IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Google backs private Moon landing, Google is offering a $30m prize pot to private firms that land a
marsbug
post Sep 14 2007, 03:43 PM
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 5-January 07
From: Manchester England
Member No.: 1563



What about the five million dollar secound prize? that seems acheivable, the question is would $5000,000 be enough of an incentive to make it worth while?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo Amoroso
post Sep 14 2007, 03:46 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 20-January 07
From: Milano, ITALY
Member No.: 1633



QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 14 2007, 04:57 PM) *
Notice also that they're offering $5M bonuses for visiting "historical sites", which of course would mean Apollo landing sites.

What about visiting a rover's old buddy, such as a Lunokhod site?

QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 14 2007, 04:57 PM) *
Doug's right, though; at the end of the day, it's hard to figure out what Google's real angle is in this; they need more publicity like I need more alimony. Do you suppose that they're so rich that true philanthrophy is their core motivation? blink.gif (Nah...I don't think so either!)

It looks like funding a human orbital flight would have required a lot more money.


Paolo Amoroso


--------------------
Avventure Planetarie - Blog sulla comunicazione e divulgazione scientifica
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndyG
post Sep 14 2007, 03:49 PM
Post #18


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 593
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 279



QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 14 2007, 03:57 PM) *
EDIT: Horrible thought- Rover lands at Tranquility Base, drives right over Neil's first footprint on the Moon... sad.gif

Would that not have been scoured off during the LEM ascent stage lift off? Or trodden on by Aldrin before that?

Still, I think an exclusion zone around the current landing sites might be in order. Until the Heritage Infrastructure has built up a bit. ;-)

Andy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AscendingNode
post Sep 14 2007, 04:22 PM
Post #19


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 4-September 07
Member No.: 3653



So google will give $20 million to the first private company to land on the moon, rove 500 m and return 'mooncast' video. see here: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/com...tion/guidelines

So am I the only one to which this prize money seems like way to little to cover the cost of such a thing. At that pice you probably couldn't afford a launch vehicle and would have to launch piggy-back with another satellite... so you would have to get out of whatever orbit the piggy-back launch put you in and get to the moon... which probably would require electric propulsion. And you would still need chemical propulsion to be able to land. So that's two prop systems _and_ some way to locomote after you land _and_ you have to send back high def video (lots of power and lots of ground station fees).

It seems like for this to work you'd have to already have your own launch vehicle and tracking network all built and paid for... but the prize is only for a 100% private venture, so you coucldn't even use a donated vehicle or tracking.

Did they even think this through before they announced it? what am I missing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 14 2007, 05:08 PM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (AndyG @ Sep 14 2007, 10:49 AM) *
Would that not have been scoured off during the LEM ascent stage lift off? Or trodden on by Aldrin before that?

Still, I think an exclusion zone around the current landing sites might be in order. Until the Heritage Infrastructure has built up a bit. ;-)

Andy

Hmmm.. that first bootprint was almost certainly overtrodden by both Armstrong *and* Aldrin durng the course of the EVA. It was just off the footpad, after all, on the side of the footpad facing the MESA, and they did a lot of work at the MESA.

But for the whole scene, overall, I think that Tranquility Base ought to remain untouched and "unsullied" for now. I'd have no problems with rovers visiting any of the other five Apollo landing sites -- they're historical, but not so much as that first one. A few more rover tracks wouldn't damage anything at, say, Hadley or Taurus-Littrow. Or even at Fra Mauro.

In fact, I think Fra Mauro would be a great place for an unmanned rover. Work it right and we might *finally* get to look into Cone Crater. I think it would be appropriate to allow Ed Mitchell to drive a rover right up to Cone's rim and be the first to look inside... or maybe, if Ed can't do it, let Jim Lovell and Fred Haise do it!

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 14 2007, 05:14 PM
Post #21


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Thinking out loud - if you can get to GEO as a piggyback - (not gto...GEO) - then the dV to get to the moon drops - significantly. The TLI is <1km/sec instead of 3km/sec. If you're really cunning about it - maybe even only 900m/sec.

If you can take 2km/sec off the requirement like that - then you get a mass fraction of more like 70%. If someone's prepared to have a 500kg hitch-hike to GEO - you could put as much as 150kg on the surface. Thing is - which kind-soul telecoms company is going to give someone a free lift to GEO..anyone....hmmmm....it's gone quiet smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 14 2007, 05:23 PM
Post #22


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Yeah; I was wondering about opportune piggybacks as well. Also, how many commercial GEO launches are using kick motors (Star-48s, etc.) these days to get there from LEO? Most of the gov ones I know use Hall Effect xenon thrusters, which takes a lot of time & obviously does not impart much dV per sec.

Reason I ask is that the optimum separation time would presumably be after a nice, decisive boost to GEO...but it would have to be well-timed with the primary SV's needs, of course. Can't have the main sat spending station-keeping fuel to traverse 120 deg of longitude or something to get it where it needs to be.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Sep 14 2007, 05:24 PM
Post #23


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 10122
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Well, the artifacts need not be Apollo - they could be Surveyors or Lunokhods, or Ranger debris fields, or SMART-1's impact site, etc. etc.

For most Apollo sites it would be possible to get very close to the LM or ALSEP without ever touching old tracks, if you came in the right way using maps of surface activites. There would be some controversy about any disturbance, so it would be best avoided from a PR point of view.

As for the prize not being enough... it doesn't have to be. The original X-prize covered less than half the cost of the attempt. The builders need other sponsors, the prize is just a subsidy.

I'm not sure if this will work. THe X-prize obviously did, but I have a feeling Bigelow's "America's Space Prize" ($100 million to the first private launch of a crew to orbit) is not realistic. Hard to say. But people have been trying this for a while - Transorbital, Applied Space Resources, Lunacorp. They couldn't get adequate funding. But this might help, and we're getting more of an 'angel investor' thing under way now than those companies had available to them.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.

Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke
NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 14 2007, 05:32 PM
Post #24


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



The Google link that AscendingNode posted had a pretty obvious Apollo site bias, Phil; more PR.

I think that oDoug's right, though; go to any of the others, but leave Tranquility Base alone. That's a sacred place, likely to be right up there with the Pyramids (and last longer in our collective memory) if we do indeed survive and spread out through space.

EDIT: Heck, I vote for Apollo 12; it's a two-fer, along with Surveyor 3!


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Sep 14 2007, 06:42 PM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 14 2007, 02:57 AM) *
I can understand how and my why the first X-Prize was won... it was essentially a back-dated seed-fund for sub-orbital tourism. What does this seed? I mean - a little rover on the moon - very very very very cool - cool beyond words - but where's the commercial return on it?

Doug


As a business, Google operates in a number of ways that seem to defy the laws of gravity, metaphorically speaking.

The most cynical outlook would be that they're gambling that the "cool factor" PR for Google will be worth the (to-them) measly sum of money. And if they miscalculate, they lose little, since they're operating almost as a monopoly and have money to burn.

Cool factor and uniqueness don't scale, however. I think the declining media attendance at the launches of Apollo 11, 12, and 13 tell that tale. This may, through marketing intangibles, be a break-even operation for Google, but it's not like every company will dish out cash so they can be the 8th corporation to fund an irrelevant lunar mission.

If successful, this will be a one-shot stunt. If not successful, it will be a no-shot stunt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 15 2007, 01:49 AM
Post #26


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Beginning to wonder if they're just trying to emulate the early days of aviation...various prizes for various feats. Their ultimate goal has to be just plain publicity, of course, but Silicon Valley also has a vested interest in stimulating new technologies and fields of endeavour that naturally open new markets for theor products.

Google might just be sticking a toe in the water to diversify 10-20 yrs down the road, betting that UMSF will become a contracted government activity by then...in this scenario, NASA just hands out performance-based contracts, and all the work & risk of a mission is assumed by a contractor. This contest would be a good way to find a good company to buy. Their secondary assumption here is that lunar exploration will become very hot, as China, India & Russia get a lot more aggressive in lunar activities.

Yeah, pretty thin...hell, I don't know why they're doing this!!!! Pure charity, pure publicity, pure foolishness, or the equivalent of buying a long shot, very expensive lottery ticket...I'll go with a combo of the second & fourth options.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 15 2007, 05:22 AM
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



I think it's worth pointing out, here, that Google has some serious space exploration fans in its upper ranks. Google never fails to commemorate the date of July 20 each year, and at one point (I believe it was on a July 20 several years ago), Google announced it was accepting applications for positions at its new lunar facility which was to be located (IIRC) on the floor of Copernicus. (I actually sent in an application, all in fun, and got a very nice letter stating that they already had enough applications, but to keep them in mind when they begin hiring again for this facility, in about 35 years... *smile*...)

Google would be doing something like this, not for the PR value (although there is that), but just because it appears that the people who run Google *want* to do it! They think space is cool, and even if no one ever knew what they were doing, they'd love being involved in getting new, fresh-off-the-wire views from the lunar surface.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tuvas
post Sep 15 2007, 01:48 PM
Post #28


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: 21-August 06
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 1062



Something else that no one has said about Google backing it, to a degree they already have an agreement with NASA with several things, why not try to fund something privately? It does make sense. Google isn't above doing things that help people with different things, even some of which might not turn a profit, but, well, it doesn't hurt.

As to what the commercial value is of such an application, there are 3 things that I can think of (One of which I heard from here). First of all, someone could potentially land a rover on the moon, and sell the rights to control the rover for a period of time. The moon would be idea for this, because there's always somewhere facing the Earth, and it gets 2 weeks of sun at a time. I know many people on here are MER fans, just imagine if you could control it for a period of time. There are people who would pay alot of money for that. If you can get to the moon for around $30 million, and stay there for say, 3 lunar days, assuming 2 weeks of sellability per lunar day, and you've got 6 weeks worth of time to sell. That's 40 days, so you only have to make $1 million or so per day, and you're in the green. If you could sell an hour controlling the moon rover for $40,000, or perhaps some kind of exclusive footage for a price, you're doing quite well. Add in corporate sponsorships, etc, and you're in real good condition. Of course, there's alot of ifs here, but, well, it is in theory possible.

Secondly, it's one more stage to the moon. If you can get a robot there, then it's not that much harder to get a habitat, then humans there. It's a building block for future manned missions to the moon, that don't have anything to do with the government.

Lastly, as someone mentioned, anyone capable of doing such a thing can easily get NASA contracts.

So, as a whole, it's probably not going to turn a profit right away, but it's a start. I could see alot of technology being played at because of this mission. Just thought I'd toss in my $.02.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tuvas
post Sep 15 2007, 01:49 PM
Post #29


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: 21-August 06
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 1062



Oh, just to talk a little about the Apollo landing sites, well, if someone could land something there, it'd prove once and for all that we did land there, so the Apollo conspirators could go back to Mars or something else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 15 2007, 02:03 PM
Post #30


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tuvas @ Sep 15 2007, 02:49 PM) *
Apollo conspirators


You underestimate the level of creativity of those guys. They'd claim that either the hardware had been deposited, unmanned, more recently - or that the visiting spacecraft was simply part of the conspiracy itself.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 03:30 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.