Slashdot Mirror


Recent College Grads Aim To Land A Robot On The Moon (thehindu.com)

Sunday the Indian Space Research Organization successfully test-launched a scramjet rocket, propelled by "an air-breathing propulsion system which uses hydrogen as fuel and oxygen from the atmosphere air as the oxidizer" rather than carrying a tank of liquid oxygen. "if the need for liquid oxygen is taken away, the space craft can be much lighter, hence cheaper to launch," notes one newspaper, adding that India is only the fourth country to flight-test a scramjet engine after the U.S., Russia and the European Space Agency.

But in addition, 15 former ISRO scientists are now helping Team Indus, one of the 16 teams remaining in Google's $30 million Lunar XPRIZE competition, who will use ISRO's polar satellite launch vehicle to send their spacecraft to the moon. GillBates0 writes: An official designated as "Skywalker", said that such space missions used to be limited to extremely elite people and PhDs in the past. That stereotype is now breaking. "I was just a college student a couple of years ago and now I am working on an actual space mission, how cool is that," said Karan Vaish, 23, who is helping the team to design the lunar rover. Eighty per cent of the team is reported to be less than five years out of college.

59 comments

  1. What's next? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    What's next? Are they gonna try to put a robot on Mars?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:What's next? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      They already put a satellite in Mars orbit... and only spent $74 million putting it there. Who knows, they might go for a rover next.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:What's next? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

      What's next? Are they gonna try to put a robot on Mars?

      Day 1: Robot lands on moon

      Day 2: 23-year-old recompiles the kernel. Brags to his mother.

      Day 3: 23-year-old's mother apt-get installs fortune and begins "astrology that's truly out of this world" business

      Day 36028: Moon-Singularity with superior position in gravity well accidentally runs fortune, gets distracted from external universe in a fit of angst, and allows humanity to survive.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    3. Re:What's next? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 5, Funny

      They already put a satellite in Mars orbit... and only spent $74 million putting it there. Who knows, they might go for a rover next.

      As long as it does not involve humans, they are fine. Once you put humans in the picture, they will have to develop toilet technology - something that they yet have to crack.

    4. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > hey will have to develop toilet technology - something that they yet have to crack

      The crack is most of the problem. (Fluids are *much easier* to handle in zero-gee recycling.)

    5. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already put a satellite in Mars orbit... and only spent $74 million putting it there. Who knows, they might go for a rover next.

      Well done for a country that don't have a semiconductor industry.
      More like they PURCHASED the satellite for $74M.

    6. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case they are a lot better at the free market thing than the US.
      Of course it could be that their organizations just are less corrupt and their scientists more honest.
      Either way the numbers are in, they are doing it cheaper.

    7. Re: What's next? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      74 million is a joke. They manipulate their money against the dollar for pushing software. No different than China. In addition, all of the expensive instruments came from other nations. Now, with that said, the fact that a relatively young organization got right on first go was cool.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:What's next? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      They didn't spent $74M on the orbiter but on the entire mission. Let that sink in... Part of that was achieved by using cheap stuff developed in-house instead of spending a lot of money buying abroad.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:What's next? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      "they will have to develop toilet technology - something that they yet have to crack."

      going by the condition and smell of any large city in usa, that country is yet to crack that either.

    10. Re: What's next? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      you know that your claims makes no sense.
      if they manipulate their currency by undervaluing it to push their products including software, dollar value of anything originally designated in their currency will be higher. iow, if they undervalue their currency, cost of this project in dollar terms(74m) is higher than the real cost.

      if "all of the expensive instruments came from other nations" why can't those other nations use same instruments to do that same thing at less.

      maybe basic understanding of logic and basic education is what you need.

    11. Re: What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot cheaper to do something when someone else has already paid for all the R&D. It's also cheaper when you can use someone else's earth based mission control facilities. It's cheaper when you already have access to all the orbital mechanics used when launching vehicles to the various locations within the solar system.

    12. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sick burn, Pajeet.

    13. Re: What's next? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      since none of these are true in this case, your point is invalid.

    14. Re: What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These Indiabs have a pretty good launch system they are trying to make money on. Think of this as advertising focused on people who want to put up satellites. And of couse they would do due diligence too. I think they built their own satillite too but I do not know. Still, rolling your own would be part of the promotion budget. On the other hand, their competitors have a shill budget also.

  2. well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone needa to pick up the torch from nasa some day.

    1. Re:well, by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And after they land rovers that last for years, orbit all of the planets, launch interstellar probes, and flyby Pluto, they'll be ready to finish catching up. In the meantime, NASA stands alone.

    2. Re: well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, that was what i meant - nasa will stand alone for quite some time, but the writing is on the wall.

  3. College Class Project by DBCubix · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting until the technology and costs become such that it could be assigned as a college class project. Students would love that.

    --
    I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
    1. Re:College Class Project by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      When it gets cheap enough, somebody please send up a bunch of VR cameras on rovers to the moon, mars, and wherever else, and have them map as many different areas in high res VR as possible, then we here on earth could all take a walk on those worlds. It would be a cool educational tool as well as entertainment. It might also be useful for planning future landings and activities.

    2. Re:College Class Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The over 1 second ping to the moon would make VR very unpleasant.

    3. Re:College Class Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the intention was to control the robots in real time.
      You catch a "street view" style of data on the moon surface and map on a skybox the user can walk around in.
      Together with a detailed heightmap to map the surface images on it should be good enough for looking around for a few hours until you get bored.

  4. Calculus of Variations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the need for liquid oxygen is taken away, you need to stay in the lower atmosphere longer requiring more heat shielding.

  5. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, as somebody who never graduated High School, I intend to send a rocket to land on the sun, with no more sacrifice than a cup of coffee a day.

  6. Australia completed the first successful Scramjet by RobHart · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are actually FIVE countries that have successfully tested scramjets in flight - the list should include Australia. What is more, the Australian project (HySHot run from the University of Queensland) was the FIRST successful scramjet flight (in July 2002).

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyShot

  7. Kerpal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at the Interplanetary Masala Institute

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwcHw3icPs

  8. Why? by n2hightech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just do not see why people keep trying to eliminate the weight of oxidizer and propellent. IE scram jets or space elevators when the cost of propellants is so small. The propellent cost for a Falcon 9 launch is only $250,000. The Falcon 9 can put 50,000 lbs of cargo in low earth orbit that's just $5 per pound for propellent. Propellent does not matter. What matters is the cost of the vehicle. We need 100% spacecraft reusability for 1,000's of launches to get the cost of space travel down. Space X is working towards that goal. The current engines that use Kerosene will wear out rather quickly because the engines need to run with excess oxidizer to prevent them from being fouled by carbon build up. The oxidizer causes the engine to rust out(titanium rust). The new Space X engine uses liquid methane fuel. It can be run with a more perfect oxidizer/ fuel ratio and eliminate the corrosion problem so much longer life.

    1. Re:Why? by RobHart · · Score: 2

      It's not the cost of the propellant (or rather oxidiser) that matters - it's the MASS (and that of the associated tankage etc). Every kilogram of mass saved increases the payload - which in turn drops the $/kg launch cost.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe read the summary sometime?

      "if the need for liquid oxygen is taken away, the space craft can be much lighter, hence cheaper to launch,"

    3. Re:Why? by n2hightech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rocket engines are incredibly powerful for their mass. Other engines are much more complex and have higher mass to thrust ratios. The tanks for fuel are very low mass compared to the fuel they contain. Scram jets require a booster system of some type to get them supersonic. Once super sonic they work until they run out of atmosphere and then the orbital system needs rockets to get into space. So in order to reduce the mass of oxidizer they add a subsonic to sonic booster system and then to operate in space they add a rocket. Seems much simpler and lower cost to just add bigger tanks to the rocket and forget all the other stuff.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No its not. The cost does not scale with MASS, Otherwise buildings would be the most expensive thing ever, and shipping wouldn't be the cheapest form of transport. . Esp when most of that mass is LOX which is cheaper than dirt and a tank to hold which is also very cheap compared to everything else.

      Furthermore the task of a rocket is to get to 7500m/s. the high requirement is fairly trival. Even the most optimistic scram motors don't get close. Even at 3000m/s (march 9) your very very long way off 7500m/s (scales with the square). On top of that none have published performance data. Some people have shown that it may in fact be impossible to get any thrust over quite modest speeds (all the burning of fuel happens miles down stream). At these speeds your ionizing the air and that is energy you don't get back, there is a minimum drag and efficiency is falling fast as you speed up. In fact Rockets can have better LD ratios than wings at these speeds!

      Rockets are bloody good at what they do. The are not airplanes for a reason. The atmosphere is not your friend. Boats are not the same as planes, why the fuck do we want space launch vehicles to look like and work like planes?

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of the points you made, weight saved in the first stage of a rocket isn't all that helpful in the final mass to orbit, I think the ratio is worse than 5 to 1 (I could stand a correction there). That's why many first stages burn kerosene instead of liquid hydrogen -- not much real advantage to the lighter propellant. All this talk about scramjets only saves oxidizer for the first stage. If there were some exotic propulsion which reduced the need for propellants in the upper stages then the advantage might be worth it, but I just don't see it for air breathing first stages.

    6. Re:Why? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Plus I guess their space craft will take much longer to reach the Moon.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Why? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The cost of the propellant is irrelevant. The goal is reusability. This is difficult because of the propellant mass fraction a rocket needs (i.e. the fraction of its launch mass dedicated to propellants). For a pure rocket this is in the region of 95%, so the entire rocket structure and payload must be crammed into the remaining 5%. This makes it difficult to do reusability, because heat shielding etc. eat into your already-tiny payload fraction.
      When you can use atmospheric oxygen, the propellant mass fraction goes down, i.e. more of your launch weight can reach orbit. This makes it feasible to build a heavier structure that includes reusability features.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockets are bloody good at what they do. The are not airplanes for a reason. The atmosphere is not your friend. Boats are not the same as planes, why the fuck do we want space launch vehicles to look like and work like planes?

      Probably because aeroplanes are... A) inherently reusable, B) cheaper than rockets to operate C) have a quick turn around time D) less prone to exploding and killing all the occupants and scattering the payload over a wide area.

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also DONT GO TO ORBIT. Like a boat doesn't fly.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he current engines that use Kerosene will wear out rather quickly because the engines need to run with excess oxidizer to prevent them from being fouled by carbon build up.

      this is just so totally wrong. These engines rule fuel rich. Always, for performance reasons. Carbon build up where it happens helps keep the engine just a little bit cooler.

      Regeneratively cooled engines typically have a lifetime limit set by thermal stresses in the throat (inside is very hot, outside is rather cold, it needs to be thin as there is very high heat loads, it is worse in hydrogen engines). Cracks eventually form and grow and you have to get a new engine.

  9. Re:Australia completed the first successful Scramj by topnob · · Score: 1

    was about to post the same thing!

  10. Recent College Grads Aim To Land A by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Job

  11. Re:Do the needful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    houstown is old sheet.

    practise seyin SRI-Harry-Kota & Has-san.

    do not worry. We know you astronots. We met at Kosmodrome happy hour.

  12. The real issue with NASA. by thesupraman · · Score: 2

    This year NASAs budget is over 18 billion.
    It has never dropped below 15 billion a year since 2004, or below 12 billion since 1990.
    NASA dont currently have any launch capability of their own.
    And yet, the amount NASA spend on actualy space exploration has continuously dropped over that time.
    The amount they spend on pork barrel politics and massive internal management/oversight structures has
    however continued to grow.

    THIS is the problem with NASA - the ratio of funding to achievement has been in a continuous downward
    spiral, however most people who want them to succeed cannot think past 'more money for NASA' and
    realise that the #1 problem is their collapsing internal structure, not funding.

    NASA needs to get back to their mission, the development, delivery, and operation of space research platforms.
    I know thats very unpopular, especially by the flag wavers, but a strong NASA is one that is mission focused,
    not downing in its own politics and bureaucracy.

    1. Re:The real issue with NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I know thats very unpopular, especially by the flag wavers

      If you mean on the right. You are wrong. Most on the right have supported NASA you know doing the space thing. Instead of you have a NASA head screaming about Global warning or climate change. You know that is fine. But not as head of NASA. Fire the current crop of idiots running NASA and keep funding where it is.

    2. Re: The real issue with NASA. by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Relax. The whole reason why O pushed private space was to get low costs for space access. Once the GOP is out of CONgress, we will see nasa no longer being used for a jobs bill. Of course, the GOPs nightmare with SLS still has to be killed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: The real issue with NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kool-Aid drinking is strong with this one.

  13. Call me from the Moon by tomhath · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I was just a college student a couple of years ago and now I am working on an actual space mission, how cool is that," said Karan Vaish, 23, who is helping the team to design the lunar rover.

    Pffft. I designed a lunar rover when I was 8 years old. And a spaceship for traveling to distant galaxies.

  14. One of these days Alice, one of these days... by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

    *Bang* *Zip* To the Moon! Which show you know this reference from may indicate how old you are, or how much classic TV you were exposed to as a child.

    1. Re:One of these days Alice, one of these days... by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      Also, has 'Skywalker' seen all of the Star Wars films or just Episode Seven? The Nation wants to know! Much respect hangs on the answer.

  15. Great kid. Don't get cocky. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I was just a college student a couple of years ago and now I am working on an actual space mission, how cool is that," said Karan Vaish, 23, who is helping the team to design the lunar rover.

    Neil Armstrong was 38 when he walked on the Moon, 24 years before you were born -- after being a Navy pilot, graduating from Purdue, being a test pilot and being in the astronaut program for 11 years. You graduated from school and are playing with robots. Granted, they're "space robots" and that is pretty cool, but keep a little perspective.

    That aside. Why is it news that younger people work on things too? Someone has to take over and do things. Young graduates with excellent training and skills seems appropriately normal. Hopefully the youngsters will learn from both the achievements and mistakes of their predecessors - you know, all the older folks that did it first.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Great kid. Don't get cocky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Back in my day we had astronauts and you youngsters with your silly RC helicopters shouldn't be doing that, now get off my lawn"

  16. Re:Australia completed the first successful Scramj by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia? Aren't we the little country next to Switzerland? That would make us ESA wouldn't it?

  17. This is not a new thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quoting from Apollo 40 years on:

    The young minds (the average age of Apollo 11's mission control team was 28) who were put to work on Apollo were all recent graduates who had benefited from former president Eisenhower's National Defence Education Act, a massive capital investment in the US education system, started in the late 50s in response to Sputnik.

    Engineering is a marvelous field of study, but history should be included as well. -PCP

  18. Lunar junk by swb · · Score: 1

    If these kinds of projects become more common, is there a risk that desirable landing zones on the moon will become junkyards of project flights and expired landers and rovers?

    I'm guessing not, since the moon is about Asia's size in terms of surface area. But maybe due to all kinds of reasons some zone on the moon is easier to hit or more desirable to land on, actually making it something of a problem.

    1. Re:Lunar junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it didn't bother the first missions.
      Everyone else will likely feel that they have the same right to litter the moon as previous missions.

      The littering problem exists everywhere, for example a lot of the first world built their society by burning fossil fuels.
      Now that third world nations want to catch up it is a bit hypocritical to say that they can't.
      It's like parents being chain smokers and telling their children that they can't smoke.
      "Do as I say, not as I do." isn't an argument people tend to take to their hearts.

    2. Re:Lunar junk by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Relax, there's trillions of other moons, if you travel far enough.

  19. cigar adverts by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    oxygen from the atmosphere air

    Good you cleared that up. We might have thought they were referring to the one on the G string.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Re:Military Defense Contractor Training by NotAPK · · Score: 1

    Mind blown. The AC is right!

  21. Re: Australia completed the first successful Scram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, we are, and we also work with the russians. plus, the first terminator was made of styrian oak.