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.

30 of 59 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    5. 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...
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

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

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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 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.

    3. 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...
    4. 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.

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

    was about to post the same thing!

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

    Job

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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. . . .
  12. 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 Tablizer · · Score: 1

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

  13. 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."
  14. Re:Military Defense Contractor Training by NotAPK · · Score: 1

    Mind blown. The AC is right!