Lunar Lander Challenge 2007

[soyuztma]

Some teams have allready said that they are planning on competing in the 2007 lunar lander challenge. Some of the teams have a blog on which they post progress (and sometimes their failures).<br />1. Armadillo Aerospace<br />2. Masten Space Systems<br />3. Unreasonable Rocket<br />4. Colin's XLander<br />BonNova is trying get the money to build their vehicle (called Lauryad) by selling their vehicle on eBay: lunar lander liftoff<br />5. BonNova<br />The other two teams planning to compete in 2006 will probably also try to compete again:<br />6. Acuity technologies<br />7. Micro-Space<br />8. Speed Up<br />9. Paragon Labs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Oh good. We'll see how far they get come September. <br /><br />Hope armadillo gets it though. Its been a wild ride for them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

It's interesting to see how many teams are signed up this year. But remember, even though a year sounds like a long time, it's very short for rocket development. Even though Masten said they were competing last year, they did not even have a single test flight. <br /><br />This reminds mee of how things went with the X-Prize. Two dozen teams signed up, but only one had any full scale flights. That of course was Scaled Composits with SS1. With their high rate of test flights, Armadillo should be able to gab this competition. The real question is will any of the other teams actually show up with a flight capable vehiclle? If so, then the competition wil be a success. <br /><br />Build a little, test a lot! That's the way to improve flight experience. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[no_way]

If more than one teams accomplishes the basic task, what is the criteria to judge the winner ?<br /><br />I read it sometime in the rules but have forgotten, was it fastest turnaround time ? It would make sense to reward for this.<br />Also, do second and third places get any part of the prize pot ? It would be awfully unfair if several teams accomplish the tasks in very close competition, each giving basically similar performances, and just one getting all of the prize pot.

 

[bpfeifer]

The prize, as originally released is a "first to accomplish" type prize. I don't know how that will work since cometitors must perform the flight at the X-Prize Cup. How do they determine who has first dibs at test site? Last year, Armadillo was given as many chances has they could use to complete the flight. If even only two teams show up with a flight ready vehicle, they'll have to have some mechnaism for determining who goes first, and how many times they can try.<br /><br />While there are no second and third place prizes, there are two levels to the prize. The second level requires a longer flight distance and flight time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[holmec]

Reminder: this is NASA forking up the money for this particular challenge. Rather than an annual thing, I think this is a once in a life time challenge. How does NASA get what they want out of this? Public interest? Data on craft? Or contract with winner? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

basically they have stimulated an entire industry to develop the technology. When it comes time to issue contracts they have already seen demonstration of ability to design the craft.

 

[bpfeifer]

Exactly. This is a method of reducing long-term programatic risk by demonstrating technologies already exist in the private sector before NASA actually needs them. It will save a whole lot of "prove to me that this works before I'll let it fly" while encouraging private organizations spend most of the development capital. These prizes rarely cover the actual development cost, so it's a bargain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[soyuztma]

Unreasonable rocket has tested their first igniter for the first time: Our first Mach diamonds. (they also have a short video) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How does NASA get what they want out of this? Public interest? Data on craft? Or contract with winner?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Ask DARPA what they got out of the Grand Challenge. I doubt that they tell though, as the grandson of Stanley the Touareg Robot is probably armed to teeth, wears black armor and is highly classified.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How does NASA get what they want out of this? Public interest? Data on craft? Or contract with winner?</font>/i><br /><br />A lot of free work.<br /><br />Also, in an ideal world, NASA would acquire knowledge on various techniques that can be used for future endeavors, discovery of unexpected problems so that future efforts can take them into account, and the developmet of a talent pool.<br /><br />A major problem is that at the moment (where the "moment" will span the next 15-20 years), there doesn't appear to be a lot of additional demand beyond NASA for many of these capabilities.<br /><br />The original Ansari X Prize, and many prizes before this, had much greater financial potential than that of the prize itself. For the X Prize, it was hoped (and it appears to be coming true) that it would spur a new market for tourism. The prizes were catalysts. I don't see this with the Lunar Lander prize.<br /></i>

 

[henryhallam]

At least the level 2 lunar landers should be quite readily adaptable to suborbital flights to 100km or so - the delta-V required to hover for 180 seconds is almost enough for that.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">At least the level 2 lunar landers should be quite readily adaptable to suborbital flights to 100km or so - the delta-V required to hover for 180 seconds is almost enough for that.</font>/i><br /><br />Ooh. Good point. Thanks for correcting that.</i>

 

[no_way]

Except for aerodynamics issues.<br />Btw, a new Armadillo update is there.<br />Several long test flights this months, seems that they are well on their way to bag that prize. I just hope they keep a backup vehicle, should something go wrong.<br />Also, from the notes, it seems that mr. Carmack is actively thinking ahead about orbital versions. See the talk about upper stages.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Btw, a new Armadillo update is there.</font>/i><br /><br />From their post:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We are paying $6.50 / gallon for our 90% ethanol, and $570 for a six-pack of helium. I don’t know our lox costs off hand, but it is the least expensive of the three consumables. Counting crane truck rental and facility fees, it winds up being about $3000 to do a pair of flight tests. Full up 100 km space shots will not be much different, but operating out of New Mexico will increase our costs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Are they saying that their costs for a 100 km launch will be on the order of $1500-$3000 per flight?</i>

 

[no_way]

They are saying that flying Pixel on its assigned mission profile costs $1500 currently. <br />Pixel wouldnt go suborbital due to aerodynamics and lack of thermal protection.<br />But this number gives a pretty good hint of what a VTOL liquid-fueled suborbital flight could cost. Given their keen focus on low operations costs and overheads, sane choices on propellants and low-maintenance components, i am not suprised.

 

[rocketman5000]

$6.50 a gallon for 90% ethanol seems very expensive. Are they getting taxed the rates of liquor at the local state store?

 

[soyuztma]

I've added two teams who plan to compete:<br />8. Speed Up<br />9. Paragon Labs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[soyuztma]

Unreasonable Rocket seems to be making good progress, they fired their first rocket engine: Good Test Results... . It includes video of their rocket engine firing and of another test engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

XLander is visibly progressing too.. thank internet for being able to get the news <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />http://colinsxlander.blogspot.com/index.html<br />

 

[soyuztma]

Unreasonable rocket has put their experimental permit aplication online: PermitSubmission (pdf). It includes drawings of their vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

anyone seen a firm date for 2007 x-prize cup yet ? im planning a trip across the pond and hoping to be there as well.

 

[holmec]

Looks like its at Holloman AFB in Almagordo, NM in October<br /><br />http://space.xprize.org/x-prize-cup/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Looks like its at Holloman AFB in Almagordo, NM in October</font>/i><br /><br />Cool. I spent the summer of '85 in Alamogordo. I'll have to go back there to see how things have changed. For a little town they had a *really* good space museum there (at least they did 22 years ago).</i>

 

[soyuztma]

The website with info about the teams is now online:<br />Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge <br />Nine teams are planning to compete with one not wishing to reveal their identity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>