What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
Robert Clark
Prize Challenge?
The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission
requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps
arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth.
For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an
existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to
go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to
GEO:
Delta-v budget.
4 Earth-Moon space budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth-Moon_space_budget
The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also
rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s.
The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same
cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO.
So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft
landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging
to the surface?
Bob Clark
gaetanomarano
> What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge?
A: "inventi it" >>> http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html
then, WIN the """Google""" LXP is very very easy thanks to the NASA's
space centers help... :)
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/041odysseywins.html
.
Uncle Al
>
> What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X
> Prize Challenge?
Boosting mass from the Earth to the moon. Shooting it out of your ass
will barely achieve LEO. Dr. Schund has applied for TARP funding to
put a block and tackle anchored on the moon's near side. Then all it
takes is a strong rope and a million Mexicans. Santa Ana, CA can
donate 600,000 from its garages alone.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Robert Clark
> What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X
> Prize Challenge?
> The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission
> requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps
> arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth.
>
> For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an
> existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to
> go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to
> GEO:
>
> Delta-v budget.
>
> The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also
> rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s.
>
> The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same
> cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO.
>
> So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft
> landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging
> to the surface?
>
In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this
video:
Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly.
By Jesus Diaz, 9:00 PM on Mon Dec 8 2008, 172,592 views
http://gizmodo.com/5104917/
This operates on thruster pulses for directional control. It looks
also like the main thrust engine is also pulsed.
This type of system would have the advantage of allowing the lander to
move to more than one location after landing.
This reminded me that the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Phoenix Lander
engines were also pulsed:
Martian cliffhanger resolved at last.
Phoenix lander’s propulsion system works, nine years after setback.
By James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
updated 9:10 p.m. ET, Sun., May 25, 2008
"Did NASA cut corners on engine testing?
"Back in the 1990s, as a cost-cutting measure, Polar Lander's engines
were never actually tested. Instead, they were certified purely on the
basis of previous flight experience. In the “circle-the-wagons”
embarrassment that followed Polar Lander's loss, NASA officials
admitted the error but refused to reveal which space vehicle had
carried such thrusters in the past.
"At the time, there were rumors that the engine was used for a
military multiple-warhead carrier mounted on an intercontinental
ballistic missile. As such, the engine would be qualified to start up
in a warm underground silo, for a mission of no more than 30 minutes
ending in nuclear annihilation. The idea that this would be "close
enough" for use on a chilly 10-month flight to Mars seemed
preposterous — but no one would confirm the rumors.
That was then, and this is now: Lewicki said he had no problem
discussing Polar Lander's engine.
“It’s a standard Aerojet engine, model MR-107-N,” he happily told me
when asked. “Before it flew on MPL, it had flown on intercontinental
ballistic missiles.” Its predecessor, the MR-107, had also flown in an
upper stage for the small Athena satellite launcher in the 1990s, the
Encyclopedia Astronautica Web site notes.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24780686/wid/7279844//
This MR-107 engine is now used on civilian craft including those two
Martian landers:
MR-107.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/mr107.htm
Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the
Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a
good choice to use on the Moon.
They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well
tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of
operation.
Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might
be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars
Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that
program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the
public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar
analogue lander to be constructed.
Bob Clark
BradGuth
> On Jun 13, 11:51 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X
> > Prize Challenge?
> > The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission
> > requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps
> > arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth.
>
> > For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an
> > existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to
> > go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to
> > GEO:
>
> > Delta-v budget.
> > 4 Earth-Moon space budget.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth-Moon_space_budget
>
> > The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also
> > rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s.
>
> > The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same
> > cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO.
>
> > So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft
> > landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging
> > to the surface?
>
> In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this
> video:
>
> Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly.
>
> Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the
> Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a
> good choice to use on the Moon.
> They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well
> tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of
> operation.
> Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might
> be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars
> Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that
> program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the
> public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar
> analogue lander to be constructed.
>
> Bob Clark
It takes either a great deal of micro reaction thrusting and of course
its payload of fuel, as well as a damn good flight computer and/or a
pair or three powerful momentum reaction wheels in order to deal with
the continually shifting CG while sustaining a carefully controlled
deorbit and downrange controlled soft landing onto such a crystal dry
and electrostatic charged quicksand/quickdust covered surface (in
places tens of meters deep). Our supposed manned Apollo landings
(each essentially flawless) didn't have any of that going for them,
because they used the far superior hocus/pocus magic of what our
Zionist Nazi DARPA had to offer, plus having since destroyed all of
their as-built R&D plus whatever terrestrial prototype documentation
so that secrets to those fly-by-rocket landings goes to each and every
one of their graves.
~ BG
Robert Clark
> ...
>
> In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this
> video:
>
> Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly.
>
> Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the
> Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a
> good choice to use on the Moon.
> They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well
> tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of
> operation.
> Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might
> be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars
> Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that
> program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the
> public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar
> analogue lander to be constructed.
>
> Bob Clark
On Bautforum.com was mentioned a partnership between the Odyssey Moon
Google Lunar X Prize team and NASA Ames to use the lunar lander Ames
is developing:
Engineering TV.
MoonOne Robotic Lunar Lander.
"Odyssey Moon's partnership with NASA will allow them to develop the
"MoonOne" (M-1) lunar lander based on the Common Spacecraft Bus (CSB)
developed at the NASA Ames Research Center."
http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2009/04/21/moonone-robotic-lunar-lander.aspx
Exclusive Video: Meet the Spacecraft That Could Save NASA a Fortune.
* By Aaron Rowe
* May 7, 2008
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/video-meet-the/
There has been some grumbles that this partnership with NASA Ames
gives Odyssey Moon an unfair advantage in the $30 million prize
competition:
Odyssey Moon WINS the "Odyssey Moon Lunar X Prize".
http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=7639
This hovering vehicle developed by NASA Ames also seems to operate by
pulsed thrusters. It may very well be that it was developed as derived
from the MPL/Phoenix lander designs.
Bob Clark
BradGuth
>
> Exclusive Video: Meet the Spacecraft That Could Save NASA a Fortune.
> * By Aaron Rowe
>
> There has been some grumbles that this partnership with NASA Ames
> gives Odyssey Moon an unfair advantage in the $30 million prize
> competition:
>
>
> This hovering vehicle developed by NASA Ames also seems to operate by
> pulsed thrusters. It may very well be that it was developed as derived
> from the MPL/Phoenix lander designs.
>
> Bob Clark
As a whole we tend to cheat most all the time, so what's the big deal?
~ BG
Robert Clark
> What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X
> Prize Challenge?
> The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission
> requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps
> arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth.
>
> For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an
> existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to
> go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to
> GEO:
>
> Delta-v budget.
>
> The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also
> rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s.
>
> The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same
> cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO.
>
> So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft
> landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging
> to the surface?
>
Nice YouTube video on the Google Lunar X Prize competition:
Moon 2.0: Join the Revolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K4zosGUMBw
Bob Clark