No one will win the Google Lunar X Prize?

This article is quite pessimistic about anyone winning the Google Lunar X-Prize.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 22146.html

I agree with the "it's too hard" and "not enough time" reasons, but not the others. I especially disagree with the "Burt's busy" reason.

What part of the design is "too hard"? I don't think designing the rover is that difficult. I see the lunar lander being the more difficult task. I agree lack of time may become an issue, though.

I think the difficult part is the combination of all tasks. Each task for its own is more or less manageable but the (successful) integration of all parts is the real challenge.

Project management will be key. How one approaches the task of designing, building, launching, and controlling the rover on the Moon is important. A thoroughly detailed space systems design approach should be used. Focus on the seven classical space subsystems

1. Attitude Determination & Control
2. Telemetry, Tracking, and Control
3. Command and Data Handling
4. Power
5. Thermal
6. Structures and Mechanism
7. Guidance and Navigation

At least that should be a good start.

The Full Prize has a timer of five years. That's enough time to build and fly anything except the ISS

The cut down prize has seven years on it. What would a falcon cost four years from now?

The only thing putting pressure on it is the implosion of the US dollar making the prize worth less and less every year to international competitiors. For people State side there is no rush. With no rush, the cost goes down a fair bit.

.

despite I don't love (both) Go ogle (you know why...) and "its" prize... a private lunar rover is a great idea (infact, it was/is MY idea...) so (with a little regret) I wish/must talk of it

well, my opinion is that, the #1 problem to solve to win the prize, is not the rover itself (it's an almost simple "RC car") nor the rocket (that will be ready to buy and launch) but everything to do between the earth orbit and the moon soft landing

this is the segment of the mission where the teams risk to fail, then, they need to invest very much money to develop and build a reliable vehicle

.

Stop your personal vendetta against Google in this forum!

from which day David is the "bad guy" and Goliath has become the "hero" ???

maybe... you're (also) a Dart Vader's fan and a Galactic Empire's supporter ???

.

gaetanomarano, Klaus his sentence wasn't a question or suggestion.

I consider this your "last" warning. After that I simply start removing.

ok, no problem, since Google has no place to hide itself (I've the entire web to put my protest)

.

The author of that piece makes an irritatingly misleading statement in it:

"Overall, the energy required to soft land a pound on the surface of the moon is hundreds of times greater than that required to lift a pound to an altitude of 62 miles, as Rutan was barely able to do."

When I first read that I took it to mean it took hundreds of times more energy to soft land on the Moon than to get to orbit.
But of course the biggest energy cost is getting to orbit and to escape velocity, not merely making a suborbital launch as Rutan has done.
Also, there have been many small size rockets that have at least achieved Earth orbit haven't there?
Once you have reached Earth's escape velocity what's the energy cost for getting to orbit around the Moon, then making a soft landing?


Bob Clark

That's not the only wrongful or misleading statement in that article.

[quote]
It's hard to imagine this project costing less than a few hundred million dollars; PayPal billionaire Elon Musk, so far the most accomplished of the “new spaceâ€