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 qualifies for prize

Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:20 PM by Alan Boyle


William Pomerantz / X Prize Foundation
Armadillo Aerospace's Scorpius rocket fires its engine above a mock lunar landing
pad on Saturday while a ground crew member looks on from a distance.

Armadillo Aerospace qualified to win a million dollars of NASA's money today by accomplishing a rocket-powered round trip modeled after a moon landing. The team's remote-controlled Scorpius rocket (formerly known as the Super Mod) blasted off from its Texas launch pad, rose into the sky and floated over to set down on a mock moon landing pad. After refueling, Scorpius blasted off again for what one observer called a "perfect flight" back to the original launch pad.

The judges confirmed that Armadillo satisfied all the contest requirements. Scorpius made pinpoint landings within a meter of each landing pad's center target, according to William Pomerantz, the director of space prizes for the X Prize Foundation.

That means the million-dollar top prize in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge will definitely be given away this year. But Armadillo's rocketeers will still have to wait another month and a half to find out if they won, while other entrants in the competition try to do the same feat better.

Rainy conditions posed a challenge for the flight, and for a while it looked as if the prospects for flying today were slim. A fortunate break in the weather gave Armadillo a chance to go for the gold.


William Pomerantz / X Prize Foundation
Members of the Armadillo Aerospace team celebrate after Saturday's flight.

Update for 10:20 p.m. ET Sept. 14: Armadillo team leader John Carmack and others celebrated the weekend's success in a statement that hinted at the road ahead:

John Carmack said: "Since the Lunar Lander Challenge is quite demanding in terms of performance, with a few tweaks our Scorpius vehicle actually has the capability to travel all the way to space. We'll be moving quickly to do higher-altitude tests, and we can go up to about 6,000 feet here at our home base in Texas before we'll have to head to New Mexico where we can really push the envelope. We already have scientific payloads from universities lined up to fly as well, so this will be an exciting next few months for commercial spaceflight."

Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, which manages the prize on behalf of NASA's Centennial Challenges program, said: "Carmack and the entire Armadillo team made it look easy … an overnight success after four years of hard work. Congratulations on two perfect flights. Now we’ll need to see if any other teams attempt the Level-2, Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. If no one does, then Armadillo will win $1 million in purse cash. I’m hopeful that this success will allow policymakers to see the power and success of NASA’s Centennial Challenges program."

Brett Alexander, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, said: "Congratulations to Armadillo Aerospace, NASA and the X Prize Foundation for their excellent teamwork in making this week's Lunar Lander Challenge milestone possible. This competition shows exactly how much NASA can benefit from close engagement with the commercial spaceflight sector."

You can get the latest tweets about the Lunar Lander Challenge via this Twitter news feed. Read on for the full story behind the challenge and its payoff:

First posted 8:40 p.m. ET Sept. 11: Video-game millionaire John Carmack is aiming to win a million dollars of NASA's money when he and his Armadillo Aerospace teammates take the field this weekend for the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. And the way he sees it, the biggest thing standing in his way is an obstacle that's become quite familiar to NASA's space jockeys of late: the weather.

"It looks bad all weekend," Carmack told me via telephone from Caddo, Texas. "We need two hours without precipitation, basically, to get this done."

NASA faced its own weather problems this week at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where the weather was so unstable that mission planners diverted the shuttle Discovery to a California landing site instead. Carmack doesn't have that kind of option available to him: For better or worse, he and his Armadillo team have to launch and land their Super Mod lander prototype at their Texas test site at least twice sometime in the next couple of days, or pass up this year's chance to win a million-dollar prize.

"I'm really most worried about the weather, all things considered," said Carmack, who has steered Armadillo's remote-controlled rocket through prize-worthy practice runs more than a dozen times. "It's just business as usual now. As long as my nerves stay together for another 30 hours or so, I think we're going to be OK."

How the challenge works
NASA set up the Lunar Lander Challenge three years ago, ostensibly to promote the development of rocket technologies that could come into play during future moon landings. What the competition has actually done is give a new generation of rocketeers something to shoot for - just as the $10 million Ansari X Prize encouraged the rise of private-sector spaceflight.

The contest, backed by $2 million in prizes provided by NASA, is set up with two levels. Last year in New Mexico, Armadillo took the top prize for the easier level, netting $350,000. Controlled via Carmack's laptop, the Mod rocket blasted off and rose to a height of more than 160 feet (50 meters), hung in the air for a minute and a half, then landed on another launch pad. After a pause for refueling, the Mod retraced its course back to the original pad for the win.

This time, Armadillo's Super Mod faces a tougher task in the Level 2 competition: The alcohol-fueled, pressure-tank-equipped rocket has to hang in the air for a minimum of 3 minutes during each leg of the round trip, and it has to land on a pad that is strewn with mock lunar boulders.

The judges will give Carmack and the rest of the ground crew just 135 minutes to fuel up, fly, refuel, fly again and secure the Super Mod after the flight. There will be built-in holds along the way, however, so the whole exercise could take longer than 135 minutes - in fact, Carmack is wondering whether the clock can be stopped if it starts raining.

"Will the judges stop time and let us pick up later?" he asked. (The answer, we found out later, is yes.)

The funny thing about this contest is that the Armadillo team may not know for sure until October whether it's won a prize. That's because, unlike past years, the 2009 Lunar Lander Challenge is a traveling road show.

Masten Space Systems is due to try for the Level 1 second prize ($150,000) next week at its home base in Mojave, Calif. It will also shoot for Level 2 on Oct. 7-8 and Oct. 28-29. Another competitor, Unreasonable Rocket, will shoot for Level 1 as well as Level 2 at its launch site in Cantil, Calif., on Oct. 30-31.

If multiple teams guide their rocket through the required course successfully, the prize goes to the rocketeers with the best average accuracy. Thus, Armadillo could conceivably accomplish the Level 2 flight and still miss out on the $1 million first prize as well as the $500,000 second prize.

"To wait another month and a half to find out what place you got - that's a little bit odd, but it's understandable," Carmack said.

The challenge's prime payoff
A million dollars would go a long way toward accelerating Armadillo's progress - or progress at Masten, or Unreasonable Rocket, for that matter. Carmack's team may be a little better off, in light of the fact that the company where he works, Id Software, was recently acquired by ZeniMax Media. "I have a bit more personal resources at my disposal," he said. In any case, he's planning to expand Armadillo's team of three full-time employees and four hourly workers sometime soon.

It's safe to say that the folks at Armadillo, Masten and Unreasonable Rocket aren't thinking about building an actual lunar lander right now - so the current wave of second thoughts over NASA's moon plans won't affect their business plans at all. The Lunar Lander Challenge is just one small step in the long march of private-sector commercial spaceflight. Armadillo, for example, is continuing to work on a rocket engine program for the Rocket Racing League - and on some other projects that Carmack can't talk about quite yet.

"Eventually we're hoping to go all the way to orbit," Carmack said. But that milestone is still many small steps ahead. For now, he's just worried about getting a couple of hours without rain this weekend - and getting a chance to deliver on the true promise of the Lunar Lander Challenge.

The X Prize Foundation, which is managing the challenge with sponsorship from Northrop Grumman, estimates that the contest has generated more than 70,000 hours of skilled work on advanced rocket technologies, with just $350,000 paid out to date. In the long run, that payoff may dwarf the million dollars as well as the rocket ships built to win that cash.

"I think the government is getting a tremendous return on what they've put into this," Carmack said. "When it gets to the point where we have to go and find more great people, we know exactly which people have demonstrated the right type of thinking, the right skill sets and the right determination."

For further updates: You can get the latest on Twitter by doing a search for #ngllc or following @NGLLC09 or @jeff_foust. Jeff Foust has posted YouTube videos of Scorpius' first flight of the day as well as the second flight.


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."  You can pre-order it from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Borders.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Keep plugging away guys, it's all part of that 'first step' that Confucius spoke of...
--
I'm sorry, but I see no more than a kind of expensive "toys" in these "lunar" landers, since, as I've already commented just here times ago, a REAL lunar lander is several orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than them, also, no more than a very small fraction of the devices developed and of the experience gathered in these "tests" could be used on REAL lunar landers
--
the weather is more important right now.  i hear there's a drought.  the one time it rains and they wish it doesn't.  come on.  water is more important that the x-prize.
Finally we are getting some return on the money the Gov. usually gives away. Keep up the good work. and I'll pray for good clear blue sky weather.
While I hope these efforts will continue and I wish the competitors the best,the sad fact is that the current administration has already shown they lack the will and the interest in furthering manned lunar or any other space exploration.
Who is catching the tab? Isn't NASA another one of those government groups with no money that always wants more?
Gaetano...I agree. Expensive toys for the ultra rich who have nothing better to do than realize childhood games in the backyard.  I really do wonder about all those types.  The "rocketeers".

We all know what it takes to have a real space program.  The thing that gets me is, one day we are told that going back to the moon is fiscally wrong then next day we are exposed to future moon landers.

But on the other hand, if the world united in a certain way, in which the US and Soviets have shown can be done, much could be done with human space flight.
Just build the darn thing were it will work in the rain.lol And anything that furthers Mans chances of getting the public into outer space is cool in my book.
Total waste of human involvement.  Let robots handle the first contact and see if there are any resources to permit human intervention.  For me, Mars is out of are abilities.
video game millionaire?
the guy's a piker...get the billionaires back to work.
millions won't get far.
gaetano,"the only difference between men and boys is the price they have to pay for thier toys"you should put your sour grapes aside and congratulate thier efforts.perhaps one or all of these companies can get to space without paying four hundred dollars for a hammer.ps does your mom let the band practice in the garage?
While this may look just being "boy's and there toys" even if that would be the case, they are being creative, inspire other people and the whole show surounding it probbaly generates enough to make it break even.

More of these competitions would be good for the economy and promote education.

Seems to me this is same rough technology perhaps NASA can borrow some vehicles from area 51, is time to find what they can do for the tax payer's ?...  
I'm kind of sarcasm I know just for many years nothing happens too many proyects but nothing is been done in concrete to land at the moon!...
All of these efforts are prefaced upon the increasingly optimistic assumption that the economic future will be bright enough for such projects to attain financial viability.  
Geotano.. read the entire arcticle before posting a comment.  It's about rocket developement.  Nasa runs these contests to collect data and push forward their own technologies at a fraction of the cost.
An interesting article Alan.  I'm not too sure just how good this private space race stuff is since the private companies are so far behind what NASA does.  The prizes sure aren't a good return on investments, something that won't make private spaceflight profitable.  Is wasting so much on space tourism really the best way to go for space exploration.

I'm really miffed that Clueless George started another space race to beat China to the moon, just more arrogance and ignorance from the worst president ever as he wanted us to thumb our nose at our Chinese financial benefactors.  We need to have cooperation from other countries the way we did the International Space Station.  Now we're $30 billion short and instead of 2020 we're now looking at maybe 2025 before the next manned moon landing from our country.  We only took 8 years from when JFK said we were going to the moon, now we can't even do it in 15 or 20 years, just shows how decrepit our country has become thanks to the cheapskate conservatives.  I hope that Obama gets smart and drops the arrogant ignorant space race in favor of a cooperative effort with other countries.
gaetano -- who said a real lunar lander *wasn't* more complex? You're getting too hung up on those descriptions. These aren't meant to go to the moon. It's meant to provide a challenge to spur work on private rocket. And on that basis, as Carmack said, it succeeded spectacularly. And you're simply mistaken if you think these are "just toys". The same technology Carmack is developing will take them to 100km, and later, to orbit.
gaetano marano - ghostNASA.com,

  Your right - expensive toys they are. But it allows the for the government to get more back from the money they are putting out. They used to spend millions on just trying to recuit people. Millions more on technologies developement and even millions more on think tank projects that would implement the technologies into working ideas.
  What this does is give them many working concepts, many people to recuit from and insight from different angles that concentrated think tanks do not provide.
  We've come a long way from the beleiving that the best working programs come only from behind the closed doors of government institutions.
  There are a lot of good ideas being generated from a lot of intelligent minds out there and this is one way of routing them out and seeing what they have to offer.
   
So, Gaetano, you seem not to be familiar with the concepts of 'experimental' (thus the 'X') and 'prototype?' The only difference between doing rocket powered VTVL on the Moon and on Earth (And the X-Prize rules explicitly forbid any aerodynamic assistance) or anywhere else is the value of gravitational acceleration you give the guidance computer. (and I need not point out that computer technology is a bit more advanced than the days of the Lunar Module, right?)

Would something actually operating on the Moon be 'more difficult?' Of course. Heat transfer and dissipation issues in vacuum, if nothing else. (and after a half-century of space rocketry, that's also a surprise to no one) But you seem not to be able to say why it would be 'orders of magnitude' more difficult...

Will all entrants actually end up building something that will operate on the Moon or elsewhere? Probably not, and that's fine. Lots of aircraft designs never made it to operational status, either.

(This is something not understood by those who see the various manned space projects happening or planned around the world as a wasteful duplication of effort, and who want to see 'the world' pool its resources on one design. But if it turns out to be an inadequate design...where are you? You've no 'Plan B.')

The X-Prize approach is *meant* to be engineering evolution in action. Let everyone who thinks they can do it, try it. 'Fit' is defined by the X-Prize rules (as well as physical engineering limits and the laws of physics, which are also no secret) so, may the fittest designs survive...
OMG.....this is all a bunch of BS...i bet nobody here knows that we have had a moon base for over 20 YEARS!!!..thats right people...there are soooo many things we just can't tell you about..if you ask for photos as proof...we're going to let you see what we want you to see.....and thats how your tax dollars work...bye the way....UFO's do exist....good day!!!
I hope my previous comments are viewable by the public...we have a right to knpw how our tax dollars are being spent...people are homeless hungry and angry ....your NASA budgets are outragious, who's pockets are getting packed?...i want to see the cost of every single penny spent on contracts, materials,supplies,etc....
I understand the thought this might be a waste of time and money if you approach it as being used as a crew carrier. However, let’s look outside the box at how it can be used (and I'm sure I can't be the first to think of this).  You could package it with a sampler with sensors and fly it unmanned from a base location on the moon to various locations to determine if you want to explore a location.  You could use it to transport cargo between outposts or crews in the field in need of resupply.  You could use it as an emergency transport for injured astronauts in the field for transport back to their outpost.  I'm sure this only scratches the surface.  I only wish I had the resources to work with these teams on such a challenge.
Private funding for space exploration will truly be the beginning of the future for human space-travel and colonization.  I personally would like to see a privately funded probe sent to Mars; one that, even mostly symbolically, begins the chemical reactions that start a sustainable process for making Mars habitable by human beings WITHOUT space suits...it's not science fiction people, the technology is already here.
I think space exploration is nothing more than white collar welfare for PhDs that can't find other gainful employment. We can do much more for far less money than trying to send humans into space. And why do we need to explore other planets? If we lived on Mars instead of Earth, would we be looking at this small blue planet and wonder why can't we explore it. We're already here, it's a planet in our solar system like the others! Figure it out! And these nut jobs that have Sci-Fi fantasies of inhabitating other planets, why not try living under the oceans, or Antarctica? Its closer, cheaper and more hospitable than trying to live on another planet without an atmosphere. Makes no sense whatsoever...
Jon said... "Nasa runs these contests to collect data"
--
NASA has several problems today, but, it isn't in so desperate conditions to have need to "collect data" from a TOY to design the Altair!!!
--
FIRST, since NASA has (literally) THOUSANDS engineers and scientists able to do the same things hundreds times better
--
SECOND, because NASA has ALREADY "collected" ALL the "data" it could need to know on "how to land on the Moon" in a series of past "experiments" of which you, probably, have heard something... they were also known under the (secret) code-name "Apollo"... :)
--
Go, Armadillo!
It's great that people like John Carmack, Jeff Bezos and others are spending their time and treasure on "toys" that will lead us to space.  What else should they be spending it on?  Baseball teams and yachts?  It's their money, they can do what they want with it, and I, for one, am grateful that this is where their interests lie.
Tim said... "The same technology Carmack is developing will take them to 100km, and later, to orbit."
--
in these "new.space" days, too much people quickly transform things that are just "dreams" or "paper-projects" in REAL vehicles ready to fly "soon" to 100 km. or to the Earth orbit... or, maybe, to the Moon and Mars... please, keep your feet on ground... :)
--
Daniel said... "There are a lot of good ideas being generated from a lot of intelligent minds out there and this is one way of routing them out and seeing what they have to offer."
--
true, but it's very hard to put things like this in the category of "the best inventions of the century"
--
Bigelow's Genesis models aren't "paper."
Frank said... "you seem not to be familiar with the concepts of 'experimental' (thus the 'X') and 'prototype"
--
but everything were already (and MUCH BETTER) done over 40 years ago:
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
--
or 16 years ago:
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#Flight_testing
--
hard to believe that a small toy can add something to the very large NASA's know-how about "landers"
--
Frank said... "you seem not to be able to say why it would be 'orders of magnitude' more difficult"
--
"several orders of magnitude" of money, of weight, of electronics, of computing "programming lines", of speed, of acceleration at lift-off and TLI, of vibrations, of temperatures, of pressure, of vacuum, of reliability, of risks (with a MANNED lander) etc.
--
Frank said... "Lots of aircraft designs never made it to operational status, either."
--
true, and NASA has made many of these "X" (or differently named) prototypes, but, ALL THEM, also those that have never flown in real vehicles, have added "something" to the aerospace engineering know-how, while, this TOY can't add nothing to it, but just "try" to "copy" things already done many geological eras ago... :)
--
"Expensive toys for the ultra rich who have nothing better to do than realize childhood games in the backyard.  I really do wonder about all those types.  The "rocketeers"."

Yeah, just like those silly bicycle mechanics in Dayton, OH, or people who think they can start a computer business in a garage or barn (If IBM isn't doing it, it can't be worth doing, right? What's that? IBM finally jumped on the desktop computer train in 1981, after Apple and all those other small outfits [some now successful, some now extinct} paved the way?)...

Or, more importantly, those young German guys in the 1930's or that American named Goddard who surely didn't know anything about machines that could reach 'extreme altitudes.'

Rocketry, thankfully, has never required an all-knowing 'priesthood' to exist.


"Total waste of human involvement.  Let robots handle the first contact and see if there are any resources to permit human intervention.  For me, Mars is out of are abilities."

So (even accepting your argument, which I don't) you think these machines have no relevance to unmanned planetary landers?


"All of these efforts are prefaced upon the increasingly optimistic assumption that the economic future will be bright enough for such projects to attain financial viability."

Now that's the chance any new business takes, isn't it? Nothing is guaranteed, even for a mom-and-pop grocery store....


"I'm really miffed that Clueless George started another space race to beat China to the moon..."

Where does that come from? The US has been talking (and little else) about returning to the Moon one day, since Apollo. (Look up 'Space Exploration Initiative,' proposed in his fathers administration)

And China has never been very explicit about just when they'll go there.

I'm perfectly okay with coming in second in that alleged 'race,' (having been there already, there's no rush to prove anything) as long as we do it in such a(n affordable) way as to make it *stick* this time, while the Chinese may be playing a flags-and-footprints game...

"i bet nobody here knows that we have had a moon base for over 20 YEARS!!!."

No, and neither do you.

Please go argue with the people who believe we never went there at all. You may cancel each other out.

"bye the way....UFO's do exist"

Perhaps so. I'm open to that. But it's irrelevant to the current state of human technology...and this thread.

"...i want to see the cost of every single penny spent on contracts, materials,supplies,etc.... "

Knock yourself out:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

But contrary to common belief, the NASA budget is and always has been virtual pocket change:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/average-america/


"I understand the thought this might be a waste of time and money if you approach it as being used as a crew carrier..."

Or if you believe larger versions can't ever be built. These are technology demonstrators, not the final, operational versions of anything.


"We've come a long way from the believing that the best working programs come only from behind the closed doors of government institutions."

Unfortunately, as some comments here show, that word hasn't gotten down to everybody...but the proof will be in the actual doing. (As indeed it should be.)
I think the dreams of having a townhouses and moon lander station in the moon or mars lander station is not too far to be a reality. But first we need to know how we can do it. I think that is achievable. See: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3g.html
Congratulations to Armadillo on their successful flights today. They deserve to win the first place prize, but good luck also to Masten and Unreasonable Rocket.

It's a shame many of the comments here are so ill informed and hostile. The Centennial Challenge program could have practically been funded from the vending machine profits at NASA Headquarters. Yes, it does nothing to directly advance Constellation or any other government space vehicle. That wasn't the intent. What it has done instead is stimulate the development of inexpensive, robust rocket technology that may revolutionize the space industry in the next few years. I believe that goal is within the legitimate charter of NASA. The program so far has been wildly successful and the cost efficiency is little short of amazing. Hats off to all concerned.
Crazy?....yeah...once there were these two guys that wanted to make a machine that could fly....

NASA needs this kind of competition to help drive innovation. These kinds of people are operating outside of the box....I agree that actually getting to the moon and back requires much more complex problem solving than what we are seeing here but scale up and they might hdevelop new, cheaper, more efficient methods to launch satelites or retreive debrise in space.
It seems that all these comments are forgetting one thing, ever since our country came into being the tinkerers and thinkers have always started every advancement we have seen. What little money our government is paying is being repaid in knowledge tenfold. Where would the transportation industry be without two simple bike repairmen from Ohio. Or a man from Michigan who thought up the production line.
Expensive toys this year are wat we use in daily life in the next decade and cannot even remember them as expensive or as toys for a few just a short time ago.  Today's expensive toys become the cheap platform from which the next expensive toys are built.  We can't afford to stagnate with nothing new to play with.
NASA budgets are NOTHING compared to over blown, bloated funding we keep dumping into the great military industrial complex the President Eisenhower warned us so many years ago about.And I'd bet the money we've spent on NASA and satellite technology has saved as many lives over time as we've managed to kill through our military spending. If we weren't so busy spending money thinking of and creating new ways to kill ourselves 100x over we'd have more than enough funding to wipe out the national debt, fund universal health care and explore Mars and beyond.
It's time the human race decides what it wants to do - continue fighting like spoiled children and squander our talents and resources, or put aside our stupid differences and use our talents for the benefit of everyone and explore space together.
"
--
"...but everything were already (and MUCH BETTER) done over 40 years ago:"

All that is correct. (Except perhaps the 'much better' part)

Does anyone still fly across the Atlantic exactly the same way Charles Lindbergh did it? (and remember, *he* was meeting the requirements of an aviation prize, too)

Are materials and (as I noted) avionics the same? (No '1201 alarms' the next time, I'm thinking, because computers can easily keep up with the data today)

Will our reasons and purposes for going to the Moon be the same, next time? (How impressed should I be that the LM was also two stage and expendable? That's no way to run a railroad...)

Even the DC-X was done *outside* of NASA (with a major contractor), for maybe a tenth of what it would have cost with typical NASA costing models. And yes, it *does* lend itself to Lunar landing technology. I pointed that out myself on Usenet, long ago. And it, too was derisively described by its critics as 'single-stage to 30,000 feet,' rather than the technology demonstrator for takeoff, landing and ground handling of a similar, larger SSTO that it was, and never pretended to be anything else.

The sad thing is that we went in a whole different direction after that with X-30, with nothing flying to show for it. Not being constrained by the NASA desire to do too many new things at once, those involved in the X-Prize cup will go on to do that which seems to make the most economic sense.


"several orders of magnitude" of money,


Done in the usual NASA cost-plus way? Quite probably.


" of weight,"


The 'weight' being mostly in the form of completely passive (in terms of moving parts) tank and structure weight. Where's the 'orders of magnitude' in expense in that?


"of electronics,"


Mil-spec and otherwise 'fit-for-space' electronics is more expensive, but not *that* much more expensive. And off-the-shelf, not requiring any new development.


"..of computing "programming lines""


Software is often the long pole in the tent...but Carmack *is* a software guy. He understands this.



"..of speed"


Speed? As noted, off-the-shelf stuff is already faster than anything in Apollo.


"...of acceleration at lift-off"


As also noted, Lunar gravity is hardly an unknown. A variable in the usual physics of getting into orbit around anything.


"...and TLI"

What's exceptionally difficult about getting from Lunar surface to LLO?


"...of vibrations"


Any worse than now?


"...of temperatures"


I *did* acknowledge that heat dissipation into vacuum will be different than on Earth. But also not an unknown.


"..of pressure, of vacuum,"


Also not mysterious conditions. Remember, all that experience you point to, is available to everyone else to build on.


"...of reliability,"


That's why we do testing. Armadillo didn't come to fly, without multiple comparable flights under its lander's belt, already. And simplified by the fact that it's *not* an expendable. ELV flights can only prove a *design.* RLV flights also demonstrate the performance of a *specific* vehicle. (as long as you don't seriously break it in testing...and even then, you learn something.Again, see DC-X)


"true, and NASA has made many of these "X" (or differently named) prototypes, but, ALL THEM, also those that have never flown in real vehicles, have added "something" to the aerospace engineering know-how, while, this TOY can't add nothing to it, but just "try" to "copy" things already done many geological eras ago... :) "

Advancing the state of the art is one thing, Doing something similar, but with present day technology, NOT requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to do it, with the ultimate intent of creating *commercial* vehicles based on what you do today (x-vehicles need not be commercially viable), is something else again. That's what's happening here. We must not confuse the two.
Fantastic work Armadillo Aerospace! Beautiful flight!!!
wow they did what the real lem never could do! only 40 years later and a gazillion times better on board computer. Now maybe if they can figure out how to solve the outer space radation problem and the solar flares that are pretty much unpredictable then we can actually GO to the moon.
NASA sure got a deal and good starting point on this one. 1M$ in prize sounds/looks small. I'm sure Armadillo Aerospace invested more than 1M$ for this project.
The rocket that propelled the 1st moon landing, its computer system, was not more powerful than the current day cell phone's processing capability.
We humans inherited this Earth and what we are doing with it? We're messing it up.

We humans supposedly inherited space and what we are doing with it? We're messing it up and will continue to do so.

We humans are claiming to have inherited the other planets and what we will eventually do with it? We'll surely mess it up.



I applaud NASA for bringing in such competition with such prizes. This will not only encourage the people but will bring in a new generation of Lunar Lander and spacecraft models. My advice to NASA would be, don’t forget the failed competitors, or else one would find their designs are taken up bye some other countries, and in time, that very design would come up as number one.

Finally I congratulate the members of the Armadillo Aerospace team, for making it up to number one.
to Frank Glover and all toy-lander supporters...
--
it's really incredible that you don't "see" (or not WANT to see) how much the toy-lander "test" is pretty close to (and nothing more than) this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FXx7WqIUHA
--
rather than to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzNSmQI9-64
--
and the difference between the two things seems me of several orders of magnitude...
--
Some of you people make me laugh. You are absolutely no different than the ancestral pundits...who guaranteed the world was flat.
The backyard tinkerers are a necessity.  To dream and ask questions is to advance.  Degrees are not required in making great advancements in technology.  My hope is NASA will realize this.  There are many routes to a destination.
Toy's ?????????? errrr............ Don't think so.

www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=31&cat=recent
X-Prize is worth the effort. We need to find new creative ideas that just don't come from "Group think"
Outside the box is so very necessary for us to get into space.... commercially.

I to believe that We are missing or have missed the leadership roll we had in Space. Thoughts who command the high ground and all that.... We have limited our options...WE need to get off this rock!  Time is short for this specie on earth. Look around!  


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=2064885

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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