Google/X-Prize Moon Contest

Joe Strout wrote:
Now here's something worth talking about:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_hi_te/google_moon_prize

"Google Inc. is bankrolling a $30 million out-of-this-world prize to the
first private company that can safely land a robotic rover on the moon
and beam back a gigabyte of images and video to Earth, the Internet
search leader said Thursday.

"The rules call for a spacecraft to trek at least 1,312 feet across the
lunar surface and return a package of data including self-portraits,
panoramic views and near-real time videos. ...Whoever accomplishes the
feat by the end of 2012 will receive $20 million. If there is no winner,
the purse will drop to $15 million until the end of 2014 when the
contest expires. There is also a $5 million second-place prize and $5
million in bonus money to teams that go beyond the minimum requirements."

This prize seems well conceived to me -- challenging, but not
outrageous, and the second-place and bonus prizes are a nice touch,
mitigating the risk of coming in second and encouraging more diverse
entries. I predict that this will generate quite a bit of buzz, and
sometime between 2010 and 2012, somebody will win -- maybe even two
somebodies.

Comments?

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

I like this idea a lot. It already looks that human kind will be
ascending to the Moon, this time on a much broader front. Japan,
India, China all have declared theyr respective intent to land on the
Moon. NASA will do so too, and I guess Europe will eventually tag
along. Even Putin´s Russia is having some new dreams about the Moon.

Why the heck not, private enterprice as well...to add another spice to
the equation.

Cheers, Einar

"Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
:Yeah, Falcon 1 ($8million per launch) immediately popped into my mind.
:
:Ok, pop quiz. How much cargo would a Falcon 1 be able to get into a lunar
rbit?
:

With a nominal 1250 lb payload to LEO, my first guess at payload to
the Moon would be zero.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Sep 14, 5:56 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jim Relsh" wrote:

:
:Yeah, Falcon 1 ($8million per launch) immediately popped into my mind.
:
:Ok, pop quiz. How much cargo would a Falcon 1 be able to get into a lunar
rbit?
:

With a nominal 1250 lb payload to LEO, my first guess at payload to
the Moon would be zero.

But what ever happened to the nearly 30% inert and otherwise a mere
60:1 ratio of rocket to payload that got our rad-hard Apollo missions
to that moon in such short order, with fuel and payload to spare.
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 14, 4:54 pm, Len wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:23 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:



Len wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:52 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

I'll lay odds this prize won't be claimed by the current expiry date
of the prize.

I'll also lay odds that if it is claimed prior to the expiry date, the
launch will occur on a recycled Russian ICBM.

Care to lay a bet on that Derek?

Contact me off list, and lets set something up.

If you change your mind about betting with others,
let me know.

I'm not against betting with select others, but against betting with
idiots.

You don't have to give odds, I'll take even money up to 100 bucks.

I was thinking in terms of something more classical - a bottle of
one's favorite comestible say.

Well, there's an Armenian cognac that is difficult
to obtain. But I like Grand Marnier...that's more
readily available. Perhaps you have something
in mind in roughly the same price range.

Len

Oops!. I guess I should have looked up the meaning
of comestible, before I assumed it was something
to drink. Nonetheless, Grand Marnier would still
suit me. Unless you are a teetotaler.

Len



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
insurance would be phenomenal.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:13:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Jim
Relsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
insurance would be phenomenal.

Another ignorant county heard from.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:13:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Jim
:Relsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
:Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
:the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
:insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:Another ignorant county heard from.
:

And yet you say nothing at all to rebut his assertions...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
"Jim Relsh" wrote:

Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
insurance would be phenomenal.

You're wrong.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Joe Strout wrote:

:In article ,
: "Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
: Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
: the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
: insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:
:You're wrong.
:

And yet you make no case for why he is wrong and it is not obvious
that he is.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Sep 15, 10:13 am, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
insurance would be phenomenal.

It's all relative. At the future of $1000/kg in terrestrial
yellowcake and crude oil that'll soon enough be going for hundreds per
barrel would make almost anything extracted from the moon economically
worth the cost and the risk.

Just think if that salty old moon were sufficiently hollow in places
as is, as indicated by the relatively low density core and the rather
unusually higher density of its mascon populated surface. Could be
downright cozy.
- Brad Guth -