re:Seems easy by tehcyder · 2013-03-07 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  If it's that fucking easy, why not just do it this weekend and claim your $20m from Google so you can retire comfortably well off on Monday?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
5. Re:Seems easy by SuricouRaven · 2013-03-07 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  The lander part is cheap. Getting it there is not.
6. Re:Seems easy by Teancum · 2013-03-07 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with electronics in space isn't the vacuum, but rather radiation of all sorts, including solar flares and cosmic radiation. You also have extreme temperatures that you need to work with that come from the environment, and then since it is going to the Moon you may need to deal with what happens when you go through a lunar night. By extreme temperatures, I'm talking temperatures far hotter and colder than any place found on the Earth. Hotter than the Sahara in the Summer at Noon and colder than the coldest part of Antarctica. Electronics tend not to work very well in that kind of environment.
  That is sort of what makes building spacecraft electronics sort of expensive. Consumer electronics typically can't survive that sort of punishment.
  I should also point out that there isn't a single team in this competition that is even looking at building their own rockets, except for figuring out how to land on the Moon. Even landing on the Moon is likely going to be done with existing companies that have already developed that technology. There are companies who have even done that already so they have a clue how to accomplish that task for others.
  I'm not saying that you can't come up with something original, but rocket science is hard..... that is why "rocket scientists" (or aerospace engineers) are usually considered pretty smart people.
7. Re:Seems easy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-08 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I had the same idea, but with turtles.
8. Re:Seems easy by taiwanjohn · 2013-03-08 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Landers for the moon are not what I'd call cheap. But for a tiny GoPro, it might be feasible. Packing it into a CubeSat format could make it fairly cheap to launch as well. If the GoPro can withstand a "not-so-soft" landing, it could greatly simplify the design of the lander. Perhaps a spring-loaded "hopping" mechanism could travel 500m in lunar gravity. It still wouldn't be "cheap" by most people's standards, but could well be within reach of a corporate marketing budget.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
9. Re:Seems easy by war4peace · 2013-03-08 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Your idea is stupid. They should send domeone on the Moon and then the guys on the Moon would DROP the ladder FROM there, taking advantage of Earth's gravitational pull. No need for all the climbing anymore.
  Damn it, I'm a genius. Where's my Nobel Prize?
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
10. Re:Seems easy by war4peace · 2013-03-08 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Please go look up how a spring would perform in vacuum and at temperatures approaching absolute zero.
  " The stiffness tensor is a property of the material, and often depends on physical state variables such as temperature, pressure, and microstructure."
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
11. Re:Seems easy by SuricouRaven · 2013-03-08 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Space isn't just a matter of 'up.' Cubesats generally go in LEO. The further you go, the more delta-V you need to get there, which means bigger vehicle to carry more fuel, and bigger rockets to get the fuel up.
12. Re:Seems easy by taiwanjohn · 2013-03-08 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  A "spring" doesn't have to be made of steel. The same function could be served with a gas/piston mechanism, a plastic spring, etc.. You're talking about a minor engineering challenge, not a show-stopper.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
13. Re:Seems easy by Hunter+Shoptaw · 2013-03-08 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's just dumb. Everyone knows that after the first 2 ladders you just pull the one off the bottom and put it on top! Yet another example of government overspending!
14. Re:Seems easy by denvergeek · 2013-03-08 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Kickstarter --> 3D Printing --> ??? --> Success!
15. Re:Seems easy by sidevans · 2013-03-08 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  what about monkeys? they have pretty tough forearms and can just hold each other up
  
  --
  I'm not signing anything
16. Re:Seems easy by sidevans · 2013-03-08 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  I love Anonymous Coward, Enjoy your $60k a year job with your "college" degree :)
  Yes I look at things from a more simple point of view than more educated people, but its a mostly un-educated Australian that made the Frazier lens and our CSIRO that owns 802.11x. This doesn't come from going into specific detail, this comes from learning step by step and making mistakes and trying things until you find a solution. Virgin Galactic can get people/objects into orbit fairly cheap, they use a method to fly up high then use small rockets to get a lot of weight out of earth's gravity, surely a 20-50kg object can't be hard to get out there, it requires no human life support or anything like that, only basic heating to keep the electrics happy.
  Fucking pessimists.....
  
  --
  I'm not signing anything
17. Re:Seems easy by DerekLyons · 2013-03-08 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I must see too much SF because this seems intuitively too easy.
  You're correct.
  
  500m and HD video is an hdpro in a transparent sphere with springs. The landing itself will make it move more than 500m. I rationally know that sending a 300g mass to the moon isn't trivial, but it does look easy.
  By the time you add in enough batteries and the necessary radio equipment - you're looking at considerably more than 300g... and trying to bounce that weight (in earth equivalent) the length of a football field. (Your springs *alone* are going to weight several kg...)
  
  But your scheme won't meet the intent of the rules anyhow.
18. Re:Seems easy by Enigma2175 · 2013-03-08 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with electronics in space isn't the vacuum, but rather radiation of all sorts, including solar flares and cosmic radiation.
  That is sort of what makes building spacecraft electronics sort of expensive. Consumer electronics typically can't survive that sort of punishment.
  If space electronics have to be so hardened why is NASA sending satellites running on Android phones to space?
  
  --
  Enigma
19. Re:Seems easy by Enigma2175 · 2013-03-08 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Virgin Galactic can get people/objects into orbit fairly cheap, they use a method to fly up high then use small rockets to get a lot of weight out of earth's gravity, surely a 20-50kg object can't be hard to get out there, it requires no human life support or anything like that, only basic heating to keep the electrics happy.
  Fucking pessimists.....
  Except that Virgin Galactic has NEVER launched anything into orbit, and they don't currently have any plans to launch any people into orbit. The Spaceship One/Spaceship Two craft are SUBorbital. There is a world of difference between "Going up 100 miles" and "Going fast enough to stay in orbit". Virgin Galactic has announced plans to create an orbital launch vehicle but they currently have no hardware and it isn't going to be "fairly cheap", they are saying 10 million dollars per 100 kg payload, so once they actually build something count on it being about 20 million for a 50 kg payload.
  
  --
  Enigma
20. Re:Seems easy by taiwanjohn · 2013-03-08 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I know that. But if your payload only weighs a few pounds, you don't need much thrust for TLI. You could make a "multi-cube" CubeSat which includes the necessary propulsion and still get a pretty cost-effective ride to the moon.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
21. Re:Seems easy by Teancum · 2013-03-08 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  For cheap throw-away devices that you don't care if they work properly in the first place? Sure, use some consumer electronics. Laptop computers have been going up into space on the Space Shuttle for decades now, and fill up a major part of the International Space Station. They are also kept in a nice cushy environment that doesn't exceed tolerances for consumer devices either.
  As for the cubesat devices you linked to, those are using hardened electronics. That they happen to be using components that are similar in nature to cell phones and run on the Android operating system is immaterial to the fact that they are hardened electronics. Note that cell phones do tend to hold up to a whole bunch of abuse as well. Ask any electrical engineer what "milspec" components are in devices, and how much they cost? It usually is of slightly inferior quality in terms of performance (aka less memory and slightly older technology), but they are designed for extreme environments. That is simply something you take into account and one of the compromises you must make when simply designing electronic components.
  By comparison, the spacecraft "New Horizon" that is currently headed to Pluto is powered by what amounts to be a PlayStation 2 (the same CPU and similar memory capacity).
  I'll also note that the radiation environment for low-Earth orbit (where these cube sats will be operating at) is a much more benign environment than the Moon as well, where not only do you need to pass through the Van Allen belts but also lack the protection of the Earth's Magnetosphere.
  The design principles and even the data protocols may be the same as consumer electronics, and there is a pretty strong supply chain for electronics that fly in space. You don't have to design literally everything from scratch, but you do need to take the environment into consideration as going down to your local Wal-Mart or IKEA and picking up some consumer electronics and strapping that onto a giant bottle rocket isn't going to work for real things that need to work in space... at least reliably.
22. Re:Seems easy by Teancum · 2013-03-08 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't quite true that Virgin Galactic has "no hardware". The plan is to use the White Knight as the 1st stage for the launch into orbit (that is already built) and they have "bent metal" on the rocket itself as well as have engineers (via "The Spaceship Company"... now wholly owned by Virgin Enterprises after Scaled Composites sold out their share) who are gaining experience building real rocket motors. It is definitely on their engineering design path and something they are very much capable of achieving in time with the resources they have.
  I don't know if they will drop the performance and raise costs, particularly as you should note they are in pretty steep competition with other launch providers. It isn't being built as a government cost-plus project where you can get away with screwing your customers over as you'll get paid anyway. Those requirements and costs are sort of a hard line as that is what their customers are willing to pay.... not how much it will cost Richard Branson to have a fun toy for putting microsats into orbit.
23. Re:Seems easy by Zalbik · 2013-03-08 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Really? And exactly how are you planning on landing the thing?
  Keep in mind the point of neutral gravity between the Earth and moon is still around 37,000 km from the moon. As a best case scenario, let's suppose your sphere starts there at zero velocity. I'd like to see the springs that can survive a 34,000 km drop, with virtually no atmosphere.
  According to my back of napkin calculations, with those spheres will be moving at approx 10 km per second when they hit. I wouldn't expect much "bounce".
24. Re:Seems easy by Chelloveck · 2013-03-08 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Right on. Someone's just going to send up a quad-copter with a wifi camera and claim the prize.
  
  --
  Chelloveck
  I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
25. Re:Seems easy by war4peace · 2013-03-08 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Vacuum tends to lock pistons (friction issues, you can't really use oil in a vacuum environment) and if you throw a large ball at a dusty, vacuum-surrounded object at speeds exceeding hundreds of kilometers/hour, you will have to use a pretty good method. Inflatable sacs of gas might do the trick, if you can solve the material stiffness (so that you ensure you're not throwing rock-solid sacks of gas at a rock-solid Moon).
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
26. Re:Seems easy by vbraga · 2013-03-08 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  There are two very different sets of requirements whether you need to cross or not the radiation belts. For low earth orbits, COTS equipment is fine for a short mission. For higher orbits, including direct lunar transfer or a Hoffman orbit transfer, radiation hardened equipment is a must.
  Also the Android-running cubesat (by Surrey U (UK), not NASA, if I recall correctly) is just a inexpensive cubesat mission (under 50 or 60k USD, including launch costs) not an expensive lunar lander.
  
  --
  English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
For any who are too dim to work it out by dbIII · 2013-03-07 21:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anything that requires a rocket program costing a billion or so and hundreds of people is not "easy". It may be easier to piggyback from others, use their stuff and launch facilities and get that rocket program down in price, but it's still not going to be "easy" to get anything to escape velocity unless you ask somebody else to do all of the hard bits.
1. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by dbIII · 2013-03-07 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Placing a satellite into orbit costs between 20 and 300 million
  Only if you've got the infrastructure - that is the "hard bit" referred to in the bit you didn't read :(
2. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by khallow · 2013-03-07 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Anything that requires a rocket program costing a billion or so and hundreds of people is not "easy".
  
  How about something that requires infrastructure that is in the trillions of dollars and requires millions of people to maintain? Is driving to the supermarket similarly hard?
  
  Building the infrastructure can be astoundingly hard. Using existing infrastructure need not be.
3. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by khallow · 2013-03-08 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I just was disagreeing with the assertion that something is hard merely because it uses infrastructure that was hard to build. One doesn't need infrastructure at the scale of Earth's road systems in order to use it.
  
  What makes the lunar prize hard in this context is that the infrastructure doesn't support the full trip. Rockets get you into space (for a price) and then you need to get from there to the Moon.
4. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-08 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  Placing a satellite into orbit costs between 20 and 300 million.
  Placing a satellite in orbit can cost as little as $40k. That is what a Cubesat launch costs. Groups of university students have put satellites in orbit.
  Sending something to the Moon would cost more, but can probably be done for far less than $20 million. I know some people working on the Google Lunar X Prize, and their robot is about the size of a carton of cigarettes, and weighs less than a kg. Their plan is to put it in LEO, and then use an ion thruster to slowly build up to escape velocity. The biggest challenge is slowing down as they approach the Moon, but that requires far less energy that leaving the Earth.
5. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by khallow · 2013-03-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. "Space Nutter" above is a remarkably bad authority on this subject since he has for a while made arguments that are near trivial to refute such as his continued claim that there is "nothing" in space. One merely needs to note that the Earth, and for that matter everything else in the universe, happens to be in space.
  
  Having said that, he had made some more serious and relevant arguments regarding the economics and commercial viability of space activities. But it's hard to take him seriously with his child-like signature arguments and slogans.
6. Re:For any who are too dim to work it out by khallow · 2013-03-08 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Go get me a Mars rock if it's that "mere".
  
  They're rather expensive (a bit more than gold by weight), but people do sell Mars rocks. No pieces of Venus last I checked, but maybe we have some of that around as well.
  
  There is nothing in space for all practical purposes. If you can't see that, we can't discuss this. Space is an empty, hostile radiation-blasted vacuum.
  As I noted, Earth happens to be in space. You note Mars and Venus. I can't imagine what mental dysfunction you must have to label whole planets, including the one you live on, as "nothing". And to continue to do so even when you're called on it. Well that's not my problem.
  
  You'll grow old and feeble and you'll never see your precious space colonies.
  Well, I already know of one space colony - Earth. Of course, that's not what you meant, but I think we should recognize that we aren't starting from nothing here.
  
  As to whether I live long enough to see my "precious" space colonies, it's worth noting that human is advancing greatly in the relevant Earth-side technologies as well, particularly manufacture. The barrier to such things is declining with the years. Whether that ends up being good enough is something we'll just have to wait for.
And you call it "mining"? by aglider · 2013-03-07 21:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

to land a robot on the moon and explore the surface by moving at least 500 meters and send high definition video back to Earth by 2015
I would call it simply "sending a robot that moves on the moon".
This "minig race" sounds more like a financial buzzword more than real technology breakthrough.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:And you call it "mining"? by Teancum · 2013-03-07 23:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This was just a silly reporter from the BBC that was somehow impressed with the idea but otherwise clueless about the whole thing. If you want to read something much more authoritative on the topic, read this:
  http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/
  The goal here is to make a low-cost vehicle that can do surface exploration of the Moon. Mining isn't even really a goal, although the technology to get it done would ultimately be useful to engage in mining activities eventually. It is not a sample return mission through.
2. Re:And you call it "mining"? by taiwanjohn · 2013-03-08 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Mining isn't a goal of the GLXP, but it is a goal of Moon Express. They are using the GLXP as a "bootstrap" to develop the lander technology. Once the capability is demonstrated, they intend to use it for further exploration. They also intend to sell "rides" to the moon for others.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Doesn't seem realistic by Hentes · 2013-03-07 21:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Surveyor program cost about $500m. A mere $20m prize won't make this profitable. Also, 2015 is far too close for a program like this, I don't think Google wants to pay that money.
1. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by N1AK · 2013-03-07 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The idea of offering a $20m prize isn't that it will completely cover the cost of doing it but that it will change the balance of risk and reward enough. Producing a cost effective way of putting a vehicle on the moon will be worth money in sponsorship, IP rights and sales of technology, and the future business opportunities that come from being able to do it.
  
  Is $20m enough? I don't know as it isn't something I know enough about but it could make a considerable difference to a company that was considering doing it anyway.
2. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by N!k0N · 2013-03-07 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, but then again, we'd have to be _incredibly_ lucky to find an unclaimed r64 in our home system ... and then we'd immediately find out how incredibly _unlucky_ we are to find we're living in null.
  On the other hand, there are at least a few thousand of us who know how to handle the politics (provided that they're not all too busy shooting each other, that is).
3. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by jimshatt · 2013-03-07 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  What are R64s?
  Ah, sorry, google tells me it's something about the rarity of the material, with R64 being the rarest. Thanks google!
4. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by Teancum · 2013-03-07 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think Google won't pay up on this offer? They certainly have that kind of money ($20 million) and this is also being offered through the X-Prize Foundation.... the same guys that did the "Ansari X-Prize" that paid a roughly similar amount for the first private reusable spacecraft capable of carrying passengers into space.... and that technology was purchased by Richard Branson to start Virgin Galactic.
  2015 also isn't really too close for a program like this, as this concept and the prize itself has been going for several years now. I would agree that somebody starting from scratch right now won't be able to meet the goal, but there are several teams of people who are well on their way. I should note that the Google Lunar X-Prize group has stopped taking team applications, with interested parties being encouraged to help support existing efforts to claim the prize.
  Most of the teams are hoping to get into space as secondary payloads on board spacecraft like the Falcon 9 and Atlas V. That will reduce the cost for going into space, but I'd agree that won't necessarily make it profitable.
  Then again, in terms of making a profit by going into space, the point of the prize is to act as an incentive for people to do something like this, not to necessarily fund the whole thing. Think of the Olympics, where admittedly there is a sort of cash prize (or at least some precious metals being given to the winners), but most people spend far more than the value of that award in terms of training and development costs to win the prize. Other examples can be found. Being declared the "winner" and actually getting to the Moon would be a great way to demonstrate that your company or group has the technical skills necessary to do some impressive things in space. Again look at the example of Scaled Composites and the huge contracts they've landed after winning the original X-Prize competition. That more than paid off any development costs... as if that was even a concern in the first place.
5. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by N!k0N · 2013-03-07 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  R64 (moons*) are from Eve Online (Rarity [4*], 8, 16, 32, 64) -- each rarity level being progressively more difficult to find as the number increases... I don't know the progression, as I don't think it's been published (or at least, I couldn't find it with a few quick google searches), though estimates hold Tech moons around 400.
  Assuming linear progression of each step halving the number of moons, and Tech being a representative example of R32 Moon density, that gives a count of about 200 of each type of R64 moon, spread across ~3500 systems, with varying numbers of moons (from 0 to ~100 ... I think 102 or 104 is the highest). So, at an average of 50 moons/system, you have a 0.1% chance any one moon in a system would be R64.
  *well, actually, it's the material's rarity, but you can R4 and R64 materials on the same moon ... and it'd still be considered a R64 moon.
  **R4 moons are everywhere, and generally not counted when talking about moon materials.
6. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by DerekLyons · 2013-03-08 00:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The contest (Google Lunar X Prize) has actually being underway since 2007... and nobody is particularly close.
7. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by Extremus · 2013-03-08 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Google wants to pay that money.
  This fact is evident! It is the first thing I thought when reading that they will give a bonus for finding water and the Apollo landing site, two things that clearly do not exist.
8. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by wings · 2013-03-08 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  $20M might be enough to get an HD video camera added to an already planned mission.
9. Re:Doesn't seem realistic by Bigby · 2013-03-08 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not until some genius invents a new propulsion system and hand computes coordinates in his head and gets there in under $1m.
They're part of the way there... by Bearhouse · 2013-03-07 21:52 · Score: 2

Bolt an Android 'phone...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/07/1438237/android-in-space-strand-1-satellite-to-activate-nexus-one
To this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Mindstorms_NXT_2.0
Then find large rocket...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Job done! I claim my 10% consulting fee!
More seriously, looks like the Indians are going to get there pretty soon, (2015), but this is not a private venture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2
LINK TO AUTOPLAY VIDEO by david.given · 2013-03-07 22:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Please, please don't post links to these without at least warning people...
Very old news by Su27K · 2013-03-07 23:06 · Score: 1

The race started in 2010, so it's already been going for more than 2 years now, and it's not for companies, it's for privately funded teams. I do agree that the goal may be too high this time and probably none of the teams could complete it.
Old, old, old news by DerekLyons · 2013-03-07 23:22 · Score: 4, Informative

The contest is called the Google Lunar X Prize - and was announced back in 2007.
Extremely old news by DaKritter · 2013-03-07 23:23 · Score: 1

This is the Google X-Prize they are talking about, right? The one that got everyone exited years ago?
Why, even BBC makes fake news these days to attract more views.
this is stupid and malevolent by etash · 2013-03-07 23:27 · Score: 1

Why on earth someone ( = a person, a team ) who COULD send a robot to land on the moon on 20m dollars budget would ever claim the google money ? The entity to achieve such a breakthrough cost reduction in space missions would simply patent the idea ( mostly the "rocket engine" ), form a company and sell the tech for 10-100x the profit.
1. Re:this is stupid and malevolent by mortonda · 2013-03-08 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  ... AND collect the google money. Or, if you don't care about $20 million, give it to me!
Gimme those 20M$ by tommeke100 · 2013-03-07 23:44 · Score: 1

I just visited Hollywood studios and drove around my RC car with cam!
Up to Old Tricks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 23:50 · Score: 1

Is the old movie set from the Apollo landings still available?
for the horde! by iSterculius · 2013-03-08 00:00 · Score: 1

I'll kick in another $50 if the robot takes down the U.S. flag and replaces it with a World of Warcraft flag.
Re:Earth Mass by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-03-08 01:03 · Score: 2

Not from the moon -- we orbit the sun as an Earth-moon system, so the net mass doesn't change.
Hundreds of tons of space dust hit the Earth every day, IIRC.
Asteroids miles in diameter wouldn't be noticeable, though scientists could probably detect it (soft landing). In any case, you would have to change the speed of the Earth to change its orbit. As the Earth is about 7 heptillion tons, that's a tall order for the forseeable future. All asteroids hitting Earth would kill us, but not much orbit-wise.
Finally, whatever hit the Earth knocking a chunk off to form the moon (it has no iron magnetic core, so they know it is surface material from something else and didn't form as a planet-like body on its own) probably didn't change the orbit much either.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Off-earthing by PopeRatzo · 2013-03-08 01:37 · Score: 1

The only way a company's going to the moon to set up mining is if there's somebody there who will work for $3/hr.
And if they can find some moon Republicans to outlaw unions up there.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Science Fiction by Eravnrekaree · 2013-03-08 01:44 · Score: 1

Do people understand how absurdly unfeasible this is and how this article is basically spouting science fiction? If you tried to mine the moon, the material you mined would cost its weight in diaminds. Transport to the moon remains extremely cost-prohibitive and no concievable technology I have ever heard of can change that.
If we are talking about mining objects in space, anyway, it is worth pointing out its probably better to mine an asteroid which is more likely to be rich in the metals.
1. Re:Science Fiction by painandgreed · 2013-03-08 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  The mining to be done will be done for use in space. Since getting stuff off the moon and into space is cheaper than getting stuff off the earth, at a certain point, mining the moon is economically feasible. Water for fuel will be the first thing mined and the moon is probably better for it than asteroids. Surveying and mining asteroids in itself is probably a much more time consuming and costly feat than doing the same on the moon, especially for metals. All our current refining and fabrications technology assumes a gravitational field. Converting this to the airless moon will probably be easier than researching similar airless and weightless tech for mining asteroids.
Quote to Remember by arthurpaliden · 2013-03-08 02:02 · Score: 1

"It's a rock, no indigenous life forms."

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
1. Re:Quote to Remember by Westwood0720 · 2013-03-08 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Did IQs just suddenly drop while I was away?
Robot, schmobot! by JeanCroix · 2013-03-08 02:04 · Score: 1

I've already starting growing my army of Sam Rockwell clones!
Moon mining? by cjjjer · 2013-03-08 02:38 · Score: 1

Sounds more like Google wants to have Street View of the moon.
Shareholders by schneidafunk · 2013-03-08 03:46 · Score: 2

Google is a public company. How do they justify spending $20 million for this project to share holders?

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:Shareholders by mbone · 2013-03-08 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  Any way they want to - probably as marketing. That business about having a fiducial responsibility to focus only on profits is only trotted out to confuse simple-minded people when a company does something unpopular.
2. Re:Shareholders by DerekLyons · 2013-03-08 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  There's only something like six shareholders* to explain it to... and really only two of them matter. So, it's not a big deal to explain this 'so small it's lost in the noise' amount of money.
  * The GOOG you can buy publicly is second class stock with no ownership, voting, or dividend rights. The first class stock is publicly held in theory, but in reality it's split between Brin and Page and a handful of early investors with Brin and Page owning the bulk of it.
LLR by mbone · 2013-03-08 04:52 · Score: 2

Three Apollo site (11,14 and 15) , and the 2 Lunakhod sites, are still in use - they host Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) retroreflectors, which are crucial to our knowledge of Lunar dynamics.
The Apollo 11 LLR is protected by NASA regulations, but the other sites are not. I (and numerous others) have made the point to NASA that having a rover come within meters of a retroreflector could cause problems, but I am not sure it has percolated into the contest teams.
1. Re:LLR by DerekLyons · 2013-03-08 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  The Apollo 11 LLR is protected by NASA regulations, but the other sites are not.
  All Apollo sites are protected by NASA regulations.
  
  I (and numerous others) have made the point to NASA that having a rover come within meters of a retroreflector could cause problems, but I am not sure it has percolated into the contest teams.
  The contest organizers long ago disavowed the goal of visiting a lunar landing site.
Re:Don't we need the moon? by Unkyjar · 2013-03-08 05:33 · Score: 1

But it's the only way we can be free of werewolves, and the imminent threat of Goku.
I'll do it. by Dabido · 2013-03-09 05:59 · Score: 1

I'll fly there in my google self driving car!!!! Woo hooo! *selects 'Sailors of the moon' mp3 on cars stereo system*

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Um - Isn't this really old news? by Paul+server+guy · 2013-03-09 06:55 · Score: 1

Like 6 year old news? I was just about starting to think that none of the teams would even make it in time. They've already extended it twice.Now, Mind you, I really want it to succeed, and we are working with two of the teams, but - I'm just not seeing it happen - yet.

--
Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org