|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X
Prize Challenge? The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth. For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to GEO: Delta-v budget. 4 Earth-Moon space budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v...n_space_budget The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s. The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO. So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging to the surface? Bob Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
*What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge? A: "inventi it" http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html then, WIN the """Google""" LXP is very very easy thanks to the NASA's space centers help... http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/041odysseywins.html .. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
Robert Clark wrote:
What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge? [snip crap] Boosting mass from the Earth to the moon. Shooting it out of your ass will barely achieve LEO. Dr. Schund has applied for TARP funding to put a block and tackle anchored on the moon's near side. Then all it takes is a strong rope and a million Mexicans. Santa Ana, CA can donate 600,000 from its garages alone. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
On Jun 13, 11:51*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge? The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth. For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to GEO: Delta-v budget. 4 Earth-Moon space budget.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v...n_space_budget The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s. The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO. So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging to the surface? In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this video: Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly. By Jesus Diaz, 9:00 PM on Mon Dec 8 2008, 172,592 views http://gizmodo.com/5104917/ This operates on thruster pulses for directional control. It looks also like the main thrust engine is also pulsed. This type of system would have the advantage of allowing the lander to move to more than one location after landing. This reminded me that the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Phoenix Lander engines were also pulsed: Martian cliffhanger resolved at last. Phoenix lander’s propulsion system works, nine years after setback. By James Oberg NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC updated 9:10 p.m. ET, Sun., May 25, 2008 "Did NASA cut corners on engine testing? "Back in the 1990s, as a cost-cutting measure, Polar Lander's engines were never actually tested. Instead, they were certified purely on the basis of previous flight experience. In the “circle-the-wagons” embarrassment that followed Polar Lander's loss, NASA officials admitted the error but refused to reveal which space vehicle had carried such thrusters in the past. "At the time, there were rumors that the engine was used for a military multiple-warhead carrier mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. As such, the engine would be qualified to start up in a warm underground silo, for a mission of no more than 30 minutes ending in nuclear annihilation. The idea that this would be "close enough" for use on a chilly 10-month flight to Mars seemed preposterous — but no one would confirm the rumors. That was then, and this is now: Lewicki said he had no problem discussing Polar Lander's engine. “It’s a standard Aerojet engine, model MR-107-N,” he happily told me when asked. “Before it flew on MPL, it had flown on intercontinental ballistic missiles.” Its predecessor, the MR-107, had also flown in an upper stage for the small Athena satellite launcher in the 1990s, the Encyclopedia Astronautica Web site notes."" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24780686/wid/7279844// This MR-107 engine is now used on civilian craft including those two Martian landers: MR-107. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/mr107.htm Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a good choice to use on the Moon. They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of operation. Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar analogue lander to be constructed. Bob Clark |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
On Jun 14, 7:10*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:51*am, Robert Clark wrote: *What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge? The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth. For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to GEO: Delta-v budget. 4 Earth-Moon space budget.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v...n_space_budget The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s. The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO. So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging to the surface? In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this video: Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly. By Jesus Diaz, 9:00 PM on Mon Dec 8 2008, 172,592 viewshttp://gizmodo.com/5104917/ This operates on thruster pulses for directional control. It looks also like the main thrust engine is also pulsed. This type of system would have the advantage of allowing the lander to move to more than one location after landing. This reminded me that the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Phoenix Lander engines were also pulsed: Martian cliffhanger resolved at last. Phoenix lander’s propulsion system works, nine years after setback. By James Oberg NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC updated 9:10 p.m. ET, Sun., May 25, 2008 "Did NASA cut corners on engine testing? "Back in the 1990s, as a cost-cutting measure, Polar Lander's engines were never actually tested. Instead, they were certified purely on the basis of previous flight experience. In the “circle-the-wagons” embarrassment that followed Polar Lander's loss, NASA officials admitted the error but refused to reveal which space vehicle had carried such thrusters in the past. "At the time, there were rumors that the engine was used for a military multiple-warhead carrier mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. As such, the engine would be qualified to start up in a warm underground silo, for a mission of no more than 30 minutes ending in nuclear annihilation. The idea that this would be "close enough" for use on a chilly 10-month flight to Mars seemed preposterous — but no one would confirm the rumors. That was then, and this is now: Lewicki said he had no problem discussing Polar Lander's engine. “It’s a standard Aerojet engine, model MR-107-N,” he happily told me when asked. “Before it flew on MPL, it had flown on intercontinental ballistic missiles.” Its predecessor, the MR-107, had also flown in an upper stage for the small Athena satellite launcher in the 1990s, the Encyclopedia Astronautica Web site notes.""http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24780686/wid/7279844// This MR-107 engine is now used on civilian craft including those two Martian landers: MR-107.http://www.astronautix.com/engines/mr107.htm Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a good choice to use on the Moon. They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of operation. Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar analogue lander to be constructed. * Bob Clark It takes either a great deal of micro reaction thrusting and of course its payload of fuel, as well as a damn good flight computer and/or a pair or three powerful momentum reaction wheels in order to deal with the continually shifting CG while sustaining a carefully controlled deorbit and downrange controlled soft landing onto such a crystal dry and electrostatic charged quicksand/quickdust covered surface (in places tens of meters deep). Our supposed manned Apollo landings (each essentially flawless) didn't have any of that going for them, because they used the far superior hocus/pocus magic of what our Zionist Nazi DARPA had to offer, plus having since destroyed all of their as-built R&D plus whatever terrestrial prototype documentation so that secrets to those fly-by-rocket landings goes to each and every one of their graves. ~ BG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
On Jun 14, 10:10*am, Robert Clark wrote:
... In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this video: Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly. By Jesus Diaz, 9:00 PM on Mon Dec 8 2008, 172,592 viewshttp://gizmodo.com/5104917/ This operates on thruster pulses for directional control. It looks also like the main thrust engine is also pulsed. This type of system would have the advantage of allowing the lander to move to more than one location after landing. This reminded me that the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Phoenix Lander engines were also pulsed: Martian cliffhanger resolved at last. Phoenix lander’s propulsion system works, nine years after setback. By James Oberg NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC updated 9:10 p.m. ET, Sun., May 25, 2008 "Did NASA cut corners on engine testing? "Back in the 1990s, as a cost-cutting measure, Polar Lander's engines were never actually tested. Instead, they were certified purely on the basis of previous flight experience. In the “circle-the-wagons” embarrassment that followed Polar Lander's loss, NASA officials admitted the error but refused to reveal which space vehicle had carried such thrusters in the past. "At the time, there were rumors that the engine was used for a military multiple-warhead carrier mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. As such, the engine would be qualified to start up in a warm underground silo, for a mission of no more than 30 minutes ending in nuclear annihilation. The idea that this would be "close enough" for use on a chilly 10-month flight to Mars seemed preposterous — but no one would confirm the rumors. That was then, and this is now: Lewicki said he had no problem discussing Polar Lander's engine. “It’s a standard Aerojet engine, model MR-107-N,” he happily told me when asked. “Before it flew on MPL, it had flown on intercontinental ballistic missiles.” Its predecessor, the MR-107, had also flown in an upper stage for the small Athena satellite launcher in the 1990s, the Encyclopedia Astronautica Web site notes.""http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24780686/wid/7279844// This MR-107 engine is now used on civilian craft including those two Martian landers: MR-107.http://www.astronautix.com/engines/mr107.htm Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a good choice to use on the Moon. They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of operation. Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar analogue lander to be constructed. * Bob Clark On Bautforum.com was mentioned a partnership between the Odyssey Moon Google Lunar X Prize team and NASA Ames to use the lunar lander Ames is developing: Engineering TV. MoonOne Robotic Lunar Lander. "Odyssey Moon's partnership with NASA will allow them to develop the "MoonOne" (M-1) lunar lander based on the Common Spacecraft Bus (CSB) developed at the NASA Ames Research Center." http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/a...ar-lander.aspx Exclusive Video: Meet the Spacecraft That Could Save NASA a Fortune. * By Aaron Rowe * May 7, 2008 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ideo-meet-the/ There has been some grumbles that this partnership with NASA Ames gives Odyssey Moon an unfair advantage in the $30 million prize competition: Odyssey Moon WINS the "Odyssey Moon Lunar X Prize". http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=7639 This hovering vehicle developed by NASA Ames also seems to operate by pulsed thrusters. It may very well be that it was developed as derived from the MPL/Phoenix lander designs. Bob Clark |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
On Jun 16, 8:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:10*am, Robert Clark wrote: ... In regards to the stability during the descent I remember seeing this video: Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly. By Jesus Diaz, 9:00 PM on Mon Dec 8 2008, 172,592 viewshttp://gizmodo.com/5104917/ This operates on thruster pulses for directional control. It looks also like the main thrust engine is also pulsed. This type of system would have the advantage of allowing the lander to move to more than one location after landing. This reminded me that the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Phoenix Lander engines were also pulsed: Martian cliffhanger resolved at last. Phoenix lander’s propulsion system works, nine years after setback. By James Oberg NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC updated 9:10 p.m. ET, Sun., May 25, 2008 "Did NASA cut corners on engine testing? "Back in the 1990s, as a cost-cutting measure, Polar Lander's engines were never actually tested. Instead, they were certified purely on the basis of previous flight experience. In the “circle-the-wagons” embarrassment that followed Polar Lander's loss, NASA officials admitted the error but refused to reveal which space vehicle had carried such thrusters in the past. "At the time, there were rumors that the engine was used for a military multiple-warhead carrier mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. As such, the engine would be qualified to start up in a warm underground silo, for a mission of no more than 30 minutes ending in nuclear annihilation. The idea that this would be "close enough" for use on a chilly 10-month flight to Mars seemed preposterous — but no one would confirm the rumors. That was then, and this is now: Lewicki said he had no problem discussing Polar Lander's engine. “It’s a standard Aerojet engine, model MR-107-N,” he happily told me when asked. “Before it flew on MPL, it had flown on intercontinental ballistic missiles.” Its predecessor, the MR-107, had also flown in an upper stage for the small Athena satellite launcher in the 1990s, the Encyclopedia Astronautica Web site notes.""http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24780686/wid/7279844// This MR-107 engine is now used on civilian craft including those two Martian landers: MR-107.http://www.astronautix.com/engines/mr107.htm Since we know it was able to operate successfully in the cold of the Martian arctic and the quite thin atmosphere on Mars, it would be a good choice to use on the Moon. They have also been used for thousands of times so they are well tested. They also use a monopropellant so they have a simplicity of operation. Depending on how "open source" the design of Phoenix was, that might be a good model to use for a lunar lander. After the failure of Mars Polar Lander there were several public critical reviews of that program, leading to the successful fixes applied to Phoenix, so the public information revealed during these reviews might allow a lunar analogue lander to be constructed. * Bob Clark On Bautforum.com was mentioned a partnership between the Odyssey Moon Google Lunar X Prize team and NASA Ames to use the lunar lander Ames is developing: Engineering TV. MoonOne Robotic Lunar Lander. "Odyssey Moon's partnership with NASA will allow them to develop the "MoonOne" (M-1) lunar lander based on the Common Spacecraft Bus (CSB) developed at the NASA Ames Research Center."http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2009/04/21/moonone-robotic... Exclusive Video: Meet the Spacecraft That Could Save NASA a Fortune. * By Aaron Rowe * May 7, 2008http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/video-meet-the/ There has been some grumbles that this partnership with NASA Ames gives Odyssey Moon an unfair advantage in the $30 million prize competition: Odyssey Moon WINS the "Odyssey Moon Lunar X Prize".http://spacefellowship..com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=7639 This hovering vehicle developed by NASA Ames also seems to operate by pulsed thrusters. It may very well be that it was developed as derived from the MPL/Phoenix lander designs. * *Bob Clark As a whole we tend to cheat most all the time, so what's the big deal? ~ BG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's the hardest part of the Google Lunar X prize?
On Jun 13, 11:51*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*What do you consider to be the hardest part of the Google Lunar X Prize Challenge? The robot requirements are pretty simple. The high data transmission requirements (for high def TV) appear doable by using large, perhaps arrayed, radio telescopes as the receivers on Earth. For the launch, the obvious thing to do is to purchase space on an existing launch vehicle. According to this page, the delta-v budget to go from LEO to low lunar orbit is about the same as to go from LEO to GEO: Delta-v budget. 4 Earth-Moon space budget.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v...n_space_budget The delta-v required to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon is also rather low as given on that page as 1.87 km/s. The cost to GEO is in the range of $25,000/kg so might be in the same cost range to lunar orbit, perhaps 2 to 3 times that to get to LEO. So you need a lander. What would be the hardest part of getting a soft landing on the Moon? The rocket, navigation, stability, radar ranging to the surface? Nice YouTube video on the Google Lunar X Prize competition: Moon 2.0: Join the Revolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K4zosGUMBw Bob Clark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Google Lunar X-Prize | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | June 18th 08 05:02 PM |
HOW and WHY the Google Lunar X Prize could become a BOOMERANG for the american pride! | gaetanomarano | Policy | 6 | September 23rd 07 03:57 AM |
Read here the possible WINNERS of the Google Lunar X Prize | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | September 18th 07 11:50 AM |
Google Backs $25 Million 'Lunar X Prize' | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 10 | September 14th 07 07:56 PM |