[CraigD]

This sounds like great fun, and lots of discussion stuff.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

If needed we will break into sub teams such as launch, landing, rover, broadcast, navigation, etc.

An important “etcetera” is, I think, finance and accounting. US$20,000,000 – 25,000,000 isn’t a lot of money by any aerospace standards, and the “runner up” prize of $5,000,000 even less, so you’ve gotta have a solid base of high-risk investment, advertisers or otherwise. I expect the practical details of this can be as or more complicated than the project’s rocket science.

Until the official rules are actually published, replacing the current competition guidlines, it’s an accurate high-level picture of the challenge, involves some guesswork. I’m guessing, however, that the primary requirement - “To win the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a team must successfully land a privately funded craft on the lunar surface and survive long enough…” – means only that the team must solve only the Earth-Moon trip, landing, and surface operations problems. I see nothing in the guidelines, and suspect there will be nothing in the final rules, prohibiting the use of a proven commercial launch system to reach Earth orbit. Commercial cost to LEO are from $5,000 - $40,000 /kg, so getting 1000 kg of vehicle – 1/45th of an Apollo CSM and LEM, as a comparison - into orbit on budget appears feasible.

That out of the way, we can get creative. Getting the most payload from an economic Earth orbit to a soft landing on the Moon with the least initial mass involves a lot of very different engineering approaches…

All the other problems strike me as solvable through good COTS shopping and integration. For example, low-cost Doppler radar units can determine ground speed to within .05 m/s, sufficient to soft-land a lunar lander, while spread-spectrum radio should allow control and communication with a fraction of the signal strength required in the 1960s and 70s.

How well COTS hardware tolerates vacuum and low temperature, and how to warm and harden it as necessary, seems one of the major, critical challenges of such an approach. A good vacuum chamber for testing will be essential.

[Jay-qu]

While it is imperitive that you go to lengths to make this mission as cost effective as possible I dont think they want you to do it with under $20mill. It would be a high risk venture for some companies, but others might be willing to throw a few million your way to get a sticker on your rocket - the only time its going to be seen is when its on Earth anyway, so not to much risk if it explodes

[Theory5]

Hey, is it to late to join?
I would Like to be part of vehicle design.

[Jay-qu]

It hasnt even started to begin mate - talk is underway, things are happening, its exciting.

The sky is no limit here!

[Turtle]

So on the multiple rover idea, do we want to land a single lander and then have them all head out, or do we pop open our entry vehicle ala MERV and scatter them over a wider area?

The air-bag landing is a proven technology; shall we use it?

Just talk. That's a wrap.

PS

Originally Posted by Craig

How well COTS hardware tolerates vacuum and low temperature, and how to warm and harden it as necessary, seems one of the major, critical challenges of such an approach. A good vacuum chamber for testing will be essential.

I chewed on this a bit. Not only do we need to be able to warm things, we neeble to cool things as well. What about instead of vacuum proofing, we put everything in a sealed low pressure air environment? Harden against radiation as required.

[Mercedes Benzene]

So on the multiple rover idea, do we want to land a single lander and then have them all head out, or do we pop open our entry vehicle ala MERV and scatter them over a wider area?

The air-bag landing is a proven technology; shall we use it?

Just talk. That's a wrap.

PS

I think an airbag landing would be easiest to execute. That way, everything stays together until we land successfully.

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

I think an airbag landing would be easiest to execute. That way, everything stays together until we land successfully.

I dont think so, without any means of slowing the lander down it would hit at 200m/s (at best) - on mars the landers had parachutes, which are ineffective on the moon without an atmosphere!

Also one of the competition guidelines is that the probe must be soft landed - so we are already looking at a more complex design..

To answer your question tutle, the above been the case if we want multiple rovers it would be much to expensive and complicated to scatter them - as cool as that would be!

J

[Pyrotex]

Is there any chance of humble self being allowed a small part in this communal effort?



Starting Monday, I shall be analyzing risks and hazards for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). That might be a useful skill.

I know a little something about physics, astronomy, rocket science, spacecraft control systems, telemetry -- you know, from reading all that SF when I was a kid.

Might want to up our target mass for the rover. Say, 5 kg (11 pounds). The lander/platform would be a little more, say, 50 kg (110) pounds, and that includes whatever landing system (rockets?) we decide on. The lander/platform would include its own camera (0.1 kg) and so that would meet the self-portrait requirement.

Where does one START with a project like this? Where NASA and engineering companies start is with a set of "requirements". The goals of the Xprize folks are "requirements", but certainly not all we need. And we also need a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This is simpler than it sounds. It is simply a breakdown of the whole shebang into its major component systems. (electrical, thermal, communication, structural, guidance, etc.) Then we breakdown each system into its subsystems and components. This makes it a lot easier for individuals to research and contribute.

I suggest that maybe, perhaps, we look around for a launch system that already works -- something off the shelf, so to speak.

My role? I'll leave all the fun stuff to you guys. But I would be more than happy to organize and oversee the requirements analysis, the WBS analysis, and the risk mitigation analysis. I'll coach -- you DO.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Theory5

Hey, is it to late to join?
I would Like to be part of vehicle design.

You are most certainly welcome to join the fun.

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Is there any chance of humble self being allowed a small part in this communal effort?



Starting Monday, I shall be analyzing risks and hazards for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). That might be a useful skill.

I know a little something about physics, astronomy, rocket science, spacecraft control systems, telemetry -- you know, from reading all that SF when I was a kid.

Might want to up our target mass for the rover. Say, 5 kg (11 pounds). The lander/platform would be a little more, say, 50 kg (110) pounds, and that includes whatever landing system (rockets?) we decide on. The lander/platform would include its own camera (0.1 kg) and so that would meet the self-portrait requirement.

Where does one START with a project like this? Where NASA and engineering companies start is with a set of "requirements". The goals of the Xprize folks are "requirements", but certainly not all we need. And we also need a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This is simpler than it sounds. It is simply a breakdown of the whole shebang into its major component systems. (electrical, thermal, communication, structural, guidance, etc.) Then we breakdown each system into its subsystems and components. This makes it a lot easier for individuals to research and contribute.

I suggest that maybe, perhaps, we look around for a launch system that already works -- something off the shelf, so to speak.

My role? I'll leave all the fun stuff to you guys. But I would be more than happy to organize and oversee the requirements analysis, the WBS analysis, and the risk mitigation analysis. I'll coach -- you DO.

YEAH! Welcome aboard, Pyro. Lets do it!

Bill