Google Lunar X Prize Options

[Phil Stooke]

Am I completely out of it, or is there no GLXP thread on here? I couldn't find one. Anyway, things are moving on it, so I thought we ought to have one.

For the record, I just turned down my second invitation to join a team. I'm staying as an interested observer on this - for now, anyway.

There is a forum at the GLXP site as well as team info. There are a lot of people with half-baked ideas of how to go about it. The real professionals are not doing much on the forum, just working behind the scenes.

At LPSC two weeks ago, Bob Richards of Odyssey Moon invited people to propose instruments to carry on their rover - targeted to a pyroclastic deposit, probably Rima Bode or Sulpicius Gallus. And I see they have now signed an agreement to carry Celestis's lunar burials to the Moon. Richards will be here next week, and I'll be spending some time with him.

This whole thing is going to be interesting.

Phil

[Betelgeuze]

I've never been in front of a classroom talking about space exploration, but I’m not sure I can agree with all the things you say. I honestly can’t believe kids are more excited about robotic mission than human missions. If that’s so, why aren’t the 2 mars rovers doing their trick? I remember seeing studies that showed that kids are far less interested in space-related things now. If it’s correct what you say, we should be seeing the opposite now because we have never had so many great robotic missions at the same time.
I can understand your point about kids being familiar and more excited about robots that before, they are after all becoming part of our lives but still...
Media is also very important for kids nowadays; they have TV, movies and games. Sc-fi is an important theme and most of the time it’s about 'humans' exploring the universe, if robots show up they are most of the time the 'evil' guys (Matrix, BSG, terminator,...). I’m not sure kids like the fact that robots will replace humans when it comes to space exploration.

Kids who are really interested in space probably have seen a lot of pictures from the Apollo missions. For me (and for those kids) it would be the first moon landing during my lifetime and I would be very disappointed to see the exact same things I’ve seen on all those pictures and movies from 1969.
So IMO kids who are interested in space will be disappointed, kids who are not interested in space just don't care; its a far-from-bed show 'with robots exploring a world far far away where people once walked but never returned'....

[Stu]

I've never been in front of a classroom talking about space exploration, but I’m not sure I can agree with all the things you say. I honestly can’t believe kids are more excited about robotic mission than human missions.

I think we're actually on the same side here, because if you please read my post again, I didn't say they were I said they were excited about robotic missions because they can identify with the technology. They're just as fascinated by manned missions, but when, being honest, I tell them that they are a long way off it brings home to them that, for the moment at least, robots are the only show in town. Sad, but true.

I have never, ever, in any of my talks told kids that robots have replaced, or will replace, humans. Human space exploration always has been and will remain my passion. So I take great care to put robots in the right context - i.e. we don't know enough about the long term effects of space exploration on the human body or psyche, and don't have the right "kit", to allow us to fire people off to the Moon again or Mars yet, but those things will come, and when we do boy will we see some great sights! But let's be honest: men and women ain't going to be landing on the rolled edge of Shackleton crater until the whole place has been thoroughly mapped by rovers and landers. There's no point telling kids - or anyone - otherwise.

The Lunar Google rovers could - if handled properly, and operated with dignity and respect - be the catalyst for a revival of interest in "space" amongst kids, as long as we make it clear that they are precursors to manned expeditions, not substitutes for them. There's a lot of scientific potential with them - studies of rocks and minerals - as well as the potential for great Outreach imagery too. I worry that there'll be too much emphasis placed on imaging Apollo sites simply because of the financial rewards such images could bring. As you rightly say, there's a lot more Moon to see up there! If the goal simply becomes Land, Take Apollo Hardware Picture, Count the Money, well, the whole thing will be a waste of time. But if Google Rovers do more, if they take amazing images of other sites, if they return useful scientific data, if they flood the media with lunar images, then they really could make a difference. I'm looking forward to "using" them in my talks, but never, ever, will I prioritise wheels and tracks over boots and gloves, no matter how much I adore Spirit and Oppy.

Hmmm, we're getting a bit off track here I think; this started off as a discussion about the merits of preserving Apollo landing sites and seems to have morphed into an old faithful robots vs humans discussion. Easily done, but I apologise if it was my fault.