Place your bets: XPrize Announcement today

[j05h]

<i>> Interesting, but the question remains - an investment into what exactly? </i><br /><br />First, for safety, build 3 rovers. Second, the main investment is in the "media product" that the Lunar attempt produces - this is from start to finish and includes pay-per-view, HD DVDs, web subscriptions & advertising, good PR for sponsors, logos on the craft etc. It needs to stand up to Hollywood production values, good editing, uniform look-and-feel, etc. This is a great opportunity for compatible side projects *COUGH* Postcards To Space *COUGH* that provide additional revenue streams. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />As the sponsor, you aren't buying a moon rover. You are buying an audience. <br /><br />If done right, this would energize younger people, because it is relevant. It needs to be done right, though, and that is very hard. <br /><br /><i>> If so, I am puzzled why NASA could not make any money with this approach as of today for its Mars rovers.</i><br /><br />NASA can not make money, per it's Charter. If it did, the cash would go back into the Federal General Fund. Making money off of space, especially "consumer space", is the province of private efforts. NASA's job is research and trailblazing, not marketing TXT FRM SPACE. As an American citizen, you already paid for NASA's "product" in this sense. <br /><br />The only place I'm fuzzy on this is for patent/technical exchange. How does a company such as Bigelow license a NASA developed tech? Do they pay a fee, or reverse-share their innovations? Is it permanent, or can NASA share that tech with others as well? Is each deal unique?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is plausible. Kosmotras.ru, the launch service provider for the Dnepr, lists a mass of 750 kg to TLI or 400 kg to Lunar orbit for the Dnepr rocket. Taking the 400 kg to Lunar orbit mass into consideration, I then used Keermalec's Quick Ship Designer to come up with a mass estimate for the lander. <br /><br />Using a total delta-v of 2,200 m/sec. for the lander and a total lander/rover mass of 400 kg, Keermalek's program gave me a lander empty mass of 40 kg, a LOX/Kerosene propellant load of 200 kg, and a payload of 160 kg. The mass ratio is a bit better than the Armadillo Aerospace Pixel and Texel landers, but about right. Also, the two MERs weigh 185 kg each, a striped down lunar rover weighing 160 kg seems feasible.<br /><br />What's more, the Dnepr's launch cost is pretty friggin' cheap being a military surplus R-36M ICBM. I couldn't pin down a launch price, but Russianspaceweb.com lists a possible launch price of $8 million, Spaceandtech.com lists a price of $10-$13 million, and Astronautix.com lists $15 for the Tsyklon-3 (a LV based on the R-36) in 1994 dollars. I would put a worst case scenario price at $20 million. This only leaves $10 million for the payload if you want to break even on the prize alone, however, if you sell slots of time on the rover, the spacecraft development cost can be increased to a more realistic number. After all, IIRC SS1 was developed for $25 million, how much can it possibly cost to develop a 160 kg rover?<br /><br />Before I did the math I was concerned that a launcher big enough to carry a rover to the Moon would be too big and costly to make it worthwhile, but now I think it could actually work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[windnwar]

I'd figure temp/rad hardening would be the main issues you'd have to deal with if the rover is going to last long term there. But 160kilos for a rover sounds pretty decent and doable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Rad hardening: definitely go with SRAM ECC memory, voting CPU board etc. <br /><br />The weight of the mechanical bits is more than a little dependent on the mass of the payload; cameras, nav computers, comms etc. Only once you know their mass can you intelligently work on the chassis and drive system hardware. <br /><br />Personally I like the idea of using direct drive wheel motors. This minimizes drive line components exposed to the regolith. Extra points for 4-wheel drive/steering.<br /><br />Chassis? A sealed "skateboard" sandwich with internal steering linkage, again to prevent regolith getting into the mechanicals. The only penetrations on the bottom would be the vertical axles of those wheels used for steering, and they should have flexible boots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The only place I'm fuzzy on this is for patent/technical exchange. How does a company such as Bigelow license a NASA developed tech? Do they pay a fee, or reverse-share their innovations? Is it permanent, or can NASA share that tech with others as well? Is each deal unique?<br /><br />Josh <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />NASA patents lots of stuff, and licenses much of it to private enterprise. Very little NASA-developed tech is applicable <b>only</b> to space. Companies are, of course, able to further develop technology and patent the new stuff themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Bigelow entered into three Space Act agreements where they are the sole commercial provider of several of NASA's key expandable module technologies. In addition to this they have patented numerous major improvements that cover everything from windows to power, strengthening the vessel itself, safety, ventilation, the rigid core and more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> the two MERs weigh 185 kg each </font><br /><br />The Sojourner Rover only weighted 11kg. The total weight for the Pathfinder package was around 265kg. If the delivery system is less capable than Pathfinder was, a rover much smaller than the MER's, yet more capable than Sojourner should be possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>