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.



Google funds $30 million moon prize

Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:18 PM by Alan Boyle

Google is bankrolling a $30 million race for privately funded moon rovers - an endeavor that takes the X Prize to new heights.

The Google Lunar X Prize, announced today by the search-engine giant and the X Prize Foundation at the Wired NextFest in Los Angeles, ranks among the richest contests ever offered for technological innovation. It follows up on the $10 million Ansari X Prize for manned spaceflight, which was won nearly three years ago by the SpaceShipOne rocket plane.


BlastOff.com / Diamandis.com
This artist's conception shows a lunar lander
descending to the moon's surface. The concept was
prepared for BlastOff.com, a venture that aimed to
put privately funded rovers on the moon. That
venture went by the wayside, but the idea has been
revived for the Google Lunar X Prize.

The new prize calls upon teams to create autonomous rovers that could land on the moon, travel at least three-tenths of a mile (500 meters) and send video, images and data back to Earth.

The first team to succeed would win $20 million - that is, if the job is done by 2012. After that, the prize drops to $15 million, and if no one is successful by the end of 2014, the money could be withdrawn. If a second team succeeds before the deadline, $5 million would be given as a runner-up prize. Another $5 million would be reserved for bonus tasks - for example, roving for longer distances, taking pictures of old lunar spacecraft, finding water ice or surviving the long lunar night.

The imagery and other data beamed back from the moon would be shared with the world via the Google Lunar X Prize's Web site.

"By working with the Google team, we look forward to bringing this historic private space race into every home and classroom," Peter Diamandis, chairman and chief executive officer of the California-based X Prize Foundation, said in a prepared statement. "We hope to ignite the imagination of children around the world."

Dreams of flight
Google co-founder Sergey Brin said the competition would follow through on some of his own childhood dreams. "Like all kids, I'm somewhat interested in space, but I followed it more in recent years, especially as some of the early Internet pioneers have also turned their attention to space," he said in a video prepared for Thursday's announcement.

At one time, Brin toyed with the idea of mounting a full-fledged lunar lander mission as a Google marketing venture, much as other billionaires might race sailboats or buy sports teams. Brett Alexander, the X Prize Foundation's executive director for space prizes, said Brin mentioned the idea to Diamandis in March during a fund-raising gala. Later that same evening, Diamandis got back to Brin with his proposal for the Google Lunar X Prize.

"At the end of the pitch, Sergey said, 'That's a great idea, let's do it,'" Alexander told me. Larry Page, Google's other co-founder, has likewise been supportive of the X Prize Foundation as a member of its board of trustees.

In addition to the $30 million in prize money, Google is covering a portion of the foundation's  administrative costs, Alexander said.

Follow the money
The idea of a privately funded lunar landing has been kicking around for more than a decade. Diamandis himself was among a group of entrepreneurs at BlastOff.com who worked on such a mission during the dot-com boom. Another company, LunaCorp, tried for years to sell the idea of a corporate-supported lunar rover. Neither of those efforts got off the ground.

The past few years have seen plenty of big-money incentives for innovation as well - not only the Ansari X Prize, but also the DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous road vehicles and NASA's Centennial Challenges program. Back in 2004, Nevada billionaire Robert Bigelow offered a $50 million "America's Space Prize" for the first privately funded orbital flight. That particular space race fizzled out, however, when Bigelow determined that no one could make it to orbit by the 2010 deadline while observing a total ban on public funding.

The no-government-funding provision has been softened somewhat for the Google Lunar X Prize. Alexander, a former White House aide, said the competing teams would be limited to receiving no more than 10 percent of their income from government contracts. The competition would also be open to anyone in the world, and not just U.S.-led teams, he said.

Detailed draft rules for the contest would be distributed over the coming weeks for review, eventually leading to the formal registration of X Prize teams, Alexander said. 

NASA vs. the rocketeers?
Alexander saw no conflict between the private-sector prize and NASA's plans for lunar exploration - which call for the launch of a lunar orbiter next year and a progression of robotic missions leading to the first human landing in the 2018 time frame.

"I was at the White House and was involved in writing the Vision for Space Exploration when I was there, so I view this as very complementary," he said.

NASA's deputy administrator, Shana Dale, was due to attend Thursday's NextFest announcement as a signal that the space agency was on board with the X Prize plan. Although NASA would take no role in the X Prize competition, Alexander said officials could conceivably "buy the technology, the system, the mission, the ride or the intellectual property that comes out of all these teams."

"This is not about stopping government exploration," Alexander said. "It's about enhancing it so that we get even more out of exploration."

A little help from their friends
The teams won't be expected to do everything themselves. The X Prize Foundation forged strategic alliances with several partners that could provide the teams with space services:

  • SpaceX says it will offer each team an in-kind contribution that, in effect, represents a 10 percent reduction in the price of a Falcon rocket launch.
  • Universal Space Network will give the teams a 50 percent discount on its tracking, telemetry and control services, for data uplinks as well as downlinks.
  • The Allen Telescope Array, operated by the SETI Institute, will pass along 500 free megabytes of downlinked data from the lunar spacecraft - most likely including the required high-definition TV "mooncasts" sent back after landing and doing 500 meters of roving.

Even with those discounts, is $30 million really enough of an enticement to draw in qualified competitors? That may well be the biggest question surrounding the lunar race. Last year, science-fiction author Jerry Pournelle told me that $50 million was too little to offer for manned orbital flight. But this week, SpaceX's millionaire founder, Elon Musk, told me he thought an unmanned trip to the moon was eminently doable in that price range.

"They might be able to get this done maybe for $20 million, and they could actually potentially make money with the prize," he said.

Musk said SpaceX's two-stage Falcon 1 could get a payload to the moon, as long as the team's spacecraft was equipped with third-stage capability for entering lunar orbit. "I would just take the same engine I was going to land on the moon with, and add some tanks that you could drop off," he said.

Space synergies
Musk said his current pick to win the prize would be Texas-based Armadillo Aerospace, which has spent years developing a succession of rocket prototypes. Led by video-game programmer John Carmack, the Armadillo team is considered the favorite to win the top prize in the $2 million Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge at next month's Wirefly X Prize Cup, an annual rocket festival in New Mexico.

The SETI Institute's chief executive officer, Thomas Pierson, told me the competition could spark interest in other nongovernmental space ventures, including his institute's efforts to further radio astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

"Everything that NASA has done and tries to do is admirable, and it should be doing it, but I also believe that for a long time our national process did not encourage private space development, and I think it's high time that it's happening," he said.

Jill Tarter, director of the institute's Center for SETI Research, said she hoped the lunar rovers would fire the public's imagination as much as the Mars Pathfinder rover did a decade ago. "This is an outward-looking adventure, and nobody's life is at risk," she said.

Past and future legacies
The X Prize Foundation said it would offer a range of earthly outreach programs to complement the race to the moon - starting with a "Lunar Legacy" service that lets the general public upload digital files for inclusion on the future rovers.

The "send-your-stuff-to-space" concept has become a standard feature for outward-bound spacecraft ranging from NASA's Mars rovers to Bigelow's orbital modules. The nonprofit Planetary Society has organized its own "send your name to the moon" project, with a digitized list of the names due to be placed on NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter next year.


NASA

Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke left this plastic-
wrapped photograph of his family on the moon.


Lunar Legacy reaches even further back for precedents, said Lane Soelberg, the X Prize Foundation's vice president of marketing and partnerships. He noted that Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke left behind a plastic-wrapped family portrait when he walked on the moon.

"It's been the only photographic representation of humanity left on the lunar surface," Soelberg told me.

Internet users will be able to upload images and text messages via the Lunar Legacy Web site, for $10 per submission, Soelberg said. Each submission will be limited to 1 megabyte of data, and the files will be reviewed to exclude spam, copyright infringements and offensive material, he said.

Each team making a lunar landing attempt would be required to put the digitized legacies on its spacecraft, encoded on a DVD or perhaps a more advanced type of storage device developed between now and liftoff.

"Details are still being worked out, but we fully intend to broadcast, or 'Mooncast,' a number of our supporters' Legacies back to Earth," Diamandis said in a written introduction to the project. "Which means that one of our Lunar Legacy creators will quite literally be the Neil Armstrong of private space exploration."

Half of the proceeds from the project would be distributed to the competitors, and the other half would go toward the X Prize Foundation's educational activities. The foundation said the Saint Louis Science Center will serve as its education partner and the coordinator for a network of museums and science centers. The International Space University will conduct international team outreach and serve as facilitator for the competition's judging committee.

In his video statement, Google's Brin said the lunar venture would be like no other corporate sponsorship.

"It's really going to accomplish something very, very impressive ... something no commercial entity has ever done and only a couple of governments have ever accomplished, and doing it with modern technology, with the modern imagery, with what I hope to be really incredible results," he said. "And that's the kind of thing that we love to be involved with."

Update for 3:50 p.m. ET Sept. 13: Now that the official announcement is percolating, the reactions are starting to come in. Pete Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center (which is conveniently near Google's Silicon Valley headquarters) tells Reuters that NASA is "kind of an interested bystander" in the lunar X Prize race.

"If a private company perfects a process to get payloads to the moon, NASA will have a lot interest in that," Reuters quotes him as saying.

Meanwhile, I checked with Armadillo Aerospace's John Carmack, a veteran of the Ansari X Prize as well as the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, to find out whether he'd enter the Google Lunar X Prize as well. "I am beginning to think about configurations for it, but I can't say it would be a major driver for what I'm doing," he told me.

He said it's a good thing that SpaceX and other service providers are willing to cut a break to would-be lunar rover teams: "Even $30 million is pretty borderline for launching something up to the moon. ... It's definitely a lot harder, relatively, than the original X Prize there. For two to three times the potential award, it's definitely more aggressive there." 

Carmack said the rockets that Armadillo is currently building are "characteristic cousins" to what would be required for a lunar landing, and he could imagine "taking some steps off our path to make some room for this." But he's also focused for the time being on nearer-at-hand ventures - such as a system for space diving, which is a super-extreme variant of skydiving. For now, the moon can wait, at least as far as Carmack is concerned.

"There's no huge hurry on this," he said. "We'll have to see how things go for this in the next couple of years."

In contrast, Carnegie Mellon University robotics researcher Red Whittaker wasted no time in announcing that he'll pursue the prize. Whittaker and his colleagues have been working on a wide range of autonomous vehicles over the years, including lunar rover prototypes as well as robo-cars for DARPA's challenges.

"Planetary exploration is a dream we pursue and a technology we create,” Whittaker said in a CMU news release. "We have spent decades building and testing robotic technologies for just this purpose. We are also veterans of competitive technology challenges. These are the things we do, so combining lunar rovers with a competitive race to the moon is a great opportunity."

The former Marine said he'd recruit partners to help his team with the various aspects of launch, landing and exploration - and line up sponsors to cover the costs. "Public access, made available through innovative corporate sponsorships, could be a breakthrough feature of the first-ever private robot on another body in space," he said.

Whittaker's team has already set up a Web site to start generating some buzz.

"This challenge is a thrilling thing for space exploration and a thrilling thing for robotics," Whittaker said. "It's inevitable that someone will find a way to win it. Regardless of who takes home the cash, this achievement will enrich us all."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I've been waiting a long time for something like this and I'm pumped. There's almost nothing that Google can't do and a target such as the moon is certainly within the realm of possibility for a private company in 2007. For the younger generation it's as if there never was a moon landing since it happened so long ago, and nothing else we have sent since then has made it to the surface (besides Lunar Prospector, but that was a planned crash landing after the mission was over) so this is going to be something completely new to anybody under 35 or so. The other great thing about the prize is that it's not limited to American companies (even though I suspect it'll be an American company that'll win) which means that any company in the world capable of carrying this out could win.

The only thing I would change about the prize is that I'd like to see a way for the average person to contribute to the prize to make it larger than the original bid. I would contribute some of my own money in order to make the prize larger if that were possible. Besides that it's perfect.
Man did not land on the moon in the 60's.  That's impossible... We barely had color TV back then.
By the way, I just caught up with a message from Flight International's Rob Coppinger that included this link:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/10/19/
210040/cash-purse-for-robot-moon-lander-x-prize-sought.html


Looks like Peter Diamandis didn't just cook this up on the spur of the moment back in March.  ;-)
Dave,
I agree with you. I've got $100 I'd like the winner of this competition to have.
Frank. Please. Color TV has been around in theory since 1908, patented in 1928, tested in the 1940s, broadcast approval in 1951, and shows started in 1953. Now many shows stayed in black and white simply because the recouping of the investment in production needed to occur.
As for the moon in 1970s, we did do it. If it were a hoax with as much monitoring of each other the US and USSR did of each other, they surely would have called the bluff. Be realistic, the technology is not the problem. Look at the aeronautic curve from 1903 to 1938 we went from barely getting something into the air to jets.
The idea it did not happen is more preposterous than the daunting task that it was....I mean do you believe aliens built the pyramids too??
Tonight the Japanese government-funded mission to the moon begins to be followed by within months by the Chinese, Indian, American and Russian space probes returning and mapping the surface of the Moon.

A private sector competition will aid in the return to the moon.  This is a wonderful competitive prize that will lead to private sector thinking of how to make money on the moon in the long-term. That is, really, the name of the game: lunar profits to sustain the long-term.
Frank -- Color (of any kind) wasn't invented until the late 60's, which is why they were much better suited for going to the moon than we are today.
Alan, the idea of a lunar prize has a long history. I published a piece in the Houston Chronicle just this past June suggesting it as a Centennial Challenge. Great to see that other people have been working to bring a similar idea to reality.
Our current spaceshuttles can only go 300-400 miles into space CURRENTLY.  How the hell are we supposed to believe that we went 239,000 miles(100000% farther) in 1969 with less technology than a game boy?  Ridiculous!!!!

If it is run like the X-Prize was, then the "winner" has already been chosen.
I should be allowed to rule the world, then such contests would not be needed.  I would pool the worlds resources to get fusion power going, and get our rears out in space.  I can't wait for second generation fusion... helium 3 is awesome! gives us a reason to go to the moon.. and even to jupiter!  We can fit Mars in there too ;^)
Let's see a couple of weeks ago NASA was concerned about a small tile on the space shuttle and possibly causing disastrous consequences on re-entry. So, how am I to believe that we went to the moon in space suits that are no thicker than aluminum foil. PLEASE!!
Frank and Paul,

You've both been watching too much TV and reading Conspiracy Theory drivel.  We did land on the moon -- otherwise just how did we place the retroreflectors still used today to measure the moons distance to the earth (using lasers)?  We spend way too much time and energy dealing with you people on the internet.  Get a life.
By the way, Frank and Paul -- just so you don't think I'm making it up -- here's an interesting link to the retroreflectors I was referring to....

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/
Moons/TheMoon/LunarDistance.html
Paul, Current space shuttles are made to particular specifications.  These specifications do not include going to the moon, landing, and coming back.  Just because I make a ham sandwich does not mean I am not capable of making a peanut butter sandwich.  When the goal was to get to the moon, there was the great race to get to the moon.  Once we got there, we changed our goals and stopped trying to get to the moon.  Just because we aren't going to the moon today doesn't mean it's because we never had the technology, we just aren't spending the money in that area.  Times are changing, and now we are going back to the moon.

I would love it if a private group can get to the moon first and beam back video of the evidence we did, in fact, land on the moon... to silence these conspiracy theories once and for all.
Uh the shuttle could go as far as their supplies of oxygen and food would last. Just send it on a trajectory to the moon and it will get there and back. Its not as hard as you think. Once your free from the earth gravity you can go anywhere you want. The only technological hurdle after that is adequate life support which we obviously had at the time since Russians stayed in orbit for weeks. Unless they faked that too. The only reason they didn't go was because the rocket they designed for the job was a failure and they lacked the funding and resolve to start over after we had already done it.
Interesting...
Another worthless piece of techno-grandstanding with no practical application and a significant chance for the destruction of life and property.  Do we REALLY need a bunch of rocket scientist wannabes attempting to throw a payload into space and instead crashing it into a housing development or on a school 500 miles away?

Google should be prevented by the courts or by Congress from encouraging such a project.
What a freakin' waste of money. Why not donate it to chairty instead? We've been there, done that and haven't been back since. Why? Because there's nothing there.
To Frank from NY: "Man did not land on the moon in the 60's.  That's impossible... We barely had color TV back then."

Is that statement supposed to pass for some form of logic? Who made color TV a standard for exploration? People crossed the Atlantic Ocean in sailing ships to settle the Americas without color TV. They crossed the American wilderness in horse-drawn wagons without color TV. The Germans launched suborbital rockets in the 1940's without the benefit of color TV. And believe it or not, my family used to hop in the car and drive five hours to my grandparents' house long before we had a color TV. Amazing! Man has accomplished many seemingly impossible tasks with minimal technology. Actually, if we spent less time worshiping our color TVs, maybe we would have had settlements on the moon today.

PAul Nick...How about studying your technologies? We don't use game boy's to go to the moon. By your logic airplanes can't fly because trucks can only go 80 or so miles per hour. What does one have to do with the other? The space shuttle is a truck. It is designed to only go to low earth orbit because it hauls material to low earth orbit. The Saturn V was designed to lift payloads to the moon. Trucks deliver packages, jets fly to tens of thousands of feet and thousands of miles per hour...different technologies for different missions. Is that so hard to understand? Don't limit others by your own lack of vision. Get a vision for what's possible!
Paul:

So you think it would have been easier to orchestrate a conspiracy among a few hundred thousand people (remember, all of the contractors would have had to play along), create a perfect vacuum inside a warehouse and somehow reduce earth's gravity to 1/6 of normal for filming?  All without CGI, since, as you say, we didn't have anything more powerful than a gameboy then.

I think going to the moon was easier than faking it would have been.
"Man did not land on the moon in the 60's.  That's impossible... We barely had color TV back then."

Also, Columbus did not discover American in 1492, because they barely had gunpowder back then.  

Same logic, right?

Those hoax-believers -- you could fly to the moon and give them guided tours of all the landing sites, and they'd still say they were all planted as part of the coverup.  There is no way to falsify their beliefs based on actual evidence.
People actually believe that the moon landing is an elaborate hoax? LOL. The US government would have spent more money on keeping the truth under wraps than they would had they just spent the money and get it done.

Paul,
I think it's Newton's law that states that a body in motion will continue to stay in motion. It doesn't take much to keep a ship going 239,000 miles in space. God, why am I even trying to convince you? You'r obviously not all there.
I can't believe that people still think we never went to the moon. I see dumb people they're everywhere.
Paul, the Space Shuttle is used for repeat flights. A one-time shot to the moon is a totally different proposition, so your logic doesn't really work. I wonder what the appeal is to believing in these conspiracy theories. Maybe you could help explain that, rather than posting nonsense?
Paul / Frank

Do some research on the Saturn Five rockets used during the Apollo missions.  They had an approximate payload capacity of 260,000 pounds.  The Space Shuttles capacity is ~50,000 pounds.  Yes - we can only travel 300-400 miles into space now because the shuttle was not designed for that kind of mission.
Paul...Space shuttles only go into orbit because that is their mission.  We have a probe that is currently exiting the farthest edge of the solar system...that is it's mission.  Anyone who thinks we did not go to the moon either cannot comprehend the task or is choosing to  live in a different reality.
I appreciate the gesture, but a lunar rover? How uninspiring is that. It's no "human on Mars" kind of thing. But, hey, baby steps I guess.
We killed 14 people on the Spaceshuttles only going up 300-400 miles, yet we're supposed to believe we went to ANOTHER WORLD(100000% farther away) 40 years ago with no loss of life????

Does science go backwards in your world???  If you believe this illogical propaganda you are a moron.
The Russians have a laser reflector yet they don't even claim to have sent a manned mission to the Moon.  They put it up there with an unmanned probe called Lunokhod.

LASER REFLECTOR = NO PROOF OF MAN ON MOON
Kumi - so true.
I do understand a little why Frank and Paul believe this.  The US government has been keeping some information about the moon top secret.  Some people come to the conclusion that the lack of information means it is fake.  They have not released the hi-res pictures from the 1994 Clementine mission.  Does not make sense.  Every NASA related web site either does not have them or the hi-res are all corrupted.  I have checked.  Here is one link if you are curious. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/mission_index.html

NASA did land on the moon, but after 40 years, what could be on the moon that they would want to keep secret?

I predict that somehow they will cancel the contest or they will limit the landing area for the rover.
Maybe we did maybe we didn't... the way people are bashing Paul/Frank it seems as if they are very insecure with this (almost like screaming "I AM NOT GAY" to hide the fact you are). Remember - when someone is that adamant - it is because they have doubts - I think we most likely did but there are a couple areas of concern for me (the rippling of the flag w/ no atmosphere, no stars on the pictures) but I think there probably could be an answer for this and it would have been really hard to fake - who knows - I would love to see us go back and prove everybody right (or wrong)
The Saturn V!...sigh...oh for the good ol' days! I've always regretted not making it to the Cape to see one of those babies go. I'm going to see Aries and Orion or die in the attempt! But now the Apollo generation of astronauts and engineers is passing, and the parting gift we give them for their achievements and risks is to accuse them of being fakes and liars. We used to respect and admire the trail blazers. Now we try to reduce them to our own pusillanimous mentality. I guess that's the way we compensate for our own lack of vision and accomplishment...reduce others to our own level. How many people of real accomplishment ever claim that man did not go to the moon?

As for the Google prize...more power to them. Fortunately, people of vision will never be held back by the unbelievers.
How did the astronauts survive the Van Allen radiation belts then?  I also do not believe we were capable of landing on the moon in 1969.  They can get live video feed from the moon in 1969 but I can't get a good cell signal while driving around the city????  ;)
Gang, astronomer/blogger Phil Plait has put together the classic collection of info debunking the "moon hoax" claims:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Hope this helps ... By the way, John Carmack said a team would probably require multiple attempts to put a rover on the moon successfully. "I completely do not believe in 'make it absolutely perfect the first time.'" He said the only way you could do that is if you devoted a significant percentage of the country's gross domestic product to a space program ... like folks did back in the '60s.
People, let's ignore the conspiracy theorists.  They're too dumb to convince.

On a different topic--once the rovers have driven their required 500 meters, how about selling rights to drive them remotely?  I would think lots of people would pay to do that.  Driving a lunar rover remotely is not as difficult as driving a Mars rover, because the moon and back is only two or three light seconds, remember the voice lag in Apollo?  (Oops, I wasn't going to bring that up...)
Phil Plait is a PAID NASA EMPLOYEE.  Real impartial there!!!!!
What would make people believe that we went there before if we went now? Would it not be just as disputed? How thick do you think a spacesuit or craft needs to be to stop radiation other than gamma? The fact is people had more chutzpah back a half a century ago. They would do things they knew might kill them because they believed they were furthering science. Madame Currie knew radiation was killing her, but she did it anyway. The Namby-Pamby Babysitter state mentality did not exist at the level it does today. We,as a species, were able to not worried about whether our favorite TV show would be canceled...guess you got us there Frank, when color TV went into full swing, and put most of America on the couch to watch fiction instead of read it....you know, fiction, like how the moon landings were faked!
Mike in Miami,
Poor logic again. Vehement argumentation does not imply doubt. Many great apologists have had to propound their point with great vigor to pierce the unbelief of the ignorant and shortsighted. Thomas Paine comes to mind. There are those to whom the preservation of truth is so dear that they will dare to raise their voices above the din of ignorance.
The outpatients are out in force tonight, I see.

1.  We went to the Moon.  We came back.  Now?  We want to go again, colour TV or no colour TV.  (I'm sure the ancient Chinese had colour TV when they laid the foundations of rocket technology.)

2.  Going into space is a good thing.  Colonies on other worlds, especially the Moon, are good things.  Why?  Because humans are numerous and prone to increasing those numbers, and room to spread out would be nice.  Hell, if anyone's worried about the stability of full-blown lunar colonies, then turn the Moon into an industrial park.  Shipping costs would be painful for a while, but there's no atmosphere to pollute.  A lunar landing could be the first step toward moving all of the problems industrial pollution to a place where, really, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

3.  Since when have humans been content to sit still and take what we're given?  It's time to move out.  We've got the technology.  We've certainly got the wealth.  It's high time we went back to exploring the universe beyond orbit.  Frankly, right now, we're just wandering the street outside our parents' garage, trying to decide whether or not we should look into getting an apartment.
Anything to avoid paying a dividend!  Billions of free cash flow every quarter, and no dividend.  How does this help shareholders?  Typical tech stock scam.  These jokers think the company exists for their personal egos and not to pay cash flows to shareholders.
Alan,
"By the way, John Carmack said a team would probably require multiple attempts to put a rover on the moon successfully. "I completely do not believe in 'make it absolutely perfect the first time.'" He said the only way you could do that is if you devoted a significant percentage of the country's gross domestic product to a space program ... like folks did back in the '60s."

That is precisely what is needed today. This slim budgeted "never make a mistake" mentality is slowing manned flight to a crawl.
If it sounds too good to be true..... it most likely is. The 60's were a different time with different views on international politics. The older generation truly believes they landed on the moon because their generation accomplished this great feat and they get quite angry if you question it. Looking back it is fairly obvious that it was just not possible. We would be hard pressed to do today what they claim to have done so easily back then. The 'moon landing' was meant to demonstrate US superiority over Russia and drive the US economy.  
To Paul Nink..never studied history either, huh? You owe a big apology to the three Apollo astronauts who died.
'The Greatest Generation' = The Sucker Generation for believing this Apollo crap!  
Nuts (pun intended), I have to comment:

Nink says that Phil Plait is a paid NASA employee, and that that prevents him from being impartial.  

And I say, so what?  The arguments are valid, even if the Man in the Moon came up with them.
This X-prize is a great step forward for commercial space dev and for the World. But never underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Freedom to think as you like is a necessary thing, even if the result is occasionally a 'Frank' or 'Paul'. I respect their right to a voice... however, it doesn't mean we should have to defend ourselves to the scum of the earth who never bothered to learn how to use their frontal lobes. The government needs to and will keep their fat hands out of this. This is still America.
Uncle Sam will stop this dream from happening...  There was a movie kinda like this with Billy Bob Thorton and the government tried to stop him in that!... WE LIVE IN AMERICA PEOPLE! We're only allowed to do what the government says we're allowed to do!
Oh, Please... "we did not go to the moon..." the fact the Russians believed we did is good enough for me. The competition keeps you honest. If Diet Pepsi had 5 calories in it, you'd be hearing about it from Coke.

Besides the government is incapable of keeping this kind of secret. The government can't keep a blow job in the oval office a secret or virtually anything about our national security private in todays administration. No way would thousands of contractors be kept quiet over the years. And the moon hardware was easily trackable via radar, which you can be the Russians were doing...
Ronnie - what are you talking about. Paine was fighting for many many worthwhile things - this is just a little chat of people saying - yes we did or no we didn't - neither side can prove the other person wrong - (yet) - if you are fighting for a cause I agree with you completely. When you are trying to just prove someone wrong just because - I believe there are some insecurities there.


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=358739

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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