Google Lunar X Prize Options

[Stu]

but do any of them have a realistic chance of launching metal within, say, five years?

Astrobotic are planning on their landing taking place July 2009, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.

[mcaplinger]

Astrobotic are planning on their landing taking place July 2009...

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

[Stu]

Good point, but it does suggest an element of "dashing for the prize" don't-spare-the-horses thinking, dontcha think?

[imipak]

Full inline quote removed. - Doug.

It does; but is that thinking realistic?

Their site's frustratingly short on details. However - whilst I can believe the assembled engineering clue are capable of producing a working rover, I can't see how they can get it onto the moon unless someone gifts them several hundred million dollars for a commercial launch, and - how much for developing a transfer stage and landing capability, which are less available off the shelf?

[Phil Stooke]

No, imipak, several hundred million dollars is way out of line for a launch. Several tens of millions is more like it (this has been the subject of a lot of discussion on their forum). And one Astrobotic team component is Raytheon - at least, a group from Raytheon working privately on this project. They have a lot of expertise, it's not just a group of rover builders. Some other teams plan to launch themselves - unrealistic, in my view.

I understand that Astrobotic expect to pay for a commercial launch, and the Raytheon people will design the transfer stage and lander. The whole thing might cost $80 million, and they are now raising money for it. We all know that will be hard, but Astrobotic are as well prepared as anybody to do it. As things stand now I think there are only two serious contenders, Astrobotic being one of them. The 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 seems too close to me, I think another year will be needed.

Phil

[tedstryk]

What is the other one?

[Phil Stooke]

I'm not saying! Can't afford to alienate everybody else... but if a certain person reads this he'll know his team is the one.

Phil

[imipak]

No, imipak, several hundred million dollars is way out of line for a launch. Several tens of millions is more like it [...] The whole thing might cost $80 million,..

I stand corrected on the launch cost - thanks! However, I still don't see how it can be done without huge amount (say $80m) of corporate charity, and that seems like an awful lot, especially these days. Then again they don't appear to be idiots, so I guess it's just possible they know something I don't! As always, I'll be happy to be proved wrong by events... as usual.

Anyway, returning to Stu's original point - is there anything useful I/we can do that might reduce the risk to the Apollo 11 site? Or are we worrying unnecessarily?

[Phil Stooke]

"I still don't see how it can be done without huge amount (say $80m) of corporate charity"

I know what you mean. But they don't regard it as charity. I confess I don't know that this is possible, but the major teams are looking at ways to earn that money.

Astrobotic had links with the old Lunacorp, and has some of the same plans for selling video and other content as entertainment. Odyssey Moon issued a request for Information in March to get ideas for science instruments they could carry, and NASA's Missions of Opportunity guidelines have just been changed (as I understand) to allow Discovery Program money to fund instruments on commercial missions. So they are looking at sources of income to recoup their costs. To my mind the Odyssey Moon plan looks more realistic - though the time needed to make it all happen might delay the landing too much for the prize. Astrobotic has to raise the money up front and then hope to recoup it by selling content - which might be hard to do.

Some other teams have plans that do seem to rely on charity. Those, I think, will not get off the ground. But the antigravity team might get off the ground. I can't see anything holding them back.

Phil

[tedstryk]

But the antigravity team might get off the ground. I can't see anything holding them back.

Except for pesky old reality....

[DDAVIS]

“To destroy the relics of the past is, even in small things, a kind of amputation, a self-mutilation not so much of limbs as of the memory and imagination.”

The Apollo artifacts on the Moon will last far longer than anything in museums on Earth. Being put in a museum is the last stage in the existance of valued artifacts, as they tend to be in 'prestige' cities which are eventually destroyed. I would prefer the objects in New York and Washington D.C. be dispersed into smaller places away from 'target locations'. The Kansas 'Cosmosphere' could well become the largest collection of space flight artifacts within the lifetimes of some group members.

Apollo 11 may be sacred, but to me not all landing sites are created equal. If I had to pick an Apollo site worth revisiting, it would be Apollo 14. The Lunar surface television from that mission was the poorest of the colour cameras used, due to a defect causing 'spreading' of bright parts of the image. It would be interesting to see if there was anything left of the nylon flags. If they are intact there might be a trace of blue pigment left, but the red would be bleached out of all sun exposed surfaces. Examination of the LM descent stage for micrometeorite pits, etc. after a long exposure to Lunar conditions would be useful in planning for hoped for Lunar bases. It would be nice to finally see the interior of 'Cone Crater' before pushing on to parts unknown.
Apollo 15 would be a close second, because the Hadley Rille scenery is worth revisiting. Otherwise I would put a rover down at 'Ina', the glassy looking formation once called the 'D' Cauldera'. The source pit of the Io like volcanic 'ring' sprayed across southwestern mare Orientale would be interesting to examine close up. So would be the youngest lava flow on the Moon, wherever that is determined to be.

Don

[nprev]

Very good point really in your last, Don. Why the hell should we revisit places we've been to before at this stage of the game?

The Moon has plus or minus the same surface area as Africa, and we've seen very, very little of it up close & personal. Surely it would be more prudent--and obviously far more scientifically productive-- to set down an X-lander in a previously unexplored region of geological interest, if feasible.

I know that scientific productivity might not be on the minds of the competitors right now, but in the long run it had better be. NASA might well decide to subcontract UMSF to vendors that demonstrate robust capabilities someday, and this sure looks to me like an early chance to shine in that regard.

[Phil Stooke]

That is exactly the rationale of Odyssey Moon.

Phil

[nprev]

I wish them luck; seems as if my opinions & theirs are fairly congruent.

[Betelgeuze]

heh nprev thats the point I've been trying to make, look how that turned out