Slashdot Mirror


Google's $20 Million Race To the Moon Will End With No Winner -- and Google is OK With That (cnbc.com)

Michael Sheetz, reporting for CNBC: More than ten years after it was announced -- and extended over and over -- the Google-sponsored race to win $20 million by landing on the moon will end with no winners. The four teams racing to win the Google Lunar Xprize, which requires a company to land a spacecraft on the moon by March 31, are either short of money or unable to launch this year, three people familiar with the matter told CNBC. Meanwhile, Google -- which extended the deadline from 2012 to 2014 and then eventually to 2018 -- is not willing to push out the date further. "Google does not have plans at this time to extend the deadline again, however we are so thrilled with the progress made by these teams over the last ten years," a Google spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC. The commercial space industry has written off the Lunar Xprize as improbable, and not worth pursuing, according to sources.

85 comments

  1. Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    news at 11

  2. Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After all we already did land on the moon many times, with current technology and experience it should be piece of cake? Unless we never landed on the moon....

    1. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup.

      And it cost $6.5bn for a Saturn V rocket / $185m per launch. And those were 1960's dollars.

      Trying to do it to win $20m in today's money (which wouldn't even cover 0.3% of the cost of how we did it back then) is a bit more difficult. Hell, just the fuel alone could cost that, or the insurance for if it happens to explode on the launchpad.
        Not viable. Especially if you are only fronting that money in the hope of winning the prize.

      The reason the Moon landings were so incredible to some people, is because of the sheer huge amounts of money spent on them - hundreds of billions. You could do an awful lot more with the money than say "we stepped on the Moon". And in today's money it's even more than you might think.

      More surprisingly is that they were ever authorised at all, not that the sheer volume of money thrown at them actually resulted in success.

    2. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy is relative.. but yes, it is certainly doable.

      The problem is that it is not doable for only $20M.

      The difference in the original X-prize - getting to "space" in the the loosest of terms (sub-orbital) and getting to the moon is about the difference in time and effort as waking up and walking to the fridge versus having to go to the Taco Bell 7 miles down the road.

    3. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes but in the 1960s microprocessors were very slow. Today the processor in my phone is much much more powerful and has more memory then all of the Saturn era launch computers combined. Therefore it must be that much easier and cheaper to go to the Moon today.

    4. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all we already did land on the moon many times, with current technology and experience it should be piece of cake? Unless we never landed on the moon....

      Or perhaps you just don't know as much as you think you do? The (manned) moon missions were launched with the Saturn Vs - there is currently nothing available that comes close to the payload capability of those. Bringing a few people up to near earth orbit is massively (pun intended) different than launching an actual spaceship that can reach the moon, land and take off again and then fly back.

      Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
      And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

    5. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      India is planning an unmanned lunar orbiter, lander and rover mission in 2018. The budget is about $90 million including launch vehicle.

    6. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by ranton · · Score: 2

      Yes but in the 1960s microprocessors were very slow. Today the processor in my phone is much much more powerful and has more memory then all of the Saturn era launch computers combined. Therefore it must be that much easier and cheaper to go to the Moon today.

      So one part of the launch vehicle, which is probably a small fraction of a percent of the total cost, has gone down dramatically. While the cost of metal, fuel, salaries, etc. have all gone up with inflationary pressures. I seriously doubt the cost of computing power has any noticeable affect on launch costs.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    7. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Easier, yes. Cheaper, not so much.... and certainly not until we've been doing it for a while.

      20 million is no more than a tenth of how much it probably actually will cost someone to get there.

    8. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      But my computer used to only have 8K of RAM and now it has 16GB.

    9. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wow, by 2018 computers will be even faster. Therefore it will be a lot easier by then!

    10. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No. 2018 is the year of Meltdown/Spectre and massive performance penalties.

    11. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Not possible...Moore's Law is guaranteed to continue forever.

    12. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a Saturn V for this. The Surveyor landers were launched on an Atlas booster with a Centaur upper stage. And both of those were the original designs, not the current several-generations-later much-improved versions. The current Falcon 9 has about 3x the payload capacity.

    13. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint hint, he's an "anti-space nutter" guy throwing up straw-men no one has said ever to get people to bite and somehow (?) prove his point (to himself, not really sure who else he's trying to convince).

    14. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Hell, just the fuel alone could cost that

      Don't think so, a Falcon 9 will get you ~4 tons to Mars which probably means ~6 tons to the Moon which should be plenty for a small lander/rover and according to Musk himself the fuel is only about $200k. Everything else was on the money though, it'll cost way more than $20m to claim those $20m.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by fox171171 · · Score: 0

      The reason the Moon landings were so incredible to some people, is because of the sheer huge amounts of money spent on them - hundreds of billions. You could do an awful lot more with the money than say "we stepped on the Moon".

      Today that money would be burned up in government inefficiencies, pork, corruption and so on.

    16. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The biggest cost is the design and manufacturing of the rocket, and those cost have come down a lot with 3D CAD tools, computer simulations, progress in material sciences, and modern CNC manufacturing.

    17. Re: Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically, it is possible to assemble the lander and transport in orbit with smaller individual launches from earth.

    18. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Right. It only cost about $25 billion in the 1960s to go to the moon. We could do it for about $200 million today. After all, my watch has as much processing power as the Saturn V launch computer!

    19. Re: Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Agreed. It is much easier to assemble things in orbit rather then assembling them on Earth. You can even skip that launch step by constructing them in orbit as well, in a space factory!

    20. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes! Think of the labor saved from switching from a drafting table to a 3D CAD tool. That was a major portion of the $25 billion it took to build the Saturn V launch system.

    21. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      But I think we could cut costs on the $200,000 fuel bill by launching the Falcon 9 from space, instead of a rock stuck in a gravity well like Earth. You could even create the fuel itself in space, which would eliminate the cost for launching the fuel. Remember, every pound that can be saved during launch is a huge win in terms of costs.

    22. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that Trump's wall is more expensive than a years worth of NASA funding. Space missions aren't free, but we spend 30x NASA budget on war and military every single year. The money isn't the problem - it's the will.

    23. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yes but in the 1960s microprocessors were very slow. Today the processor in my phone is much much more powerful and has more memory then all of the Saturn era launch computers combined. Therefore it must be that much easier and cheaper to go to the Moon today.

      There's an app for going to the moon?

      Somehow I suspect more than on-board compute power is needed.

    24. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by erice · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      And it cost $6.5bn for a Saturn V rocket / $185m per launch. And those were 1960's dollars.

      Trying to do it to win $20m in today's money (which wouldn't even cover 0.3% of the cost of how we did it back then) is a bit more difficult. Hell, just the fuel alone could cost that, or the insurance for if it happens to explode on the launchpad.

      But the Lunar X-Prize isn't trying to re-create Apollo. It is more like the far less ambitious and costly Surveyor missions. The bill came in at $469 million for seven landers.

      It is even closer to Lunokhod-1 but being a Soviet mission, cost comparisons are tricky (if you can get the data at all).

    25. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I suggested only that it would probably not cost any *LESS* than $200 million. On account of simple technological advances, I suspect that we probably *could* do it for somewhat less today than the equivalent that was spent in the 1960's, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't going to be one helluvalot of money.

    26. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The money isn't the problem - it's the will."
      No it's the expected ROI that determines what programs get funded and which don't.

      There is no reason trillions should be spent to plant the flag on the moon (again) or Mars. The US has been sending unmanned probes all over the solar system since the 70's to collect scientific data. Data that has been shared with the world. They have successfully landed unmanned rovers on Mars to collect scientific data and shared that data with the world. Unless one of these probes discovers another habitable planet in the solar system there is no reason to worry about sending out manned missions which would be high risk and low reward.

    27. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

      The sheer amount of money thrown at it, is what makes me thing there was a plan B at hand (fake moon landings). It could not fail.

    28. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No really, we were impressed because it was difficult and a long way up, and worked.
      Money wasn't really in my mind at that age.

    29. Re: Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We first need to mine the materials on mars. That'll take some time. After that's done we can start setting up mars colonies to grow shit potatoes.

    30. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Bringing a few people up to near earth orbit is massively (pun intended) different than launching an actual spaceship that can reach the moon, land and take off again and then fly back

      Completely true, Anonymous Coward, but those aren't (weren't) the requirements for the Google Lunar X prize. Contestants had to land a probe on the moon, and have it travel 500 meters while trasnmitting HD video back to earth.

      It didn't have to return to earth and it could be as small as required to meet the objectives.

    31. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      8K of RAM is not a computer, its a toy, or a calculator.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    32. Re: Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What wall ? Did you see a wall yet ? Hmmm no. There is no wall !

    33. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Do you mind flinging excrement somewhere else?

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    34. Re:Shouldn't this be easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The major portion was actually the design and construction of all the hardware and facilities outside of the rocket itself. Things like the launch pads, the test stands, etc...

  3. Re:Company doesn't spend 20 million, is happy by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    Also, gets s-tons of free "do no evil" PR.

    >> CNBC

    Although, I'm not sure CNBC exposure is worth anything. It's been a while since I met a geek with cable...

  4. LOL, the teams just got FUCKED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for assuming the prize would always be there. You all got played!

  5. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Why is there a deadline at all, anyway?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  6. Bummer by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    That is kind of a surprise. I mean we are really close to having a manned mission to Mars. I guess Musk was concentrating on that, and didn't think the Moon was worth it. Once we have our space factories up and running and mining asteroids we will be in good shape for Mars...or beyond?

    1. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could have been a Tesla zipping around on the moon. How about that for advertising.

  7. We're still stuck on Earth with Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one claiming the prize means we're no closer to leaving Earth and escaping Google's insidious, ubiquitous strip-mining of your private life for sale to the highest bidder.

    Hell yes they're OK with that - no one can escape their evil.

  8. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by scottrocket · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is there a deadline at all, anyway?

    Yeah, why not put 1 mil into an endowment fund, let it grow by dividend and then when someone finally reaches the moon, moves the required distance & takes photos, they will receive whatever is in the fund.

  9. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there a deadline at all, anyway?

    To get in the news.

    Google's an ad agency - don't believe for a minute they didn't thing this one through.

  10. $20 million is chicken feed by sjbe · · Score: 2

    And it cost $6.5bn for a Saturn V rocket / $185m per launch. And those were 1960's dollars.

    True although to be fair that was basically a crash program where budget constraints weren't really a serious concern. Plus that was a manned mission which is inherently a lot more expensive.

    Trying to do it to win $20m in today's money (which wouldn't even cover 0.3% of the cost of how we did it back then) is a bit more difficult.

    That's putting it mildly. While it certainly can be done cheaper than Apollo, $20 million is just a tiny amount of money for a goal like that. Something more realistic might be $200 million and even that would be doing it on an extremely tight budget. $20 million really isn't very much money at all.

    The reason the Moon landings were so incredible to some people, is because of the sheer huge amounts of money spent on them - hundreds of billions. You could do an awful lot more with the money than say "we stepped on the Moon". And in today's money it's even more than you might think.

    We DID do an awful lot more than just say we stepped on the moon. The money from the spin off technologies alone has more than paid for the entire Apollo program many times over, employed millions of people, and greatly improved our lives in measurable ways. And that's not including the value of telecom and other satellite data.

    1. Re:$20 million is chicken feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason the Moon landings were so incredible to some people, is because of the sheer huge amounts of money spent on them - hundreds of billions. You could do an awful lot more with the money than say "we stepped on the Moon". And in today's money it's even more than you might think.

      We DID do an awful lot more than just say we stepped on the moon. The money from the spin off technologies alone has more than paid for the entire Apollo program many times over, employed millions of people, and greatly improved our lives in measurable ways. And that's not including the value of telecom and other satellite data.

      Sorry, but the parent is right. Consider the massive benefit space programs would have gained had we not pissed away billions planting flags on our lunar rock to win the bigger-dick space race.

      Exploring space and related technologies would have happened regardless of a moon visit, just as we've advanced for many decades without first insisting we need to piss away a few trillion trying to put a foot on Mars. The fact that we haven't been back to the moon in decades says a lot about the value-add.

    2. Re: $20 million is chicken feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the basement dweller.

    3. Re:$20 million is chicken feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree. "We the people" needed a goal, and I don't think anything besides a moon landing would have given enough reason for the social movement that occurred. It was something tangible, definite, and could end in a single moment that everyone could be part of, and I don't know of anything else that would have done that.

  11. By "really close" you mean 20 years out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like for the last 50 years.

    1. Re:By "really close" you mean 20 years out by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Nah. We just need to build a few space factories and then mine asteroids and fill the interplanetary spaceships hull with asteroid dust to protect from the radiation.

    2. Re:By "really close" you mean 20 years out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you giggle to yourself when you write this? I'm guessing its a loud, shrill sound you've been constantly derided for for most of your life, but haven't been able to really kick. Interesting. But I bet you're proud of this. It's what you do after all - its what gives you meaning in life. So keep doing it! If you don't, the blackness is coming back. That suffocating feeling that nothing is going to change - when it was 28 it was bad, but now at 46 you really see the end coming, and honestly have just about as much to show for it. So push back the blackness with distraction - keep doing it, your sanity depends on it!

    3. Re:By "really close" you mean 20 years out by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      You are right! But if I close my eyes and wish really hard I will see myself living on Mars! It is really going to happen..finally! I am leaving this rock stuck in this gravity well forever! So long suckers - enjoy your rock!

    4. Re:By "really close" you mean 20 years out by XXongo · · Score: 1

      Do you giggle to yourself when you write this?

      I expect he did; the post was clearly intended to be at least partly parody.

      Interesting, though, it's parody that is based on an actual knowledge of what the space visionaries talk about. Notice that nobody mentioned radiation anywhere in the hundred-odd responses to this thread, but his comment discusses regolith shielding.

      ...But I bet you're proud of this. It's what you do after all - its what gives you meaning in life.

      Spoken like a true existentialist. And I agree. We all do what we can to keep the existential blackness at bay.

  12. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Google's an ad agency

    Google is not an ad agency. Google is a political party where you'll be expelled if you disagree.

  13. appy appy app apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too many appy apps and not enough grease monkey in today's world.

  14. Progress? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    we are so thrilled with the progress made by these teams over the last ten years

    They're thrilled they get to keep the money after getting the essentially free PR for the last decade. No fucking progress has been made.

    Sputnik flew in 1957. 12 years later we had humans on the moon. And we brought them all back. We're nearing 5 decades with no real progress in human space flight. We've had some progress in sending little robots to other planets and getting data back, but not by private industry. The private space has only made progress in launching shit into LEO.

    1. Re:Progress? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      But Windows 10 came out and it was the best version of Windows ever. And also Intel introduced CPU's which were up to 5% faster than the previous ones. So we are making good progress. Progress is inevitable.

    2. Re:Progress? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      no real progress in human space flight.

      Sending robots instead of humans is progress.

    3. Re:Progress? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      They're thrilled they get to keep the money after getting the essentially free PR for the last decade. No fucking progress has been made.

      They didn't even get to keep the money. Like the previous X-Prize, it was an insurance policy. Google has been paying the premiums on that policy for 10 years now. Probably much less than $20 million, but still a substantial sum of money. The insurance company came out on the right side of that bet this time. They're the ones who get to keep the money.

      But hey, we got this lovely participation prize for the children, so it was worth it! Right?

    4. Re:Progress? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I don't think private companies are even at the Sputnik level yet.

  15. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Why is there a deadline at all, anyway?

    To make it more dramatic and newsworthy. If there was no deadline, there would be no story about it each time a deadline is extended or expired.

  16. Wait. I just found out about it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should give me a three month extension.

  17. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm sure Google would be seriously hurt if it had to fork out $20M for something that would give it amazing publicity around the world. That's why they're cancelling it. Sure.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. Moon not worth it by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Economically the moon won't make much money, maybe with space tourism.
    But Mars, there's lots of money to be made there and much more to explore and see.
    The Moon is just a Harsh Mistress.

    1. Re:Moon not worth it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, what money would you make on Mars that you couldn't make on the moon?

      The moon is close enough and small enough that you might be able to mine it and return the result to Earth economically if you could find anything valuable there, or could potentially be a practical location for dirty industries if environmental costs on Earth got high enough.

      It's certainly where you'd want to supply any kind of Earth orbital industry from, and has lots of the kinds of materials you'd need for that: oxygen, silicates, probably water. It would be the source of raw materials for building large space infrastructure: habitats, orbital rings, solar plants, interplanetary/interstellar ships, launch lasers, etc. With low gravity and vacuum it's also a good place to build really big telescopes, particle accelerators, launch loops, space elevators and other such things.

      Mars seems primarily interesting for the possibility of extinct life, but I'm not sure it has any real advantages over the moon or asteroids for resources, or living space.

  19. Just as I was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... starting to finish the rocket I have been building over the last month in my garage they decide to no longer extend the deadline?
    Any suggestions what to do with it now? Someone paying for Mars or something?

  20. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

    Yeah, why not put 1 mil into an endowment fund, let it grow by dividend and then when someone finally reaches the moon, moves the required distance & takes photos, they will receive whatever is in the fund.

    Because it's a little late. The prize was originally funded the same way the first X-Prize was funded, as an insurance policy. Google took out a policy, and paid the premiums on it to the insurance company. If the conditions of the prize were met, the insurance policy would pay out. Those premiums have been spent, for a decade now, and Google is letting the policy lapse. The insurance company made a very good bet this time.

    If Google had initially funded the prize as a trust, then it could have been growing all this time and might have become a substantial sum of money. Unfortunately they didn't, since they expected the prize would be claimed, and much more quickly than a decade, so in order to keep their own costs low, they chose the insurance method. A $1 million prize a decade ago would have gotten no takers at all.

  21. Lunar Scout launch in March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lunar Scout is scheduled to launch in March on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. This is still a chance they'll make the deadline.

    1. Re:Lunar Scout launch in March by XXongo · · Score: 1

      Lunar Scout is scheduled to launch in March on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. This is still a chance they'll make the deadline.

      Unfortunately, "However, a person familiar with the Electron rocket said the Moon Express lander is too heavy for the Electron rocket, making it physically impossible to put the spacecraft into an orbit capable of reaching the moon." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/2...

  22. Ffs this is only going to fuel flat farther retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The flat farther are going to grab this and wave it in our faces as "proof" that we cant go beyond low earth orbit.

  23. Re: Ffs this is only going to fuel flat farther re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean flat earther.

  24. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm sure Google would be seriously hurt if it had to fork out $20M for something that would give it amazing publicity around the world. That's why they're cancelling it. Sure.

    Fair enough, but then ... why?

  25. Falcon 9 by TheSync · · Score: 1

    A Falcon 9 could launch a Lunar X-Prize craft, but the launch will set you back $60 million, so no profit on a $20 million prize.

  26. I think I can build this. by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    I found an old storage tank, and I'm pretty sure if I heat water hot enough, I can make it hit the moon. Maybe we can attach a long dable so we can just pull it back when done?

    Planning on aiming for the Expiration Date site.

  27. Globalist Jewgle zionist agenda exposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?... just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions)

  28. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As usual, the knee-jerk reaction is both wrong and frustrating.

  29. Re:Google zionist globalists in a nutshell by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Kill yourself, vermin.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  30. Re:Company doesnâ(TM)t spend 20 million, is h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And THAT is actually the problem with the entire premise. Basically, to join the Lunar X-Prize, you essentially had to sign much of the potential revenue gaining benefits to Google, but the cost was always going to be more than 20 million dollars. This makes it a no win proposition for anyone serious about it.

  31. Not a Saturn class mission [Re:Shouldn't this...] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    And it cost $6.5bn for a Saturn V rocket / $185m per launch. And those were 1960's dollars.

    $6.5 B was the cost of the whole Saturn program, not the per-vehicle cost. The Google X-prize contestants aren't developing a rocket, they're buying a launch on a vehicle developed by somebody else.

    And the Google X-prize contestants aren't sending a human mission to the moon, they don't need a Saturn class booster. They're more like the Surveyor missions, which launched on Atlases. But you can do it with a much smaller vehicle now-- electronics are a lot better than in the Surveyor program in 1964. You don't need an Atlas.

  32. Maybe it can be made on the cheap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..but not that cheap. I wonder what back-of-the-envelope calculation let Google to believe that a robotic Moon landing could be achieved for 20 millions.