Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Lunar XPrize Teams Partner For a 2016 SpaceX Moonshot

Posted by samzenpus on from the working-together dept.

An anonymous reader writes Two competing teams for the Google Lunar XPrize have announced that they are partnering for a mission to the moon in the second half of 2016. From the article: "The Google Lunar XPrize , a $30 million purse of prizes encouraging private teams to put lunar rovers on the moon, this morning took if not quite a giant leap, then at least a big step. Two of those teams, Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic and Japan-based Hakuto, signed on to share a rocket ride to the moon in late 2016. Hakuto, which developed a pair of rovers to explore the lunar surface, will hitch a ride on Astrobotic's lander, which plans to set down in Lacus Mortis, located in the northeastern portion of the moon. Once on the surface, both teams will deploy their rovers and go exploring. The first to cover 500 meters (around 550 yards) while broadcasting high-definition footage will take home the $20 million grand prize."

18 comments

  1. Glad to hear something of this again by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

    Several years ago we got to see a presentation from Dr. Peter Diamandis on the X-Prize Foundation and he was really excited about the lunar rover X-Prize. Then nothing for many years. I'm glad there's some forward progress on this.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Glad to hear something of this again by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This isn't progress, it's PR.

    2. Re:Glad to hear something of this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been fairly steady progress from CMU's side for quite a while. Just haven't been that many major press releases that got picked up by major media sources.

  2. No Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Team Golden Girls and their Cosmonauts are destined to win this prize.

  3. FUCK BETA by NotInHere · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    sorry to bring up an offtopic rant, but again classic slashdot is in offline mode, and I actually have to use slashdot beta to post this.
    FUCK BETA. IF YOUR USERS DONT LIKE YOUR DESCISIONS, THEN OVERTHINK THEM. EVEN WINDOWS 10 HAS A STARTMENU AGAIN. DICE YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER YOU ARE WORSE THAN MS OR BETTER.

    1. Re:FUCK BETA by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which , I truly wonder what percentage of slasdotters use beta ? any idea fellas ?

    2. Re:FUCK BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1

      And as a side note, FUCK AUTOREFRESH.

    3. Re:FUCK BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1

      And as a side note, FUCK AUTOREFRESH.

      Agreed, FUCK AUTOREFRESH! [/vent]

    4. Re:FUCK BETA by phayes · · Score: 1

      The explicit nobeta URL doesn't always work, for example on my iPhone (but does on my iPad).

      Result: I avoid /. & read my geek news elsewhere when on my iPhone. BRAVO to whoever forced beta,

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  4. How t hide things away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he big question is, with small teans and corporations getting to the moon, how will they hide all the alien bases and giant, dead, cities scattered all over the place? Not everyone cancount with NASA airbrushing facilities.
    http://www.marsanomalyresearch...

  5. Better than a rover, and just for pictures? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Send something up than can actually build something useful, like a 3D printed backhoe and tunnel boring machine with local material. Then they they can build a habitable space.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Better than a rover, and just for pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a bad goal, but these companies have to take tiny steps towards doing something useful. $30 million isn't much money to get a lander to the moon - and only the winner gets that. It's unreasonable to expect such lofty goals for first-timers to the moon who are doing it all on a shoestring.

      The second, third and fourth times this contest is run, you should expect steadily more difficult challenges.

    2. Re:Better than a rover, and just for pictures? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      All these rovers are going to cause a traffic jam.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Apollo sites by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Needless to say they will not be permitted to land near the supposed Apollo sites to see if they are really there.

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
    1. Re:Apollo sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be pointless. The crazies who believe that the Apollo landings were faked would merely point out how easy it would be to fake the evidence from your hypothetical rover mission. The Apollo sites really are historical places that should be preserved for future generations. We have more than enough moon explore.

    2. Re:Apollo sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Historical sites for all off us.

    3. Re:Apollo sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because being able to see them with a good telescope is not good enough? Getting the sights spotted and marked by a Chinese orbiter not good enough either?
      At this point any assertion of conspiracy seems a bit of a joke.

    4. Re:Apollo sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the point of this XPrize is mostly to take pretty pictures, landing near Appollo sites might actually be a good idea. It might even be possible to get some useful data, like how the structures have held up to micrometeorite bombardments. "Historical" does not mean nobody should go take a look at the sites, more like the opposite.