Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If anything, I think this is a great way for the "space == science only" crowd to get interested in private space activity. Thus far, many of them have either been ambivalent about private space, or outright antagonistic about it. This prize helps cement the idea that yes, private spaceflight can have benefits for science.

Posted by Neil H. at September 13, 2007 01:30 PM

It doesn't seem like enough time for anybody not already deep into launcher development (SpaceX?) to build this... is it?

Posted by Mike Earl at September 13, 2007 01:34 PM

With regards to a human lunar base, I think the prize could also have great benefits. I think it's pretty much a given that robots and rovers will play an integral support role of a manned lunar base, and getting robots to operate in a lunar environment is still something we have little experience with. The prize will likely lead to discovering plenty of new ideas and techniques which do and don't work on the lunar surface.

Also, rovers are a great way to captivate people's attention. Just look at how much the Mars rovers has increased people's attention at what's going on with Mars. For my generation, lunar exploration (human or robot) is something that exists only in history books. Seeing the Moon through the eyes of a rover (a rover put up by entrepreneurs, not a government) can change that, and increase support for human exploration of the Moon.

Posted by Neil H. at September 13, 2007 01:40 PM

Doesn't excite me much either. I would have preferred something manned. Space without man there just doesn't matter nearly as much, IMHO.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2007 01:52 PM

The thought occurs; did they intentionally shy away from human spaceflight so as not to compete with the Bigelow human spaceflight prize?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2007 01:58 PM

Rand,
It could also be because offering an orbital prize would've required a lot more prize money to make it realistic than Google was willing to spot. Yeah, Bigelow has some weird restrictions on his prize that make it less realistic for potential competitors, but I'd be willing to bet that a $50M orbital prize without the unnecessary restrictions would still not do very much to promote commercial orbital space.

And as for its utility, I care a lot more about manned than unmanned lunar landings, but I still think this prize will do useful things for the industry as a whole.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at September 13, 2007 02:02 PM

The role of private business in space goes beyond just going to and from. This announcement has the potential for yet another paradigm shift, democratizing space exploration.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at September 13, 2007 02:04 PM

> Doesn't excite me much either. I would have preferred something manned.

Of course, keep in mind that this is Google we're talking about. Using computer/robots to search and process information is pretty much their mission statement. Although I would've loved to see a manned competition as well, a robotics competition fits in better with their image and is a better advertising fit.

Posted by Neil H. at September 13, 2007 02:23 PM

I'm 100% with Rand on this one.
I think we need a variety of transport prizes.

Blastoff and Luna corp could not make the business case close, and here you are doing the same thing for 1/3 the estimated necessary funding and with the associated loss of rights to the images.

If you could do this task for 20M I think you would make more money keeping the image rights and skipping the Google prize entirely.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at September 13, 2007 02:30 PM

If they can visit an Apollo landing site and STFU the lunar denalists up it will be worth it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2007 02:37 PM

Mr. Goff and Mr. Whittington accurately guessed the reasons for why the robotic lunar lander prize was picked over a human space flight prize. See www.personalspaceflight.com. Here's the relevant quote:

"As for why do a lunar lander prize, I asked Peter Diamandis about this after the event. Their top two choices for the next big space prize they wanted to do was a lunar lander prize and a human orbital spaceflight prize. Google was particularly interested in funding the lunar prize (and a human orbital spaceflight prize would have required at least $50M, he said) so that’s the direction they took."

FWIW...

Posted by anonymous.space at September 13, 2007 02:39 PM

Rand,

Do you find the search for habitable extrasolar planets to be an exception to your general lack of interest in space science?

Posted by at September 13, 2007 02:51 PM

Every X Prize Cup contender is a potential business partner, here. And this requires full mission integration from Earth launch to lunar landing.

Is there a requirement to fly American lift?

Also, if ion propulsion is used for the LEO to LLO leg, a team could fly as a piggyback mission on any number of launchers.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2007 02:55 PM

Alan Boyle added this comment from Pete Worden:

"If a private company perfects a process to get payloads to the moon, NASA will have a lot interest in that," Reuters quotes him as saying.

Exactly right, IMHO.

Any winner would be well situated to sell technology expertise to anyone seeking to build landers in support of future lunar missions.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2007 03:01 PM

If they can visit an Apollo landing site and STFU the lunar denalists up it will be worth it.

Lunar denalists will just claim this is part of the conspiracy.

Posted by Ilya at September 13, 2007 03:02 PM

I wonder what Google's reaction would be if Microsoft were to sponsor a competitor - giving it all the money it needs - making it possible that every Google Lunar X Prize photo coming back from the moon has a Microsoft logo in it.

Posted by Roger Strong at September 13, 2007 03:11 PM

Looks like I was off by about $5 million as I predicted it would be Google and the Moon at 25 million. Is there any prize for the most accurate prediction :-)

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/009686.html#009686

Unforunately this is about 7 years too late as all the lunar mission companies are long gone. Only ILO has a current lunar mission and its for a fixed observatory.

But I expect a new crop of viewgraph firms will spring up, fueling another round of alt.space hype.

The problem is this will still not close a business model for what is basically a 1-trick pony. A far better use of this money would have been for Google to have teamed up with someone like the Discovery Channel and just put out an RFP for a lunar rover for their exclusive use. As it is it will just kill off any private lunar ventures that might have emerged by distracting them, just as the X-Prize did for suborbital ventures and COTS has for orbital missions, witness the case of Rocketplane-Kistler.

Still this will keep the alt.space folks rice bowls filled (as Harry Stine used to say..) for the next few years as the work the PR machine on it.

I am not surprised a human orbital prize was not announced. The problems firms have had moving beyond the first X-prize to actually create a suborbital market basically made such a prize impractical. Not to mention the negative PR for the Fortune 500 firm if dead bodies start accumulating as a result of it.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 13, 2007 03:14 PM

> Any winner would be well situated to sell technology expertise to anyone seeking to build landers in support of future lunar missions.

Good point. I guess most of the press attention has been on the rovers, but the landers themselves are probably the more difficult/expensive part, and also generalize more to facilitating human exploration.

Posted by Neil H. at September 13, 2007 03:39 PM

I am going to enter this competition.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 13, 2007 04:06 PM

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. My goal is ubiquitous private manned spaceflight and habitation of extraterrestrial bodies. For that, you would first need reusable suborbital, then higher-energy reusable suborbital (optional), then reusable orbital, then orbital habitation and long-duration orbital (either order), then round-trips to the Moon, then landing on the Moon, then round trips to Mars, then landing on Mars, and so on. Some of these probably could be omitted (for example, if you could get to the moon, it shouldn't be much harder to get to Mars, but landing on Mars is a whole different beastie).

But obviously, if you're just going for generally pushing forward somehow and generating interest in private space, you can go other ways.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at September 13, 2007 04:11 PM

If someone wins in Las Cruces this year or next year then I would suggest that NASA fund a new lunar lander X Prize with the requirement being that the vessel be large enough to function as an authentic LSAM.

A crewed hopper jumping back and forth at Las Cruces would be a related step although the risk of injury/death may dictate the use of mannequins.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2007 04:15 PM

I think most people viewed the SS1 flights as aviation more than space. GLXP has the potential to prove the efficacy of space prizes in general and of the X Prize Foundation in particular.

The words 'lunar rover' will be understood by laymen to mean space travel. If GLXP works, it will be easier to obtain prize or direct funding for more capable orbital transportation and applications.

Posted by FC at September 13, 2007 05:43 PM

A crewed hopper jumping back and forth at Las Cruces would be a related step although the risk of injury/death may dictate the use of mannequins.

Buster to the rescue!!

(For those of us who are Mythbuster fans).

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at September 13, 2007 05:44 PM

This announcement has the potential for yet another paradigm shift, democratizing space exploration.

Has my eyesight been affected by the recent surgery, or did Mark Whittington finally admit that someone other than NASA could explore space?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 13, 2007 06:15 PM

I think most people viewed the SS1 flights as aviation more than space.

I would say just the opposite, judging by all the newspaper headlines about the "First Private Spaceflight."

Although if people did come to view rockets as merely "aviation," I don't think that would be entirely a bad thing.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 13, 2007 06:17 PM

"Large enough to function as an authentic LSAM"? Why?

LSAM is the Spruce Goose of lunar landers. It's quite a bit larger than the Apollo lunar module and *much* larger than a first-generation lander needs to be.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 13, 2007 06:21 PM

Edward, Edward, Edward,

NASA has not yet finalized any specs for their "LSAM" and besides you know perfectly well I have been using LSAM as short-hand for any type of lunar lander, not merely the hypothetical designs under consideration by NASA.

If a lunar lander capable of carrying MythBuster test dummies successfully hops back and forth at Las Cruces between now and 2012 or 2014, that team would be well positioned to sell hardware to NASA.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2007 07:22 PM

Hey Dennis,

Mabey you guys could add a an ion engine to allow a heavier, more robust lander?

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2007 08:13 PM

Mabey you guys could add a an ion engine to allow a heavier, more robust lander?

It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get a lunar lander to the Moon on something like a Falcon 1. We did a study on this last year and the numbers for max payload to orbit are somewhat questionable as is the fairing size.

With the post last flight problems it is going to be even more difficult.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at September 13, 2007 08:50 PM

EW: "a first-generation lander"

Pssttt... Ed... that would be a SECOND generation lander. There are 6 descent stages on the the lunar surface right now that belonged to the 1st gen.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2007 09:30 PM

Ed Minchau wrote:
"I am going to enter this competition."

Thank you !* I think that's a great example of a "Can do!" attitude. Nothing ever gets done without it and the over-representation of loons and "can't do that" misers I've seen so far (not here but plenty of other places) is more hilarious than anything else. Like challenges are somehow not supposed to be challenging... haha good grief that's stupid ^_^

Now I'm not too familiar with Ed Minchau and perhaps he doesn't have the slimmest chance of winning but look at Unreasonable Rocket. Will they win the NG LLC? That's not the question! They already won the real fight the moment they stepped up and put on a real effort. Same thing goes for Ed Minchau and already makes him a winner in my book; the further the efforts go the more will have been won but he has already proven he has the right initial frame of mind.

Some internet comments make it seem like the world's largest religion ought to be the luddite branch of nihilism and that just ain't so.

Everything that encourages that "Can do!" spirit fosters efforts across the board be it space related or otherwise so there's no need to be lukewarm when it happens to be something outside of ones own interests.

I recommend everone spend 10$ over at Google Lunar Legacy. I sure will just as soon as I've figured out just exactly what I want to send (maybe I should do it twice, once as Habitat Hermit).

* the blog software choked on "you*exclamation mark*"

Posted by Habitat Hermit at September 13, 2007 09:34 PM

NASA has not yet finalized any specs for their "LSAM"

Er, so? Does that mean you can't know what the current specs are?

How can you "require" something to be "large enough to function as an authentic LSAM" if you don't know how large an authentic LSAM is?

you know perfectly well I have been using LSAM as short-hand for any type of lunar lander,

Yes, that's one of your annoying eccentricities. You can insist that all cars are called Buicks, if you like. That doesn't mean other people are obligated to agree with you.

No one ever called the Apollo lunar module an "LSAM" except for Bill White. Or Surveyor. Or Ranger. Or the Russian Luna.

In fact, no one ever called any lander an LSAM except for LSAM.

This time, however, you specified to "an authentic LSAM." The word "authentic" means genuine or real, so I naturally inferred you were talking about the real LSAM, not Ranger or Luna or the Apollo LM.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 13, 2007 09:55 PM

@Habitat Hermit: Agree wholeheartedly. By chance, a quote randomly came up on my GMail which I felt was apposite...

"I've never seen a monument erected to a pessimist."

-- Paul Harvey

Posted by Stellvia at September 14, 2007 01:23 AM

Assuming that the goal was just to win the prize rather than build anything with longer-term development potential, how cheaply could it be done?

I'm assuming that a rover with minimal functionality could be made very small and light. Using off the shelf components and conservative design choices (i.e. simple and well-tested approaches only) would keep development costs down. The main expense would be getting it launched.

So I'm wondering whether it would be possible for a small team with minimal overheads to actually make a profit on this?

Posted by Andrew Zalotocky at September 14, 2007 06:10 AM

i say that the prize has close to zero chance of being collected, mostly due to the short timeframe. Thank for a minute. Google just scored a major publicity gain that will be hyped free for years by space advocates AND Google will not have to pay the $30M. These guys are clever.

Posted by philw at September 14, 2007 07:07 AM

How much of a "hole in one" purse might Google and the X Prize foundation buy with $20 million?

That could change the analysis, here.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2007 08:53 AM

Thanks Hermit, but it really doesn't matter whether I win or not. What matters is that a lot of people will be working on the various problems associated with the prize, and that will lead to innovations that otherwise might not be made. Suppose my team makes a lander/rover combination capable of winning the prize, but doesn't get it launched until 2015. Well, the same technology that we develop to pursue this prize can also be applied to landing on, say, Cruithne or Apophis.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 14, 2007 09:16 AM

Ed,

Cruithne and Apophis are NEO much smaller then Eros. NEAR already demonstrated that technology. By contrast the Moon has a much deeper gravity field, and a basically circular one, and requires a much more advanced landing system then landing on a NEO.

However the really sad thing is that this new prize probably killed off any chance of Google funding the ILO, which is the best hope for a private lunar mission near term. This is not an advance for lunar exploration, instead it will probably set it back a decade or so.

As for winning it, like the XPrize, the only way this will be won is if some billionaire takes a fancy to it and decides to spend a $100 million or so on winning it and hires an existing aerospace contractor to do so. (I wonder if Paul Allen is interest in lunar rovers...). But like with the Xprize the viewgraph firms that will pop for this prize will just put out a lot of press releases before quietly disappearing, further poisoning the investor climate for small space firms. Tell, how many of the 25 Xprize teams are still in existence, let alone financially viable?

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 14, 2007 09:37 AM

"I've never seen a monument erected to a pessimist."

Good grief, Paul Harvey is such an idiot. There are tons of monuments erected to pessimists; the Paul Harveys of the world would simply never believe that that's what they were. Even if you don't think that you'll "succeed", or you may not even care, you might still choose to do your best. In fact some of the world's best achievers are pessimists, because they know what they are up against.

Which is not to say that pessimism is always better than optimism. Pessimism and optimism are personal answers to personal questions. What really matters for the rest of the world is COMPETENCE.

And frankly, there is not all that much of it in the alt.space scene.

Posted by at September 14, 2007 09:43 AM

However the really sad thing is that this new prize probably killed off any chance of Google funding the ILO, which is the best hope for a private lunar mission near term.

If this is true, then the question is "why" did Google choose this path?

I am not up-to-speed on the ILO business negotiations. Was there ever any discussion of giving Google favored access to the data generated by ILO?

Also, Google is NOT the only player in their industry and if Tom is correct then the ILO should beat a path to Google's rivals and propose that they compete with Google in the lunar exposure arena by funding ILO.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2007 10:24 AM

More thoughts on Tom Matula's comments.

If no one can win the Google prize (without an angel dropping $100 million) then for a Google competitor to fund something like the ILO would offer that competitor a very real opportunity to "show up" Google a few years down the road.

If 2010 or 2012 arrive and we see that the Google prize will not be won, then a business competitor who did fund ILO in the manner Tom proposes would be in a terrific position to grab media exposure in the context of Google's failure to motivate a successful prize winner.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2007 10:30 AM

Hi Bill,

[[[If this is true, then the question is "why" did Google choose this path?]]]

Because its a cheap way to get a lot of hype just as the original X-prize was.

Google won't have to make good on this prize unless someone actually wins it.

And money declines in value over time. $30 million in 2012 is worth less in buying power then giving 30 million out today in order to fund a mission.

Also there is nothing preventing Google from buying "hole-in-one" insurance for this prize so the actual cash they are out could only be a small portion of this. And note the core prize is only $20 million. You have to do a second mission to get the next $5 million and you must have a politically correct quota of minorities to get the other $5 million, so this is really a $25 million prize at best for the first rover.

Yes, I do hope that ILO pursues funding at Google's rivals. It would be a shame to see this kill off that mission.

Really, the only winners in this prize will be Google from the free PR they are getting and the X-Prize foundation that needed a new high profile prize to promote.

If this prize is won it will be the same way the X-Prize was won, by a billionaire contracting with an established contractor, as Paul Allen did with Scaled Composites, to build a craft to win it.

It won't advance the core alt.space industry anymore then the X-Prize then and the losers, as was the case with the X-Prize, will be the small space firms who waste their limited resources and time in competition on it instead of more attractive space markets. I wonder when someone will do a follow-up on the 24 teams from the X-Prize that didn't have Paul Allen funding them and see how they feel about the X-prize advancing alt.space...

If Google really wanted to do something useful with that $30 million for opening the space frontier it would have been to use it for a business plan competition for alt.space firms. Winner gets $30 million to move forward on their business plan with Google getting a 10% interest int he firm to eliminate the need for the firm to pay taxes on the "prize" (it technically becomes an investment).

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 14, 2007 12:48 PM

The notion that if Burt is too busy to do something, it won't get done, is ludicrous.

In this case, it isn't even clear that the thing (building robots) is within his interests, let alone his skill set.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2007 04:06 PM

small space firms who waste their limited resources and time in competition on it instead of more attractive space markets.

I hate to ask this, Tom, but what are your "more attractive space markets" this week?

VSE again? Building ICBMs to fight the Cold War? Or asking Al Gore to fund your platinum mine?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2007 04:22 PM

If Google really wanted to do something useful with that $30 million for opening the space frontier it would have been to use it for a business plan competition for alt.space firms.

In other words, you want Google to offer a prize for writing books.

There are plenty of firms that do that. They're called publishers. Submit your book and see what sort of prize you win.

If you're complaining because the market values hardware more highly than your literary work, well... it didn't stop Snoopy, did it? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2007 04:35 PM

Ed,

last time I looked you are the one with a business plan to sell based on your Mig-21 spacelifter. Have you given up? Or would a $30 million dollar prize for YOUR business plan be nice to have?

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 14, 2007 05:26 PM

last time I looked you are the one with a business plan to sell based on your Mig-21 spacelifter. Have you given up? Or would a $30 million dollar prize for YOUR business plan be nice to have?

You need to look more often.

Tom, you've already told us you're against commercial suborbital spaceflight. Or military spaceflight, if it involves anything other than ICBMs or unmanned satellites.

So, what is your point? We know about all the things you're against. Are there any actual space markets you are *for*?

I mean consistantly. Not markets that you laud one week and condemn the next.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2007 05:48 PM

"how many of the 25 Xprize teams are still in existence, let alone financially viable? "

Well, I know that Scaled, Armadillo, and XCOR are still in business. Even if they are the only ones (which I doubt), then that is a better ratio than is enjoyed by the restaurant business; if 25 restaurants open in a given year, then three years later only one will still be in operation by its original owners.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 14, 2007 06:07 PM

Ed,

Scaled is in business because Paul Allen paid them to build Spaceshipone, it was another contract, just as the many other projects they have done. Just as Spaceshiptwo is. If Richard Branson stops writing the checks they will stop work on it...

They were in business for decades before the X-prize and will stay in business as long as Northrop Grumman, their new owners, find value in them.

Armadillo is self-funding and is now chasing the lunar lander challenge. John will pursue it as long as his money from Doom keeps funding his interests. Not really a closed business model or a good one for others to follow.

XCOR was never an X-prize team. They never thought it was consistent with their business model. Now they are an USAF contractor and as a result found Angel financing.

Also you need to do your research and not believe urban legends about business survival. The three year survival rate of restaurants was 41 percent based on an actual study. So 10 of the 25 X Teams should still be kicking, not just two… Although really its only one as the X-Prize was never an element of Scaled’s business model which is based on having other people pay for the work, folks like Paul Allen and Richard Branson.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2004-05-06-success_x.htm

Also, unlike alt.space firms, economics is not the most common reason for business failure. Its other factors. As the research notes.

[[[However, Professor Parsa found that reasons other than economic necessity made the owners decide to close. They cited divorce, poor health, and most importantly, an unwillingness to make the immense time commitment necessary as reasons for shutting their doors.]]]

Yes, having real markets to serve and real customer makes a big difference :-)

And Ed Wright, in terms of your questions. The markets to pursue are the ones ready, willing and able to pay you for your services on a VAT basis, as the USAF is paying for Xcor.

Which brings us around to the key point again. IF Google wants to advance alt.space they should be a real customer, putting out an RFP for a lunar mission instead of offering a prize. Now that is something an alt.space firm would be able to take to the bank.

Posted by at September 14, 2007 09:20 PM

And Ed Wright, in terms of your questions. The markets to pursue are the ones ready, willing and able to pay you for your services on a VAT basis, as the USAF is paying for Xcor.

Tom, you contradict yourself once again.

The USAF is paying XCOR to work on a reusable, piloted spacecraft -- not an ICBM.

In other words, exactly the type of vehicle you've said should *not* be built.

So, maybe next week you'll like prizes? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2007 09:56 PM

As for being a "real" customer lets look at what Google gains by funding a hypothetical lunar mission.

I see two possibilities:

(1) Value from a data stream, such as ILO, if Google were given proprietary privileges concerning the release of that data to scientists or the public. But even here, this benefit could easily blend into:

(2) Favorable exposure, marketing and/or publicity to promote sales of Google products and enlarge market share in unrelated business arenas.

To the extent a competitor can persuade space enthusiasts that Google's Prize is counter productive to opening up cis-lunar space then that competitor can benefit from their own funding of ILO (for example) at least among space enthusiasts as a target market.

But at the end of the day, media exposure, publicity, marketing, brand enhancement and similar types of intangible economic benefit are the ONLY value-added elements that a lunar investment can offer a main stream Terran company.

Google is not a charitable foundation. They will make investments that further their bottom line and apparently they decided they got better exposure from this route than funding ILO.

If that is less beneficial to the overall development of alt-space, well then, that is a business reality alt-space need to accommodate and adapt to. And now, for ILO (as an example) to aggressively court a Google competitor would be one route for adapting to and overcoming whatever shortfalls exist in Google's choice.

Posted by Bill White at September 15, 2007 08:06 AM

PS -- As for suborbital tourism, had there never been an X Prize, no SpaceShipOne and so on, would that industry be ahead or behind where it is today?

Posted by Bill White at September 15, 2007 08:11 AM

"XCOR was never an X-prize team."

I stand corrected. I admit that I haven't looked at the other X-prize teams in a couple of years, but if an analysis was done on all teams I would not be surprised if ten or more were still in operation. Let's see, AFAIK Starchaser is still in operation, as is the Da Vinci project group...

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 15, 2007 09:56 AM

Ed,

If you mean in the alt.space sensse of "in business", then I expect many of the old X-prize teams are probably still shopping their viewgraphs around in the hope of winning the lottery. But the definitions use in the field of business usually are based on firms have enough revenue/investment coming in to pay their expenses including salaries. You know, they are operating as Real business firms not as hobbies.

In that sense only two meet the requirement and one was in business long before the X-prize.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 15, 2007 02:08 PM

Hi Bill,

As to where we would be without the X-Prize. That is an interesting speculation as to where the space program would be today if the USAF retained development of RLVs instead of the them being given to NASA.

Here is my view.

Two key points I believe are important in looking at what might have been.

First is that Burt Rutan was interested in space flight before the X-prize, he was just looking for an investor to fund his experiments. Second, is that Richard Branson was also interested as he reserved the Virgin Galactic for that purpose in the mid-1990’s. Without the X-prize its quite possible they would have gotten together much sooner. Instead, because of the prize I expect Richard Branson held back to see what would happen.

So I feel that without the hype and pressure of the X-prize Sub-orbital tourism would have followed a more structured development program. First a single person rocket powered craft that didn’t reach space, or maybe even go beyond 50,000 ft, but provided a lot of engineering data. Then a larger engineering vehicle that did address the reentry issues. And only then an operational craft.

Instead of the big burst for the X-prize, then the long stand down you see now as they go back and covered the engineering issues that would have been covered in such a structured flight test program, including key ones like engine design for an operational craft that may well doom Spaceshiptwo. It is also why its easy for me to predict the flight test program for Spaceshiptwo will be a long one. And a high risk one as any crashes will have a greater impact with regulators and the public since it is suppose to be an operational vehicle, not a “X” vehicle.

In short, without the X-Prize the same successful model would have been followed as was used by USAF/NACA/NASA for the X-1, X-15 and X-20, which of course was cut off by Kennedy’s Apollo goal which was another grand stand based strategy. In short Burt Rutan and Richard Branson would have followed the same model Blue Origins, another group that avoided distraction by the X-Prize, is following.

In addition the huge data base gained from a structured flight test program would have been of immense value in quieting addressing regulation issues with the FAA AST.

But once Spaceshipone won the X-prize it value as a historical aircraft precluded its use for such a test program and Burt follow the same pattern as with the craft he built that set records of retiring it. That was it was a no brainier for me to predict, as I did on the old SFF Space Arena and David Livingston Space Show that it would never fly again after the X-prize, counter to what folks like Ed Wright argued, believing Burt would fly it weekly. Also because of the X-Prize hype and the world spotlight the eye of Congress is now involved with licensing sub-orbital vehicles, adding an unnecessary political element to the process.

And of course the trail of failed X-Prize teams also sends a strong message to the public and the investment community that sub-orbital tourism is not really an industry, but a hobby for the rich like American Cup Racing.

So all in all I expect the X-Prize probably set back sub-orbital tourism by a number of years. I would not expect to see any sub-orbital commercial flights until at least 2011. Without the X-Prize Virgin Galactic may well have been flying now. Instead it set it back far enough that its not unreasonable that commercial orbital tourism flights (on vehicles other then the Soyuz) may well start first…

As for the lunar X-Prize. Perhaps ILO will be able to sell its observatory to a rival, but it sounds fairly boring compared to a rover mission. So the odds are long it won’t. And I doubt they stay in a holding pattern for the next several years while the lunar prize fails. While the new trail of failed lunar ventures will just discredit the idea of lunar commerce further among the investment community.

So as I stated earlier the only winners for this prize will be Google for the free PR and the X-Prize Foundation with its new prize to promote. Everyone one else, including the alt.space community and those really interested in the sustained advancement of the space frontier is a loser.

Tom

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 15, 2007 03:17 PM

Hi All,

Interesting statement from Alan Boyle’s website.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/13/358739.aspx

[[[At one time, Brin toyed with the idea of mounting a full-fledged lunar lander mission as a Google marketing venture, much as other billionaires might race sailboats or buy sports teams. Brett Alexander, the X Prize Foundation's executive director for space prizes, said Brin mentioned the idea to Diamandis in March during a fund-raising gala. Later that same evening, Diamandis got back to Brin with his proposal for the Google Lunar X Prize.]]]

Ah, the sadness of paths not taken. An RFP by Google would have done much more the Lunar X-Prize to advanced alt.space as it would have provide Real revenue for firms, something that would actually have attracted investors. And done right build far more interest in kids for lunar exploration… How sad the X-prize foundation talked them into another path.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 15, 2007 04:14 PM

Tom,

Perhaps you overlook the potential for Google to leverage the marketing exposure given to other sponsors of potential contestants. As this is the "Google Prize" other tech companies (for example) will have greater confidence that their sponorship of a competitor will receive enhanced publicity.

If Google is willing to give "free" publicity to the teams who enter, then those who sponsor those entrants will gain marketing exposure riding piggyback on Google's public presence.

It seems to me that if Masten Space or Armadillo or whoever wants to attract sponsors for their effort, they can assure those sponsors that Google will help give them global exposure.

I don't know if Google is willing, but they could easily be a "force multiplier" simply by mentioning every sponsor who provided a competitor funding in excess of a set amount in every press release or press conference.

I think we can and should lobby Google to offer supplemental marketing exposure to sponsors of contestants (Brin merely need to mention their names during interviews with CNBC etc. . .) and THAT would bootstrap a contestant's ability to fund raise sponsorship dollars.

= = =

NASCAR would die if it had only one sponosr.

But with hundreds, or more, they reinforce each other's exposure. Tomy Stewart holds a Coke while wearing a Home Depot racing suit.

Google can facilitate this approach and that will bring in more total money than Google paying for it all themselves.

Again, all Brin need do mention various sponsors whenever he is interviewed about the contest.

Posted by Bill White at September 15, 2007 05:00 PM

Suppose Dell Computer is considering sponsoring a team. Google and Dell can cross-market each other brands simultaneously and that can encourage Dell to jump in and give $5 million (over 5 years) to a potential contestant.

Posted by Bill White at September 15, 2007 05:03 PM

Congress is now involved with licensing sub-orbital vehicles, adding an unnecessary political element to the process.

Tom, what planet do you live on?

If you think licensing is unnecessary, your understanding of law and politics is below sea level.

You trash everyone who is building and flying real hardware -- "viewgraphs" in Matula-speak -- but you want Google to offer a $30 million prize for you to create viewgraphs???

What you are so angry about, anyway, Tom? You got everything you wanted out of the White House and NASA. They're doing exactly what you wanted them to do. They're building the expendable capsules and Shuttle-derived HLV you wanted; making plans to go to the Moon and ignoring Mars, just like you wanted; gutting space science, aeronautics, and all the other programs you considered a waste of time.

So, why aren't you turning cartwheels?

You told us you never needed alt space anyway, because NASA was going to do everything.

Speculation: could it be you've finally realized Apollo II is not going to work, and you're looking for scapegoats rather than admit you were wrong to support it?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 15, 2007 07:34 PM

Bill,

There is one thing missing in your model - customers. NASCAR is successful because it has a huge fan base, folks who will buy a brand that sponsors their driver. That is money in the bank for the firms that sponsor those drivers. Firms like Luna Corp tried working this sponsorship model for years and got no where. You just are not able to raise enough to cover the cost of a lunar mission. Google's prize simply doesn't change the dynamics any.

And look at the economics. A Falcon XI launch is $50 million, $45 with the discount offered. You are already $20 million in the hole and you still haven't paid for your upper stage, spacecraft, lander or rover. Now the cost of a racing team in NASCAR is only around 20-25 million. Not even enough to buy a launch let alone fund a mission. And this is in a sport that has a huge established customer based with well documented demographics.

And also, unlike NASCAR this is a one trick pony. You don't have weekly races in season with sharp competition. NASCAR took decades to get to where it is now, thousands of races, generations of fans. Instead you will have a lot of viewgraphs and press release, with, IF someone gets a billionaire angel, perhaps a launch with a few days of video. Otherwise it will be more boring then the X-Cup event...

If you don't believe talk with some of the advertising agencies that work with NASCAR. They will tell you the cold hard truth of sponsorship.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 15, 2007 08:02 PM

Thomas, why would it require a Falcon 9? Paul Breed thinks that he can launch a soda can sized spacecraft on the cheap (as does Zig aerospace and Masten). It is not that much of a stretch to go from soda-can-in-orbit to soda-can-on-moon. There is a heck of a lot that can be done with a soda can sized craft.

As for potential customers, other than sponsorship deals, how much do you suppose the Lunar Embassy would pay for a robot legitimizing their claims on lunar property? What do you suppose that would do for the price they could charge for lunar property?

And if a robot can soft-land on the moon, then that design can surely dock with an asteroid. The lunar lander robots have to be able to assay materials on the surface in order to claim the part of the prize concerning the discovery of water ice, so such a robot would be capable of assaying material on the surface of an asteroid. How much is the data worth? If one could quantify the composition of, say, 3554 Amun, to determine the value of the metals there, wouldn't a mining company be very interested in that data, and pay a premium for it? And indeed, pay a company that has proven it can soft-land and assay on the moon whatever is required for the launch to an asteroid?

If you can't close the business case for a lunar lander, perhaps that has less to do with the merits of the business case and more to do with your own lack of imagination.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 16, 2007 08:00 AM

I am almost in the same boat as Rand on this one.

It is a nice thing to do, and I wish the competitors well, but it does not change much of real importance in my book (other than make NASA's efforts look shameful if they succeed, and therefore make a very important point about the role of private industry.)

My issues?

1) It does not create a sustainable and repeating business model.

2) It does not help with the Earth-to-LEO transportation challenge. (I think an RLV prize for a Mach 6-8 capability would be extremely valauble. Although this would not have any real impact on tourism, it would open other new markets.)

3) The early deadline???? This opens the entire competition to charges that the Google guys are not serious, that they just wanted free publicity, and never really intended to give the prize.

NOTE: I don't believe that is their intent, but doing it this way opens them to the charge. I too wish the Google guys had chosen to finance their own private mission.

As a reminder, Diamandis has wanted to do this kind of thing for years. He used to be the CEO of BlastOff, which was funded by IdeaLab! They had Jim Cameron on their team, and Spielberg even invested $1M. They spent a good chunk of money before IdeaLab! collapsed.

I recommend that interested parties read

- Al

PS -- If your name is Rex Ridenoure, you probably think this is a wonderful prize.

Posted by Al Fansome at September 16, 2007 09:09 AM

It did not post the URL. Trying again.

"I recommend that interested parties read"
http://www.diamandis.com/blastoff.html

- Al

Posted by Al Fansome at September 16, 2007 01:18 PM

Ed,

You are going to put a rover with a HD camera system with a high bandwidth transmission system in a soda can…

As for the Lunar Embassy – check out Article 2 and Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty. Or ask your local space lawyer. Or check out this summary of the outcome of the Greg Nemitz lawsuit over Eros.

http://www.4frontierscorp.com/areasoffocus/space_law.php

Also keep in mind any lunar mission will need a FAA launch license. A filibuster based mission like the one you suggest would likely never get a license due to the international issues it would rise. As for the FAA AST authority in this area, here is the link.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/launch_site/policy/

[[[The FAA reviews a license application to determine whether it presents any issues affecting U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United States. A major element of the policy review is the interagency review of the proposal. An interagency review allows government agencies to examine the proposed operation from their unique perspectives. The FAA consults with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and other federal agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are authorized to address national security, foreign policy, or international obligation issues.]]]

An attempt to circumvent Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty would definitely impact foreign policy interests of the U.S.

Which actually brings up another point. Any lunar mission will need to be licenses. At least a launch license from the FAA AST will be needed as a starter. Then a license from NOAA to image the Earth from the Moon. And FCC permits for the bandwidths required. And if a foreign launcher is involved you have ITAR. It took Transorbital well over two years to get such licenses. And one requirement was they were not to land near any existing U.S. or Russian landing site, That is to say the cone of uncertainty for their landing footprint had to be far enough away from any existing site as to ensure the site would not be damaged, so the filming of human artifacts for the bonus prize is likely impossible under current views for preserving old lunar landing sites. And this is not theoretical, its what Transorbital had to actually deal with as it went through the licensing process. Indeed Transorbital is the only firm ever to go through the process…

So really, teams will need to get their act together fast and start the licensing process within the next 2-3 years to have the licenses in place. And have at least the money to put down a deposit on a launch vehicle. So this prize may well collapse well before 2012.

And no its not a failure of imagination, business models are a dime a dozen. Its an understanding of the actual legal, technical and financial issues involved with implementing a business model for a private lunar mission.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 16, 2007 02:51 PM

Al,

Blastoff, like most of the dot.com business models, failed to take into account the real economic costs and legal requirements involved. They would have never received a license for the mission as they had it planned, but they never even got that far before it imploded as part of the dot.com bust.

There are lunar business models that will work, but they are an order of magnitude more expensive then this prize is for. And most are one trick ponies without sustained government funding.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 16, 2007 03:03 PM

Thomas, are you under the impression that the FAA AST has jurisdiction world-wide? That is only in the USA, and the contest is open to anyone in the world. The FCC's jurisdiction is not world-wide either.

HD cameras can be made very small, less than the size of a dime. The rover only has to transmit as far as the lander, which can then rebroadcast. Once again, a failure of imagination (and apparently no conception of the available technology, either).

Article 2 of the 1967 UN Outer Space treaty:
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

Not subject to national appropriation. How does that apply to the Lunar Embassy? It doesn't.

Article 6:
"_States Parties to the Treaty_ shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental
agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the
international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization."

So if the launch takes place from a nation that did not sign the treaty - and there are many such nations - or from international waters, then section 6 doesn't apply either.

Keep flailing about, Thomas. I'm sure you're right twice a day.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 16, 2007 04:25 PM

Ed,

You are due for a real wake-up call on ITAR and the legal process related to launches.

Also you didn't seem to note what the courts ruled on Nemitz's claims on Eros. Basically they threw his claims out as not valid. Read the link, or better yet go to your county law library and read the full case. The clerks there will be glad to help you find it. Also note its the court's opinion on what the OST means, not yours, that is key.

As for your soda can spacecraft, well just look at what the bandwidth and power requirements are for HD beaming from the Moon to the Earth. Also take a look at HD camera systems - you seem to be confusing them with digital cameras. Then tell me you will fit it all in a soda can as your claim you will.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 16, 2007 07:19 PM

The *American* courts, Thomas? And Nemitz didn't have his *own* rover on Eros; if he had, his claim would be much stronger. And apparently you are under the impression that an HD camera is analog rather than digital.

Look, we're talking past each other here. You are evidently not going to be making a lunar lander/rover, nor are the development costs or prize money coming out of your pocket or your tax dollars. Why the vitriol? If this is a fool's errand, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. So why do you even care?

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 17, 2007 07:27 AM

Ed,

Because as I noted, its continues to set back the opening of the frontier by creating an atmosphere of failure by creating unreasonable expectations. As for analog versus digital, you need to look at resolution not the recording media. High definition is digital just your mobile phone camera, but its much, much higher resolution. That is where the extra weight, size and power comes in. But you clearly haven’t done your research on it. Oh, and don’t forget you radiation shielding…

But go ahead, help perpetuate the illusion of progress by being one of the viewgraph firms competing for the prize. It will give you an excuse to make the conference rounds telling what you will do if only someone had the “vision” to give you a few million to build your spacecraft.

Meanwhile, in the real world it looks like only a couple teams will actually make the Lunar Lander challenge this year, a prize with a much, much lower barrier to entry. I will be interesting to see if its won this year or rolls over again.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 09:36 AM

Tom,

According to the 2007 Business Week / Interbrand annual survey Google enhanced the value of its brand by more than any other company in the world. Google knows its business and I very much doubt they made a "business mistake" by doing the Google X Prize in the manner they did.

Perhaps a more philanthrophic approach would better benefit NewSpace but in the long run, isn't the objective to create an industry that does not rely upon taxpayer largesse or corporate charity?

Maybe NewSpace should try harder to figure out how to better help the corporate image of Fortune 500 companies (thereby earning sponsorship money) rather than whining that Fortune 500 companies aren't helping enough to open cis-lunar space.

For the foreseeable future, the only thing space has to sell is either "inspirational" or "aspirational" in nature and while that includes tourism there can be no doubt that sponsorships, marketing and brand value enhancement represents a very large pool of money to fight for.

(At $200,000 a ride, Google's prize of $20 million equals 1000 suborbital tickets sold, or 1500 tickets if we go with the full $30 million.)

= = =

Its not either/or and I fully support tourism however in one pop Google just offered NewSpace as much money as would flow from 1000 suborbital ticket buyers.

Posted by Bill White at September 17, 2007 10:19 AM

Bill,

Yes, Google knows advertising well and with the help of the X-Prize Foundation are getting even more exposure cheap at the expensse of the alt.space industry. They are winners in this as I already noted. Thanks to the X-Prize they get the benefits of sponsoring a lunar mission without the expense. A huge free lunch...

And the X-Prize Foundation is getting a chunk of money to keep their rice bowl full. They are also big winners.

The big loser, as with the X-Prize, will be the alt.space industry.

And the eventual failure of this prize will make a strong argument to future investors against the viability of private space exploration, just as the failure of the X-33 did for SSTO.

Also, lets be clear. This is really only a $20 million dollar prize. You might get a portion of the additional $5 million, but its unlikely you will get all of it as some elements, like photographing Apollo artifacts, will prevent you from getting a launch license in the first place. And if you think you will get around it by going overseas as Ed thinks, well you will find that the State Dept. has a lot more influence in other countries then most space advocates believe. Not to mention that several, like Australia, Belgium, even Kazakhstan (Baikonur) are parties to the Moon Treaty or are down right hostile to private space exploration.

And the $5 million that goes to the second team is also a joke. Do you think you could do a lunar mission for $5 million. That wouln't even pay for the insurance needed for a lunar launch. So even the size of the prize is hype.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 11:32 AM

Tom,

We don't agree on everything, but I agree with your following statement.

"And the $5 million that goes to the second team is also a joke. "

There is a good reason for a 2nd place prize in prize competitions, but $5M does not cut it. If that is all they can do, I would prefer that they add it to 1st place.

I too thought that the total amount of the prize was audaciously small for the task at hand, and the fact that this does not appear to create a repeatable business model (which often justifies going after a prize that is less than the cost of an attempt). But I am not counting Diamandis out. Based on his background & experience in this area, I think there is a good chance that Diamandis has knowledge and insight that we do not.

There are other major media plays here -- like the play that Google is making -- by entities that could generate an ROI in a different manner. How much they will actually pay, and whether there is a player that has the skill, knowledge and relationships to aggregate these media customers is a different question.

- Al

Posted by Al Fansome at September 17, 2007 11:48 AM

Tom,

Google is also making their name and brand available for piggyback opportunities by other sponsors. In essence, any sponsor who helps fund a contestant gets the functional equivalent of an endorsement from Google.

Any sponsor who chooses to help fund a contestant now gets a two-for-one deal:

(a) Sponsor a lunar rover; and

(b) Be closely linked to Google.

If XYZ Tech Company sponsors Aardvark Aerospace in their attempt to win the Google Prize, XYZ Tech can now link their company to Google in the minds of consumers. That force multipler effect, or facilitation of sponsorship fund raising has potential to be worth far more than $20 million.

BASF doesn't make the products we use, it makes the products we use better.

Any team that looks to the $20 million prize as the core of their funding is engaged in dinosaur financing. Mammals will aggressively sell the idea that by sponsoring a Lunar X Prize team, that sponsor will first become associated with Google first, and the Moon second.

Posted by Bill White at September 17, 2007 11:51 AM

I believe this is exactly right:

Getting a rover on the Moon is NOT the key mission.

Facilitating media aggregation is the REAL game being played. Sure, Google could pony up $100 million, issue RFPs, and successfully place a rover on the Moon. But that would be a one-trick pony.

But if Google facilitates successful synergy between a number of players, that has potential for repeat performances.

Posted by Bill White at September 17, 2007 11:56 AM

Ok, Sojourner weighed 16KG on surface. Why would it be difficult to get something this size on the lunar surface, from the ~700KG Falcon 1E Leo payload ?
Sojourner cost cap was reported $25Mil. Its been ten years since, similar capability should be a bit cheaper by now.
I think this sums up with roughly-sortof-breakeven-doable, and the publicity and gain for private spaceflight in public perceptions would be well worth the money spent.

Posted by kert at September 17, 2007 12:21 PM

Bill,

Gee, Google will allow me to promote their brand for free. That is not sponsorship, sponsorship is Google paying me to promote their brand, not my doing it for free. That is a free ride for Google. As for another company letting Google piggy-back on their sponsorship of a team...

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 12:41 PM

Kert,

Yes, the rover, without HD camera, weighted about 16 kg and costed an estimated 25 million.

But the lander weighted over 250 kg and the total mission cost, including the lander and launch using a Delta 2 was around $300 million. I expect that the most the Falcon I could deliver to the lunar surface would be a 100 lbs or so.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 12:54 PM

Thats irrelevant to the topic, but i saw the Pathfinder missions budgeted at $150M total or something. Might have been the routine before-overruns estimates.

Regarding launch, theres also Dnepr, at one time reportedly $11M. That brings on ITAR and all that mess, but its there.

I guess for entirely US-based attempt, it comes down to how efficient and cheap transfer and lander stage you can come up with in 600KG range. Single engine with drop tanks ? Is there anything available off the shelf ?

Posted by kert at September 17, 2007 02:25 PM

by the way, for most common definitions of "high definition" ;) the high definition camera should weigh next to nothing.
Also, Pathfinder/Sojourner landing method and mass isnt really relevant in this case either. We know that airbags and petals wont cut it.

Posted by kert at September 17, 2007 02:34 PM

There are already over 100 teams that have expressed interest in the GLXP - that's 100 private teams that weren't necessarily planning on a moon shot a week ago. Please explain further how this is a bad thing for the space industry.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 17, 2007 06:23 PM

Kert,

[[[Also, Pathfinder/Sojourner landing method and mass isnt really relevant in this case either. We know that airbags and petals wont cut it.]]]

Yep, you need enough fuel to make a safe landing all the way to the surface, probably at least 50% of the mass of the lander, so if you have 30 lb rover on a 300 lb lander, you are talking about 330-350 lbs of fuel, not counting the mass needed for a TLI burn. The best you could get out of a Falcon I to the Moon might be a 150 lbs or so.

Also keep in mind that the camera will need to be rad harden (weight) have a power system able to work on the lunar surface (weight), a memory system system (weight), a high band transmission system to send it to Earth (lots of weight)... Look at the mass weight needed for movie quality systems, not your home system. And don't forget the plaque, CD disks and other stuff Google expects you to haul along.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 06:31 PM

Ed,

Yep and 99 of them are probably an individual and their power point show.

And then a real lunar venture will try to go to investors, and investors will say over 100 firms have already failed to make it to the moon, don't waste our time. Or there are a 100 firms planning on doing this and no one has funded them. There must be some problem with this basic idea so let's stay away from it.

Investors are herd animals and nothing stampedes them like a wave of failed firms.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 06:40 PM

Thomas, one of those firms is out of Carnegie-Mellon university, the same guys who won the DARPA grand challenge.

Also, a 350 pound lander for a 30 pound rover, not counting fuel? Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 17, 2007 08:25 PM

Ed,

What are you smoking? Take a look at the lander weight ratio to the weight of the rover on Pathfinder. The rover was 16kg, the lander was 264 kg. You are only able to shrink a lander so far. Rocket engines and guidance and radar are not mass free...

Also CMU did not win the DARPA contest, the Stanford team did.

It will be interesting to see if they recycle the Luna Corp design. Going price for it was around $100 million as they needed at least a Falcon XI to launch it.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 17, 2007 09:43 PM

Thomas, CMU won the 2004 challenge, and then the head of that team moved to Stanford and won the 2005 challenge (with two CMU robots coming in second and third about ten minutes later).

Are you honestly going to compare a lander with a heat shield and airbags and four giant triangular petals to an open-frame lander?

I think I am about done discussing this with you. Your objections have gone from ludicrous and uninformed and slid right into disingenuous.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 18, 2007 08:17 AM

Ed,

You are the one without a clue Do some research on what it takes to land on the Moon and then return.

Of course you are probably no more qualified to build a lunar spacecraft then the majority of the original X-prize teams were to build rockets so you prove my point about the Google prize being just an empty PR stunt.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 18, 2007 12:09 PM

"Do some research on what it takes to land on the Moon and then return."

There are two ways of interpreting this sentence: either you are admonishing me to do the research and then come back, or you are under the impression that the rover must come back.

Rest assured, I will be doing lots of research on what it takes to get to the moon. And no, the robot does not need to return from the moon.

Thomas, it is clear that we are not going to resolve our differences on this issue by arguing back and forth any further; we have both already started with the ad-hominems. Within the next five years either the prize will be won or it will not. Let's just wait and see what happens, and perhaps restart this conversation in a few years' time.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 18, 2007 12:49 PM

some BOTE "research".
It takes roughly 6500m/s dV to go from LEO to softlanding on moon.
Starting with a 700Kg, Falcon 1E payload, fueled stage on LEO, and ~350ish ISP LOX-methane propulsion you can land roughly 100Kg dry on moon.
One fitting existing Lox/LCH4 engine with matching ISP weighs in at 60KG, but its overpowered for the job. Smaller engine should be possible, which could leave ~50KG for the tankage and the rover itself.

This ignores the possibility of dropping tanks between burns. This also ignores the possibility of getting Dnepr as launch vehicle for way bigger payload for relatively marginal launch cost increase.

So it looks like its barely doable, on back of the envelopes at least.

Posted by kert at September 18, 2007 01:15 PM

Kert,

50Kg is not much for the tankage, rover, lander communication system, lander power system, not to mention electronics and guidance. And the other items Google requires.

Dneper is an option. But ITAR will add expense.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 18, 2007 05:25 PM

Ed,

The Pathfinder lander was 264kg to deliver a 16kg rover. This is minus the heat shield, parachute, retro rocket, etc. The spacecraft weighted in at around 1000 kg when it started re-entry. The 264kg was only what was needed to keep the rover safe and support it.

Actually the next 2 or 3 years will tell. If teams don't have a launch vehicle lined up and the licensing process started by 2010 they will not make the timeline needed to meet Google requirements. Even that is cutting it thin.

And my remark was serious one. You don't seem to understand what it will take to get a rover, even a very small one, on the moon. Actually the rover is not the difficult part in this prize. Its getting it to the Moon's surface. Any good college team or even a very good High School team like the ones we have had at the ASCE Space conferences lunar rover contests could probably build the rover. Over the last 20 years of contests the teams have gotten very good.

Again, the rover is not the problem, getting it to the Moon is. That will take most of the money you raise. Probably 2-3 times what the Google prize is.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 18, 2007 05:41 PM

Again, the rover is not the problem, getting it to the Moon is. That will take most of the money you raise. Probably 2-3 times what the Google prize is.

To the extent this is true, Google risks egg on their face if no one even comes close.

If no one wins, that publicity will be negative for Google.

Therefore, the NewSpace media can (and should IMHO) develop a strategy to pressure Google into using their public profile and clout to facilitate ancillary sponsors into helping teams raise the necessary money.

Posted by Bill White at September 18, 2007 08:38 PM

To clarify my last post, Google can and should offer co-branding opportunities to sponsors who contribute significant money to a contestant.

If they don't, the New Space media should pummel Google. If they do, Google has a shot at a win-win scenario, with a team winning the Google Prize bankrolled in part by the Prize but mostly with other people's money.

And, the co-branding is itself a win for Google.

Posted by Bill White at September 18, 2007 08:42 PM

Bill,

Yes, if some team could get 50-70 million in sponsorship they could just hire an aerospace contractor like Boeing or Northrup to build a lander and transport it for them. Or pay the Russians to redo Lunokhod :-)

Remember you are not talking breakthrough technology here. During the early 1970's the Russian Lunokhod 1 travel 10 kilometers and lasted almost a year. Lunokhod 2 travel 37 kilometers and lasted 4 months. Both Lunokhods took thousanda of pictures.

BTW I recall reading somewhere that Russia sold both rovers to private parties a few years ago, so the Google rover wouldn't even be able to claim it was the first private rover on the Moon...

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 18, 2007 10:04 PM

>>50Kg is not much for the tankage, rover, lander communication system, lander power system, not to mention electronics and guidance.

Who says rover and lander have to be separate hardware ?

Posted by kert at September 19, 2007 04:02 AM

Kert,

Mass is mass. You could either put it on the lander or on the rover. In the past it was placed on a lander to minimize weight on the rover. The more the rover weighs the more power it needs to roam.

The Pathfinder rover was able to weigh only 16 kg relative to the 264 kg of the lander because the communication hardware, and the power system needed to support it, was on the lander.

The weight of Opportunity/Spirit had a higher ratio to the lander (185 kg rover, 348 kg lander) because it carried the communication equipment and power system on the rover. This gave it more freedom to roam. But also added a lot of mass.

But ask yourself, do you really want to drag the decent engine around with you on the rover? The decent guidance system? The system you use for absorbing the shock of landing? And do you really want to add to the complexity of the rover?

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 19, 2007 01:10 PM

Thomas, also present on those Mars landers were things like gas cylinders for filling the airbags, the airbags themselves, and a hell of a lot of scientific equipment - not to mention those four big triangular petals and the high-torque motors to unfold them. None of that is required for a Moon lander. You're comparing apples to baseballs.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 20, 2007 02:06 PM

Ed,

Yes, for a moon landing you need a good engine, much, much bigger fuel tanks, strong landing gear with really good shock asborbers. You also need a good radar/lidar to measure your altitude so the engine starts and stops at the right time.

You trade one set of mass for another, but there is no free lunch.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 20, 2007 10:07 PM

Sure, TANSTAAFL, but I don't know where you're getting your assertions. Landing on Mars is way more difficult than landing on the moon, and comparing Pathfinder to lunar lander is like comparing Babe Ruth to a little leaguer.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 20, 2007 11:20 PM

Ed,

Yes, unlike Mars, the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere. That means you have to have enough fuel to burn your way to the surface. No clever tricks like airbags, chutes, aerobraking, etc. to cut mass. That is what will make it hard, its expensive - no shortcuts.

Folks like the CMU team have had rovers that could work on the Moon for years. Nor is the problem the lander. Mass if the problem, you need a large enough launcher to get the mass you need to the lunar surface. Which means raising the money for a large enough launcher. That is the hurdle you and all the lunar prize teams will have to face.

Check out the percentage of mass that was fuel on earlier landers. And the weight of what landed on the Moon. Start adding up the mass you will need to meet Google's requirements. Then look at the price of the launcher needed to get that mass to the lunar surface in operating condition. Again, the Google challenge is not a technical one, its a financial one, raising the money needed to buy the launcher needed to implement the mission required.

Posted by Thomas Matula at September 21, 2007 10:37 PM

Post a comment