ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Lunar lander challengers

Posted: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:00 PM by Alan Boyle


X Prize Foundation
An artist's conception shows a vertical-takeoff-and-landing craft's
flight path during a Lunar Lander Challenge scenario.

Four teams say they'll be competing for $2 million in the NASA-backed Lunar Lander Challenge at the X Prize Cup rocket festival in October. Two of those teams are already well-known, while the other two are dark horses in this race.

Details about the contest, the competitors and the X Prize Cup itself emerged this week from an environmental assessment distributed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The assessment will be available for public comment over the next month, and then the FAA is expected to follow up with a go-ahead for the X Prize Cup's premier event.

The Lunar Lander Challenge is aimed at promoting technologies that NASA could use for a next-generation moonship - a craft that could be cheaper and/or more capable than the Apollo era's lunar module.

There are actually two contests: The $500,000 "Vertical Lander" competition calls for teams to face off with spaceships capable of blasting off under remote control from one launch pad, rising to a height of at least 50 meters (164 feet) for 90 seconds, then landing on a level launch pad about 100 meters (330 feet) away. The $1.5 million "Lunar Lander" level calls for 180 seconds of flight time, with a landing on a sloped, rugged pad.

Since last October, when NASA's plans for the challenge first started coalescing, Texas-based Armadillo Aerospace and California-based Masten Space Systems have been considered the favorites for both levels of the competition. Both companies say they're on track to have their landers ready for October, though not without hiccups.

For example, Dave Masten reported on his Web log today that his team's latest engine test ended with a rather unpleasant boom (or should that be bust?). And in his latest news update, Armadillo Aerospace's John Carmack recounts the tilts and turns of his own testing - while also passing along the happy news that graphics-card maker NVidia will be sponsoring Armadillo's X Prize appearance.

The FAA document reveals that about 40 other teams voiced an interest in taking part, but only two of those teams have followed through. California-based Acuity Technology and Colorado-based Micro-Space both say they intend to field vertical-takeoff-and-landing craft during October's competition.

"We are putting together a vehicle for it," Acuity's president, Bob Clark, told me today. "Right now it's pretty intensive."

He said tests are proceeding on the craft's rocket engine, which uses peroxide and isopropinol as propellants.

Acuity has been in business since 1992, Clark said, but the rocket trade "is a new area for us."

"We primarily have done UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] development, sensor systems, navigation systems," he said. "We've had an interest in space system development for a while."

Clark said he didn't yet know whether Acuity would compete in both levels, or just in the less arduous Vertical Lander contest. In contrast, Micro-Space's president, Richard Speck, said his team was focusing entirely on the Vertical Lander level.

"Our effort has always been on the low end," he said. His team's spindly-legged rocket - which has a dry weight of less than 150 pounds, including its 55-pound payload -wouldn't meet the higher thrust requirements for the $1 million contest, he said.

Micro-Space was a competitor in the $10 million X Prize race that SpaceShipOne won back in 2004, and in the past Speck has talked about creating an "ultralight" spacecraft for human spaceflight. But Speck told me that his team's design for the Lunar Lander Challenge takes a simpler approach, drawing upon his years of experience with sounding rockets.

"This vehicle is an adaptation of that technology," he said.

Even if Micro-Space takes second prize in the $500,000 contest, that would bring Speck and his teammates $150,000 - a payoff he said would be "significant to us."

Speck said the money would fund the development of a more ambitious lander for the big prize next year. That is, assuming that Armadillo, Masten or Acuity doesn't make off with it this October.

Delve through the FAA's PDF document for more details about the October event - including plans for the Space Elevator Games, demonstrations of Orion Propulsion's asphalt-fueled rocket truck, hundreds of model-rocket launches ... and the likely need for earplugs. 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

We did all this with 100% success almost 40 years ago. This exercise, carried out under non-applicable conditions of gravity and atmosphere, seens like a waste of effort!
Some high school kids are going to end up winning this contest.  Just wait and see.
I think that this is an excellent way of allow private competition to create the next 'line' of space vehicles that would be more efficient, and cheaper than anything that can be produced by our government. In the long run, these 'space competitions' may also save the government millions of dollars, by simply offering prizes that encourage any people out there with a good brain on there shoulders to influence mankinds future in space.
It's about developing new technology more than anything, Joseph.  Yes, we did this with 100% success almost 40 years ago, but 40 years is a long time.  And yes, this contest involves conditions that are much different from the moon, BUT that doesn't mean that the technology developed by these companies won't be useful on the moon.  Perhaps more importantly I think it's good for NASA to look outside itself for help.
I personally think NASA is going in the wrong direction.  With the new space systems they are proposing to replace the Shuttle with looking like a serious blast from the distant past.  I think JFK would be horrified if he saw what we where doing.  We might as well just pull the plans for the Saturn 5 out of storage and start from there.  If the best that NASA can do is kill off a real SSTO design and go backwards 50 years in technology, then maybe our only hope is the private sector.
it's about time we were back in space ... never mind models, get a full size version of the best concept presently available and run safety test then live launch. need volunteers? contact me for lunar or mars shot.
The Lunar Lander Challenge seems directed at developing technologies for reuseable, single stage (Grumman's Lunar Module was neither) Lunar surface-Lunar orbit applications. How one gets to LEO and on to Lunar orbit is another issue (Which the Lunar Module addressed by riding along with the Apollo command/service module on the Saturn 5).

Conducting the tests on Earth is still valid, as we know how much energy would be required to carry out a given maneuver in the Lunar environment. A demonstrator on Earth will be expected to expend the same energy, carrying out a similar, but obviously scaled down maneuver. And there can be no use of aerodynamic control surfaces (which clearly would be a 'cheat'), only reaction controls. Rule A.4.2 is clear on this.

Apollo astronauts used a roughly similar machine for training:
http://www.astronautix.com/
craft/apoollrv.htm


...and obviously NASA considered it a meaningful analog of the Lunar landing experience.

This differs from the DC-X/A, which Was a technology demonstrator for a future vehicle that *would* operate in Earth's atmosphere to low orbit and back (though they had rocket powered vertical takeoff and landing in common)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Clipper

Japan's similar RVT has had a foot in both camps, having both flown without:
http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/enterp/tech/vehicle/06.shtml

...and later with its aeroshell:
http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2001/06_01.shtml

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/
flight_demonstration_and_a_concept_
for_readiness_of_fully_reusable_rocket_vehicles.shtml

The govt may have done all this 40 years ago, but the methods they used for orbit access are too expensive for anyone but the government and large corporations that can sell transponder access. Doing the moon by 1970 cut off development in high speed airbreathers that the Air Force was working on back then. We're finally making some headway in that arena, with every branch of the military, including the Army, working on hypersonic flyers.
Rutan said at Oshkosh that Return-on-investment for space related development is half the time as building new GA aircraft. Obviously some real money has been flowing on this issue and the next decade should be interesting to watch.
The fundamentals have not changed in 40 years. Refining something that worked well sounds pretty pragmatic to me.
Physical laws did not get revised much in the last 40
years.Save time and money (and possibly astronauts) by
getting the plans for the Saturn 5 out and lets go.  Forget the space station,we landed on one in 69,we just needed a plan to live there.              
My father worked for Brown Engineering ... Halliburton to "(do) all this with 100% success almost 40 years ago", as he bragged, "with punchcards".
Actually, it was closer to 50 years past than 40.

Punchcards & dusted Saturn 5 plans are not merely old tech, they are lost tech, as are the original formula for Damascus steel or silphion seed stock or Apollo 11 videotapes.

http://www.smh.com.au/
news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-
mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/
2006/08/04/1154198328978.html


Because they functioned in living memory is irrelevant.
Unproven developmental tech is unavoidable in an era of future shock.

Myself, I'm enthusiastic about corp. sponsorship of launches & space exploration as marketing opportunities, a far more appropriate venue than the customary cultural highjacking epitomized by MTV Spring Break.
Let's hookup in Canaveral for Easter recess ! Don't forget your cellphone cam.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2061

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google