Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Google backs private Moon landing
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Other Missions > Private Missions
SkyeLab
FROM: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6993373.stm


Firms interested in trying for the prize have until the end of 2012 to mount their Moonshot

Anyone fancy a crack at this?

Cheers

Brian
djellison
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
Paolo Amoroso
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 14 2007, 11:57 AM) *
I 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?

According to a message posted to the LUNAR-L mailing list, several people have been thinking about leveraging multiple revenue streams off such a mission for years.


Paolo Amoroso
SkyeLab
I thought this was an interesting add on (from the New Scientist online http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12...ding-prize.html )

"To help aspiring lunar explorers, startup launch services firm Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of El Segundo, California, is offering to fly contestants' rovers on its Falcon rockets at cost, which would be about $7 million for its smallest booster."

Do you think there will be any takers?

Apparently, each team has to be at least 90% privately funded.

Full details at the competition website:
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/
djellison
QUOTE (SkyeLab @ Sep 14 2007, 01:38 PM) *
Do you think there will be any takers?


Sadly, no. I don't think anyone will be prepared to take the financial risk. All credit to Elon for offering cheap Falcon 1 launches - that's a starting point - but that's an LEO payload of about700kg. Within that 700kg - you've got to get a 3km/sec TLI, another 3km/sec or so to get onto the surface when you're there - unless your lander is little more than a cube sat - I don't think the maths adds up. And once you've got a cube sat with wheels on the surface.... HDTV? Not likely.

A cheap orbital mission challenge would have made more sense - but all credit to Google for trying anyway.

Doug
Toma B
QUOTE (SkyeLab @ Sep 14 2007, 02:38 PM) *
...Falcon rockets at cost, which would be about $7 million for its smallest booster.

I doubt there is enough payload capacity in that rocket.
Falcon-1 can carry only 670kg to LEO. Can it send anything to the Moon?
I think they will need bigger rocket... unsure.gif huh.gif sad.gif maybe Falcon-9 but that rocket costs 35.000.000$!!!

Edit:
Grrr.....
Doug got to answer first....
SkyeLab
How about the Planetary Society?

Emily?
djellison
http://www.spacetethers.com/massfraction.html

VERY VERY rough figures - but that would suggest a mass fraction of approx 75-90% to achieve 6km/sec delta V. Staging might help (at that scale?) - so you've got something like 175kg to 70kg of vehicle structure, engines, systems, fuel tanks ( carrying 600kg of fuel). What's left for the actual rover? To coin a phrase, roughly 9/10ths of 4/5ths of 'f' all

Doug
AndyG
On paper it's a bit better than a cubesat.

If you can get 670kg to LEO, then you need a further 5.7km/s of dV to the lunar surface. Using hypergolics (for all the right reasons) and a realistic Isp means that the dry weight of the package landed on the surface could be around 80 to 100kg.

Not too shabby.

Andy

Edit: just seen Doug's "no you can't". I'm not sure it's as cut-and-dried as that.
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Paolo Amoroso @ Sep 14 2007, 03:51 AM) *
According to a message posted to the LUNAR-L mailing list, several people have been thinking about leveraging multiple revenue streams off such a mission for years.

Sure, but anyone who's ever tried it (ever heard of idealab's "BlastOff!"? http://www.diamandis.com/blastoff.html ) has spent a lot of money and gotten nowhere. It's a pretty goofy commercial venture.
djellison
QUOTE (AndyG @ Sep 14 2007, 02:25 PM) *
dry weight of the package landed on the surface


How much of that is fuel tankage, engines, plumbing, basic structure etc etc. My bad-maths said something like 70-170kg on the surface - so your proper maths does do a better job smile.gif But given the demands of the prize ( 500m, HDTV ) with the landed payload...I just don't see it as possible. Would a hugely optimistic figure for the 'dead' mass of the vehicle be something like 40kg? Leaving a 30kg vehicle for power, cdh, >1mbps downlink caperbility, and sufficient mobility to drive across the moon. For $27m plus whatever else you can generate from it. I just don't think it's feasable. I would love.. and I mean absolutely LOVE to be proven wrong - a rover on the moon would be utterly fantastic. I just don't see this $30m as making a whole chunk of difference in terms of the likelyhood of it being done privately in the next 5 years.

Doug
SpaceListener
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 14 2007, 08:00 AM) *
HDTV? Not likely.

Just to let you know that Kaguya will use HDTV for first time film out of Earth! smile.gif
djellison
I didn't know Kaguya had it onboard - hopefully we'll be seeing some ultra cool footage in the not to distant future. smile.gif . It's about time that 'our' generation ( i.e. born >Apollo 17) got our Earth rise moment....But when you're 3 tonnes and have 3.5 kw to use.....HDTV's not too big a challenge (any lunar orbiter's a challenge, but you know what I mean) Size 46cm x 42cm x 28cm Mass 16.5kg Power consumption 50W
That description describes the HDTV cameras onboard Kaguya...and probably not far off the bottom lines of size, mass and power for a Falcon 1 launched landed payload in full. smile.gif

Doug
nprev
This Google prize is getting a LOT of media attention, so perhaps that's the whole objective. Notice also that they're offering $5M bonuses for visiting "historical sites", which of course would mean Apollo landing sites.

Still...$30M isn't much of an incentive, unless it's meant to help an aspiring company recoup at least some of its development costs. Presumably any company that could pull this off would be "made", though, and perhaps become a prime govt contractor for lunar exploration someday...something like a super MSSS.

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!)

EDIT: Horrible thought- Rover lands at Tranquility Base, drives right over Neil's first footprint on the Moon... sad.gif
mcaplinger
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 14 2007, 07:15 AM) *
Mass 16.5kg; Power consumption 50W
That description describes the HDTV cameras onboard Kaguya...

We could do HD cameras for a tenth the mass and power, if not less. The formal rules are not yet posted (see http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/com...tion/guidelines ), but the implication is that the realtime video need not be transmitted to Earth in real time, so the telecom system can be pretty modest and not a system driver.
marsbug
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?
Paolo Amoroso
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
AndyG
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
AscendingNode
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?
dvandorn
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
djellison
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
nprev
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.
Phil Stooke
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
nprev
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!
JRehling
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.
nprev
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.
dvandorn
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
tuvas
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.
tuvas
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.
djellison
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
ugordan
My thoughts exactly there, Doug. It's pointless to even try to prove something to those guys, it's best to just let them go.
nprev
Believe it or not, I used to work with a contractor--a satcom guy!-- that subscribed to this, er, [insert polite term for what I'm thinking]. He believed in satellites, of course, but maintained that the logistics of getting to the Moon were patently impossible.

Another guy I knew a few years ago was an absolutely brilliant electronics technician who maintained, with utter solemnity, that Apollo proved that the Earth-Moon system was only 6000 years old because 'NASA's computers crashed every time they tried to reconstruct orbits' farther back than then.

What's scary is that both of these men are extraordinarily good at what they do, and work in technically demanding fields. I took it as a lesson in the dangers of insufficient imagination combined with unrestrained credulity towards negative arguments. Keep on educating, UMSFers...
climber
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Sep 14 2007, 07:08 PM) *
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

I like these ideas O Doug, lot of souvenirs....

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

but because Apollo 12 is the only site where we didn't get LIVE TV transmissions wink.gif
tuvas
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 15 2007, 07:03 AM) *
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.


Okay, it wouldn't convince the diehards, but it would convince just about anyone else... I mean, if you can see the footprints, can see the leftover lander equipment, from a totally private enterprise, well, that's quite a feat to deny...
Stu
This week's "Carnival of Space" has some interesting blog entries about the Lunar X-Prize... wink.gif
Del Palmer
Looks like the cringemaster wants a piece of the action:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pu...927_003043.html

Team UMSF.com? wink.gif
djellison
Nahh - we're doing balloons smile.gif

Doug
Jim from NSF.com
QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 14 2007, 01:23 PM) *
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.


Hall Effect xenon thrusters are only used for station keeping and not perigee raising. Kick motors for GTO only exist on Delta II's. Atlas, Delta IV, Proton and Ariane have all liquid upperstages. The last commercial Delta II GTO mission was in 1998.
Perigee kick motors have been long gone, liquid systems are used since they are:
1. more efficient
2. left over prop can be used for station keeping
3. more flexible
cndwrld
I was at the International Aeronautical Congress conference last week, in India. The X-Prize people did a large presentation there about the prize. They had a Google rep there, too, but the presentation was done by a guy from Ansari X. Most of what was said is on the web site, so I won't repeat it. And I didn't take much in the way of notes, so this is from memory.

I asked if an employee of a large, ponderous, out-of-date giant aerospace organization could volunteer time to the competitors. They said yes, most definitely. You'd just have to document somehow that you worked and didn't get paid in any way.

By last week when I talked to them (Thu, 27 Sept), they had receieved seven team registrations and expected more soon.

It costs $1000 to register your team. And as for the launch costs, they had an official launch 'partner' who would offer discounted launches to the teams that wanted them. I think it was Space-X, and the discount was about 10% off, as I recall.

There was also a group who was offering the use of their ground station for free to all the teams. Located in California, I think. Don't recall the name.

And they seconded the idea expressed earlier in this thread about the money covering the costs. There is no intention that the prize money finance the whole cost. It is indeed meant as an incentive to the winning team. The intention is that the winner (of this or any of their prizes) immediately becomes the leader in their field and can leverage the prize money and prize notoriety into a viable business which provides real returns.
Moon Saloon
QUOTE (cndwrld @ Oct 1 2007, 03:44 AM) *
It costs $1000 to register your team.


The registration cost is $10,000 if submitted before the end of 2008. The letter of intent requires a $1000 deposit, towards the
registration fee.

First team to complete registration is "Odyssey Moon":
History Making Moon Mission To Be Unveiled December 6th

San Jose, CA - The first team to complete registration for the $30M Google Lunar X PRIZE will unveil its plans on December 6th at the Space Investment Summit in San Jose, California. Representatives of Odyssey Moon will announce their plans to make history with the first private robotic mission to the surface of the Moon and their intent to win the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Odyssey Moon's inaugural mission will involve a unique small robotic lander designed to deliver scientific, exploration and commercial payloads to the surface of the Moon.

There website is given as http://www.odysseymoon.com but
I'm having problems connecting to it at the moment.

The domain contact for odysseymoon.com is given as:

Technical Contact:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: odysseymoon.com
P.O. Box 278
Yarmouth, NS B5A 4B2
Canada
nprev
QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Sep 28 2007, 04:35 AM) *
Hall Effect xenon thrusters are only used for station keeping and not perigee raising.


Advanced EHF SVs are actually going to use their HETs for perigee raising, and station keeping thereafter...105 days of continuous thrust to reach GEO from LEO. (Yeah, I know what you're thinking; I was initially incredulous as well. Trade-off seems to be that a bit more vehicle mass budget outweighs time to get there, given that modern spacecraft have pretty long lifetimes.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.