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 After that, the prize drops to $15 million, and if no one is successful by the end of 2014, the money could be withdrawn.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."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I am all for the private sector furthering space exploration. I grew up watching the Apollo missions and I thought that by now we surely would have at least a manned research facility on the moon.

In my opinion the aerospace industry and NASA need to develope and perfect a totally reusable system to give us cheap, reliable access to low earth orbit. Either a SSTO or tandem craft like Space Ship One is what is really needed to jump start real private sector space exploration.

I suppose that would put a dent in the rocket makers pocket book, but you don't see many buggy makers around now do you!

The choices are progress or stagnation. Which will we choose?

Derek Meche (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:03 PM)

How about something like this for energy generation/storage/transmission? Burning things is getting old.

Alexey (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:05 PM)

Isn't it amazing how people who are too young to have experienced a part of history know so much more about it than those who were there and lived it?

This is the television generation. They can't think logically enough to test the facts and learn the truth.

Ronnie, TX (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:06 PM)

How come we can send a robot to mars and not the moon? Now that doesn't make sense. On the other hand maybe there isn't a robot on mars...

Who knows. We might not ever know sense the government keeps hiding stuff.

Not for you to know. (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:06 PM)

Excuse me, but don't they already have a rover on Mars, sending pix back to earth? What's the big deal? Has Google Googoofed?

d, NY (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:06 PM)

To all you "nattering, naybobs of negativism" who belive we did not or should not go BACK to the moon, here are some words of wisdom from one of our former presidents.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Theodore Roosevelt server way before rockets or moon landings when even the airplane was in it's infancy. He was not talking about space exploration in this speech. He was talking about the human spirit. The kind of spirit space exploration nourishes. The kind of spirit this country NEEDS!!

Derek Meche (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:10 PM)

Anyone who thinks we have already been to the moon is a moron.
The film would not survive the temperature fluctuations on the moon.
The "Moon Rover" would not fit in the capsule.
Why have the drawings for the "Moon Rover" disappeared?
The drawings (if valid) belong in the Smithsonian.
Why are there no pictures of the earth from the moon.
Why in the world would the astronauts NOT have taken such a picture?
The "Moon Photos" are obviously staged.
The "Moon Video" when speed up (back to narmal speed)looks like a few guys jumping around the Nevada desert in "Moon Suits" at night.
Why is the flag on the Moon waving since there is no atmosphere?
How did the astronauts take such good photos with cameras that had no viewfinders and were mounted to their chests?
Why didn't the Van Allen radiation belts affect the astronauts?
Why did so many Astronauts die of suspicious circumstances in the late 1960's?
Has anyone seen the footage of the Astronauts on training missions? They were successful about 10% of the time. Why were the "real missions" always perfect? How is that possible?
Why haven't we (the US Government) returned since?
Oh, the technology in the private sector would easily track the NASA spacecraft, so perpetuating a fraud is impossible.
Shouldn't the 2007 technology that NASA has make it far easier to go to the Moon? If NASA could go to the Moon with 1969 technology, why not today?
Why is there no burned area beneath the capsule as it sits on the Moon? (Oh, no atmospere, that's right). Now again, on that waving flag?

John Mayo (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:19 PM)

How about offering a link to an LCD display on the rover that could be seen via camera. People could pay a little to type and see their message displayed on the moon. Kick part of the collected fees back to fund the next x-prize.

Bill G, Trabuco Canyon, CA (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:21 PM)

Mike,
Are YOU just trying to prove someone wrong "just because?" If so, please don't waste my time. This is more than just a chat. These types of "chats" in revolutionary America helped to determine the beginning steps for the establishment of the United States. Issues like these (and the public opinion concerning them...informed or otherwise) help to set the course of policy for the future. Since I am obliged to live under that policy, I would prefer that they be based upon fact, not fantasy. My children and their children will be living under the policies set by a generation that can't discern the reality about a major human endeavor only a few decades old. Insecure? you bet that makes me insecure! The fight for the truth is of paramount importance regardless of the battlefield.

Ronnie, TX (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:22 PM)

This is a truly fabulous idea, I think other tech giants need to chip in and help the cause. Way to Google. I agree with the suggestion that private people should be able to fund it as well.

The only other suggestion I may have is, they can setup a commitee to oversee progress from various initiatives and fund them as they go. This would help progress the cause for smaller organizations who are cash strapped for such development work.

Bhupal De, Kirkland, WA (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:24 PM)

Just one question to this great idea: From which countries can competitors be expected?

Pierre Hostettler, San Juan, PR (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:24 PM)

I've seen both sides of whether or not we've been to the moon & honestly don't know whether or not we went or not. Why, because media can give you compelling evidence to support either claim. Having seen most of the evidence, all I know is we believe way too much of what we are told. And to the guy who stated that the other guy probably believes Aliens built the pyramid, I'm convinced humans didn't have the technology to build them. I'm not talking about the weight of the stones (although that couldn't be done), I"m talking about the degree of accuracy on the blocks. See Christopher Dunn's research. Don't want to get too carried away. Glad Google's doing this!!

newbie (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:24 PM)

And we need to return to the moon for what reason? It's a hunk of rock...we've been there already. Don't get me wrong...I'm a true space fanatic. Have been since the Mercury program but I think it would be wiser for Google to spend that 30 million on any one of the problems we have here on earth? Just think what that money might do or might help cure.

H. Alley, NC (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:27 PM)

$30 Million on moon project? Why not start here on earth and solve the fuel problems we have HERE? Why the MOON when we have so many problems with fuel here on earth. How about a Deisel truck that gets 50 miles to a gallon of fuel? That would save the trucking industry and all of us millions of REAL dollars. How about a car that gets 100 miles to a gallon? Or another kind of fuel thats renewable and cheap? The MOON? GOOGLE has too many egg heads and no real people running that company. Solve the problems here on earth first.

John D. Stack Sr.Lodi, Ca. (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:32 PM)

"How did the astronauts survive the Van Allen radiation belts then?"

Short exposure. One hour trip through Van Allen belts is well above OSHA safety standards, but is hardly fatal. For that matter, radiation levels in it are well known, and communication companies make shielding for their satellites based on that information. If Van Allen belts were as lethal as conspiracy theorists seem to believe, every geosynchronous comsat would fry within a day.

"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????"

Your cell phone does not have several redundant 70-meter antennas.

Ilya, Boston, MA (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:33 PM)

Here's an interesting question...
Why would anyone WANT to believe that people did not go to the moon. Why would anyone want to remove such a great part of the human cultural and scientific heritage?

Concerning the Google prize: I look forward to seeing what young America can do. If the young people I have met are any example, getting back to the moon will be just a quick stop on their way to far greater challenges.

Ronnie, TX (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:37 PM)

I should have made more clear in the original item that $30 million for a lunar rover landing would represent a significant reduction in the cost. NASA says putting seven Surveyor landers on the moon cost $469 million, for an average cost of $67 million per lander. That's in 1960s-era dollars, and it's just for landing, not for roving (autonomous roving capability on another world wasn't put to the test until Mars Pathfinder in 1997, I believe). The reduced cost is more important, in the long term, than the mere fact that the missions would be privately founded.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1966-045A

Alan Boyle (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:39 PM)

"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???? ;) "

Unreal what people will say. If you even had an inkling about radio you would learn that at ULF and VLF frequencies transmitted at 30W transmitting goes a lot farther than your puny cell phone transmitting at 1.9 GHz at less than half a Watt.

Pyro3k (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:46 PM)

Gosh, for $30 million, you could clean the space debris out of Earth's orbit; or bring fresh water to everyone in Latin America; or inoculate African children against some of the killer diseases there; or...well, you get the point. Instead of this or even Steve Fosset's adventurous travails, they could have joined the Gates' efforts on education or alternative energy entrepreneurs. What a waste.

S.P. Wiliams, Lakewood, CO (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:46 PM)

My grandmother passed in 1975, she was born before the turn of the century. As a kid I sat in her lap and heard her talk about going from N.C. to AL in a covered wagon. By the time she died, she had watched man walk on the moon.

To get to the moon between 1962 and 1969 (dates Kennedy set the direction) we had to invent over a million things - but we did. Providing money to these programs - IS building our future.....

ken, Knoxville, tn (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:46 PM)

To those of you that are actually taking the "it's a hoax" comments seriously: Thye're pulling your leg and you're falling for it... Everyone just keeps chiming in on it because they see how fired-up it gets you geeks.

On a serious note: No one has posted a compelling arguement for why we need to be in space in the first place. There's nothing there.
Colonies on the moon? Are you serious S. E. Ward? Do you really desire to live on the moon?
Really?
No: seriously now.

Youve Gottobekiddingme (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:47 PM)

"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!!!!"

Um, there are CARS with more mileage than that (almost half that on my own), without benefit of merely coasting through vacuum (can you get more benign than that?), but enduring friction, wear, tear and weather down here. What's your point?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/CarsThatLastAMillionMiles.aspx

You accept that unmanned devices have gone there, yet humans haven't. This is like believing in trains, but not passenger cars.

I guess Magellan couldn't possibly have circumnavigated the Earth without GPS, either. (Sextant? What's that?)

h Chattaway is right, too. If the Soviets believed we'd faked it, and they could prove it, that would have been the greatest propaganda coup of all time. Yet they never so much as hinted it was phony. There's utterly no way they would have cut us any slack on that.

Of course, when we do get back to the Moon and visit some of the Apollo locations, someone will surely claim we placed it all there recently... (never mind that the very act of getting back there would undercut most of their arguments)

Disclaimer: I am not and have never been employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, though I did visit the Johnson Space Center once, and know a non-NASA employee there [who was only three, in 1969])

Just tell me when the round trip Lunar tickets come down into my price range, please.

Frank Glover (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:48 PM)

To Paul,

No deaths? Tell that to Gus Grissom and his crew.

Floyd Hoopper, Minot, N D (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:50 PM)

You people are so gullible. The folks here who are saying "we never went the the moon" are yanking your collective chains! They're "messin' wit ya", as it were. Can't you see that?

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:52 PM)

For all those that don't have a doubt, about us going to the moon in the 60's, our government can cover up almost anything. Proof: do we know what really happened in area 51, the Kennedy assassination, how the CIA said there were WMD in Iraq and we can't find them. Why hasn't top secret information hit the news yet? Simple the government will assassinate/torture/kill anyone that will spread this information. If the geneva convention, outlaws tortue, why did Bush need to define it when we all know what it really is? Can you say loophole.
Our government is an evil and anytime the government can herd the masses they will do it. The freedom of information act should make anything thats 5 years old free to the public. Until our government is truely transparent, we will always have to fear its power.

AJ (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:52 PM)

asking why the russians didn't reveal the apollo hoaxes is like asking why the russians didn't reveal who killed jfk.

a. they probably don't know themselves
or
b. they wouldn't want to start a diplomatic foodfight with the usa exposing their dirty laundry in return

incidentally, the ussr didn't have the means to track NASA flights until 1973, after Apollo program had ended.

Paul Nink (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:54 PM)

Hmmm.. A half a Watt transmitter broadcasting at 1.9 GHz to a tower site probably more than a mile away because people always b&m about how ugly a cell site would look close through buildings, trees, smog. vs. a 30W transmitter at ULF frequencies to dishes 30 to 60 meters in size traveling through free space which has very little loss. Does that explain why they could communicate back then

Pyro3k (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:55 PM)

Intersting - very interesting.

So, Google's willing to throw $30 millon in to get 500 feet worth of footage.

Am I missing something?

Sure, it's cool. It's just sad that corporate America decides to tackle a challenge like this rather than something useful. Who's going to remember the Google landing 50-100 years from now?

I say, take the money and give out microloans to small startups across the country - to benefit the economy. Or reward someone who perfects a transportation system without oil - to benefit the environment. I'm ranting, but is anyone else thinking that this project is a big ol' waste of time and resources?

Jen H (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:06 PM)

Stanley Kubrick was involved in the first faking (Apollo 11).

Mak Merlo (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:11 PM)

"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." by Rob

I guess you weren't born until after the early 70's. I always got a kick watching the Flintstones, Johnny Quest, Disney and other programs in COLOR around the mid-60's. I not sure where you're getting your information that color didn't start until the late 60's.

jay Albright (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:13 PM)

What technology was 1000x better in 1969 then NOW?

apparently manned space flight. Sounds illogical.

Gus Grissom, Graveyard! (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:14 PM)

We can't stop people from ruining this planet and now we want to go and ruin another. The order of mankind must first be controlled before the order of the good of mankind is allowed to move forward.

Tom Smith, Texas (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:26 PM)

Why a 30 million dollar prize to return back to the mooon and not put that money into cheap gas, curing disease, and so on.
Every advancement we now enjoy has mostly trickled down to us by the advancement of better space technologies. This 30 million dollar investment back to the moon means far greater advancements for us back here. The discovery of cleaner fuels, better techs, and furthering scientific knowledge.
Whether we landed or not, I am a not. The idea of having had acomplished it has pushed our society so much further just by the confidence it has provided our people.
This is a Great proposal at a much needed time in history. Lets do it! ( or do it again... )

Brian, Burlington Vermont (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:27 PM)

Make the moon an industrial zone to relief the Earth from all of our pollutants? What?? Dream on!

The Lord created the universe for us to enjoy...the sky an all its stars for us to SEE..., not to go visit!

Juan (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:32 PM)

Hey Guys, We went to the moon. We're going back with an Apollo design "on Steroids" and I'm hoping to witness that too. I believe we're headed to Mars by 2030 or 2035 and Lord willing, I'll even see that as well. What a time to be given the gift of life!

Stay well,

John

John, Chicago (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:32 PM)

Imagine working at NASA and actually believing something as ridiculous and illogical as saying our MANNED SPACE TECHNOLOGY WAS 1000x better mileage-wise 40 YEARS AGO!!!!!

Paul Nink (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:35 PM)

There is no doubt we went to the moon back then. What is regrettable is that we did not carry on with the space exploration momentum, by focusing our efforts on low-earth orbit projects (outside looking in) instead of developing the technology for the next step=manned mars missions. Over 40 years later, our moon astronauts are very old men, many have passed away already, and we are still circling the earth, and it will take us over 5 years to get back to the moon, with all of our supposedly advanced technology, in a capsule and rocket very much like the Apollo! (that's how right they got it bachk then!!). And the biggest ignominy; a capsule that will land by parachute! Isn't this totally embarassing?

Ivan Delgado (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:39 PM)

To Paul, AJ, et al,
You had me going there for a while. Nice try but no one actually believes our moon program was a hoax. It sure whips people into a frenzy though when people start saying it. It was good for a laugh. It reminds me of when people say that they get up at 2 AM to change the clocks for switching to/from daysight saving time and some people actually believe them. Keep posting, I love to read the incensed replies.

Bill Craig (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:40 PM)

A few points:

1) As I recall, many astronauts who did go to the moon later died of cancer (but not all of them), which is at least indirect evidence that they flew through or near the Van Allen Belts and got zapped quite a bit. Remember, there is typically a 20- to 30-year 'incubation period' between when a sub-fatal cause of cancer is experienced until the cancer fully develops.

2) IMHO the greatest imperative for manned space exploration and eventual colonization is the human population explosion on earth -- exponential population growth on a fixed-size piece of real estate. Some say the New World Order plans are for wars and plagues to devastate populations on earth to well below a billion but that reveals their lack of vision: If it became fairly easy to migrate to space once pioneers perfected sustainable agriculture, etc. 'out there', then the material in the asteroid belt alone would provide an enormously larger 'real estate' area than the earth's surface! It is the preferred way to cheat and win despite the Malthusian Doctrine and, arguably, (though this terminology has strong negative connotations to some populations -- and I empathize with them in that) mankind's 'manifest destiny'!

3) Some think it irreligious or unGodly to 'invade space' but an obscure scripture in the old testament reveals that God would bring back His people from faraway places to which they became scattered. I believe this is, sort-of, an invitation from God to go ahead and live in space (perhaps as a safe haven against religious persecution) when that becomes technologically viable because God will not forget the pioneers doing that when He re-gathers the nations after the coming disastrous events prophecied for the end of the church age and ushering in the Millennium. Furthermore, arguably, the best type of people to first pioneer space are those good at very diligently obeying sets of principles that lead to the good of society (the Ten Commandments, etc.) because space will be such a delicate place to live in that virtually no breaches of proper behavior can be allowed lest the whole colony be endangered -- i.e. cutting a sizable hole in the covering that encloses the breathable atmosphere, letting it escape into space; compromising the mass between the colony and the sun, allowing too much cosmic radiation to irradiate the colonists; failing to save enough seed for the next crop; failure to properly time the exposure of the growing food to the sun (probably through clear bags of precious, clear pure water to allow visible light for photosynthesis while blocking too much UV and particle radiation); failure to maintain an adequate stock of materials, plans and machine tools, electronics parts, etc. to replicate any life-essential component of the colony that could fail and need to be quickly replaced before the next supply ship visit from afar, etc. Only the most well behaved and properly organized of colonists and colonies, including their children still being socialized, would survive these demands for careful daily planning and execution of survival needs far expanded compared with life on earth, at least for the earliest colonies housing whole growing families.

Though it is regretable that the United States 'winning the moon race' of the 1960s resulted in a hiatus of manned space exploration, as a first baby, baby step back into eventual manned exploration and even, hopefully, colonization of the moon, this private incentive to do something robotic on the moon to excite newer generations is, IMHO, very commendable!

Z9-_. (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:42 PM)

"On a serious note: No one has posted a compelling arguement for why we need to be in space in the first place. There's nothing there."

Helium 3. If nuclear fusion isnt a good enough reason i dont know what is.

Tempest111, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:46 PM)

I think we are destined to colonize space by the logics of population increase and technological development. This would be a great technological achievement but it is not necessarily a good thing for humanity. So far we have avoided the use of weapons of mass destruction by the threat of mutual assured destruction. Since we are all on the same planet and we cannot fight a war without destruying all the planet nobody was the first to launch an attack that would cause his own destruction. If Stalin had been in another planet I am sure he would have launch a nuclear attack and he would have happily watched the Earth burn. So far everybody have to recognize we only have one planet and we cannot destroy it unless we want to die with it, with space colonies the rules of the game change.

Jorge (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:48 PM)

I believe "Paul Nink" is a "plant." (pun intended!) He is planted in this discussion to spark others into feeling a-paul-ed (another pun intended)that anyone would still think we have not landed on the moon. Yea Paul, good job! People are sounding off that we do need to go back. But we also need to start collecting H3 molecules which the moon dust proves is abundantly available all over the moon surface. H3 will feed our future "Fusion" reactors thus reducing the need for energy from other more damaging resources. Let's go America... Let's get-'er-done!

nic "soonvapor", Orlando,FL (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:50 PM)

Hey Ronnie, I am with you! I want to catch one of those Ares 1 or Ares 5 launches when they happen!!! Yeah baby! Back to the Moon and On to Mars!!!

Danny, Ignacio, CO (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:55 PM)

you all believe in the moon landing yet you weren't there. you saw it on tv. big deal. your world as you know it doesnt actually exist since your view is created by the media. do your own research on the moon landing and the political ramifications of it and your belief might get rocked. dont point your fingers and laugh. people thought the world was flat at one time and laughed at the ones who said "wait a minute, lets think about this"

charles (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:01 PM)

You've: Yes.

S. E. Ward, Broken Arrow, OK (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:26 PM)

I can think of a lot better things to do with 20 million. We already have an under funded space program we need to spend more money on.

I cannot believe the babble I'm reading here. We lost 3 good astronauts during the Saturn Missions and almost lost 3 more during Apollo 13. Saturn rockets did not fly anywhere near the number of missions the shuttles have nor were they as complex as the shuttles. The shuttles have had many more chances to screw up. For that matter we still haven't got airplanes down perfectly as they keep falling out of the sky from time to time too. Going into space is risky business. Risk nothing, gain nothing.

If you don't believe we went to the moon. Go find a really big telescope. We left a lot of damn junk up there that will or won't be there if we did or didn't land on the moon. Of course there are people who still believe the world is flat too.

R. B. Chandler (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:31 PM)

The challenge of space flight is not technical. It is financial. It is easy to put together a program with off the shelf systems to get to the moon in a few months with no particular purpose once there. But not for $30M. These kinds of recent X prizes are not for being first, they are for being on the cheap. It would be better to offer the prize money to the first person who comes up with a proven business plan that shows how to make a profit on the trip commensurate with the risk. But what is really needed is a change to the "Outer Space Treaty" that would provide for some kind of homestead-like program that grants internationally recognized private property rights for being first to put moon real estate to some kind of use, certainly defined more broadly than in the old days. Maybe all that is required is to put down markers, with all area between markers no more than x meters apart then owned. If something like that occurs, we will see a real race to the moon.

Jay, Redlands, California (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:42 PM)

~On a serious note: No one has posted a compelling arguement for why we need to be in space in the first place.~

Dude almost everything you enjoy right now is a product or by-product of the space program. The space program accelerated a lot of research all across the board. Think of what can be gained just trying to put a man on Mars. There are manufacturing processes that can only be done in 0gee. Certainly, we are much better off spending our money on space exploration than we are spending it on useless wars.

R. B. Chandler (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:49 PM)

I think it's great that google is sponsoring a $30 million prize for this. It encourages innovation and creativity!

I'd like to suggest a similar contest for NAMING THE MOON. Our moon has no name! We simply call it it's generic name (the moon). There are over 100 moons in our solar system, all of which have names.

So don't you think it's about high time to name our own moon? Let's have a worldwide contest to do so!!!

Kevin danson, San Clemente CA (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:23 PM)

The Apollo landings were an expensive and elaborate hoax, just like all the shuttle missions and the international space station. It's all a big hoax. Nobody even has rockets, let alone space ships.

Doogie (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:34 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG